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.
The goal of the airport ground access planner is to make the full journey as âseamlessâ as pos- sible, often by creating separate services to appeal to separate market segments. Chapter 5 deals with the integration of baggage and ticketing strategies. Around the world, a wide variety of strategies have been developed to create âseamlessâ trip experiences: for example, providing airport-type baggage check-in at local off-airport locations and providing integrated ticketing between ground and airline services. In theory, a fully integrated national transportation system would have through-ticketing and throughâbaggage-handling services between ground and air. In practice however, these goals have proven elusive in major projects all over the world and are being re-assessed. In fact, the empirical data assembled for this ACRP report suggest that airline passengers are increasingly reticent to separate themselves from their bags, a finding consistent with what seems to be an evolution in the nature of what the airline passenger hopes for, and expects from, the travel experience. Part 1 reviews recent developments, both successful and unsuccessful, in off-site baggage check-in services for airline passengers within the metropolitan area. Part 2 reviews the concept of integrating baggage and ticketing for passengers coming longer distances on the ground access system, noting the results of recent national study on the subject by the Government Account- ability Office. Part 3 examines present trends in the application of various levels of integrated ticketing, and integrated baggage, noting the lessons learned from the first two parts. The lessons learned include a case study of the ambitious programs in operation at the Newark Liberty Inter- national Rail Station. The purpose of this chapter is to provide the airport manager with a quick review of major trends in these areas. Part 1: Baggage Strategies for Local Originating Passengers A major impediment to the choice of a public mode for ground access is the lack of baggage accommodation. This part of Chapter 5 reviews and provides updates on a wide variety of strategies to deal with the challenge of baggage, set in the context of an increased priority for the security of transportation operations. Some of these strategies assume off-site processing and others do not. The air traveler usually has a choice of ground access modes, each of which responds differently to the needs of the traveler. At one end of the spectrum of accommodation, the private automo- bile, taxi, and private limousine all have the advantage of personal service and ample room to deal with baggage. At the other end of the spectrum, all shared service strategies, particularly those that rely on existing fixed-route and -schedule service designed for metropolitan commuting, must deal with the requirements of baggage without the benefit of built-in accommodations. In the 107 C H A P T E R 5 Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies
middle of the spectrum, shared-ride vans and dedicated rolling stock can be designed to accom- modate baggage from the outset. A key issue in the design of a program of public mode services to airports is baggage accommodation, by one strategy or another. The Importance of Baggage-Handling Strategies The Duration of Air Trips The composition of the potential market for public mode airport ground access services and the extent to which that market is constrained by the need for multiple bags are important con- siderations toward planning ground access services. The amount of baggage is largely influenced by the duration of the trip, and the duration of the trip is largely influenced by the purpose of the trip. U.S. aviation trips as a whole are divided evenly between those of less than 5 nights in dura- tion and those of more than 5 nights. Specifically, 46% of all airline passenger trips are less than 4 nights, 34% of trips are between 4 and 6 nights, and 20% have duration more than 6 nights (39). Trip purpose has a strong influence on trip duration, as the business trip tends to be shorter than the leisure trip. Data from the American Travel Survey show that for airline passengers traveling on business, 62% of the air trips take 3 nights or less; only 38% of business trips take 4 or more nights. For the non-business trips, fully 65% take 4 or more nights. Looking at long-duration trips, only 11% of business trips take more than a week, while 26% of non-business trips take more than a week. The non-business traveler emerges as a major problem for baggage handling. Effect of Trip Duration on Choice of Ground Access Mode Home End of the Long-Distance Trip. The duration of the trip affects the choice of ground access modes in a variety of ways: at the home end of the long-distance trip, longer duration low- ers automobile use; at the non-home end of the trip, longer duration increases automobile use. Looking first at the home end of the trip, the propensity to choose alternatives to the automo- bile increases as the trip duration gets longer. This fact reflects, among other things, the cumu- lative costs of several nights of parking, which increases linearly with trip duration. For trips of 3 nights or less, 14% of U.S. airport ground access is by modes other than the private automo- bile; for trips of more than 6 nights, 18% of U.S. airport ground access is by mode other than the private automobile. Here, the factor of parking costs is becoming more pronounced with the increase in duration. (The park-at-airport mode decreases from 64% of those traveling for less than 4 nights, down to 38% of those traveling for more than 6 nights.) Non-Home End of the Long-Distance Trip. At the non-home end of the long-distance trip, parking fees are no longer relevant, and the same pattern does not occur. For those trips of a week or less, 28% of the airline passengers use a mode other than being picked up by private automo- bile or renting an automobile. For trips of more than a week, only 23% of airline passengers choose such an alternative mode. The widest variation by trip duration occurs in the âpick-upâ mode, which jumps from 32% for the trips of less than 4 nights, to 49% for trips of more than 1 week. Trips of long duration, which tend to be for non-business purposes, are marked by the will- ingness of friends, relatives, and colleagues to provide the pick-up and drop-off services. This form of ground access serves as a serious competitor to all public modes for the long-duration trip. Conclusion. Baggage will be an issue in the selection of public mode trips. Overall, the data on trip duration suggest that fully half of the trips to and from airports are made as part of a trip of 5 nights or longer. For the shorter duration trips, public modes face serious competition from the park-at-airport mode, while for the longer duration trips the strongest competition tends to come from the pick-up/drop-off mode, particularly at the non-home end of the full trip. In the U.S. experience, the non-business trip tends to provide a stronger market for public mode services than the business trip; the bad news is that these leisure trips tend to be of longer dura- 108 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation
tion and are associated with greater amounts of baggage. The issue of dealing with baggage, then, requires the review of a candidate set of strategies to deal with the problem. A Case Study in Baggage Check-in at a Downtown Terminal The downtown check-in terminal at the London Undergroundâs Paddington Station has been chosen for a case study of the impact of having or not having off-site check-in services for airline passengers using rail for access to the airport. Data for other potential case studies, including the London Undergroundâs Victoria Station, will be reviewed for relevance to the Heathrowâ Paddington case study. The Paddington rail terminal facility had the highest level of check-in amenities of any check-in facility in the Western world. (The Hong Kong check-in terminals at downtown and Kowloon stations boast similar technologies, as they were designed during the same period as the Paddington facility. However, the Hong Kong transit agency, the MTRC, is now con- sidering the phase-out of baggage check-in facilities at these terminals also.) Unlike Victoria Station, Paddington Station offered check-in services from nearly all of the major airlines operating out of its destination airport, Heathrow. Victoria Stationâs check-in to Gatwick Airport offered services only for British Airways and, for most of its existence, American Airlines. The Paddington Station terminal offered a highly automated conveyor sys- tem for baggage; whereas, at Victoria Station, baggage was put on the train manually. The check- in facility was located quite visibly at the Paddington Main Line station; whereas, the British Airways check-in facility at Victoria Station was located on an upstairs mezzanine level out of view of travelers on the main level. In short, the Paddington check-in service (see Figure 5-1) was designed to represent the state of the art; it represents the ideal model for a case study. The HeathrowâPaddington Station Check-in System The Paddington Station check-in service was opened in June 1999. Local managers report that about one airport-bound rail passenger in five (22%) chose to utilize the downtown check-in services. Check-in services for airlines serving the vast majority of Heathrow passengers were Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 109 PHOTO: M. A. Coogan. Figure 5-1. The check-in terminal at Paddington Station in full operation (2000).
