Click for next page ( 12


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 11
Research Approach 11 Figure 3. Benefits of self-tagging within the aviation industry. IATA Recommended Practice 1701f, Self Service Baggage Process, version 1. Currently, both working groups are collaborating on the preparation of a self-tagging implementation guide and have received support from the TSA towards starting pilot programs here in the U.S. Approach for Assessing and Verifying the Passenger Self-Tagging Process The research approach, as shown in Figure 4, was centered on a three-old directive: (1) Estab- lish a cooperative effort with industry associations already investigating self-tagging; (2) Establish a body of knowledge on the subject matter and working relationships with the airports and air- lines that are implementing solutions; and (3) Analyze the various solution opportunities. In support of the research conducted, on-site case studies and interviews were performed at airports with varied degrees of passenger self-tagging installations. The airport sites, which were representative of installations found in Canada, Europe, and New Zealand, included London Heathrow Airport, Montral Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport, Toronto Pearson International Airport, Vancouver International Airport, Dublin Airport, Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Geneva International Airport, Auckland Airport, Wellington International Airport, and Christchurch Airport. Figure 4. Research approach.

OCR for page 11
12 Guide to the Decision-Making Tool for Evaluating Passenger Self-Tagging Figure 5. The research process: from collection of material to creation of the Decision-Making Tool. The airlines interviewed at these locations included Air Canada, WestJet, American Airlines, Lufthansa, Air France, KLM, Aer Lingus, SAS, and Air New Zealand. During on-site visits, researchers interviewed airport and airline staff, and facility walk- throughs were conducted. Other stakeholders, including ground handlers, solution providers, and consultants were interviewed in each of the above locations. The research conducted is summarized in Chapter 3 of this report. To comprehensively doc- ument the entire research effort, information was first sorted into six different types of research materials by classification as shown in the first block of Figure 5. Each type of research material was then summarized and analyzed by grouping highlights of what was learned into one of six documentation categories, as detailed in block two of Figure 5. Since passenger self-tagging is currently not conducted in the U.S., the information collected had to be verified for the applicability and transference of information to U.S. airports. During the initial tasks of this project, the research team coordinated with the ACI-NA and IATA to iden- tify potential airports within the U.S. as candidates for field verification. Through this effort, the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) and the Des Moines Airport (DSM) were selected as ideal candidates. During on-site verification, staff and management from all operating depart- ments were interviewed along with local airline partners, including Alaska, American, and Con- tinental Airlines. Local solution providers and other stakeholders were then interviewed. Finally, TSA representatives from corporate and local jurisdictions were interviewed. Verified information was then compiled into six Decision-Making Tool categories as detailed in the third block of Figure 5.