QF Baggage Handlers Want Reduction In Baggage Weight

[Marty H]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=67340

[Shameel Kumar]

Well they're asking for the weight limit to be reduced to 20kg... if QF are willing to budge I'm guessing they'll go down to 23kg to be in-line with other carriers.

Wouldn't it be to QF's benefit to lower their baggage weight allowance since it means a slight weight saving for each flight?

Also, for flights to USA, is there a rule set by the FAA that airlines have to offer at least 32kg baggage allowance, or would QF be able to lower their baggage weight allowance for flights to/from USA?

[Marty H]

They are asking for 20kg to be the maximum, now lets look at QF and there aircraft and the way they are loaded B737-400 and B737-800 have sliding carpets in both the forward and rear holds, making it easier to stack the bags, generally start with heavier bags at the bottom and as you move higher the person sending the bags up should send up lighter bags, myself I generally know I will get 20 bags in a row, so when Im sending bags to the person in the hold I generally will send up heavier bags for the first 10 and then the last 10 they will be lighter bags.

B767-300 are all containers apart from the small rear compartment in the tail but a majority of bags in this situation are loaded into the container in the bag room where the person is standing up right and shouldnt pose to much of an issue with injury.

Dash 8 all versions would be manually loaded but they are fairly high holds so a person could just about load them standing up.

My 2 cents a whole lot of bleating over nothing, Im 6ft 5ins tall and I havent had any injuries thus far, IMO its all how a person approaches the job and if they choose to do it correctly or not as to weather they get injuried.

If QF BH want to complain about loading a hold they should go have a look at a Skywest F100 hold where the guy stacks it lying down.

[Sarah C]

If you can't lift 32kg, get out of the job! Previous generations have done it for many years. I am sure there are people who would be happy to do the job.

The funny thing is it is probably only a matter of time until technology makes the handlers irrelevant. While I agree some people bring everything with them on a trip, 20kgs is difficult for an international trip. Making the limit 2 20kg bags actually increases the work for handlers.

[D Chan]

ACA just ran a story on the issue and they interviewed an union rep. ACA also did a demonstration with the host lifting a 32 kg bag, and having an 8 yr old child lifting a 20 kg bag. The LTI injury figures were then mentioned by Tracey - and according to her, the Lost time injuries (from baggage handling) has dropped every year for the last few years. Responding to that the union official claimed Qantas has lied about their figures. I would assume that if the baggage handlers were injured, they would report it and the stats that come out wouldn't lie.

Sarah, your point is quite interesting because when that technology comes (eventually), the unions will probably switch their focus from 'injuries' to 'loss of work' etc.

[Shameel Kumar]

..the unions will probably switch their focus from 'injuries' to 'loss of work' etc.

Unions.... uhh...:rolleyes:



If you can't lift 32kg, get out of the job! Previous generations have done it for many years. I am sure there are people who would be happy to do the job.

Agreed!! If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! I for one am one of those people who would happy take up a baggage handling job at an airport.

[Raymond Rowe]

Unions.... uhh...:rolleyes:





I for one am one of those people who would happy take up a baggage handling job at an airport.



Why is it the younger generation is trying to strip all working conditions that have been hard fought for.People have to live and if anyone should be worried about the future working conditions it should be all you younger ones.

[Sarah C]

Unions.... uhh...:rolleyes:





Agreed!! If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! I for one am one of those people who would happy take up a baggage handling job at an airport.

The Union guy on ACA just made thier protest laughable - it was embarassing to the profession.

I did a manual job for 6 years - it was hard work, a lot of lifting but I knew what the job was about. If I didn't like it, I could quit at any time.

[Nigel C]

Greedy union officials and political agendas that aren't in the best interests of workers might be one reason Ray.

When was the last time Sharon Burrow, Bill Shorten, Greg Combe, Doug Cameron or any other union official for that matter, went without pay while their members were out on strike and lost a days pay?

Are the officials really there just for the benefit of their members? Or are they really there to feather their own political nest?
A brief look at the Labor Party should give you a hint about my scepticism.

I could go on, but this isn't the aus.politics forum.

[Montague S]

I did a manual job for 6 years - it was hard work, a lot of lifting but I knew what the job was about. If I didn't like it, I could quit at any time.

then you'll know that if you stuff your back its game over...I'm sure you remember the issue I had with my spine a few years ago? I can tell you from now that 4 years down the track I'm still seeing specialists and physio's and its made my lifestyle much worse than it ever was.

