Sydney Airport to Instate RFID Baggage Tags

AcidAUS writes "Australia's Sydney Airport is investigating high-tech tagging methods for baggage handling, which could greatly reduce the number of bags that go missing each year. Industry experts say that baggage mishandling costs the industry globally $US1.7 billion each year, and that much of this cost is due to failures in the barcode-based tagging system."

Comments

Unfortunatly

[El Lobo]

Unfortunatly, better tagging is not a guarantee that things will go better with baggage. Growing passenger numbers and improved security procedures are the main factors fuelling estimated annual losses of one billion US dollars for the world's airlines in missing and mishandled baggage.
In almost all cases, baggage IS correcty tagged, but it's as always the human factor which fails to function correctly. Because all security restrictions, the baggage is now in many cases manually examined and the volume of the baggage traffic and personal stress are still the main causes for missing or damaged baggage.

Re:Unfortunatly

[Anonymous Coward]

Sydney Airport taxs/fees/cost per pax are too high - globally they are bottom of benchmark efficiency. They are not providing a service as it is.

I'll tell those wallys that the existing tags are just as strong, or stronger than any plastic rfid. At 7 cents per sticker vs $1.00 per tag, it sounds like a scam to pass on inflated costs and pocket the difference. Don't see how they will re-cycle used tags, or allow customers to 'register' their own tags.

It also removes the incentive for on-time planes by rewarding those who don't check in hours early. The number of metal'ish suitcases means they don't work well.

A study of lost luggage shows that airports do not attempt to find the owners- never more true since CAPS.

Lets see, added cost, no tangible benefit, risk of tag dropping off and grinding conveyor belts, and no cost benefit transparancy . Give them a dunce hat.

Re:Unfortunatly

[unPlugged-2.0]

Yes but you see this is exactly what RFID helps with.

"The Human Factor fails to function correctly"

This what RFID helps to a certain extent. With the amount of stress the security and baggage personnel have their mistake level has gone up greatly. RFID allows an automated system that prevents this and makes it so they can just focus on their work.

Though I am very much against RFID in passports. RFID in baggage makes a lot of sense. Just google Delta, RFID and Atlanta to see some case studies where RFID reduced the number of lost baggages and also reduced the amount of processing time it took for a bag. In some cases by 33%.

This allows less load on airport employees and is actually needed to handle the increased traffic. So like you said growing passenger numbers and security is a concern but unless you are going to add more employees (which face it any compay won't do) you need technology to do it for you.

In this case the best tech for that is RFID.

riiiiiight....

[macadamia_harold]

Industry experts say that baggage mishandling costs the industry globally $US1.7 billion each year, and that much of this cost is due to failures in the barcode-based tagging system. ...and RFID, which is much like barcode except for the (far more insecure) scanning method is supposed to correct the "problem"? I smell an ulterior motive.

Re:riiiiiight....

[arun_s]

RFID, which is much like barcode except for the (far more insecure) scanning method is supposed to correct the "problem"? I smell an ulterior motive.

I was just reading Wired's coverage of the same news, and there are actually some valid points. From there:
A scanner can only pick up bar codes that pass directly in front of its laser; wet, folded or smudged tags are often unreadable, and scanners perform especially poorly when exposed to dirt or dust.

Whereas:
Utilizing radio waves instead of lasers, RFID doesn't require a direct line of sight between the reader and tag, and isn't affected by dirt or dust. RFID tags are generally more weather-resistant than paper labels, and the hardware is compatible with most existing baggage systems.

It actually sounds alright to me. I'll don my tinfoil hat when they attach it to passengers, but this looks like one place where RFID can be put to good use.

Re:riiiiiight....

[sim60]

Industry experts say that baggage mishandling costs the industry globally $US1.7 billion each year, and that much of this cost is due to failures in the barcode-based tagging system.

...and RFID, which is much like barcode except for the (far more insecure) scanning method is supposed to correct the "problem"? I smell an ulterior motive.

In this instance, the lack of 'security' of rfid is one of it's more useful features.

The system allows a tagged bag to be tracked over it's entire (in airport) journey from check in to luggage hold automaticaly, meaning that many more check points can be used without slowing down the baggage handling, and any luggage in the wrong place can be flagged quickly. It also means that bags cannot 'accidentaly' walk through the wrong door without the tag being removed making stealing luggage a little more difficult.

Re:riiiiiight....

[DaveCar]

And how, exactly is it far more insecure? If you can see a barcode you can read all of the information on it. If you are within n metres of an RFID tag you can read all the information on it. It is just a different method to read all of the information (usually just a long string of digits) on the tag. The scanning method is no more, or less secure.

Now depending on the context you might not want someone to be able to read the information unless they have some privileged status (border guard, checkout assistant) in which case having an RFID tag is rather like having a barcode printed on your forehead. I don't want a barcode printed on my forehead, so I probably don't want an RFID passport, but baggage which has an exposed barcode anyway - what's the difference?