provided, ultimately these airlines grouped as OneWorld, the Star Alliance, and the Swissair- based Qualiflyer Group. (See both TCRP Report 62 and TCRP Report 83 for a complete descrip- tion of the operations of the baggage-handling system.) The Qualiflyer Group was the first to pull out of providing services at Paddington Station, claiming that the airlines it represented thought the operating costs were too high; shortly after, Swissair collapsed, taking the alliance with it. After September 11, 2001, no U.S. carriers were allowed to check bags on flights to the United States from the facility, which affected services from American Airlines and United Airlines. The major event in dismantlement of the system occurred in 2003 when the flagship carrier of London, British Airways, announced it would depart the system it had championed and advo- cated (Figure 5-2). After the collapse of services for the British-based OneWorld alliance, the remaining services of the Star Alliance were withdrawn in 2004. Today, the reconstruction of the terminal is complete, releasing thousands of square feet of prime retail space for resale on the market. The Heathrow Express trains themselves are being rebuilt to utilize the front baggage compartments for passenger use. What Happened at HeathrowâPaddington? In cooperation with the Civil Aviation Adminis- tration, BAA (the airport operating company) has an extremely thorough process of monitoring and surveying the airport ground access system and its users. Using the original data obtained from the British organizations, the researchers analyzed the change in rail mode share by the four airport ground access market segments. The data allow the observation of the rail mode share by market group before the discontinuation of check-in service, during the discontinuation, and after the con- clusion of the discontinuation. The case study mimics the characteristics of an experimental design, as the âlongitudinalâ data tracks the rail mode share before, during, and after a major intervention. The Results: No Decrease in Market Share. Figure 5-3 shows there has been no visible neg- ative impact on rail ridership on the Heathrow Express attributable to the discontinuation of the 110 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation PHOTO: M. A. Coogan. Figure 5-2. The check-in terminal at Paddington was reduced in area in 2003 and closed in 2004.
elaborate check-in services at Paddington. In fact, during the period between 2001, when the first airlines began to discontinue check-in services, and 2004, when the process was over, mode share increased about 10%. This information, examined here for all market shares, is of interest in and of itself. After the traumatic events of September 2001, the airline industry went through major reorganization and major shifts occurred in the nature of travel patterns worldwide. With the change in the composition of the traveling public (more reliance on discount airlines, for exam- ple), ground access patterns might be expected to change in some parallel way. Figure 5-3 shows that, in the case of the high-priced premium Heathrow Express, such a change simply did not happen. Ridership Change by Market Segment. In general, resident business travelers are assumed to be the least likely of the four market segments to release their bags at a downtown location. This group tends to have fewer bags in total and the least proclivity to checking them, even at the airport. Non-business travelers, on the other hand, tend to travel with more paraphernalia and benefit more from a service that would relieve them of the burden of getting the bags to the airport. However, the resident business market segment âthe travelers least likely to be impacted by the loss of baggage servicesâwas the only segment not to experience a growth in mode share to Heathrow Express over the 4-year period covered in this analysis. Looking at the trends in mode shares, the UK-resident business segment mode share is about the same at the end of the period as at the beginning. During the year that British Airways discontinued check-in services, it tended to recapture minor losses experienced in the 2 previous years. In short, there is no indication that loss of the major carrierâs check-in function had any negative impact on the resident business travelerâs propensity to choose the premium rail service. Turning to other market segments, the non-resident business segment experienced a visible increase in rail mode share immediately after the departure of British Airways in 2003, with a sharp overall increase over the 4-year period. Non-business travelers, those with the greatest amount of baggage per party, might be seen as vulnerable to the loss of an amenity such as full baggage check-in. But, the mode share for this segment did not decrease. Rather, over the 4-year period, the non-resident non-business travel- ers had a visible increase in their mode share for the Heathrow Express, including an upturn after the 2003 departure by British Airways. In sum, the disaggregate analysis by market segment does not reveal any strong patterns that would invalidate the data presented in Figure 5-3, which shows that overall mode share for the Heathrow Express did not drop in the period following the beginning of dismantling downtown check-in, but rather grew during a particularly unstable period in the long-distance travel industry. Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 111 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year M od e Sh ar e To ta l Total Market SOURCE: Civil Aviation Authority Surveys, 2000-2004. Figure 5-3. Heathrow Express mode share increases as baggage check-in is abandoned by U.S. airlines in 2001, British Airways in 2003, and Star Alliance in 2004.
The GatwickâVictoria Station Check-in System As noted previously, Paddington Station represented the true state of the art in high-quality downtown check-in facilities and services, which is why it was chosen for this case study. A quick review of change in rail mode share to Gatwick Airport from neighboring Victoria Station sup- ports the basic observations made in the HeathrowâPaddington case study. What Happened at Victoria Station? During the 4-year period between the first discontinua- tion (American Airlines in 2001) to the end of the study period (2004), the Gatwick Express experienced a 10% increase in overall mode share (for all market segments aggregated together). In short, there is no evidence in the Gatwick experience that would seem to undermine the fundamental conclusions made in the Paddington case study: neither the existence of downtown baggage check-in nor its discontinuation impacted the rail market share for the services in question. Lessons Learned from London To help interpret the implications of the lack of downtown baggage check-in on dedicated one-seat ride services, a series of interviews were conducted with those who had been involved in various stages of the introduction and discontinuation of downtown baggage check-in ser- vices in London. In these interviews, several managers who created the original market strategy for the new Heathrow Express stated the belief that the service needed to be seen as something different from the directly competing (one-seat ride) Piccadilly Line services offered by the London Under- ground. Amenities such as a private on-board television service programmed solely for Heathrow Express and first-class coaches were all designed to differentiate the product from other options available to the traveler. These managers thought then that the provision of down- town baggage check-in was essential to differentiate the Heathrow Express, relative to other ground options. The most revealing interview was with the manager of airport terminal strategies for British Airways, who was a long-time supporter of high-amenity rail services to London airports. In the interview, he noted that, between the latter part of 2001 and the airline decision of 2003 to give up the service, data could be obtained on whether the service was a market discriminator. In other words, for 2 years British Airways was offering a product not offered by two competitors, American Airlines and United Airlines. From these 2 years, British Airways gained the hard evi- dence that the addition of downtown baggage check-in services was not a market discriminator, particularly in a market obsessed with minimized price over any other factor. No significant level of complaint has been received as a result of the decision to discontinue the service. Status of Other Downtown Check-in Terminals In the previous decade, downtown check-in terminals supporting rail service were in opera- tion not only in London, but also in Hong Kong and Osaka, and a check-in terminal supporting bus services was in Tokyo. More recently, additional services were commenced in Madrid, Kuala Lumpur, Moscow, and Vienna. Major operational changes have taken place not only in London, but in Tokyo and Osaka as well. Madrid Nuevos Ministerios Check-in Facility The Nuevos Ministerios downtown check-in facility serving Barajas International Airport in Madrid was an example of high-quality intermodal terminal design. The facility was very large: the check-in lobby covered more than 1,200 square meters, which allowed for 34 check-in sta- tions and very spacious room for queuing (Figure 5-4). Well located on the downtown regional transit system, the facility was served by three traditional rapid transit stations (allowing one 112 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation
change service from fifty transit stations), seven electrified commuter rail lines, and ten bus lines. The underground station has the capacity for 100 taxis to wait at the station and 5,000 square meters devoted to pick-up and drop-off parking. Airline check-in service was dropped in 2006. Within the terminal area, Iberia (OneWorld), Spanair (Star Alliance), and some smaller char- ter operations provided check-in services. Iberia and Spanair allowed the traveler to check bags as late as 2 hours before flight time and to get a boarding card as late as 1 hour before departure. Iberia allowed baggage to be checked in up to 24 hours in advance of the flight, while Spanair allowed it from 6:30 a.m. on the day of departure. The Transit Service. The rail service is highly unusual: a rapid transit vehicle that has very long distances between stations often associated with commuter rail service. The fare to the airport is about $1 (US). Trains leave every 5 minutes or less, and take about 12 minutes to get to the airport with only two intermediate stations. The trains have three cars operated with accordion-like âvestibuleâ connections, allowing the three cars to operate as one. Many of the traditional longitudinal (bench) seats have been eliminated to allow a baggage rack between virtually all of the doors. However, many passengers still place their bags immediately in front of them, ignoring the racks. The downtown check-in area used an airport Flight Information Display (FID) board for all flights departing and arriving at the airport. Importantly, Metro de Madrid placed these FIDs at key transfer points along the new line, specifically at the Columbia transfer station. The Baggage Transfer. Checked baggage was carried by a conveyor built to a small room on the mezzanine level, where it dropped to a platform-level location next to the front of the outbound train. The bags were then placed into containers. On board the train, the first module of the car, and the first door, was devoted to a baggage area that could store several of the containers. Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 113 PHOTO: M. A. Coogan. Figure 5-4. This spacious check-in facility in Madrid was rarely used by airline passengers to check their bags.
