Airlines using CLC

[curious-phs]

Hi guys,

Could any body help me in letting me know which airlines are using CLC currently? and load masters, working in CLC, report to which department? is it Flight operations or ground handling department?

Thnks

[jerboy]

BA use CLC with a few hubs around the world (Gatwick, Berlin as well as a few others I can't remember of the top of my head.) Information is sent by telex to the relevant desk at a CLC hub and the final loadsheet is sent via ACARS (or ground to air radio for non ACARS a/c) during the taxi out.

I'm not sure what department it comes under but the majority of the time it works well. I preferred the days when dispatchers did their own load control and loadsheets, however. It was just one less link in the chain where potential delays could occur.

Just to add, I think Servisair have their own CLC service with a hub in MAN for the UK operation. So although even individual airlines might not officially use CLC, all their loadsheets are prepared remotely. However I believe they're still handed to the flight deck before pushback like the old days.

[mantug01]

Finnair, KLM all use CLC.

Virgin CLC is done in Manchester the load sheet is sent over the wire direct to the cockpit.

[TurningFinals]

Servisair use CLC at their base in Manchester.

The dispatcher sends CLC the figs and they return a loadsheet. Dispatcher checks it and hands it to the cockpit.

[STN Ramp Rat]

CLC is the new big thing, the new systems are being designed for a CLC environment and do not work as well locally at the stations. I am a convert to CLC for passenger aircraft. Overall it’s much better to have a CLC than do the calculations locally. For Cargo aircraft it’s probably better locally due to the nature of the load.

[Dropline]

I disagree. Far better to have a properly trained dispatcher to do the loadsheet at the gate. Using CLC just slows everything down, particularly when last minute decisions/changes are needed, and is an unnecessary link in the chain.

[TurningFinals]

LMCs

All airlines have their own LMC limits, and if with a particular flight the LMCs exceed the limits, i can radio my ops controller and he can have a new CLC loadsheet for me almost by the time i get to the printer. (With our operation the dispatcher doesnt send figs, its an ops controller) It is very rare for any LMCs to exceed the limits though.

[STN Ramp Rat]

I disagree. Far better to have a properly trained dispatcher to do the loadsheet at the gate. Using CLC just slows everything down, particularly when last minute decisions/changes are needed, and is an unnecessary link in the chain.

I would have no disagreement with this on the old systems but the new generation DCS systems are designed for a CLC and having a CLC brings benefits that locally produced load control cannot.
There are costs savings (sorry, that matters these days)
More data directly entered from other systems (less human input means less errors)
Better utilisation (requires fewer staff which means less training costs)

Sad that it is the roll of a dispatcher has been de skilled and is not the job that it was.
It is VERY important that your CLC are well trained and highly motivated or the CLC will fall apart.

[Trash_Hauler]

Quoting STN Ramp Rat

CLC is the new big thing, the new systems are being designed for a CLC environment and do not work as well locally at the stations. I am a convert to CLC for passenger aircraft. Overall it’s much better to have a CLC than do the calculations locally. For Cargo aircraft it’s probably better locally due to the nature of the load.

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but I am afraid that in this instance, your opinion is wrong. CLC is all that is wrong with the ground handling industry these days. They are de-skilling what SHOULD be skilled positions. Having CLC essentially reduces the role of the dispatcher to that of a co-ordinator when in fact the dispatcher should be highly trained and skilled, and, have flight safety as his first priority and everything else secondary to that. I have seen a lot of so-called dispatchers that don't even have any idea WHAT "CG" is and would be totally lost if they had to calculate it themselves! They are paperwork runners and turn around co-ordinators, but certainly NOT dispatchers!

