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.

 Roadmap for Further Employments: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Design Recommendations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.:  Regulatory: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Finance: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Commercial: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: Guidance and standards information for the operational and technology concerns of this recommended practice are applicable to U.S. installations.  Facility Impact: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Customer Acceptance: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. viii.) Document: “FT BRG Standards Criteria,” IATA o Synopsis: Feedback from Baggage Working Group (BWG) on Fast Travel Bags- Ready-to-Go (BRTG) Standards Criteria. This information was used by the IATA Fast Travel, BRG Working Group, in the preparation of RP 1701f. The document is generally not applicable to this report, since all information was incorporated into RP 1701f. Therefore, this document did not yield any useful information on any of the Highlights or Transference/Applicability subject areas. E. DOCUMENTS—OTHERS This category includes highlights and transference analyses of documents gathered by the research team from airports, airlines, solution providers, and industry associations. a) Document: “The Through Airport Passenger Experience: An Assessment of the Passenger Experience and Airport Operations at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Manchester Airports,” U.K. Civil Aviation Authority, 2009. o Synopsis: In the United Kingdom (U.K.), on November 2007, the Secretary of State commissioned advice from the CAA on improving the through-airport passenger experience. Concern was expressed about particular pinch points where there is potential for passengers to experience delay and frustration and where the responsibility for delivering a good service lies with a combination of bodies. This paper sets out the CAA’s advice on improving the interfaces between service providers at U.K.’s four largest airports to increase resilience of the through-airport journey. 55

o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: - Paper provides general information from passenger surveys and interviews, including: • The survey found that passengers expected the same level of service at the airport regardless of how much they paid for their ticket. Passengers thought that the maximum waiting times at check-in, security and immigration should be less than 20 minutes and a large proportion thought they should be less than 10 minutes (and particularly so for border control). • The CAA survey found that check-in queues across all four airports had a mean waiting time of between 9 and 10 minutes with between 11 and 13 percent of passengers waiting for more than 21 minutes. The check-in process for charter passengers took longer than for other leisure passengers. • The Department for Transport (DfT) passenger survey found that 92 per cent of passengers were either very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their check in experience. Eighty-three percent of these passengers queued for less than 10 minutes at check in with 6 percent queuing for over 30 minutes.  Assessment of Installations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Operational Assessment: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Business Case: - Paper provides general information received from interviews with airlines, as to their business models. The following was noted: • Over recent years, airline business models have become increasingly differentiated with the growth of low cost carriers. The CAA heard from -rills airlines that their objective was to ensure that passengers were processed through the airport as quickly as possible. Their passengers did not want a ”Rolls Royce” level of service but preferred to pay less for their ticket in return for a good basic level of service. • Full-service carriers placed a premium on services available to business class passengers and frequently complained of their lack of ability to offer their business class passengers a superior level of service for their journey through the airport when dependent on those services provided by the airport operator and immigration. • Check-in queues are the responsibility of the airlines and their ground handlers. The CAA heard unanimously from the airlines that the potential for passengers to switch carrier when next travelling acted as a powerful incentive on all airlines to ensure that passengers did not suffer routine delays at check-in. - Paper also provides general information related to the airport business modeling: 56

• The CAA was interested in the length of check-in queues as it heard from airport operators that long queues can significantly impact on passenger satisfaction within the airport, and long queues frequently resulted from the airline opening check-in for a limited period of time which could create an influx of passengers into the central search area (the responsibility of the airport operator).  Roadmap for Further Employments: - Paper provided general statements regarding future employments or direction. Nothing specific to self-tagging, however, the following is noted as key points in general: • The passenger experience has been enhanced in recent years by technological solutions from the stage of booking a ticket to check-in and passport control. The adoption of existing technology by a wider range of airlines and the development of new technology will continue to have a positive impact on the passenger experience. IATA has been developing a “Simplifying the Business” project to pilot innovative technology to enhance the journey through the airport. • IATA’s research has shown that customers value their ability to control their departure and arrival processes. The introduction of self-service kiosks has been well received by passengers and speeds up the check-in process. Further introduction of technology could have a significant impact on speeding up airport processes and providing passengers with greater control over their journey.  Design Recommendations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Transference of information is minimal due to the general nature of the paper (i.e., addresses all areas of passenger processing—not just check-in). However, all information shown above is considered applicable for U.S. planning. b) Document: “Domestic Departure: Air Canada Self Baggage Tag Kiosks Survey Results,” Presentation—Vancouver International Airport, August 2007. o Synopsis: Survey results for Air Canada survey on self-tagging This document is a comparison between passengers that used the conventional way of checking-in (agent does the bag tagging), and passengers using the self baggage-tag kiosks. The survey reported in this presentation was conducted to determine if self baggage-tag (SBT) kiosks are able to reduce passenger processing time. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: Total of 138 observations and 231 passengers were surveyed. Results provide average times at the kiosks and bag drop for fumble time, total kiosk process time, bag-tag fumble time, bag-tag process time, agent validation time (per passenger), bag drop-off time, and total process time. Survey also provides level of passenger assistance distribution. 57

