Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

F-1 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. A p p e n d i x F

F-2 elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving international passengers 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 & Qualitative Satisfaction scores increased by xx percent at connecting airport/whole journey 2. Airline Impacts A. Additional time needed for upline management Quantitative & Qualitative Additional time for passenger care/ground handling at international airport B. Cost/materials for upline processing Quantitative Additional consumables needed to separate bags 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 handling Qualitative & Quantitative Benefits to baggage handling processes (e.g., reduction in 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 & Qualitative Ability to address potential risks from alternative processes 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 Quantitative Ability to meet delivery of bags on-demand to CBP within 20 minutes E. Other impacts Qualitative Other impacts on passenger enforcement processes Table F-1. Evaluation criteria to assess alternative procedures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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