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 5
5 ˇ Nonsecure area: public areas of the terminal that departing which bans any unauthorized vehicles from parking within passengers access before entering the security screening 300 ft of the terminal when DHS has elevated the threat checkpoint (SSCP) and that arriving passengers access after level to "orange." leaving the secure area. ˇ Passenger assistance parking area: a parking area that Each of these assumptions is discussed in detail below. provides for vehicles to be left unattended briefly while passengers are being assisted to or from the terminal. Expanded Implementation ˇ Passenger processing facility: facility located on the air- of Common-Use Self-Service port landside that combines some or all of the functions Kiosks typically found in a passenger terminal with those found in other facilities, such as a parking garage or consolidated Today, only one airport in the United States, McCarran In- rental car facility (CRCF). ternational Airport in Las Vegas, has 100% CUSS kiosks (2); ˇ Privately owned vehicle (POV): includes private vehicles however, several other airports such as San Francisco, Dallas/ and rental cars. Fort Worth, Southwest Florida, and Pittsburgh international ˇ Regional transit: fixed-route service via CV or rail that airports use CUSS kiosks to some extent (3). The Interna- connects the airport with regional or urban transportation tional Air Transport Association (IATA) estimates that at the networks. end of 2007, 85 airports worldwide offered CUSS facilities ˇ Secure area: public areas to which passenger and other and anticipates that number growing to 130 airports by the public access is controlled by an SSCP. end of 2008 (3). ˇ Self-service check-in: use of a self-service device or the In- One reason for the optimistic outlook for CUSS imple- ternet to obtain a boarding pass or surrender check baggage mentation becoming more widespread, particularly in the without personal contact with an airline or airport agent. United States, is that it provides real financial benefit. IATA ˇ Self-service device (SSD): a kiosk used by passengers to estimates that CUSS can generate an average cost savings of obtain a boarding pass and in some cases a baggage tag. $2.50 per check-in and that a 40% market penetration of ˇ Terminal: public facilities located on the airport that are CUSS kiosks would save $1 billion per year (3). With fuel used for processing departing and arriving passengers. The prices increasing and impacting the financial performance of terminal typically includes the following functions: ticketing/ many airlines, it is not unreasonable to expect that any oppor- check-in (full-service and self-service), SSCPs, concessions, tunity to save operating costs will be strongly considered. In restrooms, baggage screening, baggage make-up, aircraft addition, airport operators are seeking ways to create more boarding gates, holdrooms, baggage claim, and a meters- flexibility to accommodate the changes in airline service and and-greeters area. (Note: many terminals also include in- to improve passenger throughput to avoid costly infrastruc- ternational arrivals facilities, which are not components of ture development. CUSS offers opportunities to address both this research effort.) of these concerns. Based on discussions with airline representatives, however, there is some opposition to CUSS that cannot be overlooked. Assumptions First, the loss of branding and proprietary functions, such Development and refinement of the innovative concepts-- as passport scanning capability, is a concern. Some airlines which range from holistic "blue sky" concepts that would provide functionality through their proprietary kiosks that involve a major reorganization of key passenger processing other airlines do not offer. Some airlines prefer to have their components to "immediately applicable" concepts--were own agents support the self-service kiosks so that they can be based on the following assumptions, which are anticipated to sure to offer the same level of service to all of their customers. materialize within the next 5 to 10 years: Another concern is that multiple vendors provide CUSS infrastructure and that the airlines now have to support the 1. Common-use self-service kiosks will become more widely integration of this infrastructure with their own systems in implemented, especially at airports in the United States. addition to the proprietary self-service kiosks that they main- 2. Passengers will be able to tag their own check baggage. tain at non-CUSS airports. 3. Approximately 80% of the traveling public will obtain While these concerns should not be ignored, the intent of boarding passes or check their baggage via SSDs or the this research is to examine the true potential that CUSS can Internet; the remainder will use full-service check-in provide from a passenger processing standpoint. In particular, functions at the airport. this research is intended to determine how the needs of pas- 4. Airport operators will take advantage of the flexibility to sengers can be better served with CUSS and what other oper- tailor their security programs to avoid the "300-ft rule," ational benefits (such as increased capacity or reduced staffing)
OCR for page 6
6 result from the use of CUSS. The true net cost implications of passes, self-tag their check baggage, and deposit their baggage the CUSS kiosks are beyond the scope of this research proj- into the baggage system, all at a single kiosk. At Vienna In- ect, but are a subject of ACRP Project 10-05, "Understanding ternational Airport in Austria, where a one-step process at Common-use Approaches at Airports." Based on the in- a single kiosk has been implemented for the printing of formation presented above, the assumption that CUSS will a boarding pass and the self-tagging of check baggage, roving become more widely implemented at U.S. airports is not only agents, positioned on the same side of the counter as the realistic, but also likely to occur sooner rather than later be- passenger and serving six positions or more, can generally cause of the potential benefits. process 150 to 180 passengers per hour per agent (5), about three to four times the rate normally associated with the con- ventional one-step process implemented in the United States Self-Tagging of Check Baggage where self-tagging is currently prohibited. Passengers are already able to tag their own check baggage In discussions with airport and airline representatives re- in several European countries (e.g., Austria and Germany) garding passengers self-tagging their check baggage, most and self-tagging for United Statesbound travelers is being agreed that self-tagging presents substantial benefits and will tested in at least one North American airport, Montreal most likely be offered in the United States in the near future. Trudeau International Airport. According to a recent magazine In today's environment, 100% EDS screening of checked article (4): baggage--which is a TSA mandate--reduces the