Johnny JAws North America, LLC
Get the Unfair Advantage!
Solid Waste Front-Load Conversion Models
...BUT RUN YOUR OWN NUMBERS!
Updated: January 2026
Johnny Jaws North America, LLC.
Update
First published in WasteAdvantage Magazine, the original White Paper has been updated to reflect current market conditions and ongoing cost changes impacting both operational and financial models.
The following White Paper compares the four [4] primary models being most widely implemented industry-wide by both private haulers and municipalities. We suggest you read the paper and use the information and tables within to compare each model to your current strategy.
As operating conditions continue to evolve, many factors must be regularly reconsidered when managing residential and commercial solid waste and recycling operations. The cost of trucks, dumpsters, fuel, steel, maintenance, insurance, labor, and personnel have increased significantly over time and continue to influence long-term planning and capital investment decisions.
Challenging as it is to adapt, innovations in route management optimization and advancements in technology continue to create new opportunities to reduce operating costs and improve overall efficiency.
At the same time, collection realities have not changed. Even as front-end load conversions increase among large and mid-sized private haulers and municipalities, rear-load dumpsters remain a necessary part of many routes. This ongoing mix of collection methods is a key consideration when evaluating operational models and long-term fleet strategy.
Introduction
Let’s look at a little history on the subject. When the front-load truck and container were first introduced in the 1950s, haulers for the first time had new operational choices. Some stayed the course with all rear-load. Some began to make the costly yet productive conversion over to the new front-load model. While most began to implement a hybrid-dual route model selectively, rear-load trucks continued to service rear-load dumpsters and new front-load trucks serviced new front-load containers.
Over the past 75 years, progressively more haulers and municipalities have bitten the financial bullet and sold or scrapped their rear-load cans and trucks in favor of the safer, faster, more productive, and more financially viable total front-load model. Yet rear-load dumpsters did not and have not gone away.
It is only within the past several years that the use of front-load trucks to service rear-load dumpsters, as well as mixed rear-load and front-load routes, has accelerated. This shift has been made possible by the costly introduction of welding side fork pockets onto existing rear-load dumpsters, or by the alternative method of installing an aftermarket pair of Johnny Jaws on a front-load truck.
Your Current Model
Let’s do the cost analysis using your current model and carry those constants out as we do all the comparisons.
Let’s assume the following, or substitute your own assumptions as you see fit, making sure you are comparing apples to apples from model to model:
Assumptions:
-
Ownership or purchase of one [1] front-load truck and or one [1] rear-load truck.
-
Servicing two hundred [200] one [1] through four [4] yard containers per route. (For all models we are using a [3] three yard size container average).
-
Assuming a single [1] operator crew.
-
Daily Cost on average of all other single route operational and support personnel. (Driver salary, office and maintenance personnel, equipment, etc.)
Status Quo Model Assumptions Per Truck
Line Item | Input/Multiplier | Daily Cost |
|---|---|---|
Daily Route Cost (Base) | $1,200 | $1,200 |
One [1] Day | X 1 | $1,200 |
Other Variable Costs | + [$ your costs] | $ [your costs] |
Base Daily Cost (Per Truck) | --- | $1,200 |
Number of Trucks | X [your trucks] | --- |
Daily Fleet Cost (Status Quo) | --- | $1,200 x trucks |
A representative daily route cost is used for comparison purposes. Operators should substitute their own numbers to reflect their specific operation.
Whatever your daily costs, you know the numbers and all the factors that relate to your current model or any model you have been considering. We recommend you insert your current numbers and note any operational assumptions that are important to you here.
Then read the remaining three [3] options and apply your specific information consistently across each model as you go. Once you have finished this process, the comparison should make it clear which routing system is most cost-effective and productive for your organization
Option #1: Maintaining the Status Quo
Let’s take a closer look at the first of three [3] of today’s front-load / rear-load conversion models. Then we will compare them with the safer, smarter, more productive Johnny Jaws™ innovation.
Maintaining the Status Quo
A. The traditional all RL truck/container routing model.
B. The RL/FL two [2] truck/container routing model.
If your status quo is the traditional all RL truck/container model or the RL/FL two [2] truck/container system, your route service productivity will remain fixed while your route service costs continue to escalate.
Route productivity is a function of the speed at which your driver or crew can service the average can.
Historically, a productive driver or crew has been able to service one [1] container every four [4] to seven [7] minutes on average.
