Category Archives: news media

will drones soon be delivering your mail?

A version of this story was published in Postal Technology International magazine in Spring 2014.

When Amazon head Jeff Bezos unveiled a fleet of unmanned robot helicopters that his company plans to use to make parcel deliveries it was a masterstroke of PR.

The announcement came last November over the Thanksgiving weekend, one of America’s biggest shopping periods, and made headlines around the world. But while the timing led cynics to deride Bezos’ drone delivery test project as little more than a cheap publicity stunt, others saw the plan as the true taste of things to come.


Technology geeks predicted that drone delivery could help usher in a whole new era where the half-hour deliveries Bezos was promising could enable the creation of a ‘sharing economy’ where goods could be rented and returned rather than bought outright. Others were worried about the safety impact of thousands of drones buzzing around our home towns, with one observer noting wryly in the Washington Post, “It’s all fun and games till Sally loses a finger.”

But while there’s little chance our streets will be swarming with postal robots any time soon, the signs are that drone delivery is being looked at seriously by postal companies worldwide.

Just a few weeks after Amazon’s announcement DHL used a quadcopter to fly a package of medicine from a pharmacy in Bonn to the company’s headquarters on the other side of the Rhine river. Emblazoned with the DHL logo the ‘Paketkopter’ – as the drone was called – flew at a height of 50 metres for one kilometre, taking just two minutes to complete its journey.

DHL said its test flight was for research only and, like Amazon, insisted they have no plans to begin drone deliveries any time soon.

In Australia, however, the concept will soon become a reality thanks to student textbook delivery start-up Zookal, which will launch its own fleet of delivery drones in Sydney this year “pending final regulatory approval”.

Ahmed Haiser, CEO of Zookal, says that due to the location density of most Australian universities they will focus initially on “hyper local” delivery.

He says: “The drones are equipped with a unique delivery mechanism that lowers the parcel to the consumer to collect. The parcel is not dropped to the ground and the drone hovers above the consumer’s GPS location safely lowering the package through our delivery mechanism.”

Zookal has been helped by a friendly regulatory climate in Australia, one of the few countries that permits commercial drone use. Despite Amazon’s announcement commercial unmanned vehicle use remains illegal in the US. That looks set to change in the near-future however.

An aviation law enacted by President Obama in 2012 already allows the use of unmanned aircraft by public safety entities like the police, firefighters and other emergency services. Among the agencies that have taken advantage of the law are the US Coast Guard, who used a drone in a recent raid on a boat trafficking over 560 kilos of cocaine in the eastern Pacific, and the Department of Homeland Security, which uses Predator drones for border surveillance.

The other main non-military use of drones right now is for scientific research. They are being used to perform ice cap studies in the Arctic, track coastal erosion and monitor populations of endangered species.

According to Les Dorr, a spokesman for the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), the signs are that the 2012 law will be extended to include commercial craft by 2015. Dorr says the FAA ruling due next year is likely to include authorization for “small unmanned commercial aircraft under 55lbs”.

“There’s a real growth in this area,” says Dorr. “The FAA is already predicting 7,500 small unmanned aircraft in the air in the next few years.”

The FAA announced in late December the creation of six US test sites where it will the generate data that will inform how the commercial drone industry will be regulated.

High on their priorities during the testing phase will surely be how to make the craft safe and secure. While most drones have built-in anti-collision technology to keep them clear of trees, buildings, birds and – assuming the technology becomes popular – skies filled with other drones, towns and cities throng with people and if something were to go wrong the consequences could be serious.

Ron Tolido, chief technology officer for application services at the consultancy firm Capgemini, says that well-established industry safety standards are already in place to help ensure public safety.

Tolido says: “A sensor can sense its surroundings thousands of times within a second so that drones can adjust their position and course. And even complex swarms of delivery drones should not lead to collisions. Just look at a flock of perfectly synchronized birds (or fish) and you start to get the point.”

To minimize the chance of collision Haiser says Zookal use set flight paths that avoid residential areas where possible. Along with multiple fail-safe mechanisms and collision avoidance technology, Haiser claims the safety features make the risk of accident “the same as a commercial airliner falling from the sky”. In other words, very small.

But it’s not just safety issues that concern the public. Ask most people what comes to mind when you say drone and they’ll likely think of the technology’s original use as a weapon of war. In conflict areas drones are used to spy on and, in the case of the US military’s campaign in Pakistan, to kill the enemy.

Mario Mairena, government relations manager for the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), a trade body representing 8,000 members in 60 countries, admits that the technology’s military background has led to an image problem.

“There’s too many negative connotations because of how they are used in the theatre of war,” says Mairena.

As a result the AUVSI never uses the word drone in its literature, preferring instead the term unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

“Some people are against drones because they think they’ll be used for spying but when you think about it telephoto lens are used for surveillance but no one talks about banning cameras,” says Mairena, who says all AUVSI members sign on to a set of guidelines that expressly forbid the use of drones for surveillance.

The public perception aside, there are other important obstacles to drone delivery.

Richard Wishart runs the Delivery Management technology consultancy, advising posts on new technology solutions. He sees unmanned drones as a potentially disruptive technology but only if the “practical issues around the edges” can be ironed out.

Wishart says: “Weather is a detrimental factor. From my understanding most drones don’t perform well in high winds. So what happens to your deliveries when it’s blowing a gale outside?”

Added to this, he says, are the weight, size and range limitations of the drones. The octocopters favoured by Amazon can carry a maximum payload of 2.3 kilos and can travel no more than 10 miles. Meanwhile the payload boxes showcased in the trial could fit parcels of no more than about ten inches in length.

“Logistics relies on variability so a delivery system with such a narrow range of capabilities will struggle to succeed,” says Wishart.

It’s early days of course and there’s every chance that future generations of delivery drones could extend their range and payload capacity. What may be more difficult to get around is the problem of where to leave parcels. In a suburban, semi-rural or rural areas the drone could drop parcels on a driveway or in front lawn or even – as Wishart suggests – on a specially-designed helipad.

But what about inner cities? Short of flying in through the window there’s no obvious solution for how a drone would get a package to someone on the tenth floor of a London high rise, for example. Tolido suggests an “intermediate phase” where parcels could be delivered to local hubs.

