Hubbry Logo
Checked baggageChecked baggageMain
Open search
Checked baggage
Community hub
Checked baggage
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Checked baggage
Checked baggage
Checked baggage
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A suitcase labelled as checked baggage on arrival at Berlin Tegel Airport. The bag tag attached to the handle enables the baggage handlers to load the baggage onto the correct aircraft.

Checked baggage is luggage delivered to an airline or train for transportation in the hold of an aircraft, storage on a coach bus or baggage car of a passenger train. Checked baggage is inaccessible to the passenger during the flight or ride, as opposed to carry-on baggage.

This baggage is limited by airlines with regard to size, weight, and number, usually dependent upon the fare paid, or class of ticket. Baggage exceeding the limits is regarded as excess baggage.

Checked baggage on airlines

[edit]

Checked baggage policies

[edit]

Every airline has its own policies with regard to baggage allowance. Often the policy is also dependent on where the flight goes to or comes from. Tickets executed by multiple airlines may have different rules. Usually the exact conditions of a specific booking are mentioned in the ticket information online.

On short-haul internal flights in the US and Canada, with some exceptions,[a] checked baggage is no longer complimentary with most discounted economy tickets, and must be paid for in addition to the ticket price; a passenger generally has to hold a higher or full fare economy ticket, travel in a premium cabin, hold elite status on an airline, or an airline credit card to be afforded complimentary checked baggage. For long-haul and transoceanic flights, checked baggage is included as standard.

Low-cost carriers such as Ryanair in Europe and AirAsia in Asia charge for checked baggage, whilst for full-service airlines the cost is included in the ticket price.[2][3] Beginning with flights booked on or after May 28, 2025, Southwest Airlines ended its long-standing policy of allowing two free checked bags for most passengers. The airline now charges $35 for the first checked bag and $45 for the second.[4]

Passenger-baggage reconciliation

[edit]

According to the rules of most air transportation authorities, such as the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and European Union's Joint Aviation Authorities, should passengers flying internationally with checked baggage fail to arrive at the departure gate before the flight is closed, that person's baggage must be retrieved from the aircraft hold before the flight is permitted to take off. For Singapore, passengers with prohibited items are required to take it out from the bags retrieved at the check-in counter, failing which the baggage will be flagged with prohibited items and will be dumped away before boarding. In the United States, this does not apply to domestic flights since all bags are required to go through explosive detection machines (EDS) prior to loading. Making sure passengers board flights onto which they have checked baggage is called "passenger-baggage reconciliation" and is accomplished automatically through two commercially available systems.[5] The security presumption of passenger-baggage reconciliation is that terrorists will not want to kill themselves, and will not board an aircraft if they have caused a bomb to be placed in its hold. This presumption does not hold true of suicide bombers.

Unaccompanied suitcases led to the downing of four flights, when a bomb inside the suitcase exploded:

Restrictions

[edit]

Spare lithium-ion batteries, inclusive of battery packs and powerbanks are not allowed on checked-in luggage.

Excess baggage

[edit]

Excess baggage refers to the amount of baggage that is in excess of the free allowance in size, number, or weight permitted for the journey. At the carrier's discretion, this may be carried at an extra charge, but no guarantee is made and it may have to be sent as freight instead. Some airlines impose excess baggage embargoes on certain (usually smaller) routes, indicating that they will accept no (or very little) excess baggage.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Checked baggage

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Checked baggage refers to luggage handed over by passengers to an airline during check-in for transportation in the aircraft's cargo hold, where it remains inaccessible throughout the flight. This contrasts with carry-on items retained in the cabin, enabling checked bags to accommodate bulkier or heavier loads subject to airline-imposed limits, commonly 23 kilograms (50 pounds) in weight and 158 linear centimeters (62 inches) in combined dimensions for economy class. Since 2008, when pioneered fees for the first checked bag on domestic U.S. routes at $15, most carriers have adopted paid allowances, generating over $7 billion annually industry-wide by monetizing what was once complimentary service amid rising fuel costs and competitive pressures. Regulations mandate screening by agencies such as the U.S. , which prohibits explosives, flammables, and other hazards in checked holds while permitting items like sporting equipment or tools under restrictions. Defining challenges include mishandling—encompassing delays, losses, and damage—with data tracking enplaned versus affected bags, revealing persistent vulnerabilities during transfers and high-volume periods despite technological aids like RFID tags. Compensation falls under frameworks like the for international flights, capping reimbursements at approximately $1,700 per bag, though carriers must investigate claims promptly. These dynamics underscore checked baggage's role in balancing passenger convenience, operational efficiency, and security imperatives in .

Definition and Historical Development

Definition and Purpose

Checked baggage, also referred to as checked luggage, consists of passenger property tendered to an air carrier at check-in and accepted for transport in the aircraft's cargo hold, where it remains inaccessible to passengers throughout the flight. This definition aligns with international aviation practices, distinguishing it from carry-on items retained in the passenger cabin. Airlines tag and screen such baggage separately to comply with security protocols, ensuring it is loaded into designated compartments below the passenger deck. The core purpose of checked baggage is to accommodate larger volumes or weights of personal items that exceed cabin restrictions, providing passengers with expanded capacity for extended or specialized without compromising onboard or . By segregating these items in the hold, airlines enable thorough for prohibited contents, optimize weight distribution for fuel efficiency and stability, and reduce cabin clutter to enhance passenger mobility during boarding, , or evacuations. This system also streamlines operations at high-volume airports, where checked items undergo automated sorting and loading distinct from hand-carried goods.

