Bag reconciliation refers to associating a bag in the hold with a passenger in the cabin.
Performing an exact match (100 % reconciliation) is mandatory before the aircraft can leave the gate. A passenger can travel without his bag if he is not aware of it (this happens when a bag arrives too late at the make-up area or when a bag is "reflighted").
Bag reconciliation can be performed in several ways but it should not be misinterpreted. This is NOT an identity check. Checking the level of risk of a passenger is also a different issue. Checking against immigration policy is yet another issue.
So, when redesigning the process, the first step is to break down the constraints an clearly identify what is done for reconciliation, identity, immigration purposes. Only then, can a efficient redesign start.
The 3 generic reconciliation methods :
1. based on what the passenger "holds",
2. based on what the passenger "is",
3. based on what the passenger "knows"
Reconciliation using method 1 is relies on a document that the passenger carry such as a frequent flyer card or a boarding pass.
At bag drop passenger presents its document and bag tags are
associated with that document. At the gate, passenger must present the same document so that the match is performed. This method is fast, simple and can be automated. It is quick because only one media is required (the more media the slower the process). In the case of a bar-coded boarding pass it is simple because barcode readers are ubiquitous in airports and "M format" barcodes are a standard (IATA standard) across airports and airlines. But even more important in cost saving times, reconciliation using a boarding pass can be easily automated. At bag drop, only a barcode scanner is required. At the gate, it is possible to automate the boarding process: a barcode reader is just what is required. But the real benefit is around passenger training. Process time is not driven by technical time i.e. time that the various systems take to process data - but rather by the time it takes the passenger to interact with the systems such as understanding what to do, moving from one point to the other, searching for a document etc. As an example, moving a passenger over 1 meter takes around 3s in an airport. As a consequence, creating a queue in front of check in counters is likely to increase the process time by around 10s.
The reason why this reconciliation method is not the only one today, is that the level of security is relatively low. If a boarding-pass is forged or stolen, an unauthorized person can drop a bag under the real passenger reference without this latter knowing it. To reduce this risk, at check-in the passenger can be asked how many bags he
intents to drop. If the number differs from the actual number of bags dropped, an
alert is raised. The shortcoming is that all passengers that change
their minds generate an alert.
The second method is associating the bag against what characterizes
the passenger. The most common method is to use first name and last
name. To certify his name the passenger has to present an identification document with a picture such as a passport, driving license or id card. That picture id will have to be presented again at the gate. This process is considered to be secure because forging an identification document is very difficult. But such a process is much slower and cannot be automated easily. Automation would require to perform a match between the face of the passenger and the picture that is stored on the id document. This match is possible if the picture is stored in digital format (such a jpeg) and it takes between 10 and 20 seconds. But if the picture on the id document is just a print then the match cannot be realized (with sufficient accuracy with current technology). The consequence in terms of process is that you need to manage the flow of passengers so that only those with biometric passports (picture is stored in digital format) or other appropriate id documents can use the automated process. This sounds simple but adding a decision point makes the process more complex for all passengers, so it really need to offer a significant benefit to your target.
Alternatives to characterize the passenger are biometric features such as fingerprint, iris or palm veins. These biometric measures are reliable and fast to match and they do not require the passenger to carry a document. The good results of the surveys gives an indication that passengers place a high value in their peace of mind. The main weakness of these biometric features is that they are not included in the current id documents so they need to be captured, through what is called enrollment. The key to implement an efficient process is to design a fast and cheap enrollment scenario. We will look a the different biometric features and enrollment possible in a specific article.
The third reconciliation option is using what the passenger knows such as a pin code or a password. This is common in the banking industry but surprisingly it is not used in the air transportation. This does not mean that it will not be used in the future. In practical terms, the passenger could be asked to type a 4 digit pin code at bag drop. At boarding, this 4-digit code would be typed again. Automation is easy. Security is high, at least much higher than reconciliation with a boarding pass. The likeliness for a person to drop a bag under the name of a passenger using the same pin code is extremely low.
The selection of the appropriate reconciliation method depends on local regulation in terms of security expected, local acceptance of biometric capture and storage and cost of manual process. The solution is likely to be different for domestic and international travelers. It can also be different for frequent flyers and occasional travelers. Building a project team with regulation specialists, cost accounting and marketing is probably a winning approach.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Bag drop : 1 step or 2 steps ?
The bag process refers to tagging and injection of the bag in the BHS (baggage handling system).
2 broad options are available : either tagging is performed away from drop off (2-step process) or tagging is performed at the drop off point (1-step). There are advocates for both solutions.
The 2-step process is implemented in Canada, Scandinavia, New Zealand,...
The one-step process is implemented in UAE, Germany,... Supporters of the 1-step process claim that it is more passenger friendly. The main argument is that passengers that come to the airport and have already checked in only need to make one stop at the drop off station. The second perceived benefit is that the system is simpler because there is no need for a tagging station.
The supporters of the 2-step process analyze the situation differently. Tagging a bag takes longer than dropping a bag (see self tagging and bag drop articles). This means that the bag drop station will be mobilized for a long period of time during which it is useless (tagging). To avoid this, the process can be split into 2 steps in which resources will be optimized independently. Tagging will be performed on tagging stations (such as self-service kiosks equipped with bag tag printers). Bag injection will be performed on another equipment (self-service or not). As tagging takes longer than bag injection, the quantity of tagging stations will be greater than the one of bag injection. Another benefit is that bag tag refilling can be made without mobilizing the drop off station.
So, what process to choose ?
The decision will be dependent upon the level of saturation at peak time. If there are no queues at peak time, then a 1 step process is probably a good solution.
But if you have queues at check-in at peak hour then the choice is clear : 2-step process. Doing so you will reduce the time that passengers spend on the bag drop position. These positions are the major constraint because their number cannot be increased without heavy civil engineering work. As tagging takes more time, you will require approximately 3 to 4 tagging stations per bag drop position. Installing many kiosks for self tagging should not an issue as their footprint is reduced. Their ideal position is 3 to 4 meters away from bag drop area. Which such a lay out your resources will be well balanced and the total capacity of the system will be approximately two times (depending on the performance of your check in) higher than regular counters.
2 broad options are available : either tagging is performed away from drop off (2-step process) or tagging is performed at the drop off point (1-step). There are advocates for both solutions.
The 2-step process is implemented in Canada, Scandinavia, New Zealand,...
The one-step process is implemented in UAE, Germany,... Supporters of the 1-step process claim that it is more passenger friendly. The main argument is that passengers that come to the airport and have already checked in only need to make one stop at the drop off station. The second perceived benefit is that the system is simpler because there is no need for a tagging station.
The supporters of the 2-step process analyze the situation differently. Tagging a bag takes longer than dropping a bag (see self tagging and bag drop articles). This means that the bag drop station will be mobilized for a long period of time during which it is useless (tagging). To avoid this, the process can be split into 2 steps in which resources will be optimized independently. Tagging will be performed on tagging stations (such as self-service kiosks equipped with bag tag printers). Bag injection will be performed on another equipment (self-service or not). As tagging takes longer than bag injection, the quantity of tagging stations will be greater than the one of bag injection. Another benefit is that bag tag refilling can be made without mobilizing the drop off station.
