Administration – Jim Gill's Blog

Heathrow Rolls out 3D Scanners to Streamline Airport Security

October 11, 2019September 19, 2019 by James Gill, posted in Administration, Airports, Amenities, Facilities, Information Systems, Infrastructure, Security, Technology

Airports and airlines are employing new technologies to cut down on the wait times associated with air travel, from getting through security to lining up to board. One of the biggest time sinks that people usually experience at the airport is moving through the X-ray scanners in the security line. Now that many countries require people to remove most liquids from their carry-ons and have rules about how much someone can carry, these lines often get congested as travelers make sure they abide by restrictions and open up their luggage to remove items that need to go through separately.

3D Scanners Make It Easier to Process Checked Luggage

Luckily, airports may have a new strategy for streamlining the entire process. London-Heathrow Airport, the largest airport in the United Kingdom with more than 80 million passengers each year, recently introduced a 3D scanner as part of the baggage screening process at Terminal 5.

Terminal 5 handles about 60,000 bags each day. The baggage screening process, which is now completely automated, starts after a bag is dropped at departure. During the sorting process, bags go through an imaging process that essentially eliminates the need for human hands while remaining completely secure. Formerly, 2D images would necessitate significant human intervention to check through bags manually and ensure that no dangerous items are within, a process that also potentially puts employee lives at risk.

The new scanners work much like computed tomography (CT) scanners used in hospitals. The machine is essentially an X-ray scanner that takes many images at all angles to provide a 3D depiction of the contents of a bag. Using image recognition and human supervision, the machine flags suspicious items within a bag, and any flagged baggage is removed for further inspection before it makes it to the aircraft. Meanwhile, algorithms make it possible to identify explosives and other threats automatically.

The infrastructure at Heathrow had to be updated to accommodate the new machines, which are larger and twice as heavy as the former ones. This was difficult to carry out in a live airport, especially since floors had to be lifted and changed to support the new weight. In fact, it took Heathrow four years to update the 29 screening machines, largely because the majority of work could only be done during the four hours at night when flights do not occur.

How the New Technology Will More Directly Benefit Travelers

Unfortunately, this technology may not exactly excite passengers, as they do not see the differences happening behind the scenes. What will benefit passengers more is bringing this 3D imaging technology directly to the security line, which is the project that Heathrow has taken on since the completion of Terminal 5.

Heathrow plans to use the same CT technology to scan hand luggage, which would eliminate the requirement of taking liquids out of carryon luggage. The technology makes it possible for staff members to zoom in on and rotate images of the contents of luggage for a more thorough inspection. The scanners can also effectively identify the specific liquids contained within the luggage.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently called upon airports throughout the United Kingdom to implement 3D scanners in airports by the end of 2022 in an effort to cut down on lines and wait times. The United Kingdom has restrictions on flying with fluids similar to those in the United States. If the new initiative significantly helps move passengers through the airport, as predicted, it would not be surprising to see the same technology adopted more widely in the United States in the coming few years. Already, O’Hare in Chicago and Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta have begun using the technology. Heathrow is the first airport in the United Kingdom to begin implementing CT scanners in security lines, a project that will cost approximately $61.5 million USD and take several years to complete.

The Potential Downsides of New 3D Scanning Technology

While the price tag may sound shocking, UK Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has asserted that aviation companies, rather than taxpayers, would collectively cover the costs of implementing this technology. However, there is always the possibility that airlines will increase their ticket prices to offset the cost. Some passengers may not mind paying a premium on their tickets to save themselves time spent waiting in line, but the technology meant to speed movement through the airport could also hurt overall sales, at least in the short term.

It is also worth mentioning that the new technology does not eliminate the ban on traveling with liquids in excess of 100 milliliters—instead, it prevents the need to remove the bottles from a bag. However, travelers would no longer need to house their bottles of liquids in transparent plastic bags.

Should Airlines Pay a Tax to Guarantee Customer Repatriation? What You Need to Know

June 3, 2019June 3, 2019 by James Gill, posted in Administration, Airports, Passengers, Regulation, Transportation

Modern airports face a number of important challenges, from passenger facility charge (PFC) debates to technological modernization. One of the problems that has become more pronounced in recent months is airline bankruptcies. These have left many passengers stranded and scrambling to figure out ways to get home.

