National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 4 - Testing and Evaluating Potential Solutions
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings." 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 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings." 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 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings." 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 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings." 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 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings." 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 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings." 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 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings." 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 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings." 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 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings." 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 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings." 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 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings." 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 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings." 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 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Findings." 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 66

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.

54 Findings Eliminating or reducing baggage recheck is a highly complex set of issues with trade-offs related to volume, process, time, cost, and preserving the integrity of the U.S. border. Any solu- tion also has to weather the ever-changing threat dynamic for contraband, terrorism, and less malicious scenarios related to import of goods into the commerce of the United States. However, simplifying connections would offer significant benefits to traveler satisfaction, the sizing of facilities, and hub development opportunities that could improve the competitiveness of airports to capture international traffic. This chapter outlines the findings associated with eliminating or reducing baggage recheck. Stakeholder Analysis The introduction, or change, of a process or technology must be evaluated with an understand- ing of the impact to those involved. Table 3 outlines the intended benefits that the elimination or reduction of baggage recheck could have on the stakeholders/process owners involved. If successful, the benefits to each group are generally universal across the alternative procedures. It is important to note that the specific costs and benefits would vary greatly across the respective airports and airlines. Generic Impact Analysis To document the potential impact on the air transportation industry, an order of magnitude of benefits for eliminating baggage recheck is provided that was based on perceived savings to air- ports, airlines, and passengers. For each group, the impact was estimated for day-to-day operations, deferred or reduced capital costs, passenger convenience/value of travel time, and other benefits. Passenger and Bag Traffic As noted in Chapter 3, there are approximately 23 million connecting passengers processed annually by CBP at the 30 busiest airports. The impact analysis has been calculated based on the potential savings from facilitating all international arrival transfer bags (i.e., eliminating baggage recheck for international-to-international and international-to-domestic connections). Based on a ratio of 1.35 bags per passenger (as specified in the 2011 SITA Baggage Report), the approximate annual number of checked bags is 31 million. The peak-hour passenger traffic was estimated using the Federal Aviation Administration’s recommended relationship for Typical Peak-Hour Passengers (TPHP) computations from C h a p t e r 5

Findings 55 annual figures. The ratio of 0.0350 percent peak-hour passengers to total annual passengers was used. Although the ratios vary based on total annual passengers, the category “30 million and over” was used because the average annual passengers at the top 30 U.S. airports is 35 million. Applying the ratio to the total connecting passenger and bag traffic, the peak-hour traffic that is currently impacted by baggage recheck is estimated to be 8,050 passengers and 10,868 bags. Savings in Day-to-Day Operations For each passenger who does not have to claim and recheck bags, the expected benefits are as follows: • Time eliminated from claiming bags, waiting to exit the FIS area, and rechecking bags. • Increased passenger convenience (less contact time with processes). • Reduced baggage handling costs. Airport Staffing In terms of airport staffing, there is the possibility of improved savings for operations through baggage handling and customer service staff. However, there are highly variable orders of mag- nitude of airport operation costs savings depending on the type of baggage systems used. As a result, and to be conservative, annual airport operational staff savings have not been included as a net benefit. A potential cost, however, could be the requirement for dedicated baggage retrieval staff if an automated bag return system cannot be installed at a particular airport. Airline Baggage Recheck Staffing There are potential savings in the reduction of staff needed for baggage recheck. A signifi- cantly reduced number of bags required to be rechecked should allow airlines to reduce staffing requirements at recheck. Based on a very conservative estimate that eliminating two recheck staff positions for each of the top 30 airports could yield net savings of 60 full-time equivalents (FTE) and using a total FTE cost Stakeholder Benefits Air Carriers Outbound baggage is available for sortation sooner Enhanced passenger experience for transfer process Reduction in mishandled bags leading to cost savings and improved schedule integrity Reduced staffing resources at baggage recheck facility Reduced/eliminated bottlenecks at FIS baggage carousels and/or baggage recheck facility Airports Increased transfer passenger convenience Enhanced gateway/hub capabilities Ability to use the baggage recheck area for other purposes Increased passenger time available for retail/food services Passengers Improved transfer experience—particularly for families, the elderly, and the infirm Reduced time in the FIS area Increased time for retail/food services TSA Potential spreading of passenger arrival at passenger screening checkpoint CBP Improved passenger perception with elimination of baggage claim in FIS Spreading of passenger arrival at Egress officer position Decreased congestion surrounding FIS baggage carousels Improved customer service Enhanced capacity to focus on those passengers/bags potentially presenting a risk Table 3. Stakeholder analysis of benefits of eliminating or reducing baggage recheck.

