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.

 Design Recommendations: The document did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information is generally applicable to U.S. installations for baggage handling systems. r) Document: “Baggage Handling Systems,” Vanderlande Industries o Synopsis: PDF brochure of Vanderlande Baggage Handling Systems. o Highlights: Provides general information about vendor baggage handling system. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information is generally applicable to U.S. installations for baggage handling systems. F. INTERVIEWS—OTHERS This category includes highlights and transference analyses of additional interviews with airline, airport, and solution providers that did not fit into any of the previous categories. a) Interviewee: IT Manager, Air France (AF) o Synopsis: Interview was conducted with AF IT Manager by phone. General statements are as follows. Specific statements are shown below in category breakouts. Air France is currently not engaged in self-tagging, but is undergoing related research. To stay up to date with the progress of self-tagging, AF is participating in the IATA “Bags-Ready-to-Go” working group. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: Surveys were done, but not provided.  Assessment of Installations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Operational Assessment: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Business Case: Business case not done, but it is apparent that the cost is high compared to the benefit.  Roadmap for Further Employments: AF will continue to monitor the progress.  Design Recommendations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information from the interview is thought to be generally applicable to U.S. installations. 68

 Regulatory: Security issues with local agency require positive identification of passengers with bag at induction of the bag into the system. Currently, regulatory concerns are impediment to implementing self-tagging in France.  Finance: Can’t justify the expense of retrofitting kiosks for printers at this time.  Commercial: Risk involved in heavy bags that might not be tagged as heavy.  Employee: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: Software doesn’t currently print tags at kiosks.  Facility Impact: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Customer Acceptance: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. b) Interviewee: Business Analyst, WestJet o Synopsis: Interviews were conducted by phone. General statements are as follows. Specific statements are shown below in category breakouts. Self-tagging will play an important role in WestJet’s strategy over the next few years and, as a result, the airline would be pleased to participate in this research project. WestJet has passenger self-tagging at Montréal-Trudeau Airport (YUL) and was expected to have it at Vancouver International Airport (YVR) at the end of September 2009 via a phased implementation. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Installations: At YUL, All kiosks are common use. There are 12 kiosks active at YUL. Kiosks with self-tagging are implemented nearest staffed counter positions so that agent can assist passengers with new process. By the end of 2010, WestJet expects to have self-tagging for all domestic Canadian flights.  Operational Assessment: Phased implementation works best. WestJet turns on self-tagging functionality in kiosks nearest agent-attended locations first so that agents can assist guests when needed. After the tag is applied to the bag, the guest proceeds to the attended bag drop location. An agent reconciles the boarding pass and the bag tag, and accepts the bag from the passenger.  Assessment of Business Case: Service enhancement not driven by business case. Benefits of self-tagging include, for example, the management of staff and growth at airports. Guests enjoy the choice and control. Self-tagging is a service that guests like.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Design Recommendations: Redesign bag tag to be easier for passenger to apply. Good instruction is needed for passengers. Streamline the bag drop and activation process. Innovations would include a streamlined bag drop and activation process. Current process is not very fast. 69

o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information from the interview is thought to be generally applicable to U.S. installations.  Regulatory: New regulation allows passenger self-tagging (PST).  Finance: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Commercial: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: Agents must change traditional role to leave the desk to assist passengers.  Technology: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Facility Impact: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Customer Acceptance: Guests like the control and the choices they have with self-service. One problem with self-tagging is the misapplication of tags, a process that needs to be simplified. There is a need for better designed bag tags and better instructions. c) Interviewee: Senior Product Director, ARINC o Synopsis: ARINC is fully engaged and fully supportive of passenger self-tagging. ARINC is a platform provider and is dependent on an airline's application. ARINC operates in Toronto and Montréal. According to ARINC, IATA does not represent low cost carriers who are the largest growth segment o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Installations: All ARINC kiosks come with a bag-tag printer or are field upgradable.  Operational Assessment: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Business Case: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: Next phase is print-at-home home and/or RFID tags in luggage. ARINC is in talks with Avery and other label manufacturers regarding passenger tagging at home. The Star alliance just issued a request for proposal (RFP) regarding issuing RFID luggage tags to passengers. American Tourister Luggage is putting RFID in luggage.  Design Recommendations: They use CUSS and CUPPS technical specifications. ARINC is most active in CUSS self-service kiosks, but the company is watching developments in home printing and RFID initiatives. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information from the interview is thought to be generally applicable to U.S. installations. 70