“Door-to-door consumer delivery will clearly take quite some more time,” he says. “Both hubs and eventually homes will need specific equipment like docking platforms and storage facilities. Positioning can be done very precisely so this will not be an inhibitor.”

None of the obstacles to drone delivery are unsurmountable, says Wishart, whose keen to point out that the concept fits well into the emerging trend in logistics, spurred by the rise of eCommerce and omni-channel retail, for moving warehousing closer to the client.

“Their short ranges mean drones will need to operate from local warehouses,” he says. “Because of this they integrate well with the new paradigm.”

Advocates offer other advantages drones have over traditional delivery methods. For one thing they can work all the time and they are relatively cheap. Twenty drones costs equivalent to a single FedEx truck, and while Haiser won’t reveal the Zookal drone’s operational costs he expects it will come in at less than current same-day delivery fees.

If postal companies choose to invest in drones they’ll be joining a burgeoning market, says Mairena. A report by the AUVSI projects that regulations to expand drone technology to the commercial sector will help create more than 100,000 new jobs and generate more than $82 billion for the US economy in the next ten years.

Around 80 percent of this growth is predicted to come in agriculture. Drones can be used to more precisely spray crops and identify possible outbreaks of disease before they spoil a harvest. The companies Mairena represents look longingly to Japan where all the agricultural crop-spraying is now managed by a fleet of 2,300 unmanned helicopters.

The agricultural bias aside, Mairena sees no reason why drone delivery won’t be part of this Brave New World.

“I definitely see drones being used in this way,” he says. “I think it’s one of the smartest commercial applications of the new technology I’ve heard of.


china’s online explosion

A version of this story was published in Postal Technology International in Spring 2014. 

On November 11 last year a new record was set for the highest ever online sales in a single day.

There were several startling things about this record not the least of which was that it happened, not in the West, but in China.

Another two remarkable things were 1) the sheer scale of the shopping event – with $US5.75 billion in sales it eclipsed the amount sold by US retailers on so-called Cyber Monday the previous year by two and a half times. And 2) that all these sales were processed by a single company.


If you were to assume from this that China is undergoing an eCommerce boom you would be very right.

The stats speak for themselves.

According to the consultancy Forrester Research, the number of online shoppers is this year poised to exceed the entire population of the United States, making China’s eCommerce market the world’s largest. The 356 million shoppers set to be online in 2014 will help push the market value from $US294 billion in 2013 to $US604 billion in 2017, Forrester’s predict.

The boom in eCommerce has taken many by surprise including China’s domestic express delivery industry, which is struggling to keep up with demand.

The sheer the scale of the uptick would be reason enough for why the industry is swamped.

Last year express delivery companies handled 4.77 billion items, according to the express delivery industries own figures. That represented a 70 per cent increase on 2012.

To make things harder, there are no national delivery companies of the stature of FedEx or DHL in China and the market is fragmented. Added to this, transport networks and logistics services vary wildly in quality depending where you are.

Officials on the ground refer to the problem as China’s logistics ‘bottleneck’ and it’s something the eCommerce companies are seriously worried about.

In 2011, Jack Ma, the Chairman of Alibaba Group, the same online company that recorded the November 11 sales record, called logistics “a crucial link in the eCommerce eco-system” as he announced plans to invest $US1.5 billion to build a nationwide network of warehouses.

Last May, Ma’s firm clubbed together with other eCommerce companies and delivery companies to create the China Smart Logistics Network, a consortium that plans to invest $US16.3 billion over the next 5-8 years to solve the bottleneck.

“China is a unique market in that it is unlike any other in terms of geography,” a spokesperson for Alibaba Group told PTI. “The offline infrastructure is extremely underdeveloped, which is one of the contributors towards the massive uptake of eCommerce. And the logistics sector is fragmented and has no unified standards.”

The spokesperson identifies infrastructure, and in particular, technological capabilities as the biggest things holding back logistics.

“Many logistics companies lack the ability to efficiently allocate resources and manpower based on volume and location of incoming orders,” the spokesperson added.

Chee Wee Gan, a principal in the consultancy AT Kearney’s Strategic Operations Practice, says the current express delivery landscape in China can be divided into three distinct blocks.

“First you have the state-run company, China Postal Express. Then, you have the nationwide private delivery company Shunfeng Express, also known as S.F. Express,” says Gan, who is based in Shanghai.

“The third block is composed of logistics providers that operate through a franchise model. The biggest of these is S.T.O. Between them, China Postal Express, S.F. Express and S.T.O probably account for about two-thirds of the eCommerce delivery market.”

Companies like S.T.O oversee a network of locally-based courier services and, alongside S.F. Express, they account for about 80 per cent of the express delivery market, according to industry figures.

But Gan says that as the eCommerce market grows this model is being tested.

“A company like S.T.O has hundreds of small courier firms working under its franchise and this means the level of service can be inconsistent. It also makes certain services less efficient. For example, in the case of product returns, if a different company in the franchise handles the return there may be no financial incentive for them to do a good job.”

Concerns about poor service have been laid bare several times in recent years.

In 2012, the Chinese postal authority cancelled the permits of 116 express delivery companies amid growing reports of customers complaining about losses, theft, poor handling of parcels and massive delays, especially during peak times.

The most shocking case of malpractice happened last year when a Shanghai-based express delivery company sent out parcels coated in poison, resulting in the death of one recipient and leaving several others badly ill.

The company, Shanghai Y.T.O Express, issued a public apology after the toxic chemical apparently leaked on to other parcels during shipment, the Xinhua news agency reported.

Concerns about the domestic market have led some eCommerce companies to set up their own networks.

Online supermarket site Yihaodian has created its own last-mile delivery.

Yihaodian launched five years ago selling supermarket items but now offers a broad range of consumer products. It has 18 fulfillment centres in eight cities nationwide.

“We have around 3000 last-mile associates in 330 delivery depots, each associate owns a moped or bike,” says Harvey Wang, Yihaodian’s vice president of operations.

Wang says complaints about local couriers led Yihaodian to set up its own last-mile service.

He says the problems included “customer satisfaction on delivery services, including a stable lead-time, missing/wrong/damaged goods, and the attitude towards customers.”

By building their own network Wang says the company, which has a yearly turnover of about $US1billion and is half owned by the US retail giant Walmart, has achieved better delivery lead-times than in the US or Europe.