56 elimination or reduction of Baggage recheck for arriving International passengers of $80,000 per year, approximately $4.8 million in labor costs could be saved each year. Cost sav- ings could be much higher when the reduction of ramp staff who deliver baggage to claim carousels and handle baggage after recheck is also considered. Relative costs vary from facility to facility. Deferred Capital Costs and Equivalent Savings The elimination of baggage recheck has a profound impact on the planning parameters for international arrivals facilities. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on new/expanded international arrivals halls in the past decade and billions more in construction or design stages. There is a potential to extend the useful life of existing facilities through improved baggage flows. The actual benefit will vary from airport to airport but could include the following: • Improved utilization of existing space for today’s passenger volumes, • Deferred future facility expansion required for growth of passenger volumes, and/or • Designs for less-expensive new facilities. Airport Baggage Carousel and Baggage Recheck Space A critical part of the FIS is the provision of baggage reclaim carousels. Airports plan their inter- national arrivals hall based on peak-hour aircraft and passenger arrivals. Depending on the bag- gage carousel system, these units typically handle 500 to 1,000 bags. The average cost of a carousel, in-feed conveyors, and the space that it occupies is at least $2 million. Based on peak-hour bag delivery to the claim carousels with an average capacity of 600 bags, the reduction in rechecked bags would remove the need for an estimated 18 claim carousels, offering a savings of over $36 million. Capacity would still be available to serve destination passengers in this scenario. Existing baggage recheck facilities and space could similarly be repurposed or future construction could be avoided. For each baggage claim carousel saved, it is estimated an equivalent 1,000 square feet of recheck space could be saved. With an average construction cost of $1,000 per square foot, this translates to approximately $18 million in recheck space savings. However, this number should be treated with extreme caution. For most international airports, there is no room to simply “add” a baggage carousel or recheck facility to achieve greater capac- ity. The addition of new carousels could trigger the need for an expanded/new FIS that could add hundreds of millions in costs, depending on the airport configuration. Passenger Convenience/Value of Travel Time Typically, a passenger will select an international connecting airport based on a select few conditions that include total travel time and passenger convenience. As concluded in Test 1, the elimination of baggage recheck should save passengers considerable amounts of time while in transit (about 25 minutes). The value to passengers of these time savings has been estimated using standard value of time calculations commonly used in the economic assessment of projects. The U.S. DOT Revised Departmental Guidance for the Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis (6) provides a recommended average value of time for air travelers, in 2000 dollars. This valuation was adjusted to 2009 dollars using income data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey tables of historical mean income per capita, an approach consistent with the original calculation of the value of time (the original U.S. DOT values were based on a percentage of hourly income). The resulting value of time was calculated to be $33.95 per hour, in 2009 dollars. The average time savings from not having to reclaim or recheck bags was conservatively estimated at 15 minutes per passenger for all airports. Based on 23 million enplaned passengers annually, the number of hours saved is 5.75 million with an estimated value of $192 million each year.

