Improving Passenger Flow Through Security Checks - Research Paper Example

Research Report on Improving Security Check System at Melbourne International Airport Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 Introduction to Melbourne International Airport: 6 Problem Identification: 8 Objectives: 10 Scope of the Project: 10 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 11 Background 11 Theory of Biometrics 13 Biometric Modalities 13 Biometric Border Crossing 14 The Concept 14 Managing Borders 15 Case Study of UK Airports 15 London Heathrow Airport 15 Gatwick Airport 16 Birmingham International Airport 16 Border Control 16 The IRIS System 16 Security Considerations when Designing Airport Terminals 17 Passenger Management and Preparation 20 Case Study of Melbourne Airport 22 Airport Congestion and Level of Service 25 Security at Melbourne Airport 29 Screening Passengers 29 Pick up and Drop Off 29 Baggage Left Unattended 30 Threats related to Security 30 Medical 30 Improvement of Passenger Flow 30 Use of Biometric Markers 32 Security Considerations 33 Terminal Considerations 38 Peak Demand Patterns 40 Discussion 42 Parking Lots 42 Terminals 42 Biometrics 43 Logistics 44 Costs 45 Conclusion 45 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Introduction to Melbourne International Airport: Melbourne Airport is one of the busiest international airports in Australia which has played a major role in the growing economy of Victorian states. With the help of airport there has been increase in tourism and airfreight which has helped in increasing the economy of the country. Using the State Planning Policy Framework (SSPF) the government of Victoria has been providing support to the Melbourne airport. In the country’s economy there is importance of Melbourne airport which is acknowledged by this framework (Airport, 2012). During the period of 1996-1997 there was growth in the number of passengers in the Australian airport which was estimated as 4.9 percent per annum. There was 5.1 percent per annum growth in Melbourne airport alone which was the second highest growth in all the airports. There is a forecast of steady annual growth in the passengers at Australia for a long period. In the next 20 years the prediction is that there would be 3.5 percent growth annually. This forecast has been speculated on the basis proper study which has been conducted by qualified parties. The studies which have been conducted till now suggest that the Australian airports have reached maximum capacity. The schematics and master plan which has been setup by SPFF would definitely try to address the problem of growth and take into consideration future developments and improvements which would be helpful in solving this problem (Airport, 2012). The master plan would focus on the necessary actions which would be helpful in solving the issues of congestion. And satisfactory results would be achieved for passengers and employees which would also help in improving the country’s economy. In the new plan it expected that new terminals and structural changes would be offered for passenger’s terminal and car parking. The plan which would be made would try to find solution for next 30 to 40 years where the changes would address both internal and external situation of the airport (Airport, 2012). At one hand where there is problem of congestion and growth of passengers, the other hand there is continuous expansion and modernization happening at the airport terminals. Around the world there are larger airports where the passenger density is higher than Melbourne airport and these larger airports include the Heathrow airport at London, the Charles de Gaulle airport at Paris and various US airports. The passenger traffic in these airports is higher than Melbourne airport. So Melbourne airport can learn from the experiences of these airports and develop approaches which would be beneficial in the design of Melbourne airport terminal. The security checks at airports have become a necessity because of many terror attacks in the recent past. The security checks are done on both the passenger and their baggage so that there is assurance that there are no dangerous things such as bombs being carried by the passenger. Since there has been growth in the number of passengers the process of security check has slower and also around the world because of this the passenger capacity has become lower than that planned by the airport. Also there are a bunch of flights which depart at certain periods of the day from the airports which leads to overcrowding during those periods at the terminal. The slow process at security check and overcrowding leads to frustration in passengers which makes their air travel experience poor. Another issue which can be seen at the airports is the interaction of airport staff with the passengers at personal and baggage security scanners, check-in counters, and other access control points. SPP development would give positive economic growth which would increase the capacity for future growth and also additional employment opportunities would be created at the new terminal which is being built at the airport. Additional staff would be required by MLSs for operational purposes and passenger processing which would be beneficial for the surrounding communities and the state as a whole. In this report focus has been laid on Melbourne airport which is one of the busiest airports in Australia and which has been helping in the growth of Australian economy. There has been an increase in the number of passengers both domestic and international who are travelling in through flights. But the rate at which airport should grow so that it is able to handle the passenger capacity is slow. Problem Identification: The major problem of slow rate can be seen in the process of security checks. The security checks are important and cannot be avoided for any passenger. A passenger coming from any background such as politician, ministry, social worker etc also have to go through security checks just like any other common people. At the airport during the security check there is no discrimination between the people for whom the security check is being conducted. Since the capacity of passengers is increasing at a higher rate than expected the process of security checks have become slow which leads to frustration in the passengers and their overall travel experience is rated as poor. The sufferer of this dissatisfaction of the passengers is airport which has seen a drop in the number of people who are coming to the airport. The security checks are essential for airports and cannot be avoided as it helps in identifying any suspected threats which could be there such as bombs or drugs or other prohibited material. The security checks became important after the 9/11 attacks which happened on the World Trade Centre in the United States. No one in the world had thought that terror attack could happen in a place like US but when the attack took place it came as a shock for everyone and this lead to tighter security systems across the world which would ensure safety for the passengers. The safety of passengers travelling in flights is an important concern for airports and no airport can afford to miss on the security checks because it would be beneficial in ensuring safe and secure flight travel experience for the passengers. But then with the safety concern comes the time factor also on which the airports have to focus. Time in today’s world mean money and time of passenger is very crucial. So reducing time is what