If you can't lift 32kg, get out of the job! Previous generations have done it for many years. I am sure there are people who would be happy to do the job.

its not about not being able to lift it...its about the fact that lifting objects that heavy can cause permanent damage to a persons health, which would you prefer, the injured worker being a burden to the taxpayer or the healthy worker doing his job in an environment that sees his health and safety are the priority along with the safety of the passengers?

When was the last time Sharon Burrow, Bill Shorten, Greg Combe, Doug Cameron or any other union official for that matter, went without pay while their members were out on strike and lost a days pay?

well 2 out of the 4 you mentioned are in politics now.. ;)

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! I for one am one of those people who would happy take up a baggage handling job at an airport.

I bet you a dime that if you did stuff up your back lifting a 32kg suitcase you'd be on here complaining that you shouldn't have been forced to lift that weight.

Making the limit 2 20kg bags actually increases the work for handlers.

360 Y class passengers with 2 bags each...that's 720 suitcases, I doubt that will happen in a hurry.

what they want to do is prevent injury..not cut down the amount of injuries.

[Sarah C]

360 Y class passengers with 2 bags each...that's 720 suitcases, I doubt that will happen in a hurry.

I agree but limiting to 20kg only particularly for an international flight is just impractical. Yes it saves money in many ways but the sheer number of people willing to pay excess to go over the 32kg these days means it is not practical.

[Marty H]

If you can't lift 32kg, get out of the job! Previous generations have done it for many years. I am sure there are people who would be happy to do the job.

The funny thing is it is probably only a matter of time until technology makes the handlers irrelevant. While I agree some people bring everything with them on a trip, 20kgs is difficult for an international trip. Making the limit 2 20kg bags actually increases the work for handlers.

Generally speaking in a day you would be lucky to lift 20x30kg+ bags, get alot between 20-30kg though, but once again comes to how you approach the job and weather you choose to go about it the correct way or the incorrect way. Where they got the figures that 80% of the bags are over 20kg from I will never know, simply isnt true, I go away for a week with the kids and stuff and barely reach 15kgs in bag weight.

[Marty H]

then you'll know that if you stuff your back its game over...I'm sure you remember the issue I had with my spine a few years ago? I can tell you from now that 4 years down the track I'm still seeing specialists and physio's and its made my lifestyle much worse than it ever was.



its not about not being able to lift it...its about the fact that lifting objects that heavy can cause permanent damage to a persons health, which would you prefer, the injured worker being a burden to the taxpayer or the healthy worker doing his job in an environment that sees his health and safety are the priority along with the safety of the passengers?




well 2 out of the 4 you mentioned are in politics now.. ;)



I bet you a dime that if you did stuff up your back lifting a 32kg suitcase you'd be on here complaining that you shouldn't have been forced to lift that weight.



360 Y class passengers with 2 bags each...that's 720 suitcases, I doubt that will happen in a hurry.

what they want to do is prevent injury..not cut down the amount of injuries.

Thing is though as I have mentioned QF with the aircraft they operate really have eliminated alot of issues with stacking bags into an aircraft, Baggage containers for B763 and B743 aircraft are loaded by a person standing upright they have sliding carpets in both the front and rear holds of all their B737 aircraft even though the person would be on his knees in the hold it eliminates the stretching and twisting of the back if it wasnt installed.

[Montague S]

I agree but limiting to 20kg only particularly for an international flight is just impractical. Yes it saves money in many ways but the sheer number of people willing to pay excess to go over the 32kg these days means it is not practical.

that's ok if they are willing to pay...but others aren't and they still bring the house and the sink, like I said, they are trying to prevent injury permanently...the human spine isn't designed for those type of pressures...let me put it this way...when the human crouches down or bends over they are putting around 200kgs of pressure on their spine, add the 32kgs on top of that and you really start moving into injury area.

I know this because having a constant back injury has taught me this...until you do actually slip a disc or heaven forbid rupture one then its hard to explain the sheer pain and disruption it causes to your life.

not you personally Sarah, but anyone in general.