d) Interviewee: General Manager, IER o Synopsis: IER manufacturers bag tags and sells to airlines and airports. Self-tagging has been part of IER offering from day one with self-service kiosks. It is always available. Substantial experience due to airlines that IER has been working with using self-tagging. Highest market share for IER is outside of the U.S. The U.S. market share comes from supplying airports as opposed to selling to airlines. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Installations: - There has been a fairly low rate of error with IER kiosks - Regarding bag tags, the 21-inch standard is used in common use, but IER believes that could be reduced. The company is working on designs that will make it easier for passenger to apply. - Layout depends on how well the terminal lends itself to self-tagging. Self-tagging isn't necessarily the ultimate solution. Self-tagging does not reduce the amount of time a passenger spends in an airport. Passengers may spend more time doing self-tagging due to average time spent at a kiosk. - It has been successful where deployed with respect to the ability of the passenger to apply tags and their willingness to participate. - Important question when considering self-tagging: How many bag tags are in the kiosk? One roll of paper can print 2,500 boarding passes (coupons). Typical roll of bag tag can print 200. Extensive use kiosks will process 100 passengers per day. Next option is to use fanfold bag tags, which can provide 350.  Operational Assessment: IER recommends having roaming agents to help passengers during initial days/months.  Assessment of Business Case: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: - Regional differences: Europe, Canada, and Asia have higher ratio of common use (CU) kiosks. - IER expects more self-tagging where there are dedicated airline-owned kiosks. - Canada offers self-tagging on CU kiosks because Air Canada pushed for it. It is best to get main airlines onboard if success through CU kiosk is desired. - Evolution towards permanent RFID tags will help reduce time spent in airport. Print-at-home tags will be complimentary if can be made compliant with airlines tags.  Design Recommendations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. 71

o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information from the interview is thought to be generally applicable to U.S. installations.  Regulatory: - United Airlines did a pilot in Chicago. Gave frequent flyers plastic bag tags with RFID label installed to expedite drop-off for customers. Agents will attach regular bag tags behind the scene. TSA is not an obstacle, but a necessary part of the process. TSA is supportive of these types of initiatives. This support was seen in United Airlines pilot. Obstacles to adoption in U.S. process decision being driven by airlines deciding how they want to serve their customers.  Finance: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Commercial: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: - Self-tagging is the natural evolution of the airport development process. From a technology standpoint, self-service revolution is still in progress. Technology and process efforts will be around expanding the self-service experience. It won’t be the only process, but will allow multiple channels for processing passengers. - Cell phone check-in and kiosks are here to stay. - IER expects more deployment of common use kiosks through airports rather than proprietary airline-owned in future. - IER is offering an automated bag drop solution using RFID labels.  Facility Impact: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Customer Acceptance: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. e) Interviewee: Business Development Manager, Vanderlande Industries • Synopsis: Vanderlande is a systemic solution that is automated rather than using agents. Vanderlande works together with BagDrop solution, which is more costly for hardware, but significantly reduces the need for personnel. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Installations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Operational Assessment: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Business Case: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: 72

- Self-tagging implemented at Schiphol and now being expanded there. Company did a trial with two units, that trial is being expanded. - Passenger printing at home raises two issues: a) Do they have the right type of label that can be readable by bag readers that will require manual sortation; and b) the label for BagDrop only sticks it to itself. - Vanderlande believes that RFID is the future and is working on T3 in Vegas using 100% RFID utilizing Gen2 technology from U.S. This has been implemented with single airline solutions at the moment but the company is working towards common use standards  Design Recommendations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information from the interview is thought to be generally applicable to U.S. installations.  Regulatory: Regarding the pilot at Schiphol, the TSA may see it as a risk to behavioral analysis. Can provide a better feeling of security because passenger is responsible for their bags. There is still a manned area with the automated area where the agent is comingling with the passengers.  Finance: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Commercial: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Facility Impact: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Customer Acceptance: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. f) Interviewee: Director of Business Development, SITA o Synopsis: SITA fully supports self-tagging, is an active participant in fast travel, and they have an application in production for common use platforms. Company worked with Montréal to bring self-tagging to North America. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Installations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Operational Assessment: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Business Case: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: - The Problem with RFID is cost. Ability to have a standard RFID infrastructure is an issue. It took 6 years to get bar-coded boarding passes 73

