All major investments are perceived to be risks for airports, but a new kind of risk has emerged in light of recent labour shortages: the possibility that an airport will be left behind by not investing in their baggage handling operations.
Ensuring passengers reach their destination with their baggage is of paramount importance to airports, but it is not because they fear the passengers will ‘shop elsewhere’.
Often, geographical convenience, or the provision of preferred routes, will outweigh concerns over baggaging failures. Regular flyers have most probably got used to the possibility their bags will go astray occasionally – particularly on intercontinental transit routes.
Rather it is because the airport fears the airlines might move elsewhere – along with the overall damage to its reputation.
The capability and flexibility of the BHS will play a large role in both attracting and retaining the airlines, as an optimal BHS will limit the amount of lost or damaged luggage – the biggest cause of passenger dissatisfaction in air travel.
So while a modern BHS solution or upgrade, like any major outlay, is a financial consideration, airports face a bigger risk by not investing: the possibility an airline might move elsewhere is a growing one.
The quick development in BHS in recent years can almost be solely attributed to a need for more system capacity and the fast need for automation to alleviate labour shortages.
During the Pandemic, airports terminated the contracts of most of their BHS employees, as did most ground handling operations. Since air passenger travel resumed, many have struggled to recruit sufficient numbers.
It has forced airports to increasingly use automation in both the handling and loading processes – because if they don’t, they will not be able to cater to the number of flights at the airports.
With fewer staff, airports will experience delays for:
But despite the certainty that investing in a well-designed BHS will alleviate many of their labour concerns, and the knowledge that a heavily reduced OPEX will see them recoup any additional outlay they might spend on a modern BHS such as ICS, compared to a conventional conveyor, many simply do not invest.
Partly it’s the fault of BHS equipment suppliers. During the 2000s and 2010s, automation was a buzzword, but instead of offering end-to-end baggage handling solutions, most providers merely sold baggage sortation machines.
These machines tended to be geared toward helping workers handle luggage, but they did not automate the full baggage process or deliver other benefits.
Airport operators’ biggest BHS problems tended to revolve around adhering to regulations around health and safety.
Consider for a moment what is the worst-case scenario of a passenger flow blockage on a key passageway at the airport.
It will cause a diversion, but the airport’s infrastructural flexibility will ensure that passengers still find a way to catch their flight.
Now imagine what would happen if there’s a baggage flow blockage in a BHS without modern applications like instant re-routing.
There could be as many as 20,000 unsorted bags in the system, and it is broken. All of the bags need to be taken out manually, piled on top of one another and then sorted.
It will cause huge delays and severely impact the customer satisfaction levels.
Situations like this underline how BHS is the airport’s most critical infrastructure – only the IT systems come close.
A modern ICS is designed with a prolonged life cycle in mind – and airports should consider their future role when making changes.
Choosing an ICS over a conventional conveyor will require a larger CAPEX, but the decision will start to pay dividends after just four to five years of the life-cycle, as an airport can expect to save on their OPEX in a large number of ways:
Amid acute labour shortages, it’s reached a point when airports not investing in their BHS risk being left behind. And they owe it to themselves to invest smartly, not only based on the capital expenditure (CAPEX) but also by looking at the ongoing operational expenditure (OPEX).
