Airport baggage handling services · North Carolina

Prospect Airport Services CLT

Charlotte, NC · ~463 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
10.2
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Prospect Airport Services CLT runs at 226% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Airport baggage handling services workplace, earning a grade F.

Prospect Airport Services CLT: 10.2 TCR = 226% of Airport baggage handling services BLS 4.5 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Prospect Airport Services CLT safety composite

Prospect Airport Services CLT scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 14%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

F

28/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 10.15 per 100 workers

Safer than 14% of industry peers

DART rate
F 5.01 per 100 workers

Safer than 29% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

Rising injury rate

Prospect Airport Services CLT: 3.4 → 14.8 TCR

Peak year 2024 @ 14.8 TCR · DART/TCR 0.49× in 2024

Prospect Airport Services CLT's TCR rose 11.5 from 3.4 in 2016 to 14.8 in 2024. In 2024, DART was 0.49× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 488119 · Charlotte, NC ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 10.2 · 226% of ind

  • DART 5.0 DART
  • RANK #50/52
  • PHOTO MIA-SAFS
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 299 inj
  • SIZE ~463 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: MIA-SAFS (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · North Carolina employers → · Look up another →

Prospect Airport Services CLT in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows Prospect Airport Services CLT averages 10.2 TCR (226% of the Airport baggage handling services BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Prospect Airport Services CLT TCR series: 2016=3.4 · 2017=14.4 · 2018=9.5 · 2019=8.9 · 2020=5.5 · 2021=9.9 · 2022=11.1 · 2023=13.8 · 2024=14.8 · BLS 4.5

Where Prospect Airport Services CLT falls in its industry

1,555 Airport baggage handling servi establishments

Safer than 14% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #50 safest of 52 Airport baggage handling servi employers in North Carolina.

Prospect Airport Services CLT (463 employees, TCR 10.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 65 employees and a TCR of 4.5 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 0200400600800 0102030 Average employees Total Case Rate Prospect Airport Services CLT
Prospect Airport Services CLT (463 employees, TCR 10.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 65 employees and a TCR of 4.5

Prospect Airport Services CLT has more employees than the Airport baggage handling services median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.5. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 14.8 5.0 62 18 0
2023 13.8 9.2 52 5 0
2022 11.1 7.5 39 1 0
2021 9.9 5.0 22 0 0
2020 5.5 2.5 8 5 0
2019 8.9 4.5 28 2 0
2018 9.5 4.9 34 1 0
2017 14.4 1.9 44 1 0
2016 3.4 1.0 10 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

488119 · NC · Charlotte

1,555 Airport baggage handling services employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 2,058 employers in Charlotte, NC · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR MIA-SAFS 10.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR 9215-EUG 10.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR LGA 10.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR PHX-SPF 10.1 TCR
STATE-SIZE NC_Charlotte_7800 Crescent Executive Dr._TW140100 463 FTE
STATE-SIZE 500184600 EAST CAROLINA UNIV. 463 FTE
STATE-SIZE City of Salisbury 463 FTE
STATE-SIZE RoCo Library/Sr Svcs/Env Mgmnt/Soil-Water/Animal Svcs/Airport/Tcom/Transit/ROD/Planning/Inspect/BOE 463 FTE
CITY-NEAR 1101-Carolinas Medical Center (1101) 8,444 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0001-Carolinas Medical Center 8,032 FTE
CITY-NEAR 4795-AA-CLT-CHARLOTTE-CLT-TRML 7,295 FTE
CITY-NEAR Novant Health Presbyterian Medical Center 4,973 FTE
NAT-TCR Vdara Hotel and Spa 10.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Lutheran Senior Life 10.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Wolverine Bronze Company 10.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Price Rite Store 425 Bethlehem 10.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Vos Electric, Inc. 463 FTE
NAT-SIZE IAA 463 FTE
NAT-SIZE CFAN Company 463 FTE
NAT-SIZE Systems Engineering Associates Corporation HQ 463 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.