Appendix A: Research Documentation for ACRP Report 41 (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.

APPENDIX A RESEARCH DOCUMENTATION A. CASE STUDIES—AIRLINE-DRIVEN This category includes discussions and analyses of six case studies covering airline-driven self-tagging implementations efforts on three continents, including a) Air New Zealand at Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch; b) Air Canada at Vancouver, Toronto, and Montréal; c) WestJet at Vancouver and Montréal; d) Air Lingus at Dublin; e) EasyJet and Swissport at Geneva; and f) SAS at Stockholm-Arlanda. Each case study is introduced with a short synopsis providing the background. For a more in-depth coverage and analysis of each case study, a detailed summary is also provided. Each summary covers the following areas:  Self-Tagging (what’s in place),  Bag Drop (what’s in place),  Effectiveness of Check-In Prior to Self-Tagging (assessment from a facilities perspective),  Technical Challenges with Self-Tagging (assessment from a technical perspective),  Agent Adoption of Self-Tagging (assessment from a people perspective),  Customer Adoption of Self-Tagging (assessment from a people perspective),  Next Steps for Self-Tagging (where are you going),  Airport—Airline Partnering (benefits from an airline perspective—opportunities to compliment the airport-airline partnering), and  Airport Facility Involvement (brief summary of the positions/status held by each airport where airline self-tagging is deployed). The relevant information in these areas that are of importance to the project’s purpose is summarized in the highlights and applicability/transference analysis sections preceding the detailed summary. a) Air New Zealand (ANZ) at Auckland (AKL), Wellington (WLG), and Christchurch (CHC) o Synopsis: ANZ sponsored the meetings and tours conducted by the site team at all three airport locations. While in Auckland, the team met with ANZ strategic planning personnel, at the offices of ANZ. The team also conducted airport site tours with ANZ operations staff and met with airport management and operation staff. Also, while in Auckland, the team recorded transaction analyses 1

of the self-tagging operations. This process was repeated at Christchurch and Wellington Airports. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The team performed approximately 100 transaction analyses, including throughput analyses, success rates, bag drop-off rates, and rework rates. Highlights include - Passengers and ANZ staff are impressed with it in the way it has eliminated the queues. - The average time for a passenger to check-in and drop bag is 2 minutes and 15 seconds. - The average bag drop time is 2 seconds  Assessment of Installations: The team conducted facility tours of the three New Zealand airports. The tours were led by airport and airline operations and facility staff who provided insight to the current and planned operations. Highlights include - Initial goal for ANZ at all three installations is to conduct bag weighing, and processing in the back-of-house areas. The lack of space in back-of-house at Christchurch Airport required ANZ to use injection belts that allow for weighing before the bag makes it into the baggage room. - With its use of kiosks located in circular pods, ANZ stated they require approximately 1/3 less floor space than the traditional check-in counter configurations. - Kiosks installations have performed well, with an average of 5% to 10% of the kiosks out of service at any given time. - Mobile counters are used to help out when recheck or irregular operations occur.  Operational Assessment: The team conducted facility tours of the three New Zealand airports. The tours were led by airport and airline operations and facility staff who provided insight to the current and planned operations. Highlights include - Although greater efficiencies are achieved processing the bag (weight, tag status, etc.) in back-of-house operations, ANZ staff prefers to process the bag before it is placed on the belt, since any bag issues can be addressed and resolved while the passenger is still in front of them. - Although not formally planned, over the 1-year time span, ANZ has seen a natural and gradual reduction in airline staff used for the check-in Auckland Airport. 2

process. For example, in Auckland, ANZ have gone from a peak of 14 staff, to nine. - Since the staff prefer to stand behind counters, a change of culture was required. Staff training has changed to a more customer-centric type training. Training time has been reduced from on the average, 5 weeks, to closer to 2 weeks, and much of this is done on the job. - Although passenger adoption has been very good, ANZ staff are needed continually in and around the kiosk areas. An average of one staff to eight kiosks is used.  Assessment of Business Case: The team conducted interview sessions with ANZ staff responsible for strategic development. Highlights include - In New Zealand, the distance between domestic airports is close enough that vehicle transportation is a competing factor with domestic air travel. ANZ serves approximately 70% of the domestic travel market within New Zealand. As such, a key business driver was to shorten the airport process time to stimulate flight travel. Due to short flight times, the overall flight process was twice the flight time. - Another key business driver is improved customer satisfaction through providing self-service solutions to their passengers. - ANZ executives encourage the use of intuition as opposed to a highly analytical process, and a shallow corporate structure allows for quick decisions. Decisions are made by doing what makes sense. - ANZ has eliminated web check-in. They see that as a redundant and unnecessary step. The airline is focused on kiosk check-in at the airport.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The team conducted interview sessions with ANZ staff responsible for strategic development. Highlights include - “Kingfish” (ANZ's domestic product) has been very successful due to ANZ's market share. ANZ will transition Kingfish to international in about 6 to 12 months and the airports will support that transition.  Design Recommendations: With the new terminal facility currently under design at Christchurch Airport, the team conducted interviews with the CHC staff responsible for design requirements. Highlights include - The back-of-house will have a fully flexible baggage handling system that will take any bag from any counter to any of five makeup belts. - Bag tags have to be active for integrated baggage belt to work. - The used of radio frequency identification (RFID) will come after a few big airlines invest. - The airport is providing the baggage system and network, and it will be responsible for managing the baggage system, probably through a contractor. - At Auckland, ANZ replaced 18 check-in counters with 24 kiosks in pods, with two lower accessibility kiosks. The airline still maintains three check-in desks for elite travelers and special cases that cannot be handled at the kiosk. ANZ handles about 3,000 bags a day, with little to no wait time for the passenger. 3