[Montague S]

Thing is though as I have mentioned QF with the aircraft they operate really have eliminated alot of issues with stacking bags into an aircraft, Baggage containers for B763 and B743 aircraft are loaded by a person standing upright they have sliding carpets in both the front and rear holds of all their B737 aircraft even though the person would be on his knees in the hold it eliminates the stretching and twisting of the back if it wasnt installed.

yes but what about those baggage handlers that load from the conveyor belt before the bags even get near the plane? surely the handlers are not just loading/un a/c? the bags have to get from belt to dolly/cargo container some how in a neat stack.

the English man nailed it..32kg limit because Qantas can make money out of the extra weight...that's what it comes down to.

[Marty H]

yes but what about those baggage handlers that load from the conveyor belt before the bags even get near the plane? surely the handlers are not just loading/un a/c? the bags have to get from belt to dolly/cargo container some how in a neat stack.

the English man nailed it..32kg limit because Qantas can make money out of the extra weight...that's what it comes down to.

Baggage handlers handle much higher weights than 32kg bags, what about the 50kg dogs the 50kg frozen tuna the 2 tonnes of mail that comes off some flights the 1500kg of seafood that comes off flights, the newspaper bundles the flowers and god knows what else freight we handle, QF handlers whinging over the odd 32kg bag is petty.

[NickN]

I used to work as a storeman for a company selling aged care products and we used to do 2 man lifts on 120kg ride-on scooters and load them manaually into shipping containers. I recall many days loading 40-foot containers all day with those scooters. I would take the 32kg bag any day.

[Marty H]

We deal with those also and try to use two people to deal with them.

[Scott Loveday]

Hi there,

I read some months ago on another forum that industrial action was likely soon because over the years the number of handlers in a team loading an aircraft had gradually been reduced by the airline in question, essentially to generate cost savings and allow the said department management chain to achieve performance incentives. The result was that individuals were really having to flog their bodies to get aircraft turned around on time.

Whether or not this holds any water, I don't know. But it seems a more plausible reason for unionised industrial action than just safety concerns.

[Radi K]

The Union guy on ACA just made thier protest laughable - it was embarassing to the profession.

For the record I argue that the bags on ACA were 32kg and 20kg respectively! Prove on the scales that those bags were the respective weight... A 32kg bag is hard to lift - Grimshaw made it look way too easy..

It begs the question - is the nine network financially associated with Qantas at all? :cool:

[Ash W]

I personally cannot see what the issue is, but with other world airlines dropping their max bag weight I knew it wouldn't be long before the call came in Australia. As others have said 32 has been fine for some time, and unless I am mistaken all bags over a certain weight (is it 25kg Marty?) are marked as such and handled appropriatly. So provided Qantas is doing the right thing by their workers, providing them with the tools and the procedures to do their job safely why is it such a problem?

One thing though some people are getting worked up over baggage allowances, I would just point out that even if the unions get Qantas to drop to a 20KG bag limit it doesn't mean the allowance has to drop.

Shameel, you are close with your comments about US baggage allowances. The US regulations say 2 bags (for Y pax), but they don't mention weight. With Qantas you are right the max is 32Kg per bag, but as I said the Americans are only concened with the number of bags. BA for example have a 2 bag limit with max weht of 23kg on their US flights now. I know this question is O/T but why does the US dictate to airlines baggage allowances. I would have thought it should have been a commercial decision of the airline as to what the limits were not the regulator.

[Daniel F]

US Airways has somehow managed to get around the 2 bags regulation. They are now charging to check in a 2nd bag... http://www.usairways.com/awa/content/traveltools/baggage/baggagepolicies.aspx

[Marty H]

I personally cannot see what the issue is, but with other world airlines dropping their max bag weight I knew it wouldn't be long before the call came in Australia. As others have said 32 has been fine for some time, and unless I am mistaken all bags over a certain weight (is it 25kg Marty?) are marked as such and handled appropriatly. So provided Qantas is doing the right thing by their workers, providing them with the tools and the procedures to do their job safely why is it such a problem?

One thing though some people are getting worked up over baggage allowances, I would just point out that even if the unions get Qantas to drop to a 20KG bag limit it doesn't mean the allowance has to drop.

Shameel, you are close with your comments about US baggage allowances. The US regulations say 2 bags (for Y pax), but they don't mention weight. With Qantas you are right the max is 32Kg per bag, but as I said the Americans are only concened with the number of bags. BA for example have a 2 bag limit with max weht of 23kg on their US flights now. I know this question is O/T but why does the US dictate to airlines baggage allowances. I would have thought it should have been a commercial decision of the airline as to what the limits were not the regulator.

Im unsure what QF requirements are but DJ the bag has a heavy tag for 20kgs +

I would assume yes it would have to drop either that or their excess baggage charges go out the window.