Findings 57 Other Benefits There is a range of other quantifiable benefits for eliminating baggage recheck. Reducing lost bags, as well as additional efficiencies in customer service provision, are some of the key categories. Because these benefits are more indirect and highly variable depending on the air- port site, they were not included in the impact analysis. One estimate worth noting, however, is the opportunity for greater utilization of aircraft due to the time savings from transferring bags from the origin flight to the connection flight as noted in Test 1. If 15 minutes of flight time is saved, it could produce $653 in savings to an airline in improved productivity of air- craft (based on the ICAO estimates for block hour operating costs for a B737-300/700). The Bureau of Transportation Statistics estimates that more than 9.5 million annual scheduled revenue departures are performed annually. A conservative assumption of 1 percent of flights being able to realize an improvement on time was applied to estimate airline savings. The increased aircraft productivity could result in savings of up to $62 million for connections per year. Impact Summary Eliminating baggage recheck could deliver significant economic benefits, both annually and in one-time cost avoidance. The annual estimated savings are about $260 million in operating costs (Table 4) and $54 million in capital costs (Table 5). The reduction of baggage recheck would have similar benefits but to a lesser extent. Solutions As outlined previously, the risk environment for connections is considerably different depend- ing on the final destination. Therefore, an independent evaluation of each sector is provided in the following subsections. International-to-International Solutions The study team found that very few reasons stand in the way of scaling the DFW, GUM, IAH, and ATL programs for baggage recheck elimination for international-to-international flights to other major hubs. Operation Area Savings Airline baggage recheck staffing $5 million Passenger value of travel time $195 million Aircraft productivity $62 million Total annual savings $262 million Table 4. Estimated potential annual savings from eliminating recheck. Capital/Infrastructure Savings Airport baggage carousel space $36 million Airport baggage recheck space $18 million Total one-time savings $54 million Table 5. Estimated potential capital/ infrastructure savings from eliminating recheck.

58 elimination or reduction of Baggage recheck for arriving International passengers As shown in Figure 28, three elements are critical for an airport to consider in order to pursue this capability: • Priority for connecting bags: Implement air carrier processes to sort bags upline to ensure that connecting bags are prioritized. If this is not achieved, the risk is that the bags will not be available for retrieval and ultimately undermine the timeliness of passenger processes. • CBP access: Providing CBP access to the baggage area to review arriving bags is an important part of the overall operation of the FIS areas. For international-to-international connections, however, protocols to allow CBP review and oversight of bags that will not be present in the FIS area are important. The study team found that specific processes could vary from site to site, ranging from availability of CBP officers to having canine teams occasionally deployed in connecting bag areas. There may be possibilities for technological solutions to link CCTV images to the CBP Control Center. • Baggage retrieval: Processes must allow a bag to be redelivered on demand within 20 to 30 minutes. Typically, manual retrieval could be instituted; automated retrieval systems through RFID or baggage handler tug barcode scanning procedures could be employed. Beyond the basic commonalties just outlined, local operating procedures that were designed to address site-specific risk and facilities are in effect at each of the airports. International-to-Domestic Solutions There are significant obstacles for expanding the aforementioned process for international- to-domestic transfers. The rationale for greater concern by CBP is the potential consequence of introducing contraband or other risk items into the commerce of the United States. To this end, the study team has found that the ability for TSA EDS images to be available for CBP officers to review could provide a valuable tool to assist in risk management. Further tech- Figure 28. International-to-international baggage recheck elimination.

Findings 59 nical developments could enable EDS to be an appropriate long-term solution for eliminating/ reducing baggage recheck. The initial testing conducted by the study team allowed for adequate detection of common threat items, as well as a reasonable false-positive result. As shown in Figure 29, the availability of screening images could supplement other procedures locally instituted by CBP to assist with risk management of checked baggage flow for domestic connections from international arrival flights. There are major implications for facility design should protocols for data sharing between TSA and CBP be accepted: • Not all facilities have the ability for this process to occur because of the distance of TSA EDS screening from CBP facilities (i.e., travel time to redirect bags back to FIS for further inspection within allocated time). • An appropriate induction point may or may not be possible depending on the original design of EDS machine configurations. • Some facilities may have multiplexing to rebroadcast images to the CBP Control Center; further testing is needed to adequately track and relate potential suspect bags for CBP inspection. Although there will undoubtedly be technological and policy improvements to allow for bet- ter TSA/CBP data sharing, the study team found practical design issues with FIS facilities that affect the feasibility of incorporating EDS screening. As shown in Figure 30, the study team found that the placement of connecting bag screening proximate to CBP has measurably improved its potential to assist with baggage recheck elimination over the placement of connecting bag screening well away from CBP facilities. The primary reason for this improved potential is that by the time a passenger reaches the Egress officer (Step 3), the clearance process is much more streamlined for bags to be cleared at the same time. Figure 29. International-to-domestic baggage recheck elimination.

