An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler
An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler
67baggage handlers as well as aviation safety professionals revealed that overweightpassenger baggage is thought to be one of the leading causes of back injury (Dell, 1997).Many airline companies do not put a weight restriction on baggage that must belifted/carried by baggage handlers. If a weight limit is imposed on passenger baggage,most airlines charge a nominal fee for the excess weight of the bag(s), still allowing thebaggage to be checked in. This practice does not help or solve the problem of overweightbags at all, passing the problems along, with all of the negative ergonomic issues, to thebaggage handlers (Dell, 1997). On the flip side, airlines are very conscious aboutpotential loss of revenue due to customer dissatisfaction with strictly imposed baggageweight limits. It appears that most airline companies would rather take the chance withthe welfare of their baggage handlers, than to make paying customers repack andpotentially unhappy (Dell, 1997). These would be returning customers could then go toanother airline that does not impose such inconvenient rules for passenger baggage.Therefore, in order to truly be effective with the weight restriction problem ofpassenger baggage the airline companies must form a unified front in making thisexpectation of passengers and their baggage a rule. Without domestic and internationalunified consistency amongst airline carriers this effort will be trivial. Passengers andtheir baggage travel all over the world, thus if one airline does not follow this code thenall airlines are adversely affected.On the same note, if airline companies feel that they must maintain flexible due tothe fear of the loss of potential revenue, then there are other ways to protect the interest ofthe baggage handler against overweight baggage. A simple way to do this would be tohave a universal or worldwide system of marking bags that are over a certain weight limit
68regardless of the size of the bag (e.g. smaller bags can be packed with machine parts thatare dangerously heavy, as stated by a baggage the author was in contact with).5.3 Final ThoughtsRealistically, all of these changes and recommendations will cost the airline industrybillions of dollars to change, fix, and re-engineer. Given the current financial state of theairline industry, mostly impart to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, these changes do not seemto be very likely in the near future. Most financial efforts are being spent of systemssecurity to meet up with many of the federally imposed safety changes that companies inthe airline industry must adhere to. Given the current state of affairs it might be sometime before the airline industry can refocus its efforts on ergonomic and employee safety.When this time comes, it will be very important for all company officials of the airlineindustry to quantify their incident rates of lumbar injury.
- 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 and 40: 26exceeded 70lbs (32kg). However, 1
- Page 41: 28slowing changing along the landsc
- 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 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,
68regardless <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bag (e.g. smaller bags can be packed with machine parts thatare dangerously heavy, as stated by a <strong>baggage</strong> <strong>the</strong> author was in contact with).5.3 Final ThoughtsRealistically, all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se changes and recommendations will cost <strong>the</strong> <strong>airline</strong> industrybillions <strong>of</strong> dollars to change, fix, and re-engineer. Given <strong>the</strong> current financial state <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><strong>airline</strong> industry, mostly impart to <strong>the</strong> terrorist attacks on 9/11, <strong>the</strong>se changes do not seemto be very likely in <strong>the</strong> near future. Most financial efforts are being spent <strong>of</strong> systemssecurity to meet up with many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> federally imposed safety changes that companies in<strong>the</strong> <strong>airline</strong> industry must adhere to. Given <strong>the</strong> current state <strong>of</strong> affairs it might be sometime before <strong>the</strong> <strong>airline</strong> industry can refocus its efforts on <strong>ergonomic</strong> and employee safety.When this time comes, it will be very important for all company <strong>of</strong>ficials <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>airline</strong>industry to quantify <strong>the</strong>ir incident rates <strong>of</strong> lumbar injury.
Change language