[D Chan]

Hi there,

I read some months ago on another forum that industrial action was likely soon because over the years the number of handlers in a team loading an aircraft had gradually been reduced by the airline in question

If manpower is the main concern, the union official on ACA should have expressed that point or emphasised it more (I might have missed that bit, but the bulk of that ACA segment was focused on the 'weight' issue). I would tend to think the issue of manpower in itself is a more probable / susceptible cause of injury on baggage handlers, rather than the weight of bags because more bags = more repetition and lifting bags - more movement of limps / twisiting etc.?

Why is it the younger generation is trying to strip all working conditions that have been hard fought for.People have to live and if anyone should be worried about the future working conditions it should be all you younger ones.
Baggage handlers 20 or 30 years ago managed to do the same job / task, but probably with almost no OH&S awareness. Nowadays there are significantly greater OH&S awareness amongst workers and management, e.g. lifting techniques, stretching before work to warm up, how to prevent injuries ..... etc. Companies are aware of the hidden costs of Lost-time injury / workers compensation / workers not being able to work etc. - So in a sense working conditions should have improved (because of the greater understanding / awareness in OH&S). OH&S theories and practices probably work because according to ACA, Qantas's LTI figures did drop.

Would also like to mention that the US / Canada etc. follow the 'piece' system, while the rest of the world abides by the 'weight' system for checked-in bags.

[Shameel Kumar]

US Airways has somehow managed to get around the 2 bags regulation. They are now charging to check in a 2nd bag... http://www.usairways.com/awa/content/traveltools/baggage/baggagepolicies.aspx

Not just US Airways, United has implemented a 2nd-bag surcharge for domestic flights, and Delta will do so from May onwards.

Virgin America's policy for Y-pax is that they can check-in only 1 bag for free (32kg/70lbs.)...and a $10 surcharge for the 2nd bag. Makes me wonder how they can have this 1-bag policy if the FAA's policy is that all carriers must allow 2 bags free... :confused:


Just curious though, wouldn't it be to Qantas' benefit if they agreed to lower their baggage allowance? The lower the bag weights, the move weight savings they make, and the more money they make from overweight baggage fees. Sure the weight savings may not be that noticeable, but every little bit helps when fuel prices keep rising... or am I missing something here?

Let's assume:
- A QF 744 with 300-pax onboard
- Use an average weight of about 25kg per bag (since most don't take a 32kg bag with them, and their 2nd check-in is most likely not as heavy as their first)
- 2 bags per passenger (disregard increased weight/number of bag allowances for premium-class passengers)

Total baggage weight is: (25 x 2) x 300 = 15,000kg = 15 tonnes

If, the limit was lowered to 20kg, then: (20 x 2) x 300 = 12,000kg = 12 tonnes


If Qantas agrees to ..say a reduction in weight limit to 23kg, then the airline saves baggage weight, it gains extra money from overweight baggage surcharge fees, keeps the workers happy and the pesky unions off their back, ..and eventhough passengers may moan and groan at first, they really can't complain much since V Australia's free-of-charge weight allowance is 23kg and many other international carriers limit is also 23kg. ... So why hasn't Qantas supported this? (I must be missing or overlooking something here..)

[NickN]

I read some months ago on another forum that industrial action was likely soon because over the years the number of handlers in a team loading an aircraft had gradually been reduced by the airline in question, essentially to generate cost savings and allow the said department management chain to achieve performance incentives. The result was that individuals were really having to flog their bodies to get aircraft turned around on time.


That at least seems plausible. If the team members have been reduced and the reduced team is expected to do the same work in the same or less time to turn around an aircraft, I would accept that QF has something to answer for. That would be the the equivalent of fielding a 6 man football team and expecting them to score the same points as the full side.

As someone mentioned previously, if this was the case it certainly wasn't raised on ACA.

[NickN]

p.s. As for the comment that young workers are trying to erode the working conditions that their previous generations have battled hard for. I have to disagree. I believe the younger generation better understands the business environment of today, the reduced profits associated with certain industries and are prepared to work under conditions which share a middle ground with their employer.

[Ash W]

Just curious though, wouldn't it be to Qantas' benefit if they agreed to lower their baggage allowance? The lower the bag weights, the move weight savings they make, and the more money they make from overweight baggage fees. Sure the weight savings may not be that noticeable, but every little bit helps when fuel prices keep rising... or am I missing something here?