- Kiosks print an active tag, a baggage system message (BSM) is generated, which is linked to the passenger, who applies the tag and drops the bag on the belt. o Transference / Applicability to the United States (U.S.): In general, information collected at the New Zealand airports is thought to be applicable for U.S. airport installations, with the following potential exceptions noted:  Regulatory: Domestic travel within New Zealand is not considered to be a significant target for terrorism. As such, the airports have a security policy that dictates less stringent requirements for domestic travel than international. As a result, some of the solutions employed by ANZ, such as the printing of active bag tags and the processing of the bag completely in back-of-house may cause transference concerns to U.S. installations.  Finance: ANZ executives encourage the use of intuition as opposed to a highly analytical process, and a shallow corporate structure allows for quick decisions. The financial risk of a wholesale change-out is accepted, if it “makes sense.” o Detailed Summary: The airline’s self‐tagging efforts and experiences are summarized as follows:  Self-Tagging: When designing the self‐tagging solution known as “Kingfish,” the design team wanted to encourage the use of kiosks as the primary check‐in mechanism and eliminate the potential for queues to build up behind the kiosks or in the bag drop area. The design resulted in an open lobby concept with circular pods of kiosks with no stanchions to guide the formation of organized lines. The design also called for a bag drop area that consists of an openly accessible belt where passengers would lay their bags themselves once tagged. Other design elements include the installation of baggage scales for passengers to weigh their own bags to determine if they meet the weight requirement, and the installation of two kiosks off to the side for accessibility concerns, which have the identical functionality of the primary kiosks, but are physically shorter. With this design, the typical customer service agent was forced to assume a modified job function and assist passengers at the kiosk rather that process them from behind a counter. To eliminate a primary obstacle and encourage the use of the self‐tagging process, Air New Zealand removed almost all traditional check‐in counters leaving only two counters, one to handle exceptions, such as large groups or passengers with accessibility needs, and one to process Premium Passengers. Auckland was the initial deployment of Kingfish. The equipment was phased in over 3 weeks with an overnight cutover to the new system. This deployment replaced 18 check‐in counters with 24 kiosks. Approximately 6 million domestic passengers are processed per year and 3,000 bags are processed each day with no queue time. While the deployment at Wellington is almost identical to Auckland, the bag drop at Christchurch varies due space limitations in the baggage room. Systemwide, 4

the average domestic passenger processing time is currently 2 minutes and 15 seconds with close to 100% utilization of self‐service.  Bag Drop: Air New Zealand has a maximum baggage weight limit of 25 kilograms per bag on domestic flights and 32 kilograms per bag on international flights. Due to the fact that these are maximum limits, each bag must be weighed prior to being loaded on the aircraft. Air New Zealand has chosen to put the burden on the passenger to ensure that each bag is within the limits. In Auckland and Wellington, bags are automatically weighed by an inline scale integrated into the baggage system on the secure side. If a bag is determined to be overweight, it is automatically stamped with a label and diverted for manual inspection. An Air New Zealand employee will remove the bag and weigh it manually. If the bag is overweight, the employee will notify an Air New Zealand agent and place the bag aside where it will be retrieved and returned to the check‐in area. The Air New Zealand agent will page the passenger who checked the bag to have them return to the check‐in counter to retrieve their bag and resolve the issue. If the passenger does not respond to the page, they will be notified at the gate during boarding. With this strategy, approximately 4% of the bags checked have problems, and it is possible that a passenger may miss their flight due to an overweight bag. It is the philosophy of Air New Zealand to create an efficient system for the 96% of passengers who follow the rules. In Christchurch, the process is different due to a lack of space in baggage room. Injection belts are used that allow an agent to weigh every bag before the bag makes it into the baggage room. With this process, any bag issues can be addressed and resolved while the passenger is still with the agent. The bag drop process in Christchurch is slightly less efficient than in Auckland and Wellington due to a brief encounter with an agent at the bag drop and the potential for slow down when an overweight bag is detected. When the new terminal in Christchurch opens, it is the intent of Air New Zealand to use inline scales in the same way they are currently used in Auckland and Wellington.  Effectiveness of Check-In Prior to Self-Tagging: Air New Zealand originally implemented self‐service check‐in with self‐tagging capabilities for domestic flights. This process did not meet the customer’s need for efficient check‐in due to the requirement to get into a queue line to check their luggage. As a result, the Air New Zealand strategy team began considering a self‐tagging option. The Air New Zealand executives encourage the use of intuition in strategy development as opposed to going through a highly analytical process. In addition, a shallow corporate structure allows for quick decisions to be made. With an objective of shortening the airport check‐in process to reduce overall travel time, Air New Zealand implemented a full self‐tagging capability from the kiosk with a self‐service bag drop.  Technical Challenges with Self-Tagging: A few different technical challenges have surfaced for Air New Zealand throughout the initial stages of the self‐tagging initiative. Early in the kiosk development process, there were 5

some issues with the middleware integrating with the backend systems. IER*  Agent Adoption of Self-Tagging: The transition from traditional counter check‐in to full self‐service check‐in posed challenges for the Air New Zealand agent staff. Historically, the check‐in agent was a transactional role and the agents became comfortable behind a counter. With this change, the agents were forced to interact closely with the passenger in a customer service role. This was a difficult transition for many of the agents, and some decided that this new role did not suit them and subsequently left the company. Air New Zealand did not plan to make staff reductions based on the new, more efficient process; however, due to natural attrition, the staff count on the floor has reduced and enabled cost savings to be realized. Staff training has changed to more of a customer‐centric type training, and training time has been reduced from an average of 5 weeks to an average of 2 weeks with much of this is done on the job. Team managers now spend time out on the floor mentoring and coaching the staff and force the agents to rotate different positions to keep them from staying in their comfort zone too long. , the kiosk provider, was flexible with their intellectual property and allowed the Air New Zealand in‐house development team to have access to the middleware source code. This enabled Air New Zealand to fix the problems. The logic behind the self‐tagging application required rework because the first generation was not completely intuitive. It was observed that the screen flow on the kiosks had to advise the passenger of what was happening next because a slight delay in the printing process would allow the passenger enough time to assume the process had completed and walk away before getting their tag or boarding pass. The development of the bag tag itself required multiple iterations, as the original paper stock that was used for the bag tags did not work well in the kiosks. The in‐house airline operational support team provides first line support for the kiosks through a help desk. The operational status of the kiosks can be remotely monitored by IER to assess issues and IER partners with Fujitsu to provide onsite support for higher level issues.  Customer Adoption of Self-Tagging: Air New Zealand has not received a significant push‐back on self‐tagging by the traveling public; however, there are still passengers who would rather speak to an agent. Primarily individuals with special needs and Premium Passengers still desire to have an agent check them in and tag their bags. To accommodate these passengers, Air New Zealand maintains just a few check‐in counters for just these purposes. In general, the feedback received from the Air New Zealand passengers has been mostly positive. * The Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, and the Federal Aviation Administration (sponsor of the Airport Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting. 6