[STN Ramp Rat]

In Amsterdam they have no dispatchers or turnround coordinators, it’s a separate service you can buy not a standard service. Carriers in the US have been using CLC for over 20 years without a problem and there are no turnround coordinators.
It’s fairly new in Europe and as with all new things people don’t like change!!! Done badly it’s appalling, done correctly its far better and far more cost effective that haveing an expensive dispatcher at the gate and as for experience the productivity of CLC means that CLC agents often have far more experience than dispatchers at the gate. You are correct the roll of the dispatcher in the UK has effectively been deskilled and will be consigned to history in the next few years. As an ex dispatcher its sad but that does not mean its not going to happen.

[744rules]

BR uses CLC (BKK), even for freighters.

LY will start cutover soon (CLC in PRG)

[V1EXP]

Central Load Control is here to stay as frankly it works well for most airlines. Gone are the days when you need individual employees at each station to be responsible, prepare and run out the paperwork. Now thanks to technology a group a fraction of the size can accomplish the same on a global basis.
In addition tie in things like ACARS, gone are many of the previous delays such as waiting on loadsheets, notoc’s etc as planes can taxi out ontime and receive their numbers on the way to the runway.
Just like how airlines can today flight plan and dispatch from single global facility and must not rely on regional offices to create flight plans as in the past, they can very successfully provide load planning and weight and balance functions from centralized set ups.

[Bluejay]

Quote "I disagree. Far better to have a properly trained dispatcher to do the loadsheet at the gate. Using CLC just slows everything down, particularly when last minute decisions/changes are needed, and is an unnecessary link in the chain. "

Have you seen BA's punctuality performance recently.........how can you say CLC just slows everything down..........

BTW a properly trained CLC Agent is just as good as a properly trained dispatcher.............

[STN Ramp Rat]

its quite refreshing to see such a positive responce to CLC, it seems to show the change taking place in the industry today

[jerboy]

Have you seen BA's punctuality performance recently.........how can you say CLC just slows everything down..........

Granted BA's CLC generally works very well. It perhaps has played a part in improvement of punctuality, however BA was pretty much fully CLCed before the introduction of T5, which is where the massive improvement in punctuality statistics took place.

BA's CLC system improves punctuality because the final loadsheet is ACARSed to the a/c; however this could easily be done from the gate. The actual data entry, which goes into preparing the loadsheet takes longer. If we still had to hand final a final paper LS to the crew, whilst using CLC we would see delays significantly increase, this is because data has to be entered twice:

For example the loaders come in with the completed LIR. The details of this need to be sent to CLC before the LS is issued. The turnaround coordinator (TRC) enters this into a mask, which is then telexed to a specific desk at the hub servicing your flight. The CLC agent then checks and enters exactly the same data into the system, albeit in a different format, which goes to create the loadsheet. Therefore the actual CLC service is not quicker than an experienced dispatcher entering the data locally, the delay is simply absorbed by the a/c receiving the figures on taxi out, rather than whilst sat at the gate.

As a TRC I always keep an eye on the trim/weights and progress of the flight. I've seen less experienced TRCs let an aircraft go and CLC have only just then realised its out of trim. Its then a complicated procedure of moving pax around the cabin whilst its sat at the holding point, or calling the a/c back and reloading it - not pretty.

Having said that it is a system which generally works well. BA's CLC agents are extremely competent at what they do and we very rarely have problems with them. However as a handling agent for other airlines, I create my own loadsheets at the gate every single day, and achieve the same results without the added layer of complexity. However I do understand the reasons behind CLC: Money, naturally.

[STN Ramp Rat]

For example the loaders come in with the completed LIR. The details of this need to be sent to CLC before the LS is issued. The turnaround coordinator (TRC) enters this into a mask,

within the next couple of years this will be done by the ramp team leader via a PDA. it will probarbly be an I-phone Ap before we know it :)

[jerboy]

within the next couple of years this will be done by the ramp team leader via a PDA. it will probarbly be an I-phone Ap before we know it

All very swish, but its the replication of data entry which seems to me a complete waste of time. The data entered on the PDA will still have to be checked and reentered by a CLC agent, as is the point of their license.

