Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 121


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 120
Appendix F Evaluation of Alternative Procedures Table F-1 shows a set of 22 evaluation criteria for four primary categories that was developed to assess each of the seven alternative procedures. These evaluation criteria were applied to each of the alternative procedures; detailed results are in Tables F-2 through F-8. F-1

OCR for page 120
F-2Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers Table F-1. Evaluation criteria to assess alternative procedures. Criteria Type Example 1. Market Demand A. Projected volumes Quantitative Sufficient passenger volumes to justify alternative process B. Time savings Quantitative Passenger connecting process saved x time C. Improved customer satisfaction Quantitative Satisfaction scores increased by xx percent at connecting & Qualitative airport/whole journey 2. Airline Impacts A. Additional time needed for Quantitative Additional time for passenger care/ground handling at upline management & Qualitative international airport B. Cost/materials for upline Quantitative Additional consumables needed to separate bags processing C. Costs of retrieving bags Quantitative Incremental cost for ground handler to retrieve bags to CBP Secondary D. Other operational impacts Qualitative Potential to delay other processes based on requirements E. Improved fidelity of baggage Qualitative & Benefits to baggage handling processes (e.g., reduction in handling Quantitative mishandled bags) F. New routing potential Quantitative Airline can generate potential routing possibilities G. Reduced labor Quantitative Reduced FTEs spent on recheck function H. Training Quantitative Incremental costs for training employees on local procedures 3. Airport Impacts A. New space requirements Quantitative Bag storage at ramp level for connections B. Additional staff Quantitative Potential staff needed to aid with passenger processes C. Costs of retrieving bags Quantitative Potential operational capital costs for retrieval (depending on the air carrier relationship) D. Incremental revenues Quantitative Additional fees, concession spending, or other revenue generation E. Terminal space savings Qualitative Potential re-use of recheck facilities F. Competitive advantages Qualitative Competition against other foreign gateways and their international processes 4. CBP Risks/Costs A. Capital costs Quantitative New systems to address CBP risks (e.g., radiation detection portals) B. Risk management Quantitative Ability to address potential risks from alternative processes & Qualitative including referral rates to Secondary C. Refocusing Resources Qualitative Ability to refocus resources to higher-risk passengers and/or bags D. Redelivery Capabilities Boolean or Ability to meet delivery of bags on-demand to CBP within 20 Quantitative minutes E. Other impacts Qualitative Other impacts on passenger enforcement processes

OCR for page 120
Evaluation of Alternative Procedures F-3 Table F-2. Alternative Procedure 1--Exemption of checked baggage from FIS. Category Criteria Evaluation Detailed Analysis Passengers would experience a through-checked bag with this 1A Projected volumes alternative as a default--similar to the experience of connecting through most foreign hub airports. Modeling and testing indicated a 20- to 30- minute savings for Market 1B Time savings most U.S. airport hubs. While difficult to quantify overall satisfaction, ratings from Improved customer 1C ACI, IBM, SITA and other global studies show a sizable satisfaction dissatisfaction with misconnect bags. Additional time This alternative procedure works best with upline 2A needed for upline management--sortation by the air carrier at the origin airport to management allow for priority off-loading of connecting bags. Cost/materials for Manual coding or tagging may be needed as consumables; 2B upline processing largely not a sizable cost item. Costs of retrieving Processes to retrieve bags may be using existing ground 2C bags handling staff, or automated systems to locate bags. Other operational Exception handling procedures during inclement weather 2D impacts needed (e.g., flight delays). Airlines Improved fidelity Fewer bags would require delivery to handling in FIS halls or 2E of baggage recheck facilities (i.e., fewer "touches"). handling An 11 percent increase for 15-minute reduction in connecting New routing 2F time was modeled as a conservative benefit for route potential development. Reallocation of positions currently dedicated to baggage 2G Reduced labor recheck possible, including third party contractors. Airline feedback was incremental training could be built into 2H Training existing operating procedures. New space Some new space needed for baggage storage for transfers--the 3A requirements planning parameters will depend on peaking analyses. Customer service staff will be needed in the first years of any 3B Additional staff program to help passengers adjust to a new syste m. Costs of retrieving Relatively minimal costs to airports for bag retrieval, unless a 3C bags larger system is defined requiring automation. Airports Incremental 20- to 30-minute savings possible for passengers; a share of 3D Revenues those passengers will spend money on retail/concessions. About one-third of passengers connect upon international Terminal space 3E arrival; peak-hour volu mes could reduce the amount of savings carousels needed in the FIS area. Competitive 20- to 30-minute savings in connect time could help grow a 3F Advantages route network to co mpete for international services. 4A Capital costs Some new capital costs needed to m onitor the program. While random and targeted referrals will help deal with issues of contraband, there is a potential risk to introducing controlled 4B Risk Management items into the commerce of the United States for domestic transfers. CBP Refocusing The initiative would be consistent with the "Seamless Travel 4C Resources Initiative" advanced by CBP. Redelivery Airports studied all have protocols for redelivery to CBP to 4D Capabilities help deal with Secondary Processing. The sustainability of the alternative procedure to a range of 4E Other Impacts potential future scenarios for risk mitigation is questionable. = Positive Impact = Moderate Impact = Negative Impact

