Thursday, December 26, 2013

Ideas for airlines on how to make lines and wait time shorter for passengers

As an avid airline passenger, I’ve flown on many different airlines (most major airlines) and visited many different US airports (and a few international airports). What I've noticed is that the process of how to get checked-in, through security, and loaded onto the plane seem to be ripe with opportunity.

Let’s break this down into three major processes:

  • Checking in
  • Going through security
  • Loading the plane.

Checking In

This area has been steadily improving over the past few years, especially with online check-in and electronic ticketing. I actually don’t have many complaints with this process (unless the airline is not using these options). The best situation is when the check-in kiosks are separated from the line. I dislike when you have to wait in a line that has both people waiting for kiosks, and those with questions for the attendants. It gets confusing, and slows down the process for those only needing the kiosks. There are also people who aren't paying attention when a kiosk opens up, so you have to try to get their attention. I also prefer when the airline takes your checked bag after you weigh and tag, instead of giving it to you to give to security. I think that has gone away now, but it was a bunch of wasted steps.


Going through security

My observations and experience with going through the security line is that the line slows down due to the natural variation (common cause) in the time it takes passengers to get organized and loaded onto the conveyor belt. Each passenger is quite different on how long it takes to remove their clothing items (coats, belts, watches and shoes), take out their liquids, take laptops out of bags, take out coins and money, and get their baggage placed on the conveyor. Today, it's a high pressure race to get things off and out of bags with no room to maneuver, and no place to set things. It’s the most stressful part for me when I fly. People are constantly pushing to get their bags on the conveyor behind me. While under pressure, you will ultimately forget your belt or something in your pocket, and have to go back through (rework).


I'm guessing that the scanning process of the bags is most often times the bottleneck, so if we apply the theory of constraints to this issue, the baggage scanning should never be waiting for any bags, yet it is often times idle, due to this variation in passengers getting prepared for the scanner.

I would like to see a staging area after you get your ID and ticket checked, where you can take as long as you want to get all your stuff organized into the trays. I would like to see a big open area with table and chairs where you can sit down, open your bags and pull out the liquids, take off your shoes and laptop, and go at your own pace. Similar to the seating you have after the security line.  This would be helpful for all travelers, but especially elderly, those with children, or those with lots of carry-ons.


When you are done, then you get in line for the X-ray scanning (could be multiple lines to choose from), and it's much less stressful. The only downside is moving your bags and trays back to the conveyor, but hopefully it could be placed close enough to the conveyor where that would not be a huge issue.

By the way, the new pre-check TSA system (keep on your shoes and belt, your laptop in its case, and your 3-1-1 compliant bag in your carry-on.) is awesome, and I hope they roll that out as the standard process in the future!

Loading the plane

I like the idea of loading the window seats first, then the middle seats, then the aisle seats, starting from the back of the plane, and working forwards.

A variation of that was developed by Dr. Jason Steffen, where the rows and sides of the plane are alternated, to create more space between passengers to allow for maneuvering and room to store bags in the overhead.

You can see Steffen’s method in the video below.



When the airlines started charging more for checked bags, this made the loading time much longer. I don’t understand why they did this, other than it was less costly for them (although I’m not quite sure why).

One possible reason for this change is that it will force people to reduce their total amount of luggage. I’d be curious to see if this has happened, or if everyone has just tried to cram their luggage into a carry-on. This has definitely increased the time to load a plane, and now more people are forced to have their carry-on luggage checked at the gate instead, since there is no more room on the plane. This leads to delays while they roam the overhead units looking for space once they are already in the plane, then it leads to rework where passengers finally realize it is full, and have to get their bag back up to the front of the plane to get it checked. I think they should require us to check all our bags, so you only get a personal bag. Let the baggage handlers do their job (which they probably do pretty efficiently), and reduce the amount of time needed for loading the plane.

The only other option I can think for this rule change is that the airlines are saving money with the baggage handlers, therefore if less bags go through the checked bag process, then they will need less workers. This seems to be the most logical reason to me. Unfortunately, this kind of solution is typical of many companies we work with, who try to save money in one area, and it makes the problem worse in another area. The worst part is that they are pushing the problem to their customers, which is the last thing you want to do.  This has to impact the airline’s ability to turn around flights with the longer loading times, which could reduce how many flights occur per day ($$$).

If you're trying to save fuel by reducing baggage, I like Samoa Air’s approach of charging airline ticket cost based on the total weight of the passenger, which includes their own weight and the weight of their baggage. If weight is indeed a big driver of airline fuel spending, then this makes the most sense.


It might be controversial when people are individually being weighed, but I think it’s the most fair from a price perspective. Then it doesn’t matter how many different bags you bring, you are responsible for the total weight.