Now if they don't do something stupid like including your name, address and vital statistics on the tag (which I'm sure they won't as it would cost much more for the increased capacity tag) then it really just means they don't need line of sight to read the tag so that dirty/crumpled/obscured tags won't foul things up. If it is the same information that an arbitrary person could get with a barcode reader as opposed to an RFID reader then it might just well be a better solution.

I smell an ulterior motive.

And what would that be? The airline already know *everything* about you which they can glean from your baggage by cross referencing the ID on the barcode with their database. Unless FRID tags can read your mind ... </conspiracytheory>

Re:riiiiiight....

[ayjay29]

>>It actually sounds alright to me. I'll don my tinfoil hat when they attach it to passengers, but this looks like one place where RFID can be put to good use.

I agree. With RFID you can route bags to the correct plane, or baggage claim automaticaly. You can flash lights and soundbuzzers if the wrong bag goes the whong way. You can also find the location of bags easily, as the readers cost a couple of hundrad bucks, there's no reason to monitor baggage flow at numerous locations.

As for your tinfoil hat, does it have a pocket about six inches by four?.

Re:riiiiiight....

[houghi]

As for your tinfoil hat, does it have a pocket about six inches by four?.

I made one. Took tinfoil, Duct tape on one side. Folded it into a sort of envelope. Duct tape on the outside. It is pretty robust in protecting my passport. It prevents scanning and still can be easily taken out when needed.

KLM already does at Amsterdam (Schiphol)

[Ixlr8]

KLM and Air France are already running a pilot project (pun not intended) on their service between Paris and Amsterdam. (See for example http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/260 0/1/1/ or go google yourself)

Re:KLM already does at Amsterdam (Schiphol)

[linuxci]

KLM also has supposedly the worst record of losing luggage in Europe that's why they introduced RFID in order to improve this (one of the reasons they had such a bad record was that they have a lot more people transferring through Amsterdam rather than using it as a start or end point). However, despite that, I've flown KLM on average twice a month for the past two years and my luggage always arrives. I've even tried short connections and awkward routings and my luggage has still arrived fine. I feel ripped off, my Amex card has excellent luggage loss protection (£750 if gone missing for at least 6 hours plus a further £1000 is it's lost) - my luggage goes missing and I have loads to spend on new clothes. Damn you KLM, you're supposed to be the worst in Europe for baggage handling but not once do you lose my luggage, not a nice way to reward my frequent travelling :(

Re:So that 1.7 billion figure...

[schnooka_boy]

One time I flew with EasyJet from Copenhagen to London. The devices that moved the luggage weren't working, so instead of waiting for them to work they decided to just put us all on the airplane, fly it in into the sky, and THEN tell us our luggage was left in Copenhagen. Thankfully it was the end of my trip, so no big loss. Not so thankful for a group of 4 girls who were just starting their 3 month vacation around Europe and everything they took with them was now gone. They had no place to have the airline send their luggage to either. Goooood times. Unfortunately, I don't think RFID will resolve general douchebaggery.

Not really a new tech

[giuntag]

Airports have been experimenting with this since at least 2001, and many are using it in production.

Contrary to what some posters assumed, rfid DOES in fact help quite a bit the baggage handling system:

- rfid reader can read tags which sit on the bottom / opposite end of the suitcase, while barcode readers cannot do it. The overall positive-read ratio is much increased. The tags are smaller and less prone to tear-off/smearing of the barcode print

- rfid card readers can read many tags at a time, hence the conveyor line can be sped up a lot (as in: put all baggages on the truck to the runaway, and the rfid reader is put on top of the gate below which the truck passes)

- if the complete baggage info, such as final destination, status of x-ray-check, etc is stored on the tag (there are quite a few bytes in there), any tag reader can decode it and sort the baggage even in the absence of network connection , ie . without interrogating a central db. Smaller devices, not even wifi-connected, can be used to recover info from baggages that are found stray in any airside area (and a working 802.11 inside a bhs system or covering a complete runaway is radio nightmare,trust me).
Downside: if that info is not crypted, it could be eavesdropped...

Of course, the point is still valid that all the new anti-terrorism measures are quite a nightmare for airports and airline handlers, and have a great impact on operative efficiency.

Will they actually use it?

[Urban Garlic]

I got a lesson about the baggage bar-code system a few years ago. I was flying from Calgary to Washington DC via Toronto -- you have to retrieve your bags in Toronto so you can clear US customs in Canada, plus there's extra security for Washington-bound flights (special secure gate, mandatory hand-search of carryons, baggage matching), so if the bags don't show, you miss your connection.

Well, my bag didn't show. I asked the clerks to check the computer and find out where it was, and they said they couldn't. I eventually pressed them as to why, suggesting that the bar codes might be useful, and they said the bar codes were not actually ever scanned. Now, that may have been true, or they may have been trying to get rid of a pestering customer, but it was clear in any case that the computer did not know where my bag was. They could not even confirm that it had been loaded on the flight out of Calgary. They had no idea at all.

As it turned out, it had been mistakenly directed to the domestic arrivals carousel instead of the US connections carousel, and I was able to retrieve it and go on my way.

I would love it if some kind of actually-useful, actually-used baggage tracking system were implemented.