At the airport transit station, the platform that serves outbound trains from the downtown was used (1) to unload the containers from downtown and (2) to load empty containers onto the train, which then continued its outbound journey to its ultimate terminal. The train would return with the empty containers already on board on the (inbound) opposite track, where there was no need for a separate inbound cargo management area. What Happened in Madrid? Airline passengers tended not to use the elaborate, well- designed baggage check-in service, and the facility was significantly underused. Over several site visits, no more than 3 of the 34 check-in stations were seen in operation, and they were not used heavily. Local officials have stated that only about 200 bags were checked in per week, or about 30 per day. With the opening of a new airline terminal in 2006, the downtown check-in service was terminated. Thus, although a significant number of airline passengers use the rapid transit service to the airport, most chose not to check their bags on the way. Exactly why is not known. However, given that most passengers access the direct transit line by another transit line, the passenger would have already handled any baggage on the shared-use rapid transit cars. In some cases then, the passen- ger may have found transferring directly to the express line easier than the alternative of getting off the transit vehicle, going upstairs to the check-in facility, and then returning to the platform area. The portion of transit users who choose to part with their bags at the Madrid downtown facility is much smaller than the one-in-five passengers who chose to use the Paddington Station check-in service. Munich Main Station Check-in Terminal What Happened in Munich? With the opening of the new Munich Airport in 1992, Lufthansa began to operate a small two-desk check-in service in a corner of the Main Railway Station (Figure 5-5). The baggage was carried by airport bus rather than the S-Bahn airport 114 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation PHOTO: M. A. Coogan. Figure 5-5. This small airport check-in station in the Munich Main Railway Station was discontinued by Lufthansa in the mid-1990s.
trains. Although the check-in service operated for several years, it ceased operation in the mid- 1990s because of lack of use. Tokyo City Air Terminal Narita Airport was unique in that its major downtown baggage check-in terminal was served by luxury bus, not by rail. The Tokyo City Air Terminal offers âlimousine busâ service that has a 55-minute travel time to Narita and operates on a 10-minute headway. This service has a very high mode share for visitors and tourists to the city. For years, the Tokyo City Air Terminal offered both downtown check-in and early security screening for airline passengers who could use âexpress lanesâ once they arrived at the airport. What Happened in Tokyo? Check-in services for all airline passengers were discontinued at the Tokyo City Air Terminal on December 31, 2002. In 2001, only flights to the United States lost the service, but the added costs to the airlines of supporting multiple check-in locations led to the cancellation of the services the next year. Osaka Namba City Airport Terminal An airport check-in service was operated at the Namba City Airport Terminal in Osaka, with direct rail service to Kansai Airport. The facility was used by the largest airline in Japan, ANA; according to reports, Japan Air Lines ceased operations at the facility by 2000 because of a dis- pute about operating costs. The system offered baggage check-in until 130 minutes before flight departure times (38). What Happened in Osaka? For reasons not determined, baggage check-in was discontinued in the Namba station complex, although shared rail service continues from there to Kansai Airport. Hong Kong Check-in Locations MTRC provides downtown check-in service for its Airport Express service at two locations: the downtown Central and Kowloon Stations. The operation of the baggage-handling system has been so efficient that travelers can now check bags in at the downtown Central Station only 90 minutes before flight departure (Figure 5-6)âthe same time the traveler would have been required to be at the airport. Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 115 PHOTO: M. A. Coogan. Figure 5-6. The check-in terminal in downtown Hong Kong has a massive capital investment in its automated baggage container system.
116 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation PHOTO: M. A. Coogan Figure 5-7. The Vienna City Airport Terminal offers attended baggage check-in (right) and automated self-service baggage check-in (left). Hong Kong Airport Express officials report that 53% of those airline passengers using the trains now use the check-in service, with peak levels as high as 70%. Although these numbers are high, they are explained by most major destinations from the Hong Kong International Airport being several hours away. Thus, trip duration tends to be longer, and the percentage of travelers checking bags is very high. What Is Happening in Hong Kong? At the present time, the management of the Hong Kong transit agency MTRC is re-examining its options for the operation of the downtown check-in service. According to agency officials, several options are being considered including offering the service for a price to travelers who have not bought a ticket on the rail line; such a move might be part of a new policy that would charge all travelers who check bags on the system. Other policy options include discontinuing the service or allowing the existing infrastructure to be used by private operators, selling their services for a fee. Vienna City Airport Train The dedicated City Airport Train service commenced in 2003, and ridership has grown strongly. Baggage check-in services are offered for all Star Alliance companies and for a wide vari- ety of smaller unaffiliated airlines. According to the Vienna City Airport Train website, bags can now be checked for flights to the United States. The downtown facility includes automated, self- service baggage check-in desks, capable of reading electronically coded passports (Figure 5-7). The International Air Rail Organisation has reported that 10,000 passengers per month use the check-in services or more than 1 passenger in 5. Passengers can check-in as late as 85 minutes before flight time, or as early as 24 hours in advance (37).
Moscow Domodedovo One of Moscowâs major airports, Domodedovo, offers direct rail service to a downtown station, where baggage check-in services are offered. Reportedly, 18% of the travelers who use Domodedovo airport access it from the downtown rail station (37). Kuala Lumpur Sentral and Baggage Retrieval The new service between the Kuala Lumpur International Airport and the downtown Sentral rail station is attracting nearly 1,000 passengers per day. About one in three choose to give up their bags at the downtown facility. Of all the off-airport baggage-handling schemes being developed, only Malaysiaâs Kuala Lumpur International Airport is proposing off-airport baggage claim for its downtown terminal, located at the Kuala Lumpur City Air Terminal at KL Sentral Station. The airport has established the City Air Terminal at Sentral Station as a separate three-letter IATA code, allowing passengers to check their baggage to the city rather than to the airport. This concept was examined in depth in the development of the Hong Kong system and again for the Heathrow Express. One concern of the Hong Kong designers was the amount of space needed by a full-scale baggage claim area. Another concern was the possibility that travelers will inac- curately specify the actual destination, whether at the time of ticket purchase or at the moment of check-in. The in-bound through-baggage system has been designed and is scheduled to open at the end of 2007. Passengers who have specified their destination correctly at the time of check-in will proceed through immigration, take the train to Sentral Station, pick up their bags from a carousel, and then proceed through customs procedures in the downtown station. Near-Airport Check-in Locations Another concept in baggage-handling strategy is the provision of check-in service at a point adjacent to the airport, usually at a point of transfer from one mode to another. DÃ¼sseldorf Airport Rail Station The DÃ¼sseldorf rail station on the high-speed system in the Rhine/Ruhr area of Germany pro- vides an interesting case study of non-downtown locations for off-site baggage handling. Baggage check-in services were a key element of the new high-speed station in May of 2000. Check-in services were provided for 20 airlines (which served about 75% of passengers), including Lufthansa and its Star Alliance partners. Baggage was accepted up to 60 minutes before airplane departures. A futuristic suspended, automated people mover provided a quick 5-minute con- nection to the main terminal every 4 minutes. The new service was widely publicized by the airport, and ridership for the rail system devel- oped quickly. What Happened in DÃ¼sseldorf? Faced with the choice of separating themselves from their baggage at the rail station or carrying it on the people mover to the traditional airport check-in area, passengers overwhelmingly chose to keep it to the last moment. As a result, the check-in service ceased operation in April 2004 (38). Newark AirTrain Rail Station In October 2000, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey opened a major airport facil- ity at the Newark Airport rail station located on the Northeast Corridor served by Amtrak and New Jersey Transit. From a legal point of view, both the AirTrain (formerly called the Airport Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 117
Monorail) and the rail station are part of Newark Liberty International Airport; the AirTrain is operated solely for airport travelers and does not carry any general-purpose traffic. Given the very significant difficulties in establishing full baggage check-in service in New York City, this strategy called for travelers to retain their baggage until arrival at this physical extension of Newark International Airport. The baggage check-in station at the Newark Airport rail station was offered to all airlines, but used by only Continental Airlinesâ hub operation. Baggage was accepted at the mezzanine level on the direct path from the Northeast Corridor rail platforms to the AirTrain station itself. The baggage was sent to the ground level on a spiral ramp (Figure 5-8). From this point, the baggage was carried by the airline truck to the airport baggage make-up area. Continental Airlines commenced its baggage check-in service on November 18, 2001. For- mally, they requested that baggage be checked 2 hours before departure time, but the staff accepted bags with as little as 45 minutes remaining before departure. Continental Airlines did not charge for the service. What Happened in Newark? Faced with the options of going directly to the people mover or parting with their bags at the rail station itself, about 80% chose to carry their bags to the traditional check-in area of the airport. Continental closed the service in 2003. JFK AirTrain Rail Station The new AirTrain transfer facility at Jamaica Station to the Long Island Railroad (with fur- ther connections to the New York City subways) was opened in 2004. The facility includes the 118 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation PHOTO: M. A. Coogan. Figure 5-8. The Newark Airport rail station includes a baggage transfer system, from which Continental Airlines carried the bags by truck to the terminal.