The undisputed king of Chinese eCommerce is the Alibaba Group.

Taobao, Alibaba Group’s giant eCommerce site, generates some 20 million parcel deliveries every day, accounting for 70 per cent of China’s total.

The site is often compared to C2C sites like eBay but in fact it’s more like store-hosting Websites like the arts and crafts site Etsy. Users set up their own online shops, selling goods to one another and to outside visitors to the site.

For Richard Wishart, from UK-based consultancy Delivery Management Ltd, the mass appeal of Taobao is no surprise.

“The Chinese have retail in their DNA,” says Wishart, who helped develop China Postal Express’ express delivery service, E.M.S. “They’re a nation of shopkeepers, and online is no different.”

Alibaba Group, which owns a number of other eCommerce sites including the highly successful B2C site, has so far resisted building its own in-house operation.

Instead it has focused its efforts on strengthening the existing logistics network.

“The reason why Alibaba chose to throw open its delivery arm to the market has to do with the type of company this is,” says Gan. “You have to remember it made its name with Taobao, an online marketplace. So the marketplace is where it feels at home.”

Alongside Alibaba Group the major shareholders in the China Smart Logistics Network are retailer Yintai Group, Chinese conglomerate Fosun Group, S.F. Express, and four other Chinese courier companies: Shentong, Yuantong, Zhong Tong and Yunda.

Their goal is to build an IT-driven network capable of delivering packages anywhere in the country within 24 hours. To do this they plan to use technologies like cloud computing to create a shared data platform to serve eCommerce, logistics companies, warehouse operators and supply chain managers.

Creating such a network will be a major undertaking.

Among the difficulties to overcome is the massive variances in quality and technological advancement between some of the courier companies.

S.F. Express, for example, has 10,000 vehicles, 14 aircraft and a network of 7,600 service centres. It offers SMS pick-up notification, a re-direct service and security features that allow customers to see a photo of the delivery man before he arrives. Meanwhile, its 200-plus distribution hubs are equipped with automated sorting systems.

This is a far cry from some of the warehousing operations run by the franchised courier companies that Gan has visited where he says there are “very low levels of automation, no Warehouse Management System (WMS) and products strewn all over the ground with no clear sorting process going on.”

Another area where major variances in quality can be found is in China’s transport infrastructure. Currently about 80 percent of express deliveries are carried out on the road, according to analysts Anbang Logistics.

But the road network in China is patchy at best, says Wishart.

He says: “There’s a huge disparity between the eastern coastal cities and rural China. Once you leave the cities motorways disappear into dirt roads. You’re talking about two totally different worlds.”

China grades its cities with different ‘Tiers’ ranging from 1 to 4 according to their stage of development.

The coastal cities Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou are classed Tier 1, as they were the first to be opened to competitive economic development and have a large middle class and income levels well above the national average.

But the biggest growth in eCommerce right now is actually going on in Tier 2 and 3 cities, says Gan.

“This is because there are not the bricks-and-mortar stores on the ground in these places to offer the diversity of shopping experience you could find in, say, Shanghai,” he says. “As a result, eCommerce is plugging the gap.”

One group conspicuously absent from China’s eCommerce boom are the well-established Western courier brands like FedEx, UPS and DHL.

According to Gan, the main reason they have had little impact on the domestic market are low margins.

He says: “The price points are just too low for them to compete. DHL, for example, bought a Chinese delivery company a few years ago with a view to getting into the domestic market but sold it at a big loss a couple of years later.

“Companies like FedEx have focused instead on B2B delivery where the margins are higher.”

Low margins may not be the only reason, however.

Until recently Chinese government policy largely excluded foreign courier companies from its domestic market.

UPS, for example, has had a base in China since 1988 but it wasn’t until just two years ago that China finally granted the company approval to provide express-package services within the country, and even then the approval only extended to five cities.

FedEx, meanwhile, which already provides service to more than 400 Chinese towns and cities through joint ventures with Chinese companies, was granted sole access to serve eight cities.

Wishart says China remains quite proprietary about its domestic market and that within government there is still a culture of suspicion towards western companies.

He cites his own experience. He set up an eCommerce website a few years ago. Although created in the UK it was translated into Chinese and aimed at the Chinese market. When he traveled to China, however, he found that the website was blocked in much of the country.

“I’d come up against the Great Firewall of China!”

terminally stuck

A version of this story was published in the September 2013 edition of Passenger Terminal World magazine.

THE recent case of the American whistleblower Edward Snowden gripped the world’s attention. Snowden went on the run after leaking secrets about America’s clandestine spying program to The Guardian newspaper.

After the US government revoked his passport and with no documents to enter Russia he found himself trapped in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport’s transit zone. For a few breath-taking weeks the media scoured the terminal building frantically searching for him, as we heard that Snowden was stuck in a kind of legal limbo, forced to remain in transit, unsure if and when he would get out.


The Snowden saga is extraordinary but perhaps the strangest thing of all is that it’s not unique. Nearly every year there are examples of passengers who get stuck in airport transit long-term.

Before Snowden, Sheremetyevo hosted Zahra Kamalfar, an Iranian women caught fleeing her homeland with false documents. In 2006 Kamalfar stayed with her two young children at the airport for nine months until her asylum claim was eventually regulated and she was allowed to continue on to Canada.

Last year, meanwhile, British national Gary Peter Austin spent a month at Manila airport without a flight home, and even as I write a Palestinian national has been living in Kazakhstan’s Almaty Airport for over three months, trying to get a flight out to Turkey.

The most extreme case of a passenger trapped in transit was Mehran Nasseri, an Iranian man who spent 18 years living at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris. Documentary-maker Paul Berczeller spent a year filming Nasseri at the airport, often sleeping alongside him in the terminal.

“It’s quite possible to live in a large modern airport; they’re like cities, everything you need is there,” says Berczeller.

Nasseri’s residency at the airport began in 1988 after a briefcase containing his travel documents was stolen before a flight to London and he was returned to France paperless. Even though he had legally arrived in the airport he had no right to be in France. Hence the ensuing legal limbo.

His home was a bench in Roissy’s Terminal One. He lived on handouts, and as his notoriety grew, occasional money made from media interviews. His story was eventually turned in to a film, “The Terminal”, made by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Hanks.

