An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler
An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler
27Another concern with this survey was that Dell included the check-in or ticketagent personnel in the baggage handlers group. Dell included this group of workersbecause they do in fact handle baggage. However, since their contact with customerbaggage is becoming more and more limited, the author feels if it would be best toexclude them from the baggage handler group in any future survey.In the authors experiences at the Newark International Airport it was expressedseveral times, baggage handlers and airline personnel that Newark Airport's Ticket orCheck-in agents were not to lift customer baggage due to ergonomic concerns, mainlyback-related issues. The ticket agent would explain to the customer that he/she wouldhave to be responsible for placing their baggage on the weighing scale themselves. Oncethe bags) is on the weight scale the Check-in agent would have someone help them placethe baggage on the baggage conveyor belt for the baggage handlers to process later.The author realizes that although this may be the case for some airline check-inemployees this may not be the general case or model for the rest of airline companies'nation and worldwide. For the check-in agents that must deal with bags, if the customercannot lift the bag themselves the check-in agent(s) assists. Once the bag is on the scalethe check-in agent moves the baggage about a meter's length across to the baggageconveyor belt. This point withstanding, even in the cases where check-in or ticket agentsmust deal with customer baggage their contact with baggage is limited compared to thatof the baggage handler. The check-in agent, although exposed to their own level of riskto musculoskeletal disease, the author purposes that they may have a level of risk thatmaybe considerably less than the baggage handler. Moreover, another important thing toconsider is that the majority of check-in or ticket agents are women-although this too is
28slowing changing along the landscape of the industry-who traditional are not consideredto be part of the heavy lifting and labor group. This being the case, check-in handlers arenot given the same attention to detail as far as lifting, stretching and warming uptechniques are considered. In some cases no training is given to check-in/ticket workersat all (Rosskam, 2004).A study conducted specifically on airport check-in workers revealed that the ratesof musculoskeletal disease are different for check-in workers. The study factored in thefact that worker at manual and semi-automated check-in stations are subjected toprolonged sitting, standing and forced and awkward hand moments associated withcomputing work (Rosskam, 2004). This is why the author feels that separate studiesshould be performed on check-in/ticket agents, as their risk factors and rates are differentfrom the baggage handler.Another interesting point to make is that in Dells inquiry of the baggage handler'swork areas most likely to cause back injury, Dell included the storage areas of the widebody aircraft. Currently speaking most wide body aircraft have fully automated systems,which do the loading of the cans, or storage bins meant for use in the wide body aircraft.This being the case, most baggage handlers do not have to manually load these wide bodyaircrafts. In the authors experience at the international airport it was expressed by thebaggage handlers and managing staffs that nowadays baggage handlers almost neverhave to load wide body aircraft manually. If the baggage loading mechanism becomesmalfunctioned for a wide body aircraft then another aircraft is rotated into use. In Dell'ssurvey of the safety professional it was asked if the wide body should be considered as aninjury prone work area, which nowadays seems like a question not worth asking for
- Page 5: AN ERGONOMIC ASSESSMENTOF THE AIRLI
- Page 8 and 9: BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHAuthor: Stephen
- Page 10 and 11: ACKNOWLEDGMENTI would like to expre
- Page 12 and 13: TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)Chapter
- Page 14 and 15: CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.1 Baggage Ha
- Page 16 and 17: 31.2.2 Author's PreparationMany tim
- Page 18 and 19: 5way in and out of the work area. T
- Page 20: 71.3.4.4 Evidence of No Effect of W
- Page 23 and 24: Figure 2.1 Principle muscle groups
- Page 25 and 26: 12vertebrae are aligned, their cent
- Page 27 and 28: 14which obesity, poor conditioning,
- Page 29 and 30: Figure 2.4 Musculature of the Later
- Page 31 and 32: Figure 2.5 Anatomy of the Shoulder