So, what process to choose ?
The decision will be dependent upon the level of saturation at peak time. If there are no queues at peak time, then a 1 step process is probably a good solution.
But if you have queues at check-in at peak hour then the choice is clear : 2-step process. Doing so you will reduce the time that passengers spend on the bag drop position. These positions are the major constraint because their number cannot be increased without heavy civil engineering work. As tagging takes more time, you will require approximately 3 to 4 tagging stations per bag drop position. Installing many kiosks for self tagging should not an issue as their footprint is reduced. Their ideal position is 3 to 4 meters away from bag drop area. Which such a lay out your resources will be well balanced and the total capacity of the system will be approximately two times (depending on the performance of your check in) higher than regular counters.
Bag drop manned or self service ?
The development of self service check-in has motivated airlines to implement "fast bag drop" counters.
The objective of these counters is to offer better service for those passengers who have checked-in online. Initially it is faster but over time these counters tend to become slow bag drop. The reason behind this is, that when agents have access to the full set of functionality of the check-in application they use it and process all customer requests such as seat change or upgrade. One should remember that agents are trained to fulfill customers' requests and not to decline them. Thus agents at fast bag drop positions need to be specially trained to understand that spending time with customer A will create a queue and generate frustration for customer B. So although it is not intuitive, global satisfaction requires to spend as little time as possible with customers; with these customers. Because they are the one that want a fast process rather than the traditional interaction with an agent.
To force agents to limit their interaction to bag acceptance, it is possible to inactivate the unwanted functions. The risk with this, is to generate frustration from agents who claim that their job looses value and interest.
But the benefit is clear : the most efficient bag drop applications allow an agent to process a bag (without tagging) in less than 10s with an average of 15s.
With the success of self-service all along the passenger process up to tagging - which is seen as the most sensitive task to transfer to the passenger – some airlines and airports have shown interest in self-service bag drops. The passenger is asked to use a self service machine to inject the bag in the BHS (baggage handling system). This solution sounds very attractive because it removes the need for agents. Nonetheless operational context and implementation must be carefully studied.
First, reconciliation. Bag reconciliation refers to associating a bag in the hold with a passenger in the cabin. Depending on local reconciliation method (boarding pass, id or biometry. See article on reconciliation) it will be implementable in self service or not. Reconciliation against a boarding pass is quite easy and quick to perform. Same for biometry. But this not the case for id. This is why it is wise to have agents performing reconciliation in countries where picture id is mandatory. We will look at how to organize the check in area in this case (see article on organizing self-service check in area).
Secondly efficiency. How efficient is this self-service bag drop in terms of resources utilization ? Well, if the agent is the main cost driver of the process, then full self-service can be a good option. But in many airports, the issue is capacity at peak time. Thus the true resources cost is the cost of infrastructure : if passengers cannot be handled at peak time, investment will be required. And the amount of this investment is much higher than the cost of the agents involved. In this case the decision criteria will be based on the number of passengers that can be processed per hour and per square meter. The optimal process is not necessarily be the one that is the more automated.
So, how to choose ? For airlines the interest is more likely to be agent cost reduction but airports bear infrastructure cost. To take a decision that considers the global cost of the system, it is important to put in place fees reflect the fact that some of the resource (counters) can be constrained. A solution – but not the only one – could be to flex the cost of the counters depending on the level of scarcity.
The objective of these counters is to offer better service for those passengers who have checked-in online. Initially it is faster but over time these counters tend to become slow bag drop. The reason behind this is, that when agents have access to the full set of functionality of the check-in application they use it and process all customer requests such as seat change or upgrade. One should remember that agents are trained to fulfill customers' requests and not to decline them. Thus agents at fast bag drop positions need to be specially trained to understand that spending time with customer A will create a queue and generate frustration for customer B. So although it is not intuitive, global satisfaction requires to spend as little time as possible with customers; with these customers. Because they are the one that want a fast process rather than the traditional interaction with an agent.
To force agents to limit their interaction to bag acceptance, it is possible to inactivate the unwanted functions. The risk with this, is to generate frustration from agents who claim that their job looses value and interest.
But the benefit is clear : the most efficient bag drop applications allow an agent to process a bag (without tagging) in less than 10s with an average of 15s.
With the success of self-service all along the passenger process up to tagging - which is seen as the most sensitive task to transfer to the passenger – some airlines and airports have shown interest in self-service bag drops. The passenger is asked to use a self service machine to inject the bag in the BHS (baggage handling system). This solution sounds very attractive because it removes the need for agents. Nonetheless operational context and implementation must be carefully studied.
First, reconciliation. Bag reconciliation refers to associating a bag in the hold with a passenger in the cabin. Depending on local reconciliation method (boarding pass, id or biometry. See article on reconciliation) it will be implementable in self service or not. Reconciliation against a boarding pass is quite easy and quick to perform. Same for biometry. But this not the case for id. This is why it is wise to have agents performing reconciliation in countries where picture id is mandatory. We will look at how to organize the check in area in this case (see article on organizing self-service check in area).
Secondly efficiency. How efficient is this self-service bag drop in terms of resources utilization ? Well, if the agent is the main cost driver of the process, then full self-service can be a good option. But in many airports, the issue is capacity at peak time. Thus the true resources cost is the cost of infrastructure : if passengers cannot be handled at peak time, investment will be required. And the amount of this investment is much higher than the cost of the agents involved. In this case the decision criteria will be based on the number of passengers that can be processed per hour and per square meter. The optimal process is not necessarily be the one that is the more automated.
So, how to choose ? For airlines the interest is more likely to be agent cost reduction but airports bear infrastructure cost. To take a decision that considers the global cost of the system, it is important to put in place fees reflect the fact that some of the resource (counters) can be constrained. A solution – but not the only one – could be to flex the cost of the counters depending on the level of scarcity.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The token concept : how to efficiently identify the passenger
At a counter a passenger is usually identified using a picture id. The reference used is the name. The development of self-service has brought in many other options for the passenger to identify himself. In fact, as the reference can be anything, we can call it a token. And this token can have different aspect along the process from check-in to boarding. Passengers can use a frequent flyer card to identify at a kiosk, present a passport at bag drop and use a bar-coded boarding pass at the gate.
When choosing what identification options you propose to passengers at self-service kiosks, your objective should be to reduce as much as possible the time for identification. Current options are name, booking reference, eticket number, frequent flyer number, passport, credit card, barcode.
The slowest options are booking reference and eticket number. These types of identification take between 15s and 45s because they require the passenger to find the paper or email confirmation that was sent and to key in a long suite of characters. There is little chance that he remembers any of these references because they change at each travel.
The first step to shorten that time is to use something that the passenger can remember. Very good candidates for this are the frequent flyer number or name + destination. As a remark, it is better to use the destination rather that the flight number because all passengers know where they fly to, but few remember the flight number. Such an identification method takes around 20s.