the current concern is for the airport authorities. New terminals are being developed with modern system but also there are plans being made for reducing passenger time which would help in reducing time in passenger flight time from entry at the airport to the exit at the airport. For passengers coming or going to international destination there is time spend on immigration and customs checks also which needs to be reduced so that the international flying experience is wonderful. This report focuses on improving the security system for the airport where the speed of security checks would be increased which would help in saving the time for passengers and also it would lead to satisfied customers. In this report the attempt is being made to find a solution for this problem. One more problem which is being focused upon in this report is the time taken for passenger from car entry to exit from the airport which has to be reduced. Objectives: The objective of this report are clear which states that flexible terminals should be build which would be able to cater to high passenger demands in the long term. The report does not focus on the short-term benefits for passengers at the airport but the suggestions which would be made in the report would be for around 30 to 40 years which would be beneficial for the airport. After all setting up a new system in the airport is costly affair and already there are various other costs which the airport bears. So the airport would like to implement such a security system which would last for minimum 30 years and also help in saving costs for the airport. By having a faster security check system the airport’s efficiency in passenger delays would be minimized which means that the time taken for each passenger to go through the various airport processes would be reduced. The time taken by the passenger in entry and exit would be improved. Scope of the Project: The scope of this report is vast because if the new security check system strategies are successful at the Melbourne airport then similar strategies can be adopted in other airports especially in Australia. Also it would be a good learning experience for airport authorities in reducing time for security checks and thus saving time in passengers’ delays. The new system of security check would be most beneficial during the period when there are many flights departing in the day and the passenger capacity during this period is high. The delay in passengers’ time will also save the delay in departure of flights. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Background According to IATA (2011), transport by air comprises an integral component of the global economy. This is because airline travel transports individuals and goods worldwide with speed and efficiency. This boosts development in economies, creates a better human understanding and fosters international trade. This dependence on air travel can only increase in the future. IATA therefore incepted a Simplifying the Business program in Singapore in 2004 which aimed to look at challenges in the industry and address them. Since then, it has facilitated the movement to full electronic ticketing and bar coded boarding passes as well as the extensive execution of common-use self-service kiosks. The success of these ventures depended upon the participation and enlistment of all stakeholders in the industry such as agents, airports, airlines, governments and ground handlers. The aim of this being to lower cost and better service efficiency. Challenges to profitability and customer satisfaction still remain however. There are numerous global disasters, both natural and manmade that affect the business of air travel. These could range from the price of fuel to natural disasters. Customers also face many pain points in their travel experience from shopping to long lines at security (IATA, 2011). Some of the challenges faced by the industry include facilitating a hassle free ground experience for consumers. This is illustrated by the long queues experienced at security check. The issues to be tackled there include the need to remove belts or shoes and whether or not to leave laptops in their carry-on luggage. This is biggest pain point of airline passengers according to IATA (2011); the hassle that comes with dealing with airport controls. Passengers are subjected to stress and uncertainty occasioned by the different processes that they encounter in airports that could benefit from uniformity. These processes lead to long wait times, exacerbated by the various procedures necessary at differing airports. IATA (2011) offers as a solution the integration of passport, visa, customs and immigration problems that can be addressed at the booking point. Documentation checks could be carried out off-airport, in a way that is validated by the passenger’s government in a way that is similar to the manner in which credit cards are validated. It is possible to bag drop and check in automatically, this can be augmented by the use of biometrics, Checkpoint of the Future and immigration, facilitating the smoothening of the customer’s experience. Figure 1: Checkpoint of the Future as depicted at IATA's AGM in Singapore (2011) The Checkpoint of the Future eliminates the one-size-fits-all model of security. It divides passengers into those who are ‘known traveller’, ‘normal’ or ‘enhanced security’ individuals. This designation will be determined by a biometric identifier contained in the passport or any other travel document that activates the outcome of a risk assessment done by the government prior to the passenger’s arrival at the airport. The trio of lanes will have the capacity to screen passengers according to their risk designation. This will expedite the process for ‘known travellers’ whose background checks are pristine according to government authorities. The majority of passengers would pass through ‘normal screening’ while those with less well documented information or are randomly selected to do so, will pass through the ‘elevated risk’ lane for augmented screening. Theory of Biometrics There are generally three ways in which to authenticate or identify a person. This can be based on an object that the person is holding such as a chip card or ID, passwords or PIN numbers can be used or some personal biometric features. These three methods can be utilised individually or in combination. In the case of control at borders, the traditional combination is ‘has’ which is the travel document, and the ‘is’ which is the fact that the picture in the travel document must match how the passenger currently looks. Biometric Modalities The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is an organisation that works to promote secure, sustainable development in civil aviation via collaboration between member states (ICAO7). One of the ways in which this is achieved is through global coordination in the field of travel documents. They did this by conducting various researches aimed at coming up with specific recommendations on travel documents such as electronic passports, recommending to member states to utilise facial images, as well as fingerprint and iris usage for biometric modalities. Others include retina scanning, signature, voice recognition, keyboard dynamics, hand vein patterns, hand geometry, ear shapes, odour recognition or gait (Frontex, 2007). Biometric Border Crossing Biometric characteristics have been utilised in border crossing for a long time. The image of the holder has been contained in passports for about a century, prior to