architectural shell for a check-in facility nearly identical to that adopted by Continental Airlines in Newark. However, from the outset, Port Authority managers knew that convincing the air- lines to use the check-in facility would be more difficult because of the lack of a single airline that dominates JFK in the manner that Continental dominates the Newark airport. What Happened at JFK? No airline chose to utilize the shell of the off-airport check-in facil- ity, and it was never opened. Lessons Learned: Off-Airport Check-in Centers Many U.S. cities, including St. Louis, Atlanta, Chicago, and New York, have considered the construction of major downtown check-in terminals. In many cases, these projects assumed that the airlines would provide the staffing to carry out the check-in function. Over the past decade, this assumption has become questionable, at best. In both Madrid and Kuala Lumpur, where air- lines chose to staff off-airport check-in facilities, the managements for the hometown airlines have historically very strong ties with the national governments. Airport ground access strate- gists are now examining a wide variety of off-airport check-in concepts based on a third party providing services for a fee. Indeed, the check-in system with the widest geographic coverage is provided in Switzerland by the Federal Railwayânot by the airport. The provision of full baggage services at off-airport locations is expensive for the airlines. A British Airways official estimated that an off-airport check-in center would not make sense with fewer than 100,000 users a year. In both the HeathrowâPaddington service and the Hong Kong service, finan- cial arrangements have been worked out to split the costs between the airline (which is providing a desired service to its passengers) and the rail company (which is charging a high fare with the intent of making a profit on the operation). When these conditions (potential profit from rail operations) do not occur, there is a major disincentive for an airline to participate. The provision of specialized baggage services by third parties, however, is growing in importance, as discussed in Part 3. Summary Part 1 of Chapter 5 has reviewed metropolitan strategies for off-airport processing of airline pas- sengers in which access services to the airport from the prime market area are aided by check-in services provided in a downtown location or at a transfer point somewhat closer to the airport; in each case, the basic assumption was that the airline itself would take the responsibility for issuing the boarding pass and accepting the baggage for the flight. Parts 2 and 3 of Chapter 5 will examine two additional service concepts: (1) replacement of air services by rail services for certain short-segment flights, which would require a complete integration of both ticketing and baggage systems for the multimodal trip, and (2) baggage handling and transfer for a fee by entities other than the airlines. The U.S. Government Account- ability Office has recently examined U.S. implementation of various forms of integration of national air and rail services and functions, as discussed in Part 2. Part 2: Integration of Ticketing and Baggage with Longer Distance Systems This report has reviewed the attributes of good integration of airport-based services into the met- ropolitan public transportation system, which, as defined here, includes all shared-ride services immediately available to all members of the public. In many parts of the world, airports are also concerned with the quality of their connections to other, longer distance elements in the national system. For example, integration with long-distance rail systems plays a major role in public mode Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 119
services to airports in Frankfurt, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen, but not in London, Munich, or Madrid; concerns with longer distance systems are a major policy concern in Newark and Baltimore, but not in San Francisco. Although passengers traveling through a few U.S. airports have a strong orientation to nearby downtown origins or destinations, at most U.S. airports, dispersed trip origins or destinations are the norm and represent a significant challenge for successful rail operations. In the United States, a small number of airports have a passenger market that is strongly linked to the nearby downtown area. As shown in Table 5-1, these airports include New York Cityâs LaGuardia and JFK, and Washington, D.C.âs Reagan National. In Europe, several airports have markets that are heavily oriented to the downtown area, including Paris (with 60% of the airline passengers traveling through Charles de Gaulle Airport and 50% traveling through Orly Airport going to Paris itself), Oslo (with 48% of airline passengers going to the downtown), and London (with 35% of the passengers traveling through Heathrow Airport going to London). As noted, the downtown area is typically well served by traditional transit services in the United States. Most U.S. transit systems are configured to respond to the needs of cost-sensitive, daily commuters and are thus radial systems oriented to the downtown area. However, most U.S. airline passengers have trip ends in areas located outside the downtown area and outside the area well served by transit. To travel to these areas, airline passengers often need to make one or more transfers. This need can discourage the use of transit, especially for passengers who have several pieces of baggage or who are traveling in a large family group. An analysis of Chicagoâs OâHare International Airport indicates that more than 65% of air- line passengers come from beyond the regional transit service area. Thus, although the CTA serves only 4% of all airline passengers, it is used by 12% of airline passengers with trip ends in its prime market area, which includes the Loop. A similar distribution occurs in Boston, where 61% of the resident airline passengers came from the outer suburban area not served by the regional rapid transit system. Integration with National Systems: The GAO Study In the United States, the issue of interconnection of airports with national ground trans- portation systems has been raised in several forms. A major U.S. transportation advocacy 120 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation Airport Percentage of origination trip ends in downtown New York LaGuardia 46% Reagan National 33% New York JFK 32% Chicago Midway 20% Newark 14% Baltimore/Washington 14% Chicago OâHare 14% Philadelphia 14% Washington Dulles 12% Atlanta 7% SOURCE: TCRP Report 62. Table 5-1. Orientation to downtown.
group, âReconnect America,â has made the case that the national decline of the airline hubâspoke system has resulted in the severe reduction of air service to smaller airports and that there is a void in terms of effective access to the remaining airports with growing air services. A recent congressionally mandated study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) focused on the connections to nationwide systems for several reasons: âIncreases in the number of passengers traveling to and from airports will place greater strains on our nationâs airport access roads and airport capacity, which can have a number of negative economic and social effects. U.S. transportation policy has generally addressed these negative economic and social effects from the standpoint of individual transportation modes and local government involvement. However, European transportation policy is increasingly focusing on intermodal transportation as a possible means to address congestion without sacrificing economic growth.â (40) The study notes that, although only one U.S. airport has a fixed guideway to an Amtrak sta- tion, no U.S. airport reported to the GAO an intention to build a connection to an Amtrak facility. Figure 5-9 shows Newark as the only example of such a national connection and 18 other airports with shuttle connections. The contrast in U.S. connectivity between major airports and the national long-distance rail system and the European connectivity strategy is noteworthy. Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 121 SOURCE: GAO (40). Figure 5-9. The GAO study shows that Newark Airport has the only fixed guideway connection with national rail service in the United States.
