Six years of construction at the airport: baggage handlers demand protection instead of temporary fixes

Six years of construction at the airport: baggage handlers demand protection instead of temporary fixes

Key question: How long do employees at Son Sant Joan airport have to keep working in a half-finished construction site before measures for health and safety are implemented?

In the morning you stand at the glass façade of the arrivals hall, hear the constant droning of the machines and smell the dry concrete dust that settles like a fine film on jackets and suitcases. That is how colleagues from baggage handling describe their shift: not an idyllic office job, but work in the middle of a major construction site that has been shaping operations for about six years now.

The aviation section of the USO union has repeatedly pointed out problems: large amounts of dust, continuous construction noise combined with airport noise, shrinking working areas due to new taxiways and a layout that has forced employees to walk on lanes intended for tractors or service vehicles. For almost two years, staff have shared temporary sanitary containers with construction personnel. The union also criticises that fire extinguishers are not always where they should be and that some hydrants are in poor condition.

This is not just about comfort. Occupational health and safety are acutely endangered: respiratory strain from fine dust, stress from constant noise exposure, increased accident risk on cramped traffic areas and restricted escape and rescue routes are not theoretical issues but real hazards for hundreds of people who day after day ensure that holidaymakers get their luggage back.

Critical analysis: At first glance much seems like the consequence of large construction plans, delays and makeshift transitional solutions. In fact, there are patterns: a temporary plan is continued for so long that it becomes the permanent solution. Responsibilities blur between infrastructure owner Aena, the various service providers and the construction companies on site. When vehicles are regularly parked in front of emergency exits or next to baggage belts, it is no longer individual misconduct — it is an organisational problem that needs clear rules and consistent enforcement.

What is often missing in public debate is the perspective of those who do the physically hardest work. Media reports or official statements sometimes name construction plans, investment sums and opening dates. But they rarely show the details: the respiratory masks that are soaked through after half an hour; the colleague who injures their hand on the conveyor belt because a truck is manoeuvring nearby; the break that is missed because a machine was interrupted at lunchtime. These small, recurring burdens add up to real health consequences.

A concrete Mallorca everyday scene: At half past eight on a hot July morning you see, on the way from the bus stop, the security officer who, with an annoyed look, waves a delivery van back. In the background an excavator hammers at the concrete edge, two baggage workers push crates through a narrow passage; they barely speak because the roar of the construction machines drowns out any conversation. A thin layer of light dust lies on the ground, and someone brushes it off with a gloved shoe sole — a gesture that says more than many statements from above.

Concrete proposals that could have immediate effect: 1. Short-term: Establish sealed, filtered passages between the handling area and the construction site; daily cleaning with industrial dust suppressants; limited construction hours to reduce noise peaks during shift changes; mandatory, enforceable parking bans in front of emergency exits and belts with clear sanctions. 2. Medium-term: Permanent sanitary and break facilities within the secured area; regular, independent measurements of fine dust and noise with published results; mandatory training for all service providers on escape routes and safe traffic management. 3. Strategic: Contractual clarification between Aena and operators on who is responsible for occupational safety; establishment of a permanent contact point for employee complaints with binding response times; annual health checks for exposed staff.

Many of these measures are technically not new and cost less than feared. It often comes down to priorities: Is protecting those who work in the shadow of the cranes really secondary to construction progress and operational tempo? Or is it possible to organise construction processes and occupational safety in parallel so that nobody faces excessive risk?

What must happen now: Aena, as owner, must not dissolve responsibility into grids and jurisdictions. In Mallorca one knows such situations: projects that begin as "temporary" and then end up stuck in provisional status for years. The next heatwave, a radio blackout among emergency services or a wrongly parked vehicle in front of an emergency exit — these are not abstract risks but situations in which people can get hurt.

Conclusion: The men and women working in baggage handling deserve more than temporary toilets and improvised routes. Six years of construction are enough to see that action is needed. Visible changes, clear responsibilities and independent controls are required immediately. If no one reacts to the dirt and noise problems in the rush of flight operations, only one thing remains at the end: the bill for deferred responsibility — and it will be paid with the health of the employees.