that, a verbal description of the holder depicting their characteristic features was utilised. This has undergone modern development in that it is now automated. When these biometrics can be processed reliably using a computer, then they are potentially able to regulate crossing at borders that can be used to process low risk passengers. This could enable border guards to have the freedom to concentrate on less routine checks and have more time for the higher risk individuals. There are case studies of just such a scenario at the end of the last century. This includes the Amsterdam Schipol Airport which in 1992 pioneered the Schipol Travel Pass which preceded the Privium system and was based on fingerprints. In Israel, Palestinians working there are regulated at the border through facial recognition and hand geometry biometrics. Other examples include US-VISIT from America, BIODEV which is the European programme and miSense which is British (Frontex, 2007). The Concept Biometric border control as a concept is simple. It requires that the user first enrol themselves into the programme and this connects the biometric data to the identity of the user via passport or other data. It is possible to store biometric data in a central database, a smart card or directly on the electronic passport. This enables the passenger to take advantage of the automated biometric border control system. This means that instead of waiting to see an immigration official, the passenger will utilise the biometric device lane that reads their biometric characteristics with which to identify the passenger. Alternatively, the information is contained on a passport or smartcard that is run and the identity of the passenger verified. Once biometric matching and other checks succeed, then there is a clear potential for progress (Frontex, 2007). Managing Borders Sita (2009) reports that it takes an amalgamation of correct information obtained at an opportune time together with the instruments to process it can provide authorities with better abilities for screening and thus lead to improved verification and control of passengers. As much of the airline industry is already extremely automated, the bulk of information pertinent to authorities are held in different airline systems already. The challenge comes in because of the various ways in which information can be stored. When looking at ways to collage and standardise the data, the scalability must be taken into account in a way that is affordable. Case Study of UK Airports London Heathrow Airport This is one of the busiest airports in the world, as well as the largest airport in Europe. There are five passenger terminals at Heathrow, 1 to 5 as well as a cargo terminal. Not only is it the largest airport in the world, but also ranks third in passenger traffic worldwide. Gatwick Airport This is a one-runway airport and it is the second largest after Heathrow in the United Kingdom and is the sixth busiest worldwide, international airports. It provides access to two hundred and twelve destinations and hosts ninety airlines. Birmingham International Airport This is the fifth largest airport in the UK. Nine million passengers passed through its terminals in 2006. A hundred destinations can be reached from the airport’s fifty airlines. Border Control Immigration officials are in charge of border control in UK Airports. They are a division of the Borders and Immigration Agency. Border control is conducted for arrivals only. A targeted departure control was incepted after the London bombings of 7th July, 2005 which is randomly manned or on the basis of intelligence (Frontex, 2007). The IRIS System The Iris Recognition Immigration System uses a person’s pre-registered iris patterns in order to utilise automated barriers to pass through the controls at immigration when they arrive in the UK. This system is designed to facilitate fast and secure clearance of frequent registered travellers based on a one to many check against the entire database. It is an operational system and is part of the e-Borders programme which is aimed at providing a modernised border control and security framework based on intelligence. The e-Borders programme is designed to address the challenges inherent in the border domain. These are: Pressure of migration. Escalated threat to security. Projected increase in travellers. The necessity of smoothening the process of arrival for low risk passengers. The necessity for border agencies to work in closer cooperation SEMAPHORE is the second project of the e-Borders programme which incepted in 2004 and provides a template for the e-Borders ideas and technology. A variety of watch lists are used to compare against arriving passenger lists. This is managed by the Joint Border Operational Centre which is comprised of operation staff from various agencies viz HMRC, Police, Immigration and UK visas. The IRIS biodata database is also incorporated in SEMAPHORE. Figure 2: IRIS types of entitlement Security Considerations when Designing Airport Terminals The threats to civil aviation have been routine since the 1960s from terrorism. These may have been confined to aerial hijackings but have developed into the threat of terrorist bombs on airplanes and in the airports to terrorist attacks on passengers within the airport terminal. Countermeasures to mitigate against this threat are now commonplace. Passengers travelling both domestically and internationally are theoretically screened for weapons and the airplane itself undergoes security procedures to ensure its safety. There are various degrees of security in different countries and even within countries depending on the type of airport. The United States has FAA regulations as well as Homeland Security procedures since 2001 that regulate how their airport security is conducted. The EU’s regulations are defined by both the national regulations as well as EU regulations. Many features of airport security are operational but there are some aspects of form which critically influence the design of the airport which means that considerations of security are elemental to design and layout of the passenger terminals. In order to achieve good terminal design, it is important that the procedures that occur during security checks be well understood. There are certain concerns that must be addressed. These are: Departing and arriving passengers are physically separated on the air side, which means movement of passengers at various levels of the terminal including supplementary circulation allowance for corridors and walkways. There are two ways to conduct security combs, centralised which requires a large area with search equipment space and decentralised which needs a more diffuse access to equipment and space at the terminal. Restriction of visitors at the secure airside areas of the terminal. Many jurisdictions only allow passengers through the security combs even domestic ones. This restriction cause a coalescing of visitors at the entry and exit points which means extra terminal space is required at these areas. Piers would be isolated using physical barriers in order to mitigate against terrorist threats. Scanning for bombs needs extra room which can be situated either at check-in or outgoing luggage hall depending on when this exercise is carried out. Allowance for additional room in the check in area to cater for high security flights and to facilitate passenger interviewing and search. Partition of the terminal into ‘clean airside-dirty landside’ format which comes about as a consequence of using either