Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 104


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 103
Appendix E Technical Memorandum on Testing RFID Testing Methodology The airline was independently conducting a diagnostic study of its baggage handling opera- tions at the test airport using radio frequency identification (RFID) stickers affixed to checked baggage tags. The opportunity arose to conduct a complementary study of passenger timing at the baggage carousels for reclaiming bags and of participants in the international-to-international program through the use of RFID stickers attached to carry-on items. The basic process was as follows: Airline check-in agent at the originating station issues RFID stickers with unique number to connecting passengers traveling through the test airport. RFID sticker affixed to passenger carry-on item and to corresponding checked baggage read by scanners at the test airport. Figures E-1 and E-2 show process flows and RFID reader locations for international arriving passengers and bags. The test provides an automated and independent measurement of passenger process times from completion of CBP Primary (and Immigration Secondary) through to the FIS Egress Point (i.e., focus on baggage claim). Figure E-3 shows two reader locations. RFID stickers were issued to checked bags and one passenger carry-on item at originating international airports (e.g., Tokyo Narita) for domestic connections (e.g., Miami) and international connections (e.g., Cancun). Over the course of one month, thousands of stickers were issued at multiple originating airports and affixed to passenger carry-ons. The RFID stickers were linked to corresponding baggage RFID stickers from the existing airline study for direct comparisons but was not and cannot be attributed to a passenger record (i.e., study results are anonymous). Results Passenger time spent queuing for and proceeding through CBP Primary processes versus the unload time and transportation time to baggage claim dictate whether bags or passengers are ready at the baggage claim carousel. The percentages and wait times will also be affected by where a passenger is seated on an aircraft (i.e., those sitting closer to the front of an aircraft will typically deplane first and queue for CBP Primary earlier than others) and how checked bags are prioritized or randomly distributed in the aircraft hold. The timing was only measured for international-to-domestic connections (i.e., international-to- international bags do not need to be claimed or rechecked). In general, it was found that 65 percent of bags were ready to be picked up by passengers at the claim carousel and remained on the carousel E-1

OCR for page 103
E-2Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers Figure E-1. International-to-domestic passenger and bag process flows and RFID reader locations. Figure E-2. International-to-international passenger and bag process flows and RFID reader locations. Figure E-3. RFID reader locations for passenger carry-on timing (after CBP Primary and before CBP Egress).

OCR for page 103
Technical Memorandum on Testing E-3 Figure E-4. International-to-domestic baggage versus passenger timing at claim carousel. for 11 minutes, 19 seconds on average. Figures E-4 and E-5 depict breakdowns of average wait times of passengers for bags and bags for passengers. The 35 percent of passengers who had to wait for their bags to appear waited 12 minutes, 45 seconds on average. It appears that passenger processes are generally the constraint for flight connections that require baggage claim and recheck. For passenger timing from flight arrival to exit from the FIS area, there is a significant reduc- tion in time for international-to-international connection passengers versus passengers making international-to-domestic connections (Figures E-6 and E-7). Although bags are often ready to be picked up by passengers at the baggage claim carousel, domestic connecting passengers spend additional time to locate baggage trolleys, find/identify their bags, and exit the FIS area. During peak periods, queues will form at the CBP exit point. International-to-international passengers (and others with no bags) may proceed directly from CBP Primary to the exit point and will typically avoid the congestion caused by passengers leaving the FIS area with bags. For bag timing from flight arrival to bags ready at sortation, there is also a significant reduc- tion in time for international-to-international connection passengers versus passengers making Figure E-5. International-to-domestic baggage versus passenger timing at claim carousel--Histogram.

OCR for page 103
E-4Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers Figure E-6. Time between scheduled flight arrival to passenger at exit from FIS (international-to-domestic vs. international-to-international). international-to-domestic connections. Bags not only have to wait at the claim carousel for passenger pickup, they must also be rechecked by passengers. This represents about a 53 per- cent reduction in time for bags facilitated through the international-to-international program (Figures E-8 and E-9). It appears that the baggage claim process adds a significant amount of time for both passen- gers in the FIS area and bags to be ready for sortation. Relevance to Eliminating/Reducing Baggage Recheck For connections at the test airport, international-to-international (no baggage recheck) con- nections are significantly faster than international-to-domestic (with baggage recheck) for pas- sengers and their checked bags. The study shows 34-minute and 26-minute reductions in times Figure E-7. Time between scheduled flight arrival to passenger at exit from FIS (international-to-domestic vs. international-to-international)-- Histogram.

