Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership (2023)

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.

11   Defining Total Cost of Ownership for Baggage Handling Systems 2.1 Introduction and Background The traditional simplified TCO model for assets (Figure 2-1) includes acquisition, operation, maintenance, and salvage costs. However, for BHS a holistic approach should consider the up-front design costs, which can vary greatly depending on how the system is procured (Figure 2-2). Additionally, since BHS can last as long as 30–40 years, salvage value can be considered negligible when considering tear-out costs. Finally, the value of customer experience, brand image, and employee satisfaction, albeit difficult to quantify, must be considered for any BHS, providing a unique TCO model for BHS (Figure 2-3). As stated in the request for proposal, airports take a wide range of approaches to designing and building BHS. Most systems are designed and built with a focus on minimizing capital costs without much consideration given to the future costs of performance, operations, and maintenance. In addition, airports lack information for benchmarking and tracking BHS TCO and incorporating it into financial models, other than the typical up-front cost parameters. But before going further, it is prudent to better define what comprises CAPEX and OPEX for BHS. 2.2 CAPEX versus OPEX At a high level, CAPEX infrastructure comprises the initial costs that establish the necessities for the BHS to become operational, while OPEX is comprised of the day-to-day costs to allow the BHS to remain operational. CAPEX can influence the OPEX costs by the inclusion of up-front expenditures that can be implemented that will influence the OPEX in both a positive and negative manner. The basic CAPEX costs include planning, designing, installing, and integrating the BHS within the airport to allow the BHS to process and screen checked baggage for departing passengers. This can be done in a variety of methods as described within this report. Before technology selection, the costs to design and procure play a huge role in the capital needed to build a functioning BHS. Planners, designers, program management, and so forth directly associated with the BHS can make up anywhere from 10%–20% of the asset procurement cost for design through construction administration, commissioning, and closeout. These costs can be somewhat mitigated depending on the amount of risk the owner is willing to share by looking at alternative delivery methods. This is further discussed in Chapter 5. C H A P T E R   2

12 Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership Figure 2-1. Traditional TCO model. Figure 2-2. Revised TCO model to represent BHS conditions. Figure 2-3. TCO model further modified.

Defining Total Cost of Ownership for Baggage Handling Systems 13 The more advanced CAPEX costs that can influence OPEX include • Differences in technology (which can lead to reduced maintenance time, minimal spare parts requirements, and commonality in equipment); • Energy efficiency (which can reduce energy costs if paid out by the BHS owner or airline tenants); • Inclusion of predictive analytic devices (allowing for component replacement to be proactive during off hours instead of reactive during operational hours, thus potentially reducing staffing requirements); and • Enhanced networking capabilities (allowing for programming of replacement equipment to be either remote or automatic, not requiring a local connection direct to the equipment). These items are likely to increase the CAPEX costs at the start of the project but will reduce the OPEX costs over the life of the system (as noted previously, this could be up to 40 years). OPEX costs that are independent of the CAPEX investments include • Enhanced maintenance equipment (using thermal equipment to identify mechanically stressed areas); • Efficient asset management software (including ordering replacement equipment and creat- ing the service ticket, which can provide an even more streamlined process when tied with predictive analytics); and • Customer experience (which could be directly related to airline brand image on sites where an airline is the primary tenant of the terminal). 2.3 Variables versus Considerations During the research, two main categories of TCO factors came to light: variables and con- siderations. Variables are quantifiable, while considerations are unlikely to directly impact the TCO but can have an indirect influence on decision-making that has the potential to impact the TCO. Considerations are difficult to quantify within a tool designed for global use, as the implica- tions and impacts are not necessarily universal. Considerations include project planning and coordination (utilizing lessons learned, testing and commissioning practices, training require- ments, and methodology); funding mechanisms (grants for energy consumption may influence equipment selection); project delivery methods (utilizing a different design approach, whether it be DB, design-assist, or DBB, may all result in the same end system, but the path to the final product may differ and offer savings based on the approach); and risk management (utilizing a CMAR that utilizes a guaranteed maximum price or an airport-contracted general contractor can shift where risk is held throughout the project); and industry disruptions (global pandemics, economic downturns, natural disasters, and events such as 9/11). Variables provide an avenue to quantify; they are relatively understood or can be estimated even at a global level for a new BHS. Variables include conveyance technologies (conventional belt conveyor, AGVs, ICSs, EBS, and cross-belt sorters); BHS check-in services (remote bag drop, self-service bag drop, self-ticketing check-in, and traditional agent check-in); operations and maintenance approach (self-performing or subcontracting with key performance indicator requirements); and energy usage (premium efficiency motors, low-friction belting, and utilizing equipment “run-on-demand” methodology). 2.4 The Impact of Stakeholder Engagement on TCO Early baggage systems were stand-alone, mechanically/electrically uncomplicated conveyors with many manual processes. Prior to 2001, there were little to no comprehensive screening requirements, sophisticated controls, or complicated bag-tracking technologies. In short, a system

14 Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership could be designed, installed, and commissioned with minimal input from operational and main- tenance personnel, provided adherence to airline/airport standards was maintained throughout the process. Although this lack of stakeholder input sometimes resulted in issues or inefficien- cies, they could be managed, rectified, and worked around. As systems have become more complex over the last two decades, this old approach is no longer feasible. Today’s complex BHS projects must be coordinated with input from stake- holders from the beginning of the project throughout the project life cycle to ensure a shared understanding of project goals and expectations, coordinate schedules, track performance, surface risks and drive solutions, and create buy-in to push beyond the “old ways” of implement- ing new systems. 2.4.1 Stakeholders and Governance Increasingly, project teams make a concerted effort to engage the affected airlines, airport staff and leadership, and the O&M personnel who will be responsible for the system once installed. Project teams can see, for example, the contribution of local maintenance staff who understand existing labor conditions, parts suppliers, and space constraints. This is a positive step in the right direction, but complex BHS projects need to involve not only the stakeholders previously mentioned, but also anyone with an interest in the project, including ground handlers; ticket counter agents; those who interact with the system; IT (information technology) staff; consul- tants engaged to design, build, or maintain the system; and other project teams working on terminal projects throughout the airport. Not all stakeholders will be involved at every point in the process or participate in every meeting, but all stakeholders should have an opportunity to share their insights and learn about project progress and expectations. These efforts need to be comprehensive, not just to ensure project success but also to create a sense of ownership so stakeholders are motivated and invested in that success. Engaged stake- holders approach challenges collaboratively, rather than catastrophizing. They are willing to consider innovative solutions and work together to address issues. Engaging stakeholders and keeping them on track requires a committed champion with dedicated time and organizational power to establish a steering committee and encourage involvement, facilitate action, maintain documents, develop action plans, manage tasks and meetings, track risks, and manage resources. This is a time-consuming and intense long-term commitment; choosing the right person for this role is key to success. Stakeholder engagement and collaboration are needed to ensure a shared understanding of • Project phases, schedule; • Issues, risks; • Budget; • Training; • Phasing; • Operational testing; • Integrated systems testing; • Commissioning; • KPI setting and reporting; • Transition logistics; • Communications; and • O&M requirements. Obstacles to successful stakeholder engagement and collaboration efforts include • Lack of executive-level support, • Lack of engagement from any key stakeholder group,