In April, the largest private airline in India, Jet Airways, announced its collapse with no warning and immediately canceled all of its domestic and international flights. The suspension was on a temporary basis due to lack of funding to purchase fuel and maintain critical services. Perhaps this announcement should not have come as a surprise considering that the airline announced serious financial issues in 2018.

Creditors did come to the company’s rescue. However, these events have left some people questioning whether airline should pay a tax to guarantee that customers will be able to return home.

The Collapse of WOW Air

The Jet Airways fiasco followed close on the heels of the collapse of WOW Air, a low-cost carrier based in Iceland. This company suddenly ceased operations toward the end of March. The WOW business model attracted a large number of customers, but it ultimately proved unstainable.

In November 2018, the chairman of Icelandair spoked about a finalized deal to purchase WOW. However, the Icelandair shareholders quickly shot the deal down once they realized the scope of the investment necessary to revamp the company.

After that, Indigo Partners also attempted to help WOW out until investors shot down the feasibility of the plan. Because of the quick collapse of WOW, its airplanes were still scattered across the world months after the bankruptcy.

WOW Airlines — Image by Oliver Holzbauer | Flickr

The Collapse of Alitalia

Another airline that has received a lot of attention is Alitalia, an Italian carrier with a long history of poor financial performance. In fact, the issues leading up to the current situation started in 2008 when the Italian government decided to privatize the airline on the eve of a global financial downturn.

Eventually, a purchase was negotiated with the Compagnia Aeronautica Italiana group, which failed to turn around the airline. Poste Italiane, funded by the Italian government, had to step in with a cash injection. Eventually, Middle Eastern airline Etihad purchased 49 percent of Alitalia.

Soon thereafter, Etihad experienced its own financial issues. This led to Alitalia starting the proceedings for bankruptcy again in 2017. The Italian government has kept the airline alive, but it seems like its days are numbered. Already, the company has delayed bankruptcy proceedings twice.

United Kingdom Suggests Repatriation Insurance Tax

Many people believe that something needs to be done to address the issues caused by these types of events. Recently, the United Kingdom took first steps toward action. The government proposed a new Flight Protection Scheme, which would involve an additional 50 pence per passenger per flight.

This additional money would require airlines to purchase an insurance plan that would repatriate passengers should the company ever experience a sudden bankruptcy. The recommendation comes on the heels of an Airline Insolvency Review.

The review showed that about 80 percent of British passengers travel abroad without any sort of insurance or other way to get home should the airline suddenly bankrupt. The situation is likely very similar, if not worse, in other countries around the world.

Naturally, the British aviation sector immediately pushed back against the proposed “tax.” Airlines UK, which represented 13 different carriers, stated that airlines face significant rising costs already. It believes that now is a particularly bad time to invoke further increases in the cost of airline travel.

British Airways also called out the proposal for being unfair and expressed a view that the new tax is a sort of levy to bail out other carriers. Much of this debate actually stretches back to 2017, when the British airline Monarch collapsed and left many UK nationals stranded. This event is what triggered the Airline Insolvency Review, which took two years to complete.

The Options Available to Solve the Repatriation Problem

The proposed Flight Protection Scheme is essentially a pot of cash that would be used to bring people home when their flights were suddenly canceled due to bankruptcy. Airlines would need to buy into this pot through an insurance policy. However, there is more to the recommendations. The government also wants to see a failsafe mechanism that would prevent airlines from stopping flights even when they go bankrupt.

While the details have not been worked out, the government wants to see a policy by which companies would be forced to keep flights going until their passengers could return home. This sort of plan has actually worked in the past. When Air Berlin started to fail, the German government infused it with enough cash to maintain operations for an appropriate amount of time.

Some critics of the plan have pointed out that the issue may not be a real one at all. While the Monarch fold was a disaster, time has passed since then and new precedents have been set. When WOW Air stopped its operations suddenly, 13 other airlines stepped in to offer passengers rescue fairs without any official government order to do so.