A further reduction of the time taken to identify the passenger is to avoid keying in anything. The reference will be read from a media that is presented to the kiosk. This can be a barcode, a card, an RFID chip... Passports will be discussed later. Such an identification is extremely short, below 10s. The difference between these methods is not technical time, but the time that it takes to the passenger to find the media and to find where to place the media on the kiosk. To this regard, special attention must be paid to the ergonomic design of the kiosk : a kiosk should gather all input technologies as close as possible to one another to facilitate finding them by the passenger. Passengers sometimes loose 10s to find and to understand how to use a reader.
Let's look at the behavior of passengers : at the airport, they have luggage, and they probably dress differently than every day. This sounds like a small difference but this makes finding a paper a challenge : you cannot feel a paper in a pocket, and this is worse if the suit or coat is not the one that is usually worn. Finding a paper in a computer case or hand bag is not easier. When you travel, even for short business trips, you usually have more things in you bag than usual : papers to read, news paper, book. All these behavioral aspects explain why approximately 30% of passengers cannot find their home printed boarding pass or booking at the airport.
A remedy to this is to store the token on a media that the passenger will find easily such as a card or a telephone. The card will usually be stored in the wallet, so finding it is quick. In this regard, using a credit card rather than a frequent flyer card is even better, because not all passengers are frequent flyers, nor carry their frequent flyer card with them. The issue about reading a credit card, is to comply with the PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard) regulation. We will cover the PCI DSS aspect in a future article.
Last but not least, the cell phone can be used to store the token. This is extremely efficient in terms of process time : virtually all passengers have a cell phone, an use them to send an receive messages. The limitation is that high end cell phones that can receive and display barcodes are not the norm outside business travelers and frequent flyers (this is changing quickly though given that consumers change their cell phone every 18 months in average). But considering that this segment represent a significant portion of the passengers it is worthwhile offering this possibility. The process time in this case is driven by the time it takes to the passenger to find the appropriate message. This is why it takes a little longer than identification using a card. To avoid this, some airlines have designed a physical passive token that can be attached to the phone. This is the shortest identification method, taking only a couple seconds. The way it works is very simple : an RFID chip is stuck at the back of the cell phone. That RFID chip stores a token that can be a frequent flyer number of anything else, provided it is recognized by the system. The RFID chip is a HF (High Frequency) chip that can work in a number of different norms (mifare, NFC,… we will cover these norms in a future article). When the passenger approaches the cell phone close enough to the reader (a couple centimeter, approximately 1") the token is read and activates the check-in. This is a process without any loss of time : cell phone is easy to find and it can stay switched off. The cost of the RFID sticker is a little higher than the frequent flyer card, but the non financial benefits are important : passenger like the speed and convenience. In the future, the sticker might not be necessary as cell phones will probably have that HF RFID function (NFC, Near Field Communication).
At last, the case for passport and picture ids This sounds like a good compromise : all travelers are required to carry one and there is an MRZ (Machine Readable Zone). The shortcomings of passport reading are linked to identifying last names. In some countries, some last names are very common, in most cases, last name is different from maiden name. So reading a last name is not enough. The passenger is required to key another information or select within a list of choice the appropriate ticket. Performing these 2 tasks requires in average 30s.
The choice of the token is not something that can be decided by the IT department. It must be carefully thought of depending at a minimum on the origin/ destination and type of passenger. A tour operator using a CUSS (Common Use Self Service) kiosk will not need the same token types as a shuttle flight between two business cities. The choice should be adapted to make process short and convenient for a majority of customers, not for all. Trying to address 100% of customers deteriorates the service that could be offered to 80% of them.
When choosing what identification options you propose to passengers at self-service kiosks, your objective should be to reduce as much as possible the time for identification. Current options are name, booking reference, eticket number, frequent flyer number, passport, credit card, barcode.
The slowest options are booking reference and eticket number. These types of identification take between 15s and 45s because they require the passenger to find the paper or email confirmation that was sent and to key in a long suite of characters. There is little chance that he remembers any of these references because they change at each travel.
The first step to shorten that time is to use something that the passenger can remember. Very good candidates for this are the frequent flyer number or name + destination. As a remark, it is better to use the destination rather that the flight number because all passengers know where they fly to, but few remember the flight number. Such an identification method takes around 20s.
A further reduction of the time taken to identify the passenger is to avoid keying in anything. The reference will be read from a media that is presented to the kiosk. This can be a barcode, a card, an RFID chip... Passports will be discussed later. Such an identification is extremely short, below 10s. The difference between these methods is not technical time, but the time that it takes to the passenger to find the media and to find where to place the media on the kiosk. To this regard, special attention must be paid to the ergonomic design of the kiosk : a kiosk should gather all input technologies as close as possible to one another to facilitate finding them by the passenger. Passengers sometimes loose 10s to find and to understand how to use a reader.
Let's look at the behavior of passengers : at the airport, they have luggage, and they probably dress differently than every day. This sounds like a small difference but this makes finding a paper a challenge : you cannot feel a paper in a pocket, and this is worse if the suit or coat is not the one that is usually worn. Finding a paper in a computer case or hand bag is not easier. When you travel, even for short business trips, you usually have more things in you bag than usual : papers to read, news paper, book. All these behavioral aspects explain why approximately 30% of passengers cannot find their home printed boarding pass or booking at the airport.
A remedy to this is to store the token on a media that the passenger will find easily such as a card or a telephone. The card will usually be stored in the wallet, so finding it is quick. In this regard, using a credit card rather than a frequent flyer card is even better, because not all passengers are frequent flyers, nor carry their frequent flyer card with them. The issue about reading a credit card, is to comply with the PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard) regulation. We will cover the PCI DSS aspect in a future article.
Last but not least, the cell phone can be used to store the token. This is extremely efficient in terms of process time : virtually all passengers have a cell phone, an use them to send an receive messages. The limitation is that high end cell phones that can receive and display barcodes are not the norm outside business travelers and frequent flyers (this is changing quickly though given that consumers change their cell phone every 18 months in average). But considering that this segment represent a significant portion of the passengers it is worthwhile offering this possibility. The process time in this case is driven by the time it takes to the passenger to find the appropriate message. This is why it takes a little longer than identification using a card. To avoid this, some airlines have designed a physical passive token that can be attached to the phone. This is the shortest identification method, taking only a couple seconds. The way it works is very simple : an RFID chip is stuck at the back of the cell phone. That RFID chip stores a token that can be a frequent flyer number of anything else, provided it is recognized by the system. The RFID chip is a HF (High Frequency) chip that can work in a number of different norms (mifare, NFC,… we will cover these norms in a future article). When the passenger approaches the cell phone close enough to the reader (a couple centimeter, approximately 1") the token is read and activates the check-in. This is a process without any loss of time : cell phone is easy to find and it can stay switched off. The cost of the RFID sticker is a little higher than the frequent flyer card, but the non financial benefits are important : passenger like the speed and convenience. In the future, the sticker might not be necessary as cell phones will probably have that HF RFID function (NFC, Near Field Communication).