 Assessment of Installations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Operational Assessment: Observations of errors or challenges were given, including: - Many passengers did not complete the SBT process due to unfamiliarity with the technology, did not understand English, or kiosk malfunction. - Kiosks suffered significant downtime due to software errors or baggage-tag jam. - Many passengers were turned away from using the kiosks due to the present restrictions.  Assessment of Business Case: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Design Recommendations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.:  Regulatory: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Finance: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Commercial: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: Observations of kiosk errors is directly applicable.  Facility Impact: Transaction analysis information is directly applicable to the U.S. and will be used in setting “industry values” for the Report Tool.  Customer Acceptance: Observation of errors given is directly applicable. c) Document: Press Release—Air France Baggage Tracking, Air France, August 17, 2009. o Synopsis: Air France announces baggage tracking with electronic chips. Air France is testing RFID chips in baggage for real time tracking. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: 2,000 bags per day are tracked with RFID electronic chips. Every day at Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air France carries 100,000 bags.  Assessment of Installations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Operational Assessment: RFID chip allows tracking of bag within a few meters and baggage handling performance is monitored and analyzed, thus improving logistics. 80% of missing baggage can be delivered to customers within 24 hours.  Assessment of Business Case: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. 58

 Roadmap for Further Employments: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Design Recommendations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: The document did not yield any useful information on any subject in this section. d) Document: Email Statistics for American Airlines (AA) at YVR. o Synopsis: Email provides statistical information for self-service check-in October 1–November 4 for AA in YVR. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Installations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Operational Assessment: Survey showed a passenger usage of 4,609 and a 79.2% success rate during that period. During this period, the statistics also showed an agent takeover of 570 (approximately 1%).  Assessment of Business Case: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Design Recommendations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.:  Regulatory: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Finance: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Commercial: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Facility Impact: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Customer Acceptance: Success rates provide industry-average information of use of self-service kiosks. e) Document: “YUL Self-Tagging Modeling Results,” WestJet, April 15, 2009. o Synopsis: The specific information in this technical report is held confidential. This technical report evaluates the facility and service levels based on the current pilot project layout of the configuration and the current self-service layout in YUL. Information was modeled under the Rockwell Arena Modeling 59

tool for self-service check-in utilizing kiosk, web, and baggage drop process; and for self-tagging check-in utilizing kiosk and self-tagging baggage drop process. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: Self-tagging pilot offered no appreciable improvement from current kiosk check-in. Report provides transit times used for modeling from airport entrance through queue entrance at baggage drop.  Assessment of Installations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Operational Assessment: Self-tagging pilot show appreciable decrease in agent utilization (30% to 25%).  Assessment of Business Case: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Design Recommendations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.:  Regulatory: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Finance: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Commercial: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Facility Impact: Transaction analysis and facility layout information in the report is directly applicable as general information / industry statistics presented in the Decision-Making Tool.  Customer Acceptance: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. f) Document: “Swedish Woman in Airport Muddle,” BBC News, August 28, 2008. o Synopsis: Swedish woman misunderstands instructions and gets on bagbelt. The woman didn't understand the check-in instructions. She traveled just a few meters and was rescued by staff. She wasn't injured and was able to board without any further delay. o Highlights: The document did not yield any useful information on any subject in this section. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: The document did not yield any useful information on any subject in this section, except for:  Technology: Information related to automation of a process, and the continued requirements to monitor such automation is directly applicable. 60

g) Document: “Added Value Service Oriented Architecture in an Airport Environment—Amsterdam Airport Schiphol,” Presentation, Jorgo Hoed, Schiphol Group, Barcelona, November, 2009. o Synopsis: Presentation covers value of implementing a “service-oriented architecture.” Focus is given to automated machines used in self-service bag drop. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Installations: Five machines are operational in Departures 2.  Operational Assessment: Passenger ID is through bar-coded-boarding-pass- (BCBP-) compliant boarding pass. Systems have airline-specific passenger user-interface.  Assessment of Business Case: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Design Recommendations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.:  Regulatory: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Finance: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Commercial: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: Information showing level of automation is applicable to future self-tagging implementations.  Facility Impact: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Customer Acceptance: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. h) Document: “Aéroports de Montréal: Common Baggage Drop Off and Self-Tagging Case Study,” Presentation, Ron Hiscox, at Airports Council North America, April 30, 2008. o Synopsis: Aéroports de Montréal Common baggage drop off and self-tagging case study by Ron Hiscox. Baggage-Tag Activation process. General operation requirements for self-tagging. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: Presentation presents results of self-tagging survey conducted for 1 month in December, 2007. - Air Canada: 50,000 common use self-service kiosk (CUSSK) transactions. - Air Canada: 67,000 bag-tags printed. 61