Defining Total Cost of Ownership for Baggage Handling Systems 15 • Lack of a champion with adequate organizational power to ensure engagement, and • Excessive budget cuts and “value engineering” and an overfocus on CAPEX. Lyons and Powell (2010) note that the steering committee must have executive-level sponsor- ship and representation from all airport departments, airlines, the construction/capital projects team, and other stakeholders who can understand the issues, assess them holistically, and who have the authority to drive solutions. The awareness of on-the-ground conditions is as essential as the ability to make major decisions about funding, equipment, and contracts. Without both perspectives, the process will be ineffective. A governance structure should also be put in place to guide the process. The structure and organization of the team and the formality of the governance structure and process will vary based on the size of the airport and project, the complexity of the project, and the number of stakeholders involved. This is where ORAT comes in. ORAT is a program management methodology that supports the successful delivery of construction projects as well as the transition from construction to active operations. ORAT engages stakeholders early to gain consensus on project plans and a schedule, identify and mitigate risks before they can impact the project, prepare staff, and plan for a smooth transition to the new system. ORAT is focused on preparing staff for a smooth transfer to a new system. New infrastructure comes with new equipment, new systems, new requirements, and processes. ORAT is a process for facilitating that change, bringing the project management and operating teams together to work throughout the planning, design, construction, and transfer phases (Talbot 2021). Like other approaches to collaboration and stakeholder engagement, ORAT encourages the assess- ment of life cycle costs early and can reduce costs during and post-construction (Jacobs 2021). ORAT is a multiphased process with a defined set of components. The first step in the ORAT process is the development of a stakeholder engagement plan. The purpose of this plan is to establish relationships between stakeholders, understand their roles, and make sure that their concerns are understood and addressed. A Concept of Operations is then developed to capture operational requirements—current and future—and develop or augment KPIs for how facilities and operations are conducted and managed. Project risks and mitigation strategies are then identified and discussed via stakeholder working groups where they will be tracked throughout the project life cycle. A Familiarization, Induction, and Training (FIT) Plan is then developed to plan and schedule training for maintenance, technology, and operations personnel. The ORAT team then engages key stakeholders in the testing and commissioning activities, followed by full-scale, integrated operational trials to identify areas needing improvement and remediation. The final piece of the process is the development of a transition plan, which can happen as early as a year before opening (Jacobs 2021). While ORAT is relatively new in the airport environment, it can be executed and resourced differently depending on the airport ownership and operational structure. Whereas the above definition is prescriptive of what the ORAT process must contain, stakeholders should use this only as a guideline and modify it as necessary to meet the needs of their particular BHS project. 2.4.2 Cost and Benefits The cost of implementing and executing a plan to engage and collaborate with project stake- holders varies greatly, depending on project complexity, when in the project life cycle the project is launched, and whether external consultants are deployed versus using airport staff or a hybrid of the two. Using external consultants to implement a stakeholder engagement strategy such as ORAT is estimated to cost between 0.3% and 0.5% of the program budget (Jacobs Group 2019).

16 Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership Other approaches may cost less than 0.2% or less for low-risk, less complex projects where facili- tation may be internal or self-directed (Mollaoglu et al. 2019). The benefits of collaboration and stakeholder engagement are substantial. The complexity and visibility of airport terminal projects, the number of stakeholders involved, the need to complete them quickly, and the fact that they often take place in areas adjacent to the traveling public make these projects high risk. Poor communication and collaboration can translate into schedule slippage, change orders, and budget increases. Engaging and collaborating with stakeholders from the earliest stages of a project reduces the potential for conflict, responds proactively to stakeholder issues and concerns, and improves project outcomes. Improved project outcomes translate into project cost savings. Airports that have tracked savings associated with their stakeholder engagement approaches have documented significant project savings and few or no claims (Mollaoglu et al. 2019). 2.4.3 Example Approach for Stakeholder Engagement The San Francisco International Airport (SFO) has developed its own approach to design and construction projects—the Exceptional Project Delivery paradigm. This paradigm is supported by two pillars, Structured Collaborative Partnering (SCP) and the Stakeholder Engagement Process (SEP). SCP is the leadership framework that supports the development of positive working relationships. SEP is the vehicle used to bring together stakeholders to develop the project program, review design documents, resolve issues, develop and test the project program through activation, and close out the project (SFO 2014). Under this model, project teams are established before planning and design begin. The purpose of this approach is to establish a culture and solid working relationships early in the process before issues or challenges arise. The Executive Committee—comprised of executive-level leaders and senior managers of the airport, the construction manager, contractors, and designers— sets program/project goals and objectives, provides direction, addresses high-level issues, and resolves conflicts. The Core Team—comprised of airport representatives, the designer, and builder representatives—is responsible for the management, implementation, and execution of the project. Stakeholders include anyone who has a stake in the outcome of the project, is not employed to specifically deliver on the project, and is not part of the airport’s project management staff. Each of these groups has prescribed roles and meeting-frequency requirements (SFO 2014). Projects at SFO typically consist of multiple SEP teams and groups. The teams are formed to address specific aspects of a project (for example, design vision, code compliance, building systems, etc.) and engage stakeholders affected by the project. Teams and groups may come together for a short time to address specific challenges or operate throughout the entire project. This approach allows the flexibility needed to adapt to issues present in various phases without overburdening stakeholders and ensuring that the overall project vision stays on track (SFO 2014). The benefits of this approach have been well documented. According to industry reporting, SFO completed installations with total costs of about $3.5 billion using their collaborative approach between 2006 and 2018, all of which were completed at 20%–30% below the industry average and experienced no construction claims. Similarly, in 2012, Sacramento International Airport used partnering to deliver the $687 million “Big Build” Program, which was delivered $12 million underbudget and 119 days early, without claims (Mollaoglu et al. 2019). 2.4.4 Summary There is no one “right” way to manage design and construction projects. As long as all affected stakeholders are engaged and committed to the process, with sufficient involvement from

Defining Total Cost of Ownership for Baggage Handling Systems 17 high-level decision makers and a champion to drive the process, any number of methodologies may be used. Starting the engagement process early and maintaining momentum throughout the project life cycle is essential, even as project schedules are strained. Major savings can be realized by taking a proactive approach to stakeholder engagement. For example, specific to BHS, engaging the right stakeholders at the beginning of the design effort fosters enthusiasm, engagement, and ownership by those who will be operating the BHS upon completion. One member of the research team’s experience as designer/project manager for a new terminal BHS project in 1998 proved just that—before the acronym ORAT was ever imagined. When offered management personnel from various departments (Facilities Main- tenance, Customer Service, Ramp Service), the designer/project manager respectfully declined and alternatively requested “boots on the ground” personnel, which resulted in adding a bag handler, ticket counter agent, and maintenance personnel to the design team. Following nearly 4 years of design coordination and construction, those involved were overwhelmed with a sense of pride in ownership and championed the resulting product with their coworkers. Without this proactive engagement, it would have been too easy for stake- holders to find fault with the final system. 2.5 Technology Selection Impact on TCO 2.5.1 Individual Carrier Systems Most BHSs in the United States use conventional conveyor belts on a slider bed where the bag travels on the belt. In recent years, the industry has started to see movement toward conveyors incorporating trays, tubs, or carriers transporting the bags. These systems are commonly referred to as “independent carrier systems” or ICS. The most crucial difference with an ICS is the focus on the conveyance of the carrier instead of the bag itself. Although many different technolo- gies can be characterized as ICS, such as tilt trays, cross-belt sorters, destination-coded vehicles (DCVs), AGVs, or tote systems, the aviation industry today typically considers tote systems and ICS synonymously. While ICS technologies have had a predominant place in airports throughout the world in recent years, with the first known system being installed over 50 years ago at Frankfurt Inter- national Airport, U.S. adoption still suffers from the perceptions (regardless of validity) of the challenges associated with the automated BHS project at Denver International Airport. Nearly 27 years later, many of the delays and cost overruns at the new airport have often been attributed to the installed DCV system and technological enhancements made by the OEM to its legacy system, most notably installed previously at Frankfurt International Airport (Dempsey, Goetz, and Szyliowicz 1997, 484). Nonetheless, ICS has finally made it back into the United States with the completion of systems at SFO Terminal 1 and Orlando International Airport South Terminal, and hybrid (ICS + conventional conveyor) projects being planned for John F. Kennedy (JFK) and Chicago O’Hare (ORD) International Airports, to name a few. ICS technology offers many advantages over conventional belt conveyors: • Ability to increase travel speeds for long runs. • Reduced installation time, lower O&M costs, and ease of expandability due to modular design. • Reduced driven length, lightweight components, and “on-demand” runtime used in the design of an ICS result in less overall power consumption. • Reduced spare parts inventory due to modularity. • Improved system availability (often referred to as “up time”) due to a reduction in jam frequency can be attributed to the fact that the conveyance item is a uniform tote versus raw baggage.