Will airlines be willing to invest in this infrastructure, when for the most part it works fine as it is? I wouldn't trust our loaders with a PDA anyway!! :E

[744rules]

If memory serves well, BA did some trials (or was planning some trials) with portable sets in FRA. Never seen it work when BRU was still CLC station. Don't know what happened with it.

[Dropline]

Trash Hauler

I couldn't agree with you more. The flight crew I deal with would much rather have a proper flight dispatcher who understands weight and balance and can make on the spot decisions without having to refer to CLC than an untrained paper runner who can't even read a loadsheet, let alone check it!
On a practical level, it also takes me longer to send fuel figures to CLC than it would to enter them and produce the loadsheet myself...
I understand that using CLC saves money, but I do not agree with the way the role of a dispatcher is being deskilled, and IMHO it's only a matter of time before an untrained TCO or dispatcher fails to spot a CLC error and an accident happens as a result.

[STN Ramp Rat]

On a practical level, it also takes me longer to send fuel figures to CLC

I know one airline where the initial fuel figures are pushed into the DCS from the flight plannning system without any human intervention. The final fuel figures are sent direct to the DCS by the crew from the flight deck via ACARS . Once again no intervention by the Load controller other than to acknowelege they have been recieved

[Trash_Hauler]

Dropline wrote...

I couldn't agree with you more. The flight crew I deal with would much rather have a proper flight dispatcher who understands weight and balance and can make on the spot decisions without having to refer to CLC than an untrained paper runner who can't even read a loadsheet, let alone check it!
On a practical level, it also takes me longer to send fuel figures to CLC than it would to enter them and produce the loadsheet myself...
I understand that using CLC saves money, but I do not agree with the way the role of a dispatcher is being deskilled, and IMHO it's only a matter of time before an untrained TCO or dispatcher fails to spot a CLC error and an accident happens as a result.

Unfortunately that is the nature of aviation safety. It is a tombstone industry. I for one am happy in the knowledge that all of our dispatchers, whilst not necessarily system trained, are ALL manually weight and balance trained so I can send someone out to a flight knowing full well that they know what they are doing. Dispatch used to be such a respected position. I remember a day not that long ago when flight decks looked to us as THE decision making authority whilst at the gate. Now the position is so watered down that flight decks these days just assume that every person who enters their flight decks claiming to be a "dispatcher" are in fact just paperwork monkeys.

[urdy gurdy]

How does it save money? It seems your employing 2 people to do one persons job - plus renting some office space for the clc hub, can someone explain ( i might just be thick ) - Anyway CLC does tend to slow things down a little, although it doesn't bother me, i do however think the TRC / dispatcher or what ever we are called these days should have a good weight and balance knowledge, i have have many glaring errors by CLC from various airlines, from incorrect aircraft to missing ULDs and so on, its just fortunate i picked them up, ( would hate to see the ones i have missed) - by the way, i make mistakes too,
The fool is not the one who makes mistakes, but the one who never makes mistakes.

[V1EXP]

Whats this European fetish with having so called dispatchers or basically ramp coordinators at an aircraft?
US airlines have safely operated for decades without such a position.

[j_davey]

I know one airline where the initial fuel figures are pushed into the DCS from the flight plannning system without any human intervention. The final fuel figures are sent direct to the DCS by the crew from the flight deck via ACARS . Once again no intervention by the Load controller other than to acknowelege they have been recieved
I too know this airline, and to be honest it is one of the most user friendly systems out there which can be used by clc and/or dispatcher.

where i work, there have been so many delays/issues over the past few years on clc flights that simply would not have happened if we were making the loadsheet/Load instruction ourselves.

-jd

[jerboy]

How does it save money? It seems your employing 2 people to do one persons job

A properly trained dispatcher is expensive. Its a licensed job which means fairly extensive training/revalidation etc. Because of the nature of 'traditional' dispatch, a trained dispatcher/load controller needs to be present at every single aircraft on departure, this ties them up for a substantial amount of time, the best part of an hour from start to finish on a normal turnaround. This means that for large operations a large number of dispatchers are required.

