Figure 5.3 shows a side-by-side comparison of check-in modes available using different check-in technologies. The shading in the figure above
Conventional
Check-in CUSS Check-in Online Check-in
Passenger Details Checked
Ticket Exchanged For Boarding Card Security
Questions
Passenger Details Checked Against ID
Manual Automated Passenger
Security Questions
Baggage Checked,
Weighed and Tags Produced at a ‘Bag-Drop’ Baggage
Checked,
Weighed and Tags Produced Passenger Details Inputted at remote site Security Questions Seats Allocated Seats allocated
and Boarding Card Printed Seats Chosen Boarding Card Ready to Print. Baggage Checked,
Weighed and Tags Produced at a ‘Bag-Drop’
Security Checks to ‘Airside’ Departures
Gates and Aircraft
CHEC
K-
IN
PROCES
152 depicts the level of automation involved using the three check-in technologies available. Both CUSS kiosk and online check-in technologies introduce an element of self service by the passenger. It is anticipated that these modes of check-in are not only faster to use for passengers, but reduce the cost of every check-in transaction; there is a reduced staff requirement and more passengers can go through the check-in process in a similar floor space within a terminal building.
At the time of writing, NEMA has both conventional and CUSS check-in capabilities. There are plans to launch online check-in with one of the airlines for the summer peak-season in 2008. This will increase the use of bag-drop desks (the interchange where checked luggage is passed from passenger to handling agent to be placed on the flight). Passengers will check-in using CUSS or online either by computer, PDA or mobile telephone and will proceed straight to the bad-drop desks where their baggage will be weighed, tagged and sent to the correct flight.
These kinds of technology opens the possibility for check-in to be performed outside of the usual departure hall with an array of desks located in the terminal building of the airport. Kiosks can be located at car-park facilities or at nearby public transport interchanges (e.g. bus and rail stations). The kiosk represents functional simplification (Luhmann, 1993; Kallinikos, 2004; 2005; Kallinikos, 2006b) of a portion
153 of the check-in process (see figure 5.3); the checking of passenger details, the legally required security questions are asked, the allocation of a seat on the aircraft and the printing of passengers’ boarding cards are all performed by the CUSS kiosk machine. Having checked-in for the flight, the passengers then must then take any hold baggage to a ‘bag- drop’ desk (similar to a conventional check-in desk, but only dealing with the processing of hold baggage). At this stage the bags are weighed, tagged and associated with a passenger on the flight. It is a legal requirement that hold baggage is ‘reconciled’; bags cannot travel without their owner. This was implemented as a security measure following the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, where a bomb placed in an unaccompanied suitcase exploded bringing the aircraft down over Lockerbie, Scotland UK. Bag-drops are used to transfer passengers’ baggage to be stowed in the aircraft hold by passengers using online as well as CUSS check-in.
For managers at MAG and NEMA this presented a new spatial challenge that had never been encountered in check-in halls before. Check-in desks typically line the back-wall of a building, opposite the entrances to the airport. There is one member of staff per desk who completes the check-in for a given flight and one flight at a time is served by a number of desks. The layout is conducive to accommodate queuing space in front of the desks and as a safe buffer between the automated baggage handling system that lies directly behind the desks and members of the
154 public. The adoption of kiosk and online technologies means that the ‘desk’ in the departure hall takes on a different function; to tag and then transfer baggage from the passenger to the baggage handling system. This has two immediate implications for the way space is used in the building. First, is that kiosks occupy the space where passengers would queue for the traditional check in desk and second, that kiosks and bag- drop desks will serve more than one flight at any given time. This presented challenges to managers who had to reconcile the addition of kiosk operations to established and solidified airport designs.
In the first era of self service check-in, individual airlines installed their own (proprietary) kiosks to reduce the number of check-in desks they would have to hire from an airport and pay for staff from handling agent companies. This was problematic for two main reasons. The first is that airport managers lost control of available space in their terminal buildings. Once an airline installed a dedicated kiosk, this was space that could not be used for anything else. Furthermore, if all airlines were to install their own equipment the terminal floor space would become overcrowded with kiosks. Secondly, proprietary kiosks did not fit with the established revenue streams in the airport industry. Whereas airports and handling agents may still receive revenue from operating bag-drop desks, a kiosk had no immediate yield for either airport or handling agent. This was a common issue raised by managers at NEMA
155 and MAG, the Terminal Services Development Manager at Manchester Airport recalls:
“It all started when airlines were going to self-service and more and more airlines were going individually to self-service and airports then started to say ‘oi, you know, there’s going to be a proliferation of these machines, do we start charging for floor space etc etc?’”
CUSS kiosks allow airport managers to control the space in terminal buildings because they are owned and positioned by the airport. At the same time, airlines can be charged per transaction using the kiosks which means that revenue can be generated by the airport. As the StB initiative identified and as the associated IATA materials emphasise (2004; 2008b), CUSS will deliver substantial savings as compared to conventional check-in. This balance of ownership by airports and payment by airlines seems to satisfy both parties. The implementation of CUSS does appear to take business away from handling agents, firms that would provide trained staff to perform conventional check-in on behalf of airlines. An interview with the Head of Operations at Gatwick for a major handling agent revealed that CUSS was perceived more of an opportunity for handling agents than a threat:
156 “From the check-In side of things, you already have Internet check-in, kiosk check-in, which is all fine; those are technologies that are being explored by the community. We’re exploring the same technologies because as a handling agent we provide the service and while it’s a produce enhancement, it doesn’t get away from the fact that you’ve still got to dump your bag. You know, so you still have the infrastructure requirement.”
For the constituent agents involved in airport operations, CUSS is certainly re-shaping the way they conduct their business. For handling agents, it has prompted a move toward running the bag-drop desks, having customer service teams to assist with CUSS check-in and focusing on ‘airside’ operations such as baggage handling, catering, cleaning and passenger movement on the airfield (stairs, busses, etc.). Amidst an industry move toward passenger self-service, handling agents have been quick to adjust their organizations to suit the self-service environment. In this sense it is possible to see how technologies such as CUSS are involved in shaping the spaces within airport terminals and simultaneously are reshaping the activities of organizations involved in airport operations. While the informational aspects (reservation, ticketing, passport checks) of passenger check-in are now dispersed across a range of available technologies, handling agents are focussing more on the physical flows of baggage that occur at check-in.
157 The following sections examine the roles internal organizational constituents involved in the implementation of CUSS Kiosks at NEMA and the organizational effects following their implementation.