Airports are in the business of ensuring their passengers reach their destination on time, safely, comfortably and with all their baggage. The need for a reliable Baggage Handling Systems (BHS) is therefore paramount to the functionality of an airport, which is why many are choosing a modern Individual Carrier System (ICS) to optimise their baggage operations.
Disclaimer: This text was originally written in English and translated using AI.
The airport must consider many key factors before it chooses a BHS. Cost, reliability, efficiency and speed are all important, but ultimately the surroundings could outweigh them all.
After all, no two airports are identical, and the same is true of a modern BHS. Every system is tweaked to best fit the surroundings of the buildings that the airport inhabits.
Climatic considerations, such as humidity, can influence the choice. And so too can the building: ground-level airports simply can’t incorporate certain BHS systems due to necessary vertical height requirements.
Let’s for a moment compare the baggage sorting system of an airport to one you might find at a parcel distribution centre (DC).
Both play key roles, receiving thousands of items an hour, sorting them into various chutes so they arrive at their correct destinations.
But while the DC is designed to solely house the parcel sorter system, an airport has many other priorities: passenger comfort, retail, security, to name but a few. BHSs are accordingly designed to fit in with their surroundings.
The fallout of the systems breaking down couldn’t be more different. At the DC, the result is delayed deliveries – it’s unfortunate, but rarely critical. But at the airport, the fallout can be severe and far-reaching.
It won’t just cause delays that inconvenience airlines and passengers, but also affect arrival times at other airports, and consequently flight times over the rest of the day across an ever-widening geographical area.
That’s why an optimal BHS is so important, and why airports need to make the right selection – the wrong choice could adversely affect their performance.
So what qualities should an airport be seeking in its new BHS?
The tracking of bags (# 2 and 3) is not too dissimilar to the times a Tour de France race leader might be expected to clock at specific points during a time trial (the finish line being the bottom of the chute).
When the photo cell/tag reader does not detect the bag as anticipated at specific points, the bag falls out of sync with its virtual window, the system is warned there is a problem, security protocol is activated, and the bag will need to be re-identified and screened again – a drain on resources.
Some airports opt for a standard BHS belt option, but is this the best choice? The cross-belt system, for example, places the bag onto a completely flat, un-enclosed conveyor, which means there are no borders to stop it falling off.
This is a problem for soft round bags that can potentially roll, or top-heavy bags that can easily fall and tumble. Additionally, bags with big handles pose a risk they might get snagged on a corner.
When a bag falls off, or is even held back for 1-2 seconds, it loses its virtual window, along with crucial data, and it does not perform as anticipated – which is a problem, as 100 percent tracking is vital to the whole system functioning.
The bag might first recirculate around the loop, and then manual intervention is normally required, which involves re-identification and a revisit to security. This is time-consuming, costly and reduces capacity.
To discharge the baggage into the chute, cross-belt systems require increased acceleration, sourced from the motor in the conveyor the bag is sitting on.
If it’s too fast the bag might topple first and get misdirected or simply circulate on the spot; if it’s too slow it might miss the chute.
To counteract the problem, cross-belt system operators can slow down the speed, and/or make the chute bigger, but this reduces capacity as there will be fewer bags entering the sorter and fewer discharge points, so fewer flights can be catered to.
The typical cross-belt system can sort 4,000 to 4,500 bags during a period of peak demand – a long way short of the 5,000 to 6,000 the tilt-tray system, for example, is capable of.
Push the cross-belt system to the limit and the cracks will begin to show. In such an event, more labour resources are also required, driving up the cost.
The wooden tray used by a tilt-tray system is one of several BHSs generally preferred to cross-belt systems for their greater reliability.
Others include ICS, which uses plastic totes.
When the bag approaches the chute on a tilt-tray, the tray is simply tilted, at which point a kick effect is activated in case the bag is sticky, and gravity does the rest.
This means the chutes can be placed close to one another, so the maximum number of flights can be sorted.
Even at full capacity, the system has a sortation success rate of over 99.99 percent.
And what about the expense? The conveyor used by a cross-belt system might seem like an extra flat slab placed on the belt, but is in fact a complex piece of machinery.
As well as the motor, it is equipped with a number of other parts. This makes it heavier, which exerts more pressure on the wheels and the rail, making the whole system more prone to wear and tear.
So the cross-belt is much more susceptible to damage than the tilt-tray, for example, and more maintenance and spare parts are required – all at extra cost.
The lifecycle of the conveyor is also much shorter than ICS options.
Cross-belt is a useful sortation technology – but a better fit for parcels than baggage. At airports, other BHS options are proving to be more reliable and less costly and labour-intensive as a result. However, sometimes the best choice of BHS is simply the one that fits the building.