- 88.9% surveyed said they would use self-tagging kiosk again. - 67.4% were very satisfied with the process. - 79.4% were very satisfied with the speed.  Assessment of Installations: Provides information related to self-tagging and baggage activation process implemented at Montréal Airport.  Operational Assessment: The following general operating requirements for self-tagging (Transport Canada, TSA). - Distinguish between Active and Inactive bags - Track the quantity and identity of tags printed by each passenger. - Track the identity of tags applied by the passenger and accepted in the BHS. - BHS must automatically identify tags properly applied to accepted bags as active. - Automatically identify unused tags as inactive. - Automatically reject bags with inactive tags from the BHS. - Send a message to each airline host system to indicate which active tags are associated to each passenger and which tags in the original record are inactive. - Permit a manual change by an authorized agent.  Assessment of Business Case: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: - Next airlines projected to join include AA and Swiss.  Design Recommendations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.:  Regulatory: Regulatory information related to active/inactive tag status is directly applicable to concerns noted here in the U.S.  Finance: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Commercial: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Facility Impact: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Customer Acceptance: Passenger survey information is applicable to U.S. installations. i) Document: “Lean Six Sigma Pilot Project—Arrivals,” Beca Applied Technologies Ltd. June 11, 2009. o Synopsis: The purpose of the pilot study recorded in this document was to test the viability of the Lean Six Sigma process as a means to develop and institute a multi-agency continuous improvement culture and framework. Study was 62

performed in the international arrivals area at the Auckland International Airport. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: Quantitative measurements and analyses were taken throughout the arrivals process.  Assessment of Installations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Operational Assessment: The tests verified the application of Lean Six Sigma process in a multi-stakeholder environment where many parties contribute to the passenger experience. Techniques that worked well included: - Voice of the Customer: the main aspects defining the customer experience were determined as waiting time, and environment (e.g., way-finding information, signage, etc.). - Define, measure, analyze, improve, and control: the overall methodology to guide the Pilot Study. - Standing in a Circle: Identifying waste in the Arrivals process—proved to help understand what happens in the overall process. - Kalzena: small changes that can be made immediately on identification of an improvement opportunity.  Assessment of Business Case: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Design Recommendations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.:  Regulatory: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Finance: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Commercial: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Facility Impact: The process applied, using Lean Six Sigma, to determine efficiencies and waste in the overall passenger experience could be used in the departures process for check-in, baggage handling, security, and irregular operations.  Customer Acceptance: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. j) Document: “Self-Serv™ Kiosks,” ARINC o Synopsis: ARINC brochure on self-service kiosks. 63

o Highlights: This document did not yield any useful information on any subject in this section. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: This document did not yield any useful information on any subject in this section, except for:  Technology: Information contained in the brochure is directly applicable to U.S. technology solutions requirements. The document highlights CUSS-compliant check-in applications, with respect to IATA’s Fast Travel Initiatives. k) Document: “BagDrop©,” BagDrop systems BV. o Synopsis: PDF Brochure of BagDrop System’s Automated Baggage Handling System. o Highlights:  Assessment of Installations: PDF brochure claims the user can increase check-in capacity and improve the passenger experience without large terminal investments? Per the brochure, automated full self service check-in with the BagDrop allows the airport user to increase check-in capacity by up to 80% through faster processing time and a smaller footprint in comparison to conventional check-in. Because passenger check-in no longer depends on staffing of desks, the user can maximize available capacity 24/7 and minimize passenger waiting time, therefore improving the passenger experience and increasing revenue per passenger. BagDrop offers the example of having self-service check-ins at car parks or hotels. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information is generally applicable to U.S. operations. This document provides an example of full automation through technology and design. l) Document: “BagDrop©,” Presentation, BagDrop systems BV. o Synopsis: PowerPoint presentation on BagDrop Systems Automated Baggage Handling System. o Highlights:  Graphical presentation on look and feel of automated system. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information is generally applicable to U.S. Operations. This presentation provides an example of full automation through technology and design. m) Document: “Aéroport de Montréal Expands Self Check-in Services First-of-its-Kind Common Use Self-Serve Kiosk (CUSSK) Operation in North America,” Brock Solutions. 64