Berczeller says: “He once said to me, ‘I’m always a passenger’. I think people were drawn to his story because of the Kafka elements of it – getting trapped in this crazy bureaucracy. But also because it was like a metaphor for the rootlessness of modern life.”

To understand how a situation like Nasseri’s can come about it’s important to realize the unique legal status of transit zones. They are such a common part of the airport infrastructure we take for granted what a strange entity they really are.

With the exception of the US, which since the September 11 attacks requires all passengers transiting on their soil to have an American visa, most countries don’t make you cross a border when you’re in transit. As a result transit zones are regarded by governments as international territory.

The status of transit zones evolved accidentally. Originally they were set up to be tax and duty free areas. At the time, international travelers needed transit visas even if they stayed inside the airport. Processing all these visas became a burden, and the tax-free transit zones evolved to areas where immigration laws didn’t apply.

Human rights groups call them “a legal fiction”, saying their extra-territorial status has been exploited by governments as a way to shirk their responsibilities towards international law, particularly in regard to refugees seeking asylum.

Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen heads research at the Danish Institute for Human Rights, which has looked extensively into the laws relating to international borders.

Gammeltoft-Hansen says: “In the late 1980s you had rising numbers of refugees arriving by plane – the so-called jet-age asylum seekers. More countries began adopting the transit zones because they saw that they were a useful buffer against this type of migration.”

Many governments argue that the transit zone’s extra-legal status means international laws like

the principle of non-refoulement, whereby states are forbidden from returning new arrivals to countries where they face persecution, don’t need apply. International courts disagree, and in a landmark 1996 ruling the European Court of Human Rights rejected a claim by the French government that the non-refoulement principle did not apply to its transit zone at Paris-Orly airport.

In spite of this ruling many airports have expanded their transit zones massively. According to Human Rights Watch, the transit zone at Charles De Gaulle now stretches 12 miles from the airport to include hospitals and a court.

According to Gammeltoft-Hansen, while passengers tend to experience the transit zone as a designated area, governments themselves interpret its geographical range quite loosely. In the case of Snowden, the transit zone might have stretched to include a hotel or safe house some distance from the airport and could explain why he was never located by the media during his month-long stay at the airport.

Gammeltoft-Hansen says in recent years this expansion has also included locating more security checkpoints in the transit zone. These are usually operated by the airline or a private security firm sub-contracted by the carrier. This is because carriers face hefty fines from the destination country if they allow passengers to travel there without valid documentation.

“As a result of the sanctions carriers have become an important, though unwilling partner, in immigration control,” says Gammeltoft-Hansen. “At Istanbul airport, for example, UK border officials work alongside airlines checking travel documents. They want to catch people before they’ve arrived on UK territory when it becomes a far bigger headache to send them back.”

The same is true of passengers traveling to the States via Ireland, with US border patrol agents now installed in Shannon airport’s transit zone.

The transit zone in most airports is divided in to two sections. Most of us only see the open area, which is where you’ll find the duty-free shops, restaurants and airport hotels. Less well-known is the closed-off section where passengers without valid travel documents, most often asylum seekers, are brought.

These closed-off areas sometimes feature hotels though the guests in them may face prison-like security conditions. An Associated Press journalist on the trail of Snowden deliberately flew in to Sheremetyevo with a 72-hour layover and no Russian visa. He was taken to the airport Novotel where he was detained in his room without internet for the duration of his stay. For those with no resources conditions are far worse. Nearly all major hub airports in the US and Europe operate some kind of detention facility run by the host state or by private contractors.

A UK Home Office spokesperson said passengers at Heathrow who lack the right paperwork are held “at an Immigration Removal Centre whilst we try and get them documented”.

Depending where you are these detention centers range in quality. Rights groups have decried conditions in some of the detention zones in Eastern Europe as “inhuman”, with people sharing tiny cells and denied access to legal representation.

Even in cases where passengers are free to move about the airport, the experience of living long-term in a terminus can be harrowing. While many major hubs now have extensive retail and dining options the overall environment is not set up for prolonged stays.

“When you think about it an airport’s a pretty harsh living terrain,” says Cody Lundin, an outdoor survival expert based in Arizona. “The constant flow of people would make it very difficult to feel grounded.”

Lundin says that while getting stuck in an airport terminal might not seem to have a lot in common with finding yourself stranded in the bush, the key to making it through both scenarios is the same.

“Survival is 90 per cent psychology,” he says. “Getting stuck in an airport terminal is a form of prison and just like in jail, the hardest thing is when you don’t know when you’re getting out. Having an end in sight is critical for psychological well-being.”

A good example of this is Nasseri. By the time Berczeller first met him he had already been at the airport a decade and his mental state had deteriorated dramatically. He had taken to calling himself ‘Sir Alfred’ and telling far-fetched stories about his background. His legal status had evolved to the point where, had he wanted to, he could have left the airport and moved to Belgium under the care of a social worker. But he refused.

When he contacted Nasseri’s family Berczeller was told that he had none of these mental health issues before his time in the terminal. Nasseri left Roissy in July 2006 after he was hospitalized for several weeks. He now lives in a Paris shelter.

“Airports are romantic; they offer all this potential in terms of travel,” Berczeller says. “But when you’re trapped in one this same thing turns the experience maddening. All day you hear these announcements for departures to exotic locations, except you can’t go to any of them. You’re stuck.”


the baggage thieves

A version of this story was published in the June 2013 edition of Passenger Terminal World magazine. 

Police posted in the baggage claims area at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport recently arrested a man for stealing luggage from the carousel. The man, who has attempted to take luggage from the airport on multiple occasions, gave himself away because of the distinctive shoes he was wearing.


“He wears those same red shoes every time,” says Major Lane Hagan, commander of the Airport division of the Atlanta Police. “He makes it kinda easy for us.”

Not all the baggage thieves at US airports are quite as inept as the man in Atlanta, however.

Three years ago Arizona police arrested a man and woman for stealing over 1,000 pieces of luggage from Pheonix Sky Harbor International Airport. A police search of the home of Keith King, 61, and Stacey Legg, 38, reportedly revealed a cache of stolen luggage and valuables that the Kings had acquired on numerous raids of the airport’s carousels and which they had been selling to neighbours at yard sales.

