Some airlines that have placed kiosks as a priority in their check-in strategy can handle more than 95% of passengers with self-service kiosks. Those 5% left can be handled in 3 ways: floor walkers, regular counters or help desk.
The case with regular counters is that they have usually been converted into fast bag drop counters, with access to only limited check in functions (if this is not the case, it should!). Alternatively, passengers can be directed to help desk or regular counters. Customer service is good but very sensitive to traffic: in case of epidemic issue, these counters get saturated and queues appear.
The common idea is that floor walkers (also called roving agents) help with kiosk usage and reassure passengers. This is a view that comes from the early days of kiosks, when kiosks could only attend 60% of the needs (depending on airline and region cases such as booking with multiple PNR, international travel could not be handled on kiosks).
But what if those floor walkers would handle all the exceptions (reprint bag tag, wave seat fee,...)? Sounds ideal no? Passengers could be served immediately, with few extra resources, no training, no signage,… Well, that is not complicated in fact!
What is only required is an access to agent-only functions on the self-service kiosk: This is the concierge option. Access to that hidden menu is granted though a password (cumbersome), a special touch combination on the screen (still requires the agent to identify) or better through the use of a token (magnetic card, RFID token, barcode,).
The content of the concierge option depends on the actual processes in place: reprint bag tags, cancel bag tags, waive seat fee, over weight fee ...). On top of this the menu can be enhanced over time to address more cases.
The benefits are so important it is really surprising how few airlines have implemented such a simple solution!
• Better customer service: customers can be serviced where they are. No need to go to counter Z.
• Better use of floorwalkers: go to the terminal and ask floor walkers about their jobs: many will say “it is very boring”, “We are doing nothing but looking at passengers”. Indeed, over time passengers have become experts in kiosks usage and want to do everything themselves.
• Reduced counter costs (obvious!)
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Monday, March 22, 2010
Bag reconciliation
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
