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.
Introduction Passenger processing continues to shift toward the increased use of self-service. One area in particular that has gained global interest is passenger self-tagging. In fact, airports and airlines in Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and other parts of the world have already conducted pilot tests and actual installations. Results from these early installations have demonstrated that self- tagging provides a multitude of benefits to passengers, airlines, and airport operators. Even so, self-tagging has proven to be a complex process, as it affects multiple systems and processes in airports, including ⢠Airline check-in; ⢠Watchlists and advance passenger data; ⢠Self-service kiosks; ⢠Baggage drop-off, sortation, reconciliation, and screening; ⢠Contractual and commercial issues; and ⢠Passenger security screening/processing. Despite the complexity, airlines and airports have considerable interest in developing passen- ger self-tagging, and there are several projects presently under way outside of the U.S. In the U.S., there is a developing interest in self-tagging, including voiced support from the TSA. Respond- ing to this growing trend, solution providers are developing various technologies to meet the needs of the processes being tested and installed. Results from these efforts are providing valu- able feedback regarding the benefits of self-tagging, as demonstrated in Figure 3. While recent airport case studies convey positive results, these installations have presented hurdles that must be overcome. In the U.S., these challenges include ⢠U.S. regulatory policies require that airline employees or authorized airline representatives place baggage destination tags on checked baggage. These tags must be placed on bags at the point of acceptance. ⢠The TSA has voiced concerns related to the implementation and security impact self-tagging may impose. ⢠There are complexities regarding the application of the bag tag: many passengers complain of the difficulty with applying the bag tag properly and in at least one instance, complaints were frequent enough for the airline to discontinue their effort with self-tagging. Even with these issues, industry leading associations, such as the IATA and the ACI-NA have recognized the tremendous opportunities that self-tagging provides, and have sanctioned work- ing groups to investigate the business reasons for benefits and risks associated with passenger self-tagging. These working groups are helping to direct the progress of passenger self-tagging in a positive direction. Recent effort by both working groups has resulted in the completion of the 10 C H A P T E R 2 Research Approach
Research Approach 11 Figure 3. Benefits of self-tagging within the aviation industry. Figure 4. Research approach. 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, ⢠Montréal 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.
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. 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.