Standing the test of time, the only consistent way to improve productivity is to increase the average speed of service.
And the only proven way to improve on speed, and thus productivity, is to replace your RL trucks with FL trucks that can service the same cans in under :60 seconds on average from day one.
Do your own math and calculate the savings in productivity and labor across the board if you were to make this change alone.
The cost of making this change depends on which of the two [2] methods you use now in existence to enable your FL truck to service your RL cans:
-
Weld fork-pockets on all your dumpsters.
-
Install a pair of Johnny Jaws on your truck and leave your cans exactly as they are right now.
No matter which method you choose to achieve this massive increase in speed and productivity, it dramatically offsets the costs of conversion over any other approach, including going fully front-load, or worse, just maintaining your status quo.
There is no way around it, the key to maximizing productivity and bottom-line profits can only be achieved by replacing your RL trucks with FL trucks that are equipped to service both your rear-load and front-load cans.
When making your comparisons, take into consideration the initial and long-term costly investment in new or used FL trucks, FL and RL dumpsters, if any, and the natural resistance to change by RL owners, operators, crews, and customers alike.
The only constant cost of making the switch, no matter the model, is the cost of buying a new or used front-load truck. Every viable model must use front-load trucks, making the cost of the new or used truck(s) a constant in your equation.
To make a fair comparison of all four [4] operating models, you need to factor all the costs related to your current day-to-day route operation.
These factors may include the:
-
Number of and revenue generated from existing routes, both FL and RL?
-
Number and cost of trucks both FL and RL servicing existing routes?
-
Cost of fuel per route, day, month, and year?
-
Number and cost of dumpsters, both FL and RL?
-
Cost of daily and long-term route operation and maintenance?
-
Cost of operators, crew, maintenance, and other personnel?
-
Insurance costs?
-
All other pertinent costs?
Only you know your model and the costs of operations. So, you must apply your own math as we make the comparisons.
Option #2: Total Conversion to Front-Load Model
In recent years more and more companies have indeed bitten the bullet and converted over to the total front-load model when operationally and financially practical.
Total Conversion to Front-Load Model
Costs, challenges, and new technology aside, this has been the smart move, even with consideration to the initial and escalating conversion expenses:
-
The replacement of existing RL with a new FL truck at an average cost of $375,000 to $475,000 per truck.
-
The cost of front-load replacement dumpsters, which have increased significantly in price, are now often in the range of $1,100 for a 2-yard container, with pricing varying by size and region.
-
Note: depending on your location, a four [4] yard container out west is almost the same price as an eight [8] yard container in other areas of the country.
-
The shipping cost of each container-load to the yard is now on average $1,500 per 25 can load, plus the lettering and transportation and logistics cost of each new container from the yard to their location on the route.
-
The revenue generated from the disposal, or from the unlikely sale, of the used rear-load cans, even if one has a geographically viable buyer, is modest at best when one realizes that revenue is negligible in comparison to the cost of the new or used FL trucks and containers.
For this model, let’s consider the equipment costs alone for a typical total FL conversion assuming the purchase of only one [1] front-load truck and two hundred [200] three [3] yard front-load cans to service only one [1] route for one [1] day.
Let’s do the math assuming the same conditions as in the status quo and add those necessary to make the conversion.
Assumptions:
-
Ownership or purchase of one [1] front-load truck.
-
Servicing two hundred [200] three [3] yard containers per route.
-
One [1] single operator crew.
-
Seven [7] trailer loads of three [3] yard containers to your yard.
-
Costs for prep and switching out containers.
-
Daily Cost on average of all other single route operational and support personnel (Driver salary, office and maintenance personnel, equipment, etc.).
Line Item | Input/Multiplier | Conversion Cost |
|---|---|---|
Front-Load Containers | $1,100 x 200 Cans | $220,000 |
Container Delivery | $1,500 x 7 Trailor Loads | $10,500 |
Container Switch-Out | $15 x 200 Cans | $3,000 |
Total Conversion Cost (Per Route Example) | --- | $233,500 |
Over the long haul this option without question looked to be the most compelling model, even when one considers the net investment in and cost of:
-
Cost of a new or used FL truck(s) is a constant [$375,000 to $475,000].
-
FL dumpsters.
-
Related equipment.
-
Logistics challenges.
-
RL dumpster disposal.
