National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions

« Previous: Chapter 3 - Airport Case Studies
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13650.
×
Page 53

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.

37 Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions To eliminate or reduce baggage recheck, CBP must specifically exempt international con- necting bags from appearing in the FIS area. To provide such an exemption, CBP must be sat- isfied that it is able to effectively manage all people and goods that seek entry to the United States. Given the pilot projects in place at four U.S. airports to reduce baggage recheck for select international-to-international connections, CBP is open to discussing opportunities to provide a facilitated process for passengers. Trends in Border Risk Management Relevant to This Study The study team found three opportunities for risk management that are relevant to baggage recheck elimination: • Activities before a flight takes off from a foreign airport • Processes immediately upon arrival at a U.S. airport • Other measures undertaken prior to the next flight Overall, border authorities worldwide are increasing the amount of risk management before flight departures and augmenting the arrivals processes. This effort is intended to “push out the border” in order to identify (and mitigate) potential threats as early as possible. Activities Before a Flight Takes Off from a Foreign Airport In the past, CBP and other border agencies around the world relied almost exclusively on processes upon arrival. Since 1997, CBP has dramatically increased the use of advanced risk management tools before a flight takes off from a foreign airport. These tools include a range of initiatives, from the use of API/PNR data to the recent introduction of Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA), Secure Flight, and other board/no-board programs. More infor- mation on these programs can be found in Appendix D. For the most part, the programs have facilitated handling immigration risks for CBP. The U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program, for example, has assisted in minimizing visa fraud through the use of biometrics. There are, however, few activities that actually take place before an international arrival that deal directly with customs or agricultural risks. Two examples are preclearance and an Australia/ New Zealand initiative to share X-ray images for the purpose of agricultural inspection. There are several potential opportunities for managing risks before arrivals. C h a p t e r 4

38 elimination or reduction of Baggage recheck for arriving International passengers Processes Immediately upon Arrival to a U.S. Airport CBP could introduce a new arrival process/system that would enable a complementary baggage risk management technique to occur between a bag being offloaded from the plane and it being introduced to the airport baggage handling system. This new process would help mitigate the risk involved in the bag not appearing in the FIS area (by default). For example, existing irregular opera- tions procedures have contingencies for how to handle/inspect baggage that arrives at a port of entry without the passenger (e.g., weather delays or baggage mishandle). A range of potential solutions that could be provided to eliminate or reduce baggage recheck include additional screening by a human (e.g., CBP officer visual inspection), technology (e.g., radiation scan), or canine inspection. Other Measures Undertaken Prior to the Next Flight There are additional processes that may manage risks prior to a connecting flight. Some juris- dictions (e.g., Lufthansa and German authorities) regularly employ a hold process to prevent passengers/checked bags from boarding a subsequent flight should an issue arise. Other jurisdic- tions also employ customs/agricultural processes at the final airport destination, rather than at the intermediary point. These options are not readily available to use in the United States because of significant differences in rules/laws governing border operations. Potential Solutions Based on a preliminary review of the opportunities, risks, benefits, and costs, seven alterna- tive procedures were evaluated; these procedures take into account pre-flight, arrival, and pre- connection opportunities. Table 2 identifies the procedures and indicates when they would occur. Alternative Procedure 1: Exemption of Checked Baggage from FIS Since 2007, CBP has been piloting the concept of reduced baggage recheck at select airports. At present, Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and Guam have airports with a model of CBP processing in which not all bags need to be delivered into the FIS area from international flights. As a result, passengers do not need to claim and recheck bags for selected flights. Figure 16 shows a basic flow for baggage exempt from the FIS area. Process For international arrival passengers connecting to another flight, checked bags would be unloaded from the aircraft and delivered directly to TSA baggage screening (either by direct belt No. Alternative Procedure BeforeArrival Upon Arrival After Arrival 1 Exemption of Checked Baggage from FIS X 2 New Airline/Airport Processes on Arrival X X 3 New CBP Processes on Arrival X X 4 Enhanced Pre-departure Information X X 5 Information Sharing with TSA Programs X 6 Leveraging of Other DHS Programs X X 7 Door-to-Door Baggage Service X Table 2. List of alternative procedures and timing of risk mitigation.