OCR for page 103
Technical Memorandum on Testing E-5 Figure E-8. Time between scheduled flight arrival to bags ready for sortation (international-to-domestic vs. international-to- international). for equivalent processes for bags and passengers, respectively. This represents an improvement of approximately 50 percent. Note that the airline's upstream operations prioritize the international-to-international con- nection bags so that they are available to be unloaded first and can be inducted into the hub airport's baggage handling before terminating or domestic connecting bags. If international- to-domestic baggage recheck can be eliminated, bags can similarly be prioritized but would represent a significantly larger volume of bags for the airport and airline to facilitate. Eliminating baggage recheck for either international-to-international or international-to- domestic connections could result in significant reduction of time for passengers and their bags (i.e., 30 minutes) that could lead to (a) potential reduction in minimum connection times (see the Minimum Connection Time Modeling section), and (b) increased reliability of connections and schedule integrity. Figure E-9. Time between scheduled flight arrival to bags ready for sortation (international-to-domestic vs. international-to-international)--Histogram.

OCR for page 103
E-6Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers Bag Screening Test Under current regulations and requirements, virtually all connecting bags must undergo EDS screening by a TSA officer before being allowed to be sorted and loaded onto departing aircraft in the United States. The images obtained from the screening process may potentially be used for purposes other than aviation security and could be used for border purposes (i.e., illegal items, contraband, agricultural, etc.). Test Objectives The objective of this test was to determine if images obtained during the screening of transfer baggage by Transportation Security Officers are useful to address the mission critical needs of other law enforcement and regulatory agencies, e.g., U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Methodology A variety of mock-up items of interest were introduced, on a random basis, into 25 different types of passenger baggage for screening at the Transportation Security Administration Systems Integration Facility (TSIF). These items included fruits and vegetables, stuffed animals, veg- etable matter (loose oregano), pills and various powders (milk and spices) to denote narcotic substances, bars of clay to denote plastic explosives, and paper denoting bonds and currency. Table E-1 lists risk items that were tested through the bag screening equipment. Simulated contraband or illegal items were approximated with suitable replacements. Each bag was labeled with a unique number to track the bags in order to determine which ones contained the introduced materials from those "control" bags having none of the mock-up products. The team attempted five separate runs of the baggage on two different types of machines. The first three tests were conducted on current scanning technology using a CTX 9400. It is rated to scan approximately 200 to 300 bags per hour and provides a 2-D image of the baggage. The last Table E-1. Items tested through bag screening equipment. Risk Item Simulated Test Items Boniato (Cuban sweet potato) Malanga lila (tropical root vegetable) Yuca root Fruits and vegetables Chayote squash Jicama Yellow apples Lemon Navel oranges Cocaine--substituted with powdered milk: two 500 mg bags, wrapped and taped Marijuana--substituted with oregano leaves: two 68 g bags and one 34 g bag Narcotics MDMA (Ecstasy)--substituted with 500 mg calcium carbonate tablets: 50 tablets in one bag and 25 tablets rolled in aluminum foil Heroin--Ground cumin: two 90 g bags, tightly rolled Amphetamines--50 acetaminophen tablets in a zipped bag Counterfeit U.S. currency--substituted with fake bills in bundles with rubber bands Currency (average 50 bills per bundle) Recorded/copyright media Pirated media--substituted with plastic spindle of 25 DVD-Rs Negotiable instruments Negotiable bearer bonds--18 printed A4 sheets stacked together Animals (stuffed) Endangered animal species--two plush children's toys with synthetic fur