A general sense of duty and voluntary industry agreements drove this rescue mission. It seems likely that a similar thing would continue to happen, at least to a point. If airlines continue to fail at an alarming rate, however, the industry could experience fatigue. At that point a repatriation tax might prove useful.

This Is What You Need to Know about American Airports and Rideshare Policies

May 16, 2019May 10, 2019 by James Gill, posted in Administration, Airports, Amenities, Infrastructure, Locations, Regulation, Technology, Transportation, Vehicles

Many airports are experimenting with their own advances in transportation technology. However, they are also experiencing significant effects from the advent of new options, including ridesharing services.

Most people probably look as ridesharing services, such as Lyft and Uber, as a good thing. Unfortunately, they may actually contribute to a variety of problems in American airports. Many people have recognized that American airports have not developed at the same rate as international ones. These individuals may not know that this problem is, at least in part, directly linked to rideshare services.

In the United States, the vast majority of people arrive at airports in cars. Historically, they would use their own vehicles and park them on the premises or take taxis. However, rideshare services are cheaper and more convenient. This makes their growing popularity understandable.

A recent study found that prior to 2012, when ridesharing became widely adopted, 80 to 90 percent of journeys to the airport were made in taxis, rentals, and personal vehicles. The remainder of this figure comes from the limited public transportation options in some areas.

How Rideshare Services Cut into the Profits of American Airports

The situation has changed quickly. At San Francisco International, Uber and Lyft accounted for about 4 percent of drop-offs in 2014 and then 29 percent in 2017. During the same time, ridesharing-related business expenditures increased from 8 to 62 percent. Although this may not seem problematic at first, it actually contributes to the current underinvestment in infrastructure in American airports.

Historically, car parking has accounted for a significant portion of airport revenues in the United States. This revenue is now falling due to ridesharing, which ultimately means less money to reinvest in facilities. Furthermore, Uber and Lyft drivers, at least right now, pay less in access charges to pick up airport passengers. This is because they have less liberal access to the curbside than taxis. Diminishing taxi use has also cut into airport profits.

The growth of ridesharing services has certainly affected airports across the globe. However, this effect is especially strong in the United States because of the prevalence of personal vehicles. Additionally, there is resistance to transforming airports into bigger drivers of profit via better shopping and dining options.

American airports derive less than 10 percent of non-aeronautical revenue from retail and concessions. This is not the norm around the world, where major hubs like Changi in Singapore and Hamad in Doha have created luxury attractions for wealthy travelers. In other words, American airports have really relied on ground transport-based income. To maintain this source of income, a number of airports have begun changing their policies to increase income from rideshare providers.

Logan Airport in Massachusetts Begins Charging Rideshare Drivers

An airport that has made a lot of news in recent months is Logan in Boston. Very recently, the Massachusetts Port Authority Board of Directors approved a ground transportation plan that will begin charging a $3.25 drop-off fee for Uber and Lyft drivers starting in October 2019. Both of these company protested this change.

The new charge will help the airport recoup some of the losses it has experienced as a result of rideshare service adoption. The plan also creates an entirely new space at the airport for rideshare pickups at a centralized garage site, at least between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 a.m. In the early morning, pickups will be allowed curbside. In part, this policy addresses the issue of public transportation, which services the airport but with limited hours.

The new area would include dedicated ride-hailing areas, as well as space for check-in and checking baggage directly without needing to go to a separate space. According to the authority, the idea behind the new space is to reduce the number of rideshare trips without passengers, thereby reducing congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Estimates show that about 30 percent of empty trips will be prevented.

A representative from Uber has criticized the decision, arguing it will cost the airport significant money to execute while also charging passengers more. Both Uber and Lyft ran radio ads to oppose the change and collected more than 10,000 signatures on petitions. Ultimately, the fee is slightly less than the proposed $5 charge, but passengers will begin paying it soon.

More Changes Likely in the Future for Airport Rideshare Policies

Ideally, the new plan will raise some money for the airport that will facilitate infrastructure investments beyond the new garage area. When consumers see how this extra fee can actually improve their experience significantly in the long run, they may not push back as hard, but these effects will not be seen for years to come.

