Airport Security from a Passenger s Perspective

Transcription

1 Airport Security from a Passenger s Perspective Airport Security from a Passenger s Perspective

2 Introduction The level of airport security has increased significantly in recent years. Most of these security measures were taken due to incidents such as the Lockerbie bombing and the 9/11 attacks. The measures influence all parties involved in the aviation industry. This document focuses on the passenger experience during aviation security checkpoints. Passengers currently experience security checkpoints as the most stressful part of their trip. On the other hand, passengers do not want to enter aircraft without passing at least one security checkpoint. These counteracting emotions create an environment in which there is a lot of room for development. This fact sheet aims to inform the reader of today s technology and the related passenger experience. It will also discuss technological developments in the aviation security industry, and how they will influence the passenger experience. Current Airport Security Procedures Aviation terrorism is not a new issue. Since the end of World War II, there have been dozens of airline hijackings with hundreds of fatalities (Figure 1). Security checks are therefore used to protect passengers, staff and aircraft from accidental or malicious harm, crime and other threats (Chen et al., 2015). The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is responsible for international civil aviation regulations, which are divided into 19 annexes (ICAO Annexes and Doc Series, 2016). ICAO Annex 17 concerns security and contains a number of worldwide standards for security checks, which each of the contracting states must meet. These standards can be met in different ways, depending on the country (Airport Operations, 2013). Regulations for EU countries will be discussed below. The screening process can be divided into passenger screening and cabin baggage screening. Since this paper is about the passenger s experience, it will not discuss hold luggage and freight screening. Before screening, passengers are required to take off their jackets or coats and have them screened as cabin baggage. If necessary, screening personnel may request that the passenger remove additional clothing, such as shoes. Passengers are screened by at least one of the following methods: Figure 1: Airline hijackings and fatalities in the past (Nagdy & Roser, 2016) A hand search Walking through metal detection equipment (WTMD) Explosive detection dogs Explosive trace detection equipment (may be combined with hand- held metal detection) Security scanners which do not use ionizing radiation

3 Before cabin baggage screening begins, liquids, aerosols and gels (LAGs), portable computers and other large electrical items are removed from cabin baggage and screened separately. LAGs are packed inside one transparent and resealable plastic bag with a capacity not exceeding 1 litre. Each LAG is packed in a container smaller than 100 millilitres. Cabin baggage may be screened by Xray equipment, or by one of the previously- mentioned methods, except WTMD and scanners that do not use ionizing radiation (Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2015/1998, 2015). The time it takes for each passenger to pass security checks is 15 seconds at best, 25 seconds on average and 60 seconds at worst. This is based on an ideal situation, in which no additional screening needed and all documents are correct (Kirschenbaum, 2013). Exact processing times depend on the screening technology used (Manataki, & Zografos, 2009). Passenger Experience of the Current Security Procedures According to Chen et al. (2015), an airport passenger s trust can be increased through a security check. However, a security check is also associated with the highest rate of negative emotions during a passenger s journey from booking to bag collection at the arrival airport, (SITA, 2016). This is visualized in the following figure: Clearly, security measures make travelling less convenient for passengers. One example of this inconvenience is the need to arrive at the airport two hours before flight departure. The security measures don t just impact passengers they also impact airlines and airports. Bialock et al. (pp. 736, 2007A) found a significantlyreduced passenger volume of 6% on all flights due to baggage screening after implementation of the 9/11 security measures. The decrease in passenger volume at airports recovered after three years in the United States (CAPA, 2011). As a result, airlines claimed billions in lost ticket revenues, as some potential travellers opted to not fly. However, studies have shown that passengers do accept the increased inconvenience and are even willing to pay extra to feel more secure (Bialock et al, pp. 735, 2007). During the past few months, several terrorist attacks have occurred in and around major international airports (Brussels, Istanbul, etc.) and public areas. Although these incidents didn t necessarily happen at or after the airport security checkpoint, they still influence passenger perception negatively. This emphasizes the effect of security checks on passengers feelings of safety. Studies have revealed that the security check is the most influential factor in airport customer satisfaction, followed by airport accessibility and terminal facilities (Chen et al., 2015). The more that passengers are satisfied, the more they value the airport. This could be a competitive advantage for airports. Airport security is evaluated by passengers based on (Chen et al., 2015): 1. The amount of time required for a security check 2. The professionalism of security staff 3. Confidence in the security process to make passengers feel safe Figure 2: Emotional extremes during the journey, percentages of passengers feeling positive/negative emotions (SITA, 2016) There is a significant relationship between passenger satisfaction, wait times and perceived security quality. Shorter wait times and better perceived security quality lead to higher passenger satisfaction.