OCR for page 103
Technical Memorandum on Testing E-7 Table E-2. Illegal or contraband items detected by screening equipment. Number of Items Number of Threats Risk Item Accuracy Placed Identified Fruits and vegetables 13 13 100% Narcotics 8 7 88% Currency 4 4 100% Recorded/copyright media 2 2 100% Negotiable instruments 1 0 0% Animals (stuffed) 1 1 100% Total 29 27 93% two tests were conducted on equipment that is currently in testing for future use at high-volume airports. The L3 XLB system is rated to handle approximately 1,000 bags per hour and provides a 3-D image of baggage. Results Of the 84 bags, 26 had substances representing illegal or contraband items placed in them. The remaining 58 bags had no contents presenting an issue to CBP clearance. These bags were all screened using CTX 9400 (2-D X-rays) and L3 XLB (3-D) machines at an average of 36 seconds per item. Table E-2 shows the results for the 29 illegal or contraband items. Using TSA screening equip- ment, the threat identification was 27 out of 29 (93% accurate). Table E-3 shows the number of false positives (i.e., identified threat, but no contraband or illegal item) and false negatives (i.e., missed threats). Note that some bags contained more than one type of contraband or illegal item and as a result the total of 87 is slightly greater than the number of bags (84). Test Team Qualitative Results (1)3-D scanned images are far superior for identifying items of interest for border and agricul- tural purposes in baggage compared to current 2-D technology. (2)In each test run, regardless of the scanning technology used, vegetable/fruit products were easy to detect and the test team identified the threat because of the density of the vegetable product involved in some instances. The same is true for the clay bars used to simulate plastic explosives. (3)Using the current technology, it was virtually impossible to identify products with lower densities, e.g., the oregano, milk powder, and spices meant to simulate marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. The same is true for the paper currency and the bonds. However, the 3-D scan- ning provided more information using the ability to rotate images on several axes and, in some instances, the image inversion capabilities of the machine. (4)The stuffed animals, although detected in the bag, appear similar to clothing. If a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Table E-3. False positives and negatives identified. Number of Identification Total Accuracy Misidentifications Positive 7 58 88% Negative 2 29 93% Total 9 87 90%

OCR for page 103
E-8Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers (CITES) prohibited product has a bone or calcified structure it would likely be detected by technology. Test Team Notes The test screener did not have any training on either scanner but is a former U.S. CBP offi- cer. Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) normally are trained in the use of the scanning equipment for approximately 2 to 3 weeks. The EDS equipment is also programmed to assist the screening officer in identifying potential aviation security risks and not necessarily border or agricultural threats. The systems have built in parameters to focus on the density of materials (e.g., shoe soles in relation to other items in proximity), but not to detect other types of materials. Relevance to Eliminating/Reducing Baggage Recheck The results from the test indicate that TSA checked baggage screening images can be used by CBP as an alternative or additional risk management tool in order to enable the elimination of baggage recheck. Specifically, it would be useful for international-to-domestic connection bags since these bags are eventually destined to enter the United States. A number of issues would need to be addressed (e.g., training of CBP officers for identification of risks, difficulty in iden- tifying certain types of threats, location of the TSA EDS screening room with respect to the FIS area, etc.). The test team concluded, however, that the review of TSA EDS screening images provides a far superior risk management tool for CBP when compared to the current domestic connections process of viewing the exterior of passenger bags at the Egress Point from the FIS area. International-to-International Connections Feasibility Assessment The current practice for international-to-international connections at SEA is for passengers to reclaim checked bags immediately after being processed by U.S. CBP Primary. After exiting the FIS Hall, passengers must recheck their bags before passenger screening and proceeding onwards to their subsequent international flight. Traditionally, this practice has existed to assist with the identification of risks to the mission of FIS agencies. Historically, 25.5 percent of international arrivals at SEA are connecting passengers. Using data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics T-100 Onboard and DB1B O&D databases, it is estimated that, of these connections, 16.8 percent are international while 83.2 percent are domestic. This percentage is the third highest for international-to-international connections in the United States behind MIA (22.7 percent) and EWR (17.8 percent). The bulk of these inter- national connections are transborder flights to Canadian airports. Test Objectives The purpose of the test was to perform an on-site assessment of the infrastructure, timing, benefits, and potential issues of implementing international-to-international connections at the airport. Methodology The following set of potential operational flows (Figure E-10) is for low-risk international- to-international connections destined for Canada for the purposes of this feasibility assessment:

OCR for page 103
Technical Memorandum on Testing E-9 Figure E-10. SEA potential international-to-international connection bag and passenger flow.