At last, the case for passport and picture ids This sounds like a good compromise : all travelers are required to carry one and there is an MRZ (Machine Readable Zone). The shortcomings of passport reading are linked to identifying last names. In some countries, some last names are very common, in most cases, last name is different from maiden name. So reading a last name is not enough. The passenger is required to key another information or select within a list of choice the appropriate ticket. Performing these 2 tasks requires in average 30s.
The choice of the token is not something that can be decided by the IT department. It must be carefully thought of depending at a minimum on the origin/ destination and type of passenger. A tour operator using a CUSS (Common Use Self Service) kiosk will not need the same token types as a shuttle flight between two business cities. The choice should be adapted to make process short and convenient for a majority of customers, not for all. Trying to address 100% of customers deteriorates the service that could be offered to 80% of them.
Designing an efficient self tagging bag tag
Designing an appropriate bag tag for self tagging is not a difficult task if you understand what are the drivers of efficiency. The most important concept is to keep it as simple as possible. I will illustrate this in the following article and give simple guidelines.
Current bag tags have been designed to be applied by agents. This means that all the features have been thought of to improve the process at the time of their design. This bag tag design had also to meet the constraints of automated bag sortation.
The regular bag tag
This bag tag is more complex that one would think.
The claim tag. The claim is a piece of detachable paper that is handed to the passenger once the bags are accepted by the airline.
The stubs. At the other end of the bag tag are the stubs : 1 to 3 stubs. Stubs are used in the makeup area to locate the bags in the ULD (Unit Load Device, a type of container). The staff that loads the bags in the ULDs has a sheet of paper representing that ULD. He sticks a stub at the place where the bag is physically placed in the ULD. This allows to find a bag quickly in case of unload. The rest of the front face of the bag tag is used to displays 1 D barcodes placed in "T", destination airport, flight number,… The length is determined by the number of travel legs that must fit in the bag tag. As an example, the CUSS (Common Use Self Service) bag tag is 21" long. The back of the bag tag bears legal writing describing the limitation of responsibility of the airline, the procedure to follow in case of bag mishandling,…
The type of paper has been defined to be compliant with the technology : thermal printing, glue performance and resistance to tear to avoid rip out in the BHS. The technical details are listed in IATA documents (www.iata.org).
The self-tagging bag tag
Before starting designing the bag tag you need to determine what are the constraints you need to comply with.
Here are some of the questions you need to answer:
Will this bag tag be used in interline / multi segment journeys ?
Do you need compatibility between agent bag tags and self tagging bag tags ?
Do you need compatibility with automated sortation systems (BHS) ?
Do you need to be IATA compliant ?
Do you need to be compliant with current printing technology ?
Then you can start with a blank sheet. Compatibility with existing printing technology will determine the width and the way information is written on the tag, i.e. thermal printing. Why the width ? Because current dedicated printers are configured to manage two width of paper : boarding pass width (usually referred to as ATB format) and bag tag width. Introducing a third width would require to mechanically adjust the printers, a costly option that must be balanced with the benefits you expect from that new width.
So now you have a blank strip of thermal paper. How do you want passengers to attach it on the bag ? the current system requires to peel a liner at the back of the tag on a limited portion of the tag and to fold the tag to stick one end to the other. This is THE core of the issue. Passengers need to understand how to stick and if possible do it in a short period of time. Otherwise you create frustration and anxiety. What is not natural in the current process is that you do not peel the bag tag completely from one end to the other. The liner stays in place. This design has been chosen to reduce the amount of waste at the counter but this is not intuitive for a passenger : when we apply a label in other situations, we remove the liner completely. It is easier to reuse existing passenger reflex rather than trying to train them to manipulate a air transportation tag differently from a regular tag : If you choose to have a sticky bag tag, you need to make a stop mark (this is a pre-cut in the liner) that will allow the passenger to throw away the portion he has peeled.
You can also decide to design a different way of attaching the bag tag to the bag. Make sure in any case that you do not need to train your passengers on a counter-intuitive behavior, i.e. to generate a behavior that is opposite to common sense such as peeling only a third of a label to attach it.
When creating a new attachment design, do not be obsessed to address 100you’re your passengers. If you find a revolutionary process that applies to 80% of them, this is very good. Optimizing 80% of the flow is not a failure ! The other 20%, will be handled differently, for example at a counter. To manage the situation operationally, you need to clearly explain to passengers whether they can use process A or need to go use process B (for example seeking assistance from an agent).
Now, you have a blank strip of paper that can be printed by existing printers and attached to a bag. How do you make it easy for your passengers to attach it ? A natural behavior is to remove all the sticky parts and try and find a place for them. In this respect, keeping the stubs is not a good option. In the best case, passengers will ignore them or stick them on their boarding pass. But the most likely to happen is to have them stick the stubs on their bags as a back up. This was an agent practice. But the result is disastrous in the BHS. Not the first time you stick the stub, but when that same bag is injected for a different trip, with a different bag tag number… and the old stub is still on it. The automated barcode readers in the BHS will read the bag tag in most of the situations, but in some cases they can read the stub, which will correspond to no bag. The BHS will send the bag to the manual sortation unit(where the sortation process is longer) with a possibility to generate a mishandling. So, if possible remove the stubs from your self tagging bag tag and adapt the process in the makeup area accordingly. The second detachable part is the claim. In fact the claim should be given only when the bag is no longer in the hand of the passenger, that means injected in the BHS. The easiest way to achieve this, is to print the claim at the bag drop station, be it manned of self-service. Now you have a bag tag.
Can you make it easier to place ? Yes. Remember the back of the bag tag : we have not used it so far. In regular bag tags, there is all the legal writing. Most of the airlines and airports that use self tagging have removed this legal writing. If your company still require it, think about printing it on the screen of your tagging station with an accept button. You can now use the back to show a couple drawings on how to attach the tag. Try as much as you can to avoid text, because your passengers will not necessarily feel comfortable with the words you use if it is not their mother tongue.
Further optimization
The self-service bag tag will fit into a self service tagging station. The most obvious tagging station is the kiosk with a bag tag printer. You have two options for fitting the tags in the kiosks : roll or fan fold. The benefit of rolls is that whatever the length of the bag tag, the roll can be adapted to fit in the kiosk. The benefit of fan fold is that in a small space you can fit many more bag tags. Current rolls, include 200 bag tags, whereas a typical fan fold box is 700 to 1000 bag tags. This box is approximately 20 cm high. When self tagging develops, you can expect over 200 bag tags will be printed per day and per kiosk. This means that rolls need to be changed every day, but not necessarily at the same time of the day. You can decide to change them all at the same time, and throw away the reminder of the roll or ask agents to change rolls when needed. The practicality of both options will depend on the staffing level of the check-in area. The more staff, the less difficult it is to change rolls when needed. But to really improve operations, increasing the number of tags per kiosk is key. Using fan fold allows to improve autonomy, but it requires to adapt the length of the tag to the available space. Fitting a 21" (CUSS length) bag tag is unlikely to be possible in an existing kiosk, but if you are considering a dedicated tag, designing it short enough to fit should be part of the initial constraints. Another option is to have multiple rolls in the kiosk. Doing so, not only do you reduce the frequency of roll change but you can chose when you refill.
