Alternative Perspective


For the most part, the classical costing methodology based on ’time-motion’ studies of passenger throughput has shown, according to an IATA 2012 report, large variations in throughput during the screening process.


time These


figures range from an hourly ’best’ of 250 passengers to ’average’ 149, and ’worst’ at 60 per hour; or from one person per 15 seconds to one per 60 seconds. These variations are clearly indicative of a ’black box' phenomenon that is taking place during the screening process.


To open


up this 'black box', I took advantage of a recent comprehensive study of airport security decision making, namely the BEMOSA research project, which allowed for a limited but telling ability to put the passenger into the security costing formula. As part of this pan-European project, security operators were asked the length of time it took to process a passenger who for one of several reasons needed to be stopped for questioning or re-examination. The initial results provided some tantalising clues of the link between prohibited items, time needed for solving the situation and the potential interactions between security employees and passengers.


Negotiating Security Building on results from the ethnographic study of a number of airports based on the BEMOSA project, it was found that there are apparently four general security related behaviours found at security check points: (a) the passenger passes through the screening process without incident; (b) she/he will ’accept’ the security employees’ orders to remove prohibited items, (c) if an item is prohibited the passenger will 'negotiate' so as to gain acceptance for what was initially determined to be prohibited and finally (d) refuse or argue to comply. Each of these distinct contextual situations will likely have an impact on the timing of passenger flow-through. In a


Informed Frequent Flyers Process Time 20-30 Minutes


sense, the less the intensity of employee- passenger negotiations the more quickly the process will take. Therefore, the social context surrounding the screening process is a vital component in costing security.


“…observers recorded that every second or third passenger boarding a charter fl ight had a hand bag search. In the case of regular scheduled fl ights, the number ranged from every seventh to ninth passenger…”


Differentiating Passengers If there is indeed a different negotiation process involved between passengers and security employees, the most obvious differences can be attached to those passengers on charter versus commercial flights.


The justification for


this approximation rests on the notion that charter and scheduled flights tend to attract different types of passengers, who to a great extent through a proxy of flying frequency may be more/less aware of the


Figure 1: Negotiating Security Screening Process Pass Accept Negotiate Argue


security rules and regulations. In addition, charter flights have a more homogeneous population of travellers (tourists) while regular flights have a more diversified group. We may also conjecture that charter passengers are more likely to purchase holiday gifts and, given the lower sensitivity to security, be more likely to be stopped for prohibited items. Thus, the type of flight and characteristics of the passengers are likely to provide a potential set of intervening variables in the flow-through paradigm and provide an additional means of costing security. To test this hypothesis, we obtained data collected from an airport that employed a classic 'time-motion' study of passenger throughput but contained additional information on passenger- employee behaviours during the actual screening process. The flight schedules were such as to allow a clear distinction of charter and commercial passengers at the screening check points.


Being 'Good' or 'Bad' Time in Security Processing 18 Download your FREE ASI "iPad/iPhone APP" NOW


Over a period of time, observers recorded that passengers differed in the time it took them to pass through the screening process according to both awareness of the item prohibition rules and the type of air carrier they were about to board. As Figure 1 notes, the classic 'time-motion' method found substantial differences in the time it takes to pass through the screening process when taking into account if the passenger was informed or ignorant about prohibited items. For informed passengers it takes 20-30 seconds while for those ignorant of the rules from 1-2 minutes. More astounding, observers recorded that every second or third passenger boarding a charter flight had a hand bag search. In the case of regular scheduled flights, the number ranged from every


June 2013 Aviationsecurityinternational


Figure 2: Information & Process Time


Uninformed Forgetful 10%-15%


Process Time


1-2 + Minutes


10% Scheduled 25% Charter


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52