60 Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers In reviewing sites, the study team found that some facilities (e.g., DFW, ATL) are well suited to enable TSA screening to take place near CBP. Other facilities may require modifications or capacity enhancements that may need to be defined within the TSA EDS reinvestment program. Enhancements to Baggage Recheck Elimination International-to-international and international-to-domestic baggage recheck elimination have the potential to be implemented based on appropriate local protocols. Two enhancements could foster improved performance: • Egress officer processes: In 2010, a number of improvements occurred at O’Hare International Airport (ORD), IAH, ATL, and DFW in Egress processing (i.e., alternative door exit for travel- ers with no checked bags). For baggage recheck to work more favorably for connect time reduc- tion, alternative exits for connecting passengers near CBP Primary (e.g., IAH), or alternative exit points (e.g., DFW), can be considered. • CBP operating area: Expansion of the area that CBP officers could review bags “held” for connecting flights would allow for more opportunity to deal with checked bags before the passenger is released from the FIS area. Figure 31 summarizes the facility implications based on the international-to-international and international-to-domestic protocols. Long-Term Baggage Recheck Elimination Solutions In the long term, more robust tools will be needed at U.S. airports to allow for baggage recheck elimination. With a continually changing threat environment, it is important for all stakeholders to review the sustainability of facilitation programs relative to future trends. For Figure 30. Ideal flow for locating TSA screening for connecting flows.

Findings 61 example, the earthquake and tsunami in Japan in February 2011 resulted in a sizable concern from border authorities regarding the spread of radioactive substances, which extended to reviewing checked bags. Furthermore, the nature of terrorist threats to the United States continues to create more concern. There are also other potential opportunities that are based on bilateral and multilateral dis- cussions that involve changing security policies. For example, in June 2011 Germany instituted full recognition of TSA screening processes so that no rescreening had to occur for passengers connecting through a German airport hub. Future discussions with other countries, such as the President Obama/Prime Minister Harper U.S.–Canada Beyond the Border Action Plan, could produce further enhancements relevant to baggage recheck elimination. The study team found three long-term enablers and enhancements relevant to this study (Figure 32): • Risk-based data enhancements: The potential for digital images to be transmitted as part of the airline manifest data is undergoing testing in a number of jurisdictions, namely air travel between Australia and New Zealand. Should this opportunity be used for flights going into the United States, there is the ability for CBP to conduct risk assessments on checked bags 10 hours before a flight lands. • Rescreening elimination: Should “one-stop screening” be adopted with selected countries, there is the opportunity for FIS facilities to maximize the benefits of baggage recheck elimina- tion and even to realize 30-minute international connection times. Figure 31. Generic FIS facility flow with baggage recheck elimination.

62 elimination or reduction of Baggage recheck for arriving International passengers • Hold and release: To ensure that CBP has the ability to respond to any identified threat/issue during the connecting process, the ability to “hold and release” a passenger and his/her checked baggage until the moment of onward flight departure could be an important dimension for risk management. The specific elements of long-term solutions require much more detailed legal, policy, and technological evaluation. However, for airport designers and FIS facility planners, there are potential long-term trends worth considering for planning purposes for future passenger flows in any new facility design. Solutions with Inconclusive Findings A range of technological and process solutions that could be advanced for baggage recheck elimination were reviewed with inconclusive results. Findings are as follows: • Transfer baggage source message: To date, CBP has mandated a sizable amount of data about passengers be collected to assess risks. API/PNR data have proven invaluable to enabling target- ing functions to deal with risks and past travel history. However, this information does not capture any baggage information. The IATA has developed a Baggage Source Message (BSM) system to enable baggage transfers to occur automatically. BSM includes first name, last name, PNR record, and routing data. As a file format that is universally accepted by airports and air- lines, it could also provide enforcement capabilities to allow risk management for baggage recheck to occur and is used by some authorities in Europe for this purpose. While electronic transmittal of all BSM records is technologically possible, SITA reported in 2011 that 15 percent of transfer BSM records were not transmitted and required manual recoding. • Baggage imaging and weight system: The study team examined the implementation of a baggage image/weight system at a number of airports. CBP, airports, and airlines interviewed indicated that while useful in concept, there are times when the system could not deliver data Figure 32. Enablers and enhancements to baggage recheck elimination (all sectors).