4 A traveller s perception of safety is of utmost importance because it determines the traveller s willingness to take airplanes and pay for the cost of the screening process, according to Sakano et al. (2016). Professionalism in security officers also have a positive contribution to play in the feeling of safety and the intention to fly more frequently and for longer distances. Satisfaction can also be increased by providing more information to travellers about the expected procedures at security points and by requesting their full support and cooperation. The use of images can summarize and simplify complex information about the procedures. In 2005, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport started enhancing their security checkpoints to improve travellers experiences. One of the solutions to communicate more clearly with passengers was to replace written messages with illustrative signs and floor arrows. This resulted in faster understanding and a quicker process for passengers (DFW, 2006). New Developments to Improve the Passenger Experience As discussed above, passengers appreciate security measures but still experience inconvenience during their trip. This section focuses on the development of security measures that improve the passenger experience while providing an improved level of security. Centralized Image Processing Aside from technology, two main factors determine the lead time of the traditional security process: the pace of the passenger and the pace of the security operator(s). A higher pace leads to a shorter lead time. The pace of the passenger is defined by the time it takes them to remove all electrical items from their bags (and body) and put their bags on the belt. The pace of the security officer is determined by their motivation, staff capacity, number of passenger bags and the passengers themselves (IATA, 2015). Both parties can therefore create a delay in the process. In order to minimize the duration of the security process, an innovation called Centralized Image Processing (CIP) was introduced. The conventional checkpoint process requires an Xray operator at each active lane. CIP works on the basis of a network between the Xray scanners located at the security checkpoints and a central area where the footage is analyzed. The main advantage of a centralized area is the possibility to analyse multiple security lanes simultaneously (Future Travel Experience, 2015). This innovation leads to higher efficiency and improved cost effectiveness (IATA, 2015). The improved lane throughput also results in a more continuous flow, which results in better use of capacity (Krüger, 2015). The benefits for passengers are a shorter queuing time and faster access to the checkpoint. Throughput can be increased from 180 to 450 passengers per hour (IATA, 2015). Operationally, the collected Xray images are queued and presented to an image processing system. This system categorizes the images and sends them to the next available security officer. Depending on the content, the bag is sent directly back to its owner or to a side track for a more thorough investigation. Both cases facilitate a continuous flow. Use of CT scans for Hand Baggage Screening Computed tomography (CT) scans are widely used in the medical world, but can also be used for cabin baggage screening. In 2015, the use of CT scans was tested at London Luton Airport and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (The new tech changing airport security, 2015). The advantage of CT scans is that passengers do not need to remove large electronic items or LAG s from their bags. CT scans can collect enough data to determine the potential threat of a bag s contents. This reduces waiting and processing time, which contributes to a better passenger experience (New technologies and strategies strive to increase airport security and passenger experience, 2016). Even though CT Scans are more expensive than the regular XRay scans, passengers are willing to pay more for the convenience. In the

5 United States, a Travel Association survey found that nearly half of air travellers are willing to pay up to $150 per year for less hassle at airports (PR Newswire, 2011). Conclusion and Discussion With a growing number of passengers and a continuous security threat, it is important to maintain and even increase the level of security. While passengers accept security measures to ensure their safety, it still is the most stressful part of the travelling experience. From a passenger, airline and airport point of view, it is important to increase passenger satisfaction. The developments discussed in the fact sheet could play an important role in doing this. These methods decrease waiting and processing times and inconvenience for passengers all points of satisfaction. It should also be noted that within this everchanging environment, developments in security and passenger satisfaction will be ongoing. Over twenty sources have been used to gather information for this fact sheet. The intention was to use scientific studies primarily, but some information was gathered from other websites or surveys. For example, the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport study was published on their own website. That study also raises the question of whether their results will be the same if the study is conducted at other airports. It is therefore important that these facts not be generalized. Sources such as IATA are not necessarily scientific, but are credible due to the fact that it is an internationallyrecognized organisation.