In line with the airport’s statement that the decision is to reduce congestion and greenhouse gas admissions, passengers on pooled rides, such as Lyft Line and UberPool, will have a reduced fee of $1.50.

Other airports across the country are starting conversations about similar decisions to address both the congestion at the curbside and the loss of revenue due to fewer long-term parkers. In the years to come, it will not be surprising to see some radical changes to policy that are even more forward-thinking than those at Logan.

This Is How AI Could Improve Airport Security

May 9, 2019May 2, 2019 by James Gill, posted in Administration, Airports, Facilities, Information Systems, Infrastructure, Security, Technology

Airports are quickly adopting a range of new technologies, from autonomous vehicles to artificial intelligence (AI), to improve passenger experiences and drive efficiency. One of the most significant ways in which AI is being implemented in airports has to do with security.

Across the globe, airports have implemented a number of new safety measures in recent decades because of emerging threats. In some instances, these measures have created significant delays when it comes to moving through the airport. As a result, the customer experience has suffered. This means airports are feeling mounting pressure to streamline the process as much as possible without creating any lapses in security.

Many airports, as well as the governments that back them, have looked to AI as a means of accomplishing the difficult feat of relieving wait times while maintaining strict security standards.

For example, the United Kingdom government recently invested 1.8 million pounds into the development of a new AI system in airports across the country. The Transportation Security Administration in the United States has implemented computed tomography (CT) scanners that implement AI to identify threats in several major airports. In other parts of the world, facial recognition has been implemented at customs and immigration stations.

These technologies do seem to have significant promise when it comes to improving security while minimizing wait times. Here’s how:

Machine Learning and Its Potential for Improving Security

One form of AI that shows the most promise is known as machine learning. AI systems can become more “intelligent” as they receive more information. In terms of airport security, systems can become very good at identifying threats based on patterns and do so much more quickly than a human could. Machine learning has driven trust in AI-based systems a great deal in the past few years.

Industry experts believe that implementing machine learning in airports could help avoid the need to scan certain items separately, such as laptops and other large pieces of electronic equipment. Letting passengers leave these items in their carry-on luggage as they pass through security would eliminate a significant amount of the delay caused in security lines.

One system employing this technology has already been developed. Called the Evolv Edge system, it uses cameras, millimeter-wave technology, and facial recognition to detect threats while people move through a scanner. The system successfully ignores non-dangerous items, such as keys and belt buckles, while reliably identifying explosives, firearms, and other weapons and hazardous materials.

Up to 900 people can pass through the scanner in an hour, making it not only more reliable than a traditional x-ray scanner, but also much faster. Evolv Edge is already being used to screen employees at the Oakland International Airport. It is expected to be deployed at other international airports soon.

How AI Could Reinvent the Airport’s Approach to Security

AI has already made a significant impact on airport security through biometrics. In the coming years, this technology will likely become even more widespread. A recent report showed that more than three-quarters of airports had new biometrics programs in the works for the coming five years. While people mostly associated biometrics with face scans, fingerprints and retinal scans are also expected to grow in popularity because of their reliability.

Some researchers want to go even further with this technology and have broached the possibility of behavioral biometrics. For example, University of Manchester researchers have created a system that identifies individuals based on gait and walking patterns as they step across a pressure pad. Each person has a distinctive, singular walking pattern.

Another application of biometrics is already being tested. The iBrderCtrl project involves an AI program in which a virtual border guard asks standard questions to individuals in an immigration line. If the system believes that the passenger is lying because of facial expressions, the individual gets passed on to a human for further review.

Of course, there is the question of accuracy with such technology. Early implementation of iBrderCtrl had a success rate of 76 percent. The developers believe that tweaks will make it 85-percent accurate. However, this rate may still not be acceptable to some airports, at least not as a primary means of maintaining safety.

The Challenges to Implementing AI-Driven Airport Security

Scrutiny of these systems remains high, especially after some prior failures. In the United States, $160 million was spent on body scanners that were later found to let serious threats through during undercover testing. Because of this, the standard is very high for AI technologies.

