Baggage Handlers Industrial Action

[Old Fella]

Airport baggage handlers are demanding that all passenger bags be limited to 20 Kgs. It is claimed that far too many handlers are being injured handling international passenger bags at Australian ports. Any comments?

[The Bartender]

I love it!

[GANNET FAN]

I've been out of the shipping industry for some time now but I remember some of the larger bulk carriers that traded to Australian ports, had to have been fitted with "Australian Ladders".

This meant that the ladders down to the holds had to have a stop off platform half way down so they could have a rest!!

Precious things

[Avitor]

Who would volunteer to tell Naomi Campbell?

[driftdown]

Gannet Fan,

Your absolutely right. It does provide a place to rest.

IMHO a climb up or down using a 10+ metre vertical ladder is not for the faint hearted. A mis step or unsatisafactory hand grip means your next contact with steel is more than likely going to be fatal.

[WHBM]

Maybe the next thing is that all bulk freight will also be required to be broken down into 20 kg units as well for the convenience of the loaders.

The fact is that the load to be handled is whatever the customer presents. I quite understand that items of 30 kg etc are heavy but there should be the necessary equipment and staff training on hand to deal with it appropriately, whatever is required. Not just a "can't shan't won't" attitude.

[Prado]

I think some of the claims in the media are being misrepresented, I don't believe it is about cutting pax entitlements, but rather reducing the weight of individual bags ..... And you'd have to agree that handling perhaps a minimum of 1000 bags on a normal shift, there is going to be body fatigue, so reducing the maximum weight of a single piece of luggage to 20kg may help to allieviate this - particularly in non containerised aircraft, where the loaders are on hands and knees in the hold. Also, with non containerised aircraft, the luggage is handled at least three times - from the belt to trolley, from the trolley to loader, from the loader to be positioned in the hold. Containerised is just the once - belt to container.

The piece on ACA tonight was interesting with Tracy swinging a 32kg bag single handedly. I'm sure we could all do this .... but try doing it 20 or 30 times in succession to get a feel for what a whole shift would be like.

Plenty of for's and against's, but I think the motivation behind the idea has to be reported for what it is - an attempt to reduce workplace injury - rather than as an opportunity for the airlines to cut pax entitlements. It would just mean, if for example you were a QF Club member travelling economy, that you take 2 bags to make up the 30kg allowance. If you're First class, as the example has been in the media, you currently can't take your 40kg allowance in one bag (32 is the max accepted), so you take 2 bags.

Granted, it would take the "its all about me" travelling public some time to adjust - however the vast majority of pax who can read and understand their T&C and are quite happy to comply with a minimum of fuss would not have too many dramas.

So, there you go, an attempt to "balance" the argument!

Cheers
Prado.

[Old Fella]

Agree with your "balanced" view Prado and I do not think I ever suggested any other reason for the TWU wanting the max 20KG per piece to apply. Interesting to note however that you claim 1000 bags per shift when the TWU's Mr Sheldon stated 600 per shift. Also, most baggage on wide-body international aircraft does go into igloo containers. It is only the rear cargo hold on a B747, for instance, which has loose loaded baggage.

I would love to hear what the "wheat stacker's" of my childhood would say, considering they used to scurry from truck bed to the top of wheat stacks with a bag of wheat across their shoulders, all day long. They still had enough energy left to enjoy a few ales and front up again the next day.

[Spaz Modic]

:{ Poor little bag snatchers. :{ 20 Kgs is far too much :{ After all, they've got bigger beer guts to carry around now. :{ Like their moccasin shod missus's:{

[Capt Wally]

gee 'spaz' I hope they don't find out who you are, I think yr bags would be thrown clear across the planet instead of just across the room for fun !:E
OH&S are very real issues but they probably get more injuries from cutting their fingers from faulty zips !:E




CW

[bsmasher]

Good Points Prado,

I don't mind sensible revisions to maximum individual baggage weights, but please give us out here in SLF land time to adapt before it becomes mandatory.
I somethimes have to travel with test kit in its flight case which has been carefully designed to come in at just on 30kg. I can't see my employer putting A$90K pieces of equipment in just a soft bag to get the weight down to the 20k limit.

How does this proposed limit compare with other countries? It will make things interesting for international arrivals with connecting flights.

D.

[Prado]

The figure of 1000 per shift was based on handling probably 5 or 6 flights in a shift .... I don't really know what they'd deal with, but that number seemed like a good guesstimate.