18 Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership • Longer mean time between failure and shorter mean time to repair due to modular design and the usage of interchangeable parts of an ICS result in reducing long-term maintenance and operational costs for the airport. • Direct delivery of inbound bags to the bag claim area due to the closed ICS with both the inbound and outbound baggage handling conveyance forming a continuous loop. Opera- tional costs of the inbound ICS will be less than the cost required for the delivery of bags using conventional tug-and-cart methods where the claim hall is a significant distance from the gate. • Increased tracking accuracy compared with a conventional system due to the use of RFID technology, and therefore, fewer “lost in tracking” bags will be diverted to the CBRA. At SFO Terminal 1, data retrieved from BHS show that the percentage of errored bags transported to CBRA was 0.3%, compared to the 3% that is allowed (and normally experienced) per PGDS requirements. Increased tracking accuracy may reduce the TSA staffing levels and the number of CBRA inspection stations needed. Table 2-1 provides a comparison of the costs associated with conventional systems and ICS. One notable drawback of the ICS technology is in the CBIS, where wider turning radii and an increased quantity of EDS machines are required. Because ICS uses individual totes to carry each bag that are nominally 45 inches long (the average among ICS manufacturers) compared to the average domestic and international bag length of 29.3 and 30.2 inches, respectively (TSA 2020c, 5–23), larger tracking zones are needed for the totes, which reduce the throughput of the EDS machines because scanning the longer bin takes more time. Therefore, ICS would presumably require more EDS machines than an equivalent conventional system. There are numerous options for mitigating this, such as the design of a hybrid system, whereby a conven- tional conveyor is used to feed the EDS equipment. This can be accomplished either by utilizing a conventional conveyor all the way from the inputs (ticketing, curbside, etc.) to the EDS or using an ICS (tote, cross-belt, etc.) upstream, dispensing onto the conveyor, and returning to ICS post-screening. But ICS is not a “one size fits all” solution. For every airport solution, a cost-benefit analysis is recommended to weigh the advantages and disadvantages. Additionally, as mentioned above for JFK and ORD, a hybrid solution whereby ICS is only used for sortation, EBS, or transport downstream of CBIS, is an option that can take advantage of both technologies. A case study, presented in Appendix B, outlines a theoretical system and the associated cost benefits. 2.5.2 Baggage Storage Solutions 2.5.2.1 Introduction The traditional design of outbound BHS requires an analysis of many factors for sizing the bag room and the associated quantity of make-up sortation locations (recirculating devices, Rough Order of Magnitude Operating Cost Summary Conventional ICS O&M – airport Cost $5,049,233 $2,693,437 Power consumption – BHS $998,250 $474,358 Inbound bag operations (tug cost for conventional) $404,209 $0 O&M – TSA $2,460,000 $2,400,000 Power consumption – TSA $62,122 $72,476 Total $8,973,814 $5,640,271 Source: (Weigand 2015, 30) Table 2-1. O&M cost comparison for SFO Terminal 1.

Defining Total Cost of Ownership for Baggage Handling Systems 19 piers, etc.), including flight schedule, aircraft size, load factors, bags per passenger, class of services, etc. Depending on the facility constraints (existing, brownfield, greenfield), the harsh reality that many airports face is the limited amount of available space for bag make-up as well as reduced labor to accommodate daily peaks. To account for this, traditionally airports and airlines have implemented strategies such as adjusting the opening times at which the ticketing hall will allow the induction of bags, loading multiple flights onto a single make-up unit, or providing space on the ramp for storing fully loaded bag carts prior to flight departure. However, these strategies tend to either impact the passenger experience (especially in cities that are either vacation destinations or where the airport would like to attract passengers to experience airport concessions prior to departure) or is labor intensive for ramp personnel. On the other hand, some airports are dealing with drastic changes to their outbound bag processing profile due to schedule changes, airline consolidations, or a seasonal shift resulting in an excessive amount of make-up positions and associated ground handling equipment. As a result, outbound bag handling is becoming more and more labor intensive, costly, and inefficient. This is where EBS systems and batch building come in as viable options for either retrofitting an existing system or incorporating a new design, regardless of technology (conveyor lane-based, lift-and-run, crane, etc.) or airport profile (regional, international, hub, etc.). 2.5.2.2 Early Bag Storage There are three basic configurations for EBS methodologies for both conventional conveyor and ICS: manual (shelves, racks, vertical carousels); automated indexing lanes (conveyor or ICS; group release); and automated ICS storage and retrieval systems (dynamic loop, crane, or lift- and-run). While many airports worldwide have operated with some type of EBS for decades, only a handful in the United States has large-scale implementations. With vertical real estate typically limited, most have resorted to conventional indexing lane-based systems operating on a group release based on departure times. However, with ICS becoming more prevalent, other options become available for automated storage and retrieval of bags. Each comes with its own advantages and disadvantages that are complex based on the available real estate, workforce, and efficiency requirements. These are summarized in Table 2-2. 2.5.2.3 Batch Building Batch-building philosophy is a warehousing principle that directs all incoming products to a storage space before loading them onto outbound transport (automobile, truck, train, aircraft). In manual warehouses, make-up locations and tugs/dollies are replaced with fork trucks and racking systems. For baggage, this manual process is efficiently replaced with automatic racking systems or holding piers common to EBS. The batch-building process takes EBS optimization a step further by presorting baggage by defined categories such as flight or class of service and storing it until released by an operator who can “call” the bags when ready and available to load into baggage carts. This “pull” versus “push” or “just-in-time” methodology is a time-tested concept in manufacturing and warehousing industries. This also can take advantage of smaller, less costly make-up points, configured as static chutes or short piers, with the added benefit of the ability for more pickup points in the same constrained area and fewer staff to manually search for flight-specific bags on a large recirculating device, opening the door for implementation of robotics or lift-assist devices for cart loading. 2.5.2.4 Summary While no two airport configurations are exactly alike, EBS and batch building do not apply to all scenarios. For example, competing airline operations may not allow for commingling of baggage in a storage system, or the specific funding mechanism for the project may be allocated differently for capital expenditures for BHS as compared to ground equipment or facility space.

20 Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership Or the unique configuration of the facility may not allow for a multilevel racking system. As found more commonly outside of the United States, when designed properly, an airport’s out- bound BHS can be a symbiotic relationship between an EBS, with or without batch building, and the sizing and quantity of make-up destinations. 2.5.3 Redundancy 2.5.3.1 Introduction Redundancy is a major consideration in BHS projects, both in terms of system price tag and reliability. System downtime has a significant cost to both airline and airport brand image as well as the additional cost of processing bags. Providing alternate routes for baggage and baggage handling information during system failures is, therefore, a key aspect of system design. Designing redundant controls, conveying, sorting, and screening paths helps airport and ground crews avoid the cascading effect of system downtime. All the airports interviewed believed that redundancy is extremely important in BHS design, with some listing it as a key system attribute and/or looking for complete redundancy of system components. The global BHS governing entities, including the TSA, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, and European Civil Aviation Conference recognize the need for a certain level of redundancy of EDS equipment within a CBIS due to periodic recalibrations or outages during high-demand timeframes but do not provide funding for redundant conveyor systems within the CBIS. How much redundancy is too much? The response can vary greatly based on who is asked. BHS must balance the installation of costly redundant systems, driving up both the capital and operational costs of the system, while ensuring maximum reliability and considering alterna- tives and their trade-offs. Technology Type Advantages Disadvantages Conventional Conveyor Manual racks • Inexpensive • Small footprint • Individual access • Labor intensive • Lacks automation Semi-automatic vertical carousels • Dense footprint • Individual access • Labor intensive • Low throughput Lane-based • Cost-effective • Easy to retrofit into existing bag rooms • Little vertical clearance required • Batch (by flight) only • Difficult maintenance access Shuttle-fed lanes • Cost-effective • Batch (by flight) only • Difficult maintenance access • Low throughput ICS Dynamic loops • Individual access • Ease of maintenance • Large horizontal footprint required Lane-based • High density • Efficient use of space • Little vertical clearance required • Batch (by flight) only Crane ASRS • Individual access • Vertical height efficiency • Redundancy • Required horizontal and vertical footprint Lift & Run ASRS • Individual access • High throughput • Less redundancy Note: ASRS = automated storage retrieval systems. Table 2-2. EBS type comparison.

