Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Part 2

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Part 2 (Page 35)

This topic comprises 51 pages: 1 2 3 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ... 49 50 51

Author

Topic: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Part 2

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 12-05-2009 02:57 PM

Because they don't care about you. They care about money.

| IP: Logged

Kenneth Wuepper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1026
From: Saginaw, MI, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 12-05-2009 05:01 PM

The real culprit here is the new delivery system.

When the cans are sorted and moved through the terminals they are on conveyors. These are designed to handle boxes and not irregularly shaped heavy metal objects like the film cans.

The cans are difficult to move without having them rolling about in the vehicle. The old Currier service we used had boards fabricated into racks that kept the cans from rolling about.

By the condition of the cans we have received lately, they are either falling off the conveyors or are being driven over by truck tires. A few had to be hammered to even get them open.

The alternative to the conveyors would be hand carrying the cans through the terminals. This would cost more as it involves labor. There would still be no way to keep the cans from rolling about in the vans or delivery trucks.

Perhaps placing the cans into a box while they are in transit would make the old system work. If the weight of the reels in one box is acceptable, why not the single box with two cans of film inside. At the destination we could remove the cans from the box and use the cans to carry the film about in relative comfort and safety.

$0.02

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Weigel
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1062
From: Edmond, OK, USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 12-05-2009 05:53 PM

I think it also has to do with UPS and them losing a can or two on multiple can prints.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-05-2009 06:04 PM

Assuming that status quo is not an option, I like Ken's idea: make a durable large box that will hold two ICC cans. Deliver that box to the theatres. That gives the advantage of a single-box shipment that can be broken down into smaller, more manageable containers that can be easily moved within the theatre.

Or make cardboard boxes that hold 2, 3, or 4 reels of film, each with its own handle, and make larger boxes that can hold two of the small boxes. This solves the problem in a similar way.

Obviously, the shippers prefer the single-box approach because they don't have to carry the prints up one, two, or three stories to the projection booth, often through narrow aisles between rows of seats.

Brad--blue plastic cans are nice, but everything at Technicolor is orange, so they wouldn't work. Someone call HFC and tell them to start making orange plastic cans. Maybe then Techicolor would consider them. That would be the best option.

As for UPS--if they can lose one can of a two-can shipment, what is going to prevent them from losing the only box in a single-box shipment?

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-05-2009 06:40 PM

Orange plastic cans would also be acceptable. Blue is only a touch lighter than the color orange.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 12-05-2009 06:47 PM

quote: Kenneth Wuepper
These are designed to handle boxes and not irregularly shaped heavy metal objects like the film cans.

The cans are difficult to move without having them rolling about in the vehicle.

.....

psst, hey TECH/UPS ...

What's wrong with laying the cans on their sides-they don't slide, roll and get banged around in that position. Plus, when they are on their sides, you can stack/tie boxes and big junk on top of them...

Many times when I've had to pick up circuit prints..I lay the cans on their sides in the bed of the pickup so the things don't do all of that rolling around..

[Roll Eyes]

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 12-05-2009 08:16 PM

quote: Scott Norwood
I like Ken's idea: make a durable large box that will hold two ICC cans. Deliver that box to the theatres. That gives the advantage of a single-box shipment that can be broken down into smaller, more manageable containers that can be easily moved within the theatre.

Or make cardboard boxes that hold 2, 3, or 4 reels of film, each with its own handle, and make larger boxes that can hold two of the small boxes. This solves the problem in a similar way.

THAT right there is the solution. I'll bet anything though that Tech has already bought ten bazillion of those Deluxe-clone boxes though.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-05-2009 08:37 PM

I've used the cans-in-a-box concept for returning canned prints for several years (before DFS went to all-boxes). It was cheaper to ship, and the cans stayed together.

But there's no way either of the shippers would ever implement a cans-in-box system. It would take twice as long to pack for shipping and unpack for "inspection," and would raise the shipping costs (due to weight).

Since the theatres pay a set price for the actual shipping, my guess is that about 80% of the reason for shipping in the boxes is keeping all the reels in one place during shipping. The other 20% is because the boxes are cheaper than the cans.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-06-2009 12:32 AM

quote: Brad Miller
Trust me, once you fuck up your back, it's permanent.

Unfortunately, you have to actually have fucked up your back to realize that this commment is so absolutely true. Those who have no back problems go "phhhhttt...yeah, right".

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-06-2009 03:21 AM

Too bad injury lawsuits can't be filed to make the depots ship reasonable cans/boxes.

| IP: Logged

Jean-Marc Toussaint
Film Handler

Posts: 60
From: Paris, France
Registered: May 2008

posted 12-09-2009 01:41 AM

Over here, the film cans (up to 7 - films are never spooled, they're always on cores) are packed in a single box. They switched from deluxe fiber cases to cheap cardboard boxes many years ago. No handles. That orange container looks nice.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-09-2009 11:10 AM

quote: Joe Redifer
Too bad injury lawsuits can't be filed to make the depots ship reasonable cans/boxes.

I don't think a lawsuit like that would ever fly. They have no control over how you lift/carry their items. As long as it says "This box is HEAVY!" on the side their butt is covered.

| IP: Logged

Jack Ondracek
Film God

Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002

posted 12-09-2009 11:44 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
As long as it says "This box is HEAVY!" on the side their butt is covered.

Don't UPS drivers have some kind of weight restrictions in their contracts?

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 12-09-2009 11:54 AM

When I worked at a UPS depot for a short time, the official policy was that you were supposed to have 2 people for anything over 70 lbs and anything like that had a special label.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-09-2009 11:46 PM

quote: Jeremy Weigel
I think it also has to do with UPS and them losing a can or two on multiple can prints.

quote: Scott Norwood
As for UPS--if they can lose one can of a two-can shipment, what is going to prevent them from losing the only box in a single-box shipment?

Ding!

Since the switchover to UPS, print delivery and pickup has been a horror at best!

I have had cans misdelivered or not even delivered at all. I have had them "forget" to drop off prints. Prints have come up missing only to find them in the back of the truck when it gets back to the depot.

I have sent out cans and had them mysteriously reappear a week later, looking like they had been run over by a truck. Yes! With tire tracks!

I sent out one print and it looked like everything was okay until a week later when Technicolor called me back asking for the OTHER half of the movie. I reassured them that both cans had been sent but I promised that I'd try to track down what happened. After two days of digging, I find out that the UPS driver slapped the wrong return shipping label on one of the cans and sent it to Vermont, instead of Ohio. A mysterious package that was supposed to go to Vermont showed up instead.

Prior to UPS handling print delivery, things were very smooth. Prints just showed up, as if by magic. After the change, I have had nothing but trouble.

On many occasions when I have spoken to people at UPS regarding cans that are missing or late I hear a faint sigh under their breath whenever I mention "film cans." I get the very distinct impression that they just don't want to carry those big, heavy orange things around. I am very convinced that they just don't want to handle them and they are just doing the minimum amount of work necessary.

I have been carrying those film cans around for 15 years. Some of you guys have been carrying them around for twice that!

Yes, UPS is nothing but a bunch of weak pussies who don't want to lift film cans! And, now WE have to pay the price because of those pansy-ass UPS people?!

They make my life miserable because they don't want to carry film cans! This pisses me off!

Hey, UPS! [fu]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 51 pages: 1 2 3 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ... 49 50 51

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.