Findings 63 on time to successfully exempt checked bags from being seen in the FIS area, or to prevent passengers from having to await data availability. • RFID tags: The study team tested the use of RFID tags to track passengers and checked bags through the arrivals process. Several ideas were generated to use this technology to retrieve bags that were exempted from being seen by CBP. The study team views this application as one that could potentially help with large-scale management and retrieval processes, but also views manual or barcode-enhanced retrieval processes as alternative solutions to meet objec- tives. Using RFID to enable recalling passengers at domestic concourses for further CBP scru- tiny at Secondary was also evaluated; however, the privacy impacts of tracking passengers with an electronic tag were deemed highly problematic as a concept of operations. Additionally, the legal status of CBP’s interaction with passengers in the domestic departures area could be an issue given the Fourth Amendment (i.e., protection against unwarranted searches, arrests, and seizures of property). Other Findings CBP currently provides full port-of-entry clearance at 14 Preclearance sites, including 8 in Canada. However, since 2002 the interpretation of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act has resulted in the rescreening of checked bags on arrival to meet TSA requirements for explosive detection. For example, at Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport (MSP), more than 15 per- cent of peak-hour baggage systems are consumed by the rescreening of bags before a connecting international or domestic flight. While it is not the primary focus of this study, implementing solutions for advanced information transmission (e.g., upline X-ray image) may provide some enhanced risk management capabilities relevant for this study. However, an investment in new ATSA-compliant hold baggage screening equipment at Preclearance airports may be the ideal solution to this issue. Evaluation Results Based on tests, process flow analysis, stakeholder input, and peer review, a comprehensive set of 22 criteria was defined to evaluate alternative procedures. The criteria were categorized based on market, airline, airport, and CBP risk management con- siderations that are critical to the potential success of baggage recheck elimination or reduction. The valuation of outputs reflects critical judgment based on a variety of qualitative and quantita- tive factors. In fact, the valuation of “risks” themselves could be quite difficult given the degree of subjectivity about risk/probability/consequence. Wherever possible, space savings and labor savings were calculated (notes are provided in Appendix F). The alternative procedures were evaluated based on the potential to provide immediate oppor- tunities (i.e., near-term) as well as a sustainable solution that would withstand the test of time and market/risk evolutions. Ultimately, the evaluation favored procedures that could be sustainable solutions that would benefit the greatest number of travelers. As shown in Table 6, the alternative procedures were evaluated to provide overall ratings as follows: • Positive impact: Sharing TSA X-ray images upon arrival (AP5) and pre-departure informa- tion sharing (AP4) • Moderate impact: Exempting bags from CBP outright (AP1), additional CBP officer/process implementation at the connecting level (ramp area) (AP3), and door-to-door baggage service (AP7) • Negative impact: Initiatives to leverage other DHS programs (AP6) and establishing new airline/airport obligations for connecting processes (AP2)

64 Elimination or Reduction of Baggage Recheck for Arriving International Passengers Table 7 summarizes the evaluation by category and presents a brief overview of the analysis. This evaluation should not discount the opportunity for near-term gains to be realized by Alter- native Procedure 1 or for future developments of new processes or technologies to enhance the potential for others (e.g., Alternative Procedure 2). Specific qualitative and quantitative analysis for each of the evaluation results is provided in Appendix F. It is worth noting that the door-to-door express delivery through a third party was mostly ranked “not applicable,” as passengers would use a shipping service through an integra- tor (e.g., DHL, FedEx, UPS) for baggage delivery. Alternative Procedures Category Criteria 1. Bags Exem pt fro m FI S 2. New Connecting Bag Process (Airport/ Airline) 3. New Connecting Bag Process (CBP) 4. Enhanced Pre- departure Information 5. Sharing TSA Info 6. Leveraging Other DHS Programs 7. Door- to-Door Baggage Service 1A Project volum es 1B Ti me savings Market 1C Im proved custom er satisfaction 2A Additional time needed for upline ma nagem ent 2B Cost/ ma terials for upline processing 2C Costs of retrieving bags n/a 2D Other operational im p acts 2E Im pr oved fidelity of baggage handling n/a 2F New routing potential n/a 2G Reduced labor n/a Airlines 2H Training n/a 3A New space requirements n/a 3B Additional staff n/a 3C Costs of retrieving bags n/a 3D Incr em ental revenues n/a 3E Ter m inal space savings n/a Airport 3F Co mp etitive advantages n/a A Capital costs n/a B Risk ma nagement n/a C Re-focusing resources n/a D Redelivery capabilities n/a CBP E Other im pacts n/a Overall = Positive Impact; = Moderate Imp act; = Negative Im pact Table 6. Review of alternative procedures based on evaluation criteria.