Evolution from Early Aviation to Modern Practices

In the early decades of , beginning with services like those of in 1919 and expanding in the U.S. during the , checked baggage was severely limited by aircraft design, with small holds or external racks accommodating minimal loads to preserve range and stability on propeller-driven planes such as the . Passengers often relied on manual handling by porters or couriers who tagged luggage with simple labels and loaded it directly adjacent to the or within passenger compartments, as dedicated screening or sorting infrastructure was absent. By 1938, the U.S. imposed formal restrictions, capping checked baggage at 40 pounds for domestic coach passengers to mitigate weight-related safety risks on underpowered airliners. The post-World War II era marked a transition with larger four-engine propeller aircraft like the in the late 1940s, which featured expanded lower holds and prompted airports to introduce basic baggage carts and short conveyor belts for ground transport, though sorting and reconciliation remained labor-intensive manual processes. The , ushered in by the 707's commercial debut in 1958, dramatically scaled baggage volumes—global air passenger traffic rose from 88 million in 1950 to over 300 million by 1970—necessitating centralized counters and rudimentary tagging systems, yet mishandling rates stayed high due to inconsistent manual verification. The pivotal shift to began in 1971 with BNP Associates' invention of the first mechanized , incorporating powered conveyors and early sorters to process bags at higher speeds in hubs like , where initial implementations handled thousands of items daily. Security-driven reforms accelerated evolution in the late 20th century; the 1988 bombing of over , , which involved a in unaccompanied checked baggage, prompted widespread adoption of passenger-baggage reconciliation protocols by 1989, mandating that bags travel only with confirmed owners aboard via linked manifests and tags. This was reinforced by international standards from bodies like IATA, reducing risks from transferred or interline luggage. Deregulation via the U.S. of 1978 spurred efficiency investments, leading to tagging proliferation in the for optical scanning and initial computer-assisted sorting. Modern practices integrate digital oversight, with RFID tags deployed globally since the early enabling real-time location via sensors along handling paths, alongside AI-optimized in facilities processing up to 20,000 bags per hour. These advancements have halved mishandled rates since the —from over 6 per 1,000 passengers in 1990 to around 6.3 in 2024—through and automated , though challenges like peak-season surges persist in legacy manual elements at smaller airports.

Operational Processes

Check-in and Initial Handling

At counters or dedicated baggage drop points, passengers present travel documents including boarding passes, identification, and for international flights, passports to personnel, who verify eligibility against booking records and policies specific to fare class, route, and carrier. allowances are assessed, with standard limits often capping individual pieces at 23 kg (50 lb) and linear dimensions (length + width + height) at 158 cm (62 in), though variations exist by ; items exceeding 32 kg are typically rejected due to aircraft handling safety risks as per industry guidelines. Prohibited contents, such as batteries over specified watt-hours or , are inspected and may require removal to comply with regulations from bodies like the TSA. Compliant baggage is weighed on calibrated scales and measured, after which staff affix a standardized IATA baggage tag featuring a barcode or RFID for tracking, encoding details like passenger name, flight number, destination, and origin to enable interline compatibility and reconciliation. The tag is generated via airline systems linked to global distribution networks, and a detachable claim stub is issued to the passenger for retrieval. Excess weight or dimensions incur fees calculated per airline tariff, often prepaid online to expedite the process; self-service kiosks or bag drops allow pre-tagged bags to bypass full counters where mobile boarding passes are used. Post-check-in, baggage enters the initial handling phase through conveyor systems feeding into the airport's (BHS), where automated or manual sorting directs items by flight destination, transfer point, or early bag storage to optimize load balancing and reduce peak-hour congestion. Ground staff or load bags onto carts or tubs, ensuring secure stacking to prevent shifting during tow to the aircraft ramp; this stage includes preliminary visual checks for damage or leaks. Security screening follows, with bags routed through systems (EDS) or trace portals mandated by authorities, scanning for threats like concealed explosives— a process handling up to 2,000 bags per hour at major hubs via computed for 3D imaging. Reconciliation protocols, governed by IATA Resolution 753, mandate logging key milestones from to loading, cross-referencing bag tags against passenger manifests to offload unboarded items, minimizing risks of orphaned luggage; non-compliance has contributed to incidents like the 2010 Dubai crash partly linked to unreconciled fuel-contaminated bags, underscoring causal links between procedural lapses and safety outcomes. Initial handling efficiency varies by airport infrastructure, with modern BHS reducing mishandling rates to under 1% through real-time sorting, though legacy systems at smaller facilities rely more on manual intervention.

Baggage Transportation and Loading

After security screening and sorting by flight destination, checked is transported from central processing areas to the via a combination of automated conveyor systems and manual handling equipment. Bags are directed to baggage make-up zones near or ramp, where they are aggregated based on load plans to optimize balance and . In these zones, luggage is loaded onto carts, dollies, or unit load devices (ULDs) such as containers or pallets, which are then towed by specialized like baggage tugs to the parking position on the . The loading process varies by aircraft type and airline procedures. Narrow-body aircraft often employ bulk loading, where individual bags are manually or conveyor-assisted placed into contoured shelves within the lower cargo holds to ensure secure fit and prevent shifting during flight. Wide-body aircraft typically use containerized loading, with pre-assembled ULDs—standardized bins or pallets filled with baggage on the ground—hoisted into the hold using winches or loaders and secured to the aircraft structure. Ramp agents coordinate this under strict timelines, often using belt loaders or scissor lifts for access, while adhering to weight and balance calculations provided by the flight operations team to maintain aircraft center of gravity within certified limits. International Air Transport Association (IATA) standards, particularly Resolution 753, mandate tracking and scanning of baggage at key points including prior to loading onto the originating flight to minimize mishandling and ensure traceability. This involves barcode or RFID verification during transfer to transport equipment and final reconciliation at the hold to confirm all tagged items are aboard, reducing lost baggage rates which IATA reports averaged 5.6 per 1,000 passengers globally in 2019 before implementation enhancements. protocols, including proper restraint to withstand and evacuations, are enforced to prevent hazards from shifting .

