An ergonomic assessment of the airline baggage handler

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