Findings 65 A lte rn at iv e Pr oc ed ur e M ar ke t D em an d A ir lin es A ir po rt C BP R isk M an ag em en t Analysis O ve ra ll A ss es sm en t 1 In the near term for international-to-international transfers, this option is the best option for airports and airlines to pursue with CBP. There is also existing precedent at four U.S. airports as well as Preclearance locations. However, the solution does not currently provide CBP with the necessary capabilities to manage potential introduction of contraband to the United States. 2 Introducing new processes presents major challenges to airport operators in terms of space, cost, and overall ability to deal with exceptions. Generally, airlines could incrementally deal with alternative processes on arrivals to me et most CBP requests for risk ma naging connecting flows. 3 Although CBP recognized the risk mi tigation value of a new alternative process for transfer bags, it questioned the utilization of the officers in a satellite location/process. This issue is particularly pertinent at airports with a high variability of “eligible” transfer passengers throughout the day. All stakeholders emphasized that a reduction in baggage clai m/re check should not be achieved at a net cost to the international arrivals process. 4 To date, there are few examples of advance baggage information being shared for the purpose of border inspection. Augmenting this to include X- ray im ages, weight, and/or bag pictures could provide CBP with additional capabilities to evaluate an elimination of baggage recheck for onward international connections and potentially for onward domestic connections. Significant implementation issues remain, however, due to the types of technologies (e.g., international standa rd for multi-view X-ray im age, CBP specific algorithm ) and process evaluation needed to enable this process. 5 In the short to mediu m term , CBP recognizes the potential for improved risk assessments with access to TSA X-ray im ages. However, im proved X-ray im age assess me nt (i.e., algorithm) capabilities are required, which is likely to push this procedure to a me dium- to longer-term solution. Once resolved, this solution presents a significant opportunity to address all international arrivals connecting onward, regardless of final destination. For airports, proxi mi ty of the TSA baggage matrix and the FIS area will facilitate an expedited retrieval process for bags referred to CBP Secondary. 6 Although the use of Global Entry or other DHS programs to provide baggage recheck reduction is a good idea in concept, the ma jor problem is the inability to confir m me mber ship at point of origin. The new Global Entry card with RFID technology is a positive step but electronic verification during check-in is still challenged. The potential of having a non-Global Entry bag accidentally or intentionally inducted into a through-check process was cited as a risk by CBP for introducing a separate bag process for Global Entry members. 7 n/a n/a Using express delivery has ma jor benefits to reducing the actual de mand on foreign airport systems for baggage reception and delivery. However, a sizable market is not expected to be present to take advantage of this capability. Airports and CBP are inconclusive in ter ms of this alternative procedure—primarily because it will not remove or reduce the need for a baggage recheck facility. = Positive Impact; = Moderate Imp act; = Negative Im pact Table 7. Assessment of each alternative procedure by category.

66 elimination or reduction of Baggage recheck for arriving International passengers Potential time savings were estimated based on the removal of two steps from the current pro- cess, as shown in Figure 33. The actual time savings will vary based on the differences in process steps and timing between airports. For example, baggage claim time could vary by 20 minutes depending on the peak arrival periods or CBP Primary staffing levels. Within the connecting process, the main time variables for the passenger are Primary Process- ing, potential for Secondary Processing, baggage claim, and TSA passenger screening. In elimi- nating or reducing the baggage claim and recheck processes, the passenger will also experience a more reliable connecting process (in addition to the obvious time savings), which should help improve the customer experience. Figure 33. Overview: Potential time savings.

Next: Chapter 6 - Conclusions »
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!