If you think of BA back in the day, the number of dispatchers required for T1, T3 and T4 would have probably run into the hundreds (somebody correct me if not!). These 'Red Caps' earnt a fair amount of money and would have cost BA a significant amount - I've not been to LHR/LGW for a looong time, are they still around?

CLC allows one person to do the load control for multiple flights at any one time, they sit in front of their computers all day producing loadplans/loadsheets and the associated gubbins. They don't have to worry about pesky passengers/loaders/flight crew etc - just the loadsheets! This allows them to complete many many more flights than a traditional dispatcher would ever be able to ,under a similar license with similar training.

This means less licensed staff need to be employed, with monkeys (TRCs) running the paperwork around!

[TurningFinals]

Now the position is so watered down

untrained paper runner

so called dispatchers or basically ramp coordinators at an aircraft

Yes, i agree, dispatch is not what it should be in the UK now, but what do you expect when GH companies are paying us £7.25 an hour?

The role of dispatch is what it is now because of cost cutting measures.

[The96er]

These 'Red Caps' earnt a fair amount of money and would have cost BA a significant amount - I've not been to LHR/LGW for a looong time, are they still around?

Yep, still there earning the big bucks, but they're now called "TRM's" but without the responsibility of loadsheets !!

[Blue-Shamrock 89]

So Trm's at BA earn big money without doing loadsheets ?
Loadsheets are done at Waterside or whatever that place is called ?
so that means that 2 people are being paid to do what one person could do ? doesn't seem to make much sense, particulary as Mr WW is trying to trim down the cost base at BA :ugh:

On the subject of CLC i know of several airlines handled by GHA where trained Load controllers are at the aircraft calling or telexing CLC on the other side of the world yet actually looking at the system themselves and knowing what's going on before the CLC bod does.

So tell me what benefits are gained if for example Cargo is late at the aircraft which often happens at LHR and the Ramp want to change the loading order, if the TCO or dispatcher or whatever you want to call them understands weight and balance then they have to call CLC yet if they were doing the Loadsheet they would make the decision., which is quicker ? which is more time consuming ?
I really think this is a pointless discussion and it is clear which is the answer.

That said and before anyone puts foward the costing argument, i have been on both sides as a load controller and an Operations Manager and i agree that CLC is better for training where GHA's are concerned but if your Load Control office has a mix of CLP flights and Loadsheet flights etc then it balances out.

The real cost saver is to use a generic system for all contracts you handle something like D-Plan (which is load control for idiots)

[STN Ramp Rat]

There are good and bad Handling agents, there are good and bad CLC’s there are good and bad agents in both environments.

Fact, there are no turn round coordinators in the US and the aircraft leave on time and dont crash because of misloads.

Fact, if everyone did their job on time there would be no need for a TRC

Fact, the quality of Dispatch staff in the UK has fallen in the last 20 years OVERALL, again there are good and bad staff.

In my view more and more full service airlines will start to move to CLC especially if they are using a vertically integrated package like the Amadeus system for all their flights. There are clear benefits in cost and experience*. There will be a number of airlines who will not do so, especially the charter airlines who don’t need the functionality and therefore cost of these new generation systems.

It remains to be seen if the handlers will all chose to move to CLC or not, I know Servisair have but I don’t know about the others. In my view if there is a cost saving then they will move to the CLC concept if not then they wont.

*At the risk of being flamed using the following scenario that saw in a presentation recently

An airline flying to 50 destinations three times a day using the airlines system which requires 5 days system training

Costs benefits
In a decentralised environment that is
• 200 staff to be trained and a total of 1000 training days
• 200 flights to a training location
• 1000 nights in a Hotel.