 Next Steps for Self-Tagging: Air New Zealand is planning to start trans‐Tasman operations with Australian Airports in 2010. This effort will require facility and operational enhancements in all three airports as well as regulatory coordination with agencies in New Zealand and Australia. On June 1, 2010, ANZ went live with its first international self-service for flights to Australia from New Zealand. So far it appears to be successful and meeting the expectations of ANZ customers. In addition, Air New Zealand is a small percentage carrier outside of New Zealand. As such, they are planning to support common use self‐tagging development to enable their passengers to self‐tag on international flights coming into New Zealand.  Airport—Airline Partnering: For ANZ, the good partnering relationship with each airport has been a key contributor for the success of its installations. At present, ANZ has been allowed to install dedicated systems but is willing to discuss the benefits behind future common use installations. At present, branding is not a key concern to Air New Zealand since it operates out of primarily dedicated space in each of the three major airports in New Zealand.  Airport Facility Involvement: - Auckland Airport—Transition of Kingfish to International. Auckland Airport has been extremely supportive of Air New Zealand’s implementation of Kingfish and will be turning their attention soon to the transition of Kingfish to Air New Zealand international departures. In order to support this effort and the expected desire of other trans-Tasman carriers to implement self-tagging in the future, Auckland anticipates needing to provide a common bag drop. The approach that Auckland plans to take in defining the requirements of the new processes will likely be based on the success of a current initiative utilizing Lean Six-Sigma strategies to define alternatives based on a “good, better, best” mentality for the improvement of the MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries) processes for screening inbound international baggage. - Wellington Airport—Common Use Self-Service in an Integrated International and Domestic Terminal. Wellington Airport operates an integrated international and domestic terminal in which Air New Zealand, as well as other airlines, process all check-in and bag drop operations by utilizing the same physical location and baggage system. Counters are currently dedicated to airlines, but the airport owns the entire infrastructure and the licenses (lease agreements) are coming to an end, so the airport is considering how to make more efficient use of the facility through common use. Wellington currently has common use terminal equipment (CUTE) systems in place that operate under a CUTE Club model. However, unlike Auckland and Christchurch, Wellington will not mandate CUTE for international carriers due to the shared use of counters by domestic and international processes. In addition, it is not the intent of Wellington to force common use passenger processing system (CUPPS) compliance on its carriers because it may has the 7

potential to hinder the implementation of new innovative technology advancements by the airlines. - Christchurch Airport—New Integrated Terminal. Christchurch is in the process of building a new terminal building that will serve both domestic and international air travel beginning in 2011. This new terminal will provide integrated domestic and international check-in with 56 CUTE-equipped counters. Christchurch has conducted modeling exercises that indicate that Air New Zealand will need to expand beyond their dedicated area during period of overlap between international and domestic departures. The new terminal will have a fully flexible, airport-owned baggage handling system that will take any bag from any counter to any one of five makeup belts. The airport will be responsible for managing the baggage system and has been coordinating with Air New Zealand to identify specific needs for integration of their specific baggage handling equipment. The life of the new terminal was based on the current usage of the existing terminal; however, by utilizing a fully common use approach, the airport is expecting to achieve greater efficiency that will provide for 4 to 5 years worth of growth. The airport does anticipate having to plan for new construction within the next 4 to 5 years. b) Air Canada (AC) at Vancouver International (YVR), Toronto International (YYZ), and Montréal Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport (YUL) o Synopsis: AC sponsored the meetings and tours conducted by the site team at YVR and YYZ. While at YYZ, the team met with AC information technology (IT) and strategic planning personnel. The team also conducted airport site tours with AC operations staff and met with airport management and operation staff. Also, while in Toronto and Vancouver, the team recorded transaction analyses of the self-tagging operations. At YUL, interviews Toronto International Airport. were conducted with station personnel. Facility tours of AC installations were sponsored by the YUL staff. 8

o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The team recorded approximately 50 transaction analyses, including throughput analyses, success rates, bag drop-off rates, and rework rates at Toronto and Vancouver. The team’s recorded information was supplemented with information obtained from a 2007 YVR presentation of a self-bag -tag kiosks survey, where 138 observations and 231 passengers were recorded. Highlights included: - Passengers "flow" through kiosks, where they proceeded to a bag drop queue. - Passengers can check bag weight at the entrance of the bag drop queue. - Agents at the bag drop have the ability to perform some of the check-in operations. The passenger should already have checked in at the kiosk. - Passengers with oversized baggage and exceptions are directed away from the bag drop counters. - Process is dependent on agents helping passengers through kiosks and into the queue. - AC has observed that as the passengers have learned the self-service process, the average kiosk process time continues to trend downward. - Although kiosk transaction time is trending downward, as AC adds new functionality, resultant new passenger activity tends to temporarily increase transaction times as the new passengers learn the self-service process.  Assessment of Installations: The team conducted facility tours of the three noted Canadian Airports (detailed YUL information is included under the airport-driven case study section of this Appendix). The tours were led by airport and airline operations and facility staff who provided insight to the current and planned operations. Highlights included: - Initial goal for AC at both installations is to encourage passenger self-verification of bag weighing at the kiosk. At Toronto, agents attempt to identify overweight bags prior to the baggage acceptance point. At Vancouver, weighing of the bag is a component of the dedicated bag drop. - AC noted that when self-service/self-tagging is working effectively, dwell time during peaks can be reduced substantially (30% to 40%). - Odd sized bags have to be carried by passengers to the oversize bag drop, after the bag is validated by the agent. - AC continues to work on passenger flow models. At Toronto, kiosks are placed to produce a direct linear flow for the passengers, from the kiosk, to the bag drop queue. - Kiosks are being upgraded as need demands and cost effectiveness permits.  Operational Assessment: The team conducted facility tours of the three Canadian airports. The tours were led by airport and airline operations and facility staff who provided insight to the current and planned operations. Highlights included: 9