testing and evaluating potential Solutions 39 or manual delivery). Once screened and cleared by the TSA, the bag would be diverted to the outbound baggage make-up area. Depending on local operating conditions, the onward con- necting baggage would be separated from originating outbound bags until a locally agreed-upon pre-flight release time. At any point during the baggage process, CBP has the absolute authority to request that a selected passenger’s checked baggage be retrieved and delivered to CBP for secondary process- ing. It is the responsibility of the operating carrier (and the baggage handling team) to retrieve and deliver the requested baggage within a pre-determined timeframe (e.g., 20 minutes). Issues and Considerations There are three major obstacles for widespread implementation of this alternative procedure: • Risk levels: Historically, CBP is amenable to this alternative process when applied for international-to-international flights, but views international-to-domestic with significant caution due to the potential for contraband to enter the commerce of the United States. • Operations: Separating bags between connecting/terminating passengers requires improved tracking capability or dedicated ground handlers to sort/retrieve bags. • Facilities: Bags directed to TSA for explosive detection system screening may involve a man- ual process; storage of bags for connecting flights may also be an issue. Overall, the key implementation issue is whether airport facilities have sufficient space to deal with ramp-level transfers for connecting bags, particularly those airports with a 50 to 75 percent connection volume during peak periods. Alternative Procedure 2: Alternative Procedure 1 + New Airline/ Airport Processes on Arrival To secure support for various facilitation processes, some airports with CBP Preclearance have introduced new processes to provide CBP with more information to assist in risk man- agement. Alternative Procedure 2 outlines procedures that the participating air carriers or the airport operator could advance at the airport which would provide additional information to CBP to assist in its risk analysis. The precedent for this concept is contained within the CBP requirements at Preclearance sites for exempting bags from being present in the FIS area. Process As shown in Figure 17, there are new processes that CBP has accepted to mitigate potential risks: • Bag image: With a transfer passenger’s baggage no longer appearing in the FIS area, a digital photograph of the passenger’s baggage is shown on CBP officers’ workstations. This practice Figure 16. Passenger/baggage flow for checked baggage exemption from FIS.

40 elimination or reduction of Baggage recheck for arriving International passengers has been used at CBP clearance facilities since 2006 outside the United States. (e.g., Halifax, Shannon, Vancouver, Montréal, Ottawa, and for some flights through Edmonton). • Bag weight: Similar to the bag image concept, the ability for CBP Officers to monitor the weight of a bag can help in evaluating its contents. • Other: Other risk management tools that the air carrier or airport operator can provide to augment information that CBP has to work with may be developed from site to site. Issues and Considerations There are commercial off-the-shelf systems that could provide CBP with the appropriate information. However, the costs borne by airports and airlines to provide additional informa- tion to CBP represent a potential obstacle to this alternative procedure. While cost may not be an issue at some facilities, the study team notes that the high variability of “risk” as defined by CBP, and discretion for a Port Director to implement local procedures, can impact the feasibility of this alternative. Alternative Procedure 3: Alternative Procedure 1 + New CBP Processes on Arrival Local cooperation with CBP management has resulted in a third type of alternative procedure: developing special processes for transfer bags on arrival (see Figure 18). Process The specific process will vary from site to site, but could include the following: • CBP Officer Positioning at Transfer Bag Area: To ensure adequate checked bag inspection (i.e., for drugs, agricultural products, or other threats) is undertaken, an officer (and CBP dogs) could be stationed at the international transfer baggage induct point to monitor bags Figure 17. Arrival passenger and baggage flow for new risk mitigation by airline/airport. Figure 18. Passenger and baggage flow for new CBP process for transfer bags.

