Technology Assists in the Growing Complexity of Today's Cargo Operations

Cargo handling operations encompass a broad range of activities shaped by aircraft type, cargo characteristics and operational complexity. From narrow-body bulk loading to wide-body unit load device (ULD) management, ground handlers face distinct equipment requirements, training protocols and safety considerations.

As cargo shipment types grow and diversify, particularly with the expansion of dangerous goods and time-critical pharmaceuticals, operational pressures on ground handling teams continue to intensify.

This article examines the operational differences between cargo handling workflows, the challenges posed by ULD management and dangerous goods compliance, and the emerging role of technology in supporting cargo operations.

Narrow-body and wide-body operations

Steven Polmans, Senior Vice President of Global Cargo at Swissport, points out that cargo handling differs significantly in how cargo is built, loaded and inspected.

“Many narrow-body operations involve a higher percentage of bulk cargo, narrower compartment geometries, faster turnaround cycles with more stops per day, and smaller, more frequent shipments. Wide-body operations, by contrast, focus on ULD-based workflows such as assembly quality, ULD maintenance, contour accuracy and stowage compliance,” he says.

“For cargo handlers, this translates into different equipment requirements, including main deck loaders versus belt loaders, distinct training programs, different acceptance and inspection protocols, and different warehouse infrastructure.”

For freighters and wide-body aircraft, ULDs are critical to the entire loading operation, according to Polmans.

“Without serviceable ULDs, pallets, nets and containers, cargo cannot be built, held or loaded compliantly. Aircraft cargo loading systems are designed around ULD interfaces, and IATA defines ULDs as removable aircraft parts subject to civil aviation requirements. An airworthy ULD must be structurally capable of retaining cargo and protecting the aircraft structure and systems during flight,” he says.

“This makes ULD management a dual challenge. From an availability and inventory perspective, operators and airlines must maintain the right mix of ULD types in the correct locations. From a safety and airworthiness standpoint, ULDs must be treated as an integral part of aircraft operations. Their integrity directly affects cargo loading performance and aircraft safety.”

Ricardo Miguel, President of ABESATA, and Dany Oliveira, ABESATA Consultant and Managing Director at Aitomic Growth, note that for ground handling operators managing mixed fleets, this variability creates recurring challenges.

“One challenge is ground support equipment (GSE) complexity and cost, as the use of both belt and high-loader systems increases capital investment and makes daily allocation more difficult,” they say. “Training and process requirements also increase, as teams must be proficient in both bulk and ULD workflows. Any gaps can raise the risk of loading errors, delays or safety incidents.”

Infrastructure constraints can also play a role.

“Wide-body aircraft require more ramp space for stands, doors and staging areas. During peak periods, this can create truck queues and ramp congestion if landside and airside flows are not properly coordinated,” they add.

ULD management is also an important efficiency driver because ULDs standardize how cargo is built, moved and loaded, supporting faster aircraft turnaround, improved volume utilization and smoother integration between trucks and warehouse operations.

However, the industry still lacks end-to-end visibility.

“ULD data often resides in separate systems across airlines, cargo handlers and leasing pools, and tracking still relies heavily on manual processes and basic scanning,” Miguel and Oliveira explain. “The result is avoidable losses, damage and unused inventory, which ultimately translates into higher costs and lower operational reliability.”

One of the most significant improvements currently underway is the move toward continuous tracking of both empty and loaded ULDs across airport environments, Polmans says.

“Many large ULD management service providers, airlines and airports are now investing in tracking infrastructure, including radio frequency identification (RFID), Bluetooth and Internet of Things (IoT) systems, to enable real-time visibility into the location and status of ULDs,” he explains.

“Continuous tracking improves inventory optimization while also enhancing equipment monitoring, accountability and operational predictability.”

Hot topics

Polmans observes that the formal dangerous goods (DG) process itself is highly structured and robust.

“Acceptance checklists, documentation requirements, segregation rules, storage protocols and periodic training are well established and closely monitored across the industry. When a shipment is correctly declared as dangerous goods, the system functions effectively,” he says.

However, Miguel and Oliveira note that risks associated with the growth of dangerous goods, particularly lithium batteries, often arise not from missing regulations but from inconsistent implementation across a fragmented operational chain.

“There are systemic gaps that frequently emerge, including training consistency,” they say. “Minimum dangerous goods competency levels are not always standardized across locations and employers. Ramp teams often handle cargo for multiple airlines and freight forwarders according to different procedures, increasing the risk of misinterpretation and process deviations.”

Challenges also arise when dangerous goods are misdeclared, inadequately described or intentionally concealed, Polmans adds.

