CPH Airport – The Selectee Intervention
Diagnosis #1: Passengers did not know that the ground handling staff intended to board selectees prior to the boarding of premium passengers began. Passengers did not know whether they were selected for a random security check.
Diagnosis #2: Before the interventions were introduced, handlers would communicate to passengers via the speaker system. Informing passengers by speaker presented a range of obstacles.
Solution: One of the advantages of the intervention in comparison to the baseline situation was that the slide was constant. This means that at all times during this phase, the passengers would be able to look at the TV monitors and get the proper information, instead of the passengers having to be present when the ground handler would call out passenger names from the selectee list. As was the case with the swipe intervention, we decided to improve the intervention from exclusively revolving around the TV monitors to also including the audio. This meant that this intervention also became twofold with handlers calling out names of passengers featured on the selectee list, whilst the TV monitors displayed those same names with the information that passengers on the list should report to the boarding counter.
Data was collected using an overview camera for each of the two boarding counters. The amount of passengers coming up to the boarding counter before boarding began to be boarded as selectees was counted as well as how many was boarded after boarding had begun. This was done by comparing the boarding sequence from the screen cameras with the footage from the overview camera. On the screen camera we were able to see which passengers had their passport information updated, allowing us to identify these passengers on the overview camera.
As was the case with the swipe intervention, the same disclaimer exists with this intervention as it is active during the waiting phase, meaning that some passengers on the list would possibly not be present during the waiting phase.
The numbers equates to a difference of approximately 27 percentage points in favor of the intervention. That is with two of the control measures putting the waiting phase to use. Under normal circumstances, where handlers do not call selectee names, we estimate that 0 selectees will be the most likely outcome, which was the case for our control measure on the Orlando ight.
This leads us to believe that making use of monitors with the names of selectees used in conjunction with repeated calls, either of selectee names or prompting passengers to check the monitors for their name, will yield the best results for this intervention. Our analysis proved that selectees has a statistically significant influence on the boarding time:
Selectee: B = 18.684 t (1440) = 22.05, p < .001
In regards to time saved, each selectee takes 18.7 seconds longer to board, on average, than it takes to board an average passenger.
The selectee intervention was highly successful at reducing the boarding time. The selectee intervention has a direct and an indirect way of reducing boarding time. The reduction was, mainly achieved by boarding selectees in the period just before boarding premium passengers. This directly saves time from boarding selectees as they are moved into the waiting phase. Effectively, this means that handlers begin boarding selectees approximately five to ten minutes before the actual boarding of the plane starts.
By boarding selectees before boarding starts, the handling company avoid having the same passengers board at random, during the boarding sequence. This limits the amount of selectees who are able to show up at very end of the boarding, and then having to undergo a security check. This indirectly saves times from boarding. For some departures this may save several minutes for others the time saved may be insignificant.