Defining Total Cost of Ownership for Baggage Handling Systems 21 2.5.3.2 Types of Redundancy Three main types of physical redundancy can be implemented within a BHS: mechanical, electrical, and controls. Each can provide a “fallback” during contingency scenarios, but all three types should be considered to provide true redundancy. Mechanical: Mechanical redundancy is typically the first that is considered during system design. It requires the design and installation of duplicate conveyor subsystems such as input mainlines, EDS screening lines, make-up feed lines, etc. Providing an alternate route for bags during an outage can reduce system downtime and prevent die-back scenarios if designed cor- rectly; however, it comes with a substantial increase in capital and operational costs, based on the level of redundancy. Electrical: Electrical redundancy is a very important factor that is often overlooked during system design. A BHS could utilize redundant mainlines, but if both mainlines are fed from one main distribution panel, there is no redundancy if that panel fails or must be taken out of service for maintenance reasons. Special attention should be given to panel breakouts, from the main substation all the way down to individual power distribution panels (PDPs) and motor control panels (MCPs). Emergency switches, backup power feeds, and uninterruptible power supplies should all be considered when designing for electrical redundancy. An additional level of emer- gency power considerations (or potential of automatic transfer switches) should be implemented for BHS design to allow for a contingency mode of operations in the event of a power outage. Controls: The BHS control system is made up of many components, including servers, switches, programmable logic controllers (PLCs), and operator workstations. Each of these components will typically be designed with some level of physical redundancy. The PLCs are the “brain” of the CBIS and are typically configured with three different levels of redundancy: cold backup, warm backup, and hot backup. • Cold Backup – A cold backup configuration typically consists of a spare PLC and a backup of the PLC code. In the event of a PLC failure, the primary PLC must be removed, the backup installed, and the PLC code loaded onto the backup PLC. This configuration should only be used for noncritical subsystems where downtime is not a concern, and human intervention is an acceptable alternative. • Warm Backup – A warm backup configuration typically consists of a primary and secondary PLC installed in the same rack. The secondary PLC is already configured with the correct PLC code, but only the primary PLC controls the system’s input-output. The secondary PLC will receive periodic updates from the primary PLC to ensure that a handover can be completed quickly. This configuration is recommended for subsystems that can tolerate a few minutes of downtime. • Hot Backup – A hot backup configuration is very similar to a warm backup except that in a hot backup, the secondary PLC receives real-time updates to ensure a near-instantaneous handover. This configuration is best suited for critical subsystems where even a small amount of downtime would be detrimental to the BHS. There are benefits and drawbacks to each type of configuration, and each part of the BHS may use a different configuration. For instance, the PLCs controlling the EDS screening matrix may be configured in hot backup to preserve tracking information during a PLC failure, but the inbound lines may use warm or even cold backup since a small amount of downtime can be mitigated or adjacent subsystems utilized during a failure. 2.5.3.3 Areas of Redundancy Each area of the BHS can, and often does, have varying redundancy requirements. Some BHS subsystems serve a critical function and therefore require a higher level of redundancy, while

22 Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership others can experience downtime without severely impacting operations. The sections below explore the typical redundancy requirements for each area of the BHS. Input Lines: The input subsystems, inclusive of curbside, ticket counter, and input mainlines usually have the highest redundancy requirements in the CBIS. This is due to the impact that failures in these subsystems can have on customer experience. If die-back reaches the ticket counter lines, passengers are immediately aware that there is an issue when they see bags piling up on the floor or being manually transported to another input line. To avoid these scenarios, airports usually design redundant input lines, whether they be ticketing, curbside, or mainlines. Figure 2-4 shows an input configuration that utilizes redundant ticket counters, curbsides, and input mainlines. EDS Screening Lines: The TSA provides for at least one redundant EDS machine per CBIS matrix or pod, typically fed by a single mainline. Because the EDS machines can go into a “calibration mode” often and without warning, a redundant EDS machine, commonly referred to as “n+1,” is required to allow for the continuous processing of bags during peak times, even in the event of an EDS failure. This level of redundancy is always necessary, and the capital costs for the immediate upstream and downstream conveyance infrastructure are typically paid for by the TSA for new CBISs in U.S. projects but could be funded by the project sponsor elsewhere. However, the airport or airline must account for the increased operational cost associated with redundant EDS screening lines. Figure 2-5 shows the EDS line configuration for a 4+2 EDS Figure 2-4. Input configuration. Figure 2-5. EDS line configuration.

Defining Total Cost of Ownership for Baggage Handling Systems 23 unit CBIS. In this example, there are two nonredundant EDS and one redundant EDS fed by each mainline. Alarm Lines/CBRA: Because the design of the alarm line is heavily regulated by the PGDS in U.S. designs, there is not as much opportunity for mechanical redundancy in this area of the system. Multiple alarm lines may be implemented in larger systems; however, all alarm lines are typically routed to a consolidated CBRA to maximize staffing efficiency. The electrical and controls design will provide the bulk of the redundancy in this area of the system. Figure 2-6 depicts a typical “horseshoe” CBRA configuration that does not provide physical redundancy. Clear Lines/Sortation: The clear lines and sortation system offer the best opportunity for redundancy. Dual clear mainlines, redundant make-up feeds, and recirculation lines are all commonly implemented in the sortation system to provide redundancy. Figure 2-7 depicts a typical sortation configuration with redundant mainlines, make-up feeds, and a recirculation line. Figure 2-6. CBRA configuration. Figure 2-7. Sortation configuration.

24 Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership Inbound Systems: Inbound systems typically require the least amount of redundancy since the individual feed and claim subsystems are usually isolated from one another. Multiple claim feeds are commonly used for large slope plate configurations for both redundancy and capacity; however, electrical and controls redundancies are rarely implemented since an adjacent claim subsystem can typically be utilized during a failure. Figure 2-8 depicts a typical inbound claim configuration with nonredundant feeds. In this configuration, an adjacent claim may be utilized during a failure. 2.5.3.4 Benefits of Redundancy During the interview process, valuable insight was obtained into the rationale behind the push for redundancy in the BHS. The reasons given were varied and ranged from reduced maintenance costs to “ghosts” within the system causing higher failure rates. By far the most mentioned reason for redundancy was due to poor past experiences with system failures. The sections below explore the various reasons for redundancy. Reduced Downtime: One of the major reasons airports will implement some form of redun- dancy is to reduce system downtime. If a failure occurs on a subsystem with no redundancy, that failure could result in a die-back situation that could shut down the entire BHS if not remedied quickly. Something as common as a simple bag jam could gridlock an entire system if not addressed promptly. Mechanical redundancy provides a buffer to allow the system to continue processing bags until the failure is resolved. Reduced Staffing: Redundancy can also allow for reduced staffing levels, especially during peak times. By providing the buffer mentioned earlier, a jam or other fault would wait until maintenance personnel are available to remedy the fault. This requires fewer maintenance personnel to be on standby waiting for faults to occur. Customer Experience: As mentioned earlier, faults on the input side of the CBIS can quickly die-back into the public area inputs if not immediately addressed. To avoid these types of scenarios, redundancy is often incorporated into the input subsystems to reduce the chance of the passenger becoming aware of an issue within the bag system, thus affecting the passenger experience. Seeing bags flowing smoothly at the ticketing and curbside inputs provides a level of assurance to the passenger that their bags will make the flight. Figure 2-8. Inbound configuration.