“Lithium batteries embedded in consumer electronics, spare parts, consolidated e-commerce shipments or return flows pose a growing challenge for regulators and operators, particularly in high-volume cross-border environments,” he says.

“For this reason, screening, data intelligence and shipper accountability are becoming increasingly important, not as additional layers but as a necessary evolution to protect aircraft, crews, ground personnel and airport infrastructure. Safety remains the cornerstone of all operations.”

Documentation and declaration errors remain a critical vulnerability, according to Miguel and Oliveira.

“When classification is incorrect or deliberately avoided, handlers can be exposed to preventable fire risks, although the primary responsibility lies upstream in the shipping chain,” they say.

They also note that operational pressures can introduce risk.

“When staffing is limited and traffic peaks are high, shortcuts can emerge in segregation, acceptance checks and storage controls, precisely where dangerous goods and pharmaceutical shipments require the highest level of discipline.”

Cargo and ramp handling is physically demanding and time-sensitive work carried out in complex airport environments, Polmans adds.

“The most skilled operators place safety at the heart of their corporate culture, not as a compliance exercise but as a daily operating principle. At Swissport, safety is the basis for achieving performance,” he says.

Miguel and Oliveira note that experienced operators are beginning to move from general awareness to measurement when addressing fatigue and scheduling risks.

“They are linking accident and near-miss data with shift patterns, duty cycles and workload peaks, then using that information to redesign shifts associated with higher-risk periods, such as compressed operational waves, extended night shifts or excessive overtime,” they explain.

“The goal is to reduce the combination of time pressure, fatigue and low experience density, which is a known contributor to ramp incidents.”

In 2022, ABESATA launched the Certification of Ramp Equipment and Services (CRES) program in Brazil.

“This voluntary framework, validated by the national civil aviation authority ANAC, aims to improve governance and operational maturity while strengthening safety,” Miguel and Oliveira say.

Globally, regulators and industry organizations are also pushing for stronger alignment between airport oversight and ground handling safety practices, supporting more consistent implementation across operators and locations.

Technological developments

Several practical areas of cargo handling already apply artificial intelligence, according to Polmans.

“These include decision support for load planning, weight and balance quality control and predictive maintenance for ground support equipment,” he says.

“In cases where measurable improvements have been reported, the most significant results are typically related to flight roster visibility platforms that combine AI and computer vision with operational data to improve real-time decision-making.”

However, Polmans notes that widespread AI adoption depends heavily on reliable operational data.

“Before AI-based demand forecasting can become widely reliable for ground operators, several foundational elements must be in place. These include consistent timestamps, digital task milestones, resource availability data and accurate operational records rather than planned schedules. Without this foundation, AI amplifies noise rather than providing insight.”

Miguel and Oliveira add that AI is beginning to move from innovation toward operational deployment in cargo handling environments.

“In load planning, AI-assisted optimization can evaluate far more load combinations than manual processes, improving decisions related to space utilization, constraint compliance and operational feasibility, especially for complex flights and irregular cargo mixes,” they say.

“For weight and balance management, AI tools can reduce human error by improving input consistency, flagging anomalies and supporting faster recalculation when loads change late in the process.”

Predictive maintenance is another promising application.

“Machine learning models can analyze maintenance histories and equipment telemetry to anticipate failures and schedule maintenance before disruptions occur,” they explain.

However, broader adoption will depend on strong data governance and workforce readiness.

“Operators require reliable, near-real-time data from operational systems, supported by governance frameworks that address missing or inconsistent records,” Miguel and Oliveira say.

“Teams must also be trained to oversee and troubleshoot digital tools, while leadership must be able to operationalize insights without compromising security or compliance. Cybersecurity awareness is equally important, as connected systems introduce new vulnerabilities.”

Ultimately, they conclude, AI can improve operational speed and reliability only when combined with clean data, disciplined processes and a workforce capable of applying the technology under real operational pressure.

Balancing efficiency and safety

Effective cargo handling requires balancing operational efficiency with rigorous safety standards across increasingly complex workflows.

Differences between narrow-body and wide-body aircraft drive distinct equipment, training and process requirements, while ULD management remains a critical efficiency factor constrained by limited end-to-end visibility.

Dangerous goods compliance continues to depend heavily on accurate upstream declaration, while fatigue management, shift design and safety culture are receiving greater attention as operators move toward more data-driven oversight.

AI applications in load planning, weight and balance verification and predictive maintenance show clear operational promise. However, widespread adoption will depend on establishing reliable data infrastructure, clear governance frameworks and a workforce capable of safely integrating these technologies into daily cargo operations.