centralised or decentralised security combs. Elimination of car parks from terminal structures to mitigate against their usage for terrorist attacks. Restriction on left luggage areas for luggage that has not been searched and a need for facilitation of a left-luggage depot containing facilities for X-Ray. Surveillance areas which overlook aprons and other areas of operation must be secure. Open mezzanine balconies contained in unsecured areas must be avoided in the terminal in order to deter strikes from terrorists on passengers. Structuring buildings in a way that reduces damage from a blast. This includes reducing the use of glass in buildings whose shards have caused major injury in such situations. Movers of people to satellites must make sure that those passengers who are enplaning or deplaning do not come into contact with each other. Flights that are sensitive would have to have areas of convergence for passengers that group them identifiably inside an area that is secure. Arrival at the gate terminal systems which follow the ‘bus-stop’ format will need to be phased out (Transport Research Board, 2010). Passenger Management and Preparation The Australian Customs Service’s Passengers Branch did a review that came up with various recommendations on passenger management. They were presented according to priority which if implemented will not only result in a better passenger experience but also more efficiency. Passengers in the luggage room require active management from the viewpoint of the passenger’s experience. The way queuing is arranged at the Secondary Examination Area is subject to scrutiny. These recommendations are: Enough resources should be dedicated to cater for busy periods when passengers are trying to leave the baggage hall. Customs must utilize the passenger facilitation task force in order to examine the required capacity improvements within the Secondary Examination Area. How Queuing is arranged in the Secondary Examination Area needs to be examined in order to garner its effectiveness, how easily passengers understand the process and how efficiently they utilise the available space and how all of this affects passenger flows in the baggage hall. Adequate marshal resources are required to ameliorate hold up in the queuing process affected by the customs marshal point in the Secondary Examination Area. It is important to take the opportunity to rationalize the Customs and AQIS marshalling duties as done in the Secondary Examination Area. This should be done by the passenger facilitation task force. Case Study of Melbourne Airport Figure 4: Key to Melbourne Map. Melbourne airport completed its redeveloped the international terminal by December, 2011. The new ramp betters the accessibility of the airport and decongests the traffic. An estimated over 28 million passengers use Melbourne, and the ramp facilitates better and faster access. The airport is owned and operated by the Australia Pacific Airports Corporation (APAC). Total passengers using the airport in the year 2010/11 was 28190457 according to Momberger Airport Information (2011). International passengers showed an increase of 13.5% with most of these originating in Asia. The table below gives a breakdown of those figures. Country Percentage Increase in Passenger Traffic China 26.2 Singapore 16.0 Malaysia 15.8 Japan 15.2 S.Korea 14.4 Indonesia 10.7 India 7.6 New Zealand 12.4 United Kingdom 7.2 United States 4.9 Table 1: Percentage increase in passengers witnessed in 2011 for Melbourne Airport Airport Congestion and Level of Service The characteristic peaking of the demand pattern at an airport can be gleaned from an examination of the operated design day schedules (de Neufville & Odoni, 2003:856f.). The demand for transportation patterns are plotted hourly and the data on individual peaks determines the measurement and design of the pertinent server or portion of the infrastructure. There remains unacknowledged, the actual load factors of these flights (ACRP, 2010: 88). First order estimations for the design at the peak of the day can be calculated by application of seat load factors of 75-85%, which culminates in total peak passenger volumes of 12,000-13,500 passengers per hour. A crucial note is that the actual dwell time according to de Neufville & Odoni (2003) of the passengers utilizing airport facilities simultaneously should be considered in this result. Therefore, the design of terminal space must be dimensioned and designed according to the formula: Design passenger volume (per hour) x dwell time (in hours). It is not a simple thing to assess the passenger dwell time without conducting a major exercise in passenger flow observation. It is difficult to get information on the dwell time of arriving or departing passengers and as an alternative, the minimum connecting time (MCT) utilized by transfer passengers can be used. In the Melbourne Airport, the approximated average dwell time for international passenger from arrival to departure varied among different airlines. Flight No & destination Flight Arrival Time Exiting Time Variance Jetstar: Ja035/Sydney 4:55 5:39 48 m Qantas: AF267 /Sydney 4:55 5:25 30 m Air new Zealand: NZ893/Sydney 5:15 5:46 31 m Air China: CA5164/Sydney 5:15 5:44 29 m United Airline: UA9582/ Christchurch 5:15 5:38 23 m Air new Zealand: NZ125/ Auckland 5:45 6:24 39 m Air China: CA5136/ Auckland 5:45 6:22 37 m Thai: TG4832/ Auckland 5:45 6:13 28 m United Airline: UA9541 5:45 6:17 32 m Etihad: EY460/ Abu Dhabi 6:33 6:58 25 m Qantas: QF38/wellington 6:15 6:45 30 m Average 32 minute Table 2: Dwelling Time for different airlines at Melbourne Airport According to the table, the average dwell time is about 32 minutes per passenger, therefore volume of passengers passing through terminal facilities during the design hour is twice the volume of passengers simultaneously present. Other factors that determine space dimension are predefined LOS per terminal facility such as check-in, passport control, security, departure gates and so on (IATA, 2004). Traditionally, the standards for space range between 1.0-2.5m2 per passenger, determined by the ideal LOS for that particular facility (de Neufville & Odoni, 1992). The International Air Transport Association (2004) has guidelines for ideal waiting times as outlined in the table below. Level of Service and Maximum waiting time guidelines Check-in economy Check-in Business Passport control inbound Passport control outbound Baggage claim Security A Level of service/level of comfort –excellent. Free flow conditions, zero delays. 