Implementation
The impact of new design is large. It is not just your tag supplier that will have to supply new tags. The IT department must impact the check in application and the printers. In the check-in application, one point is particularly crucial : inactivation of the bag tag. We will discuss this in a future article.
The printers need to be updated because in current printing information flow is split in two : one flow for the layout and one flow for the information itself. This is a remnant of the times when network bandwidth was scarce : just passing the information allowed to reduce the time of transfer. So the printers require a new layout that is called a "pectab".
Other options for self service bag tags
Designing a sticky paper bag tag printable in airports is not the only option. You can decide to implement home printed bag tags. Many discussions go around this. The starting point is to say that all passengers have access to a printer, so they could print their bag tag on regular paper. That bag tag would then be attached to the bag using a plastic envelope. There are two difficulties : distribution of the plastic envelope to the passengers and ensuring high read rate in the BHS. The characteristic of the plastic is that it creates reflection when the laser beam impacts it. This reduces the read rate and can increase mishandled bag rate. Distributing the plastic envelope can be done at the airport or via mail, but if it is not reused, economics won't work : on top of the material itself, there is a handling cost : delivery to airports, storage in airports, distribution to passengers.
Another option is permanent RFID bag tags. This is not about adding an RFID chip to the existing paper bag tags. This is a new concept : a rigid plastic card fitted with an UHF RFID chip (for description of RFID in baggage see the dedicated article). This tag, is a plastic card, such as the frequent flyer cards. The chip in the card stores an identifier of the passenger. Passengers attach that card to their bag using a strap. When they go to the airport, they go to a dedicated bag drop position where an agent reads the tag. If the BHS is not equipped with RFID readers (most frequent case) the bag is retagged with a bar coded bag tag. The passenger identifier can be his frequent flyer number or any other reference that is known by the airline's system. The benefit of the RFID bag tag is the high convenience for the passenger : no need to stop at a kiosk or at a counter to print a bag tag. This is by far the quickest and less troublesome process. A plastic RFID bag tag costs 10 to 20 times the cost of a paper bag tag and the process requires some modifications of the bag drop area. But this permanent tag allows to reduce the use of disposable bag tags and increases strongly customer satisfaction.
So what should you do ? Implementing self tagging is not risky nor a bet and it is a prerequisite to implementing self service bag drop. Where it has been implemented, it works and customer satisfaction has raised. In the current state of technology, a good decision could be to implement self tagging based on paper bag tags printed at the airport, coupled with permanent RFID bag tags for frequent flyers.
Current bag tags have been designed to be applied by agents. This means that all the features have been thought of to improve the process at the time of their design. This bag tag design had also to meet the constraints of automated bag sortation.
The regular bag tag
This bag tag is more complex that one would think.
The claim tag. The claim is a piece of detachable paper that is handed to the passenger once the bags are accepted by the airline.
The stubs. At the other end of the bag tag are the stubs : 1 to 3 stubs. Stubs are used in the makeup area to locate the bags in the ULD (Unit Load Device, a type of container). The staff that loads the bags in the ULDs has a sheet of paper representing that ULD. He sticks a stub at the place where the bag is physically placed in the ULD. This allows to find a bag quickly in case of unload. The rest of the front face of the bag tag is used to displays 1 D barcodes placed in "T", destination airport, flight number,… The length is determined by the number of travel legs that must fit in the bag tag. As an example, the CUSS (Common Use Self Service) bag tag is 21" long. The back of the bag tag bears legal writing describing the limitation of responsibility of the airline, the procedure to follow in case of bag mishandling,…
The type of paper has been defined to be compliant with the technology : thermal printing, glue performance and resistance to tear to avoid rip out in the BHS. The technical details are listed in IATA documents (www.iata.org).
The self-tagging bag tag
Before starting designing the bag tag you need to determine what are the constraints you need to comply with.
Here are some of the questions you need to answer:
Will this bag tag be used in interline / multi segment journeys ?
Do you need compatibility between agent bag tags and self tagging bag tags ?
Do you need compatibility with automated sortation systems (BHS) ?
Do you need to be IATA compliant ?
Do you need to be compliant with current printing technology ?
Then you can start with a blank sheet. Compatibility with existing printing technology will determine the width and the way information is written on the tag, i.e. thermal printing. Why the width ? Because current dedicated printers are configured to manage two width of paper : boarding pass width (usually referred to as ATB format) and bag tag width. Introducing a third width would require to mechanically adjust the printers, a costly option that must be balanced with the benefits you expect from that new width.
So now you have a blank strip of thermal paper. How do you want passengers to attach it on the bag ? the current system requires to peel a liner at the back of the tag on a limited portion of the tag and to fold the tag to stick one end to the other. This is THE core of the issue. Passengers need to understand how to stick and if possible do it in a short period of time. Otherwise you create frustration and anxiety. What is not natural in the current process is that you do not peel the bag tag completely from one end to the other. The liner stays in place. This design has been chosen to reduce the amount of waste at the counter but this is not intuitive for a passenger : when we apply a label in other situations, we remove the liner completely. It is easier to reuse existing passenger reflex rather than trying to train them to manipulate a air transportation tag differently from a regular tag : If you choose to have a sticky bag tag, you need to make a stop mark (this is a pre-cut in the liner) that will allow the passenger to throw away the portion he has peeled.
You can also decide to design a different way of attaching the bag tag to the bag. Make sure in any case that you do not need to train your passengers on a counter-intuitive behavior, i.e. to generate a behavior that is opposite to common sense such as peeling only a third of a label to attach it.
When creating a new attachment design, do not be obsessed to address 100you’re your passengers. If you find a revolutionary process that applies to 80% of them, this is very good. Optimizing 80% of the flow is not a failure ! The other 20%, will be handled differently, for example at a counter. To manage the situation operationally, you need to clearly explain to passengers whether they can use process A or need to go use process B (for example seeking assistance from an agent).
Now, you have a blank strip of paper that can be printed by existing printers and attached to a bag. How do you make it easy for your passengers to attach it ? A natural behavior is to remove all the sticky parts and try and find a place for them. In this respect, keeping the stubs is not a good option. In the best case, passengers will ignore them or stick them on their boarding pass. But the most likely to happen is to have them stick the stubs on their bags as a back up. This was an agent practice. But the result is disastrous in the BHS. Not the first time you stick the stub, but when that same bag is injected for a different trip, with a different bag tag number… and the old stub is still on it. The automated barcode readers in the BHS will read the bag tag in most of the situations, but in some cases they can read the stub, which will correspond to no bag. The BHS will send the bag to the manual sortation unit(where the sortation process is longer) with a possibility to generate a mishandling. So, if possible remove the stubs from your self tagging bag tag and adapt the process in the makeup area accordingly. The second detachable part is the claim. In fact the claim should be given only when the bag is no longer in the hand of the passenger, that means injected in the BHS. The easiest way to achieve this, is to print the claim at the bag drop station, be it manned of self-service. Now you have a bag tag.