Unloading and Reclaim Procedures

Upon arrival at the destination , checked baggage is unloaded from the by ground handling crews using equipment such as belt loaders for loose-loaded bags and cargo loaders or tugs for unit load devices (ULDs) containing containerized baggage, reversing the loading sequence to ensure efficient offloading. This manual or semi-automated process prioritizes safety protocols, including positioning equipment to minimize worker twisting and alerting teams to heavy items, as outlined in occupational guidelines to reduce injury risks during transfer to carts or directly into the . Unloaded bags are then inducted into the airport's automated , where scanners or RFID readers capture tag data to verify flight details and route items via conveyor belts, tilt trays, or destination-coded vehicles (DCVs) to sorting facilities. Switch points and diverters direct bags to the appropriate reclaim carousels in the arrivals terminal, with IATA Resolution 753 mandating continuous tracking from offloading through delivery to maintain an accurate baggage inventory and enable reconciliation against passenger manifests. Advanced systems integrate real-time monitoring to minimize errors, though global mishandling rates—defined as bags not reunited with owners within 48 hours—stood at approximately 0.43% of the 4 billion pieces handled annually as of recent industry data. At the baggage reclaim area, passengers proceed to designated carousels announced via flight information displays and public address systems, where bags emerge on rotating conveyor belts typically within 20-45 minutes of docking, depending on size, flight volume, and processing for international arrivals. Priority-tagged items, such as those for flights or premium passengers, are offloaded first and routed to early-access belts to expedite retrieval. Passengers identify and remove their bags using visual cues from tags; unclaimed items cycle back for recovery, with procedures under IATA Recommended Practice 1743a guiding tracing of discrepancies through centralized reporting to the operating carrier. For damaged or delayed bags, passengers file claims on-site or via apps, with carriers liable under international conventions like the for verified losses during handling.

Tracking and Technology

Traditional Tagging and Reconciliation

In traditional checked baggage handling, tagging begins at the counter where staff or kiosks generate a or synthetic tag containing a or linear symbology encoding key data such as the unique 10-digit number, passenger name, flight details, and destination per IATA Recommended Practice 740. The tag, compliant with IATA Resolution 740 for interline compatibility, is printed on durable material and secured to the bag's handle using a strap or adhesive, ensuring visibility and resistance to environmental damage during transit. This process, rooted in practices adapted from 19th-century railway systems and standardized for by , routes bags through airport systems by scanning the at sorting nodes to verify against the flight database and direct to the appropriate belt or chute. Reconciliation integrates with tagging to enforce protocols, particularly ensuring no is loaded onto an without a corresponding boarded , a requirement heightened after security regulations post-2001. At the departure or loading area, baggage handlers scan each tag's using handheld or fixed readers, cross-referencing the bag tag number against the passenger manifest or boarding records in real-time via airport IT systems. Mismatched or unverified bags are quarantined for manual resolution, preventing unaccompanied luggage from reaching the aircraft hold and mitigating risks of unauthorized items. This barcode-dependent method, while effective for basic matching, relies on line-of-sight scanning and human oversight, contributing to occasional errors in high-volume operations where scan rates must exceed 99% for compliance with standards like IATA Resolution 753. Historically, pre-1990s tags were simple paper slips tied with string, lacking barcodes and depending on manual transcription for routing, which increased mishandling rates before the widespread adoption of automated printing and scanning in the late 20th century. Reconciliation in these earlier systems often involved physical checklists or token-based matching, evolving to barcode integration by the 1980s for improved accuracy, though still prone to detachment or illegibility issues compared to later technologies. Overall, traditional tagging and reconciliation prioritize verifiable linkage between passenger and baggage through standardized identifiers, forming the foundational layer of airport operations despite limitations in speed and error resilience.

Advanced Technologies like RFID and Real-Time Systems

(RFID) technology enhances checked baggage tracking by embedding passive tags into baggage labels, which communicate wirelessly with fixed and handheld readers positioned at critical chokepoints such as counters, sorting facilities, loading bays, and reclaim areas, achieving read accuracies up to 99.9% without requiring direct line-of-sight scanning. These tags store unique identifiers linked to and flight , enabling automated capture and transmission to central systems for near-instantaneous updates on bag location and status. The (IATA) has championed RFID adoption through its Bag Tag Initiative, launched to standardize passive UHF RFID tags compliant with ISO 18000-6C, targeting end-to-end visibility and projecting a $3 billion over 10 years via reduced mishandling costs. , an early adopter, invested $50 million starting in 2016 to deploy over 4,600 handheld scanners and hundreds of fixed readers across 344 stations globally, boosting processing rates from 350-400 to 1,500 bags per hour and cutting mishandled rates by 10% while improving accuracy to 99.9%. Industry-wide, RFID implementations have contributed to a 60% decline in global mishandling from 2007 to 2022, with surveys indicating 44% of airlines fully deploying tracking technologies by 2024. Real-time baggage systems integrate RFID data with messaging protocols to provide dynamic oversight, often leveraging platforms like SITA WorldTracer, which processes bag messages for reconciliation, tracing mishandled items across 1,500+ airlines and handling millions of daily transactions via a centralized global database. IATA Resolution 753, mandatory since June 2018, enforces tracking at four waypoints—passenger acquisition, aircraft delivery, interline transfers, and final receipt—with required data exchange via standardized Bag Parts Messages (BPMs) to minimize discrepancies during handoffs. Compliance has driven operational efficiencies, including faster aircraft turnarounds and resource optimization, though full RFID integration remains uneven due to infrastructure costs. Emerging real-time enhancements include GPS-enabled tags for off-airport visibility and AI-driven for predictive routing, as outlined in IATA's May 2025 Global Baggage Roadmap, which envisions passenger-facing apps for live bag monitoring via electronic tags and robotics-assisted handling. These systems promise further mishandling reductions—potentially 25% with widespread RFID—by enabling proactive interventions, though adoption lags in legacy airports reliant on reconciliation. Overall, such technologies shift management from reactive recovery to preventive , supported by empirical gains in accuracy and cost savings exceeding implementation expenses.

Policies and Allowances

Weight, Size, and Quantity Limits

Airlines establish weight, size, and quantity limits for checked baggage primarily to safeguard baggage handlers from musculoskeletal injuries, maintain aircraft center of gravity and structural integrity during loading, and optimize fuel efficiency by controlling total payload mass. These constraints derive from ergonomic standards for manual lifting—typically capping individual piece weights to avoid exceeding safe thresholds of around 23-32 kilograms—and engineering specifications for cargo holds, where excessive volume or mass can compromise balance or exceed certified takeoff weights. The predominant weight allowance per checked bag is 23 kilograms (50 pounds), applied across numerous carriers for standard economy fares, though some permit up to 32 kilograms (70 pounds) as an absolute maximum before requiring subdivision or rejection to prevent handler strain. Linear dimensions are commonly restricted to 158 centimeters (62 inches) total—calculated as length plus width plus height, including handles and wheels—to fit standardized unit load devices (ULDs) and conveyor systems without jamming. Quantity restrictions generally permit one to two pieces per passenger in economy class under piece-concept systems (prevalent in U.S. domestic and some transatlantic routes) or a total weight allowance under weight-concept systems (common internationally), with enforcement tied to ticket class and fare rules to align with revenue management and capacity planning. Exceeding these triggers fees or denial, as verified loads must reconcile with flight manifests for regulatory compliance, including FAA oversight of overall aircraft weight and balance rather than per-bag mandates.