In a centralised environment
• 10 staff to be trained
• Training at the CLC so only the trainer needs Hotac and Travel
experience

total savings 95%

In a decentralised environment assuming a 4 and 2 roster the load controller will complete about 250 loadsheets for this airline. In a centralised environment the 10 load controllers will clock up about 5,000 load sheets per year. This is 19 years of experience more than the decentralised load controller every year. The centralised load controllers performance can be monitored a lot closer in the single location that the 200 staff at 50 different airports and to quote a famous CEO, what gets measured gets managed.

[Blue-Shamrock 89]

STN Ramp Rat.

I must say that from a management perspective that's a very persuasive argument and i have to agree with most of what you say and the facts you state are also known to be true.

From a training perspective and on a financial basis CLP would undoubtedely be a major cost saver, however we live in the real world and whilst i accept that the skill of weight and balance trained load controllers / dispatchers or whatever you call them is a dying art and the job is now filled with untrained wannabes who have a high opinion of themselves.

That said there are still a large number of Major airlines who at present are not using CLP.

Just a few examples at LHR include the likes of Gulf Air, Etihad, Malaysian, Jet Airways, Kingfisher, Alitalia, Iberia, Thai but to name a few.
The GHA's handling these airlines obviously in there departments have people who can do loadsheets and these people would also have to become TC's for otherairlines who use CLP.

Therefore Aviance, Alitalia (CAI), Servisair & Cobalt have to employ staff to perform both functions.

Finally back to my initial question where is the cost saving for BA the TRM's obviously still earn big bucks for doing less functions although i presume they monitor Health & Safety.......
So presuming we are talking about the same CEO what is being managed or measured here ?

[jerboy]

Yep, still there earning the big bucks, but they're now called "TRM's" but without the responsibility of loadsheets !!

trained Load controllers are at the aircraft calling or telexing CLC on the other side of the world yet actually looking at the system themselves and knowing what's going on before the CLC bod does.

That's one thing that bugs me, and I've been in the position many many many times before where I know exactly what needs to be done, I know the entry, and I know it'll be safe. But I've had to phone CLC to get them to do it. It's frustrating for the TRC, however I'd say it was one of the more minor niggles about working at our place!

However it gives the most airlines the excuse to put TRC/Ms on lower money despite their knowledge and (previous) responsibilities.

There are clear benefits in cost and experience

Pretty impressive stuff! However I'm sure the savings aren't quite that huge :ok:

This is 19 years of experience more than the decentralised load controller every year.

That is why with a decent CLC, I think can overall make an operation safer.

If you have well trained TRCs to be the interface between 'real world' and 'CLC world' and spot the errors therein, and well trained CLC agents doing good quality load control, problems are overall less common in a CLC environment.

Of course if you have a crap TRC and crap CLC agent, that's a disaster waiting to happen. Errors will be more common and potentially more dangerous. With the ruthless cost-cutting in the industry over the past few years, it (to me) is an area of worry, which needs constant attention paid to it by the CAA to ensure adherence to standards and regulations.

[STN Ramp Rat]

That said there are still a large number of Major airlines who at present are not using CLP.

I agree, we are in a period of transition that will last a few more years and some airlines will not change systems in any case. there will still be skilled decentralised load controllers just like there are still skilled loadmasters on Cargo Aircraft, its just there are less of them now than they used to be.

Of course if you have a crap TRC and crap CLC agent, that's a disaster waiting to happen. Errors will be more common and potentially more dangerous. With the ruthless cost-cutting in the industry over the past few years, it (to me) is an area of worry, which needs constant attention paid to it by the CAA to ensure adherence to standards and regulations.

I totally agree, there should be a CAA Load Control qualification just as there are CAA qualifications for pilots and Mechanics. it is silly to have the captian sign a statement that the aircraft is loaded in accordance with the company manuals. I doubt most B747 captains could find their way round the hold let alone know if the aircraft is loaded in accordance with the manual