standardized. Airlines with restricted environments, such as Air New Zealand, can invest in RFID infrastructure. - Inhibitors to self-tagging include: government security approval, changes in sortation systems, user acceptance. IATA's simplified bag tag will help.  Design Recommendations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information from the interview is thought to be generally applicable to U.S. installations. g) Interviewee: Director of Technology and Research, Business Analyst, Alaska Airlines o Synopsis: Alaska Airlines did passenger self-tagging about 10 years ago in Anchorage and again in Portland before 9/11. They are looking at this again and are testing a kiosk self-tagging process at Redmond, Oregon. The software is developed and the hardware is available. Current issues are getting regulatory approval for the trial. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Installations: Previous implementations have good signage and a video to assist passengers. There was no agent support. Very few passengers chose the self-tagging option. In Anchorage, the kiosk was not prominent.  Operational Assessment: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Business Case: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Design Recommendations: Good instructions. Agent assist. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information from the interview is thought to be generally applicable to U.S. Installations.  Regulatory: Need approval for trial. h) Interviewee: Passenger Strategy Team, BAA Heathrow o Synopsis: Phone interview with Passenger Strategy Team member for BAA. During interview, BAA member discussed current and future plans for self-tagging. Specific information provided below. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: - They are jointly working with Air Canada on statistics. The Air Canada system allows passengers to drop off their bags in less than 30 seconds.  Assessment of Installations: 74

- Kiosks are located in areas of airlines implementing self-tagging. BAA CUSS kiosks can print bag tags for the Air Canada system, and SAS uses dedicated kiosks in their area. - The Air Canada self-tagging system uses an active/inactive system, provided by Brock Solutions, using their “SmartDrop” system. It’s the only U.S. solution that has received approval by the TSA for transborder use, with deployments in London Heathrow for flights to Canada. The system is approved by the UK DfT (Department for Transport) and Transport Canada. The SmartDrop system is currently used by Air Canada in a dedicated mode at London Heathrow. - Related issues include: At Terminal 1, Star Alliance uses a common bag drop. This is a set of desks operated by one ground handler (Menzies) who accept bags for Lufthansa, TAP, LOT, and others. At Terminal 3, the Oneworld alliance is in the same building but not in the same area and it offers a mix of short and long haul services. There is potential for common bag drop developing over time. Skyteam in Terminal 4 is operating a common bag drop for some carriers; this is achieved by a single ground handler (KGS) operating this service. Current CUSS kiosks are IER 978B models, with some older IER 978. Heathrow is currently investigating the option of replacing / upgrading. The IER models were built to accommodate bag-tag stock and software.  Operational Assessment: - Passengers self-tag their own bags; they will need to use a SmartDrop desk as SmartDrop performs the necessary bag activation. The Air Canada self-tagging solution prints inactive tags. The SAS solution prints active tags. SAS kiosks must be in a controlled area, demarked by barriers to prevent passengers leaving the area with tagged bags. The Air Canada (Brock) solution allows passenger to use kiosks located anywhere inside or outside the terminal for bag-tag printing. This is much more efficient use of space. Bags are not weighed at the kiosks. Actual weights are determined at the bag drop off. The bag drop-off process is described as a secure transaction involving scanning the passenger’s boarding pass and each bag tag. Air Canada work on a “per-piece” system for bag weight rather than an “individual-weight” system. Bags are weighed and overweight bags rejected for repacking. Out of gauge is also redirected to the appropriate location. - BAA kiosks are provided and maintained by IER. There is a local support team in the terminal who deals with ad hoc maintenance like paper stock refilling.  Assessment of Business Case: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: - Have conducted self-tagging for the past two years with SAS; Air Canada started around May 2009. They are seeking other airline opportunities. In some ways, Virgin Atlantic may be the greatest advantage for the future. 75