The fact that carousel crime is possible at all is due to a security loophole inherent in the design of US domestic airports which means that unlike international airports, where the baggage claim is cut off to the public, the domestic baggage area is open and often located near the arrivals exit. This means anyone can simply walk in off the streets and directly up to the baggage carousel.

Given the apparent ease with which bags can be accessed the levels of carousel theft are comparatively low. Major Hagan said this is because the baggage areas are generally manned by police trained to watch for suspicious persons and airport staff coached in ways to reduce the risk of crime.

“In the roll call room we keep a record of recidivist offenders to be on the lookout for,” says Hagan. “Of those crimes we solve, I’d say about half the thieves are caught in the act and the other half we catch afterwards using security cameras.”

As a result of these and other measures Atlanta airport reported only eight baggage thefts in 2012. Not a bad statistic when you consider it processes about 250,000 travelers a day.

However, Nick Gates, baggage portfolio director for aviation technology giant SITA, says this statistic can be reduced to zero.

“There’s an easy, no-technology approach to preventing this which involves employing staff in the baggage area to check plane ticket stubs against bag tags,” says Gates. “The technology already exists to make this process quicker using portable scanners to verify the tags. Some airports do this manually but there are no airports using scanners as far as I’m aware.”

The checking of tickets stubs against tags was common practice a decade ago but according to David Magana, spokesperson for Dallas Fort Worth Airport, it has been discontinued in many places in part because of the fallout from the September 11 attacks.

“Bag tag checks are one more layer of security and in the post-9/11 world it’s a question of how much security the public is willing to stand and what the security agencies, whose resources are already stretched, can realistically afford to implement,” says Magana.

More resources have gone into the prevention of baggage thefts in transit, which both anecdotally and statistically is a far bigger problem.

According to SITA’s annual baggage report, of around three billion global airline passengers last year 3.36 million reported damaged or pilfered baggage. The report found that damaged or pilfered baggage makes up 12.9 per cent of the mishandled baggage claims brought by passengers.

Not all these baggage claims may be genuine, however. The IATA surveyed its members last year and found that airline staff estimate about 9 per cent of claims for lost or stolen baggage are fraudulent, and a further 32 per cent are exaggerated.

Even without the false claims a quick scan of the news media reveals a litany of thefts carried out on baggage in transit. The culprits are often baggage-handlers but also include airport security staff and couriers with access to luggage.

In April this year an airport worker at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport was accused of

stealing nearly $85,000 (56,000 GBP) in valuables from checked luggage, including iPads, laptops, cellphones, cameras and 10 firearms.

David Vang, 23, who was employed to maintain baggage conveyance systems, was caught after police hid cameras in the area where they believed the thefts were occurring. According to court documents, surveillance footage showed Vang taking items from luggage and hiding them until his shift ended.

Behind-the-scenes baggage theft is not limited to the US. There has been a spate of cases in the UK and Europe. In 2010, Bedfordshire Police found 32,000 GBP in cash and nearly 17,000 cigarettes at the homes of two cleaners working at Luton Airport. Meanwhile, in May this year police in Italy arrested 49 people, many working as baggage-handlers for Alitalia, after an 18-month long investigation into baggage theft at seven Italian airports.

Dealing with this theft has become a major priority of both law enforcement agencies and airlines. They have been aided a good deal by the technological improvements present in current baggage handling systems.

Danish baggage handling technology maker Crisplant says modern systems have early detection monitors built in which make it hard for would-be thieves to remove luggage from its transit cycle.

Debbie Norton, a spokesperson for Crisplant, whose systems are used at dozens of major airports including Heathrow, Frankfurt and Bangkok, says: “Our software knows nearly the exact position of each item of luggage inside the system and in which order it is transported through.

“If any disturbance is detected, an alarm will appear in the control room to indicate where the irregularity is. This alarm can be linked to the airport’s existing CCTV and cameras will be activated in the area indicated by the alarm.”

SITA too boasts high tech bag tracking systems which make it difficult for a disappeared item of luggage to go unnoticed for long.

SITA’s BagManager technology, used at about 140 airports globally, tracks and reconciles baggage during its journey. Meanwhile, its WorldTracer system, currently in use at 2,000 plus locations, works retrospectively to find luggage that is missing or delayed.

“BagManager allows the airlines to know exactly where a bag should be at any given point on its journey,” says Gates.

Delta and US Airways, meanwhile, have made their bag tracking software available to passengers. In the case of Delta they have created a smartphone app that passengers can download and which offers real-time information on their bag’s exact position, similar to the tracking service now offered by many postal companies.

As is borne out by the statistics many thieves manage to circumvent these safeguards, however. When this happens the investigation of the fraud can be hampered by additional problems associated with the reporting of the crime.

“Most of the time the place where the victim reports the theft is not where it took place,” says Police Chief Kevin Murphy, who oversees security at Cincinnati International Airport. “They might get to Chicago and discover their laptop was stolen but it could have been taken out of their bag in the departure airport or at any of the connections along the way.”

In the past this has meant a lot of thieves getting away with it, as airport police and airlines in the locations where the crime was reported prove either unable or unwilling to investigate the points along the way where the theft may have occurred.

To counter this problem airport police in the States have set up the Airport Law Enforcement Agencies Network (ALEAN), an intelligence-sharing portal that traces baggage theft on US domestic flights. Victims can report the theft on ALEAN’s Website, noting down their full flight itinerary. ALEAN staff then key this intelligence into a database containing earlier reports where they can look for patterns that might point them to the source.

Chief Murphy, who is vice president of ALEAN, says they are looking for repeat offenders rather than opportunistic thieves.

“If we look at the data and see there’s been a half dozen flights passed through one particular airport that’s going to raise a flag,” he says. “Then we can contact the airport with the flight numbers and times and find out who was working the shifts those days. If a name keeps recurring we can set up a case on them.”

All of these measures do seem to have had an impact on the level of theft. According to the US Bureau of Transportation in 2012 the rate of bags lost, stolen, damaged or pilfered in January and July respectively was 3.30 and 3.52 bags per 1,000 bags. In both months that represented a fall from the 2011 rate – 4.29 and 3.72 for January and July respectively.

Upcoming technologies will make it even harder for potential thieves. A number of companies are already selling electronic bag tags known as radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags. The IATA is looking at creating an industry-standard RFID tag, which passengers will be able to attach to luggage and which will broadcast its location to them via Wifi and GPS.