-
New can placement time.
-
Operator and crew resistance to change.
-
Operator and maintenance personnel training.
-
Push-back from customers who are used to their smaller, lower profile, and easier to access rear-load 2 and 4-yard containers.
Now do your own math here noting the financial and operational differences both short and long term from that of your status quo model.
Option #3: RETROFITTING RL DUMPSTER WITH FORK POCKTS
Although this model has proven to be highly impractical, time consuming, and dangerous to crews and customers over time, there are those who continue to adopt this model due to the perceived low cost of conversion against that of a total front-load conversion model.
The Case For Retrofitting RL Dumpster with Fork Pockets
There are significant hidden costs associated with this conversion, the logistics and implementation thereof.
In addition, the cost of steel, fuel, insurance, labor, operators, crews, and mechanics has continued to rise, further increasing the total cost of this approach.
Add to these real costs, each container must be first emptied, taken out of service, transported to a welder, and prepared for the retrofitting and welding itself. After welding is completed and downtime calculated, each converted container must be transported back to its original location.
If one chooses instead to do the conversions on-site, the cost may be even higher than transporting the cans to the welder, when accounting for the welder’s drive time from location to location. In addition to the welder, a truck and crew must accompany him to empty each can prior to the welding being completed on site.
A bargain price for a fork pocket was $65 for two [2] pockets. Today, one [1] fork pocket is more than $90, or approximately $180 for two [2], not including the cost of installation.
It is also safe to assume the cost to install fork pockets at a welder location is closer now to $100, with labor costs on the rise. Do not also forget to add the cost of moving and transitioning the containers during the modification process.
A conservative cost estimate for such a conversion is now more than $280 per two [2] yard dumpster. Conversions of this type are limited to one [1] to two [2] yard dumpsters only.
Also note that when a rear-load container is “pocketed” the trunnion ends are removed, thus making it impossible to service the can with a rear-loader ever again. This poses an issue if your only front-load truck is down.
Also note that containers larger than two [2] cubic yards still have to be replaced, thus making this model financially unviable, nor is it safe, nor is it a practical long-term conversion model.
In addition, the failure rate of used and new fork-pocket containers due to the age and condition of the dumpsters on which they are installed is high.
This model is not viable financially, nor is it safe, nor is it a practical long-term conversion model.
Let’s do the math assuming the same conditions.
Assumptions:
-
Ownership or purchase of one [1] front-load truck.
-
Servicing two hundred [200] three [3] yard containers per route.
-
One [1] single operator crew.
-
Seven [7] trailer loads of three [3] yard containers to your yard.
-
Costs for prep and switching out containers.
-
Daily Cost on average of all other single route operational and support personnel (Driver salary, office and maintenance personnel, equipment, etc.).
A Look at the Numbers Using Examples of Modifying two hundred 3-Yard Rear-LOAD Containers
Line Item | Input/Multiplier | Conversion Cost |
|---|---|---|
POCKETS | $180.00 x 200 Cans | $36,000 |
WELDER | $100.00 x 200 Cans | $20,000 |
TRANSPORT | $15.00 x 200 Cans | $3,000 |
PAINT | $5.00 x 200 Cans | $1,000 |
DECALS | $5.00 x 200 Cans | $1,000 |
LABOR | $15.00 x 200 Cans | $3,000 |
Total Conversion Cost (Per Route Example) | --- | $64,000 |
Now You Do Your Own Math.
Option #4: The Case For Johnny Jaws
This leads us to the last model, the complete transition and conversion to a total front-load operation routing model utilizing the addition of a pair of Johnny Jaws.
The Case for the Installation of Johnny Jaws
What the industry had hoped for since the introduction of the front-load container is now a reality. Proven in the field for several years, Johnny Jaws enables any front-load truck to service:
-
Any industry standard FL load dumpster.
-
Any metal RL dumpster up to four [4] yards in capacity.
-
Both front-load and rear-load containers on the same route.
-
With one [1] driver who may remain in the cab.
-
With no crew.
-
With no one needed behind the truck.
-
In greater safety.
-
At an increase of four [4] to seven [7] times the speed of a rear-load truck.
-
Minus all the costs and inconvenience of every other conversion model.
Johnny Jaws technology utilizes a two jaw-type mechanism to service a rear-load can as if it were a front-load can. That is all there is to it.