- BAA sees significant potential and wants a home based carrier to adopt self-tagging. - BAA is considering off-site locations for bag drop off and self-tagging. Aer Lingus is pursuing self-tagging—this is something they do in Dublin with unmanned bag drops. Unmanned bag drops in the UK would require DfT approval. - BMI is interested in self-tagging, but maybe at a smaller airport location before deploying at Heathrow. Department of Transport data may be on the Extranet.  Design Recommendations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information from the interview is thought to be generally applicable to U.S. installations.  Regulatory: Certain issues to overcome include: potential compliance with future regulatory decisions with active and nonactive bag tags may still be ongoing. At present, the SAS prints active bag tags. The DfT has allowed this, since SAS partitions off the area. Both AC and SAS have manned counters as bag drops—in the future dispensation will be needed to operate a fully unmanned bag drop point. i) Interviewee: CEO, BagDrop Systems o Synopsis: Phone interview with CEO of BagDrop Systems. The company is actively involved in pushing toward acceptance in U.S. market. It will be at check-in and would like a trial in the U.S. BagDrop systems allow a greater level of security between public and secure areas. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Installations: - BagDrop system is ideal for passengers who have already purchased a ticket, checked in, and have the boarding pass. - Company offers cohesive baggage tag that sticks to itself and nothing else. It is also simple and easy to apply. Permanent.  Operational Assessment: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Business Case: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: - RFID is part of the plan in the future but will require backward compatibility. Can allow check-in function, but most airlines want to push passengers to check-in prior. - Print-at-home tags and permanent RFID tags are allowable in BagDrop machines if compliant. 76

 Design Recommendations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information from the interview is thought to be generally applicable to U.S. Installations.  Regulatory: They acknowledge the differences between Europe, U.S., and Asia in regard to regulatory issues. Operational concept is straightforward domestically, yet internationally it is complex. j) Interviewee: Export Manager, Bartsch International o Synopsis: Phone interview with Export Manager of Bartsch International. As a company, Bartsch provides a unique bag tag to the industry. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: Use of Bartsch tag increases usage, reduces number of failures and average time to tag significantly in field tests  Assessment of Installations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Operational Assessment: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Business Case: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: There is an upcoming trial with Luftansa at Munich starting September 2010. Data will be available after the trial.  Design Recommendations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information from the interview is thought to be generally applicable to U.S. installations.  Regulatory: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Finance: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Commercial: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Facility Impact: Use of self-service increases throughput per kiosk to approximately 55,000 passengers / year (150 passengers per day).  Customer Acceptance: Customers are afraid to use for the first time, however surveys indicate that 75% of all passengers indicate that they would use Bartsch’s tag because it saves time and is easy to use. k) Interviewee: IT Manager, Greater Orlando Airport Authority o Synopsis: Phone interview with the IT Manager of the Greater Orlando Airport Authority. During the interview, the Manager discussed current progress with 77

self-tagging. He noted that the airport would like to do a trial for self-tagging, but needs two airlines to participate. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Installations: Currently, there are programs for remote bag drop. The airport has a new inline baggage system.  Operational Assessment: The airport has highly seasonal traffic.  Assessment of Business Case: Self-tagging aligns with City of Orlando's remote bag drop business model (Disney Magical Express).  Roadmap for Further Employments: Some airlines are moving to common use, or have done CUPPS trials. Another airline is pursuing self-tagging in another airport using dedicated kiosks.  Design Recommendations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: General information provided is applicable for other U.S. installations. l) Interviewee: Disney Magical Express o Synopsis: Currently, Disney Magical Express (DME) has a luggage service for Disney Resort customers. Passengers are given special tags to affix to their bags. After the passengers checks in at their home airport, the bag is tagged with the airline’s bag tag in addition to the DME tag. DME is responsible for collecting bags at baggage retrieval and delivering the bag to the passenger’s room, essentially becoming part of the chain of custody for the bag. If the passenger is flying an airline with a remote check-in desk at the resort, the passenger can check the bag in at the resort and DME will deliver it to the airport for screening. In both cases, the passenger must travel with the bag on the Disney coach to and from the airport. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: A high percentage of the seasonal travelers in the airport are Disney Resort customers. DME is used most during high season, and thus addresses the peak usage time.  Assessment of Installations: Remote check-in is not universally available. Some airlines do not maintain remote check-in desks at the resorts.  Operational Assessment: Space at the airport is required for the bags delivered by DME. Supplementary screening facilities are required to avoid overloading.  Assessment of Business Case: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. 78