737's are also non containerised, and (again) guessing that they'd make up a fair proportion of domestic baggage handler's day for QF & certainly for DJ crew.

Cheers
Prado.

[400ER]

This was an issue many moons ago when I worked on QF ramp so the company installed the "magic carpet" system in the 737 acrft holds. If the system was U/S then the number of bags to be loaded in that hold was limited.
On wide bodied aircraft there were always issues with loading hold 5 (bulkhold) and It was generally avoided if possible for OH&S reasons.
I'm assuming the problem is in the baggage room where containers are manually loaded and not the physical loading of the aircraft.

[Dropt McGutz]

What's wrong with two people lifting one bag?

[787 Captain]

Obviously some of the people posting here have never had a back injury. Back injuries are often likely to reoccur, and not unusual to be damaged permanently. If so, these people would be supporting what the TWU wants, until Qantas get better equipment. Remember, that's what they're saying, its the lack of training and equipment by Qantas, if Qantas had invested in more specialised equipment and better training, it may not be an issue now. The other thing to remember is thats its not just the weight that causes back injuries, the repetitive motion of lifting and twisting is a big cause of back pain, so something doesn't necessarily need to be heavy to cause damage either.

That ACA story tonight was disgraceful, a good reason to turn off that show in future. Tracy simply wouldn't listen to fact. And that suitcase can't have had 20kg in it, as if an 8 year old could lift that weight so effortlessly! And Tracey did surprising well with the 32kg...

Anyway, long story short, these guys aren't soft, the fact is if you've had a bad back injury you wouldn't wish it upon your worst enemy.

[Dropt McGutz]

As reported by News Ltd.

QANTAS management says it will not bow to pressure from baggage handlers to lower the maximum weight of bags from 32kg to 20kg.

Baggage handlers will decide today whether to take industrial action to implement a union ban on baggage weighing more than 20kg.

Workers voted yesterday to impose the bans on all flights and have been waiting for a response from management.

Qantas today replied by saying it complied with all industry standards of baggage handling and would not be reducing allowances.

"Qantas meets all national and international standards relating to the handling of heavy bags," it said.

"We have clear policies and procedures, including heavy bag identification, appropriate manual handling techniques and weight limitations.

"We have implemented mechanical solutions that alleviate heavy lifting, staff rotation solutions and manual handling training.

"We will continue to work constructively with our staff on this issue (but) we do not anticipate any impact on our flight schedule or change to check-in allowances."

Asked if Qantas would reduce individual bag allowances, a spokesman said: "Not at this stage".

Qantas said time lost because of injuries in the airport had decreased every year for the past four years.

[Kiwiconehead]

Qantas said time lost because of injuries in the airport had decreased every year for the past four years.

Big difference between number of people injured as opposed to injuries accepted by Qantas Workers Compensation Dept and logged as LTIs.

Anyone who has dealt with the dept in question will be well aware of their reputation.

[ules]

Boeing and Airbus should sell accesories with their aircraft hire Tim Shaw to sell the aircraft on dannoz direct, " But wait theres more "
if you purchase your boeing 747-400 withing the next hour, you will also get free ROBOT baggage handlers to replace those old complaining ones!! for only 49.95 BUT wait .. theres more are you being affected by the pilot shortage if you pay using your Visa or Mastercard, you will receive 1 free pilot per order !!! :E
(sorry im bored) :E

im sure this could be one solution to fixing it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOFRIWx5F9c&feature=related

:E

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

I wonder what the average bag weighs? :hmm:

[Capt Wally]

average 'bag' weighs? well according to CASA's offical estimate for the purpose of weights, 77 kg's !:E



CW

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

I'm talking about the ones with the plastic handles, not the love handles! The ones we seem to handle I imagine would be around the 15 to 20 kg mark with the occassional heavy one but then if you can't lift it by yourself, you get someone to help you. :O

[400ER]

EBD

That's spot on. QF9 Mel-Sin would average out to approx 16kg.
QF93 Mel-Lax would come in slightly heavier around the 19-20kg,
that's working on about 10-12 containers and 30 bags per container.
You would get the occasional group check in for the States with an average of 20-25kg. I've never seen an average bag weight for a QF flight exceed 22kg.

[Capt Wally]

"Q"........now that's funny:D & probably close to the mark!