Can you make it easier to place ? Yes. Remember the back of the bag tag : we have not used it so far. In regular bag tags, there is all the legal writing. Most of the airlines and airports that use self tagging have removed this legal writing. If your company still require it, think about printing it on the screen of your tagging station with an accept button. You can now use the back to show a couple drawings on how to attach the tag. Try as much as you can to avoid text, because your passengers will not necessarily feel comfortable with the words you use if it is not their mother tongue.
Further optimization
The self-service bag tag will fit into a self service tagging station. The most obvious tagging station is the kiosk with a bag tag printer. You have two options for fitting the tags in the kiosks : roll or fan fold. The benefit of rolls is that whatever the length of the bag tag, the roll can be adapted to fit in the kiosk. The benefit of fan fold is that in a small space you can fit many more bag tags. Current rolls, include 200 bag tags, whereas a typical fan fold box is 700 to 1000 bag tags. This box is approximately 20 cm high. When self tagging develops, you can expect over 200 bag tags will be printed per day and per kiosk. This means that rolls need to be changed every day, but not necessarily at the same time of the day. You can decide to change them all at the same time, and throw away the reminder of the roll or ask agents to change rolls when needed. The practicality of both options will depend on the staffing level of the check-in area. The more staff, the less difficult it is to change rolls when needed. But to really improve operations, increasing the number of tags per kiosk is key. Using fan fold allows to improve autonomy, but it requires to adapt the length of the tag to the available space. Fitting a 21" (CUSS length) bag tag is unlikely to be possible in an existing kiosk, but if you are considering a dedicated tag, designing it short enough to fit should be part of the initial constraints. Another option is to have multiple rolls in the kiosk. Doing so, not only do you reduce the frequency of roll change but you can chose when you refill.
Implementation
The impact of new design is large. It is not just your tag supplier that will have to supply new tags. The IT department must impact the check in application and the printers. In the check-in application, one point is particularly crucial : inactivation of the bag tag. We will discuss this in a future article.
The printers need to be updated because in current printing information flow is split in two : one flow for the layout and one flow for the information itself. This is a remnant of the times when network bandwidth was scarce : just passing the information allowed to reduce the time of transfer. So the printers require a new layout that is called a "pectab".
Other options for self service bag tags
Designing a sticky paper bag tag printable in airports is not the only option. You can decide to implement home printed bag tags. Many discussions go around this. The starting point is to say that all passengers have access to a printer, so they could print their bag tag on regular paper. That bag tag would then be attached to the bag using a plastic envelope. There are two difficulties : distribution of the plastic envelope to the passengers and ensuring high read rate in the BHS. The characteristic of the plastic is that it creates reflection when the laser beam impacts it. This reduces the read rate and can increase mishandled bag rate. Distributing the plastic envelope can be done at the airport or via mail, but if it is not reused, economics won't work : on top of the material itself, there is a handling cost : delivery to airports, storage in airports, distribution to passengers.
Another option is permanent RFID bag tags. This is not about adding an RFID chip to the existing paper bag tags. This is a new concept : a rigid plastic card fitted with an UHF RFID chip (for description of RFID in baggage see the dedicated article). This tag, is a plastic card, such as the frequent flyer cards. The chip in the card stores an identifier of the passenger. Passengers attach that card to their bag using a strap. When they go to the airport, they go to a dedicated bag drop position where an agent reads the tag. If the BHS is not equipped with RFID readers (most frequent case) the bag is retagged with a bar coded bag tag. The passenger identifier can be his frequent flyer number or any other reference that is known by the airline's system. The benefit of the RFID bag tag is the high convenience for the passenger : no need to stop at a kiosk or at a counter to print a bag tag. This is by far the quickest and less troublesome process. A plastic RFID bag tag costs 10 to 20 times the cost of a paper bag tag and the process requires some modifications of the bag drop area. But this permanent tag allows to reduce the use of disposable bag tags and increases strongly customer satisfaction.
So what should you do ? Implementing self tagging is not risky nor a bet and it is a prerequisite to implementing self service bag drop. Where it has been implemented, it works and customer satisfaction has raised. In the current state of technology, a good decision could be to implement self tagging based on paper bag tags printed at the airport, coupled with permanent RFID bag tags for frequent flyers.
Who should tag the bag ?
Behind this question lies one of the most discussed process step today. Now that most airlines have implemented self service check-in, bag tagging and bag drop are the steps that are the most costly in terms of resources : staff and airport space.
So tagging by check-in agent, specialized agent or passenger ?
Historically, the check-in agent has done so. And although the process looks optimized, it is not. Think about it : a full counter check-in takes in average between 2 and 4 minutes depending on the airline and type of flight. This an average time, that is to say the total time between 2 passengers, including moving time and preparation time. But this is the real indicator of resource utilization. Technical time, i.e. time during which the application is used only covers part of the process.
Among this 2 to 4 minutes, tagging is not just a matter of seconds : there are numerous steps involved and the total time is around 1 min : here is a simplified list of the steps and the approximate time:
Ask passenger number of bags : 5s
Move the bag in position : 15s
Request bag tags in the system : 3s
Print one bag tag : 5s
Take the bag tag and peel it : 10s
Attach the bag tag : 15s
Take the claim and stick on boarding pass : 10s
So do you really want to continue asking your agents to place the bag tag ? Do you have the possibility to do differently ?
Doing differently does not necessarily mean delivering bag tags to customers and explaining how to place them. Improving the process means becoming "leaner" i.e. reducing the resources (staff and counter) that are needed to perform the operation.
You have several options to do so :
1. printing bag tags on a printer facing the agent (common in the USA). This method is more efficient than one could think : it removes all the steps up to placing the bag tag by the agent. Thus the resource utilization (agent + counter) is reduced by approximately 40%. This is also one of the simplest options to put in place as there is no regulation that prevents from doing this. The main shortcoming is that the level of optimization is limited.
2.In Europe the option that has been implemented is printing bag tag at a kiosk and asking passengers to place it. This is also how it works in Canada, Germany, New Zealand, Spain, the UK... Kiosks deliver a bag tag that is optimized for self tagging, and passengers apply the bag tag. The process is longer for passengers who are doing it for the first time (around 1 min to apply the first bag tag but only 15s in average for the second bag tag). For passengers who are not comfortable to place the bag tag themselves a roving agent or the bag drop agent will do it.