OCR for page 120
F-4 Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers Table F-3. Alternative Procedure 2--New airline/airport processes on arrival. Category Criteria Evaluation Detailed Analysis Passengers would experience a through-checked bag with this 1A Projected volumes alternative as a default--similar to the experience of connecting through most foreign hub airports. Any new step (and associated alar m/error response) adds a Market 1B Time savings contact point to diminish time savings potential. While difficult to quantify overall satisfaction, ratings from Improved customer 1C ACI, IBM, SITA and other global studies show a sizable satisfaction dissatisfaction with misconnect bags. Additional time This alternative procedure works best with upline 2A needed for upline management--sortation by the air carrier at the origin airport to management allow for priority off-loading of connecting bags. Cost/materials for Manual coding or tagging may be needed as consumables; 2B upline processing largely not a sizable cost item. Costs of retrieving Dedication of staff needed to establish an appropriate method to 2C bags help CBP manage checked baggage risk. Other operational Exception handling procedures during inclement weather 2D impacts needed (e.g., flight delays) and peak-hour volumes. Airlines Improved fidelity Fewer bags would require delivery to handling in FIS halls or 2E of baggage recheck facilities. handling An 11 percent increase for 15-minute reduction in connecting New routing 2F time was modeled as a conservative benefit for route potential development. Reallocation of positions currently dedicated to baggage 2G Reduced labor recheck possible, including third party contractors. Airline feedback was that incremental training could be built 2H Training into existing operating procedures. New space Additional space needed for activities--whether it is installing 3A requirements equipment or other risk management activities. Providing staff to deal with customer service issues or 3B Additional staff operations/maintenance of process would result. Costs of retrieving Relatively minimal costs to airports for bag retrieval, unless a 3C bags larger system is defined requiring automation. Airports Incremental Full time savings for passengers within the process may be 3D Revenues limited with this option. About one-third of passengers connect upon international Terminal space 3E arrival; peak-hour volumes could reduce the amount of savings carousels needed in the FIS area. Competitive 20- to 30-minute savings in connect time could help grow a 3F advantages route network to compete for international services. Costs would be borne by the airport/airline for any new 4A Capital costs mitigiation measure. Delegating risk management to other parties on an auditable 4B Risk manageme nt basis is a method CBP has promoted in other areas (e.g., Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism). CBP Refocusing Some resources would be needed to define, monitor and review 4C resources this alternative process. Redelivery Airports studied all have protocols for redelivery to CBP to help 4D capabilities deal with Secondary Processing. There is alignment of this option with an approach to voluntary 4E Other impacts airport/airline initiatives in return for a facilitation benefit. = Positive Impact = Moderate Impact = Negative Impact