Defining Total Cost of Ownership for Baggage Handling Systems 25 Past Experiences: The most common reason that airports push for redundancy is due to past experiences with failures in the BHS. Many times, these failures have resulted in large-scale manual operations to move bags from one subsystem to another or in severe cases, to another terminal. The large-scale failures can result in a significant drain on resources as well as a loss of confidence from the passengers. Additionally, the workforce required for such an endeavor is rarely readily available, thus further delaying the remedy. Reduced “Single Points of Failures”: The phrase “single point of failure” is often mentioned when discussing redundancy in the CBIS. As much as designers try to avoid a single point of failure, many times this is inevitable due to the typical configuration of most systems. For instance, most systems will incorporate a single on-screen resolution (OSR) line with a single second-chance divert point. If a conveyor on the OSR line fails and bags can no longer flow through to the resolution area or clear line, a die-back will quickly reach the EDS screening lines, essentially shutting the system down. It is rarely economically feasible to design a completely redundant OSR line and second-chance divert, and therefore other redundancy measures and/or contingency plans must be put in place to mitigate a failure in this area of the system. 2.5.3.5 Detriments of Redundancy While redundancy can provide significant advantages, it can also come with its share of draw- backs. The main drawbacks associated with redundancy can include increased CAPEX and OPEX costs, higher complexity, and issues complying with regulating authorities’ requirements. Increased Capital Cost: Naturally, adding more equipment to provide redundancy, whether it be mechanical, electrical, or controls, will increase the capital cost of the BHS project. Added redundancy can sometimes increase the total BHS cost by 20%–30%, depending on the desired level of redundancy. These increased capital and operational costs must be weighed against the potential impact of system failures. Steps should be taken to reduce physical redundancy for parts of the system that can sustain a longer downtime without major impacts. Increased Maintenance Cost: While redundancy can result in reduced staffing costs, some- times the total maintenance costs can increase due to the additional equipment necessary to provide the redundancy. More conveyors and electrical or controls equipment will require addi- tional spare parts and increase both reactive and preventive maintenance costs. These increased operational costs should be taken into consideration when adding redundancy. Increased System Complexity: Additional redundant subsystems require additional pro- gramming to maintain balance within the system. The added programming can include load balancing, anti-gridlock processes, bag allocation methodology changes, bag rate timers, and other complex algorithms. Introducing these programming elements can result in a level of complexity that exceeds the abilities of the maintenance staff, especially at smaller airports without a designated maintenance team. When this happens, the airport must rely on remote diagnostics by the controls contractor, which can significantly increase the time it takes to resolve a failure. Reduced System Efficiency: Redundant lines that could allow a BHS to operate at a higher rate than that which the screening equipment is rated, can create conditions that require additional software methods for mitigation. The mitigation efforts that reduce the overall efficiency include load balancing, anti-gridlock methodology, baggage rate constraint timers near the screening machines, and bag counters, or placing hold locations upstream of the tracking zone to restrict the flow to match what the screening machines are capable of process- ing in a given time. These methods create a less efficient system when compared to a system with no redundancy that allows for continuous flow without the risk of overwhelming the screening equipment.

26 Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership 2.5.3.6 TSA Compliance for U.S. Systems The PGDS is very specific regarding redundancy and the number of mainlines that are required. Section 5.6.3 of PGDS v7.0 states, “The quantity of mainlines, as well as the quantity of EDS units in a CBIS should be minimized. This increases efficiency, operational availability, and reduces cost . . .” (TSA 2020c). Section 12.3.1 also states that a redundant mainline will not be allowed when it will • Defeat the purpose of redundant EDS units, • Reduce the efficiency of the CBIS, • Add unnecessary costs, • Impose unnecessary spatial constraints, or • Add unnecessary complexity to the system. (TSA 2020c) Up until recently, the TSA allowed airports to proceed at risk when adding a mainline for redundancy with the understanding that the airport will be responsible for rectifying all short- comings due to the system’s redundant design. This has now changed, and the TSA has been actively rejecting Requests for Variance related to redundant mainlines when the bag demand does not justify additional mainlines. The TSA is also skeptical of designs that incorporate vertical merges upstream of the EDS units to create redundant EDS feeds from each mainline. According to the TSA, if the bag demand justifies more than a single mainline, the EDS machines must be grouped into separate pods that are each fed by a single mainline. For systems where dual mainlines are required, traditional mainline crossovers may still be used upstream of the security tracking zone so long as each pod is fed independently. These input crossover lines must be located so that failures on the input mainlines will not result in an abundance of stranded bags but will allow bags to be efficiently redirected to the other mainline. Due to these conflicting beliefs in redundancy, it is now imperative that the designers consider incorporating alternate forms of redundancy outside of adding mainlines. Submitting designs that incorporate redundant mainlines without substantiation may result in rejection. Additional costs and schedule delays to rectify the design may be incurred as well as the need to then resubmit the design package to TSA for approval. Preventive maintenance options and contingency planning are now more important than ever. 2.5.3.7 Alternatives to Physical Redundancy To avoid the drawbacks of physical redundancy, other alternatives should be considered. These alternatives can help minimize the impact that failures have on a system and in some instances can prevent the failure altogether without adding substantial capital and operational cost. During the design phase, careful consideration should be given to minimize the risk of failures and ensure that such failures do not cause a significant impact to the system. Several key factors should be considered when designing the CBIS. Bag Jam Mitigation: Bag jams are one of the most frequent impacts on system operations. While some bag jams are expected, many can be prevented with sound design principles. Bag hygiene plays a major role in preventing bag jams. The ticketing agents must follow the recom- mended loading procedures if jams are to be minimized. Furthermore, the layout of the conveyor must be optimized to ensure smooth transitions for bags, thus reducing the likelihood of a jam. The following items are considered best practices for avoiding bag jams: • Steep inclines, declines, and spiral turns should be avoided, especially in tracked zones. • Bags should be stabilized before changing directions. A short queue section between an incline or decline and a power turn will help the bag stabilize before changing directions. • Static deflectors should be used to ensure proper bag orientation throughout the system.

Defining Total Cost of Ownership for Baggage Handling Systems 27 • Correct belt types and conveyor speeds should be used at all merge and divert locations to ensure smooth transitions. • Speed changes between conveyors should not exceed 30 feet per minute or a 50% difference in speed. • Parallel or 90-degree merges and diverts should be avoided where possible. A 45-degree merge or divert will provide the best transition. • Tapered and nonpowered rollers should be avoided where possible. Conveyor Layout: The layout of the conveyors can determine how much of an impact a failure will have on the overall system performance. This is especially true within the CBIS matrix where multiple lines are diverting and merging. For instance, the main input line will have several diverts, one for each of the EDS shunt lines and one for out-of-gauge bags. The mainline should be configured so that each divert is placed on a separate mainline conveyor, rather than having multiple diverts on one long conveyor. This will ensure that a failure of a downstream divert or mainline conveyor will not hinder bags from being diverted to an upstream EDS shunt line. This is also true for merges. Each merge should feed its own mainline conveyor instead of one long conveyor. Conveyor length should also be taken into consideration. While using longer conveyors can reduce the overall drive count, they will also cause more disruption during failures. The longer the conveyor, the greater the distance that bags must be manually transported to the next conveyor in operation. It is advisable to limit the transport conveyor length to no more than 40 feet to aid in the manual transportation of stranded bags. Emergency Stop/Jam Zones: Because bag jams are the most common cause of die-back in the system, the emergency-stop (e-stop) and jam zones must be designed so that the occurrence of a jam does not render the system incapable of processing bags. Like the physical diverts and merges, the jam zones should be laid out so that multiple divert and merge points are not within a single jam or e-stop zone. A jam on one input line should not impact the adjacent input line unless that jam impedes the mainline. E-stop zones must also be configured so that jams from one line can be cleared without triggering an e-stop condition on adjacent lines. This will allow for continuous operation during jam scenarios. PLC, PDP, and MCP Breakouts: Careful attention must be placed on electrical and controls breakouts as well. The PLC, PDP, and MCP breakouts should incorporate the same philosophies described in the previous sections. While smaller systems may be able to be controlled by a single PLC or fed from a single PDP/MCP, this does not allow for redundancy in the event of a failure. The designer should make every effort to separate individual lines so that if a PLC or MCP fails, there are adjacent lines that are fed from a different PLC or MCP that can continue to operate. Like the e-stop and jam zones, the merges and diverts on a single mainline should also be split between multiple PLCs and PDP/MCPs where possible. Preventive/Predictive Maintenance: A thorough preventive or predictive maintenance pro- gram will result in significantly less system downtime. Like any piece of mechanical equipment, conveyors must be properly maintained. Failure to maintain the conveying equipment will result in increased failures and more system downtime. Physical redundancy can never replace an effective maintenance program. Adding more conveyors for redundancy will require more maintenance. If the redundant conveyors are not maintained properly and are therefore prone to failure, then they do not provide any advantage. Improved Maintenance Access/Execution: Another key design principle that must be considered is maintenance access. Providing adequate maintenance access to all conveyors within the system can significantly reduce response time during a failure. Catwalks and cross- overs must be strategically placed to allow maintenance personnel to quickly access the fault