OCR for page 103
E-10Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers Arrivals process: Passengers will exit the aircraft with all other passengers and proceed directly to the FIS Hall and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Primary Processing. Checked baggage participating in the program will be unloaded from the aircraft and held at the ramp level on an unused carousel for possible delivery to the FIS Hall for CBP Secondary Processing. Bag process: After a predetermined amount of time, if bags are not requested for retrieval by CBP, they may be transported by Alaska/Horizon ground handlers to the Main terminal to be inducted back into the baggage handling system using the same process as Preclearance connecting bags. Departure process: Once inducted into the system, bags are inspected by TSA. If cleared, they will be diverted to the appropriate baggage make-up units and subsequently loaded onto the Canadian bound aircraft at the Main terminal. Data collection took place on a select number of international-to-domestic flights on a Mon- day in May 2011 at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport for flights arriving at the South Satellite terminal. Actual live data and observations were made when possible, while estimates and aver- ages were provided by the operational staff who actually perform much of the baggage handling tasks. It is estimated that approximately 5 to 20 bags of the 150 to 250 total bags on a Delta international arrival flight are destined for a Canadian destination on a Horizon flight. Results Infrastructure and Operations Assessment For upstream operations at the originating airport, airline representatives would need to identify which bags and passengers can participate in the international-to-international pilot. The international-to-international programs in place at IAH and DFW make use of identifying stickers on baggage tags and on passenger passports for this purpose. The passengers need to be informed not to wait to claim bags but to proceed to CBP Egress after CBP Primary processes. At CBP Egress, passengers would provide their passport with the indicator sticker and, potentially, their onward boarding passes to leave the FIS Hall without bags. At SEA, transfer bags can be held at an unused baggage make-up carousel at ramp level. The location of the carousel provides an easy location to retrieve and deliver bags in case of inspec- tion at Secondary. The route for delivering bags requested at CBP Secondary would be the same as that of oversize bags (i.e., manually via an elevator). On-site data collection shows that the actual time from the unused conveyor, through the elevator to CBP Secondary is 2 minutes, 10 seconds. For bags connecting to flights to Canada on Horizon, baggage handlers can transport these bags with domestic connecting bags from the South Satellite to the Main terminal. The main difference is that international connecting bags would use the same screening and bag sortation induction point as that used for Canadian Preclearance connecting bags at the ramp level in the Main terminal. Timing Evaluation The timing for each of the steps above was initially evaluated against flight schedules, pub- lished airport border wait times, and other estimates to determine whether international-to- international bag connections could be feasible in terms of timing. It was concluded that the timing for Canadian connections with the potential flows should work better, if not the same, as the current flows. On-site, live data collection for a select number of actual flights was conducted at SEA in order to verify and confirm these conclusions. Some timing data could be captured based on existing operations, while others are based on operational personnel's experience as shown in Table E-4.

OCR for page 103
Technical Memorandum on Testing E-11 Table E-4. Timing data collected at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Data Collected Source Aircraft Scheduled arrival time Published Number of seats Published (aircraft type) Actual arrival / block time Live data Passenger First off bridge Live data First to CBP Primary Live data and published Average/median to CBP Primary Live data and published Last (95th percentile) to CBP Primary Live data and published Time from CBP Primary to Egress Live data Time for passenger screening Operations estimate Bags Begin bag unloading Live data End bag unloading Live data Conveyor time from ramp to claim carousel Live data First bag to claim carousel conveyor Live data Number of transfer bags to Canadian destinations Live data Transport time South Satellite to Main Terminal Operations estimate Delivery time to CBP Secondary/FIS Hall Live data The average resulting timing and forecasted estimates, based on the flows outlined, are shown in Figure E-11. The recommended time to hold transfer bags at ramp level, in case a bag needs to be delivered to CBP Secondary, is 20 minutes. This amount of time ensures that all passengers from a flight have deplaned and have been processed through CBP Primary and to Egress on the basis that they do not have to wait to claim their bags. Figure E-11. Average timing and forecasted estimates for passenger and bag flow.

