Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 45

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 44
44Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers tagged and separated for individuals participating in this process. Manual solutions (e.g., special transfer tags) could work, but these may vary from air carrier to air carrier. Automated solutions, such as a permanent bag tag (i.e., RFID-enabled Qantas Q-tag), could be used in the future for Global Entry members. Other opportunities could include an additional data field within the Baggage Source Message, or API/PNR sets. Control on arrival: Similar to other solutions, the ability to fully differentiate and manage Global Entry connecting bags from others would be needed. The latter two issues could be resolved with existing processes used by a variety of airlines and/or new tracking solutions. However, the ability to confirm Global Entry status at point of departure worldwide is a critical component that requires further systems development. Ulti- mately, a system that can provide electronic verification of active participation in Global Entry can provide the necessary trust for travelers that their bags will be managed appropriately, and evidence for CBP that it can fully meet risk management objectives. Alternative Procedure 7: Door-to-Door Baggage Service In 2010, SITA estimated that 51 percent of lost bags were due to mishandled transfers. While the overall number of lost bags declined because of reduced traffic, the risk of lost bags in transfers continues to be higher than point-to-point services. A seventh alternative procedure is the expansion of door-to-door baggage services beyond the current limitations within the continental United States (5). Figure 22 depicts the separate flows for passengers and baggage. Process Should this process be available globally, a passenger would print out a waybill through an air carrier website linked to a courier service. The passenger would indicate the destination address on the waybill. Before travel, the passenger would drop off the bag or have it picked up. CBP risk management would review the checked bag as a cargo shipment. The information from the waybill would be analyzed by CBP's Automated Targeting System in order to identify high-risk cargo shipments that require further review. On the day of the journey, the passenger would travel separately from the bag and proceed through the airport FIS upon arrival to the United States without checked bags. Issues and Considerations With the growth of fees for checked bags as well as fees for cabin carry-on items, there is some potential for third party door-to-door shippers to grow in prominence over the coming years. While this alternative procedure can help to remove the need for baggage recheck for one pas- senger, it does little to eliminate an airport baggage recheck outright. Moreover, there are issues Figure 22. Passenger and baggage flow for door-to-door service.