testing and evaluating potential Solutions 41 being offloaded from the aircraft. Any baggage that requires further inspection would be routed to the CBP Secondary area and the passenger would be directed from CBP Primary (or Egress) to the Secondary area. • Advanced Spectroscopic Portals: CBP is investing heavily in advanced spectroscopic portals (ASPs) to detect radiation at all ports of entry. CBP’s airport facilities guidelines specifically require radiation detection capabilities to be in place for Preclearance facilities in which bags are exempt from the FIS area. Pilot project funding to assist in the improvement of detecting dirty nuclear weapons parts could, therefore, be attractive to CBP. For this study, deploying ASPs for transfer bags could be an important improvement to assist with eliminating baggage rechecks. • X-ray Baggage Screening: CBP does not perform X-ray screening of bags upon arrival as part of its Primary Processing. Depending on the site, an X-ray unit could be located in a separate part of the FIS area or in-line with the conveyor system at ramp level. Eligible baggage could be 100 percent screened or sampled through an adequate statistical method. This capability would enhance CBP’s current screening provisions, which only provide officers a review of the contents of bags when inspected in CBP Secondary where X-ray equipment is located. Issues and Considerations Any alternative that proposes different procedures for CBP means new training for offi- cers and raises concerns about appropriate officer utilization. Airports and airlines have long expressed concern about the lack of CBP officers at Primary booths. There needs to be a careful balance to ensure that the benefits of baggage recheck elimination or reduction outweighs staff- ing allocation costs to ensure smooth Primary Processing at hub airports. Alternative Procedure 4: Enhanced Pre-departure Information A major trend in border management in recent years is to “push the border out” through analysis of information before flight arrival. API and watch list-based board/no-board direc- tives are some examples of this trend. API is a powerful tool but is focused on a select few risk elements—the identity of the passenger—with limited information about checked bags (other than number of bags). Alternative Procedure 4 is the development of new tools that help to provide risk management before a flight reaches the United States. Process Before departure, agreed-upon information is provided to CBP in a standard format (Figure 19). CBP could then process and review information and flag a passenger for Secondary Processing hours before flight landing. The information could include the following: • Bag Image: Making an image of the exterior of checked bag(s) available to CBP is one enhance- ment that has assisted in managing risks for more than one million passengers since 2006. When Figure 19. Enhancement of pre-departure information.

42 elimination or reduction of Baggage recheck for arriving International passengers used in combination with baggage weight image, some CBP officers have cited the ability for assessing certain types of contraband. • X-ray Image: Several countries have started to share X-ray images from EDS to assist with risk management. While the state of this technology is in its infancy, there is strong potential for X-ray images from abroad to play a role in risk management at home. Issues and Considerations Since the failed attack on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on December 25, 2009, the capabilities of pre-departure intelligence vetting have taken on renewed prominence. The com- plexity of information sharing between countries, as well as the privacy rules airlines must abide by, should not be understated. At an operational level, the potential cost of administering a program to send information to CBP (e.g., the proposed US-VISIT Exit Program) could make solutions difficult to implement. Furthermore, there are technical challenges for information sharing because of the size of photo- graphs or other information transmitted to CBP. Nevertheless, this alternative procedure could prompt creative solutions that could serve as a future platform for the evolution of pre-departure intelligence and information processing. Alternative Procedure 5: Information Sharing with TSA Programs TSA and CBP are currently in an era of renewed data sharing. From cargo security to the implementation of Secure Flight, both DHS agencies have improved collaboration to com- bat potential terrorist and other threats. The level and urgency of cooperation has also been strengthened since the failed attack in Fall 2010 on UPS and FedEx aircraft. As a result, the opportunity to leverage TSA activities was discussed. Currently, all connecting baggage is subject to TSA baggage screening. For the international bag connection procedures operating at DFW, IAH, ATL, and GUM, all bags are inspected by the TSA after being unloaded from the aircraft and before being moved to the baggage make-up area (Figure 20). The TSA X-ray image could be of great value in augmenting the current CBP inspection process. The opportunity to share the X-ray image and/or intelligence between the branches of the DHS would provide CBP with increased awareness of baggage contents and could occur through multiple mechanisms: • CBP officer in TSA bag screening area • Transmission of TSA X-ray image to a workstation monitored by a CBP officer • Dual processor within X-ray unit to run the TSA algorithm and a CBP-designed algorithm It is recognized that these concepts need further evaluation within the existing DHS regula- tions, codes, and policies. Figure 20. Passenger and baggage flow for information sharing with TSA programs.

