GHI APRIL 2008 57 ............................................................................................ ........................................................................................ .............. ........................................................................ .................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................ Maurizio Anichini notes that lowering the weight of an individual bag does not of itself guarantee that fewer injuries will result. “Proper lifting techniques must be adhered to, in order for the benefits to be seen from a lower weight of each bag. The issue of a potentially greater number of bags being put through already strained baggage systems at many airports should be taken into serious consideration and possibly be investigated in great detail in terms of conducting trials or simulations to discover the weak links in the systems being used.” IATA’s Chris Miles takes a slightly different viewpoint: “Health and Safety authorities are looking at this as a way to reduce injuries, the UK being a good example. However, I am not convinced that the lowering of weight has anything to do with infrastructure. What the lowering of weight does is to potentially increase the amount of bags being put through a system, possibly exasperating an already stressed system. “The challenge is educating the consumer to understand that less baggage and lighter baggage can help prevent injuries and reduce emissions.” Steady progress In the US, data collected in 2006 showed an encouraging trend among screeners when it came to back and general lifting injury. The Transportation Security Administration dramatically cut the injury rate for airport screeners that year, though in the bigger scheme of things it did remain among the highest in the country. On-the-job injuries, which were forcing screeners to miss hundreds of thousands of workdays, fell to 16 per 100 employees in the fiscal year that ended September 30. This, in turn, was down from a figure of 29% in 2005 and a figure of 36% in 2004. Some screeners attributed the decrease to a crackdown on injured workers. “There’s been a phenomenal focus placed on safety,” admitted Earl Morris, the TSA’s General Manager for Field Operations. “The benefits are enormous,” he added, mentioning that fewer injuries meant more screeners at checkpoints and thus faster-moving security lines. That said, the screener injury rate still far exceeded the rest of the federal government and the private sectors. Screeners, among a workforce of 47,000, suffer more injuries than workers in all but five of approximately 600 jobs tracked by the US Labour Department. Screeners have to lift heavy bags, often in awkward positions, which contribute to potential strain or injury. The domino effect then follows: injuries add to the absenteeism rate which in turn has forced the TSA to shut security lanes. The results of this have not been welcome insofar as the travelling public is concerned, needless to say. On the positive side, the TSA has installed rollers and bag hoists to relieve screeners from lifting. Moreover, screeners have been brought back to work on lighter duties and the department has attacked fraud with an inspections office that has prosecuted any employees who have allegedly falsified injury claims. The injury cost to taxpayers was put at US$58m in 2006,

58 APRIL 2008 GHI which covered wages and medical benefits for injured screeners, the TSA declared. Following on from this, there have been improvements to the worker’s lot at some airports, at least. At San Diego, for example, bomb detectors have been re-positioned so that screeners no longer have to shift luggage ten feet or so to scan items. The rôle of the unions In the UK, as has been mentioned, there is strong support for a further reduction in individual bag weight but, as yet, this awaits full industry endorsement. According to Madeleine Richards, Senior Regional Industrial Organiser of the Transport and General Workers Union, the whole baggage handling situation could be improved at all levels. “But we recognise that some solutions are costly whilst others involve major change. The irony is that there has been a steady decline in labour since 2001-2002 but this has not occurred in conjunction with increased levels of mechanisation. Additionally, more passengers are flying and there has been a recorded rise in incidents of injury through manual handling.” In fact, some handlers with whom she talks believe that the whole situation is worse than it was in the 1950s. “You could say the handling infrastructure is Dickensian: baggage handling in cramped conditions is a bit like coal mining in the old days. The low cost carrier sector has changed everything, with its frequent flights and quick turnarounds.” She believes that one way forward would be to equip aircraft with moving carpets, and thus make the baggage containerised. This would greatly reduce the chances of handler strain and injury although the expense of fitting and the extra cost of fuel would have to be taken into consideration by the carrier. “But what we really need are changes that are almost immediate and which are not going to cost much,” she admits. “A reduction in the weight of a single bag would be the simplest way to achieve this.” Interestingly, back in 2006, this idea of a 23 kilogramme maximum weight per bag was discussed by a number of industry players, including the Health & Safety Committee. “Essentially, there was agreement over the idea,” she relates. “But time passed, nothing further happened and then we discovered that one or two commercial people weren’t behind the idea. Thus it was shelved.” Since then she, and others, have put their weight, so to speak, behind the initiative to bring it back into the spotlight, encouraged by the success of the recent adoption of the 32 kilogramme limit. Further meetings have been held on this subject but as yet there has been no unanimous decision. Until there is a consensus within the UK, at least, then it looks unlikely that much progress will be made. Some of the issues raised have been over the quantity of bags (would carriers prefer to transport one large bag as opposed to two small bags?); the time factor (would loading a greater number of bags slow down the turnaround process?); capacity (would double the bag numbers, for example mean that more hold space was required?); and missing luggage (would there be an exponential rise in mishandled baggage as more bags are put through an existing system?). In another British initiative, an FMC RampSnake loader has been brought to East Midlands airport (as mentioned above) with a view to a performance appraisal. Health and Safety officials, as well as handlers, have all been involved in the trials, which have been part of a bigger exercise studying handler welfare and safety on the ramp. This has been welcome news, given that to date only a trio of these specialist loaders are actually at work in the UK. Today, it’s by no means uncommon for a handling team of four to shift upwards of 18 tonnes of baggage in an hour and half turnaround, if unloading and loading exercises are taken into account. Airlines: getting agreement Amongst the airlines which were involved in the discussions and proposals back in 2006 were British Airways and easyJet. BA, perhaps buoyed up by the success of the introduction of the 32 kilogramme bag limit, has expressed interest in a possible further modification. A spokesperson commented on the carrier’s stance. “We remain committed to reducing the maximum weight of individual bags from 32 kilogrammes to 23 kilogrammes to reduce the risk of injury to our staff. The changes we were expecting the Health and Safety Executive to implement to move the industry standard maximum bag weight to 23 kilogrammes have not happened within the timescales we had expected. “As a result, we will introduce a flat-rate charge of £25 for bags weighing between 23-32 kilogrammes. This is in line with many other airlines. The £25 charge will be introduced from November 2008 once all phases of our Heathrow move are complete. “Until the new charge is introduced, we would encourage customers to adhere to the 23 kilogramme policy. We will not accept bags weighing more than 32 kilogrammes.” Budget carrier easytJet was also at the talks and it confirmed its concern over the topic of handler injury. “Yes, we have been working with the HSE on this in East Midlands and are looking at various solutions to how we deal with the concerns raised about the health and safety of the baggage handlers,” said a spokesperson. “One such solution is an extendable baggage belt which goes into the aircraft hold. There are various options but we believe simply reducing the