o Synopsis: Project announcement/overview for Brock Solutions: Aéroport de Montréal Expands Self Check-in Services First-of-its-Kind Common Use Self-Serve Kiosk (CUSSK) Operation in North America. o Highlights:  Assessment of Installations: Brock Solutions was contracted to design, develop, and deploy a new Baggage Tag Activation System (BTAS) to enable passenger printing and application of baggage tags and effectively remove the need for dedicated airline manned bag tagging stations and drop-off points. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.:  Technology: baggage-tag activation system as described in this announcement is directly applicable to U.S. airport installations. n) Document: “Smart Drop for Passenger Processing—Rapid Passenger Common Bag Drop Solution,” Brock Solutions. o Synopsis: Brochure on Brock Solutions Common Bag Drop solution. o Highlights:  Assessment of Installations: Per the brochure, the following results have been achieved with the SmartDrop Common Bag Drop solution: - Very fast bag drop experience for passengers, in many instances the per-passenger bag drop is less than 5 seconds. - High rate of success with passengers applying their own bag tags. In tests with two participating airlines, the passenger success rate was 73% and 80% respectively. - Self-service system enables airlines to process a much greater number of passengers without increasing existing labor at check-in. - Self-service enables the airport to redesign passenger flows, thereby accommodating a greater number of passengers within the existing facility. This reduces airport improvement fees through the reduction of the need for capital improvement spending. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.:  Technology: Baggage-Tag Activation System and SmartDrop system, as described in this announcement, are directly applicable to U.S. airport installations. o) Document: “Increase Airport Capacity with RFID baggage Handling & Self Service Checked Baggage Kiosks: Previous Problems, Future Opportunities,” Presentation, Bartsch International, Airport Show, Dubai 2009. o Synopsis: Presentation given by Bartsch, International regarding the previous problems and future opportunities of RFID technology in the baggage handling and self-service check-in processes. 65

o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: Provides failure rates and average time estimates for business travelers applying standard bag tag (70% and 40 sec), compared to applying Bartsch’s self-service tag (15% and 15 sec).  Assessment of Installations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Operational Assessment: Provides statistical information related to self-service use and performance.  Assessment of Business Case: For use of RFID tags: - RFID in baggage handling reduces the airplanes turn-around time by approximately 7%. - Number of lost baggage per passenger goes down (still close to 20 bags lost or misdirected per 1,000 passengers).  Roadmap for Further Employments: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Design Recommendations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.:  Regulatory: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Finance: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Commercial: Capital cost for RFID baggage handling system is directly applicable to U.S. installations. - RFID printers (120 printers per 10 million pax): $240,000. - RFID readers (5 readers): $12,500. - RFID installation: $25,000. - RFID Project Management: $100,000. - Trace and Track Tool: $250,000.  Employee: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: Technology information is directly applicable to U.S. installations.  Facility Impact: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Customer Acceptance: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. p) Document: “Treat Your Customers! Self-Service bag Drop,” IER. o Synopsis: IER brochure on self-service bag drop. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Installations: According to brochure, IER system provides simplicity, flexibility, and scalability. 66

 Operational Assessment: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Business Case: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Design Recommendations: PDF brochure provides design considerations when implementing a self-service bag drop process, including: - Is the service open to all passengers or frequent flyers only? - What is the number of bags authorized? - Is self-tagging included? - Is the bag-tag printing at kiosk or at bag drop? - Is a bar code or RFID bag tag being used? - How is payment for excess baggage collected? - Is document reconciliation required? o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.:  Technology: Technology described is directly applicable to U.S. installations. q) Document: “Reliability Saves Time and Money and Enhances Security—Baggage Handling Systems,” Siemens. o Synopsis: Brochure on Siemens Baggage Handling Systems and Engineering Solutions. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Installations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Operational Assessment: Brochure provides background information of the process steps including sorting and distributing baggage, transfer baggage, and baggage reclaim.  Assessment of Business Case: Brochure provides business case reasons for an integrated baggage handling system, including: - Standardized modular components make a baggage system easier to operate and maintain, which in turn saves time and money. - Today’s tight baggage security regulations can be addressed by fitting an additional baggage check (100% Hold Baggage Screening) to an existing installation or by integrating such control stages with a new installation. But there are other factors affecting baggage security, such as the reliability of screening equipment, the ability to track and locate a bag at any time, and the safety of the operating and maintenance personnel.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. 67