Guide to the Decision-Making Tool for Evaluating Passenger Self-Tagging (2011)

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.

This chapter provides a checklist for recommended “Next Steps for Implementation” toward a passenger self-tagging solution. Each step is listed in Figure 6 and discussed in detail below. Step 1 Review and Use this Decision-Making Tool and Report The Decision-Making Tool can be used to quantify the decision-making process (i.e., the user can address self-tagging objectively and assess specific impacts). The Tool consists of two spread- sheet components: the simulation component and the assessment component. When using the simulation component, the quality and value of the output information is directly tied to the accuracy of the input information. For example, passenger counts through- out the day may be first input using best guess scenarios. A more accurate value obtained through time and motion studies may significantly change the estimated results and ultimately impact the space and equipment analysis portion of the Tool. When using the assessment component, the user can establish a set of “next step” items to begin a thorough analysis of the issues at hand. For example, facility impacts may show that significant work is required in the baggage handling area to support baggage sortation requirements. Through this information, the user can also establish a detailed set of areas in which cost can potentially be a factor. Step 2 Maintain a Current Understanding Through Industry Involvement As discussed in this report, working groups within ACI-NA and IATA are driving the devel- opment of self-tagging standards and implementation practices. By the end of 2010, it is pro- jected that U.S. airports will have coordinated with these working groups, as well as with the TSA, and will begin various self-tagging pilot programs. The intent of these pilot programs will be to establish a consistent process for U.S. self-tagging implementation. To stay abreast of changes and progress, any airport interested in self-tagging should make contact with the working group leads within both ACI-NA and IATA. Another important way of maintaining a current understanding is to be aware of the indus- try reference documents that govern the standards, policies, and procedures for self-tagging. The technical components covered in the standards documents include hardware and application, system interfaces, messaging, and bar codes, among other items. Documents to reference include (see full references in the References section): • ACRP Report 10: Innovations for Airport Terminal Facilities; • ACRP Report 25: Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design; 18 C H A P T E R 4 Recommended Next Steps for Implementation

• ACRP Report 31: Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions; • IATA Recommended Practice, 1701f, Self Service Baggage Process; • IATA 1706, Functional Specification for Standard Departure Control System; • IATA 1706e, Paper Specifications—Documents to be Printed by a General Purpose Printer (GPP) In A Common Use Self-Service (CUSS) Kiosk; • IATA 1724, General Conditions of Carriage (Passenger and Baggage); • IATA 1740a, Form of Interline Baggage Tag; Recommended Next Steps for Implementation 19 Figure 6. Next steps for self-tagging solution implementation.

• IATA Recommended Practice 1740c, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Specifications for Interline Baggage; • IATA Recommended Practice 1745, Baggage Service Messages; • IATA 1796, Baggage System Interface; • IATA Recommended Practice 1797, “CUPPS” (umbrella for AIDX, CUSS); • IATA Recommended Practice 1800, Baggage Process Description for Self-Service Check-in (Draft); and • IATA 1008, Glossary of Commonly Used Air Passenger Terms. Step 3 Determine Implementation Process and Timing, Including Participation in the Pilot Process U.S. deployment of self-tagging systems cannot formally move forward until the TSA has approved a consistent approach and has established its own directive or policy. Current plans are for the TSA to monitor U.S. pilot programs as an aid in setting policy. At such time, the TSA will update the security policies so that as airports and airlines pursue self-tagging, they can for- mally adapt their security procedures to meet updated TSA policies. At present, planning for and scheduling of these pilot programs are under way but are not expected to begin until the latter part of 2010. Currently, the time limits for which airport pilots must start and must finish have not been set. As of May, 2010, effort is under way for participating airports and airlines to submit their work plans, which are required by the TSA to obtain a temporary amendment to the existing security process. Although not specifically known, the amendment process may take several months to complete. Depending on timing and airport interest, there may be opportunity to par- ticipate as a pilot program test site. Completing Step 2 will help to determine the opportunity for an airport to be a pilot test site. Again, through Step 2, users of this checklist can obtain up-to- date information regarding the TSA acceptance of self-tagging implementation in the U.S., which will ultimately help drive the implementation schedule. Whether conducting self-tagging implementation by becoming a pilot test site, or planning for actual go-live, this checklist will prove to be a useful guide. Step 4 Write Preliminary Scope and Criteria This first scoping draft is a high-level document that identifies the key objectives and elements of the self-tagging project. This scoping draft should include summaries of at least the following: Business Planning: Identify the business objectives for this project. Review Chapter 3 (Findings) of this report for general business objectives. Also, the Decision-Making Tool provides key busi- ness objectives that should be built upon in this step. This step should identify whether self- tagging will be installed in a common use or proprietary technical environment. This step should also address the initial costing issues regarding rates and charges and the airport business model. Self-tagging does create economic benefits, but also expenses, and not necessarily for the same parties, so the project success will be affected by the cost/benefit structure. Benchmarks and Goals for Success: Goals for self-tagging should be based upon identified busi- ness objectives. Taking time to identify and quantify the goals will help to set benchmarks for success. For example, improving passenger satisfaction by reducing wait times may be an iden- tified business objective. Understanding current wait times and expectations of the passengers (i.e., would a 5-minute reduction be enough to improve satisfaction) is then needed to set appro- priate benchmarks. If data is not available on current conditions, collection of data through time and motion studies as well as interviews may be needed. The Decision-Making Tool can also be used in comparing industry averages as an initial baseline. 20 Guide to the Decision-Making Tool for Evaluating Passenger Self-Tagging