But technology on its own cannot solve the problem.

“At Cincinnati we tell our staff in arrivals that if they see a bag going round and round they should take it off,” says Chief Murphy. “Tackling this crime means staying vigilant after all.”

get airport check-in on the same page

A version of this story appeared in the November 2012 edition of Airport Terminal World magazine.

The world’s airports are getting larger and the number of carriers they host is growing year by year.

To deal with this proliferation in airlines and passenger numbers, a long-term goal of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) has been to see a single passenger processing system put in place that can be used at all airport check-ins and boarding gates around the world. This industry-wide system has become known as “common use”.


Nearly a decade in its development the Common User Passenger Processing System, or CUPPS, was meant to answer the IATA’s goals when it was unveiled in 2008.

Four years on, enthusiasm for CUPPS is still muted.

Las Vegas’ McCarran was the first major hub to switch to CUPPS, meanwhile South Korea’s Incheon Airport has invested 2.5 million GBP in a CUPPS conversion for its Korean Air and Asiana Airlines terminal and Berlin’s recently-opened Brandenburg airport has been completely fitted out with the system.

Elsewhere however there has been a lukewarm reaction to the new system. According to the IATA, about 350 of an estimated over 2,000 medium- to large-sized airports around the world have a common use system in place. But most of them operate using CUPPS predecessor, CUTE.

In spite of a relatively low take-up the IATA remain confident that CUPPS is on track to become the industry standard. Paul Behan, the IATA’s Head of Passenger Experience, said that he expected the figures for common use airports to rise to 400 in the next 12 months with most of these new conversions likely to upgrade to CUPPS. Although only a small proportion of airports have fully adopted the new system Behan said there were over a hundred airports that were “CUPPS ready.” In other words they can support airlines with a small number of CUPPS applications.

The change to CUPPS will not happen overnight,” said Behan. “Most airports are locked-in to business cycles that committ them to their current passenger systems. These cycles typically last five to seven-year but we predict that when these cycles come to an end a lot of them will be switching to CUPPS.”

CUPPS, like its predecessor CUTE (Common Use Terminal Equipment), is a set of technical standards that allows airports and airlines to develop passenger services that are compatible with one another. In practice this means that a CUPPS-compliant airline can use the check-in and boarding systems of any CUPPS airport around the world. The same is true in reverse. In other words, a CUPPS airport can host any number of CUPPS carriers.

The concept of common use goes back to the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. At that time the city’s main airport, LAX was only set up to host a small number of carriers and found itself overwhelmed by the sudden influx of international airlines resulting from the Games. These carriers had their own check-in systems that were incompatible with the systems in place at LAX.

At this time the airline industry began to moot the idea of a standardized system which could be used interchangeably by different airlines operating at different times from the same check-in desks. As a result of these discussions CUTE was created.

Although CUTE has performed a valuable service in bringing common use to the industry, Behan said there are certain systemic problems. One is that much of the hardware associated with CUTE is specialized for the airline industry and therefore expensive.

Another issue is a cumbersome certification process. Although CUTE is meant to provide a common standard in reality there is still a lot of variation. Since none of the platforms developed by software companies to host the various airlines are compatible with one another, this means airlines have to create multiple versions of their own applications that will work with the different platforms. It is rather like recording a song on to an MP3 and then having to convert it CD, vinyl and tape cassette.

This situation was complicated further by the fact that the CUTE system mandated airlines to re-certify on every platform each time an application was changed.

As a result of these shortcomings discussions about a possible follow-up to CUTE first took place at an airline industry summit in Seattle in 2000. Discussion and development went on several years and resulted in the first pilot program for CUPPS at Orlando airport in 2009 run by air transport communications firm SITA.

Behan said the new system had a number of important advantages over CUTE.

One of the main improvements is that CUPPS has been designed to work with off-the-shelf products,” said Behan. “This means that instead of using a printer costing several thousand pounds to print boarding passes you can use a big brand printer that costs less than a tenth of that. So that while it’s true that a conversion to common use requires a significant investment for airlines and carriers, with the new CUPPS standard the price has come down dramatically.”

In addition to this CUPPS mandates software providers to create platforms for airports that conform to a common interface. This means airlines only need develop a single version of their own application which will be certified once and will work at all the airports where CUPPS has been deployed. CUPPS platforms are also designed to work with airlines still operating on the earlier CUTE applications.

Both the CUPPS platforms and applications undergo testing and certification by external approved bodies. To achieve full certification after the testing process is done, the CUPPS compliant platform must then be put into service with two separate CUPPS-certified applications.

It’s a more rigorous certification process but it gets rid of all the red tape associated with re-certification and means, in the end, CUPPS is much simpler to maintain than its predecessor,” Behan said.

The CUPPS technical standard does not only relate to boarding and check-in. Via its Aviation Information Data Exchange (AIDX) there has also been an attempt to standardize flight information displays. The AIDX, which allows for the simple, direct communication of flight information to the displays by air carriers, is already up and running at several airports, including Denver and Las Vegas’ McCarran Airport.

McCarran’s CUPPS platform was installed by Maryland-based systems engineering specialist ARINC.

So far ARINC has installed, or is in the process of installing, its new vMUSE CUPPS platform at seven other airports in the Europe, Africa and Middle East business region, including Manchester Airport, Berlin Brandenburg, Brussels, Nairobi and Dubai.

Tony Chapman, ARINC senior director, Integrated Travel Solutions, said their software can be customized to suit a particular airport’s needs.

For example, ARINC recently signed a multimillion dollar contract with Ras Al Khaimah International Airport in the United Arab Emirates to supply a version of its vMUSE CUPPS platform that has been customized to allow for innovations like off-site hotel check-in and bag drop.

CUPPS is essentially a platform that allows the airlines to run and support a range of peripheral devices that are required at an airport,” said Chapman. “It can be deployed in multiple ways – from local servers, to cloud-based in the case of ARINC – to suit the size and operational requirements of the airport. The selection of peripheral devices is made by the airport customer and is a requirement of the specific needs.”

According to Chapman many of the peripheral devices, including printers, scanners and boarding gate readers, remain unchanged under the CUPPS conversion since “it mandates minimum workstation specification in terms of CPU processing power, hard disk space and internal memory”.