OCR for page 120
Evaluation of Alternative Procedures F-5 Table F-4. Alternative Procedure 3--New CBP processes on arrival. Category Criteria Evaluation Detailed Analysis Passengers would experience a through-checked bag with this 1A Projected volumes alternative as a default--similar to the experience of connecting through most foreign hub airports. Any new step (and associated alar m/error response) adds a Market 1B Time savings contact point to diminish time savings potential. While difficult to quantify overall satisfaction, ratings fro m Improved customer 1C ACI, IBM, SITA and other global studies show a sizable satisfaction dissatisfaction with misconnect bags. Additional time This alternative procedure works best with upline 2A needed for upline management--sortation by the air carrier at the origin airport to management allow for priority off-loading of connecting bags. Cost/materials for Manual coding or tagging may be needed as consumables; 2B upline processing largely not a sizable cost item. Costs of retrieving Processes to retrieve bags may be using existing ground 2C bags handling staff, or automated systems to locate bags. Other operational Exception handling procedures during inclement weather 2D impacts needed (e.g., flight delays). Airlines Improved fidelity Fewer bags would require delivery to handling in FIS halls or 2E of baggage recheck facilities. handling An 11 percent increase for 15-minute reduction in connecting New routing 2F time was modeled as a conservative benefit for route potential development. Reallocation of positions currently dedicated to baggage 2G Reduced labor recheck possible, including third party contractors. Airline feedback was that incremental training could be built 2H Training into existing operating procedures. New space Additional space needed for CBP activities--whether it is 3A requirements installing equipment or other risk management activities. Providing staff to deal with customer service issues or 3B Additional staff operations/maintenance of process would result. Costs of retrieving Relatively minimal costs to airports for bag retrieval, unless a 3C bags larger system is defined requiring automation. Airports Incremental Full time savings for passengers within the process may be 3D revenues limited with this option. About one-third of passengers connect upon international Terminal space 3E arrival; peak-hour volumes could reduce the amount of savings carousels needed in the FIS area. Competitive 20- to 30-minute savings in connect time could help grow a 3F advantages route network to compete for international services. CBP would have some additional costs depending on the type 4A Capital costs of equipment used and deployed. Full control of risk management measures would be defined and 4B Risk management implemented by CBP officers. Refocusing This alternative process could exacerbate shortage of Primary 4C CBP resources Processing CBP officers at some airport sites. Airports studied all have protocols for redelivery to CBP to help Redelivery 4D deal with Secondary Processing; this alternative procedure may capabilities reduce the amount of redelivery to Secondary. Resourcing and funding will become issues at some sites for the 4E Other impacts sustainability of this alternative process. = Positive Impact = Moderate Impact = Negative Impact

OCR for page 120
F-6 Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers Table F-5. Alternative Procedure 4--Enhanced pre-departure information. Category Criteria Evaluation Detailed Analysis Passengers would experience a through-checked bag with this 1A Projected volumes alternative as a default--similar to the experience of connecting through most foreign hub airports. Modeling and testing indicated a 20- to 30-minute savings for Market 1B Time savings most U.S. airport hubs. While difficult to quantify overall satisfaction, ratings from Improved customer 1C ACI, IBM, SITA and other global studies show a sizable satisfaction dissatisfaction with misconnect bags. Additional time This alternative procedure works best with upline 2A needed for upline management--sortation by the air carrier at the origin airport to management allow for priority off-loading of connecting bags. Cost/materials for Manual coding or tagging may be needed as consumables; 2B upline processing largely not a sizable cost item. Costs of retrieving Processes to retrieve bags may be using existing ground 2C bags handling staff, or automated systems to locate bags. Other operational Exception handling procedures during inclement weather 2D impacts needed (e.g., flight delays). Airlines Improved fidelity Fewer bags would require delivery to handling in FIS halls or 2E of baggage recheck facilities. handling An 11 percent increase for 15-minute reduction in connecting New routing 2F time was modeled as a conservative benefit for route potential development. Reallocation of positions currently dedicated to baggage 2G Reduced labor recheck possible, including third party contractors. Airline feedback was that incremental training could be built 2H Training into existing operating procedures. New space 3A Minimal incremental space needed at U.S. airport. requirements Customer service staff will be needed in the first years of any 3B Additional staff program to help passengers adjust to a new system. Costs of retrieving Relatively minimal costs to airports for bag retrieval, unless a 3C bags larger system is defined requiring automation. Airports Incremental 20- to 30-minute savings possible for passengers; a share of 3D Revenues those passengers will spend money on retail/concessions. About one-third of passengers connect upon international Terminal space 3E arrival; peak-hour volumes could reduce the amount of savings carousels needed in the FIS area. Competitive 20- to 30-minute savings in connect time could help grow a 3F advantages route network to compete for international services. Some new capital costs needed to receive new baggage-related 4A Capital costs pre-departure information. CBP has long promoted pre-departure information transmission; 4B Risk management adding this to baggage data. Refocusing The initiative would be consistent with the "Seamless Travel CBP 4C resources Initiative" advanced by CBP and pushing the border outwards. Redelivery Airports studied all have protocols for redelivery to CBP to help 4D capabilities deal with Secondary Processing. Some refocused resources could result to benefit CBP's 4E Other impacts operations. = Positive Impact = Moderate Impact = Negative Impact