28 Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership location and perform whatever mitigation actions are necessary. Care must also be taken to provide ample space around equipment so that the failed parts can be removed and replaced in a timely manner. Maintenance access is only one part of the equation. The execution of the maintenance or equipment replacement can also have a big impact on system downtime. There should be adequate maintenance personnel on staff to address issues as they arise, especially during peak times. Jam runners should be dispatched immediately to avoid system die-back. Likewise, equipment failures should be addressed as quickly as possible to return the system to full opera- tion. A full catalog of spare parts should be kept on-site to ensure that failed components can be replaced without waiting on a part to be shipped to the site. Equipment can also be preassembled and staged at key locations throughout the system to minimize the replacement time. Contingency Planning: The PGDS requires that a full contingency plan be provided for each new system that is built. Unfortunately, after the initial review is completed, these contingency plans are often placed on a shelf and quickly forgotten. This can be a costly mistake when a failure occurs. Contingency plans are written to ensure that there is a clear course of action for many different failure types in all locations of the CBIS. The contingency plan should clearly identify the steps to resolve a failure from the first indication of a problem all the way through the resolution and return to full operation. Key contacts should be provided for each failure type so that the appropriate parties can be notified of the failure quickly, and mitigation activities can begin as soon as possible. The impacts of system failures can be greatly reduced by following the procedures outlined in the contingency plan. 2.5.3.8 Redundancy Considerations in Other Conveyance Technologies While the traditional slider bed conveyor remains the predominant technology in the United States, other conveyance technologies, such as ICS, cross-belt sorters, and AGVs, are becoming more commonplace within the industry. These various technologies can have significantly different redundancy requirements. Individual Carrier Systems: The design of ICS, with considerations for both equipment and system capabilities, allows for multiple levels of redundancy throughout the conveyor system. At an equipment level, an ICS is typically conveyed on two narrow belts, though in the event of a belt tear, the carrier could still be conveyed on a single belt (compared to a traditional belt conveyor where if the belt is damaged beyond conveyance, it would have to be replaced before bags could continue through the conveyor). From a system perspective, ICS design allows for 90-degree transfers for crossovers while adding minimal equipment to the overall system. These crossovers can be used for redundancy in any location with parallel lines, including screening lanes, mainlines, and sortation. As ICSs have a very high allowable throughput rate while still maintaining multiple lines for redundancy, these crossovers can allow systems to maintain fully designed throughput during contingency modes should a mainline be out of service. Cross-Belt Sortation Systems: Cross-belt sortation systems typically provide a very high level of physical redundancy due to the use of a “train and cell” configuration. Each train consists of several cells, with each cell transporting a single bag. Each train contains an independent communication and controls system; therefore, the failure of a component on one train will not affect the other trains. Likewise, if a single cell fails, the other cells within that train remain operational. The inoperable train or cells can also be removed from the sorter and repaired without affecting the remaining trains. This configuration results in a substantial reduction in system downtime as compared to a traditional conveyor.

Defining Total Cost of Ownership for Baggage Handling Systems 29 Automated Guided Vehicle: AGV solutions can also be used within the BHS. AGV systems typically utilize individual vehicles to transport one or multiple bags at a time. These vehicles can be guided by magnetic tape placed on the ground or by GPS. Because the individual vehicles are not mechanically connected, any inoperable vehicle can be moved off the travel path and set aside for off-line repairs without affecting the other vehicles. One drawback to AGVs that utilize magnetic tape is that the tape can become damaged over time and will require repair to restore operations, though repair and replacement times are minimal. 2.5.3.9 Summary While there is a place for physical redundancy in BHS design, it is often used to cover up other deficiencies within the design of the system. The remedy to the issues raised in this section often requires more than simply adding redundant conveyor lines. A holistic approach to system design must be utilized to minimize the risk of failure and to minimize the impact of failures when they occur. A sound design coupled with a robust maintenance program can significantly reduce the capital costs of a BHS project by minimizing physical redundancy and instead, placing the focus on preventing the failures before they occur. Each individual area of the BHS should be closely analyzed to determine the type and level of redundancy needed. When physical redundancy is required, all facets of the system—mechanical, electrical, and controls—should be considered. 2.6 Energy Efficiency 2.6.1 Introduction While energy efficiency for buildings has progressed in recent years, BHSs have traditionally been left out of the larger discussions around efficiency and sustainability. Even airports that have articulated a clear commitment to and made significant investments in energy-efficient systems and technology have not made, in many cases, the same level of investment in energy- efficient BHS upgrades. There are several reasons why BHSs are less likely to be the focus of environmental or energy efficiency initiatives. First, in many airports, energy costs are apportioned among multiple stakeholders, reducing the impact on any one stakeholder and sometimes providing minimal transparency about how the costs are calculated. The BHS is just one piece of the overall cost, and many of the existing systems have little or no capacity to measure power usage, so it is difficult to set benchmarks or pinpoint inefficiencies. Second, the BHS purchaser and the maintainer may be two entirely different entities, with separate funding sources and priorities. This creates little incentive for the purchaser to make significant up-front capital investments (CAPEX) in exchange for improved or more efficient operations down the road (OPEX). In short, though energy efficiency is sometimes considered during the BHS design phase, the up-front costs and competing budget priorities often result in its deprioritization, especially where electricity is fairly inexpensive. Airports that do focus on energy efficiency as a key aspect of their BHS planning typically have a holistic funding approach and are willing to consider more expensive up-front investments that deliver longer-term savings. Additionally, airports that have made these investments have an articulated energy policy and consider sustainability and focus on the environmental part of their organizational culture and brand image. For these airports, investments in an energy-efficient BHS were part of an overall set of priorities or goals associated with efficiency benchmarks and certifications. Many in the industry believe that change is on the horizon and that airports will be increas- ingly pressured to demonstrate a commitment to sustainable business processes and objectives.

30 Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership This pressure may come in the form of funding with energy efficiency requirements attached, governmental taxes or tax abatements associated with energy efficiency, or consumer interest in sustainable products and services. With many countries reporting cleaner air quality during COVID-19 because of the significant reduction in air travel, pressure is mounting on airlines and airports to make sustainability goals actionable. Several airlines and airports have made pledges to reduce emissions and minimize reliance on natural resources. For example, in 2019, Pittsburgh International Airport announced it will become the first major U.S. airport powered entirely by a microgrid (Fiorilli 2019). The microgrid will power both terminals, the airfield, and other facilities; it will be fueled in part by the airport’s natural gas wells drilled on-site and nearly 8,000 solar panels across 8 acres. The ACI has similarly announced that its global member- ship has committed to a net zero carbon goal by 2050. According to ACI World’s Director General, Luis Felipe de Oliveira, Airports have been working on sustainability for decades, but I’m proud to report that they are now transforming this stewardship into business conditions, strategies, and objectives. Considering the massive revenue losses incurred by airports, it is inspiring to see that our members have not lost sight of their environmental initiatives, remaining committed to a postpandemic sustainable world. A prominent example is ACI and our global membership’s commitment this year to a net zero carbon goal of 2050—a commitment that was born from the ACI Long-Term Carbon Goal Study for Airports. (de Oliveira 2021) 2.6.2 Energy Saving Technologies and Upgrades There are many examples of massive undertakings by airports and airlines, such as • Expanding the development and use of sustainable aviation fuel, • Recycling rainwater to reduce water consumption, • Replacing electric power with hydroelectric power, solar power, or natural gas, • Sustainable terminal design, • Optimizing heating and cooling systems, and • Using electrical ground support equipment. Terminal buildings are being constructed with sophisticated lighting, heating, and cooling control systems to regulate the environment based on the number of passengers using the facility. Innovative cooling and heating systems are using geothermal, wind turbine, solar, or biofuel energy sources. The extensive use of glass provides natural light. Ground service vehicles are increasingly being run on low-carbon fuels or electricity. Some airports are seeking carbon accreditation or certification for their terminal structures from LEED, a third-party certification program for the design, construction, and operation of buildings that conserve energy, have a low impact on the natural environment, and provide a healthy work environment. These efforts certainly impact BHS environments, but this section will focus on some energy efficiency interventions that are specifically targeted at the BHS. These interventions range from the implementation of an entirely new system to somewhat more modest changes that can be implemented over time. 2.6.3 Low-Friction Belting Material Though not a particularly new or cutting-edge concept, belting material can have a huge impact on energy efficiency. An airport might have miles of conveyor; minimizing friction between the belting material and the slider bed to reduce resistance to forward movement will reduce energy consumption. Low-friction, lightweight, flexible belts will move through the system with less resistance, thus using less power.