- AC provides agent assistance at the kiosks. - AC noted that in both locations, the passengers are gradually catching onto self-tagging. From a passenger perspective, it was noted that the AC bag drop at Toronto has more flexibility of operations than the AC bag drop at YUL. As a result, AC has modified its process at YUL to reflect the Toronto process. - Lobby management is critical for success. Agents must work to ensure bags getting to the bag drop or validation points are prepared accordingly. If not, the efficiencies of the bag drop can be reduced to a full-service type counter. - From a passenger perspective, AC seeks to provide a consistent look and feel across all of its airport locations.  Assessment of Business Case: The team conducted interview sessions with AC staff responsible for strategic development. Highlights included: - A key business driver for AC is improved customer satisfaction by providing self-service solutions to their passengers. - Reducing passenger dwell time and reduction of peak congestion is another key business driver for AC. - AC executives encourage continued improvements of the passenger flow models. At present, they are in a state of development and are trying new things. AC stated that it is difficult to say exactly how the optimum passenger flow model will turn out. - At YYZ, the airport’s perspective on business benefits include: reduction in the size of check-in facility and, ultimately, delay in construction of capital projects.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The team conducted interview sessions with AC staff responsible for strategic development. Highlights included: - AC is working with all Canadian airports for full self-tagging implementation. - Although AC prefers the exclusive use model, they are willing to work with Canadian airport sites that are seeking to use self-tagging in a common use model. The only way AC uses a common use model is when it meets or exceeds the AC exclusive use model. Agent control of bag validation is a key concern for AC when working in a common use airport. - AC continues to work with IATA in establishing a consistent approach for passenger self-tagging and to support expansion of self-tagging into U.S. airports.  Design Recommendations: The following design related highlights were collected through on-site interviews: - All AC kiosks print inactive tags. AC maintains its own active/inactive software at bag drop and validation points. - YYZ controls the level of infrastructure that airlines install. YYZ owns the entire infrastructure and dictates that airlines cannot install their own hardware. 10

- Try to avoid moving kiosks for cost purposes. - At YVR, the airport likes to have the process drive the technology as a standard approach. Sometimes they have to change process to accommodate technology. In both cases, the airport requests airlines to define business reason. Support for AC’s self-tagging was based on airline’s presentation of business cases. - At YVR, there are about 100 kiosks in the airport and 50 in parking or off-site locations, such as at Skytrain, hotels, convention center, cruise ships, and tourist bureaus. There are no current off-site bag drops. The airport would like to see self-tagging available off-site. - RFID is a data challenge more than an infrastructure challenge. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: In general, information collected at the Canadian airports is thought to be applicable for U.S. airport installations, with the following potential exceptions noted:  Regulatory: Regulatory information is applicable. However, it is important to note that although the TSA has approved transborder use of self-tagging from the Montréal airport, this process is not necessarily transferrable to transborder flights from U.S. airports. o Detailed Summary: The airline’s self‐tagging efforts and experiences are summarized as follows:  Self-Tagging: In general, the AC process is as follows: - All passengers go to self-service kiosks. Exceptions are business class customers, who can proceed directly to a full-service counter. - Passengers print bag tags at kiosks; the bag tags are inactive. - Passengers are monitored by agents for assistance and for bag exception handling.  Bag Drop: - All passengers proceed to bag drop or validation stations. - AC agent validates bag and activates bag tag. - Agents attempt to direct bag exceptions, such as overweight bags, to a rework station, or exception handling station. - AC application allows agent at bag drop to do a complete service without having to redirect.  Effectiveness of Check-In Prior to Self-Tagging: - AC noted that one of the biggest challenges is getting bags weighed before bag drop. AC is investigating means to conduct bag weighing appropriately. - AC stated their exclusive use self-tagging process has shown to be very effective.  Technical Challenges with Self-Tagging: - Some challenges with kiosks were noted, including paper stock limits and printer issues as the primary maintenance concerns. Depending on the locations, AC must integrate older kiosks with newer models. Older 11

kiosks typically do not have boarding pass scanners and have old passport readers. - Tagging of bags as heavy is important so to protect bag handlers from inadvertently handling heavy bags accepted by the airline. Multi-colored bag tags would be useful to eliminate overlays, but would require significant investment by the airports.  Agent Adoption of Self-Tagging: AC has found retraining and motivational challenges with agent adoption. Getting the agents to engage the customer, rather than waiting for the customer to come to the agent, is the primary reason.  Customer Adoption of Self-Tagging: Customer adoption has been good.  Next Steps for Self-Tagging: - AC is working with all Canadian airports for full self-tagging implementation. - AC continues to work with IATA in establishing a consistent approach for passenger self-tagging and to support expansion of self-tagging into U.S. airports.  Airport—Airline Partnering: For AC, the good partnering relationship with each airport has been a key contributor for the success of their installations. At all airport locations, AC has chosen to install dedicated systems, but is willing to discuss the potential use of common use installations. However, AC does not believe an airport authority can mandate its check-in process.  Airport Facility Involvement: - Vancouver International Airport (YVR). Like YUL, YVR has considerable experience with the deployment and operation of self-service, including passenger self-tagging processes. The airport maintains a very progressive attitude, when it comes to solving problems and working with its airline partners. In overcoming challenges, airport management likes to have the process drive the solution and the technology used behind the solution. When airlines approach the airport with requests for change, Airport management attempts to sit down with the airline, work out the expectations, and forecast needs before designing the solution. At present, the airport is working along these lines with two of its airline partners: Air Canada and WestJet. Both Airlines have presented plans to change their check-in processes, introducing passenger self-tagging as a key component of the new processes. Self-tagging is working for Air Canada for domestic travel and is ready for implementation on the international side. WestJet has also introduced self-tagging for domestic travel. The Airport’s infrastructure is prepared for common use and self-tagging, airport-wide. At present, it is well positioned for precleared departures to provide self-tagging for airlines going to the U.S., and is working with Transport Canada and the TSA in implementing the process. - Toronto International Airport (YYZ). YYZ, traditionally known as a “common use” airport, is in the process of evaluating its airport-maintain 12