0-12 0-3 0-7 0-5 0-12 0-3 B Level of service/level of comfort – high. Stable flow conditions and few delays C Level of service/level of comfort – good. Stable flow conditions and acceptable delays. D Level of service/level of comfort – adequate. Unstable flow conditions and acceptable delays fro short periods of time. 12-30 3-5 7-15 5-10 12-18 3-7 E Level of service/level of comfort – inadequate. Unstable flow conditions and unacceptable delays. F Level of service/level of comfort – unacceptable. Cross-flows conditions and system breakdowns and unacceptable delays. Table 3: Level of Service Maximum Waiting Time Guidelines (IATA, 2004) The target for every airport should be at excellent (A) or high (B) in order to achieve stable flows, at least high levels of comfort and few delays. The concern for the passenger is not only how much space is available in a specific queue or departure/arrival area but also how long they have to wait. Table 3 below shows the waiting times garnered from different airlines on a Thursday at Melbourne Airport. Flight No & Day Passengers Join the Queue & Leave QF20084/Thursday A 1:54 m QF20084/Thursday B 33 S DJ875/ Thursday C 3:43 m DJ875/ Thursday D 1:29 m DJ875/ Thursday E 2:33 m DJ287/ Thursday F 1:29 m DJ879/ Thursday G 4:00 m Average 2:03 minute Table 4: Time Taken for Passengers at Check-in Queue for Melbourne Airport The desired maximum waiting times as recommended by IATA (2004) are noted in Table 2. A comparison of Table 2 and 3 show that the waiting times of Melbourne Airport fall well within the high to excellent range. The development of online ticketing and carry-on luggage has eased the need for such facilities as luggage check-in and baggage conveyor systems. Security at Melbourne Airport Security is a extremely important at Melbourne Airport. There are on-site security procedures that are monitored on a regular basis in strict compliance with Federal Government security standards. There is a Victorian Police unit to augment the Federal Police presence in the terminal building. In addition to that there is a fully-automated baggage security system with ability to screen 100% of checked luggage destined outbound internationally. Screening Passengers Passengers departing from Melbourne pass through screening before being able to board the flight. Sharp objects are not allowed on carry-on luggage such as nail clippers, pocket knives, scissors, and metal nail files. If found on carry-ons, these items are destroyed. Flammable liquids or gases as well as other goods deemed dangerous are also prohibited. It is mandatory for laptop computers to be removed from bags and screened as a separate item. The X-Ray equipment used will not damage the electronics. Screening is not only done on carry-ons but also checked luggage. Pick up and Drop Off No unattended vehicles are allowed to be parked in front of the terminals. Those which are left unattended will be fined and towed. Those that are attended must drive off in under one minute. There is a Ring and Ride waiting zone in which vehicles can wait for twenty minutes. Baggage Left Unattended Any baggage left on its own in public areas will be deemed suspicious. All baggage must be tagged with the owner’s contact details. Threats related to Security All visitors and passengers are warned about making inflammatory statements about bombs or weapons. Whether serious or not, they will be treated as a legitimate threat and can lead to blockage from boarding a flight as well as arrest. Medical Passengers with medical conditions must contact the airline prior to the flight. As global travel increases, they coincide with other practices that encourage the development of disease (Wilson, 1995). Travel is a powerful factor in the emergence and spread of disease especially because of the pace and intricacy of contemporary transport. The geographical distance or ability to quarantine disease is virtually obsolete (Haggett, 2000). This spread of potential pandemics can be expected to continue but there are methods that can be used to predict and explain them in order to guide surveillance and effect efficient control. Improvement of Passenger Flow At British Airways, according to CNN (2012) is incepting a new method of checking in passengers ahead of their flight. Passengers using British Airways from airports in France will be checked in 24 hours before their flight, given a seat and an electronic boarding pass. There is no waiting time. All they need to do is drop off their baggage. Air France also has an automated check-in system from selected destinations. The service is still in the trial stage however. The Melbourne airport is an international airport where table 4 tells us there is a high to excellent level of waiting time. The new ramp decongests traffic making it easier for passengers to flow in and out of the airport. The prohibition against parking at the terminal for more than a minute streamlines the movement of cars and people outside the terminal. Passenger flows are quite good with departure and arrivals taking approximately 32 minutes from start to end. All of this shows that the standards at Melbourne airport are quite high already. Security checks are quite standard, with prohibition of sharp objects being carried on the plane in hand luggage, no potentially explosive liquids or gases allowed, and luggage checked under full screening for international passengers. When we look at the model of the future check in, there are ways to integrate that system into the current one through full automation of the check in system. This means that just like in the British Airways model, check in can be done in advance. This means that all the security checks can be covered in advance of boarding and the passenger will save time on the actual time of boarding. How this can be done in a completely new and innovative way is the subject of this brief. An examination of the facts have led to the conclusion that utilization of electronic surveillance, coupled with advance security checks and an efficient way to get to the airport is the key. Use of Biometric Markers The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) promotes uniformity among member states, through global coordination in the field of travel documents. These travel documents can be imprinted in three ways; an object that the person is holding such as a chip card or ID, passwords or PIN numbers can be used or some personal biometric features. These three methods can be utilised individually or in combination. In the case of control at borders, the traditional combination is ‘has’ which is the travel document, and the ‘is’ which is the fact that the picture in the travel document must match how the passenger currently looks. These biometric markers can be extended to luggage as well, so that a chip or PIN is issued to the passenger for their luggage prior to boarding. Pre-screening of luggage can be done in this way. This could enable immigration officials to be free to concentrate on less routine checks and have more time for the higher risk individuals. Use of biometric markers as a concept is simple. It requires that the user first enrol themselves into the programme and this connects the biometric data to the identity of the user via passport or other data. It is possible to store biometric data in a central database, a smart card or directly on the electronic passport. This enables the passenger to take advantage of the automated biometric border control system. This means that instead of waiting to see an immigration official, the passenger will utilise the biometric device lane that reads their biometric characteristics with which to identify the passenger. Alternatively, the information is contained on a passport or smartcard that is run and the identity of the passenger verified. Therefore the airport must put up a site where passengers can enrol into the programme. Once enrolled, they can obtain their identification card as well as electronic markers for their luggage. The question then becomes how the luggage would go through check-in in the most efficient manner. The volume of visitors through the airport is too large for one form of transportation to be practical, therefore a baggage chute could be installed at terminal 2 where the international flights are, suitable tagged with the identification markers. They can therefore go through screening as passengers make their way to their arrival lounge. Security Considerations The security considerations to be dealt with include; 1. Departing and arriving passengers are physically separated on the air side, which means movement of passengers at various levels of the terminal including supplementary circulation allowance for corridors and walkways. As passengers arrive and depart, they go through various security procedures that could be compromised by contact. Separation of these passengers will enhance the security of the airport and also increase efficiency of passenger flows. Additional exits can be installed in order to make it possible to facilitate exit from the airport away from the entrance. 