6 Glossary CIP CT ICAO LAGs WTMD References Centralized Image Processing Computed Tomography International Civil Aviation Organisation Liquids, aerosols and gels WalkThrough Metal Detection equipment 1. (2013). In N. J. Ashford, H. M. Stanton, C. A. Moore, P. Coutu, & J. R. Beasley, Airport Operations (pp ). United States of America: McGrawHill. 2. Beck, M. J., Rose, J. M., Merkert, R., (2015) Air Safety & Security: Traveller Perceptions Post the Malaysian Air Disasters. Retrieved Online [2016/28/09]: Bialock, G., V. Kadivali and D.H. Simon (2007). The Impact of Post 9/11 Airport Security Measures on the Demand for Air Travel. Journal of Law and Economics 50(4), Retreived Online [2016/25/09]: 4. Chen, J. C., Batchuluun, A., Batnasan J. (2015) Services innovation impact to customer satisfaction and customer value enhancement in airport. Asia University. Taichung: Asia University. 5. Chronology of aviation terrorism: (2016, September 30). Retrieved from Skyjack: 6. Cletus C. Coughlin, J. P. (2002). Aviation Security and Terrorism: A Review of the Economic Issues. Washington. 7. Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2015/1998. (2015, November 5). Annex 4. Retrieved from content/en/txt/pdf/?uri=celex:32015r1998&from=en 8. Dallas / Fort Worth DFW International Airport (2006). Security checkpoints, Tiger Team 2005, Improving througput. Planning Department. Texas. 9. Future Travel Experience. (2015, April). (Schiphol) Opgeroepen op October 2016, van schipholsecurityexperience/ 10. Hunter, J.A. & Lambert, J.R. J Transp Secur (2016) 9: IATA. (2015). Smart Security. Airports council international. IATA. 12. ICAO Annexes and Doc Series. (2016, April 18). Retrieved October 5, 2016, from Skybrary: ICAO Annexes and Doc Series. (2016, April 18). Retrieved October 5, 2016, from Skybrary: Kanter, R. M. (2012, September 25). Ten Reasons People Resist Change. Retrieved October 10, 2016, from Harvard Business Review: Krüger, A. B.A. (2015). How Smart Is Smart Security? Exploring Data Subjectivity and Resistance. University of Tübingen. Tubingen: University of Tübingen. 16. New technologies and strategies strive to increase airport security and passenger experience. (2016, August). Retrieved October 3, 2016, from Future Traveler Experience: strivetoenhanceairportsecurity/ 17. Sakano, R., Obeng, K., Fuller, K. (2016) Airport security and screening satisfaction: A case study of U.S. Pp Survey: Travelers will pay for better airport security experience. (2011, Jun 27). PR Newswire retrieved from: untid=130632

7 19. The new tech changing airport security. (2015, May 19). Retrieved October 3, 2016, from BBC: changing 20. Zhang, B. (2016, June 30). This machine could cut airport wait times in half, but the TSA won't buy it. Retrieved October 7, 2016, from Business Insider: airporttsa20166?international=true&r=us&ir=t 21. Kirschenbaum, A. A. (2013). The cost of airport security: The passenger dilemma. Journal of Air Transport Management, 30, Manataki, I. E., & Zografos, K. G. (2009). A generic system dynamics based tool for airport terminal performance analysis. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 17(4), CAPA (2011, Sept 9), Aviation s lost decade? 9/11 and beyond. Cause for optimism in the wake of 9/11 changes. Image references (top to bottom, left to right) 1 Front page: beimproved 2. Nagdy, M., & Roser, M. (2016) Terrorism. Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: 3. SITA (2016), Air Transport Industry Insights: The Future is Connected, pp. 4. Retrieved Online [ ]: reportthefutureisconnected2016.pdf Dutch Summary Als luchthavenbeveiliging wordt vergeleken met die van 20 jaar geleden is te zien dat er een groot aantal veranderingen heeft plaats gevonden. Deze veranderingen zijn een gevolg van terroristische aanslagen. De luchthaven beveiliging wordt door de passagier op twee manieren ervaren. Aan de ene kant voelt de passagier zich niet veilig om zonder beveiliging het vliegtuig in te stappen, maar aan de andere kant is het beveiligingsdeel wel stressvol voor de passagier. Om beide emoties te pareren wordt er aan nieuwe methodes gewerkt. Een van deze nieuwe beveiligingsmethoden is die van de Centralized Image Processing (CIP). De CIP maakt gebruik van een verbinding tussen de verschillende passagepunten met een centrale ruimte. In deze centrale ruimte worden alle verkregen beelden afkomstig van de XRay geanalyseerd. Vervolgens wordt de bagage die verdachte beelden laat zien op een apart spoor gezet dan de bagage die veilig is verklaard. Het resultaat hiervan is dat de passagier die geen verdachte bagage bij zich heeft direct door kan en niet hoeft te wachten op de bagage die wel als verdacht wordt beoordeeld. Dit resulteert in een kortere doorlooptijd en daarmee ook een kortere wachttijd voor de passagiers. Het gebruik van CTscans voor handbagage zorgt ervoor dat passagiers niet meer vloeistoffen en elektronische apparaten uit hun bagage hoeven te halen. Hierdoor is de wachttijd korter en zijn er minder handelingen voor de passagiers.

8 This is a Luchtvaartfeiten.nl / AviationFacts.eu publication. Authors: S.Y. Choi, E. van der Kooij, W. Veenstra Editorial staff: R.J. de Boer PhD Msc, G. Boosten MSc & G.J.S. Vlaming MSc Copying texts is allowed. Please cite: AviationFacts.eu (2017), Airport Security from a Passenger s Perspective Fact sheet, AviationFacts.eu is an initiative by the Aviation Academy at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS). Students and teachers share knowledge with politicians and the general public to ensure discussions are based on facts. August 2017