testing and evaluating potential Solutions 43 Alternative Procedure 6: Leveraging Other DHS Programs Using existing DHS programs, such as Global Entry, that allow trusted travelers to not have to claim their checked baggage is one way to reduce baggage recheck (see Figure 21). Global Entry is a voluntary trusted traveler program that enables a kiosk-facilitated international arrivals pro- cess into the United States for travelers who have successfully passed a detailed risk/background analysis. Upon completion, the accepted members are deemed by CBP to be of “low risk.” The benefit to the traveler is a consistently faster CBP inspection process on arrival to the United States. CBP has the benefit of conducting a much more thorough risk assessment of Global Entry members before they arrive at the port of entry and thus can focus its resources on those travelers for which they have less information upon arrival. At the time this study was conducted, Global Entry had no interaction with airlines overseas, nor does it deal with Global Entry members’ checked bags. In concept, reducing the need for baggage recheck for all Global Entry members is sound, as these individuals have already been recognized as “low risk” and thus worthy of a facilitated process. Further, it would support the CBP initiative to increase Global Entry participation by improving the benefits of membership. As of mid-2011, there are 100,000 members, and this volume is set to grow with increased international collaboration. Although the program was initially designed with frequent fliers in mind, it is open to anyone who holds U.S. citizenship (or lawful permanent residents), Dutch citizens, Mexican nationals, and Canadian Nexus (a joint U.S./Canada trusted traveler program) members. For the bags of Global Entry members with an interlined/same carrier connection to be pro- cessed without baggage recheck, a number of procedural changes are necessary: • Confirmation of Global Entry Status: Airline check-in agents overseas need a way to confirm participation in Global Entry in order for this to be a sustainable solution. In August 2011, CBP announced the introduction of a Global Entry membership card with RFID technology (i.e., the same technology as the Nexus card). This card is an important step but not a com- plete solution to enable point-of-origin confirmation of active status in Global Entry. The critical issue is validating that the person presenting the card is in good standing with their Global Entry membership, for example, ensuring that the passenger is not presenting a fraud- ulent Global Entry card, that the current passport is updated to the Global Entry account, and that the passenger has not recently been removed from the program without confiscation of the card. A complete solution, one without a “hole,” would require confirmation that the holder of the Global Entry card is the same person identified on the card and that the person is an active participant in the Global Entry program (e.g., TSA Secure Flight verification at point of origin). • Tagging to final destination: Assuming that airline agents are able to differentiate Global Entry members from non-members, the next step is to ensure that bags can be adequately Figure 21. Passenger and baggage flow for leveraging other DHS programs.

44 elimination 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.

testing and evaluating potential Solutions 45 associated with the rejection of a bag being imported into the United States that would increase both the fee for international door-to-door services and the logistics of handling CBP referrals to Secondary for air cargo shipment of passenger bags. Alternative Procedure Variations Beyond the seven categories of alternative procedures, several additional directions could be considered, pending further development: • Large group handling: Where there are large groups of people (e.g., conventions, cruises, special events) with identical connecting routes, special procedures to deal with eliminating baggage recheck have been developed. These are site specific but could offer potential solu- tions that are relevant during peak-hour conditions. For example, the large number of visitors at and then departing Disney World is provided an off-site check-in facility to facilitate their process. • Remote declaration: Global Entry has modified the Customs Declaration process to be an on-screen kiosk interaction between a passenger and CBP. Should technologies for in-flight communications continue to evolve, there may be additional programs developed that could assist in managing the flow of bags at transfer points. High-Level Evaluation Model A high-level evaluation model was outlined to prioritize the key benefits/costs for baggage recheck elimination/reduction based on the following four categories. Market Demand All solutions must be derived from market demand. A critical mass of travelers is needed to enable solutions to be facilitated. These can be based on improving customer satisfaction and new routing potential, among other criteria. Airlines New solutions could impose additional capital/operational costs on airlines. Of critical concern to the airlines are the incremental costs associated directly with the alternative process to produce a system cost reduction or neutral impact. For example, a shift of resources from the baggage recheck area to the ground handling team, or the process/costs, could be absorbed within existing ground handling and customer staff processes. The costs of the upline manage- ment (i.e., before a flight leaves for the United States) also must be factored into the evaluation criteria. Airports Airport costs are related to transport equipment and facilities (e.g., storage, sortation), passenger way-finding solutions, and/or additional facility/signage changes. However, the costs associated with the airport are mitigated by its ability to stimulate new traffic, which in turn can stimulate additional aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues (e.g., concessions). CBP Risk Management Finally, CBP’s continued ability to conduct effective risk management techniques/protocols is of primary importance. While there are national parameters that will be used to mitigate key