need for positive ID verification prior to allowing passengers to insert Some 60% of Air Canada passengers currently check-in using their check baggage into the baggage system. Therefore, the a Common Use Self-Service kiosk, which also offers self-tagging assumption that self-tagging of check baggage will be allowed of bags . . . today, there are 47 CUSS kiosks. In parallel, the air- port ran a pilot project with Air Canada and US Airways offering in the United States in the near future appears to be reasonable six kiosks in the transborder (Canada-US flights) sector with and is a major component of the innovations discussed in baggage self-tagging. Chapter 4 and the concepts illustrated in Chapters 5 and 6. The pilot project resulted in an 86% favorable rating. In 2007, Increased Use of Self-Service Check-In 30% of passengers who obtained boarding passes from a CUSS kiosk also used the self-tagging option (4). The extent to which passengers currently use self-service Self-tagging of check baggage is currently prohibited in check-in features--whether via kiosk at the airport, some other the United States. The Transportation Security Administra- location, or the Internet--varies by location and by airline. tion's (TSA's) Aircraft Operator Standard Security Program According to a recent online article from Revenue Management (AOSSP) currently requires that baggage destination tags will Forum, 47% of travelers in the United States use self-service only be placed on check baggage at the point of acceptance check-in compared with 42% of travelers in Europe, 40% in and only by a direct airline employee or an authorized airline the Middle East, and 30% in the Asia Pacific region (6). The representative. AOSSP also requires that at the initial point of article further indicates that the percentage of passengers contact with each passenger checking baggage, the airline using self-service check-in in the future is expected to con- representative must request that the passenger present valid tinue growing because passengers want the speed, conven- identification (ID). However, since 100% EDS screening of ience, and control that self service offers and airlines want to checked baggage is a TSA mandate and as long as the airline use the technology to offer these options and improve cus- controls the loading of baggage into the aircraft after screen- tomer service while cutting costs (6). The cost savings to the ing, the primary apprehension related to self-tagging of check airlines in providing the self-service features that passengers baggage is of low anti-terrorist security concern. The bigger want would be significant. It is estimated that it costs airlines concern may be the potential loss or damage liability that the approximately $3.00 to process a passenger using an agent, airlines assume by allowing passengers to place tagged bags but only $0.14 to $0.32 per passenger for self-service (7). onto the bag conveyor belt. Many airlines have been able to reach much higher self- Self-tagging of check baggage offers a number of potential service check-in rates at their hubs or focus airports. More benefits. First, it is the logical next step in allowing passengers than 70% of Alaska Airlines' customers at SeattleTacoma to serve themselves. In today's two-step system, after obtaining International Airport use self-service check-in kiosks or the a boarding pass either at a kiosk or via the Internet, passen- Internet (7). At Northwest Airlines' Minneapolis-St. Paul Inter- gers would be able to go to a designated self-service bag-drop national Airport hub, more than 70% of its passengers check location, obtain bag tags, self-tag their check baggage, and de- in either via the Internet or the airline's kiosks (8). British Air- posit the check baggage into the baggage system. In a one-step ways processes about 56% of its passengers via self-service system, passengers would be able to obtain their boarding check-in and is planning to achieve an approximately 80 to 90%
OCR for page 7
7 share of travelers checking-in via self-service kiosks at its new SCA-3 approach by adding flexibility when tailoring an in- state of art Terminal 5 at London's Heathrow Airport (9). dividual airport's security program. Each BIPP was required From discussions with representatives of low-cost and to be based on an approved blast analysis performed by legacy carriers, airport technology providers, and airport a certified engineering firm, which would be instituted executives, it was determined that the assumption that when the DHS threat level was elevated to "orange." With- self-service check-in use will increase to--and most likely out such an analysis, the 300-ft rule remains in effect at larger exceed--80% of the traveling public in the near future is very airports. realistic. As the airport operators and airlines seek to provide The TSA-approved contingency measures for threat level cost-efficient improvements in customer service, the use of "orange" in all airport security programs allow for alternative self-service check-in should also continue to increase at non- procedures, subject to approval by the TSA's Office of the hub airports. Assistant Administrator for Aviation Operations, to be im- plemented in lieu of restricting parking within 300 ft of the terminal. These alternative procedures should be appropriate Flexibility to Avoid the 300-ft Rule to the unique building design, local physical and operational 49 CFR §1542.101, Airport Security General Requirements, constraints, and the perceived level of threat and may include requires that every airport must have a security program in such things as remote vehicle screening or the inclusion of place, which, among other things, must include a contingency blast mitigating components into the design of new or reno- plan (§1542.301) that addresses local, airport-specific meas- vated terminal and close-in parking facilities. ures for blast mitigation during elevated threat conditions. While the alternatives for avoiding the 300-ft rule may be In December 2002, the TSA Under Secretary for Aviation expensive to implement from an operations or capital cost Operations reviewed the agency's list of "unnecessary rules" standpoint, some airport operators have elected to accept and removed the 300-ft rule requirement in contingency these circumstances rather than constructing parking facili- plans, also known as "Special-Category-Airport-3" (SCA-3). ties beyond 300 feet of the terminal building. Airport repre- The rule was essentially a systemwide formulaic ban on any sentatives contacted during this research effort also indicated unknown vehicle parking within 300 ft of the terminal their willingness to seek alternative solutions or to accept the building at designated airports. In its place, the TSA instituted temporary ramifications, such as reduced parking capacity, a series of operating procedures called the Bomb Incident rather than separating the terminal building and the parking Prevention Plan (BIPP), intended to provide relief from the structure by 300 ft.