Gotta admit tho what an awful job, comes close to the 'pan-man' I'd say!:bored:

CW

[eye_in_the_sky]

How about prescribing the baggage handlers a big mug of

>>Harden the F*** Up!!! <<

These days of using the OH&S excuse this, political correctness that...

blah blah blah

[MELKBQF]

I think its more of a ploy to have QF employ additional ramp staff. As flights, and the size of aircraft have increased, QF have been reducing the number of baggage/ramp staff in MEL over the last couple of years. When sh*t hits the fan, (thunderstorm/fog) the operation takes alot longer than it used to to get back on track as there is only just enough staff to cover the planned workload.

[ULH Extreme]

My bag weighs 7.5kg. That leaves me with 12.5kg. 2 pairs shoes, 2 pair jeans, 5 shirts, 4 T shirts, undies for 5 days, toilet bag , socks and talc powder. Have to leave the straps and chains behind.

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

I guess you could save some weight by halving the amount of undies you take by turning them inside out and getting a second days wear out of them...:ooh:

[Capt Wally]

'EBD' in actual fact you can get 4 days per undies, although that being the case the baggage handlers wouldn't go near yr bags/cases upon arrivla back home, hey there's an idea, stink 'em out !:E


CW

[rammel]

When I was on the ramp, we worked in a 6 man team. One supervising, one driving and helping out, two for the front and two for the back. During a shift the same people would be at the same hold, and you would alternate the heavy lifting. Someone would load on one flight in the hold, and for the next they would be outside putting the bags on the conveyer belt.

The company has moved away from this system, to a system that works by making up a different team for each flight. So potentially someone could be working inside the hold a lot more often.

The company has also cut the manpower numbers, so also this hasn't helped the situation. I think this is more to do with manpower cuts, and o.h and s warnings are the only thing the company will take notice of.

I didn't see Tracey on ACA, but has anyone tried to carry a 32kg (Samsonite) bag throught the terminal without using a trolley or using the wheels on the bag.

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

Hey Captain Wally, speak for yourself! What if you wear G strings?? :E

[Hugh Jarse]

Hey Captain Wally, speak for yourself! What if you wear G strings??

Then you can get 6 wears from them.

Talk about economical :ooh:

[tasdevil.f27]

Whilst at LST, average bags were around the 17- 20kg mark for DJ. But you sure knew if you got a 32kg and didnt notice the heavy sticker. ouch! I only found it hard on bags over 25kg as i'm not a big person. The worst part of the job is in the hold on your knees and trying to lift the extra heavy bags up around chest height or up to the roof of the hold, if you haven't got room to have it on the floor.

I think 2okg is a bit lame though, maybe 25? Anyway - the piece on ACA was total crap.

Oh and those bloody heavy crew bags, should leave them on the tarmac lol.

[Capt Wally]

OMG 6 days on the one pair of jocks !!! the mind boggles:E



CW

[blow.n.gasket]

Hang on I'll go and ask my wife!

[SIUYA]

Wally said:

average 'bag' weighs? well according to CASA's official estimate for the purpose of weights, 77 kg's

I dunno about THAT. My missus weighs a hell of a lot less than 77kgs..............so I guess that means she's not really an 'average bag'. :8

Anyway, what would CASA know about that sort of thing? :confused:

[Eastwest Loco]

Sorry sportsfans, but I can't feel to sorry for today's bag snatchers.

It was normal procedure here in NW TAS in the TN days to chuck bags well above 20kgs into F27s. That and some fairly ugly freight including radioactive mercury that weighed 60K a box (2 loading of course).

Then there were the film cans for the Cinema - about 25kgs each - Old Col, our part time porter at Wynyard was over 80 and could carry and chuck 2 at a time. Also core filters from the Acid Factory.

The traffic/loco blokes did the majority of the carting. Never an injury probem. Never.

In the East West days, the trafficies were crawling around in the back lockers of F28-3000 and 4000 ladies stacking up to 2000kgs a morning of live crayfish in 20kg boxes in fairly tight conditions at speed on a 25 minute turnaround, plus of course baggage and other freight.

Then there is the larger holds of the 146 and the lower loading door. They were much harder work, but it all happened as it always had back to the days of the Viscounts, DC3s and 4's.

Guess what? We never NEVER had a staff member off with back problems.