Last but not least, delivering permanent bag tags is under trial. The great promise of this process is to expedite the process for frequent flyers. Passengers receive an RFID plastic bag tag with their name and frequent flyer number. they attach that bag tag to their bag and at the airport, an agent scans the bag tag before injection. Once the bag is injected, a regular (bar-coded bag tag) is placed behind the scene. This retagging process could look sub-optimal : it involves an additional person in the process. But you could compare it to what happens in manufacturing industries. It would come to nobody's mind to ask one worker to assemble a car from A to Z. Instead, the process has been divided into many short and simple steps - Taylorism -. This is exactly what is at play in the permanent bag tag process : the 1-minute step is broken into 2 shorter steps performed by 2 specialized agents : the "bag accepter" and the "bag retagger".
For airlines and airports that wish to optimize the bag process at check-in there are a number of well known options to choose from : the decision will now depend on regulation and willingness to change...
So tagging by check-in agent, specialized agent or passenger ?
Historically, the check-in agent has done so. And although the process looks optimized, it is not. Think about it : a full counter check-in takes in average between 2 and 4 minutes depending on the airline and type of flight. This an average time, that is to say the total time between 2 passengers, including moving time and preparation time. But this is the real indicator of resource utilization. Technical time, i.e. time during which the application is used only covers part of the process.
Among this 2 to 4 minutes, tagging is not just a matter of seconds : there are numerous steps involved and the total time is around 1 min : here is a simplified list of the steps and the approximate time:
Ask passenger number of bags : 5s
Move the bag in position : 15s
Request bag tags in the system : 3s
Print one bag tag : 5s
Take the bag tag and peel it : 10s
Attach the bag tag : 15s
Take the claim and stick on boarding pass : 10s
So do you really want to continue asking your agents to place the bag tag ? Do you have the possibility to do differently ?
Doing differently does not necessarily mean delivering bag tags to customers and explaining how to place them. Improving the process means becoming "leaner" i.e. reducing the resources (staff and counter) that are needed to perform the operation.
You have several options to do so :
1. printing bag tags on a printer facing the agent (common in the USA). This method is more efficient than one could think : it removes all the steps up to placing the bag tag by the agent. Thus the resource utilization (agent + counter) is reduced by approximately 40%. This is also one of the simplest options to put in place as there is no regulation that prevents from doing this. The main shortcoming is that the level of optimization is limited.
2.In Europe the option that has been implemented is printing bag tag at a kiosk and asking passengers to place it. This is also how it works in Canada, Germany, New Zealand, Spain, the UK... Kiosks deliver a bag tag that is optimized for self tagging, and passengers apply the bag tag. The process is longer for passengers who are doing it for the first time (around 1 min to apply the first bag tag but only 15s in average for the second bag tag). For passengers who are not comfortable to place the bag tag themselves a roving agent or the bag drop agent will do it.
Last but not least, delivering permanent bag tags is under trial. The great promise of this process is to expedite the process for frequent flyers. Passengers receive an RFID plastic bag tag with their name and frequent flyer number. they attach that bag tag to their bag and at the airport, an agent scans the bag tag before injection. Once the bag is injected, a regular (bar-coded bag tag) is placed behind the scene. This retagging process could look sub-optimal : it involves an additional person in the process. But you could compare it to what happens in manufacturing industries. It would come to nobody's mind to ask one worker to assemble a car from A to Z. Instead, the process has been divided into many short and simple steps - Taylorism -. This is exactly what is at play in the permanent bag tag process : the 1-minute step is broken into 2 shorter steps performed by 2 specialized agents : the "bag accepter" and the "bag retagger".
For airlines and airports that wish to optimize the bag process at check-in there are a number of well known options to choose from : the decision will now depend on regulation and willingness to change...
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
mBCBP : what technology ?
mBCBP is developing exponentially. More than 100 millions were delivered in 2009. What explains such a development ? Convenience is not the only reason.
The answer comes from studying passenger behavior. When you leave home to take a flight, you are likely to forget many items but there is one you will turn back to take : your cell phone. Over 30% of passengers that have home printed their boarding pass cannot find it when they get to the airport. Indeed a paper is not easy to find in a computer case or a handbag. Not finding the boarding pass creates frustration and anxiety. Passengers remember this and are willing to try new means that will help them reduce the likeliness of stress.
Another reason for the development of mBCBP is the unavailability of printers at destination. It is natural to have a printer a origin (home or office). But at destination, passengers are likely to be staying in an hotel. Printing the boarding pass would require going to the business center. As a consequence most of them choose to collect their the boarding pass at the airport.
mBCBP can be delivered in 3 main formats : email, MMS, Wap push. Each of these formats has benefits and constraints.
Emails : Very easy to deliver but the boarding pass is an attachment. This requires to download and display the attachment. When the list of messages is large, finding the email can take some time and slowdown the process. Only business travelers have the option to receive emails on cell phone. This is progressively developing to the leisure travelers but penetration is still low.
MMS: offers the benefit to display the boarding pass immediately without need for download. MMS are available on most of the phones except business phones (this is changing). This is a good delivery method for the leisure travelers. But delivering MMS across countries and networks requires agreement with network operators. Protocol conflict can also block the delivery of MMS.
Wap push : This is a link in an SMS. The benefit of this technology is that all cell phones can receive SMS. So delivery is very simple. The drawback is that a data connexion is required to download the boarding pass. This is the most common way to deliver mBCBP today.
So finally how to choose ? The choice will depend on who you are targeting. Currently, 80% of passengers that request mBCBP use a blackberry device. 20% of them use an iPhone. A fraction of them other smart phones.
Emails are perfectly valid to target the business segment provided you adapt the attachment to cell phone screen (no PDF !)
Wap push suits leisure and business travelers but is less efficient than email because you need to have an active connexion at the time of display. So this is interesting only if leisure travelers are in your target.
MMS delivery is the most convenient for passengers but the technical difficulties that can arise do not make it a good option for international flights.
The answer comes from studying passenger behavior. When you leave home to take a flight, you are likely to forget many items but there is one you will turn back to take : your cell phone. Over 30% of passengers that have home printed their boarding pass cannot find it when they get to the airport. Indeed a paper is not easy to find in a computer case or a handbag. Not finding the boarding pass creates frustration and anxiety. Passengers remember this and are willing to try new means that will help them reduce the likeliness of stress.
Another reason for the development of mBCBP is the unavailability of printers at destination. It is natural to have a printer a origin (home or office). But at destination, passengers are likely to be staying in an hotel. Printing the boarding pass would require going to the business center. As a consequence most of them choose to collect their the boarding pass at the airport.
mBCBP can be delivered in 3 main formats : email, MMS, Wap push. Each of these formats has benefits and constraints.
Emails : Very easy to deliver but the boarding pass is an attachment. This requires to download and display the attachment. When the list of messages is large, finding the email can take some time and slowdown the process. Only business travelers have the option to receive emails on cell phone. This is progressively developing to the leisure travelers but penetration is still low.
MMS: offers the benefit to display the boarding pass immediately without need for download. MMS are available on most of the phones except business phones (this is changing). This is a good delivery method for the leisure travelers. But delivering MMS across countries and networks requires agreement with network operators. Protocol conflict can also block the delivery of MMS.