Process Steps: These steps define how self-tagging will occur at your facility. Process steps should include: passenger service/training, self-service kiosks, bag drop/induction points, bag- gage handling, routine operations and maintenance, and facility care. Facility Impact: Evaluate facility impact based on defined process steps and potential use of space for self-tagging. This step should identify kiosk and bag drop locations, along with space require- ments around the locations. The Decision-Making Tool can be used to help in understanding space impacts. Facility impact should consider all infrastructure requirements associated with the process points and facility space. Project Management: Project management outlines how self-tagging technology should be implemented. Project management requirements should include scope definition along with ini- tial budget and schedule. Step 5 Formalize Stakeholder Team Members Actual implementation of a self-tagging solution will require the cooperative effort of several stakeholders. The primary stakeholders include • Airport representatives and champion (advocate); • Airline partner(s), including a champion from each (station, IT, corporate); • TSA points of contact [federal security advisor (FSD), principle security inspector (PSI), cor- porate]; and • Solution providers. Solution providers will vary depending on installation requirements, and may involve design consultants, technology hardware/software, baggage handling, IT infrastructure, paper stock, and other third party support roles. Step 6 Submit Formal Notification to TSA Regarding Project Opportunities Corporate TSA should be formally notified of the intent for implementation of a self-tagging system. Request should be made for corporate TSA to be the first to contact the local FSD rep- resentatives. This first notification is an information-based meeting and its primary objective is to gain a full understanding of the next steps involving the TSA. Step 7 Prepare Draft Airport Plan for TSA Depending on the results of the notification process, the TSA may require submission of an Airport/Airline Plan. Elements of this plan should include • Concept of Operations: gathered from scoping process above in Step 4. • Flow of Process: How will the passenger process be controlled through the entire system? • Air Carrier Participation: including initial partners and interested partners. • Minimum security requirements: Must ensure current security operations are not compromised. Should also demonstrate how self-tagging will improve security in areas such as customer iden- tification and baggage reconciliation. • Proposed Amendment to TSA Airport Operating Procedures: carriers to write proposed amendment. In the event of common use, the multiple airlines may submit on one proposal. • Scenario planning through testing/pilot: identify security-related tests, including measure- ment criteria, use of technology, and use of TSA observations. Recommended Next Steps for Implementation 21

Step 8 Define Detailed Scope Requirements Using the detailed findings of this Decision-Making Tool and the results of the above steps, the scope of work should be updated to include detailed information regarding the following: • Input from TSA review: define regulatory criteria for each process step. • Establish unique characteristics/business models of partnering airlines, including operating requirements and local regulations. • Define IT upgrade requirements (airline/airport) for hardware, software, IT infrastructure, and IT governance. • Consider baggage handling impact: consider the baggage handling system, sortation system, baggage status messaging, reconciliation system, and tracking system. • Update budget and project management requirements. Step 9 Define Responsibilities This step involves reviewing staffing impact for airlines, airport, solution providers, ground handlers, and other stakeholders. Step 10 Establish Test Criteria for Pilot This final step suggests using prerequisite information from the Decision-Making Tool to establish issues or open items that will be tested during the initial phases or during participa- tion in the pilot program. Many of these tests may be specific to the airport facility and may include tests covering industry-wide issues identified for pilot testing. For example, as noted during case study work with Aéroports de Montréal, a key test was whether the airport was able to successfully establish “physical control” around the perimeter of the self-tagging stations (refer to Appendix A for further detail). It will be necessary to define scenarios to be tested during startup of the self-tagging process. Tests should address key items, such as benchmarks, security, and other performance issues. If the airport or airline participates in the pilot tests, additional scenario tests may be needed to help establish industry requirements. Finally, it is important to set success measurements while evaluating opportunity and impact criteria to ensure all considerations are taken under advisement in the decision-making process. 22 Guide to the Decision-Making Tool for Evaluating Passenger Self-Tagging