I do feel sorry - so bloody sorry - for the Tarmac Lawyers who are now complaining about the stresses of stuffing cans on a trolley that will eventually be delivered to the aeroplane and hydraulically lifted into the beast.

The bulk old must be stressful, as must be the narrow bodies. Manual input is required after the bag comes off the conveyor. Quel domage. Thank God for the magic carpet in some aeroplanes.

The total wankers union and their partners have generally been a thorn in the side of a decent operation, but this is a total rubbish call.

It aint that hard girls.

Get over it and figure out how you can support the company that supports you despite their faults.

If you can't hump 30kgs, go work in the staff canteen.

Best all

EWL

[satos]

I think these baggage handlers should start hitting the gym.A bit of strength training never hurts anyone.

[amberale]

Yeah, they are all pussies.
I used to love rolling in that asbestos stuff while getting sprayed with DDT.

I think the National standard for single person lifting is some where between 20 and 30 kg.
It's repetitive work while bent over [sometimes].
No-one wants back problems give em a break.

AA

[ramp_boy]

For all those that are going down the 'pussies / harder the f**k up road' - you are being rather ignorant of how much strain the humble bag chucker puts on his/her body each day. := Sure we can all talk about how much harder it was 'back in the day' when you saw Jim Bob load 4000kgs of lobster with one hand on his own during a 15min turn and he never got injured.. but the fact is the human body is not designed to work in confined areas constantly repeating the twisting and lifting motions that working in an aircraft requires. It will do damage eventually. Aircraft holds are not specially built to stack bags and freight into.

Something can be said about the level of education that baggage handlers require in the manual handling discipline. Far too often the people who get injured are the ones that don't stretch or warm up and show poor technique. Who's fault is this? :rolleyes:

20kg limit? Not necessary. You just need to make sure that check in staff remember to put the bloody heavy tags on the bags!! :ugh: 32kg limit - I understand. After about 10 of those bastards on you knees, you tend to feel a bit sore.

Peace out!

[yr right]

na i thinking you all got it wrong. you see 32 kgs means that there is more stuff in between the good stuff that they can steal. now that makes it far more easier to get to the good stuff if there is not so much as the other stuff. and dont forget that this guys get paid very good money to seal your stuff. we cant have them breaking a nail now can we. they make me :yuk:.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

You have GOT to kidding me....

At a time when governments and airlines are banning more and more from the cabin, and reducing the size of carry-on bags, baggage-handlers come up with this nonsense??

My knife (leatherman), my Maglite torch, my knitting needles, even my bloody toothpaste now HAS to be checked.

Fellas, MORE stuff and MORE weight is being forced into checked luggage. Not less.

Industrial manoeuvring, no doubt.... :rolleyes:

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Back when I were a Lad!!........chucking bags and freight into 737's (no Magic Carpet) and 146's in the NT you would certainly know when you came across a 32 kg bag, heavy tag or not. A 32kg bag is bloody heavy! All the correct "bend ze knees" crap goes out the window when you are bent double in the hold and it's all back and arm strength to get the job done. You unload and load an aircraft manually in a 20 minute turnaround and I guarantee you crawl out of those holds absolutely f**ked. You do it all day and it's got to be doing some damage.
In the BMA's filling/unloading containers? Maybe it's different as the time and workspace constraints are different.
What I always found amusing was if a bag (or toolbox usually) went over the scales above 32kg, the punter would be told that it was too heavy (for the porters to lift) and would have to be broken down into two bags, or consigned as freight. Then they would pay the freight cost, a con note would be slapped on the side and I was now "allowed" to pick it up as it wasn't a "heavy bag" any more!

[I_In_The_Sky]

Please do not confuse the baggage handlers in general (like myself) with the QF baggage handlers in question here. Having said that I think quite a lot of the QF baggage handlers would be a tad embarrased by this episode.

If a baggage handler does not feel comfortable lifting a full 32 kg's then the bag should have very distinctive heavy tag and he/she always has a colleague who is more than willing to lend a hand. We do not need union officials to help us in that regard, and surely they have more important issues to tackle.

Or do they?

On another note lifting individual bags is not the only potential cause of injury in a bagroom. For instance try pulling a barrow that weighs 420kgs slightly up hill with approximately 50 bags weighing on average (mentioned earlier??) You do the math! It is damn heavy, but gain, there is always help.