processes and systems carefully, with consideration to long-term costs of operations. The airlines have independently developed the processes and systems that they needed, and the airport has supported the deployments in terms of approving facility alterations and changes to passenger flow. The airport has also provided common use self-service (CUSS) kiosks and CUTE at the desks, although certain airlines use their proprietary equipment. The airport maintains a very strong perspective of ensuring the Airlines can meet the needs of the passengers. Essentially, the airport maintains that it must change with the industry and adapt to what the passengers want to do. As such, the airport works closely with Air Canada to get Transport Canada approval for self-tagging. Other airlines, such as KLM, are also pursuing a self-tagging solution. c) WestJet (WS) at Vancouver International (YVR) and Montréal Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport (YUL) o Synopsis: WS sponsored the meetings and tours conducted by the site team at YVR. While at YVR, the team met with WS IT and strategic planning personnel. The team also conducted airport site tours with WS operations staff and met with airport management and operation staff. While at YUL, the team met with staff and management from WS Guest Services Department. Also, while at YVR and YUL, the team Aéroports de Montréal. recorded transaction analyses of the self-tagging operations. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The team recorded approximately 20 transaction analyses, including throughput analyses, success rates, bag drop-off rates, and rework rates at YVR. Transaction information included self-service kiosks and bag drop, but did not include self-tagging, which was temporarily turned off due to software changes. The team’s recorded information was supplemented by information obtained from a 2009 WS technical report on self-tagging simulation modeling tests. The technical report ran simulations over a 24-hour period. Highlights from the facility observations included: - Kiosks are in two areas: along a line in front of check-in queues as well as in a roped-off area, dedicated for self-service. 13

- Process is dependent on agents helping passengers through kiosks and into queue. - Average total processing time, including kiosk and bag drop, was 2 minutes and 30 seconds. Maximum recorded time was 4 minutes and 28 seconds. - Per the WS technical report, and from a guest service perspective (time in system), the YUL self-tagging pilot offers no improvement from current kiosk check-In (4.0 minutes vs. 3.9 minutes time in system, respectively). - Per the WS technical report, from an operational perspective, self-tagging results in a decrease in agent utilization.  Assessment of Installations: The team conducted facility tours of YVR and YUL (detailed YUL information is included under the airport-driven case study section of this Appendix). The tours were led by airport and airline operations and facility staff who provided insight to the current and planned operations. Highlights included: - WS prefers a scenario in which, self-tagging kiosks are clustered together, separate from the other check-in process. WS is still investigating optimum kiosk layout. - WS acknowledges that the self-tagging process will be most efficient once the check-in counter is eliminated, such that all check-in is accomplished at the kiosk. From there, the passenger would proceed directly to the bag drop-off location.  Operational Assessment: The team conducted facility tours of the two Canadian airports. The tours were led by airport and airline operations and facility staff who provided insight to the current and planned operations. Highlights included - WS noted that at YVR, they saw a 10% conversion rate of passengers on the first day of introducing self-tagging kiosks, which equated to 450 passengers per day from the beginning. - So far, with its early experience in self-tagging, WS has experienced a high turnover rate with airport ambassadors. - WS agent-to-kiosk goal is 8:1. - WS goal is to use a slow deployment strategy in order to allow natural attrition during the transition of staff.  Assessment of Business Case: - WS views self-tagging as a key improvement to customer service, which is their primary business case.  Roadmap for Further Employments: - WS plans to continue to relinquish check-in counters and have more self-service kiosks. The goal is to achieve 60% to 70% on self-service.  Design Recommendations: - WS is pursuing acquisition of self-activation software that will automatically activate tags when the bag is placed on the bag belt. 14

o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: In general, information collected at the Canadian airports is thought to be applicable for U.S. airport installations, with the following potential exceptions noted:  Regulatory: Regulatory information is applicable. However, it is important to note that although the TSA has approved transborder use of self-tagging from the Canadian airports, this process is not necessarily transferrable to transborder flights from the U.S. airports. o Detailed Summary: The airline’s self‐tagging efforts and experiences are summarized as follows:  Self-Tagging: In general, the WS process is listed below. This assumes an exclusive use model. WS is willing to work under common use models where it makes sense to do so. In these situations, variations to the steps below will be considered. - Guests proceed to an area dedicated for self-tagging. Non-self-tagging kiosks are located in an area separated from the self-tagging kiosks. - WS ambassadors are always available for passenger assistance. Their job is to train the passenger, not to do the tagging for them. - All passengers proceed to a dedicated activation queue line.  Bag Drop: - WS’s goal is to provide passenger bag drop and activation of bag tags. - Bag drop will be a dedicated position, separate from other check-in functions.  Effectiveness of Check-In Prior to Self-Tagging: - WS already uses an effective model for self-service check-in and views little processing time improvements with self-tagging added to the self-service check-in.  Technical Challenges with Self-Tagging: - So far, signage has been a challenge. Typically, it is inadequate due to location and size. Also, there needs to be a label on the kiosk telling the guest where the tag slot is.  Agent Adoption of Self-Tagging: AC has found retraining and motivational challenges with agent adoption. Getting the agents to engage the customer, rather than waiting for the customer to come to the agent, is the primary reason.  Customer Adoption of Self-Tagging: Customer adoption has been good. - Self-tagging seems to work well with guests with one or two bags; not with sporting equipment, or groups of four or more. - Some guests preferred to opt out of using self-tagging unless the WS ambassador did the whole transaction. - In the common use model, it was observed that as high as 35% of the neighboring airline’s passengers were asking WS ambassadors for assistance.  Next Steps for Self-Tagging: - WS continues to pursue self-tagging, but not aggressively. 15