Defining Total Cost of Ownership for Baggage Handling Systems 31 2.6.4 On-Demand Functionality Some older BHSs run continuously, wasting significant energy. Newer systems use smart tech- nology that allows specific subsystems to run on demand. Photo eyes are positioned along the conveyor throughout the system to track bags. When no bags are detected for a specific period of time (typically 5–10 minutes), the photo eye signals the programmable logic controller to initiate a sequenced shutdown. The system shuts down, zone by zone, until bags are detected again. Though not new technology, on-demand functionality can significantly impact energy usage. Few airports in the United States meter their energy usage, so savings are difficult to quantify, although Seattle-Tacoma International Airport estimates that their new on-demand system will reduce overall energy consumption by 30% annually (Port of Seattle 2020). On-demand functionality is a particularly notable energy efficiency intervention because it is not only made available when systems are replaced but older systems can be retro-commissioned to identify where savings can be realized. 2.6.5 Lighting Lighting is the largest end use of electricity in commercial buildings (U.S. EIA 2018). Subsequently, replacing outdated lighting technologies with more efficient options, such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs), can have a significant impact on energy efficiency. This change will typically be applied terminal-wide, and the energy savings to an airport will be significant. Many older airports have traditionally relied upon metal-halide and fluorescent-based fixtures. Replacing them with LED lighting may increase efficiency by up to 60%, with a return on investment estimated at 2.2 years (Sliney 2016). LED lights also last longer than traditional lighting—up to 3 to 5 times longer—reducing not only material costs but also maintenance costs (Sliney 2016). Additionally, smart technologies enable controls, such as daylight harvesting and dimming, which can provide additional energy savings on top of the LED light fixture savings. Smart technology allows the fixture to turn on or off based on motion in the area and/or utilize daylight harvesting by calculating the amount of artificial light needed based on how much natural light is in the facility (Sliney 2016). Further, while fluorescent fixtures generate most of their energy in heat, LEDs are cool to the touch—which translates into less wasted energy. While lighting is not directly attributable to the quantification of TCO for BHS, the BHS is a driver of lighting needs in the bag room for both operations and maintenance. Furthermore, poorly coordinated lighting can lead to an increase in BHS operations and maintenance costs. As with portions of a BHS with inadequate maintenance access, poorly lit areas of the BHS are less likely to be properly or proactively maintained, leading to more frequent system dis- ruptions, higher maintenance costs, and a potential increase in on-the-job injuries. 2.6.6 Variable Frequency Drives Variable frequency drives (VFDs) are electronic components used to control motors. Motors used in fans, pumps, conveyors, and other industrial equipment traditionally operate either on or off. VFDs not only control turning motors on and off but also allow for control of the speed of the motor. Where the speed of the motor can be adjusted to accommodate the need, such as when a fan, pump, or conveyor can operate at a lower speed, significant reductions in energy consumption can be achieved. For a constant torque load such as a conveyor, the loading of the motor is directly proportional to the loading of the conveyor. Therefore, if the conveyor can be operated at a speed less than

32 Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership 100%, thereby reducing the load on the motor, savings in energy consumption will result. For variable torque loads such as fans, VFDs can result in significant energy savings. For a typical fan installation, operating at 50% speed using a VFD will result in 12.5% of the full load horse- power. The reduced horsepower loads will result in reduced power requirements. The use of VFDs in BHSs increased significantly over the past decade. In the first release of the PGDS (TSA 2007), TSA required VFDs in CBIS applications with conveyors that frequently stopped and started in tracked zones. Further refinement of the requirement was made in subsequent document releases. As a result, their usage has become more widespread through- out BHS installations. While the use of VFDs can provide significant energy savings, the units themselves present an added up-front purchase cost. However, due to their flexibility in implementation, standard- izing on fewer drive package configurations can mitigate quantities in spare parts inventories for larger BHSs. 2.6.7 Permanent Magnet Motors Permanent magnet motors (PMMs), also called permanent magnet synchronous motors, operate more efficiently than traditional induction motors. They require the use of a VFD in BHS applications. The PMM is a synchronous motor, meaning there is no slip between the rotor and stator rotating magnetic field as there would be with an asynchronous motor (ASM) or an induction motor. The permanent magnets provide the necessary magnetization for the entire motor on a loss-free basis. This boosts the motor’s efficiency, as compared to the ASM, whose higher copper (aluminum) content leads to stator and rotor resistance losses occurring because of the current required for magnetization. Motor efficiency gains are further explored in Case Study #3 in Appendix B. 2.6.8 Independent Carrier Systems ICSs transport bags via tubs or totes using relatively short and narrow, dual-belt conveyor sections. The technology uses less energy due to a combination of the more efficient transport conveyor and controls that run each conveyor section only when a bag is present. ICSs have several key advantages. Since each bag is placed in a tote and every tote has an RFID chip, every bag can be distinguished from every other bag and can be tracked continuously and precisely throughout its journey. This dramatically reduces the percentage of “lost in track” bags during the TSA screening process, perhaps by as low as 0.1%. Subsequently, fewer bags enter CBRA, and fewer bags are recirculated, decreasing overall travel time. Another advantage of the ICS from an energy efficiency perspective is the dual-belt design, which provides a high level of redundancy. This negates the need to implement and operate wholly separate redundant subsystems, currently a common practice in BHS design. Additionally, the speed of ICSs can impact energy usage beyond the BHS. Normal sortation speed for a tote system is 450 feet per minute (with three times higher speeds available for long- distance transportation runs), significantly decreasing baggage travel time and reducing the need to transport baggage to the inbound load belts via tug and cart. The result is fewer transport vehicles on the ramp. See the ICS Case Study #2 in Appendix B for more information. Finally, because the ICS is a closed-loop system, outbound systems always need to return carriers to the check-in lobby. The most efficient ICS designs include provisions for using empty totes for transporting inbound baggage to the terminal. Thus, the carrier is performing useful

Defining Total Cost of Ownership for Baggage Handling Systems 33 work on its return trip, and additional energy-related savings can be realized by calculating the energy cost for reduced tug usage (since the travel distance from the plane to the inbound load belt is short). 2.6.9 Retro-Commissioning Building new facilities or replacing outdated equipment are obvious opportunities to examine energy efficiency. However, airports do not have to wait for new projects to realize efficiencies. Retro-commissioning is a process by which an airport’s existing BHS is evaluated, and adjust- ments are made to specifically increase both performance and energy efficiency. While primarily looking at control and operational parameters that might be set higher than needed, the process could also try to correct compromises that were made during design and bring in more up-to-date technology such as PMMs. Retro-commissioning provides a yardstick by which to measure how well a BHS is operating compared to its original design as well as helps identify suboptimal equipment performance and areas where equipment or controls need to be replaced or upgraded. Investigation of maintenance strategies can also be included, especially with an eye toward preventive maintenance. A retro-commissioning study looks at the building and suggests ways that owners can improve operations and decrease energy usage. The study involves analyzing utility data and comparing it to other similar facilities in a benchmark study and performing a site survey, out of which a recommended list of measures is developed. Each measure will include energy and cost savings and a life cycle cost analysis. The analysis will account for interactions between different measures. For example, turning off lights or using higher efficiency bulbs will not only lower the power usage, but may also lower the cooling load in the building, and that will affect a chiller optimization recommendation. The long-term benefit of implementing a recommendation is the cumulative energy savings and load reduction (Ross & Baruzzini 2020). A key benefit to retro-commissioning is the likelihood, particularly with older facilities and equipment, of finding low-cost, quick-payback energy conservation measures that can be com- paratively easy to implement. Retro-commissioning may also uncover significant safety concerns. 2.6.10 Summary Even airports with relatively limited access to funding have been able to achieve tremendous strides in creating more energy-efficient, sustainable environments. Though much of this progress has been focused on the highly visible terminal areas, opportunities and motivation to reduce the energy consumption of BHSs are increasing. And since many of the examples of efficiency opportunities noted in this section (other than ICS) have become commonplace in BHS, the cost for implementation—if identified and required at the beginning of a design for a new system— can be considered negligible, as efficiency opportunities represent sound design practice. 2.7 Security Considerations 2.7.1 Introduction The BHS and CBIS are critical points of potential vulnerability in the security process, and one of the biggest threats comes from insiders, either as attack vectors or as attackers themselves. EDSs involved in baggage screening are more integrated than initial stand-alone deployments within the BHS and CBIS. A byproduct of this increased interoperability between EDS and BHS is an increase in the number of potential failure points and an increase in the number of ways a malicious actor may attempt to penetrate sensitive systems for their own goals. BHS and