2. There are two ways to conduct security combs, centralised which requires a large area with search equipment space and decentralised which needs a more diffuse access to equipment and space at the terminal. The Melbourne Airport utilises the centralised model for international flights. This would work well with the future model of security check-in, in which customers are divided into three groups; normal, known traveller and enhanced security. Those who are deemed to need additional security would have the process expedited through the biometric markers. Documentation checks could be carried out off-airport, in a way that is validated by the passenger’s government in a way that is similar to the manner in which credit cards are validated. It is possible to bag drop and check in automatically, this can be augmented by the use of biometrics, Checkpoint of the Future and immigration, facilitating the smoothening of the customer’s experience. 3. Due to the restriction of visitors at the secure airside areas of the terminal, which only allows passengers through the security combs even domestic ones, there is a coalescing of visitors at the entry and exit points. This means extra terminal space is required at these areas. Addition of a waving bay to this terminal area in which visitors can wait for passengers to complete their check-in procedures and wave them off may quicken the movement of people in these areas leading to less waiting time and a reduction in security risks. The waving bay would need to be fitted with cameras, metal detectors as well as have manned guards to ensure that nothing untoward is taking place there. This however has a large cash implication for the airport in terms of changes to infrastructure and personnel. It will however, enhance security in that all visitors would be situated in one area and therefore more easily monitored. The waiting time for passengers would be reduced as well because of the lack of crowds blocking entryways and exits. The waving bay could have an exit leading directly to parking areas and ring and ride in order to facilitate orderly exit of visitors. 4. Piers would be isolated using physical barriers in order to mitigate against terrorist threats as an added security measure. 5. The process for scanning for bombs needs extra room which can be situated either at check-in or outgoing luggage hall depending on when this exercise is carried out. According to my concept of enhanced security, bags are dropped down a chute in which they are scanned for threats using x-ray facilities as the passengers have already been pre-checked prior to their arrival at the airport. The PIN card attached to the bags will indicate the owner of the property and this will help in identifying them in case of anything suspicious. If the owner has been flagged by the pre-identification documents as high risk, their luggage can be extracted from the general mass for further examination by experts in what to look for. This will save time and enhance security at the same time. However, because these are experts in the field, having them on hand will have a cost implication for the airport. 6. There needs to be allowance for additional room in the check in area to cater for high security flights and to facilitate passenger interviewing and search. This does not necessarily imply that additional buildings must be constructed because such sensitive flights are not common. There are several rooms in the airport that can be utilised for such a purpose including the VIP waiting area in which passengers can gather and undergo viewing. Having the information that such high security passengers are to utilise the airport facilities can be facilitated by having these high security passengers have an earlier reporting time in order for them to undergo more rigorous security checks without compromising the flight schedule or inconvenience more pedestrian passengers. 7. Partition of the terminal into ‘clean airside-dirty landside’ format which comes about as a consequence of using either centralised or decentralised security combs. It is important for the airport to come to a decision on which type of security combs would be utilised. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. 8. The elimination of car parks from terminal structures to mitigate against their usage for terrorist attacks. While the airport car parks are a source of supplementary income to the airports, they are also a source of threat. They should therefore be moved further away. The way that the airport car parks are now set up, the express car park is right next to Terminal 3 which presents a potential threat from car bombs. The long term multi-level car park is also quite close to Terminals 1,2 and 3 and has several entrances and exits all of which pose significant risk. 9. The restriction on left luggage areas for luggage that has not been searched and a need for facilitation of a left-luggage depot containing facilities for X-Ray is a problem solvable by the attached PIN card that identifies each piece of luggage with its owner. Luggage that has no PIN would be stopped from entry into the terminals since this would be done prior to arrival. Any luggage that has not been tagged in this way can be deemed not to be slated for travel and must be left outside the airport area. This is one way in which the risk from luggage left unattended can be mitigated. 10. Open mezzanine balconies contained in unsecured areas must be avoided in the terminal in order to deter strikes from terrorists on passengers. Any such areas could be sealed off or converted to non-passenger usage so as to reduce this risk. 11. Structuring buildings in a way that reduces damage from a blast. This includes reducing the use of glass in buildings whose shards have caused major injury in such situations. Aside from completely rebuilding the airport, which would be impractical, there are other ways from fortified bullet proof glass on the windows. This, however, has a cost implication to the airport. 