Other than the two jaws, nothing else needs to be added or modified on the truck for Johnny Jaws to be operated from inside the truck cab via the addition of two [2] small toggle switches.
Johnny Jaws is powered by the truck’s own pneumatic system. Installation and training can be done in your garage in less than one [1] day. The truck does not have to be taken out of service.
The truck does not have to be modified in any significant way as the jaws are bolted onto the existing front-fork assembly in the same place as the existing bumper pads. The jaws are powered by the truck’s existing pneumatic air system, not by its hydraulics.
The container cannot fall on the cab or into the hopper during operation, even if the truck’s hydraulic or pneumatic systems fail.
Customers Report a Pair of Johnny Jaws Enabled Their Company:
-
To operate at three [3] to seven [7] times the productivity of all rear-load or combined front-load and rear-load route models.
-
To reduce the number of trucks needed to service existing routes at a 1:3 to 1:4+ front-load to rear-load ratio.
-
To reduce the number of crews, the size of crews, man-hours, human resource, management costs, and related issues.
-
To realize the continued return on the original investment in their existing rear-load container inventory and related equipment.
-
To operate at an increased margin of safety with less downtime.
-
To realize far greater route flexibility because each truck, driver, and crew can service any route without consideration to the dumpster route and stop dumpster mix.
One pair of Johnny Jaws can generate significant savings by eliminating the need to convert or replace rear-load containers.
Depending on route size and container mix, these savings can quickly exceed the cost of a front-load truck and, over time, may amount to millions of dollars for larger operations.
Johnny Jaws customers can realize the cost of a front-load truck in savings over the life of the Jaws. When you already have a front-load truck and incorporate Johnny Jaws, the savings can compound significantly over time.
The total cost of one set of Johnny Jaws, including installation and training at the location of choice, is $24,900 plus applicable taxes and shipping, if any.
At this price point, Johnny Jaws delivers a substantial return on investment over multiple years of operation when compared to the conversion and operating costs of a total front-load truck and container model.
Let's do the math assuming the same conditions
Assumptions:
-
Ownership or purchase of one [1] front-load truck.
-
Servicing two hundred [200] three [3] yard containers per route.
-
One [1] single operator crew.
-
Seven [7] trailer loads of three [3] yard containers to your yard.
-
Costs for prep and switching out containers.
-
Daily Cost on average of all other single route operational and support personnel (Driver salary, office and maintenance personnel, equipment, etc.).
Line Item | Input/Multiplier | Conversion Cost |
|---|---|---|
New Front-Load Trucks | 0 required | $0 |
Container Conversions | 0 required | $0 |
Johnny Jaws (One Pair) | $24,900 x 1 | $24,900 |
Total Conversion Cost (Per Route Example) | --- | $24,900 |
How did the math work out for you? Which model is your go-to?
Remember, these models are based on using 600 total cubic yards of containers per example, no matter what size dumpster, be they 1, 2, 3, or 4 yarders, or a mix thereof.
Your total cubic yards and number of cans will vary depending on your mix of containers, which only you are aware of. Do not forget to multiply your numbers times our example.
We would like to hear from you and discuss how your numbers came out.
Call Bob Sill at 412.853.8009 to have a discussion, ask questions, and to get a quote, warranty information, Statement of Operations details, and any additional information you may need.
Summary Comparison TAble: Front-Load COnversion Models
Model Description | Front-Load Truck Required | Container Conversion Required | Total Conversion Cost (Per Route) |
|---|---|---|---|
1. Status Quo (All RL or RL/FL Dual Model) | May be required | No | $0 |
2. Total Conversion to FL Containers | Yes (existing or new) | Yes (replace all containers) | ~$233,500 |
3. Retrofit RL Containers w/Fork Pockets | Yes (existing) | Yes (modify containers) | ~$64,000 |
4. Johnny Jaws Conversion | Yes (existing) | No | ~$24,900 |
The comparison above is intended to isolate and illustrate container-related conversion costs per route, using a consistent set of assumptions across all four models. Front-load trucks are treated as a prerequisite for most long-term routing strategies and are therefore excluded from the conversion totals shown. Many operators already own front-load trucks, while others may acquire them regardless of the conversion approach selected. Actual costs will vary based on route size, container mix, equipment, labor, and local conditions. Operators are encouraged to substitute their own numbers to reflect their specific operation and use this comparison as a directional planning tool rather than a precise financial forecast.