 Airport—Airline Partnering: For WS, the good partnering relationship with each airport has been a key contributor for the success of their installations. In some locations, WS has been allowed to install dedicated systems, but is willing to discuss the benefits behind common use installations.  Airport Facility Involvement: - Vancouver International Airport (YVR). Like YUL, YVR has considerable experience with the deployment and operation of self-service, including passenger self-tagging processes. The airport maintains a very progressive attitude, when it comes to solving problems and working with its airline partners. In overcoming challenges, airport management likes to have the process drive the solution and the technology used behind the solution. When airlines approach the airport with requests for change, airport management attempts to sit down with the airline, work out the expectations, and forecast needs before designing the solution. At present, the airport is working along these lines with two of its airline partners: Air Canada and WestJet. Both airlines have presented plans to change their check-in processes, introducing passenger self-tagging as a key component of the new processes. Self-tagging is working for Air Canada for domestic travel, and is ready for implementation on the international side. WestJet has also introduced self-tagging for domestic travel. The airport’s infrastructure is prepared for common use and self-tagging, airport-wide. At present, it is well positioned for pre-cleared departures to provide self-tagging for airlines going to the U.S. and is working with Transport Canada and the TSA in implementing the process. Recently, a pilot was conducted with active/inactive tags that showed it to be too easy for a non-validated bag to get through. Even though the baggage system could sort it for further investigation, Transport Canada was not in favor of this solution. The focus on the Olympics, other renovations, and the economic status has further delayed other tests and the ultimate start of these new initiatives. - Toronto International Airport (YYZ). YYZ, traditionally known as a “common use” airport, is in the process of evaluating its airport-maintain processes and systems carefully, with consideration to long-term costs of operations. The airlines have independently developed the processes and systems that they needed, and the airport has supported the deployments in terms of approving facility alterations and changes to passenger flow. The airport has also provided CUSS kiosks and CUTE at the desks, although certain airlines use their proprietary equipment. The airport maintains a very strong perspective of ensuring the airlines can meet the needs of the passengers. Essentially, the airport maintains that it must change with the industry and adapt to what the passengers want to do. As such, the airport works closely with Air Canada to get Transport Canada approval for self-tagging. Other airlines, such as KLM, are also pursuing a self-tagging solution. - 16

d) Aer Lingus (EI) at Dublin (DUB) o Synopsis: Aer Lingus sponsored meetings and tours conducted by the site team at Dublin Airport. While in Dublin, the team met with the Aer Lingus station manager as well as the project manager for the development of the self-tagging product for the airline. The team also met with the planning department of Dublin Airport, and with representatives from SITA and Jacobs Engineering. These companies were responsible for design and implementation work at the new Terminal 2 (T2) facility. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The team performed transaction throughput analyses on the traditional kiosk, check-in desk installations in the terminals. There was no analysis of self-tagging transactions because Aer Lingus had recently shut down their self-tagging pilot due to funding constraints. The check-in facility used for the self -tagging project was separate from the main floor of the terminal and therefore required a split operation. This incurred costs in duplication of effort especially from a baggage loading viewpoint. Aer Lingus discontinued the project after it had proved the concept of self-tagging in the live environment. Aer Lingus is confident that the self-tagging will be a core business system in T2.  Assessment of Installations: The team conducted facility tours of Terminal 1 at DUB. The tour was lead by the airline operations staff that provided insight to the current and planned operations. Highlights include: - The airline was the primary driver of all self-tagging installations. Based on their current pilots, the airline worked with the airport to ensure that the new Terminal 2 included self-tagging as the key feature in the passenger processing facilities. - The airline views the process as a two-step application. The passenger must use a set of kiosks that produce their boarding passes and then approach a second set of kiosks that produce their bag tags and interacts with the scale to induct the bag into the baggage system. In T2, Aer Lingus plans to offer the two-step or the one-step option, dependant on the time of day. At peak times, when the baggage resource is at a premium, only passengers who have bar-coded boarding pass may self-tag. At off-peak, Dublin Airport. 17

the application will allow for a combined check-in transaction/self-tagging transaction. - The kiosks near the baggage induction point are interfaced to the sensors and scales, which are built into the induction point. This allows the system to perform measurements (weight, size, etc.) on the baggage prior to completing the induction of the baggage into the system.  Operational Assessment: The team conducted facility tours of Terminal 1 at DUB airport. The tour was lead by the airline operations staff that provided insight to the current and planned operations. Highlights include - The pilot self-tagging included integration with the bag scale and some sensors at the induction point. The airline integrated existing sensors to create a low-cost “automated” induction point. This allowed the airline to weigh the bag, verify dimensions, and collect any fees for overweight/oversize baggage. Once the kiosk transaction was completed, the induction point activated and sent the bag into the sortation system. - The airline felt that one key issue for the application of bag tags by the passenger was the bag tag itself. In their initial trials, they found that the passenger generally removed all of the backing from the bag tag, which caused the tag to fail in the induction process, either by ripping off, or causing the tag to attach to the belt system, causing a jam. The airline worked with its bag-tag stock supplier to create a section of backing that was composed of multiple cuts, making it more difficult for the passenger to incorrectly remove all of the backing. They found that this reduced the amount of incorrect bag-tag applications. - Staff training was required to encourage the current staff to engage the passengers in front of the induction points. Additionally, staff was required to work both sides of the induction point, so there was an elaborate set of catwalks and stairways to enable access to the agent workstation at the induction points. - The airline envisions 6 to 8 self-tagging locations per staff person in the future.  Assessment of Business Case: The team conducted interview sessions with Aer Lingus staff responsible for the implementation of the self-tagging pilot. Highlights include - The airline staff reworked the kiosk application to speed the process of check-in based on the new bag-tag application. The staff discovered that, depending on the order of questions asked and the resulting answers, they were able to reduce the time to process passengers by 10 to 20 seconds. - Much of the traffic from Dublin Airport is short-haul trips within the U.K. As such, the airline designed their kiosk configuration to allow passengers without bags to complete their transactions at the first set of kiosks and avoid the induction point altogether. - The airline views the self-service initiative as providing more passenger satisfaction due to the nature of today’s passengers. 18