 Design Recommendations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information from the interview is thought to be generally applicable to U.S. installations.  Regulatory: The passenger is validated at the remote check-in. DME accepts the bag and it is then under the control of DME to the airport.  Finance: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Commercial: This is provided as a service to the Disney resort passengers.  Employee: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Facility Impact: Allows check-in at remote site, alleviating congesting in the check-in lobby at the airport.  Customer Acceptance: Customers like not having to deal with their luggage at the airport and the streamlined check-in process. m) Interviewee: Print-O-Tape o Synopsis: Print-O-Tape is providing products to RDU, SJC, Fresno, United, US Air, Southwest, Midwest, Frontier, and Aer Lingus. Print-O-Tape manufactures its own materials where competitors buy finished products that they slit down and print. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Installations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Operational Assessment: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Assessment of Business Case: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: They currently stock 21-inch tags and are planning for print-at-home options. Recommendations that were provided include fanfold stock that will provide greater capacity.  Design Recommendations: Instructions on the tag are critical, there must be the right marriage between the printer and the design of the tag, and it would be beneficial to get the printer manufacturer, label maker, common use vendor, and airline in a room together to define specifications. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information from the interview is thought to be generally applicable to U.S. installations.  Regulatory: The company stated that in previous discussions, TSA had concerns about tags that could be removed and reapplied. n) Interviewee: Operations, Seattle-Tacoma 79

o Synopsis: The airport has both common and dedicated use. The primary airline has a two-step process, self-service kiosks for check-in, and agent-assisted bag drop. The airport has an initiative toward self-service and common use. They are motivated to mount a trial for PST when the regulatory issues can be addressed. Current lobby has space limitations. The lobby is wide and shallow with traditional check-in counters at the back of the lobby. Because of the shallowness, there is often congestion in the lobby before flights. The airport is also subject to congestion because carriers are concentrated in a small area of the lobby. There is often congestion in one section of the lobby, while the rest of the lobby is relatively underused. The airport would like to be able to spread out carriers to alleviate the congestion. Also, the airport will be losing ticket counter space in the near future, so they need to be more efficient in the use of space. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: The need to improve transaction throughput, and the need to disperse passengers better in the lobby are drivers for new technologies.  Assessment of Installations: There are several bag sortation systems at the airport. This makes common bag drop more difficult.  Operational Assessment: The major airline is adamantly dedicated use, but many of the international and smaller carriers are accepting of common use and self-service.  Assessment of Business Case: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Design Recommendations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Information from the interview is thought to be generally applicable to U.S. installations.  Regulatory: Need agreement from the TSA to pilot passenger self-tagging.  Finance: There may be substantial costs in an all-airport implementation of self-tagging because of the multiple baggage systems.  Commercial: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Technology: A major problem currently is the quality of printed bag tags. If the kiosks were airport-owned, that could be better controlled.  Facility Impact: There will probably need to be case work and baggage system modifications to accommodate self-tagging.  Customer Acceptance: Many passengers are already using self-service at the major airlines self-service kiosks. o) Interviewee: Senior Manager—Airport Automation and Software, US Airways 80

o Synopsis: The airline has done some research and limited trials. There are no current plans for further trials or implementation although there is still interest at the airline. The regulatory issues have to be resolved first. No specific highlight given. p) Interviewee: Head of e-Services, Swissport at Zurich Airport o Synopsis: Zurich has bag tag printers in 85% to 90% of kiosks. All European airlines do self-tagging. There are no concerns and everything is done according to standard. If passengers have trouble applying a bag tag, they can take the tag to the bag drop and an agent can apply the tag there. Internet check-in passengers go directly to the bag drop. Their bag tags are printed at bag drop printers. According to Swissport, the process works pretty well, but it could be improved with better tags, that are easier to apply, and come with better instructions. Swissport is looking for better tags. Company is also evaluating printing bag tags at home. There are some self-service bag drop locations. Boarding passes are correlated with bag tags. o Highlights:  Transaction Analysis: There is no available data, but experience has shown that transaction rate is acceptable.  Assessment of Installations: Provisions are made for web check-ins so that those passengers can bypass the kiosk and go directly to bag drop. All airlines do self-tagging. Help is available to passengers with problems in self-tagging.  Operational Assessment: Passengers learn to tag their bags. The learning curve is probably about two years, since some passengers fly infrequently and it takes a few times to become proficient and comfortable with the process.  Assessment of Business Case: It is long practice to self-tag. No business case available.  Roadmap for Further Employments: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Design Recommendations: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject. o Transference / Applicability to the U.S.: Regulatory information not applicable to U.S. installations. Other areas of information, generally applicable.  Regulatory: There are no concerns.  Finance: The financial benefits are well known.  Commercial: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Employee: Efficiencies allow better scheduling of staff.  Technology: The interview did not yield any useful information on this subject.  Facility Impact: Efficiencies maximize use of the lobby space.  Customer Acceptance: Customers learn the process and become adept at it. 81