Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sydney Airport to Instate RFID Baggage Tags

Posted by samzenpus on from the track-your-shirts dept.

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."

9 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Unfortunatly by El+Lobo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    1. Re:Unfortunatly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Unfortunatly by unPlugged-2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Software Defined RFID - The Rifidi Emulator
  2. KLM already does at Amsterdam (Schiphol) by Ixlr8 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

    --
    -- Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  3. Re:riiiiiight.... by arun_s · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
    --
    I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
  4. Re:riiiiiight.... by sim60 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  5. Re:riiiiiight.... by DaveCar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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>

  6. Re:So that 1.7 billion figure... by schnooka_boy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Not really a new tech by giuntag · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.