- The airline intends to use the self-tagging application to reduce the number of agents required to operate a traditional check-in area.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The airline is working with the airport to ensure that the current pilot implementation is the cornerstone of the new Terminal 2 development project.  Design Recommendations: The case study did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: In general, information collected at the Dublin Airport is thought to be applicable to U.S. airport installations.  Regulatory: The regulatory agency in Ireland is similar to the regulatory agency in the U.S. and views all air travel as a potential target for terrorism. The airline is producing an inactive tag, but the current system does not require a human to activate the tag into the induction process.  Finance: The approach used by Aer Lingus was to implement a low-cost solution to automating the bag drop location. Using off-the-shelf components enables the airline to keep their costs down.  Commercial: The case study did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: The airline views this process as enabling the reduction of staff at a check-in area.  Technology: Aer Lingus uses its own developers to create the software and integration updates, which, in its view, reduces costs and gives better control over the final product.  Facility Impact: The case study did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Customer Acceptance: The case study did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Detailed Summary: The airline’s self‐tagging efforts and experiences are summarized as follows:  Self-Tagging: when implementing self-tagging for the pilot, the airline wanted to focus on the processing time of the passengers. This resulted in a design that focused on separating passengers without baggage from passengers with baggage early in the check-in process. The design also called for as much automation as possible using existing sensors and scales. This would allow the airline to continue collecting excess/overweight/oversize baggage fees while not affecting the passenger and reducing the staff required to operate the check-in area.  Bag Drop: The bag drop location is integrated into the self-tagging operation of the kiosk and prevents the passenger from avoiding baggage fees. The kiosk application receives data from various sensors, and once the baggage transaction is completed, the system sends a dry-contact signal to the belt to accept the bag and induct it into the system. The airline was required to put warning labels on the counters to aid the passenger in placing their bag and to prevent injuries to the passenger, and also installed an override button to 19

stop the belt should a passenger end up on the belt system. The airline is currently working on implementing some sort of guard system which would prevent the passenger from placing any part of their body on the belt system, to further prevent injury.  Effectiveness of Check-In Prior to Self-Tagging: The case study did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technical Challenges with Self-Tagging: Most of the technical challenges with this implementation were with respect to the bag tag itself. In order to create a tag that the passenger could apply, the airline went through several iterations of tag development. The airline also worked with its kiosk application to streamline the check-in process and reduce the time taken to complete the overall check-in transaction.  Agent Adoption of Self-Tagging: Since this was a pilot for the airline, agent adoption was not fully vetted. Only a select number of agents were trained on the new process, and this limited the overall adoption rate.  Customer Adoption of Self-Tagging: The airline found that as passengers used the self-tagging application more, they began to like it. There was a lot of effort from the airline to gain customer adoption, and they will continue to work through this issue as they open Terminal 2.  Next Steps for Self-Tagging: Aer Lingus will reintroduce self-tagging in the new Terminal 2 once it is opened. Until then, the pilot project has been put on hold. Depending on the airport and airline status, Terminal 2 may be delayed while the industry recovers from the economic downturn.  Airport—Airline Partnering: The airline worked through the self-tagging initiative as a tenant improvement and limited the amount of airport involvement. The airport became very involved as the Terminal 2 design was completed, and the airline worked closely with the airport to ensure that the new terminal check-in lobby was designed to accommodate self-tagging.  Airport Facility Involvement: The case study did not yield any useful information on this subject. e) EasyJet (EZY) and Swissport at Geneva (GVA) o Synopsis: Geneva airport sponsored meetings and tours conducted by the site team at Geneva Airport. While in Geneva, the team met with representatives from Swissport as well as the operations manager for Geneva Airport. Geneva Airport 20

o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The team performed transaction throughput analyses on the self-tagging kiosks installed by the airport as well as the self-tagging kiosks installed by EasyJet. Swissport handles many of the airlines at the Geneva Airport, and uses its kiosks for its self-tagging applications, while EasyJet uses its proprietary kiosks. The EasyJet observations were made without any feedback from any EasyJet personnel.  Assessment of Installations: The team conducted facility tours of the airport. The tour was lead by the Swissport operations staff who provided insight to the current and planned operations. Highlights include: - Swiss Airlines and Swissport were once one company, and, prior to separating into two different companies, they began implementing self-tagging. - The airline, and now the handling agent, are the drivers of the self-tagging application, but in most cases the airport provides the kiosks and the facilities to support self-tagging. - The airport uses a charging model that charges separately for rework counters. This is important because many airlines forgo the rework counter to save expenses, but soon find out that a rework station is required to facilitate smooth operations. - The kiosks are located away from the check-in desks to allow passengers space to place their own tags on their baggage prior to entering the bag drop queue.  Operational Assessment: The team conducted facility tours of the airport. The tour was lead by the Swissport operations staff that provided insight to the current and planned operations. Highlights include: - There are two different self-tagging implementations at Geneva Airport—one provided by the airport, and one that is proprietary to EasyJet. The platform provided by the airport uses CUSS kiosks and prints bag tags for airlines using the kiosks. Both platforms, CUSS and EasyJet proprietary, are located away from the check-in desks. Passengers apply their tags away from the desks, prior to approaching the desks for bag drop. - Swissport noted that the uptake of self-tagging was directly related to the amount of agent assistance and direction given at the kiosks. If an agent is standing near the start of the check-in desk queue, or near the kiosks, the passengers are more willing to try using the kiosks for self-tagging. - The airport provides the kiosks and the consumables, but the airlines and/or the handling agent are responsible for providing the application using the bag-tag printer in the kiosks. As such, some airlines currently do not provide self-tagging, but are using the CUSS kiosks.  Assessment of Business Case: The team conducted interviews with airport and Swissport staff. Highlights include: - While the airport provides the kiosks and the bag- tag printers, they are not the driving force behind self-tagging. From the airport’s point of view, they will provide the services that their tenants request. In this 21