Not quite, people will bring what they want and need. Lowering a per peice bag weight to 20 or 23Kg would bring a minor saving in weight, but bring in extra as excess baggage. Just look at non US International flights where the Y limit is already 20kg, which in reality is really 25kg. How many bring that much.


Let's assume:
- A QF 744 with 300-pax onboard
- Use an average weight of about 25kg per bag (since most don't take a 32kg bag with them, and their 2nd check-in is most likely not as heavy as their first)
- 2 bags per passenger (disregard increased weight/number of bag allowances for premium-class passengers)

Total baggage weight is: (25 x 2) x 300 = 15,000kg = 15 tonnes

If, the limit was lowered to 20kg, then: (20 x 2) x 300 = 12,000kg = 12 tonnes


If Qantas agrees to ..say a reduction in weight limit to 23kg, then the airline saves baggage weight, it gains extra money from overweight baggage surcharge fees, keeps the workers happy and the pesky unions off their back, ..and eventhough passengers may moan and groan at first, they really can't complain much since V Australia's free-of-charge weight allowance is 23kg and many other international carriers limit is also 23kg. ... So why hasn't Qantas supported this? (I must be missing or overlooking something here..)

Why do they need to lower it to 23Kg? As many have said the safety issue would appear to be a furphy and the airline

The thing I dislike about the BA 23kg is when I travel for a work trip I always have around 20-22kg. There are times it is more, times it is less. Without scales at home how the hell do I know if I have too much. Remember the 23kg is a hard bag limit, so if you are over you need another bag. At least with 32kg I know that provided I don't put lead (or several hard back books) in the case I will always be under 32kg.

[Shameel Kumar]

Not quite, people will bring what they want and need. Lowering a per peice bag weight to 20 or 23Kg would bring a minor saving in weight, but bring in extra as excess baggage.

Well still, wouldn't Qantas then gain additional revenue from countless excess baggage fees?
As much as I roll my eyes at unions and their constant demands, it seems like win-win situation for them and Qantas if the baggage allowance weight is dropped to 20/23kg. For those passengers who would abide by the new lower weight level Qantas would save weight (I know, not much), and for those who simply want to bring along everything but the kitchen sink.. well Qantas can charge a decent fee for overweight bags.


Why do they need to lower it to 23Kg? As many have said the safety issue would appear to be a furphy and the airline

I agree that these 'safety' issues voice by the unions are rather trivial, and as I said earlier in the thread, if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen..and let someone who can cope with the job do it. So I'm not trying to convey my point from the unions point of view, but rather from the airline's point of view whereby lowering their maximum free-of-charge weight limit to 20 or 23kg will lead to either a decrease in the collective baggage weight each aircraft has to carry or an increase in revenue from excess baggage fees.


The thing I dislike about the BA 23kg is when I travel for a work trip I always have around 20-22kg. There are times it is more, times it is less. Without scales at home how the hell do I know if I have too much. Remember the 23kg is a hard bag limit, so if you are over you need another bag. At least with 32kg I know that provided I don't put lead (or several hard back books) in the case I will always be under 32kg.

I totally agree with you Ash! With my trips to the US West Coast over the past couple of years I've mostly travelled with either QF or NZ, and I have never had to worry about if my bags were overweight because there was no way I'd ever pack 32kg in one bag alone...but on my latest trip there I flew SYD-HNL-SFO with the HNL-SFO leg flown with Hawaiian Airlines. Their free-of-charge weight limit was 50lbs per bag (= 23kg)..so I was forced to pack less than I normally would. I didn't like having to plan out what to pack rather than just stuff it in my bag like I would normally do with QF and NZ....but hey, rules are rules, and you have to abide by them. If the baggage limit is 23kg, then you just gotta accept it and stick with it (or pay excess baggage fee)... so it guess in the end it doesn't matter what weight you prefer to have, what's more important is the limit that you have to abide by.


At the beginning of next year I will be migrating to The States, and I've booked to fly with V Australia. Their free-of-charge weight limit is 23kg each for 2 bags (50lbs) for Y-pax. If I were to fly QF or NZ it'd be 32kg (70lbs). So this will mean I'll have to very carefully watch what I pack, and ultimately leave a few things behind that aren't vital to take with me on the move over there. Sure that'll suck because I'll want to take as many of my possessions as I can, but I made the choice to fly V Australia, so I can't really complain.