34 Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership CBIS, while not typically connected to the internet, are still vulnerable within the local airport networks with maintenance systems and agents serving as a particularly vulnerable method of introducing or extracting destructive information. This requires an intersecting and integrated approach to cybersecurity and physical security, outlined in the following sections. 2.7.2 Physical Security The biggest threat in the physical security arena is an insider threat, including airport personnel, maintenance personnel, and security personnel. Threat motivations are difficult to assign to any single factor and “may be both multiple and highly dynamic, as well as intentional or unintentional” (BaMaung et al. 2018, 133). There are several countermeasures currently in place at various airports to prevent, detect, and mitigate insider threats, including: • Access control – Secure identification badges with specific permissions to secure portals on a need-to- access basis help limit unauthorized access to secure areas. The limitation of escorting privileges depending on badge permission level decreases the chances of less-thoroughly vetted badge holders from bringing in unauthorized individuals. – Concealed USB/ethernet ports on machines can assist in preventing unauthorized access and the introduction of malicious software or code. • Background checks – Recurring background checks ensure that relevant clearances and privileges can be reevaluated regularly. – If concerns in background arise through regular or event-prompted background checks, access privileges can be revoked. – Part of managing background checks is through the expiration of badges, providing a mandatory recurring background check. • Security surveillance – Surveillance placements in and around secure areas with overlapping fields of view decrease the number of blind spots. • Unpredictable screening procedures – Random screening of cleared individuals aids in the deterrence and detection of insider threats, whether it is detecting the presence of weapons, explosives, or other contraband materials. • Procedural reviews and incident postmortems – Procedural reviews are critical to ensuring improvements are discussed regularly, and any security incidents can be dissected to ensure failures are not replicated by malicious actors. 2.7.3 Electronic Security From an electronic security perspective, the risks of cyberattacks and identity fraud pose the most threat to the airport. Numerous mitigation strategies are typically implemented, including: • Access controls – Administrator accounts control personnel who have access to specific systems and can revoke permissions upon any relevant violation or employee separation. – Internal logs aid in determining the occurrence of unauthorized access, either remotely or on-premise. • Air-gapped systems (i.e., not connected to the Internet or a local area network) or hardened machines hard-wired to their counterparts, rather than communicating wirelessly, increase security. – Wireless communications are much more vulnerable than physically networking machines together.

Defining Total Cost of Ownership for Baggage Handling Systems 35 • Recurring background checks ensure that relevant clearances and privileges can be reevaluated regularly. – If concerns in background arise, through regular or event-prompted background checks, access privileges can be revoked. • Vigilant security hygiene, through software patches, upgrades, and recurring cybersecurity training is important for maintaining network integrity against external threats gaining access to secure and sensitive systems. Procedural reviews and incident postmortems are critical to ensuring improvements can be discussed regularly, and any security incidents can be dissected to ensure failures are not able to be replicated by malicious actors. 2.7.4 Impact on TCO As with any security system, when considering the TCO of physical and electronic security systems, there is a need to assess, define, and implement the most cost-efficient solution and look at all alternatives for the airport or terminal. Achieving the lowest-cost solution requires 1) considering a wide range of alternatives rather than relying on a preconceived notion regard- ing which system would be best suited for a particular airport and 2) assessing the full life cycle costs of different alternatives. Doing so can help ensure that the ongoing costs of operating and maintaining these systems are appropriately balanced with the up-front capital costs. To establish the lowest-cost alternative, planners need to calculate the life cycle costs of developing, maintaining, and replacing the BHS, CBIS, and security systems. These costs are estimated early in the design process and refined as the process progresses, and they establish the basis for the return-on-investment analysis. The analysis should include assumptions, life cycle costs to consider including capital costs, O&M costs, and staffing costs. Considerations for the established useful life of security equipment also need to be accounted for. Ultimately, the application of a robust security infrastructure impacts both the BHS CAPEX and OPEX. From a CAPEX perspective, while the actual security infrastructure is not a BHS asset, its implementation and integration with the BHS is. For example, the integration requirements for the access control system with the BHS functionality can increase up-front programming time and effort. Depending on permissions and granted access, it can affect the logistics for phased installation and commissioning where the site is a mix of secure identification display areas (SIDA) and construction areas. From a recurring cost perspective, the badging, recurring training, and limits on access for certain individuals are drivers of the BHS O&M labor costs. Following are some specific TCO considerations: • Upgrades and acceptance of tightening security procedures need to be spread over a long period of time to accommodate more financially restricted airports. • Timelines of obsolescence can be difficult to predict and may not be spread equally among technology adopted within similar periods. • Standardization is desirable with security partners, airlines, airports, and regulators consid- ering the International Civil Aviation Organization priorities and other cooperative agree- ments, and high-traffic entry points to the United States. • Within U.S. and international airports, most physical and electronic security systems (such as access control, surveillance, background checks, and random screening of airport workers) are owned and operated by the airports. Airports investing up front in capital expenditures for more-automated systems can benefit from staffing efficiencies stemming from fewer personnel needed to operate these systems. Examples can be found in video-analytics systems running on surveillance systems that automatically detect anomalous activities around airport areas

36 Airport Baggage Handling System Decision-Making Based on Total Cost of Ownership and terminals or automated multifactor, biometric-enabled access control that reduces the need for security personnel staffing at certain access control points. Looking at the TCO of such systems across the entire useful life of the system and accounting for operating, main- taining, and staffing costs can help justify the up-front capital investment in purchasing and installing such systems. • Most electronic security systems related to passenger and baggage screening (checkpoint and checked baggage screening) in the United States are fully owned and operated by the TSA (except for some privatized airports). A similar TCO concept can be applied where up-front capital investment by TSA can lead to more-automated screening systems that can create security staffing efficiencies throughout the useful life of the overall screening system. • Security screening systems outside the United States are usually owned and operated by airports that often use a security service provider to operate screening systems. A similar TCO approach can be applied to these international operations, as airports can assess the TCO of those systems across their entire useful life and reduce staffing needs and, therefore, the cost of the security service contract when capital investment is made in more-automated screening systems by the airport. • The application and integration of access control and lines of demarcation for SIDA may consider the overall construction and commissioning phasing of the BHS to streamline the process to help reduce the costs of added programming, multiple phases, and security escorts. 2.7.5 Industry Examples of Security Incidents British Airways employee Rajib Karim: In 2010, British Airways employee Rajib Karim was arrested after it had been discovered that he had been in contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, a prominent anti-American voice responsible for inspiring several attacks against “Westerners” and their interests (BaMaung et al. 2018, 133). While he was convicted of an attempt at a physical attack, prior to this he did offer to perpetrate other types of attacks, including financial attacks, on British Airways. The threat he posed was multifaceted, with both physical and cyber components. Metrojet Flight 9268: Historically, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), has tar- geted a variety of critical infrastructures, and the downing Metrojet 9268 in October 2015 is attributed to and claimed by them. There are several theories postulated to explain how an improvised explosive device (IED) containing approximately 1 kg of TNT (trinitrotoluene) made it on board, but testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Gov- ernmental Affairs indicates that the IED was almost definitely smuggled onto the flight by an insider employed at Sharm el-Sheikh International Airport (BaMaung et al. 2018, 133). There are not always definitive indicators in a person’s background that they may be an insider threat, as made clear by the lack of clear suspects in this case, which makes procedures that make detect- ing malicious activity at the time of perpetration just as important as background checks. Daallo Airlines Flight 159: In February of 2016, Daallo Airlines 159 exploded not long after takeoff from Aden Adde International Airport, an airport in Mogadishu, Somalia (BaMaung et al. 2018, 133). The attack was claimed by Al-Shabaab, and at least one of the individuals involved was employed by the airport. While the laptop killed the only bomber and failed to take down the plane, the impact that this attack attempt had was illustrative of the problems facing airports attempting to effectively screen employees for problems in their background and personal associations.