Why Integrate an Airport with Longer Distance Ground Services? The GAO study focuses policy attention on the possibility of greater synergy between the air system and the national ground system (rail and intercity bus). In this orientation, the concept of airport ground access services is widened to include ground access trips over longer distances. As discussed in the GAO study, the implications of this idea could be profound. For example, the managers of T.F. Green Airport, which serves Providence, Rhode Island, want to extend their geographic market area to the south toward New Haven, Connecticut, and to the north to Boston. To make this work, rail services provided by Amtrak and rail services provided by the MBTA will have to be designed to serve the needs of airline passengers. Currently, Amtrak is con- sidering an airport stop on its regional service, but not on the high-speed Acela service. MBTA commuter connections to Boston are scheduled to begin shortly. Transportation managers in Wisconsin have a strong interest in increasing the viability of General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee and supporting the hub operations of its dominant airline, Midwest Express. Thus, making it easier for travelers from the Chicago area to select Milwaukee as their airport of departure is in the managersâ interest. Currently, a shut- tle bus carries a small number of travelers a day between Mitchell airport and the Amtrak station built adjacent to the airport. Amtrak runs seven round-trip services a day between Milwaukee and Chicago. The same concept is applicable to the planning of the next generation of airport investments in the United States. For example, if the existing geographically constrained airport in San Diego, California, is to be replaced, the possibility is highly probable that a site in the nearby suburbs simply could not be found; in which case, a distant airport location implies some kind of inte- gration with high-speed ground services to gain access to that new airport location. There are several European precedents for the integration of longer distance ground access services to airports with airline ticketing and baggage systems. The following sections discuss case studies of strategies specifically designed to replace short-distance flight segments in Germany and France and a case study of more traditional improvements to longer distance access chal- lenges in Switzerland. Substitution of Air Flights in Germany and France Frankfurt Airport is developing an ambitious program to replace short-distance airline feeder services with improved rail connections. Because only a limited number of slots are available for use at the Frankfurt airport, airport officials believe that the overall productivity of the airport can be increased by reallocating these short-distance feeder slots to longer distance flights. This reallocation has resulted in the development of highly specialized joint air/rail-integrated ser- vices between Frankfurt and Stuttgart to the south and Cologne to the north. German Railways and Lufthansa Airlines are committed to replace certain domestic airline flights with high-quality integrated rail connections. In July 1998, German Railways and Lufthansa Airlines signed a Memorandum of Understanding that states that the airline would terminate feeder flights to Frankfurt from DÃ¼sseldorf, Cologne, and Stuttgart, but only if cer- tain standards of seamless operation have been attained. The basic attribute agreed upon is that actual travel times by rail would be no longer than the present times by feeder aircraft. The memorandum calls for âfull check-in from the train station of departure through to the destination airport, and uninterrupted baggage transfer from the train station of departure to the destination airport.â Figure 5-10 shows the baggage claim area in the Cologne rail station complex. In a highly similar market strategy, Air France has ceased its flights between Brussels and Paris, because the highly successful high-speed rail (TGV) trains have erased the market for these 122 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation
flights. In their place, Air France sells tickets from the Brussels high-speed rail station to the trav- elerâs final airport destination, substituting a fast train to Charles de Gaulle Airport in place of the deleted BrusselsâParis flight segment. Baggage check-in is allowed until 20 minutes prior to the train departure time. Bags are handed over to the airline in Brussels but are then reclaimed on the rail platform at the airport; the traveler must then re-check them at Charles de Gaulle Air- port. (Perhaps importantly, an attempt to provide the reverse of this service, encouraging French travelers to access international flights through direct rail service to Brussels Airport, was not a success.) What Is Happening in Cologne and Stuttgart? The Lufthansa terminals in both the Cologne and Stuttgart train stations have been given full-fledged IATA three-letter codes: tick- ets are sold to and from these terminals, and baggage is both checked in and delivered to these terminals. A single air + rail ticket is sold, in which the rail segment appears in the booking/reser- vation systems as a âflight.â The actual number of travelers who choose to take the train to access Frankfurt Airport from Cologne is reported to be quite high. However, the portion of those who select a joint air + rail ticket is quite low, as most travelers choose to buy a rail ticket separately form the air ticket. Sim- ilarly, the number of travelers who choose to part with their bags at either Cologne or Stuttgart stations is quite low (Figure 5-11). Some analysts believe the baggage service will be phased out. The managers of the combined systems must contend with the fact that no one airline has a monopoly for the many originâdestination pairs. By way of example, Air France ended all flights between Brussels and Paris, and offered high-quality rail trips between Brussels and Charles de Gaulle Airport for a trip from, say, Brussels to New York. However, the free market offers alter- natives; the traveler can purchase a ticket from Brussels to New York via Frankfurt or London without having to experience the rail segment. Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 123 PHOTO: M. A. Coogan. Figure 5-10. This off-site terminal in Cologne is one of only two locations in the world to offer full airline baggage claim service and inbound customs clearance.
Thus, when Lufthansa removes flights from Cologne to Frankfurt from its system, it weakens its competitiveness with competitorsâ flights from Cologne to New York via Paris, Amsterdam, and London ânone of which force the air traveler onto a rail trip segment. Managers of the joint air-rail program have noted that travelers may choose the integrated air + rail ticket the first time they make the trip. Then, once they are familiar with the combinations of modes, travelers on the in-bound trip buy separate air and rail tickets, retrieve their bag at the airport, and proceed on the next departing train with the bag in hand to Cologne, to Stuttgart, or wherever. In this manner, travelers avoid connection times that are either too long (e.g., needing to wait for the pre-purchased connecting train and watching earlier trains depart) or too short (e.g., making the train connection, but the bag does not). Integration of Air and Rail Services in Switzerland The integration of air and rail systems in Switzerland is fundamentally different from the through-ticketing concepts in the Cologne, Stuttgart, and Brussels case studies in the preceding section. Through tickets are not included in this system; airline tickets are sold by airlines, and rail tickets are sold by rail companies. While the Swiss Railway runs a direct train from Zurich Airport to Bern, the nationâs capital, a joint ticket is neither offered with any airline nor described on the reservations system. It is estimated that 33% of Zurich Airport air travelers who use the rail system come from the city of Zurich and another 8% come from the rest of the metropolitan area. Thus, some 59% are coming from outside the metropolitan area. For Geneva, only about 25% of the air travelers using the rail system come from the city of Geneva, and 75% come from the rest of Switzerland and from France. Zurich Airport is served by more than 170 trains per day, and the Geneva 124 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation PHOTO: M. A. Coogan. Figure 5-11. While ridership between the Cologne rail station and Frankfurt Airport is strong, only a small portion of air travelers utilize the new check-in facility.