Variations by Airline, Class, and Route

Policies for checked baggage differ markedly across airlines, primarily reflecting their operational models. Low-cost carriers, such as and , generally exclude checked baggage from base fares, imposing fees ranging from €20 to €60 per bag depending on booking timing and route length, to maintain low headline prices through unbundling services. In contrast, full-service carriers like and often include one checked bag of up to 23 kg (50 lbs) in fares on international routes, though basic economy variants on domestic U.S. flights may incur first-bag fees of $30 to $40. Travel class further modulates allowances, with premium cabins providing greater generosity to align with higher fares and service expectations. In on major carriers like or , passengers typically receive one bag up to 23 kg on most routes, whereas entitlements double to two bags, each up to 32 kg, reflecting enhanced revenue and capacity for heavier loads in forward cabins. exemplifies weight-based systems, allocating 40 kg total for versus 30 kg for on long-haul flights. Domestic routes in regions like the U.S. or often mirror these class distinctions but with stricter enforcement of fees for economy add-ons, while international itineraries—particularly transatlantic or transpacific—tend to standardize higher allowances to comply with interline agreements and bilateral regulations. Route-specific variations arise from regulatory, competitive, and geographic factors. For instance, flights within the U.S. under carriers like permit one free checked bag up to 23 kg in main cabin economy but charge $40 for basic economy domestics, whereas transatlantic routes include it standardly. In , short-haul routes with low-cost operators like limit free allowances to zero checked bags, with fees escalating for intra-EU flights versus longer intercontinental ones, where full-service airlines may extend economy inclusions to foster loyalty on high-yield paths. Exceptions occur for routes to destinations with local mandates, such as higher weights for flights to or under certain carriers, but core limits remain 158 cm linear dimensions across most global operators.
Airline TypeEconomy ExampleBusiness ExampleRoute Influence
Low-Cost (e.g., )0 free bags; $25–$60 feesN/A (rarely offered)Higher fees on short-haul; no inclusions
Full-Service (e.g., Delta)1x23 kg free on intl.; fees domestic basic2x32 kg freeIntl. more generous than domestic U.S.
Weight-Based (e.g., )30 kg total40 kg totalConsistent across long-haul; varies short

Fees and Economics

Origins and Implementation of Baggage Fees

The practice of including checked baggage allowances in base airfares without separate fees predominated among major U.S. carriers until the mid-2000s, when rising costs and competitive pressures from low-cost carriers prompted a reevaluation of models. Airlines historically bundled baggage handling into ticket prices to simplify offerings, but this masked variable costs associated with weight and volume, which directly influenced consumption and operational efficiency. American Airlines pioneered the shift for major legacy carriers by announcing in May 2008 that it would charge $15 for the first checked bag on domestic routes, effective June 15, 2008, marking the first widespread implementation of such fees among U.S. network airlines. This decision was driven by surging prices, which reached over $140 per barrel in mid-2008, and the need to offset multibillion-dollar losses amid economic downturn and capacity cuts. Prior to this, some regional and low-cost operators, such as People Express in 1981, had experimented with per-bag charges, but these did not set a precedent for full-service airlines. Following American's lead, other major U.S. carriers rapidly adopted first-bag fees: implemented a $25 charge for the second bag in February before extending to the first, while Delta, United, and Continental followed suit by late , with fees typically starting at $15-$25 per bag. By the end of 2009, all principal U.S. legacy airlines had eliminated complimentary allowances for the first two on most domestic flights, generating $329 million in fees from American alone in . Implementation involved updating reservation systems, counters, and baggage tags to enforce fees, often waiving them for frequent flyers or premium classes to segment demand. Internationally, the model spread unevenly, influenced by European low-cost carriers like , which had charged for checked bags since the early 1990s to minimize onboard weight and enable denser seating configurations. U.S. fees initially applied only to domestic itineraries but expanded to transatlantic and other routes by 2009-2010, with exemptions preserved for codeshare partners and international alliances to avoid competitive disadvantages. This unbundling allowed airlines to align revenues more closely with marginal costs, such as fuel burn per kilogram of baggage, though it required regulatory navigation, including U.S. scrutiny for transparency.

Revenue Impact and Economic Rationale

U.S. airlines collected a record $7.27 billion in checked baggage fees in 2024, representing a significant portion of ancillary amid rising operational costs. This figure marked an increase from $6.7 billion in 2022 and contributed approximately 3.2% to total operating in recent years, underscoring baggage fees as a key profit driver in a low-margin industry. Globally, such fees have similarly boosted carrier earnings, with unbundled services like baggage enabling airlines to capture value from passengers willing to pay for extras without inflating base fares. The economic rationale for implementing checked baggage fees centers on product unbundling, which allows airlines to separate the core from optional services, facilitating based on passenger preferences and characteristics. This approach enables carriers to lower base ticket prices for light travelers while extracting higher payments from those requiring handling, thereby expanding overall market participation and revenue without deterring price-sensitive customers. In a highly competitive environment with thin margins, unbundling generates substantial ancillary income—exceeding $17 billion from U.S. fees alone between 2010 and 2014—helping offset variable costs like fuel and labor that scale with passenger load. Empirical evidence indicates that baggage fees enhance profitability by aligning pricing with actual service utilization, as unbundling reduces the subsidy light travelers provide to heavy packers under bundled models and incentivizes lighter loads that cut fuel consumption. Studies confirm this strategy increases carrier profits in competitive routes by enabling flexible responses to , though it has drawn for potentially eroding trust funds like the U.S. Airport and Airway Trust Fund through untaxed ancillary revenues. Airlines justify hikes amid escalating expenses, arguing fees recover costs directly tied to volume rather than subsidizing them via fares.