OCR for page 103
E-12Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers Anticipated Benefits A number of benefits have been identified if baggage recheck can be reduced, specifically for international-to-international connecting passengers: Passenger congestion alleviated in baggage claim carousel area Capacity freed up in baggage claim carousel area Minimum connection times potentially reduced Less bag handling and potential issues Passenger convenience increased Potential step in examining need for bags in FIS area for destination passengers Potential Issues A number of potential issues have also been identified that may need to be addressed: Baggage handlers will be transporting bags that have been screened (domestic connections) and still to be screened (international connections) on the same trip from the South Satellite to the Main Terminal The possibility that bags might be transported to the Main Terminal before passengers are processed through CBP Primary or Egress during times of severe congestion and long wait times in the FIS Hall Resource requirement to physically deliver bags to CBP Secondary Congestion for one elevator used for oversize bag route (and personnel movement to/from ramp level to the South Satellite terminal) Cooperation, training, and action required from participating airlines (i.e., informing pas- sengers and marking bags as connections from origin airport) Relevance to Eliminating/Reducing Baggage Recheck While a number of relatively minor operational issues need to be addressed with local stake- holders (i.e., U.S. Customs and Border Protection, air carriers, Transportation Security Admin- istration, etc.), international-to-international connections similar to existing programs at other U.S. airports can be implemented relatively easily. The infrastructure, operations, and timing at SEA all exist to make the initiation of an international-to-international connections pilot or program feasible. Minimum Connection Time Modeling Reducing minimum connection times (MCTs) at airports generates benefits for airlines and the airport in two ways, without requiring any change in scheduling or incremental investment by air carriers. First, in low-frequency markets, shorter MCTs may permit new connecting itin- eraries to be built and sold, by eliminating some misconnections between cities. This allows carriers to compete for a share of city pair markets they are not currently present in. Second, for higher-frequency markets, shorter MCTs may allow longer connections to be replaced by shorter connections, thereby reducing the elapsed travel time and improving the attractiveness of the connecting itinerary. Test Objectives The objective of this test, on actual flight schedule data, was to quantify the incremental ben- efits of potential reductions in minimum connection times from eliminating baggage recheck

OCR for page 103
Technical Memorandum on Testing E-13 for international-to-domestic connections. Each MCT scenario result is expressed in terms of new connecting markets and additional capacity in existing markets at ATL. Methodology The analytical core of this analysis was undertaken with Sabre Profit Essentials (formerly known as Planet), a high-speed traffic and revenue allocation model used to forecast the market share, traffic composition, connectivity, load factor, and profitability of existing and potential air services. The model is a sophisticated Quality Service Index (QSI) route-planning application used by major U.S. and international carriers such as Delta Air Lines. The following approach and methodology stages for this analysis were employed: 1. Status Quo Analysis: To provide a baseline for comparison, the existing ATL flight schedules were evaluated to determine the frequency and seat capacity of existing connecting itiner- aries via ATL on a directional city pair basis (e.g., Orlando (MCO)ATLSEA and SEA ATLMCO). This stage of the analysis was undertaken utilizing Profit Essentials' July 2011 schedule, which is preloaded with published MCT parameters for each airline/airport/sector combination, as provided by the airlines for scheduling and booking purposes. 2. Reduced MCT Analysis: To assess the changes from reduced MCTs, the published MCTs in the Profit Essentials parameter were changed and then the ATL schedules re-evaluated to determine the increase in connecting itinerary frequency and capacity on a directional city pair basis. To observe the change achieved from moving from the current MCT to a best- case scenario, the MCT was reduced by 5-minute increments up to a maximum reduction of 35 minutes. For example, Delta has a current MCT of 80 minutes; thus, analysis was conducted using 75-minute MCT, 70-minute MCT, and so on all the way to a 45-minute MCT. Other airlines at ATL currently have a MCT of 90 minutes. Results The total number of potential new connections by aircraft seat capacity under seven different scenarios of incremental minimum connection time reductions provided varying percentage increases (Figure E-12). For example, a 15-minute reduction in the MCT at ATL (i.e., 65 min- utes for Delta and 75 minutes for other airlines) yields an 11 percent increase in potential seat connections for passengers. The total number of potential new connections by markets served under the MCT scenarios provided similar percentage increases. For example, a 15-minute reduction in MCT at ATL (i.e., 65 minutes for Delta and 75 minutes for other airlines) yields an 11 percent increase in potential seat connections for passengers. Relevance to Eliminating/Reducing Baggage Recheck ATL has an international-to-international connections program in place that eliminates bag- gage recheck for other passengers and their bags. The elimination of two steps (baggage claim and baggage recheck) provides a time benefit (see the RFID Test section) and results in pas- sengers being able to reach departures gates sooner and bags being ready to be loaded earlier. These time gains from the elimination of recheck, if consistent, can lead to reduced published minimum connection times. The previously mentioned tests show potential gains of 10 to 15 percent in increased possible connections (seats, flights, and markets served) with a 15-minute reduction in minimum con- nection times. Where current minimum connection times are high, a greater reduction in MCT