OCR for page 120
Evaluation of Alternative Procedures F-7 Table F-6. Alternative Procedure 5--Information sharing with TSA programs. Category Criteria Evaluation Detailed Analysis Passengers would experience a through-checked bag with this 1A Projected volumes alternative as a default--similar to the experience of connecting through most foreign hub airports. Relocation of time for TSA screening may have impacts on peak- Market 1B Time savings hour volumes. While difficult to quantify overall satisfaction, ratings from ACI, Improved customer 1C IBM, SITA, and other global studies show a sizable satisfaction dissatisfaction with misconnect bags. Additional time This alternative procedure works best with upline management-- 2A needed for upline sortation by the air carrier at the origin airport to allow for priority management off-loading of connecting bags. Cost/materials for Manual coding or tagging may be needed as consumables; 2B upline processing largely not a sizable cost item. Costs of retrieving Processes to retrieve bags may be using existing ground handling 2C bags staff, or automated systems to locate bags. Other operational Exception handling procedures during inclement weather needed 2D impacts (e.g., flight delays). Airlines Improved fidelity Fewer bags would require delivery to handling in FIS halls or 2E of baggage recheck facilities. handling An 11 percent increase for 15-minute reduction in connecting New routing 2F time was modeled as a conservative benefit for route potential development. Reallocation of positions currently dedicated to baggage recheck 2G Reduced labor possible, including third party contractors. Airline feedback was incremental training could be built into 2H Training existing operating procedures. New space Some airport reconfiguration needed to allow inbound 3A requirements international connecting bags to be screened upon arrival. Customer service staff will be needed in the first years of any 3B Additional staff program to help passengers adjust to a new system. Costs of retrieving Relatively minimal costs to airports for bag retrieval, unless a 3C bags larger system is defined requiring automation. Airports Incremental 20- to 30-minute savings possible for passengers; a share of those 3D revenues passengers will spend money on retail/concessions. About one-third of passengers connect upon international arrival; Terminal space 3E peak-hour volumes could reduce the amount of carousels needed savings in the FIS area. Competitive 20- to 30-minute savings in connect time could help grow a route 3F advantages network to compete for international services. Some new capital costs needed to receive new baggage-related 4A Capital costs pre-departure information. CBP, TSA, and DHS are actively promoting interagency data 4B Risk management sharing to improve threat detection and analysis. Refocusing The initiative would be consistent with the "Seamless Travel CBP 4C resources Initiative" advanced by CBP and cooperation with TSA. Redelivery Airports studied all have protocols for redelivery to CBP to help 4D capabilities deal with Secondary Processing. Some potential outcome for cross-designation of functions could 4E Other impacts result between CBP and TSA. = Positive Impact = Moderate Impact = Negative Impact