46 elimination or reduction of Baggage recheck for arriving International passengers threats (e.g., customs, agriculture, immigration), there could be variability in risk mitigation from site to site based on local conditions. A more detailed list of criteria is outlined in Appendix F. See Appendix G for the results of the peer review session ratings of each of the aforementioned alternative procedures. Testing Process and Results Based on the high-level evaluation model, a series of tests was defined to identify the potential for eliminating or reducing the need for baggage recheck: • Test 1: Process flows were tracked using RFID tags to determine the timing of bags and pas- sengers in order to assess air carrier, airport, and CBP process timing (DFW). • Test 2: The proposed solution for CBP review of TSA X-ray images as a risk mitigation solu- tion was examined (ATL and TSA Transportation Systems Integration Facility). • Test 3: The potential expansion of international-to-international baggage recheck elimina- tion at a facility (SEA) was reviewed. • Test 4: The market demand benefits of baggage recheck elimination was modeled based on minimum connection time reduction (ATL). • Test 5: The results were modeled in a discrete simulation program. Test 1: Radio Frequency Identification Passenger and Bag Timing The first test was driven by a major concern shared by stakeholders during the original site visits. If baggage recheck was eliminated and bags were not needed in the FIS area, could there be situations where passengers would nevertheless be delayed, reducing the time savings benefits of eliminating baggage recheck? RFID technology was selected to enable automatic collection of large amounts of process tim- ing data. The test airport (DFW) already had an international-to-international program with baggage recheck eliminated. As a result, there was a good control timing to compare with a sector of traffic (international-to-domestic connections) that had baggage recheck. Test Objectives The purpose of the test was to characterize the timing for both bags and passengers (via a carry-on item) in order to quantitatively test the operational impact under real airport condi- tions and enable a comparison of current bag program processes versus potential alternative processes in order to estimate the order-of-magnitude time savings for alternative steps. The objectives of the carry-on process time testing, conducted in conjunction with the airline RFID baggage study, were as follows: • Characterization of baggage reclaim process timing (i.e., does the passenger wait for bags at the carousel or vice versa? How frequently does this occur?) • Comparison of baggage recheck process times (i.e., current international-to-domestic con- nections) against those of the international-to-international program • Establishment of the order-of-magnitude time savings for eliminating baggage recheck Methodology Working closely with the airline, CBP, and the airport, the study team installed a series of RFID tag readers throughout the arrivals process to record timing data at each step. Tags affixed