Restrictions and Security

Prohibited Items and Hazardous Materials

Prohibited items in checked baggage encompass materials that pose risks of fire, explosion, leakage, or toxicity during air transport, primarily regulated by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, which airlines implement through the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR). These standards classify hazardous materials into nine classes, with most entirely forbidden in passenger baggage to mitigate causal risks such as ignition from friction or pressure changes in cargo holds. National authorities, like the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA), enforce aligned rules, prohibiting items that could endanger aircraft integrity or personnel. Class 1 explosives, including fireworks, detonators, , and replica or inert explosives, are universally banned in checked baggage due to their potential for detonation under flight conditions. Incendiary devices such as strike-anywhere or self-igniting materials follow suit, as they violate IATA Table 2.3.A restrictions on provisions. Flammable liquids (Class 3), like , paints, thinners, and lighter fluids, are prohibited owing to vapor ignition hazards in unpressurized holds; aerosol cans with flammable propellants (e.g., certain hairsprays or insecticides) exceed safe thresholds unless explicitly excepted in minimal quantities. Exceptions apply to certain medicinal and toiletry articles containing alcohol, such as perfume and disinfectant sprays, permitting each container up to 500 ml (17 fl oz or 0.5 kg) with a total per person not exceeding 2 L (68 fl oz or 2 kg) per FAA regulations; such items must be well-sealed to prevent leaks, with alcohol concentration preferably ≤70% as higher concentrations may be prohibited due to flammability risks, and bottles or cans must be protected against breakage. Compressed gases (Class 2), including canisters, oxygen tanks, and non-flammable gases like cartridges beyond sporting equipment limits, cannot be checked due to rupture risks from altitude-induced pressure drops. Corrosive substances (Class 8), such as acids, alkalis, mercury, and wet cell batteries, are forbidden to prevent structural damage to or components via leakage. Toxic and infectious materials (Class 6), encompassing poisons, radioactive substances (Class 7), and certain medical waste, remain off-limits, with ICAO emphasizing zero tolerance for unapproved biohazards in . Lithium batteries, classified under miscellaneous dangerous goods (Class 9), face stringent curbs: spare batteries exceeding 100 Wh or damaged units are prohibited in checked baggage, as empirical tests show elevated risks from in environments; mandate for compliance. Devices with installed lithium batteries, such as plug-in electric blankets without batteries or battery-powered versions where the battery is installed and rated under applicable limits (e.g., restrictions for over 160 Wh requiring airline approval), are permitted in checked baggage provided measures prevent accidental activation. Exceptions exist for limited sporting or declared firearms in locked cases, per IATA provisions requiring approval and separate , but these hinge on national laws like U.S. TSA rules allowing up to 11 pounds of small arms cartridges if declared. Non-hazardous sharp objects, such as razors (both bladed and electric types) and screwdrivers shorter than 7 inches, are permitted in checked baggage provided sharp edges are sheathed or securely wrapped to prevent injury to handlers or inspectors. Violations trigger fines up to $175,000 per FAA enforcement, underscoring causal enforcement against undeclared hazards. may impose stricter rules, with passengers advised to consult carrier-specific policies for variations.

Screening Processes and Passenger Reconciliation

Checked baggage undergoes mandatory security screening to detect explosives, weapons, and other prohibited items prior to loading onto aircraft. In the United States, the (TSA) requires 100% screening of all passenger checked baggage through its Electronic Baggage Screening Program (EBSP), established under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act following the September 11, 2001 attacks. This process utilizes automated inline systems that integrate explosive detection systems (EDS) directly into airport baggage handling infrastructure, allowing bags to be screened without manual diversion by officers in most cases. Primary screening technologies include computed tomography (CT) scanners and multi-view systems certified by the TSA, which generate three-dimensional images to identify potential threats such as explosives concealed within baggage. These EDS units, like the CTX 9800 series, can process up to 550 bags per hour and automatically flag anomalies for secondary inspection, which may involve explosive trace detection (ETD) swabs, canine units, or manual opening by TSA personnel. Bags triggering alarms are typically held for resolution, with recent advancements in high-speed CT systems reducing false positives and enhancing throughput at major airports. Internationally, similar requirements apply under standards from bodies like the (ICAO), though implementation varies by country, with some relying on remote review for inbound flights. Passenger reconciliation ensures that checked baggage is matched to boarded passengers, preventing unaccompanied bags from flying and mitigating risks of sabotage. This process, mandated by IATA Resolution 753 and equivalent national regulations, involves scanning baggage tags against passenger manifests at check-in, boarding gates, and aircraft loading. Baggage reconciliation systems (BRS) automate this by cross-referencing unique bag identifiers with real-time boarding data; if a passenger does not board, the system alerts ground crew to offload the corresponding baggage before departure. Non-compliance can result in flight delays or bag removal, with IATA guidelines emphasizing operational checklists from acceptance to offloading to maintain security integrity. Advanced BRS integrations, often using RFID or barcode tracking, provide real-time visibility and compliance verification, reducing human error in high-volume operations.

Mishandling and Risks

Causes of Lost, Delayed, or Damaged Baggage

Baggage mishandling encompasses bags that are lost, , , or pilfered, with accounting for the majority of incidents at 74-80% globally in recent years. and pilferage represent about 20% of cases, while true losses or thefts comprise roughly 5%, equating to around 1.8 million bags annually. International routes exhibit mishandling rates up to five to eight times higher than domestic flights, primarily due to complex transfer processes and longer supply chains. The leading cause of mishandling is transfer errors, where bags fail to connect properly between flights, responsible for 41-46% of delayed bags as of 2023-2024 data. This stems from tight connection times, high passenger volumes at hubs, and discrepancies in or systems during handoffs. Failure to load bags onto aircraft contributes 16-18% of incidents, often resulting from operational pressures like rushed turnarounds or staffing constraints post-2020 recovery. Loading and tagging errors account for smaller but notable shares, at 5-9% combined, arising from human oversight in sorting facilities or at counters where tags are misapplied or damaged. Damage frequently occurs during rough mechanical handling in systems or improper loading, exacerbated by overpacked or fragile items not secured adequately by . Pilferage and , though less common, often happen at high-traffic transfer points or unsecured storage areas, with airlines not liable for pre-existing bag or packing faults. External factors like disruptions or delays add 8% to mishandling, primarily affecting delays rather than permanent losses.