- Page 33 and 34: CHAPTER 3LITERATURE REVIEWS3.1 Summ
- Page 35 and 36: 22loading and unloading of narrow-b
- Page 37 and 38: 24When the safety professionals wer
- Page 39: 26exceeded 70lbs (32kg). However, 1
- Page 44 and 45: 31aircraft on the tarmac, the bagga
- Page 46 and 47: 33baggage handlers with 111 (71%) p
- Page 48 and 49: 35In response to the training quest
- Page 50 and 51: 37question about loading the wide b
- Page 52 and 53: 39combinations were calculated. Eac
- Page 54 and 55: 41participants from the Royal Dutch
- Page 56 and 57: 43The heights, angles, and velociti
- Page 58 and 59: 45placed on various joints on the b
- Page 60 and 61: 47The purpose of introducing the pi
- Page 62 and 63: 493.6 Back Belt LiteratureThe notio
- Page 64 and 65: 51It was out of this necessity for
- Page 66 and 67: 53The fleet service clerks, or bagg
- Page 68 and 69: 55increase in TAP can increase the
- Page 70 and 71: 57A concern for this study is the m
- Page 72 and 73: 59A body chart diagram to assess wo
- Page 74 and 75: 615.2 The Future of Baggage Handlin
- Page 76 and 77: 635.2.1 Workstation RedesignThe wor
- Page 78 and 79: 65injury because the top and lower
- Page 80 and 81: 67baggage handlers as well as aviat
- Page 82 and 83: APPENDIXMODEL FOR FUTURE BAGGAGE HA
- Page 85 and 86: INSTRUCTION: PLEASE CIRCLE WHICH BO
- Page 87 and 88: 74[12] Harman, E A, Rosenstein, RM,
27<strong>An</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r concern with this survey was that Dell included <strong>the</strong> check-in or ticketagent personnel in <strong>the</strong> <strong>baggage</strong> <strong>handler</strong>s group. Dell included this group <strong>of</strong> workersbecause <strong>the</strong>y do in fact handle <strong>baggage</strong>. However, since <strong>the</strong>ir contact with customer<strong>baggage</strong> is becoming more and more limited, <strong>the</strong> author feels if it would be best toexclude <strong>the</strong>m from <strong>the</strong> <strong>baggage</strong> <strong>handler</strong> group in any future survey.In <strong>the</strong> authors experiences at <strong>the</strong> Newark International Airport it was expressedseveral times, <strong>baggage</strong> <strong>handler</strong>s and <strong>airline</strong> personnel that Newark Airport's Ticket orCheck-in agents were not to lift customer <strong>baggage</strong> due to <strong>ergonomic</strong> concerns, mainlyback-related issues. The ticket agent would explain to <strong>the</strong> customer that he/she wouldhave to be responsible for placing <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>baggage</strong> on <strong>the</strong> weighing scale <strong>the</strong>mselves. Once<strong>the</strong> bags) is on <strong>the</strong> weight scale <strong>the</strong> Check-in agent would have someone help <strong>the</strong>m place<strong>the</strong> <strong>baggage</strong> on <strong>the</strong> <strong>baggage</strong> conveyor belt for <strong>the</strong> <strong>baggage</strong> <strong>handler</strong>s to process later.The author realizes that although this may be <strong>the</strong> case for some <strong>airline</strong> check-inemployees this may not be <strong>the</strong> general case or model for <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>airline</strong> companies'nation and worldwide. For <strong>the</strong> check-in agents that must deal with bags, if <strong>the</strong> customercannot lift <strong>the</strong> bag <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>the</strong> check-in agent(s) assists. Once <strong>the</strong> bag is on <strong>the</strong> scale<strong>the</strong> check-in agent moves <strong>the</strong> <strong>baggage</strong> about a meter's length across to <strong>the</strong> <strong>baggage</strong>conveyor belt. This point withstanding, even in <strong>the</strong> cases where check-in or ticket agentsmust deal with customer <strong>baggage</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir contact with <strong>baggage</strong> is limited compared to that<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>baggage</strong> <strong>handler</strong>. The check-in agent, although exposed to <strong>the</strong>ir own level <strong>of</strong> riskto musculoskeletal disease, <strong>the</strong> author purposes that <strong>the</strong>y may have a level <strong>of</strong> risk thatmaybe considerably less than <strong>the</strong> <strong>baggage</strong> <strong>handler</strong>. Moreover, ano<strong>the</strong>r important thing toconsider is that <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> check-in or ticket agents are women-although this too is