testing and evaluating potential Solutions 47 to carry-on bags and checked bags enabled the mapping of flows on select flight segments. For more details on the methodology, see Appendix E. Key Results For passenger timing from flight arrival to exit from the FIS area, a significant reduction in time occurred as a result of baggage recheck elimination. Although bags were often ready to be picked up by passengers at the baggage claim carousel, connecting passengers needed addi- tional time to locate baggage carts, find/identify their bags, and exit the FIS area. This delay is exacerbated during peak periods with queues forming at the CBP Egress Point. International- to-international passengers using baggage recheck elimination, and other passengers with no bags, could proceed directly from CBP Primary to the Egress Point and would typically avoid the congestion caused by passengers leaving the FIS area with bags. Key results were as follows: • The net result was an average time savings of 26 minutes for passengers with baggage recheck elimination (Figure 23). • Transfer bags were available, on average, 34 minutes earlier for sortation for the next flight. • Those passengers with baggage recheck eliminated stayed within the FIS area for an average of about 34 minutes and no longer than 80 minutes. • By comparison, the range for passengers without baggage recheck elimination was 60 minutes, with some passengers staying within the FIS area well over 120 minutes. While the study team found positive results for time savings for baggage recheck elimination, it also noted that there were some aspects of passenger processing that limited some of the full benefits: • Without baggage recheck elimination, the study team found that 65 percent of bags were ready to be picked up by passengers at the claim carousel and remained on the carousel for 11 minutes, 19 seconds on average. • The 35 percent of passengers who had to wait for their bags to appear waited on average for 12 minutes, 45 seconds. Baggage recheck elimination would completely remove the 12-minute, 45-second average wait for bags. However, the study team found the 11-minute, 19-second average wait by bags for passengers to be a function of the overall wait time for CBP Primary Processing, which can vary by time of day and peak periods found at international arrivals. For more information on this study site, see Appendix E. Figure 23. Time savings from baggage recheck elimination.

48 elimination or reduction of Baggage recheck for arriving International passengers Test 2: Information Sharing Between TSA and CBP on Connecting Bags At a number of sites interviewed for this study, CBP and TSA staff commented on the need for greater cooperation between both DHS agencies. In 2010, new positions were created in each organization in order to increase the liaison between both agencies. Responses to averted terror- ist attacks in Fall 2010 further increased the level of cooperation and advanced specific initiatives to bolster information sharing. The study team reviewed the relevance of information sharing in the context of baggage recheck elimination. A proposed model of operations in Atlanta was highlighted whereby TSA images from EDS would be available for CBP review. Like a number of airports, ATL featured a design where EDS are located immediately beneath the CBP facility, providing easy access to image review rooms. Instead, TSA agreed to host a test at the TSA Systems Integration Facility (TSIF), with a CBP- trained individual to operate a test. Test Objectives X-ray images can provide added information for CBP, but TSA equipment is currently geared toward explosive detection. In fact, CBP has its own X-ray equipment specifically designed for agricultural screening in its Secondary Processing area. Nevertheless, the ability to view the inte- rior contents of checked bags would provide more information than CBP currently has within its FIS. Therefore, the test objective was to determine whether 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, such as CBP. Methodology A test kit was developed to emulate common threat objectives. No testing was done for explosive detection or prohibited items. Instead, items were selected in a test kit to emulate common threat items CBP seeks to interdict. These items included fruits and vegetables, stuffed animals, vegetable matter, pills and various powders, bars of clay, and bonds and currency. Contraband or illegal items were simulated with look-alike replacements. For more details on the methodology, see Appendix E. Key Results Key results were as follows: • As shown in Figure 24, the individual trained in CBP detection processes was able to use TSA EDS images for positive matches of suspect and contraband items. • A false acceptance rate of 7 percent was found, primarily around paper and items with lower densities. Figure 24. Test results for detecting contraband and clearance of checked bags.