Now that takes care of the poor QF baggage handler that we are trying protect from injury. Isn't that what this issue is all about :confused:

[Pinky the pilot]

I had a fairly detailed post almost finished for this thread and after some reflection I deleted it in favour of the following..........

Sixteen years I suffered, as the operating Surgeon described it;
''An unstable compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebrae''

In other words, a BROKEN BACK!

I have never been, except for maybe a handful of periods of approximately five or so minutes, free of pain.:mad: I have trained myself to generally ignore the pain for most of the day; ie, I don't feel it because I choose not to! I can still walk and fly. For that I am grateful to the brilliance of the Surgeon and the grace of God!

However, mostly in the evenings after a days activities, this is when it manifests itself!!! Unless you have done similar to what I have, do not talk to me about back pain.You have no (expletive deleted) idea!!!

Anything that eases the load (literally) on the baggage loaders has my full support. Sure they may be able to handle heavy load now, but the 'wear and tear' builds up over the years and, when you get to your 50s as I am now, suddenly it hits you! In my case it is more so.:uhoh:

[distracted cockroach]

Makes me laugh. Air NZ have just released their latest brainwave for domestic passengers...you will be charged for the number of bags you check in. First one is free, second one is (say) $20, the 3rd and subsequent ones $30 each......but the one free bag can weigh up to 30kg. Effectively they want to reduce the number of bags people check in to save time, but in doing so have actually financially induced people to have heavier single bags.
Don't tell the Air NZ loaders that anything over 20kg is too much...or maybe the "big boys" they use (especially the Mangere locals in Auckland) are a bit stronger than their Aussie counterparts?

[FlexibleResponse]

I wonder why they didn't go straight to a 10kg bag limit?

That's got to be safer?

[indamiddle]

i remember the wheat stackers from before bulk loaded wheat. they are the same old blokes who live in my home town using walking sticks and zimmer frames to get around now because their backs are completely stuffed.
oh+s is now used by mgmt to dodge responsibility, why not use it against them so the baggage handlers can have a reasonable life in retirement?

[lowerlobe]

Safer still is no checked on bag. It will even save money
Another useful and pragmatic response to a problem....:yuk:

[maximus]

Lowerlobe, you will know how to spot PAF. He's the overbearing,egotistical military type with verbal diarrhea dribbling down his chin :rolleyes:

[lowerlobe]

maximus......I know what you mean and I think I've seen him a few times.It's good to have pax like him though because they give us a good laugh in the galley repeating his inane drivel.

I'm a Plat. FF and travel to the US on a regular basis
Funny that just about all FF's say the same thing.....
"Do you realise who I am ?.....I'm a FF.....I fly with you all the time...I'm a personal friend of ....(substitute current board member or CEO) "

The hardest part is not to laugh when they give their inflated opinion of themselves and informing you that the business world and the planet in general would not be able to exist without them.

The other sure sign of most FF's which is relevant to this topic of bag weight limits is a coat cover that is so large you could fit a small car in them as well as the obligatory lap top,cabin bag weighing a ton and then asking/demanding the fin review before they've even got to their seat.

PAF... do you fly on tax payers money or do you actually work in the private sector now?

[maximus]

PAF... do you fly on tax payers money or do you actually work in the private sector now?

Lordy, lordy, no one in the private sector would have him. From what I can gather even his superior officers think he's a goose :ooh:

[Trojan1981]

No one deserves to live with back pain for the rest of their lives just because some incosiderate toss SLF wants to load an extra 10kg in their bags. The 20kg proposal sounds reasonable to me.
I sustained a permanent back injury at 21 years of age while serving in the Army. Caused by heavy lifting in cofined spaces (trucks/aircraft) and made far worse by job requirements (parachuting, off road motorcycle riding).

I coped well enough to get through aircrew medicals but when I finally discharged I found it nearly impossible to get another job. I would always get through testing and interviews, only to be knocked back on the grounds that I had sustained a back injury in the past and they did not want to be liable for any re-injury. I eventually did get a decent job (by not informing them-doesn't pay to be honest sometimes) and have had no dramas.

As long as I keep fit I am relatively pain free and can do anything, but aerobatics are still a bit of a killer. If I couldn't work I would be stuffed, compensation is a joke and the thought of not being able to work when still young would be soul destroying.

The success of qantas and other airlines rides on the back (literally) of their operational staff. They should be looked after and should not have to break themselves just so GD can make a bigger bonus.