ARINC’s roll out of vMUSE at Berlin Brandenburg was incorporated across 153 workstations for check-in and back office desks and 188 boarding gate workstations for use by 31 airlines and handling agents.

South Korea’s Incheon Airport has invested in its own CUPPS compliant system developed to work alongside the airport’s existing internal check-in system.

The CUPPS conversion, which the airport has branded AirCUS, was funded 50/50 by Incheon and the South Korean government. Although a total of 68 carriers operate out of the airport, AirCUS is only operational in the boarding and check-in systems of Korean Air and Asiana Airlines. The technology developed for AirCUS has been designed to read boarding passes and machine-readable passports.

According to Mi-Kyoung Sun, who oversaw the AirCUS installation at Incheon, the deployment has led to a reduction in check-in times of 22 percent and has cut boarding times in half.

The conversion also made it possible to adopt lower cost peripherals since we collaborated with local manufacturers to make cheaper devices,” said Mi-Kyoung Sun. “It is a faster system. It can offer prompt reaction and system troubleshooting support is made easier since many of the devices were locally developed. It also gives airlines increased work efficiency with optimized customer-oriented functions. Using CUPPS, Incheon can maximize the overall airport process.”

Much of the recent take-up for CUPPs has been in the U.S. and Asia.

Behan said that in the U.S. this can be explained in part by a change in the outlook of many state-run regional airports which, in an effort to attract more business, have switched over from single carrier terminals to terminals hosting a number of international airlines.

In the context of their previous business models common use didn’t make sense, but it does now,” Behan said. “The reality is that more and more airlines are spreading to more destinations around the world. In this context everyone in the industry has a vested interest in creating a standard system that can work across the board. That’s why we believe CUPPS has a key role to play in the future of air travel.”

a scanner darkly

A version of this story was published in October 2012 edition of Passenger Terminal World magazine. 

There’s no doubt about it. Look around the world these days and you see biometrics everywhere: iris scanners used to keep tabs on prisoners on probation in the US; fingerprint verification in laptops and cash machines as far afield as Vietnam and South Africa. Even the world’s top athletes had to submit to face and fingerprint scans in order to take part in this year’s London Olympic Games.


But nowhere is the use of biometrics more prevalent, and more contentious, than in border control.

A decade ago biometrics at airports barely existed. Now the issuing of e-passports – travel documents containing a degree of biometric data (usually a photograph containing biometric markers and, in the case of the EU, fingerprints too) — is the default in most countries around the world.

Many major airports boast e-gates (or SmartGates as they are known in Australia and New Zealand) that use facial recognition to speed travelers through the security process. Facial recognition compares the digital photo stored on the e-passport with images taken by cameras at the gate, noting discrepancies in such things as bone structure, nose length, and the distance between your eyes. E-gates at Manchester and London Stansted already accommodate the latest generation of passports and plans are underway to install them at all five Heathrow terminals.

On top of this there are myriad trials going on testing out new, and sometimes frankly bizarre-sounding, methods of biometric technology that include avatars that monitor speech patterns to detect lying, a device that recognizes a person from the way he walks and brain scanning equipment.

Reading this you might be forgiven for thinking the biometric future is a fait accompli but as any traveler knows, aside from e-passports and a smattering of e-gates, security in most terminals around the world looks relatively unchanged from a decade ago and is still presided over by humans, not machines.

Jean Salomon, who runs JSalomon Consulting, his own border control security consultancy, has been in the business for 20 years. He said that there was a “quantum leap” forward in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks which helped usher in e-passport, mainly as a result of the intense lobbying of the International Civil Aviation Organization. But the momentum gained after the terrorist attacks has not sustained, he said.

“These days most of the booming and money-making biometrics business activity is centered on criminal data bases,” Salomon said. “The focus has been on developing biometrics for security reasons only, with no real intent to develop its associated seamlessness counterpart in airport facilitation.”

As a result he said a number of small and medium-sized biometric start-ups have folded in recent years and the production of the hardware used in biometric systems at border controls worldwide has concentrated in the hands of just three companies. These are the French firm Morpho, the U.S-based 3M Cogent and the global electronics giant NEC. All these companies have a stake in e-passport programs, in national biometric ID’s and in the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), the technology used in biometric fingerprint scanners.

A number of other businesses exist to help integrate these technologies for specific airport’s needs. They include Liverpool-based Human Recognition Systems (HRS).

Jim Slevin, Business Unit Manager at HRS, is keenly aware that the biometrics market remains a relatively small part of airport security. Nor is this state of affairs likely to change any time soon, he said.

“A fully automated border solution may not be accommodated in mine or the reader’s lifetime,” Slevin said. “This is because the level of deployable artificial intelligence is not yet ready to deal with the complexity of situations that we, as humans, can create or deal with.”

Slevin said the take up of biometrics was also hindered by those in control of borders who were neither “technology centric, or indeed technology comfortable.”

He said the adoption of a fully automated system was dependent on completely rethinking the processes by which airports monitor the movement of passengers.

With this in mind HRS trialled a technology at Manchester Airport in 2010 capable of recognising passengers’ irises as they walked around the terminal, thanks to a remote camera set up in a security area. The camera took a photograph at a distance eliminating the need for the individual to stop and stare into the recognition camera.

The technology, called Biometrics In Motion, raises the possibility of airport security checks of the future taking place as the passenger moves around the terminal via the use of remote cameras, thus obviating the need for security gates and making for a much more fluid movement of travelers.

Aware that some travelers are put off by the idea of staring into cameras or pressing their palms onto fingerprint scanners, the security industry wants to find a fast and non-invasive biometric technology that will go over well with the public.

There have been a number of trials both in Europe and America of devices using gait recognition, a system which takes account of the unique way people walk and which, it is hoped – like Biometrics in Motion – can eliminate bottlenecks by reducing queuing times. Although most acknowledge the technology is not a significant enough marker on its own, gait recognition could be used in collaboration with other biometrics.

EU researchers in Greece, under the auspices of the Humabio (Human Monitoring and Authentication using Biodynamic Indicators and Behaviourial Analysis) project, conducted pilots using gait recognition as well as a number of other nascent technologies.

Security experts are moving increasingly towards developing systems that use a variety of physiological characteristics to identify people, largely because this lessens the chance of mistaken identity. The Humabio pilots included devices that distinguished individuals by brain patterns and heart rhythms.