12. Movers of people to satellites must make sure that those passengers who are enplaning or deplaning do not come into contact with each other. This means separate exits and entrances for both groups. Figure 5 illustrates this. 13. Arrival at the gate terminal systems which follow the ‘bus-stop’ format will need to be phased out. This means that a system in which passengers are picked up and dropped off at the terminal gates has been deemed to be insecure. This ties in well with off-site security checks in which customers go through the rigorous background checks and security scanning before arriving at the airport. This however means that between the security check-in and the airport, there is some management of passengers in order to ensure that hazardous material is not obtained after security check-ins. However, a final check must be done at the airport to ensure that this is so. Figure 5: movement of passengers enplaning and deplaning Terminal Considerations Airport terminals are one of the biggest indicators of cost of infrastructure as has been seen by the structural changes that would need to occur in order to enhance security while decreasing waiting time for passengers. Many airport terminals, including Melbourne International Airport are designed with the aim to be aesthetically pleasing over functionality. Figure 6: Qantas Lounge at Melbourne International Airport There are three main functions of the passenger terminal: 1. Change of Mode; the nature of travel by air involves stopovers and is rarely direct from point of departure to destination of arrival. There is usually some sort of changeover that involves being on land. When moving form one mode of travel to another, the passenger utilises airport facilities at the terminals in a predetermined pattern of movement facilitated by the passenger circulation area. 2. Processing; the passenger terminal functions as a processing area for certain mandatory processes that must take place to facilitate flying. Such processes include ticketing, and checking in which is currently undergoing evolution to an online function that can be done off-site to save on waiting time, and with the use of biometric identification markers, can be done much more efficiently. The passengers also need to be separated from and then reunited with their luggage. This can be done as they step into the terminal through the baggage chutes that are simultaneously screening tools that segregate the luggage according to degree of risk. Currently, security checks and other government controls are carried out at the airport terminal. This is known as passenger processing space. 3. Change of Movement Type; Passengers move in distinct cohorts from aircraft and this is known as ‘batch movements’. However, there is ongoing interaction of passengers with airport facilities in form of departures and arrivals in various transportation modes including cars, taxis or buses. The terminal therefore has a passenger collecting and processing reservoir on its departure side while the opposite is true at arrivals. In order to facilitate this, the terminal must have a passenger holding space (Transportation Research Board, 2010). Peak Demand Patterns The characteristic peaking of the demand pattern at an airport varies according to the time of day as can be gleaned from this graph of the changing pattern of demand at Schipol Airport in Amsterdam; Figure 7: Hourly Distribution of Seats at Schipol airport 2008 Airport traffic varies widely depending on several characteristics such as the annual passenger traffic levels, the distribution of daily and weekly flights and how rigorously they keep to schedule, the number of business and leisure travellers passing through the terminal, the combination of airplanes and airlines that operate from that airport, the variety of destinations served, and how mixed the passenger nationalities are. These factors determine the demand for resources but there are some general characteristics that seem to permeate every airport and affect passenger flows. These are: short periods of very high demand long periods of little or no demand. The way airline scheduling is set up results in heterogeneous daily passenger demand profiles. What is seen are peak periods flanked by low demand times as can be seen from the Schipol airport graph. This pattern tends to repeat in all but the most busy airports. This pattern complicates the efficient allocation of resource utilisation. It is impossible to avoid queues completely due to the financial implications in allocation of sufficient resources and infrastructure that is necessary at the highest demand peaks. As has been seen earlier in the essay, almost every measure that would smoothen out the process of delays due to security or easing of passenger flow has some sort of financial implication. Discussion Taking into account all the information that has been collected on the processes involved in moving passengers at airports, the primary issue that has emerged is the huge financial outlay that would be necessary for launch and maintenance of this initiative. The money would have to be sourced from somewhere and may culminate in higher fees for use of any airport facilities, and a general rise in the cost of travel. Parking Lots The suggestion is to move them off-site to mitigate against terrorist threats. A shuttle service could be coordinated between the off-site parking and the airport in which initial sorting of check-in procedures and gathering of tagged luggage could be done. This means the shuttle services would have to be manned by professionals. In addition, parking inside the compound of the airport could be made prohibitive in order to discourage use of cars in drop off and pick up of customers or customers who wish to take advantage of long term parking. The parking lots could be placed under electronic and manned surveillance to minimise risk from that source as well. Terminals The glass windows are a potential threat from terrorist to passengers. They would have to be fortified with bullet proof glass or eliminated altogether. The functionality of the terminal as a passenger processing space must be enhanced to make the process more efficient. This can be done by having an adequate space to check for bombs, separation of travellers by level of risk, a reserved space for high security flights and sensitive passengers, where a more rigorous checking process can occur, earlier check-in times for passengers needing more rigorous check-in processes. Construction of separate spaces for enplaning and deplaning passengers especially exits. A waving bay may be included in order to reduce congestion occasioned by coalescing of passengers and visitors at entrances and exits. Biometrics Use of biometrics can be used to ease the process of check-in while beefing up security at airports. Passengers intending to travel would be required to enrol into the programme similar to that on trial by British Airways in order to have their details in the system. These details can then be counter-checked by the relevant authorities at immigration with the relevant government agency in the passenger’s country of residence. The passenger is then given a biometric marker status, perhaps using colours – red, orange and green. Red for high risk passengers who require further background checks, orange for normal travellers whose details may need to be checked further and green for well-known travellers whose details are on file. This group however, must occasionally go through more rigorous checks because their green status may attract attention from people meaning to take advantage of it, for their own ends. The red group would require a rigorous background check with the host government, an examination as to their purpose of travel, perhaps a pre-flight interview to get more information. Security personnel at the airport would be alerted to keep an eye on them. The orange group consists of the average traveller who is a relatively unknown quantity. A background check might yield the need for further examination or may deem the traveller of low risk in terms of security. The green group are frequent travellers who are known to officials and whose purpose of travel is well known. They would have a faster process to go through, but no less rigorous to be on the safe side. Logistics The premise of the new security check-in set up involves checking in passengers at an area that is off-site of the airport, in order to reduce queues and hasten the process and enhance passenger flow. If biometric markers are