International Airport is served by 130 trains per day. Service is provided every hour on the main east-west line linking Zurich and Geneva. Zurich currently offers about 80 trains in its peak hour, none of which serve only the downtown terminal areas. Baggage Handling by a Third Party. The Swiss concept of a national system for off-airport baggage check-in is fundamentally different from the existing downtown check-in centers cur- rently serving Hong Kong, Madrid, Vienna, or Kuala Lumpur. Each of these downtown check- in terminals is staffed by airline representatives who take the responsibility for accepting baggage and issuing boarding passes. When the concept is expanded to dozens of off-site locations, it becomes impossible to expect multiple airline companies, or even one airline company, to pro- vide the staff at each of the off-airport locations. Alternatively, a partnership with the railroads was created, in which the railroads are empowered to take certain actions in the name of the airlines. The Swiss Fly-Rail Baggage system has been in place for two decades; recent develop- ments in Germany and France are refining the concept for wider application. The airport baggage-handling system of the Swiss National Railways is the largest in the world, from a geographic perspective. It provided baggage processing from 116 separate railway stations, with full check-in (with boarding pass) at 50 rail stations in 2007. This service is provided by the Swiss National Railways, and no airline personnel are involved in accepting the baggage. Swiss National Railways charges about $15 per bag checked for the service. The reported usage of this program is 280,000 travelers a year (36). Air travelers who have only checked their bags at the rail station can use special check-in stations with shorter lines and shorter transac- tion times. The system has three elements. (1) Full check-in with a printed boarding pass is available to travelers who use only a set of airlines, many of them in Star Alliance, that have agreed to all the procedures. (Some, like British Air, will allow through check-in of the bags, but not provide a boarding pass at the rail station). (2) For travelers using airlines that are not participants in the system, the rail company offers an overnight baggage service to the airport, where travelers pick up their bags and check them with the airline. This fee is also $15 per bag. (3) The system offers in-bound through-baggage service for any flight, by any airline, when the traveler pre-purchases rail system baggage tags. When bags arrive in the Swiss airport, rail company staff transfers the bags to the rail system, and travelers meet the bags at the final rail destination. (The traveler must state that no objects requiring any customs duty are included in the bags.) Again, this service is provided for $15 per bag. What Is Happening in Switzerland? About 4% of the originating air travelers at Zurich Air- port are estimated to use the off-airport baggage check-in system. Zurich officials report that the system is particularly popular with skiers and others with heavy baggage. Although most of the examples described previously involve a dominant central city check-in center, the opposite seems to be true in Switzerland. Of those bags checked through Zurich Airport, fewer than 5% came from the Zurich rail station. By contrast, 17% of the bags at the airport came from Bern, the capital city. More than 10% of the bags came from major resort areas (36). Part 3: Evolving Strategies for Integrated Ticketing and Baggage This review of various approaches taken towards integrated ticketing and baggage clearly shows that the full-scale integration of both services, managed and operated throughout by airlines as part of the ticket price, is fast becoming highly unrealistic. Such full integration under one ticket currently occurs for Lufthansa patrons in and out of Cologne and Stuttgart train stations, and virtually no where else. Rather, all over the world hybrid concepts that Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 125
include some, but not all, integrated features are being developed. In some cases, a key role is played by third-party baggage handlers. In other cases, air and rail services are ticketed together, but with no integration of baggage. Part 3 of Chapter 5 looks at some of the recent developments in strategies that implement some, but not all, of the elements of integration between air and ground systems. Much of the most relevant work in the recent development of integrated systems has occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada, and is summarized in the following section. In addition, two good exam- ples of attempts to bring separate modal services together for the benefit of the traveler are pro- filed. The first example is the program developed by the Los Angeles World Airports to provide a dedicated bus service designed for the needs of airline passengers traveling to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles, where the onward journey can continue on a wide range of longer distance transportation services. The second example is the program to integrate air and rail services through the Newark Liberty International Airport rail station. Las Vegas Strategies for Integration of Modal Services As noted in the previous section of this chapter, the largest (geographically) baggage-handling ground access system in the world is operated in Switzerland entirely by a third party, not the airlines and not the airport. The Swiss Fly Rail Baggage system provides good precedent for the idea that getting baggage to the airport can be accomplished by a private company and still effi- ciently integrated with the rest of the aviation system. This concept was initially being adapted for U.S. application by a highly innovative set of entrepreneurs in Las Vegas, who created the company called Certified Airline Passenger Service (CAPS), a privately owned company created by major Las Vegas resorts and a local baggage-handling company. The Evolution of Third-Party Baggage Handling Before September 11, 2001, passengers departing McCarran International Airport on one of 10 airlines could check-in their baggage and receive boarding passes and seat assignments at counters located at more than 12 Las Vegas area resort/casinos. These baggage check-in coun- ters were operated by CAPS. Baggage check-in services were only available for enplaning Las Vegas passengers; no equivalent baggage service was available from the originating airport to the hotels for deplaning Las Vegas passengers. Airline passengers using CAPS were required to check their baggage 2 to 12 hours prior to their scheduled flight departure time and pay a $6 per passenger service fee. Baggage was transported by truck from the individual hotels directly to McCarran International Airport. The international passengers including that of Virgin Atlantic were required to have their baggage re-screened and inspected at the airport. CAPS was permitted to provide off-airport baggage check-in services for scheduled and charter airlines under âOff Airport Baggage Acceptance Amendmentsâ enacted by the FAA for McCarran International Airport. Under the terms of this amendment, CAPS per- sonnel were subject to the same background checks and training as airline personnel, and their baggage-handing facilities were subject to FAA personnel inspection to ensure compliance with security regulations. CAPS was growing in popularity and was being expanded to serve additional hotels and air- lines before September 11, 2001. This success could be attributed to several factors; some of which were unique to Las Vegas. For example, as in many communities, hotel guests are required to check out by noon. But unlike most cities, many Las Vegas visitors, who prefer to remain at the casinos and enjoy the resorts as long as possible, depart Las Vegas on evening flights. Thus, many Las Vegas airline passengers prefer to check their bags several hours before their flight and were accustomed to paying for this service. This situation is not true in most other cities that 126 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation
have more resident and fewer non-resident passengers than Las Vegas and therefore fewer pas- sengers wishing to check their bags several hours before leaving. By August 2001, CAPS was handling 15,000 passengers a month. But, the company was not able to survive the change in requirements that occurred immediately after September 11, 2001. âWe all believed the idea was a smart one. Maybe it was a little bit ahead of its time,â CAPS former vice president of marketing and sales said (41). Recent Fee for Service Concepts Since that time, a series of changes have occurred in the regulatory landscape, including the requirement for 100% of all baggage to be screened, no matter where it was checked-in. Now, there are several organizations that are intending to provide fee for service products for highly specialized markets in the United States. An example of these providers is a company called Bags to Go, which is offering baggage check- in services for passengers of Southwest Airlines at the Las Vegas Convention Center and the Vene- tian and Luxor hotels. Interestingly (in terms of a previous lack of interest in multiparty services), the first airline to sign up is Southwest Airlines. Somewhat like the Swiss system, Bags to Go charges $20; however, this is per traveler up to the airlines free allowance, rather than per bag. The service is available up to 3 hours before flight departure time. According to Bags to Go, additional services are planned for Port Everglades in Broward County, Florida (42). Bags to Go utilizes global positioning system (GPS) navigation services from Navtrak and luggage tracking services from Air-Transport IT Services, Inc., a company owned by Fraport, the operators of the Frankfurt Airport. Los Angeles International Airport to Union Station At the present time, there is only one U.S. longer distance intermodal terminal that offers air- port baggage check-in services: Union Station in Los Angeles. LAWA opened the check-in facil- ity for Los Angeles International Airport at the rail station on March 15, 2006, and the first year saw about 250,000 riders. The bus service has been designed to meet the demanding needs of airline passengers, with service every half hour from 5 a.m. to 1 a.m. and hourly service through the early morning hours. The service concept was developed by LAWA based on its highly suc- cessful FlyAway bus service in Van Nuys, California, which is the only example of a regional park- ride terminal currently offering off-airport baggage check-in service. The Union Station operation is unique in that baggage check-in services are provided by a third-party handler and the bus costs only $3. Importantly, the program has subsidized the costs of third-party airport baggage check-in, down to $5 per person, for up to two bags. (The same number of bags would cost $30 in Switzerland or $20 in a Las Vegas casino.) As of 2007, only a small number of airlines have signed onto the program. This baggage check-in service is also being offered at the original FlyAway location in Van Nuys. Travelers can arrive at or continue their trip from Union Station on Amtrak, Metrolink, Metro Red and Metro Gold rail lines, Metro buses, and DASH downtown shuttle buses, as well as by taxi. The trip to the airport takes between 30 and 40 minutes, because the bus can use the high- occupancy lane system in the region. The agency reports that the system has saved an estimated 5 million vehicle miles and 225,000 gallons of gas. The program reportedly reduced emissions by 231,000 pounds of carbon monoxide. Based on the early success of the Union Station service, LAWA is planning to create more off-airport terminal facilities. In January 2008, JetBlue Airways announced a program jointly developed with Bags Inc. for off-airport baggage check-in. The list of locations in the 10 cities served by the program is pre- sented in Table 5-2. Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 127
Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station: A Case Study As noted in the GAO study, there is only one example in the United States of an airport termi- nal area that is physically linked with the national rail system, either directly or by people mover. Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station stands as the best U.S. test case for the integra- tion of long-distance ground service (Amtrak) with long-distance air service (the airlines). In terms of physical services, the AirTrain people mover connects the Amtrak/New Jersey Tran- sit Rail Station every 5 minutes (or better) to all three of Newark Liberty International Airportâs main airline terminal buildings. The architectural integration at the air terminals is effective, as the people mover is actually on the airside of the terminal building, rather than on the other side of the airport access road, as is the case in Chicago. A simple one-story escalator connects the peo- ple mover platforms to the departure level of the air terminal. The entire system operates outside of the secure area of the terminal (i.e., before going through security check points). The construction of the Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station was the result of a long cooperative process undertaken primarily between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (who paid for it) and New Jersey Transit (who built it). Integration of Air + Rail Ticketing Throughout the implementation process, the plans were developed by New Jersey Transit, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Amtrak, and Continental Airlines. The result was 128 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation SOURCE: JetBlue website. Boston, MA (BOS) Boston Convention & Exhibition Center Hynes Convention Center Port of Boston (Seasonal) Chicago, IL (ORD) McCormick Place Convention Center Fort Lauderdale, FL (FLL) Port Everglades Port of Miami Phoenix, AZ (PHX) Westin Kierland Resort San Diego, CA (SAN) San Diego Convention Center Port of San Diego (Seasonal) San Francisco, CA (SFO) SFO Long-Term Parking Garage SFO Rental Car Facility The Moscone Convention Center Port of San Francisco San Juan, PR (SJU) Port of San Juan Seattle, WA (SEA) Port of Seattle (Seasonal) Tampa, FL (TPA) Port of Tampa Orlando, FL (MCO) Disney's All-Star Movies Resort Disney's All-Star Music Resort Disney's All-Star Sports Resort Disney's Animal Kingdom Lodge Disney's Beach Club Resort & Villas Disney's Boardwalk Inn Disney's Caribbean Beach Resort Disney's Contemporary Resort Disney's Coronado Springs Resort Disney's Fort Wilderness Resort & Campground Disney's Old Key West Resort Disney's Polynesian Resort Disney's Pop Century Resort Disney's Port Orleans Resort - French Quarter Disney's Port Orleans Resort - Riverside Disney's Saratoga Springs Resort & Spa Disney's Wilderness Lodge & Villas Disney's Yacht Club Resort Disney's Grand Floridian Resort & Spa Marriott Downtown Orlando Orange County Convention Center Rosen Centre Hotel Rosen Plaza Hotel Rosen Shingle Creek Shades of Green Hotel Hyatt Orlando Airport Port Canaveral Table 5-2. Locations for remote baggage check-in for JetBlue Airways, through Bags Inc.
the most concentrated attempt yet undertaken to integrate air and ground services. Continental entered into an agreement with Amtrak to code share certain rail services to Stamford and New Haven, Connecticut; Philadelphia; and Wilmington, Delaware. Therefore, Continental is able to sell a single, unified ticket from, for example, Stamford to Paris (Figure 5-12). (In fact, Conti- nental also operates code share rail services with the French National Railway, allowing a trip from the Stamford rail station to Newark airport to Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris and on to Marseilles by train.) From the beginning, the new combination of people mover to regional rail has been a success. The Newark rail station serves about 5% of all airport ground access trips and captures about 12% of the market from Manhattan. All of this growth occurs within a pattern of greater reliance on public transportation services, which grew from 6% of the total market in 1997 to 14% in 2005. Simply stated, these figures show that the growth in rail share was not simply cannibalized from competing bus services. Currently, public transportation modes from Newark airport cap- ture more than 25% of the trips from Manhattan. Ticket integration between rail and airport services was accomplished on the local scale also. The purchase of one ticket from an origin on the New Jersey Transit system (e.g., Penn Station New York) to a destination at an airport air terminal includes both the fare for the New Jersey Transit train and the Port Authorityâs AirTrain. (There are some exceptions, such as the use of monthly tickets by New Jersey Transit riders.) A single one-way integrated ticket from Manhattan to the air terminals now costs about $14, of which $5.50 represents the fare for the AirTrain people mover on the airport. As of 2007, the station is attracting about 4,300 passengers per day, resulting in a yearly average of well over 1.5 million passengers per year (43). The station as a whole shows sub- stantial market growth; total ridership is up more than 40% from its first year of operation. Even though the traveler has purchased a unified fare, fare status must be validated at the ticket gate located between the rail platforms and the AirTrain station. Thus, a New Jersey Transit ticket once punched by a conductor on board has to be submitted again to the fare collection machines. Similarly, the paper ticket used on the Amtrak segment must be shown to the gate manager. The area is staffed 24 hours a day with airport personnel who help with the intricacies of the fare col- lection process. Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 129 SOURCE: Continental Airlines website. Figure 5-12. An example of integrated air/rail ticketing in the United States.
What Happened at the Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station? The goal of seamless integration between the national aviation system and the national rail system is as yet unrealized. As of 2005, about 370 daily Amtrak riders boarded or alighted at the station, while in 2006 about 350 daily riders used the station. Clearly, the through-ticketing service between Amtrak and Continental Airlines is a pioneer- ing first step in offering the public the option of optimizing both air and ground services in a sin- gle purchase decision. What is less clear is the extent to which the product has been aggressively marketed and promoted. However, the results of the Newark through-ticketing experiment are very much consistent with the larger pattern revealed in this chapter in which the consumer is selecting the simplest and least interconnected product options. The market pattern revealed in the Newark integration example is similar to the market pattern revealed in either the Cologne or the Stuttgart example. Documenting the Collaboration at Newark The experience of the Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station can be used as a study in lessons learned in the implementation of intermodal concepts. In November 2004, the I-95 Corridor Coalition published the results of an intensive study of the intermodal coordination associated with the rail station project. At the request of the four participating organizationsâ the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New Jersey Transit, Amtrak, and Continental Airlinesâa team of experts from the Coalition examined all aspects of the interagency project to create and manage the services at the Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station. The team was given access to all levels of the operation, including a series of interviews with the team of passenger service representatives employed in the station. Through a focus group format, everyone associated with the project was invited to give their candid assessment about the strengths and weakness of the integrated project. Some of the conclusions follow: â¢ Agency collaboration has the great value of acknowledging the independence and perspective of each partner in the collaboration; however, it does not have a clear locus of power to makeâand to completeâthe implementation of complex decisions. â¢ The two key challenges to the integration of services provided by separate institutions are (1) the integration of information, to describe the full multisegment trip, and (2) the integration of fare collection media to pay for the full multisegment trip. â¢ The project components most susceptible to problems in multiyear implementation are passenger information systems. â¢ Customer service, operations, and technical staff from all the operating agencies need to pro- vide input into the design process. â¢ The customer perspective must truly be understood by all and a commitment must be made to do what is best for the customer, regardless of historical leanings and potentially conflict- ing policies. The study report observes that the demands of an intermodal transfer station are unique; the passenger is different and has different expectations and needs. Therefore, the rail services them- selves must be designed for the unique role; the space and amenities needed in a rail station and in the rail car are different for a long-distance traveler with luggage. Most important, the report documents the extensive coordination activities undertaken during the capital planning and construction process, and observes that such an intermodal mandate needs to be continued into the operational phase; once the service is running, the continued attention to service quality has to rise above single-agency budgets and priorities. 130 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation
