Operational Assessment Both common use and proprietary implementations were assessed, and while some specific issues were noted as being unique to the type of implementation, the vast majority of operational issues were not. One of the key differentiating factors was whether the owner’s approach to self-tagging was to make it the primary check-in medium or merely to add it as an option for passengers. The more aggressive approach of making it the primary check-in medium resulted in a measurably higher level of success due to a unified effort by staff and passengers to make it successful. In contrast, when implemented as an additional option for passenger self-service, it was noted that both passengers and agents would commonly revert to the traditional check-in process as opposed to adopting the new approach. In all cases, the transition from traditional check-in to self-tagging was a challenge for agents. The 14 Guide to the Decision-Making Tool for Evaluating Passenger Self-Tagging Airport Code Annual Passengers Airlines Using PST Area for PST Duration with PST Amsterdam AMS 47,349,319 KLM, SK, International, (non-U.S.) Schengen (inter-Europe) 10 years Auckland AKL 6,576,838 ANZ Domestic, International 2 years Christchurch CHC 1,592,388 ANZ Domestic 1 year Dublin DUB 22,558,520 EI, SK International, (non-U.S.) Schengen (inter-Europe) 3 years Geneva GVA 10,755,253 EZY, LX, SK International, (non-U.S.) Schengen (inter-Europe) 12 years Montreal YUL 7,393,390 AC, WS, US Transborder, Domestic International 8 years Stockholm Arlanda ARN 13,281,542 SAS International, (non-US) Schengen (inter-Europe) 12 years Toronto YYZ 18,509,624 AC,WS Domestic, International 2 years Vancouver YVR 8,507,464 AC, WS Domestic, International 2 years Wellington WLG 605,617 ANZ Domestic 1 year Note: PST = passenger self-tagging. * Data taken from: ACI 2009. Worldwide Airport Traffic Statistics, December 2008, March 13, 2009. Table 1. Comparison of case study airports.* Aéroports de Montréal.modifified job function from transaction-centric to customer-centric required a signifificantly different skill set. This resulted in the resignation of some agents and an increase in flfloor managers’ mentoring and coaching of the agent staff. From a business perspective, the transition often resulted in the need for fewer agents, a reduced salary requirement for the new positions, and a shorter training time for new agents. Passenger Assessment In general, it was noted that passengers who were likely to be frequent travelers, as evidenced by their level of comfort and familiarity with the airport, were highly accepting of selftagging, while those who were less experienced with the overall process either required the assistance of agents or opted to check-in through the traditional counters. The availability of agent support and the approach to providing assistance, whether it be teaching a passenger how to use the kiosk or redirecting the passenger to the counter, had a direct impact on the adoption of the process by new users. At least one airline noted that, over time, as passengers learn the new system, the acceptance rate rises and processing time decreases. Facility and Installation Assessment A variety of installation styles were observed with variances in the check-in alternatives, lobby layout and flflow, and bag drop designs. In the most extreme cases, web check-in was not available and check-in counters were only available for special circumstances, such as re-check and irregular operations, special needs, exceptions, and premium passengers only. On the other extreme, some implementations would allow full-service passenger processing at the bag drop designated for self-tagging. In most other cases, separate areas existed for self-tagging and traditional counters, each providing that service exclusively. Lobby layout and flflow had a signifificant impact on the effificiency with which passengers moved through the self-tagging process. Some owners indicated that they were continuing to experiment with various flflow models, while others had a defifinite preference for a specifific layout. All seemed to agree that less flfloor space was needed for self-tagging than would be required for the same level of processing through traditional counters. Another area of distinct differences was the bag drop design. Some installations used a simple open bag belt for passengers to drop their bag, which required no activation or screening and the bag would be weighed in the bag room. Others used a fully automated baggage induction point allowing the system to measure, weigh, and screen the baggage prior to allowing the baggage into the bag room. Most used an agentassisted bag drop in which the agent would validate the identity of the person dropping the bag, weigh the bag, and activate the tag before sending the bag to the bag room. Design Recommendations While the implementations studied varied signifificantly, a few specifific design elements were found to have a signifificant impact on the success of implementation and passenger acceptance. Findings 15 Arlanda airport. Toronto International Airport.16 Guide to the Decision-Making Tool for Evaluating Passenger Self-Tagging Among these were a thorough understanding of the current passenger characteristics and resource requirements, implementation of a flflexible baggage handling system, airport ownership and management of the baggage system and infrastructure, use of kiosks as the primary check in mechanism, location of kiosks and bag drop situated in such a way that they pull passenger traffific away from the check-in counters, collaborative planning between the airport and airlines, and use of industry standards.
联系客服