The risk of relying too much on one physiological marker was brought home in Manchester in February last year when a couple managed to pass through facial recognition scanners using each other’s passports. The incident, which led to the scanner’s being temporarily withdrawn from service, was as noteworthy for the stir it caused in the press as anything else.

The reaction is symptomatic of just how divisive the use of biometrics in border control remains.

To their supporters, biometrics signal a brave new world of sleek efficiency and an important line of defence in the ongoing war against global terrorism. To their detractors they are further evidence of the Orwellian tendencies of modern states to increase surveillance of their citizens as well as leaving large swathes of the population at risk from identity theft.

Media debates about the ethics of biometrics can often drown out more prescient questions about whether the technology is actually effective in making airport travel quicker, safer and more convenient.

Facial recognition, for example, is not considered to be a very robust technology by many security experts, who say its continued application is down to the fact that the widespread availability of passport photos means it’s easy to get hold of the raw data.

As Jim Slevin points out, in the popular media biometrics are frequently compared with their predecessor, which in most cases means humans, and found wanting. In these comparisons humans are often considered to be 100 percent accurate and any error on the part of the biometric replacement shows it not matching up to its human counterpart.

Yet this suggests humans are infallible, and there have been more than enough security breaches down the years for us to know different.

Slevin calls this tendency, “the ex-partner in the marriage” syndrome.

“Through thorough mathematical and empirical data collection we have a very exact understanding of how well biometric systems perform in terms of false positive matching,” said Slevin. “In almost all circumstances the same transparency in the relationship between aviation and human operators is not available.

“The general publics’ perception of biometrics in airports will usually be through popular media; and rarely does one expect a story with a strapline of ‘Biometric System Implemented At XYZ Airport Without Issues And Performing In Line With Expectations’ to make headline news.”

As for another issue about biometrics commonly raised in the media, that they increase the risk of ID fraud by placing more of our sensitive personal details on databases that could potentially be hacked in to, Jean Salomon believes this concern is somewhat over egged. Salomon said that in reality there was greater risk of ID fraud from paper documents, such as birth certificates.

He said that details kept on databases associated with e-passports had much more rigorous security — they were systematically stored and electronically encrypted – whereas in most countries no such electronic backup existed for birth certificates, making them much easier to forge.

Even so, Salomon said inevitable mistakes would ensure that “civil liberties organizations will grow more white hair; simply because of nature’s inherent fondness for entropy.”

In the meantime, love it or hate it, biometric technology continues to advance and while the fully automated airport may be a long way further off than many advocates had first predicted, there’s little doubt that it’s coming, and that the sci-fi fantasies of the past will become the reality of the air travel experience of the future.


A version of this story was first published on CNN’s science blog, Light Years, June 19, 2012. 

The summer is upon us and if you live somewhere relatively hot or you’re going some place hot for your holidays, there’s a good chance you’ll see fireflies.


I live in Brooklyn, New York, and when I look out my bedroom window I can see them hovering in the yard, tiny balls of yellow light that flicker on and off in the dusk like lighters at a rock concert.

Fireflies are quite a common sight although for how long we don’t know. There have been widespread reports that fireflies numbers are dwindling. The reports are all anecdotal but they were enough of a concern for entomologists and biologists to convene a symposium in Thailand in 2008 entitled, “Diversity and Conservation of Fireflies.”

If fireflies are under threat it’s a terrible state of affairs. They are a unique and interesting creature and their loss ultimately would be our loss. They belong to a very exclusive group of land creatures that exhibit a phenomenon known as bioluminescence.

In simple terms, bioluminescence is technique certain organisms have developed to create energy, in the form of light, via a chemical reaction. This reaction often involves a chemical called luciferin.

Fireflies are unique because most bioluminescent creatures – 80 percent – live in the sea. On land only certain insects and fungi are bioluminescent.

It was in the ocean that I first found out about the phenomenon.

I grew up in England where we don’t get fireflies. We get things called glow worms, which are not worms at all but flightless insects. They’re hard to spot since they’re usually hidden away in long grass or hedgerows. Consequently most Brits will probably tell you that their only recollection of a glow worm growing up was via the pages of a cute children’s story.

It was few years ago and I was on Lombok, a tiny island next to Bali, when I first experienced the weird spectacle of nature flickering to light in the darkness. I went for a midnight swim and started to feel a strange prickling sensation and when I dipped my head underwater and ran my hand in front of me it was as if the Milky War had been miniaturized and liquified at the same time.

The trial of sparks left by your moving hand in bioluminescent waters is caused by single-cell organisms called dinoflagellates. They’re a mysterious organism scientists don’t fully understand. They’re a form of plankton and while they feed on prey and move around like animals, they can also convert the sun’s rays into food using chlorophyll in the same way plants do.

If you want to see the coolest bioluminescent creatures though, you’ve got to go into deep water.

Unless you’re James Cameron or that ridiculous (sorry, I mean romantic) couple who got wed on the deck of the wreck of the Titanic, you probably can’t afford a ride in a deep sea submersible to the ocean bottom.

Don’t despair though. If you’re lucky enough to be in the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) anytime soon you can check out there wonderful exhibition “Creatures of Light: Nature’s Bioluminescence,” which runs till January next year.

Here, fireflies rub shoulders with the creatures of the deep. In total 80 percent of deep sea organisms are bioluminescent, and certain of them have developed fascinating and elaborate ways of illuminating the permanent night.

Anglerfish, which are frankly hideous-looking things, get their name from the modified spine which sticks out of their forehead just like a fishing rod. The rod is topped with a lure that pulses with bacterial light.

Anglerfish, like most deep sea creatures, emit blue light because it’s easier to detect at these depths. An exception is the stoplight loosejaw dragonfish which gives off red light from indents just below its eyes. The loosejaw gets its name from the fact that its jaw can dislocate from its mouth when it’s hunting prey. Consequently it looks quite a lot like the alien in Predator (which I watched as a child when I’d grown out of the cute glow worm stories).

The AMNH exhibit contains many more highlights, including a small replica of a cave in New Zealand where thousands of fly larvae have turned the ceiling into a festival of stars.

Walking around the exhibit I was reminded of the limitless capacity nature has to amaze. If you’re in New York and you have a spare afternoon, go see it. Failing that, take a look in your back yard.