Statistics, Compensation, and Improvements

In 2024, the global rate of mishandled checked baggage—defined as lost, delayed, damaged, or stolen—stood at 6.3 bags per 1,000 passengers, a decrease from 6.9 the prior year and a 67% improvement compared to 2007 levels, despite an 8.2% rise in worldwide air traffic. This equates to approximately 36.2 million mishandled bags annually, with about 75% involving delays, 20% damage or pilferage, and 5% permanent loss or theft, totaling roughly 1.8 million bags never recovered. In the United States, the Department of Transportation reported a mishandling rate of 0.55% among major carriers for the full year, down from 0.58% in 2023, reflecting stricter domestic reporting and recovery protocols. Regional variations persist, with Asia-Pacific achieving the lowest rates at under 5 per 1,000 due to higher automation adoption, while North America and Europe trail at around 7-8 per 1,000, often linked to hub congestion and legacy systems. Passenger compensation for mishandled baggage is primarily governed by the Montreal Convention of 1999, which applies to international flights among 140+ signatory nations and limits airline liability to 1,519 Special Drawing Rights (approximately $2,175 USD as of 2024) per passenger for destruction, loss, damage, or delay, regardless of fault unless proven otherwise by the carrier. For delayed bags, airlines must cover reasonable essentials like clothing and toiletries until delivery, with bags deemed lost after 21 days of non-delivery, triggering full valuation claims up to the limit; damaged items require claims within 7 days, and delays within 21 days. Domestic U.S. flights fall under Department of Transportation rules with no fixed cap but similar reimbursement expectations, though actual payouts average far below limits—often $100-500 for delays—due to required proof of contents and airline negotiations. Over 61% of mishandled bags are reunited via systems like SITA WorldTracer within 48 hours, minimizing compensation claims, but passengers frequently report under-compensation for high-value items absent declared excess value at check-in. Industry improvements have driven the downward trend in mishandling rates, primarily through adoption of (RFID) tags, which enable real-time tracking and reduce errors by up to 30% in equipped systems, as seen in trials at major hubs like Singapore Changi. for predictive sorting and biometric passenger reconciliation at transfer points further cut delays, while automated handling systems—now in 40% of large airports—minimize in loading and sorting. Initiatives like the International Air Transport Association's improvement programs emphasize end-to-end visibility, with projections for mishandling rates below 5 per 1,000 by 2030 via widespread IoT integration and electronic bag tags, though challenges remain in standardizing across low-cost carriers and smaller airports reliant on manual processes.

Controversies and Debates

Criticisms of Fees and Policies

Criticisms of checked baggage fees often portray them as "junk fees" that airlines use to extract additional revenue from passengers without enhancing service quality, thereby inflating the true cost of beyond advertised base fares. In a December 2024 U.S. Commerce subcommittee hearing, Senator described such fees, including those for checked bags, as exploitative practices warranting federal review and potential fines for lack of transparency. Similarly, Senator criticized low-cost carriers like and Spirit for incentivizing employees with $26 million in bonuses in 2023 to enforce strict bag size checks, arguing this amounts to harassment that degrades the passenger experience. A November 2024 report highlighted how unbundled fees for baggage and other services have generated billions for major U.S. airlines over two decades, shifting costs that were previously included in ticket prices. U.S. airlines collected a record $7.27 billion in checked baggage fees in 2024, up from $7 billion in 2023, fueling accusations that these charges serve primarily as a profit mechanism rather than a response to operational costs. Consumer complaints to the U.S. frequently cite unexpected or escalating fees, with examples including passengers facing $200 surcharges for a single , prompting some to forgo checked bags altogether. In response to such grievances, the Department issued rules in 2024 mandating upfront disclosure of baggage fees during booking to curb "surprise" charges, and in September 2024 expanded refund requirements for bags delayed over 12 hours on domestic flights. Policies encouraging checked bag fees have also drawn fire for incentivizing passengers to maximize luggage, resulting in overcrowded cabins, prolonged boarding times, and heightened risks. The shift has created a " crisis," with overhead bins routinely insufficient for in personal items, leading to disputes over space and delays as passengers jostle for storage during boarding. Overstuffed s exacerbate hazards, such as bags falling mid-flight or obstructing aisles, which diverts flight attendants from duties and turns cabins into what critics describe as a "full ." While airlines defend fees as optional for cost-conscious travelers opting for lower base fares, detractors contend this unbundling model disproportionately affects budget-conscious passengers who cannot afford premium bundles, effectively penalizing those least able to pay without improving overall efficiency.

Security Efficacy and Mishandling Concerns

The screening of checked baggage for explosives and prohibited items relies primarily on automated explosive detection systems (EDS) and computed tomography (CT) scanners deployed at airports, which analyze bag contents for threats without routine manual inspection. These technologies were mandated for 100% coverage under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, following historical vulnerabilities exemplified by the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, where plastic explosives concealed in a radio cassette player within checked luggage destroyed the aircraft over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. Despite upgrades, such as integrating CT for three-dimensional imaging, the systems' efficacy depends on calibration, operator training, and threat evolution, with performance rated as improvable from medium to high through device enhancements and procedural refinements. Audits reveal persistent gaps in detection reliability; a 2022 Department of Office of covert testing operation identified vulnerabilities in TSA's checked baggage screening technologies, procedures, and Transportation Security Officer adherence, allowing simulated threats to pass undetected in multiple instances. Similarly, a 2023 Government Accountability Office assessment found that while TSA certifies screening equipment to meet initial detection standards, insufficient post-deployment testing and hinder assurances of sustained effectiveness against emerging explosives or concealment methods. These findings underscore causal limitations in automated screening—such as resolution constraints for densely packed or novel materials—prompting ongoing maturation roadmaps for next-generation sensors, though no post-9/11 terrorist incident has successfully exploited checked baggage channels, suggesting deterrence value amid layered . Mishandling of checked baggage, encompassing loss, delay, , or , introduces security risks through extended exposure to ground handling chains involving third-party contractors with varying oversight. Approximately 80% of mishandling incidents stem from delays during transfers, creating windows for unauthorized access post-screening that could enable tampering or extraction of items. A DHS Office of review of prevention procedures noted systemic weaknesses in TSA's checked baggage processes, including inadequate tracking and , which heighten potentials despite tag-matching protocols. Such vulnerabilities are amplified in outsourced baggage handling systems, where unmonitored third-party access to screened luggage raises concerns over deliberate insertion of hazards, as highlighted in cybersecurity analyses of . Empirical mishandling rates, around 0.5-1% globally, correlate with higher-risk indirect flights, indirectly pressuring by complicating passenger-baggage and forensic in threat scenarios.