Making the Collaboration Work. In the collaborative model of implementation adopted in Newark, there is no one single lead agency that can mandate the others to follow its recommendations; everything must be negotiated. This model causes each agency represen- tative to, in effect, play two separate roles: the advocate for and defender of the agencyâs legit- imate self-interest, and the advocate of the best end-state for the customer. Rick Mariani of New Jersey Transit told a member of the research team, âeach designee has to have an expan- sive view of the world beyond the organizationâs boundaries. That view must be customer centered, that the outcome must be best for the customer.â The study report concludes: âFor many in the rail agencies, the project was âjust another station.â A major lesson to be learned from this experience is that this is not true: it is not just another station . . . It is a facility in which a higher level of service is matched with a significantly higher fare. It has been argued elsewhere that the future of the public transportation will hinge on the ability to create separate market products for separate market groups, something the publicly subsidized industry has been understandably reticent to do. Indeed, a recent study sponsored by the Transportation Research Board concluded that there is no âmarketâ for airport ground access services; there are a series of unique market segments.â (44) Lessons Learned: Integration with National Systems In the previous examples, whether the integration is with high-speed technology (France and Germany) or slower intercity rail service (Switzerland), the airport strategy takes advantage of a capital investment decision already made for the rest of the national network. The scale of the national rail networks into which the airports have been integrated must be emphasized, because the lack of such rail networks in the United States will make similar strategies infeasible at most U.S. airports. The travel times from the four high-speed lines serving the new Frankfurt Airport InterCity Express station will provide service that is actually competitive with the short-distance air trips that airport officials are trying to discourage. A 1-hour travel time from Frankfurt Airport to downtown Cologne is directly competitive with, and probably better than, the same trip by commuter aircraft. The traveler in western parts of Belgium may be induced to make an international trip through Charles de Gaulle Airport rather than through the Brussels Airport, because of the rail travel times created by the TGV. Designers of U.S. strategies to integrate major airports with Amtrak services will need to understand the difference in quality of services offered to the traveling public. Within the North- east Corridor of the Amtrak system, it is clear that intercity rail can play a role in bringing people to major airports well connected to that system. Outside of that corridor, the parallels with the international experience are weak at best. What is clear from these examples is that the long-distance traveler is not looking for soup- to-nuts provision of integrated services. Most longer distance travelers are showing a pattern in which they want to control as many decisions about their modal options as possible. For the small subset of the market who do want to part with their bags (for whatever reason), third-party baggage managers may emerge as a significant market option. Given that good public transportation options do exist to get travelers to airportsâwhether from near origins or from longer distance origins, a key challenge is to make the traveler aware of those services. Once that knowledge is widely available, the traveler may wish to retain con- trol of each segment decision, rather than surrendering that control to any service. Chapter 9 will review a series of new breakthroughs in the task of getting information about those options to the traveler at the time of trip planning. Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 131
Documentation of Examples of Integrated Services Tables 5-3 through 5-6 summarize the status of various levels of integrated services around the world: â¢ Service from a downtown terminal to the local airport, with baggage (Table 5-3) â¢ Service from a downtown terminal to an airport in another city, with baggage (Table 5-4) â¢ Service to the local airport, no baggage (Table 5-5) â¢ Baggage check-in at points adjacent to the airport (Table 5-6) 132 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation City and Terminal Identification Airport and Airport Connection What Was Offered as Off- Airport Terminal Service What Happened to the Off-Airport Terminal Services? London Victoria Rail Station London Gatwick Airport by express dedicated rail and by shared rail Baggage check-in for British Airways and American Airlines Check-in service discontinued because of economic costs London Paddington Rail Station Heathrow Airport by express dedicated rail Baggage check-in for most airlines serving Heathrow Check-in service discontinued because of economic costs Hong Kong Downtown and Kowloon Island Rail Stations Hong Kong International Airport by dedicated rail; connections to shared rail Baggage check-in for most airlines serving Hong Kong International Airport for holders of express rail ticket Check-in services now being re-examined by rail company management for economic costs Vienna Central Airlines Terminal Dedicated and shared rail services to Vienna Airport Baggage check-in for many airlines, and to USA; bags go in double-deck rail car In operation Moscow Downtown Rail Station Dedicated train to Domodedovo Airport Baggage check-in for selected airlines In operation Kuala Lumpur Sentral Station Dedicated rail service to Kuala Lumpur Airport Baggage check-in for many airlines; through- baggage check-out planned for 2007 Baggage check-in now operating; through check-out planned for November 2007 Madrid Nuevos Ministerios Check- in Terminal Shared, traditional rapid transit to Barajas Airport Baggage check-in offered for One World and Star Alliance Airlines Check-in discontinued in 2006 Osaka Central Airlines Terminal Several rail services connected the complex to Kansai Airport Baggage check-in for most airlines System discontinued for unnamed reasons Munich Main Railway Station Two check-in counters were built in central station for Lufthansa only Riders could choose rail or bus. Bags were all carried by bus Discontinued for lack of customer use Union Station Downtown Los Angeles Direct dedicated bus service to LAX Third-party baggage service for $5 per rider Commenced in 2006 Zurich Main Rail Station No dedicated track areasâ no dedicated seats on trains Airline baggage check-in offered by railroad for $15 per bag Some kiosks in operation Tokyo Central Airlines Terminal Dedicated express bus service to Narita Airport; no rail Full baggage check-in and partial customs clearance Discontinued in 2002 after pull-out by U.S. flights Table 5-3. Facilities with direct local airport connectionsâhistory of baggage service.
Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 133 City and Terminal Identification Airport and Airport Connection What Was Offered as Off- Airport Terminal Service What Happened to the Off-Airport Terminal Services? Cologne Rail Station High-speed intercity rail with seats dedicated to air ticket holders Baggage check-in for Lufthansa, Star Alliance; separate three-letter code allows check-out return Through ticketing and baggage underutilized; future uncertain Stuttgart Rail Station High speed intercity rail with seats dedicated to joint air rail ticket holders Baggage check-in for Lufthansa, Star Alliance; separate three-letter code allows check-out return Joint air/rail ticketing and baggage under- utilized; future uncertain Air France Check- in at Brussels Main Station High speed intercity rail with seats dedicated to joint air rail ticket holders Baggage check-in for holder of Air France joint air/rail ticket; passengers must rejoin their bags at CDG Airport In operation Bern Rail Station Shared boarding area for train direct to Zurich Airport Airline baggage check-in offered by railroad for $15 per bag; check-in 20 minutes before train In operation Florence Downtown Rail Station Allows baggage check-in for Pisa Airport Limited baggage In operation Magdeburg Rail Station Germany Shared rail connection to Leipzig/Halle Airport, baggage check-in between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. night before flight Bags travel by truck for $15 per person. Ceased operation in 2007 City and Terminal Identification Airport and Airport Connection What Was Offered as Off- Airport Terminal Service What Happened to the Off-Airport Terminal Services? Milan Cadorna Rail Station Dedicated train to Milan Airport No baggage check-in Kiosks available for those with no baggage Stockholm Central Station Separate boarding area for dedicated train to Arlanda Airport No baggage check-in Kiosks were tried for those with no baggage; now discontinued Oslo Central Station Separate boarding area for dedicated trains to Oslo Airport No baggage check-in Kiosks available for those with no baggage Rome Central Station Separate boarding area for dedicated train to Rome da Vinci Airport No baggage check-in No services Table 5-4. Facilities designed for the intercity access trip. Table 5-5. Dedicated rail serviceâno history of baggage handling.
134 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation City and Terminal Identification Airport and Airport Connection What Was Offered as Off- Airport Terminal Service What Happened to the Off-Airport Terminal Services? DÃ¼sseldorf Airport High-Speed Rail Station People mover from high- speed rail station to airline terminal area Baggage check-in for most airlines in airport Service discontinued because of lack of customer interest Newark Rail Station People mover from rail station to airport Baggage check-in for Continental Airlines Service discontinued because of lack of customer interest Jamaica Station, Queens NYC People mover to JFK airport Shell was prepared if airlines were interested Service never started because of lack of airline interest Anthony Station in RER-B for Orly Airport People mover from regional rail station to Paris Orly Airport No facilities No facilities Table 5-6. Near-airport off-site facilities.