OCR for page 120
F-8 Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers Table F-7. Alternative Procedure 6--Leveraging other DHS programs. Category Criteria Evaluation Detailed Analysis Global Entry is growing rapidly but accounts for less than 10 1A Projected volumes percent of total arrivals. Limiting baggage recheck to this category (or other DHS programs) will limit projected volumes. Market Potential passenger confusion about location of bag could result 1B Time savings depending on status/exception handling. Improved customer An added benefit to members of programs like Global Entry 1C satisfaction could improve customer satisfaction. Additional time Airlines will have difficulty mediating whether a passenger 2A needed for upline presenting themselves for check-in is eligible or not; no simple management way of verifying membership overseas. Cost/materials for Additional system development to provide real-time participation 2B upline processing verification is needed for this alternative procedure. Costs of retrieving Processes to retrieve bags may be using existing ground handling 2C bags staff, or automated systems to locate bags. Other operational Few other operational impacts once the check-in process is 2D impacts advanced. Airlines Improved fidelity Some benefits to baggage handling; Global Entry members 2E of baggage however have fewer checked bags per passenger. handling New routing 2F Limited route development given the smaller populaton served. potential Some savings possible, but limited due to smaller population 2G Reduced labor served. Airline training on accepted processes will be higher than other 2H Training alternative options. New space 3A Minimal incremental space needed at U.S. airport. requirements Customer service staff will be needed in the first years of any 3B Additional staff program to help passengers adjust to a new system. Costs of retrieving Relatively minimal costs to airports for bag retrieval, unless a 3C bags larger system is defined requiring automation. Airports Incremental 3D Some limited benefits due to the narrow population served. revenues Terminal space 3E Some limited benefits due to the narrow population served. savings Competitive Catering to premium passengers will help, but limited benefits 3F advantages due to the narrow population served. Some new capital costs needed to differentiate Global Entry 4A Capital costs bags. CBP is pushing hard on Global Entry benefits; truly equating 4B Risk management checked bag risks requires further study. Refocusing The initiative would be consistent with the "Seamless Travel CBP 4C resources Initiative" advanced by CBP and pushing the border outwards. Redelivery Airports studied all have protocols for redelivery to CBP to help 4D capabilities deal with Secondary Processing. This alternative procedure will support some of CBP's 4E Other impacts international discussions (e.g., Canada, Netherlands, UK, etc.). = Positive Impact = Moderate Impact = Negative Impact

OCR for page 120
Evaluation of Alternative Procedures F-9 Table F-8. Alternative Procedure 7--Door-to-door baggage service (e.g., FedEx, UPS). Category Criteria Evaluation Detailed Analysis Limited take-up to date for domestic programs for door-to-door 1A Projected volumes baggage delivery; international programs are planned but even greater challenges for time-definite delivery and costs. Market Passenger journey will be si milar to those individuals without 1B Time savings checked bags. Improved customer Studies have shown for the most part passengers still enjoy 1C satisfaction traveling with their bags. Additional time This option will reduce demand of passenger checked bags. 2A needed for upline management Cost/materials for This option will reduce demand of passenger checked bags 2B upline processing without direct airline costs. Costs of retrieving Not applicable. 2C n/a bags Other operational Overall capacity improvement for international bag operations. 2D Airlines impacts Improved fidelity Not applicable. 2E of baggage n/a handling New routing Not applicable. 2F n/a potential 2G Reduced labor Reduced labor requirements based on fewer checked bags. 2H Training n/a Not applicable. New space Not applicable. 3A n/a requirements 3B Additional staff n/a Not applicable. Costs of retrieving Not applicable. 3C n/a bags Airports Incremental Not applicable. 3D n/a revenues Terminal space n/a Not applicable. 3E savings Competitive n/a Not applicable. 3F advantages 4A Capital costs n/a Not applicable. n/a Not applicable. Risk management borne by cargo shipment 4B Risk management processes. Refocusing n/a Not applicable. CBP 4C resources Redelivery n/a Not applicable. 4D capabilities 4E Other impacts n/a Not applicable. = Positive Impact = Moderate Impact = Negative Impact