Wap push : This is a link in an SMS. The benefit of this technology is that all cell phones can receive SMS. So delivery is very simple. The drawback is that a data connexion is required to download the boarding pass. This is the most common way to deliver mBCBP today.
So finally how to choose ? The choice will depend on who you are targeting. Currently, 80% of passengers that request mBCBP use a blackberry device. 20% of them use an iPhone. A fraction of them other smart phones.
Emails are perfectly valid to target the business segment provided you adapt the attachment to cell phone screen (no PDF !)
Wap push suits leisure and business travelers but is less efficient than email because you need to have an active connexion at the time of display. So this is interesting only if leisure travelers are in your target.
MMS delivery is the most convenient for passengers but the technical difficulties that can arise do not make it a good option for international flights.
Mobile check-in, MMS, SMS or ... ?
Mobile check-in, i.e. check-in using a mobile phone can be offered in various format : vocal, SMS, Wap. What is the best option ? Are they complementary ?
Web check-in introduced a bias in everyone mind about mobile check-in : check-in requires a rich interface, with a nice seat map and graphically advanced browsing. Naturally, the choice of many marketer goes toward Wap (mobile internet) application. So far so good you think. Indeed, mobile check-in is mainly used by frequent flyers and business travelers who want to save time and find it convenient. More than 90% of passengers in this market segment use iphones or blackberry devices. These 2 type of handsets offer good internet browsing. But this is misleading. Frequent flyers and business travelers want to save time on the global process, and Wap check in is not exactly the shorter route to get a seat in a plane. Having performed this analysis, some airlines have launched SMS check-in. The passenger sends a SMS to a special number indicating his reference (booking, e-ticket or frequent flyer) as well as flight number and seat preference if any. The systems performs the check-in and sends a SMS confirmation back to the passenger. The success of this system and the degree of satisfaction among frequent flyers on short haul flight is extremely high.
What about vocal check-in. This is not a very different matter : target segment is frequent flyers that drive to the airport.
But what is the benefit of mobile check-in if you cannot receive your boarding pass on your cell phone ?
Web check-in introduced a bias in everyone mind about mobile check-in : check-in requires a rich interface, with a nice seat map and graphically advanced browsing. Naturally, the choice of many marketer goes toward Wap (mobile internet) application. So far so good you think. Indeed, mobile check-in is mainly used by frequent flyers and business travelers who want to save time and find it convenient. More than 90% of passengers in this market segment use iphones or blackberry devices. These 2 type of handsets offer good internet browsing. But this is misleading. Frequent flyers and business travelers want to save time on the global process, and Wap check in is not exactly the shorter route to get a seat in a plane. Having performed this analysis, some airlines have launched SMS check-in. The passenger sends a SMS to a special number indicating his reference (booking, e-ticket or frequent flyer) as well as flight number and seat preference if any. The systems performs the check-in and sends a SMS confirmation back to the passenger. The success of this system and the degree of satisfaction among frequent flyers on short haul flight is extremely high.
What about vocal check-in. This is not a very different matter : target segment is frequent flyers that drive to the airport.
But what is the benefit of mobile check-in if you cannot receive your boarding pass on your cell phone ?
Is off airport check-in really a good idea ?
Off airport check-in refers to online check-in and telephone check-in
whether vocal, sms or wap based.
At first sight this looks like a very good idea. Indeed, IATA study
shows that counter check in costs around 5 USD per passenger while off
airport self service check in costs around 0.5 USD. The main driver
of cost reduction is removal of the agent - which was already achieved
with self-service kiosk - and faster process (mean time for passenger with bags is greatly reduced). But looking more closely, this is in fact the
automation of a very old and inefficient process : check in was
created originally to manage overbooking and assign seats to
passengers once the type of aircraft was assigned to the flight
(around 24 hrs prior to departure).
So the real question is : do you really need passengers to check-in ? Stepping back from your day to day operations, why do you need passenger to ask for a seat in the aircraft ?
Secondly outside business and frequent flyers, wap enable phones are not a majority. But these occasional flyers are also those with baggage. What is the benefit of off airport check-in if you have to drop a bag ?
This will depend on your process and local regulation.
Some of the questions you need to ask yourself are :
Can a passenger that checks-in on the web with no bags go directly to security ? If so, web check-in is interesting. But in this case, why not delivering the barcode and seat assignment at booking stage ?
Some airlines do so. Large network carriers don't, arguing that it is not possible to assign a seat without knowing what aircraft will be assigned to the flight. But, they could also think in these terms : is it better to pre-assign a seat and deliver a boarding pass at booking stage with a risk that seat may need to be changed or would you rather ask all passengers to get their boarding passes ? Interested in a middle ground ? Think about this : some airlines have implemented check-in at booking for their frequent flyers and business travelers. Flexibility on aircraft type is managed with the rest of passengers.
So, why is self service off airport check-in still implemented ? In fact, the reasons sits more on the marketing side. Ancillary revenues are making a growing part of airline revenues. Te opportunity to have more contact point with passengers is an opportunity to sell exit row seats, bag allowances, etc. o the decision is between having a longer process for everyone to capture additional sales versus offering an improved passenger experience.
whether vocal, sms or wap based.
At first sight this looks like a very good idea. Indeed, IATA study
shows that counter check in costs around 5 USD per passenger while off
airport self service check in costs around 0.5 USD. The main driver
of cost reduction is removal of the agent - which was already achieved
with self-service kiosk - and faster process (mean time for passenger with bags is greatly reduced). But looking more closely, this is in fact the
automation of a very old and inefficient process : check in was
created originally to manage overbooking and assign seats to
passengers once the type of aircraft was assigned to the flight
(around 24 hrs prior to departure).
So the real question is : do you really need passengers to check-in ? Stepping back from your day to day operations, why do you need passenger to ask for a seat in the aircraft ?
Secondly outside business and frequent flyers, wap enable phones are not a majority. But these occasional flyers are also those with baggage. What is the benefit of off airport check-in if you have to drop a bag ?
This will depend on your process and local regulation.
Some of the questions you need to ask yourself are :
Can a passenger that checks-in on the web with no bags go directly to security ? If so, web check-in is interesting. But in this case, why not delivering the barcode and seat assignment at booking stage ?
Some airlines do so. Large network carriers don't, arguing that it is not possible to assign a seat without knowing what aircraft will be assigned to the flight. But, they could also think in these terms : is it better to pre-assign a seat and deliver a boarding pass at booking stage with a risk that seat may need to be changed or would you rather ask all passengers to get their boarding passes ? Interested in a middle ground ? Think about this : some airlines have implemented check-in at booking for their frequent flyers and business travelers. Flexibility on aircraft type is managed with the rest of passengers.
So, why is self service off airport check-in still implemented ? In fact, the reasons sits more on the marketing side. Ancillary revenues are making a growing part of airline revenues. Te opportunity to have more contact point with passengers is an opportunity to sell exit row seats, bag allowances, etc. o the decision is between having a longer process for everyone to capture additional sales versus offering an improved passenger experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