References

  1. https://www.altexsoft.com/glossary/checked-luggage-checked-baggage/
  2. https://www.going.com/glossary/checked-baggage
  3. https://uuhluggages.com/pages/comprehensive-guide-to-us-airline-luggage-policies
  4. https://www.luggagepros.com/pages/carry-on
  5. https://www.farecompare.com/travel-advice/airline-fees-bags-history/
  6. https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/global-trends/7-27-billion-and-counting-how-checked-baggage-fees-became-a-goldmine-for-airlines/articleshow/121650475.cms
  7. https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/all
  8. https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/packsafe
  9. https://www.bts.gov/content/mishandled-baggage-reports-filed-passengers-largest-us-air-carriersa
  10. https://www.transportation.gov/lost-delayed-or-damaged-baggage
  11. https://rppa-appr.ca/eng/right/lost-damaged-or-delayed-baggage
  12. https://www.faa.gov/travelers/prepare_fly/baggage
  13. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/1540.5
  14. https://www.nerdwallet.com/travel/learn/checked-baggage-vs-carry-on-what-you-need-to-know
  15. https://navan.com/resources/glossary/what-is-checked-baggage
  16. https://szoneier.com/what-are-checked-bags/
  17. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/history-airline-baggage-161413352.html
  18. https://www.beumergroup.com/knowledge/airport/how-did-the-baggage-handling-system-develop-and-which-systems-are-used-in-airports-today/
  19. https://www.beumergroup.com/knowledge/airport/behind-the-introduction-of-the-ics/
  20. https://www.sita.aero/resources/surveys-reports/sita-baggage-it-insights-2024/
  21. https://stuckattheairport.com/2025/06/12/mishandled-bag-rate-drops-thanks-to-technology/
  22. https://tsi-mag.com/thirty-years-of-passenger-baggage-reconciliation-is-it-still-relevant/
  23. https://www.flypgs.com/en/travel-glossary/check-in-baggage
  24. https://support.southwest.com/helpcenter/s/article/checked-baggage-policy
  25. https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening
  26. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/ops-infra/baggage/standards/
  27. https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/baggage/checked-bags.html
  28. https://www.aiqconsulting.com/blog/a-guide-to-baggage-handling-process-bhs/
  29. https://an.aero/understanding-airport-baggage-handling-systems/
  30. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/5c4aa8b8b3b1432697d2bf3301450684/reso753-implementation-guide---2023_issue-4.0.pdf
  31. https://www.poentetechnical.com/news/checked-baggage-handling-at-airports/
  32. https://www.transvirtual.com/blog/guide-to-the-baggage-handling-process/
  33. https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/baggage-handling5.htm
  34. https://aviationlearnings.com/how-cargo-is-loaded-and-unloaded-from-an-airplane/
  35. https://www.osha.gov/etools/baggage-handling/manual-loading-unloading
  36. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/ops-infra/baggage/
  37. https://javadude.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/iata-type-b-bag-messages-and-baggage-messaging-refresher/
  38. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/e7a533819be440edbb1e49da96e0f2a8/guidance-document-on-baggage-standards-for-interline.pdf
  39. https://www.security-label.de/en-gb/inspiration/the-history-of-bag-tags
  40. https://www.internationalairportreview.com/article/176939/tech-talk-baggage-reconciliation-systems-brs/
  41. https://www.beumergroup.com/products-systems/baggage-handling-technology/iata-resolution-753/
  42. https://www.internationalairportreview.com/article/17096/baggage-handling-a-more-efficient-process/
  43. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/69eb8d1e89ca4c7cbc19c97c6ef5c492/brm-4-cover-tofc.pdf
  44. https://rainrfid.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RFID_for_Baggage_Handling_and_Tracking-UK.pdf
  45. https://www.impinj.com/library/blog/how-airlines-track-bags-and-avoid-losing-baggage-with-rain-rfid
  46. https://www.jadaktech.com/industries/transportation-and-logistics/rfid-baggage-tracking/
  47. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/7d6e4b7e0fbf407eb780e8450102723b/fact-sheet-rfid-bag-tag.pdf
  48. https://www.internationalairportreview.com/article/75586/baggage-performance-rfid/
  49. https://www.peaktech.com/blog/rfid-in-airline-operations/
  50. https://www.caa.gov.qa/en/news/nearly-half-airlines-fully-track-bags-rfid-adoption-rise-iata
  51. https://www.rfidjournal.com/news/using-rfid-airline-industry-making-progress-to-reduce-baggage-mishandling-report/203300/
  52. https://www.sita.aero/worldtracer
  53. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/ops-infra/baggage/baggage-tracking/
  54. https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2025-releases/2025-05-14-01/
  55. https://lyngsoesystems.com/logistics/airports-and-airlines
  56. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/document/information/documentID/511
  57. https://travel.usnews.com/features/checked-luggage-sizes-by-airline
  58. https://upgradedpoints.com/travel/airlines/checked-luggage-size-chart-allowances/
  59. https://travelpro.com/pages/checked-luggage-sizes-and-limits
  60. https://www.faa.gov/faq/how-much-checked-baggage-may-i-take-board-airliner
  61. https://www.skyscanner.net/news/airline-checked-baggage-allowances-your-essential-guide
  62. https://www.klm.com/information/baggage/checked-baggage-allowance
  63. https://www.aircanada.com/ca/en/aco/home/plan/baggage/checked.html
  64. https://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/us/travel-info/baggage/checked-baggage/
  65. https://www.aa.com/i18n/travel-info/baggage/checked-baggage-policy.jsp
  66. https://dannydealguru.com/history-of-airline-baggage-fees/
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X15000736
  68. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0qg3ylx2g9o
  69. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-may-22-fi-american22-story.html
  70. https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/baggage-fees-a-goldmine-for-us-carriers-12519
  71. https://www.quora.com/When-did-airlines-begin-charging-for-carry-on-bags-How-long-has-this-practice-been-in-place-and-what-prompted-it
  72. https://www.bts.gov/content/baggage-fees-airline-2008