OCR for page 103
E-14Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers Figure E-12. Potential increase in connections in terms of seats from reduced MCTs. is possible and would result in relatively larger gains for air carriers, whereas airports with low minimum connection times would only allow for minor reductions in MCT and smaller benefits to airlines. Simulation Modeling Discrete-event simulation models are useful for evaluating scenarios in which the results are driven by time-dependent interactions of events. A simulation has the ability to run a number of scenarios in which the model can accept input parameters and assumptions to predict realistic outcomes and provide a virtual test environment. Test Objectives The objective of this test is to develop an environment to test a number of scenarios and parameters around eliminating or reducing baggage recheck. Specifically, the model is able to test scenarios in which international-to-international baggage recheck is eliminated, international- to-domestic baggage recheck is eliminated, an additional bag process is implemented, or a com- bination of these scenarios. Methodology A process-oriented simulation model was developed that can accept flight arrival schedules; input parameters for process times, percentages for passenger characteristics, etc.; run a number

OCR for page 103
Technical Memorandum on Testing E-15 of scenarios; have a visual interactive interface; and provide quantitative results of each simula- tion run. The base model was developed using the simulation software SIMUL8. The software primarily simulates processes at a high level and is not intended as a 3-D emulation or physical and spatial modeling system. As much operational data was gathered as possible as input parameters for such things as aver- age typical processing times for current processes (i.e., walking times, CBP Primary, bag unload times, conveyor speeds, etc.). Anticipated process times for potential alternatives or data items that are not currently or easily collected were assumed from experience and any input from air- port operational staff. In order to capture real airport conditions, actual scheduled flight arrivals (i.e., arrival times, aircraft type, and seat capacity) were used along with some stochastic features (i.e., random variation of flight load factors, etc.). Much of the process flows and process tim- ings characterized from the case study site visits formed the basis of the discrete-event computer simulation model. Model variables were adjustable via user forms such as those demonstrated in Figure E-13. The rudimentary simulation model interface is shown in the screen capture in Figure E-14. Operational rules were integrated into simulation logic where appropriate to simulate actual current or anticipated standard operating procedures. For example, connection bags that do not have to appear in the FIS area are prioritized for aircraft unloading and induction into the baggage handling system. Results The primary performance measurement quantitative results obtained from the simulation were the following: Passenger times (to get to departures) Bag times (to get to sortation) Wait times at baggage claim Several scenarios were conducted using the simulation; the results are shown in Table E-5. Relevance to Eliminating/Reducing Baggage Recheck While the simulation model provided results of predicted passenger and bag times under each scenario, the specific times themselves are specific to a particular facility and its configu- ration. When calibrated for a particular airport, the simulation is useful for quantification of time benefit (for bags and passengers) by eliminating baggage recheck and the identification of constraining process (bag or passenger). The resultant change in timing between scenarios tested provides useful information for informing the relative impact of implementing connections programs and validates alternative procedures. On an operational basis, eliminating baggage recheck for both international and domestic connections decreases the time benefits of only eliminating baggage recheck for inter- national connections, because the bags of both connection types are prioritized above those of terminating passengers. With only a small percentage of bags typically making an international- to-international connection, the timing benefits are quite significant. With a larger proportion of bags getting higher priority, the connecting bags essentially receive the same priority. On an infrastructure and facilities design basis, significant constraints on the system appeared at the ramp level for connecting bags without recheck requirements proceeding directly to bag screening. A larger in-feed conveyor or dedicated buffer space is required to accommodate the

OCR for page 103
E-16 Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers Figure E-13. Input parameters form for simulation modeling test. Figure E-14. Simulation model interface screen capture.

OCR for page 103
Technical Memorandum on Testing E-17 Table E-5. Simulation results. International-to-International International-to-Domestic Recheck Passenger to Bag to Recheck Passenger to Bag to departures sortation departures sortation (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) Required 68.4 73.4 Required 71.4 76.4 Eliminated 31.9 17.9 Required 76.6 81.8 Eliminated 33.6 23.8 Eliminated 33.8 23.8 Eliminated 33.6 23.8 Eliminated 33.8 33.8 (but with additional process) significantly higher volumes of bags. Note that the model does not consider the space requirements for a temporary holding in case bags need to be recalled. The storage area might be used before bag rescreening or after rescreening and after bag sortation. In terms of an overall decision whether to implement baggage recheck for either international or domestic connections, the simulation model results indicate that a small percentage of con- necting passengers not required to recheck bags generally provides greater time benefits. The low volume of facilitated connections, however, may not justify the operational and facilities costs required to implement a connections program.