testing and evaluating potential Solutions 49 • Next generation three-dimensional scanned images are far superior for identifying items of interest in baggage for border and agricultural purposes compared to current technologies. • Vegetable/fruit products were easy to detect, and in some instances the test team identified the threat because of the density of the vegetable product involved. • If a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) volatile product has a bone or calcified structure, it would likely be detected on either technology or equipment. • Time for each image reviewed was about 36 seconds; note that the CBP staff person did not have specific EDS equipment training for this test, so this process rate could be improved significantly with training and experience. Overall, the test was positive in demonstrating a small-scale application of existing EDS tech- nologies, tailored toward an individual trained in CBP/agricultural products detection. Quali- tative feedback indicated the images were useful in achieving CBP’s mission. Note that EDS machines are not geared specifically for CBP purposes. However, the low false acceptance rate and false rejection rate were seen as overall positive indicators of the potential for useful infor- mation sharing between TSA and CBP. Discussion with EDS manufacturers indicated increasing future potential for automated detec- tion and improved algorithms to enable EDS units to perform one scan for multiple agencies/ threat detection parameters. Test 3: Expansion of International-to-International Recheck Reduction Process The study team has a significant concern about the limitations of baggage recheck elimina- tion for medium-sized international hubs. Even with IAH, DFW, and other larger airports having economies of scale, there were questions throughout the study about the viability of international- to-international processes. One air carrier provided the feedback early in the project that some sites (e.g., SFO) would have difficulty sustaining process changes. Unfortunately, without evaluat- ing each site and carrier on a case-by-case basis, it is difficult to establish a specific threshold for which a DFW-type international-to-international process could be suitable. The inconsistency across airports/carriers is due to the multiple factors that would have to be considered, including peak-hour connecting traffic, existing processes and infrastructure, and prominence of connecting traffic to airport success. To test this, SEA participated in a feasibility assessment to review the potential to reduce bag- gage recheck using a similar process. Historically, 25.5 percent of international arrivals at SEA are connecting passengers. Based on Bureau of Transportation Statistics data, it is estimated that of these connections, 16.8 percent are international, while 83.2 percent are domestic. This represents the third-highest percentage for international-to-international connections in the United States, behind MIA (22.7 percent) and Newark (EWR) (17.8 percent). The bulk of these international connections are transborder flights to Canadian airports. Methodology A select number of international-to-domestic flights was studied on a Monday in May 2011 at SEA for flights arriving at the South Satellite terminal. Actual live data and observations were made, working with operational baggage handling staff. The timing for each step was evaluated against flight schedules, published airport border wait times, and other data to determine whether improved international-to-international bag con- nections could be feasible in terms of timing.

50 elimination or reduction of Baggage recheck for arriving International passengers Some timing data could be captured based on existing operations, while other numbers were estimated based on operational personnel’s experience. Key Results • On average, between 5 and 20 bags arriving on a Delta international flight connect to a Canadian destination on a Horizon flight. • A potential route for bag retrieval delivery to CBP Secondary was identified. Actual walking time from the potential international transfer bag holding area (i.e., an unused conveyor) to CBP Secondary was 2 minutes, 10 seconds—well within an acceptable delivery time standard. • The study team found that a “hold” time of 20 minutes was sufficient to ensure that a bag was available at CBP Secondary. • The study team noted that there were some operational issues that would ultimately require capital investment: – Baggage handlers will be transporting bags that have been screened (domestic connections) and others that still need to be screened (international connections) on the same trip from the South Satellite to the Main Terminal. – There is a possibility that bags might be transported to the Main Terminal before passen- gers are processed through CBP Primary or Egress during times of severe congestion and long wait times in the FIS area. – Congestion may result at the one elevator used for oversized bag routing (and personnel movement to/from ramp level to the South Satellite terminal). • Ultimately there was sufficient time for CBP to request a bag for redelivery, as well as to advance potential searches in Secondary. – Average processing times easily allow passengers to be at the boarding gate within 25 minutes for the next flight. – Peak periods would lengthen this time to 45 minutes. – A 20-minute “hold” after international arrivals could provide sufficient risk management capabilities to CBP (see Figure 25). Overall, with cooperation, training, and action required from participating airlines (i.e., informing passengers and marking bags as connections from origin airport), it would be feasible for an improved process to work for international-to-international transfers. Test 4: Minimum Connection Time Modeling Reducing minimum connection times at airports generates benefits for airlines and the air- port 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 itineraries to be built and sold, by eliminating some misconnections between cities. This capability would allow carriers to compete for a share of city pair markets in which they are not currently pres- ent. 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, in addition to the reliability of airline schedules. Test Objectives The objective of this test, on actual flight schedule data, is to quantify the incremental benefits of potential reductions in minimum connection times from eliminating baggage recheck 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, a high-speed traffic and revenue allocation model used to forecast the market share, traffic composition,

