Crews of less than 1.63 m need help with suitcases

The Supreme Court has issued a sentence in which Iberia is imposed on the adoption of special measures for cabin crews that operate the Airbus A350 that the company incorporated in 2018. According to The published by Five dayscabin trunk have a swinging system that rises over the heads of passengers at a height greater than 1.80 meters. That makes lower stature cabin staff not always closing them correctly. The high court has made it clear: they need help. A height problem on board. The origin of the problem is the compartment closure system in which passengers keep their cabin luggage. For this model, Airbus designed a swinging system in which, instead of closing with a gate as usual, it forces cabin staff to lift each section of the trunk anchoring on the ceiling of the aircraft. As stated in the sentence, the problem is that these compartments are anchored at a height of between 1.81 and 2.20 meters and support a load of about 45 kilos, which “harms the health of the workers” by having to raise their weight above their shoulders. This peculiarity of the A350 adds to the fact of having to make the cabin crew that measure less than 1.63 meters do not close them from the hall “with the body inclined on the passenger seats to be able to close them.” Shared effort. The sentence of the High Court amparo to this case by imposing on Iberia “to establish organizational measures of mandatory compliance for workers with surcharge function when distributing the work in the aircraft that guarantee that the closure of the trunk with the highest ergonomic risk evaluated is carried out by two workers or subsidiarily well by two workers either by a worker with adequate stature.” For those employees who measure less than 1.63 meters, the Court contemplates “that they are helped by another worker for the louder trunk or those who carry a greater weight indicating that they must have the help of a higher -height partner to close these trunk before each flight.” In addition, to establish a work exception for the cabin crew that operates in these aircraft, the sentence forces the airline to provide uniforms made with more flexible tissues that allow the crew greater ergonomics in their movements given the difficulty when manipulating the holders. The problem is not new. The design problem of the A350s and the labor risk regulations of the cabin staff is not new. In 2022, the Iberia Company Committee presented A demand that put the focus on the control of the weight of the hand luggage that was later housed in those compartments that should be pulse elevated by the cabin crew. In that sentence, the Social Court of the National Court has already recognized that it was necessary to re -evaluate the ergonomic risk for the workers that the new work equipment (the aircraft) supposed. In that litigation, the Spanish airline recognized a “moderate” postural risk. Now, the Supreme Court confirms that sentence and forces Iberia to “adopt a technical solution to the design defect.” The touch of attention of justice. From the Supreme Court, they warn the air operator about the obligation of compliance with the sentence, since Iberia’s appeal was “inadmissibly ambiguous” arguing that “it has already complied with it”, while the plaintiffs deny that some measure has been taken to solve the problem of the trunk. The Supreme Court rejects that Iberia’s response is limited “to be replaced by a simple documentary reference to the responsibility of billing and shipment personnel” to control the weight of the luggage, and points out that this is “only a first step in preventive activity, but not its definitive conclusion” claiming “the total compliance with the ordered in the sentence.” In Xataka | The entrails of the Airbus A350-900: the injured plane in Japan and from which its 379 passengers came out alive Image | Iberia

We have been discussing whether it is a good idea or not bassinally during long flights. Crews are clear

May not reach the level of the debate of whether the tortilla It must or should not carry onionbut when we talk about airplanes there are A dilemma that arises in virtually long flights: barefoot or not barefoot? Is it justified to take off your shoes to make a transoceanic flight of more than eight hours more? Is it uncivic? Is it unsafe? To start, do companies allow it? The debate jumps From time to time In networks. And surprising analysis and Surveys That is good to keep present. Travel and shoes. If you take the train or plane frequently, especially for long journeys, you will have seen it A few times (You may even do it yourself): There are passengers who, according to the trip, take off the shoes to be more comfortable. There are those that stay in socks. And others that directly leave their naked foot. It is a relatively common stamp. Just as it is to see how other passengers from the car or plane begin to look at those feet with anger. Click on the image to go to Tweet. A figure: 56%. It may seem a minor issue, but the flights (and train trips) with or without shoes is relevant enough for companies that have dedicated themselves to studying the topic thoroughly. An example is the Kayak platform, which in 2023 published A report with “the tacit rules” of air trips in which he collected the opinions of passengers on issues such as the use of support and players or telephone calls One of the issues he asked in his survey was the footwear in the planes. Are you okay if the flight is long? He obtained two answers, to each more striking. The first is that at least among the Americans there is no A clear opinion on whether it is correct or not take off your shoes on the plane. 56% believe that passengers must remain shoes, but as Slide Kayak itself That supposes that there is another 44% that differs from that opinion. Moreover, according to their data one in five people believe that it is fine to go to cleaning without shoes. Socks, the red line. In what is much more unanimity is that, although a traveler removes the shoes, heels or shoes, what he should never do is get the socks. 76% Of the surveyed by kayak it does not see that people dare of that garment in the airplanes. The percentage exceeds even those who consider that phone calls should not be made inside the plane or that to listen to music or watch movies you have to wear headphones. “It is unpleasant”. In other countries opinions are much more categorical. A while ago Jetstar made a similar survey Among more than 20,000 travelers and found that the majority “unworthy” that there are people who walk barefoot through the airport. The idea only convinces 6% of Australians and 9% of the Japanese. “An airport or plane is not a private living room,” says Zarife Hardy, responsible for the Australian School of label. “Remove your shoes in crowded spaces is coach for others.” In your opinion, you can get your shoes acceptable if we talk about long journeys, during which the traveler spends hours and hours in her seat, but Zariffe remembers That does not mean that I should be with the naked foot. “Wait for the plane to be flying and wear socks or slippers,” he advises. Education question … and personal hygiene. There is another reason why we should think twice if we should get our shoes on a plane. We may win comfort, but in the long run you can carry more serious problems. Especially if we are still barefoot when we want to go to cleaning. “On long -term flights I have realized that people (often children) walk barefoot towards or inside the bathroom,” Explain Jagdish Khubchandani, Professor of Public Health at New Mexico State University. “It is a very antihigienic trend with infection potential if someone has cuts or wounds.” “Sometimes it’s not water”. In case there were doubts about it, Leysha PĂ©rez, regional flight assistant, even went further in An interview with Business Insider in which I explained why moving barefoot through a plane may not be the best idea in the world: “Sometimes what you see on the bathroom floor is not water. Surely body fluids are what you step on.” There are airline crew that directly They confess That “they would never” go barefoot to a bathroom, however long the flight is. “Walking on the barefoot or socks is disgusting,” They underline. And what do companies say? There are cases where traveling barefoot is not even an option. The reason: the airlines themselves prohibit it in their use policies. For example, American Airlines establishes Clearly that all its clients must dress in “appropriate” aboard their ships, and if there were doubts about it adds: “No bare feet or offensive garments are allowed.” Something similar occurs with Hawaiian Airlines, which remember that your staff can refuse to transport a client if you do not meet “the Hawaiian standards of clothing.” And that, clarifies, implies wearing “safety” shoes. Images | Kenny Eliason (UNSPLASH) In Xataka | We have been binding to the suitcases to identify them at the airport for years. Your employees warn that it is a bad idea

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.