used, an electronic process could be initiated as soon as the client purchases a ticket. The passenger can then fill in a form giving pertinent details for customs including reason for travel, visa requirements, anything to declare, etc. On the day of travel, they may be asked to present themselves at a collection point in which their luggage can be collected and tagged, according to their background check and their electronic ticket will contain the identification of their security status as well as other information necessary such as visa information etc. Once they are transported to the airport, they swipe their ticket which will then direct them into one of three check-in areas; green, orange or red. The immigration officers will then be able to direct their energies more efficiently, spending more time with passengers from the ‘red’ queue, and the least on passengers from ‘green’. Visitors who accompany passengers will be accommodated at the waving bay under manned surveillance and under cameras. Once the passenger has gone through security check–in, they can no longer interact physically with the visitors. The passenger is re-united with their luggage at the culmination of the flight. Since the luggage is tagged with the same biometric marker as the passenger, they are assigned the same plane electronically. This might help in mitigating loss of luggage by passengers. Costs The inception of this more advanced security settings at airports naturally have financial implications that have to be taken into account. Clearly, they will cost more than the current systems in terms of personnel on the ground, maintenance of electronic equipment and surveillance. On the other hand, it is a more efficient way to obtain information and the efficient allocation of resources in this way may lead to savings being made in the long run. These savings would also be due to decreased threat on airport facilities from terrorist or other disruption, making them a more attractive business proposition and a more popular way to travel for the average innocent flyer. Use of demand patterns as a guideline for allocation of personnel may help in mitigating costs of having large numbers of people on duty at a time when passenger flow is low. Conclusion In order to come up with a way to improve passenger flow, a number of considerations have been factored in. These considerations are the physical infrastructure of the airport which may have to undergo modifications in order to comply with security parameters. This includes reduction on the amount of glass which may be a source of injury from shards should there be an attack. Additional space may be necessary in order to adequately search for bombs and separate rooms necessary for sensitive passengers or those using high risk flights. The separation of passengers deplaning and enplaning means different levels must exist including different entrances and exits. The most important change to infrastructure will be division of the security check areas into low, middle and high risk check-in. The second consideration is the use of electronic biometric markers in order to categorise passengers between low, middle and high risk. This will help to move them faster through the system especially if the bulk of background checks are done prior to the day of boarding. This will leave passengers already categorised into low, middle and high risk and facilitate their faster processing through the system. Dealing with luggage immediately it comes in, categorised in the same way as the luggage owner would also mean that this process is faster and more efficient. The third important consideration is transportation. The manner in which passengers arrive and leave the airport is a major security factor. Parking lots are a source of threat from car bombs or areas of concealment for other weapons. The parking lots at Melbourne airport may be too close to the terminals and may have to be moved further away. A shuttle service could take care of transporting passengers from parking lot to airport. The shuttle service could be the first point of contact on boarding day, between passengers and security check-in where luggage is collected together and tagged, and passengers undergo initial scrutiny on the day of boarding. The long term parking lot is equipped with many entrances and exits that may be a source of security breach. Last but not least is personnel. Many areas of the airport such as the parking lot, waving bay, and terminals require manned surveillance to augment electronic ones. In addition to that, there are the background checks to be carried out on passengers prior to boarding day that would also require personnel. The process of enhancing security is a labour intensive one. Once these considerations have been factored in, the objective of the project must be re-examined and that is to improve passenger flows while enhancing security of the airport. Passenger flow patterns have shown us that there are peak periods when passenger flow is very high, and other times, when it is low. This pattern depends on flight scheduling by airlines among other factors. One way to streamline passenger flow therefore, would be to streamline schedules so as to bring about a more linear pattern of flow. This would mean that with slight variations, the flow of passengers throughout the day is fairly even. This evening out of flow would facilitate inception of the other innovations since usage would be constant and not just a once a day peak, followed by lows that would mean that usage of personnel and equipment would be under-utilised at these times, and over-utilised at peak times. The bottom line is sustainability. In order to ensure that the method works, there must be sustainability. Biometric markers, if reliable, would certainly make security tighter because these would be more difficult to circumvent. Enhanced security at airports may lead to increased business due to less airport based mishaps and events occurring. A trial period for this method could be tried out to see how well it translates in practise and to iron out any kinks that arise. References Airport, M. (2012). Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd (2012). Retrieved 10 2012-August from http://melbourneairport.com.au/docs/spp-pd-mdp-mar-22.pdf Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP). (2010). ACRP REPORT 25 - Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Volume 1: Guidebook, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. De Neufville, R., Odoni, A. (2003). Airport Systems Planning, Design, and Management. McGraw-Hill, New York. Frontex. (2007). BIOPASS Study on Automated Biometric Border Crossing Systems for Registered Passenger at Four European Airports. European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union. Warsaw, August. International Air Transport Association (IATA). (2004). Airport Development Reference Manual. 9th ed. Effective January 2004. Montréal / Geneva. International Air Transport Association IATA. (2011). A road map to prepare for tomorrow’s passenger; Five goals towards sustainable profits and better service. Simplifying the Business think tank white paper. [ICAO07] Strategic Objectives of ICAO. Retrieved 30th September, 2012 from http:/www.icao.int/icao/en/strategic_objectives.htm Sita. (2009). Border Management Know-How Making your borders more secure. Positioning Paper. Transportation Research Board. (2010). Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, Vol. 2: Spreadsheets and Users Guide, Washington, DC: ACRP. Read More