However, there is another hurdle that airports need to surmount: the amount of information collected by these systems, especially when it comes to biometrics. A great deal of information security is necessary to safeguard the privacy of passengers. In other words, while there is a lot of potential for AI in airport security, there are also significant challenges to overcome.

This Is Why Airport Executives Want to Raise PFCs

May 2, 2019 by James Gill, posted in Administration, Airports, Facilities, Infrastructure, Personnel, Regulation

In March, airport executives appeared before the US House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to advocate for the ability to increase air traveler fees. Specifically, these individuals want to increase the passenger facility charge (PFC) charge to airplane passengers. Currently, the PFC is capped at $4.50 per individual per leg of a flight.

The fee has not been increased in nearly two decades. This has significantly hindered the ability of American airports to develop as quickly as some of their international counterparts. The executives pushed for nearly doubling the fee with an increase to $8.50, largely because the cap has not been raised in such a long period of time.

Issues Arising from the Current American PFC Policy

The concern with the current PFC policy is that it forces airports to finance projects over very long periods of time. This is because they do not have the capital upfront to pay for them. The effect of financing projects is the increased interest associated with making payments over time.

One executive said that his airport has paid almost as much in interest as the cost of the project itself as a result of financing issues. Even a modest increase in the PFC would empower airports to substantially reduce financing costs. This would enable them to channel these funds directly to improvements that provide a better experience for passengers, which is, after all, the reason for the per-person charge.

Many of the air terminals around the country were built in the 1980s and 1970s, if not the 1960s, and have had few or no updates. As a result, American airports remain behind the times, especially when compared to many of the top facilities around the world. Many of these airports provide passengers with incredible amenities, especially for people on long layovers.

Providing a better travel experience could actually lead more people to fly, especially if they know that there is plenty to do in the airport during their down time. However, lawmakers are reluctant to increase PFCs because they believe that increasing the cost of a ticket will discourage people from traveling by air.

The Argument for Increasing PFCs for Air Passengers

Already, people who fly pay billions of dollars annually to airports in the form of PFCs. At the same time, this amount of travel has resulted in the need for significant infrastructure improvements and investment. The executives argue that lawmakers should be more concerned with these infrastructure issues than with the additional charge put on each passenger’s ticket.

It is true that increasing the PFC will result in more expensive airfare. However, unaddressed infrastructure problems could lead to serious issues down the line. This is especially true when it comes to convenience and even safety.

Not all of the airport executives involved in the debate believe that PFCs should be raised. The CEO of a budget airline acknowledges the significant infrastructure needs that have arisen in the United States. However, this CEO believes there are solutions that do not involve increasing airfares, which have the potential to disproportionately impact the ordinary consumer.

Other executives are skeptical that raising the fees would actually reduce the number of Americans who choose to fly. After all, airlines themselves increase passenger service fees without a substantial impact on flight rates. Last year, several major airlines increased their baggage fees by $5, more than the requested jump in PFC. Notably, passenger boarding rates did not decrease significantly as a result.

Congress Remains Divided When It Comes to Raising PFCs

Lawmakers have listened to the concerns raised by these airport executives. However, they are reluctant to approve an increase in maximum PFCs. These individuals are hesitant to increase any financial burden on the public resulting from financing issues. This is particularly true when there are different avenues to consider, such as private capital.

Ultimately, the committee wants to hear more from other parties involved. Stakeholders include local communities and passengers, and it is important to know how these audiences feel about the fees and the state of American airports. At the same time, executives feel like they have explored all relevant options and they feel an increase in PFCs is the most appropriate way to address infrastructure issues.

The other perspective that is important to consider is that fact that airports generate about $1.4 trillion in the United States by creating 11.5 million jobs. Protecting this source of income and employment should become a priority for the House of Representatives. This is only possible when critical infrastructure issues get addressed.

Passengers pay billions of dollars in PFCs. However, airports need billions more to modernize airports to provide travelers with the experience and amenities they expect. According to a recent study, airports will need more than $128 billion to address critical infrastructure needs in the coming decade. If the overall experience of flying begins to decline in quality, then it is just as likely that people will start flying less frequently. This puts the whole industry at risk.

Category: Administration