  73. https://ideaworkscompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Baggagefeestraveltheglobe-report.pdf
  74. https://myflyright.com/blog/the-economics-and-evolution-of-airline-baggage-policies/
  75. https://www.cnn.com/travel/checked-baggage-tax-rule
  76. https://commons.emich.edu/fac_sch2017/59/
  77. https://www.the-independent.com/travel/us-airlines-checked-bags-revenue-b2759317.html
  78. https://www.mensjournal.com/travel/airlines-making-big-money-checked-bags-heres-how-it-affects-you
  79. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/checked-bag-fees-us-airlines-southwest-united/
  80. https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/us-airlines-net-profit-was-67-billion-2024-decrease-over-2023
  81. https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/who-benefits-from-airline-baggage-fees
  82. https://www.mondayeconomist.com/p/southwest
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969699723000972
  84. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/24/why-airlines-are-raising-baggage-fees-and-charging-more-at-the-airport.html
  85. https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~jkbrueck/course%2520readings/bag_fee.pdf
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9116065/
  87. https://www.visitorscoverage.com/blog/current-airline-baggage-fees-2024-why-they-are-increasing/
  88. https://www.icao.int/dangerous-goods
  89. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/6fea26dd84d24b26a7a1fd5788561d6e/dgr-62-en-2.3a.pdf
  90. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/cargo/dgr/dgr-guidance-passengers/
  91. https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/items/perfume
  92. https://www.thecompliancecenter.com/ca/pack-your-bags-prohibited-dangerous-goods/
  93. https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/items/electric-blankets
  94. https://www.britishairways.com/content/information/baggage-essentials/liquids-and-restrictions
  95. https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/items/disposable-razor
  96. https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/items/screwdrivers-shorter-7-inches
  97. https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/resources/regulations
  98. https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/electronic-baggage-screening
  99. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44901
  100. https://www.tsa.gov/videos/inside-look-inline-baggage-screening-systems-0
  101. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2022/06/01/tsa-debuts-state-art-checked-baggage-inspection-system-new-passenger
  102. https://www.leidos.com/products/reveal
  103. https://www.smithsdetection.com/products/ctx-9800-dsi/
  104. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2024/08/07/tsa-introduces-new-checked-baggage-screening-equipment-salem
  105. https://www.dhs.gov/publication/st-checked-baggage-program-fact-sheet
  106. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-launches-innovative-international-remote-baggage-screening
  107. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/1998554ac6624b97a2de8418938eaade/2025-hold-baggage-reconciliation-iata2025.pdf
  108. https://tavtechnologies.aero/en-EN/products/passenger-baggage-processing/pages/brs-products-services
  109. https://aptaero.com/passenger-handling-solutions/baggage-reconciliation/
  110. https://abomis.com/baggage-reconciliation-system/
  111. https://www.sita.aero/globalassets/docs/surveys--reports/2023-baggage-it-insights-exec.pdf
  112. https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/aviation-mishandled-baggage-rates-improve-in-2024/
  113. https://airport-world.com/baggage-mishandling-rates-continue-to-fall-new-report/
  114. https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/air-travel-consumer-report-december-2024-full-year-2024-numbers
  115. https://avitrader.com/2025/06/13/asia-pacific-leads-in-baggage-handling-as-global-systems-improve/
  116. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/passenger/mc99/
  117. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/credit-cards/travel-rewards/montreal-convention-luggage/
  118. https://www.airport-technology.com/features/how-new-technology-is-improving-baggage-handling-performance/
  119. https://www.idemia.com/news/baggage-handling-transformed-idemia-and-sita-set-take-airport-operations-future-computer-vision-innovation-2024-12-05
  120. https://www.futuretravelexperience.com/2025/01/air-canada-avinor-lufthansa-las-southwest-kef-united-doh-and-more-on-the-top-baggage-trends-to-watch-in-2025-robotics-autonomous-vehicles-bag-tagging-tracking-and-more/
  121. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-airline-executives-face-senate-hearing-over-seat-choice-and-baggage-fees
  122. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024.11.25-Majority-Staff-Report-The-Skys-the-Limit-The-Rise-of-Junk-Fees-in-American-Travel-1.pdf
  123. https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/file-consumer-complaint
  124. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-announces-final-rule-protect-consumers-surprise-airline
  125. https://www.investigatetv.com/2024/09/23/dot-issues-new-rules-protect-air-travelers/
  126. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/02/airplane-carry-on-luggage-crisis-conspiracy/677452/
  127. https://www.lugless.com/blog/overstuffed-carry-on-bags-are-becoming-a-safety-hazard-for-passengers/
  128. https://www.tsa.gov/sites/default/files/checked_baggage_roadmap.pdf
  129. https://www.propublica.org/article/20-years-after-lockerbie-aviation-security-gaps-remain-1222
  130. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969699717300029
  131. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2022-09/OIG-22-61-Sep22.pdf
  132. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107094
  133. https://www.gao.gov/assets/a304517.html
  134. https://simpleflying.com/nyc-airport-worst-mishandled-baggage/
  135. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Mgmt/OIG_05-17_Mar05.pdf
  136. https://www.armis.com/blog/checked-bags-unchecked-access-the-hidden-third-party-risk-in-airport-baggage-handling-systems/
  137. https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2023/06/12/checked-baggage-flight-risk-factors/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.