testing and evaluating potential Solutions 51 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. Pricing, competitor response, and other factors remained static for the purpose of this test in order to evaluate the expansion of baggage recheck elimination to international-to-domestic flows. Key Results The testing highlights a reduction of connection times of 20 to 30 minutes due to the reduc- tion of the need for passengers to wait for baggage redelivery. To assess the changes from reduced MCT, the published MCT in the Profit Essentials parameter was changed and then the ATL schedules were re-evaluated to determine the increase in connecting itinerary frequency and capacity on a directional city pair basis. Figure 25. Median and 95th percentile testing results for removal of baggage recheck.

52 elimination or reduction of Baggage recheck for arriving International passengers Key results were as follows: • A 15-minute reduction in minimum connection times 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 (see Figure 26). • A 30-minute reduction in connection times would gain a 25 percent increase in connection possibilities. • Where current minimum connection times are high, a greater reduction in MCT is possible and would result in relatively larger gains for air carriers, whereas airports with low minimum connec- tion times would only allow for minor reductions in MCT and thus smaller benefits to airlines. Test 5: 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. The role of the simulation is to support the conclusions obtained from the evaluation of the seven alternative procedures. Test Objectives The objective was to develop an environment to test a number of scenarios and parameters related to 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 combination of these scenarios. Methodology The methodology was as follows: (1) Develop a process-oriented simulation model that can accept flight arrival schedules (2) Input parameters for process times, percentages for passenger characteristics, etc. (3) Run a number of scenarios (4) Have a visual interactive interface (5) Provide quantitative results of each simulation 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 three-dimensional (3-D) emulation or physical and spatial modeling system. Key Results The resultant change in timing between scenarios tested provides useful information for the relative impact of implementing connections programs and validates alternative procedures. On Figure 26. Minimum connection time savings of 15 minutes results in 11 percent more connecting network possibilities.

testing and evaluating potential Solutions 53 an operational basis, eliminating baggage recheck for both international and domestic connections decreases the time benefits of only eliminating baggage recheck for international connections. This decrease is due to the bags of both connection types being 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 the majority of bags getting higher prior- ity, the connecting bags essentially receive the same priority and all connecting bags are slowed as a result. The key results of Test 5 are as follows: • International-to-international baggage transfer generates moderate benefits of improving capacity for the entire system, as checked bags that would normally be present in the reclaim carousel in FIS are instead directed to the onward connecting flight. • International-to-domestic baggage recheck elimination would provide comparable benefits with neither bags nor passengers going to baggage claim. • Benefits would accrue to terminating passengers as well in terms of less congestion at the inbound FIS carousel, although bags would arrive slightly later to the claim carousel due to their relative de-prioritization. • Time is available for additional bag processes, if required (e.g., special screening for transfer bags or CBP hold): – The extra time available for additional bag processes is approximately 10 minutes (see Figure 27). – After 15 minutes, the system benefits tend to decay beyond the point at which MCT reduc- tion objectives would not be met. While the simulation model predicted passenger and bag times under each scenario, the resul- tant times themselves are specific to a particular facility and its configuration. When calibrated for a particular airport, the simulation is useful for quantification of the time benefit (for bags and passengers) achieved by eliminating baggage recheck and identification of the constraining process (bag or passenger). On an infrastructure and facilities design basis, significant constraints on the system appeared at the ramp level for connecting bags without recheck requirements that are proceeding directly to bag screening. A larger in-feed conveyor or dedicated buffer space is required to accommo- date the significantly higher volumes of bags. Note that the model does not consider the space requirements for 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. Figure 27. Time limitations shown in simulation of 30 minutes for baggage processes at ramp level.

Next: Chapter 5 - Findings »
Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 61: Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers identifies potential alternative procedures that might be implemented to help reduce or eliminate the need for the recheck of baggage for arriving international passengers at U.S. airports.

The report describes the potential benefits and costs to airports, airlines, and federal agencies related to adopting the procedures and also compares the alternative procedures with current practices.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!