case, self-tagging equipment was provided by the airport to support Swiss Airlines, and now Swissport. - Swissport views self-tagging as a cost-saving operation. Implementation of self-tagging is viewed as allowing the handling agent to reduce required staff to support the passenger activities at the airport. - Swissport identified the need to train staff to support self-tagging operations. The staff is used to the traditional check-in desk model and requires training to support check-in activities away from the check-in desks.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The airport intends on installing more kiosks throughout the airport and the train terminal collocated with the airport. Self-tagging is not the main driver of this initiative but also will be included in the deployment of these kiosks.  Design Recommendations: The case study did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: In general, information collected at the Geneva Airport is thought to be applicable to U.S. airport installations, except for the following observations:  Regulatory: Tags are currently active when printed, rather than inactive and then activated at the bag drop location. The U.S. regulatory appears to be directed toward printing of inactive tags. o Detailed Summary: The airlines’ and ground handlers’ self‐tagging efforts and experiences are summarized as follows:  Self-Tagging: The main driver for self-tagging for Swissport is to reduce operating expenses for the ground handler. All self-tagging activities are conducted away from the bag drop area and require little to no agent interaction. The ground handler intends to increase the use of self-tagging so that the bag drop process can be reduced to allow more passengers processed.  Bag Drop: Bag drop is a manned position for Swissport and EasyJet. The airlines/ground handlers provide document checks, and ensure that the tag is applied properly and matches. This check is required because a majority of the flights out of Geneva are to destinations outside of Switzerland.  Effectiveness of Check-In Prior to Self-Tagging: Prior to self-tagging, the check-in process followed a traditional model. The number of airlines supported by the airport is such that the total check-in desk space is too limited to add new carriers. Common use, along with self-tagging, allows the airport facilities to support additional carriers in the limited space.  Technical Challenges with Self-Tagging: Supporting inactive tags is a technical challenge due to the nature of the applications created for the CUSS platforms.  Agent Adoption of Self-Tagging: Agent adoption has been slow due to the reluctance to support a process which is viewed as reducing jobs. Additionally, the current staff requires training and support to assist 22

customers through the new process. EasyJet has made self-tagging a part of their check-in process, and agent adoption is very high.  Customer Adoption of Self-Tagging: Customer adoption is directly related to the agent adoption of self-tagging. As the agents become more comfortable with the process, they assist the passengers. Through observations, the research team noted that use of self-tagging was limited for the CUSS kiosks. The uptake of self-tagging for EasyJet was very high, as it is a required action for all passengers, using a fee structure for any alternative.  Next Steps for Self-Tagging: Swissport stated that it intended on training their agents to support self-tagging and to make it a key part of their check-in process.  Airport—Airline Partnering: In the case of Swissport, the airline and airport work together to support self-tagging. The airport provides the hardware and consumables, and the airline provides the process and software.  Airport Facility Involvement: The airport is fully involved in supporting the CUSS kiosks and the self-tagging hardware contained in them. f) SAS at Stockholm-Arlanda (ARN) o Synopsis: The team met with both SAS and the airport. The airline conducted site tours of its installations. While in Stockholm, the team met with SAS corporate self-tagging managers, as well as with the IT director for the airport. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The team performed transaction throughput analyses on the self-tagging kiosks installed by the airline. SAS implemented self-tagging over 18 years ago, and the process is used by all passengers who are checking bags.  Assessment of Installations: The team conducted facility tours of the airport. The tour was lead by the SAS operations staff that provided insight to the current and planned operations. Highlights include - SAS was one of the first airlines to implement self-tagging and has a long history with the self-tagging process. - Self-tagging is used for both domestic and international travel, but not travel to the U.S. While the overall process is similar, there are some differences in the application and the implementation due to the different market segments. Stockholm-Arlanda Airport 23

- The kiosks are located away from the check-in desks to allow passengers space to place their own tags on their baggage prior to entering the bag drop queue. - Trash receptacles are strategically located near the kiosks to allow passengers to dispose of the portions of the bag tags which are removed during application. - Kiosks are located in circular clusters to support a free flow of passengers. - SAS has several generations of kiosks in use at the airport, all of which support self-tagging.  Operational Assessment: The team conducted facility tours of the airport. The tour was lead by the SAS operations staff that provided insight to the current and planned operations. Highlights include - Use of self-tagging in Stockholm was limited to SAS, however, the acceptance and use of self-tagging by the passengers and the agents was very high. - The team noted that there were several passengers who appeared to be new to the self-tagging process at Stockholm. It was observed that the agents were very quick to assist the passengers, and the passengers quickly learned how the process worked. One key observation was that the agents guided the passenger through the process, but generally did not perform the process for them. This appeared to aid in the understanding. - SAS bag drop was extremely fast. In general, it took about 20 seconds for an agent to check documents, activate the bag tag, and accept the bag into the system. - Bag drop was not automated, but was manned by an airline agent. - SAS is currently using biometrics as identification for bag drop induction on its domestic flights. This biometric identification is also used at the gate to reconcile the passenger and to ensure that the bag and the passenger are on the aircraft.  Assessment of Business Case: The team conducted interviews with airport and airline staff. Highlights include: - The airport is supportive of self-tagging, but does not provide any services for self-tagging, other than network connectivity. - SAS has found that self-tagging greatly increases the throughput of the bag drop/check-in desk. - SAS uses about one agent to 10 kiosks, reducing the number of staff required to support the check-in operations.  Roadmap for Further Employments: SAS has installed self-tagging at many of its stations, and all kiosks and applications are designed to support self-tagging. In markets where self-tagging is not allowed, such as the U.S., the airline is able to turn off that functionality. Should the particular market allow self-tagging, the airline is able to turn it on very quickly. SAS is also conducting automated bag drop trials, but not currently at Stockholm 24