One other issue I have with loading the planes is when they call out the group numbers. I like the group number idea, but there are two issues:

1) I am never sure what group number was called (audio is poor quality, wasn't paying attention, etc). There is no visual indicator about the current group number. I'm not the only one either, since I always see people asking each other what group number was called. A simple group number on the display boards would make a big difference.

2) The bigger issue is that everyone clusters right near the ticket agent, so often times I think I'm in a line heading towards the front, when in fact the people ahead of me are not in my group, and are blocking the way. When I realize the line at the ticket agent has cleared and the people ahead of me aren't moving, it's too late to get through the cluster, and they quickly call the next group number. Now I'm in the middle of the next group.

United Airlines actually has a good visual control to solve both of these problems...


They have markers for each group number (including first class and preferred boarding), so you simply get in the line associated with your group number, and there is no confusion as to which group is being loaded currently. They are the only airline I have seen doing this.

Finally, a quick note about unloading the plane. It would be nice to require everyone to stay in their seats, to allow "pre-authorized" passengers with short layovers to get off the plane first. This was done during one flight I was on, and it seemed to work really well. There were probably some people who didn't have short layovers that got off in the early group, but I think it worked for most of the people trying to catch their next flight. I think they set the cut off for those with a layover of 30 minutes or less. This would reduce the number of missed flights and reschedules, plus increase customer satisfaction. The rest of the passengers seemed to be OK with this idea, since they probably wished someone had done that for them when they were in the same situation. They only had to wait a couple minutes, so it really wasn't much of a delay for everyone else. We'll see if this idea catches on...

Many of you are avid travelers. Do you agree with our ideas? What are your recommendations?

Update: Here is an article from Portland International on some of their efficiency improvements in different aspects of the airport >>>

Monday, December 23, 2013

Top 3 things to validate before removing test or inspection steps

A process with excellent capability usually means there is a very small probability that the natural variation of the process will exceed the specification limits. Without getting into a detailed discussion, let's assume you are calculating Ppk for this process. We will discuss Cpk and Ppk confusion at another time, but PQ Systems does a good job of explaining why we will be using Ppk for this discussion:
Estimated sigma and the related capability indices (Cp, Cpk, and Cr) are used to measure the potential capability of a system to meet customer needs. Use it when you want to analyze a system's aptitude to perform.
Actual or calculated sigma (sigma of the individuals) and the related indices (Pp, Ppk, and Pr) are used to measure the performance of a system to meet customer needs. Use it when you want to measure a system's actual process performance.
Most customers would like Ppk to be 1.33 or greater (4 sigma), where the probability of having a failure is less than 1% (99.38% success), even with a process shift of 1.5 standard deviations. If you improve the process even further, you might even achieve 6 sigma, which would be a success rate of 99.99966%. This also depends on your industry, as some lower volume industries might accept a lower Ppk, while higher volume production may require Ppk greater than 2.0.

For the purpose of this article, let's assume the process has been in place for some time (full rate production levels), not a discussion during design and development of a new process or product. In addition, even if your process has a 100% yield does not mean it has good capability. Therefore, a pass/fail step should switch from attribute to variable data collection if possible, so Ppk can eventually be calculated.


At some point, the chance of having a failure is so small, that the question comes up from management: "Why are we still testing or inspecting this characteristic, if it is unlikely to fail?"  

Can the test or inspection be eliminated completely? Can we reduce it from 100% down to 50% or 25% or 10%? From a lean perspective, inspection and test are non-value added but necessary (avoiding problems from getting to the customer or further into the process), but perhaps these steps are not even necessary because the process is so good.

In most cases, the end customer will have some say in this matter, especially if they provide the requirements to you. By default, they will be highly resistant to any test or inspection removals. It adds risk to their processes, and they usually don't see any benefit. 

Given this resistance, what evidence is required to alleviate their concerns, and allow approval of a reduction or elimination in a test or inspection step?

We have not found any formal documentation on how to deal with this situations. If someone has some guidance (any industry), please let us know so we can share with our clients. 

Here is our typical response when asked this question...

There are three areas to look at to prove test or inspection reduction to a customer: Stability, Capability and Risk Mitigation.



  • Stability: Consistent process data results (no outliers and no trends or shifts on the control chart) that have been happening over a "long" period of time (varies by industry). Ppk calculations assume a stable process, so stability provides confidence that the calculation of Ppk will be maintained in the future. This also implies a sufficient sample size has been obtained, that clearly shows the underlying distribution of the data (normal, weibull, lognormal, etc).
  • Capability: Good capability results (Ppk > 1.33 minimum, but preferably over 2.0, which equates to Six Sigma performance). Ppk calculation is also based upon an assumption of normality, so if that's not valid, the Ppk results may be incorrect.
  • Risk Mitigation: Clear documentation of how the process will not produce defects, shift, trend away from the average, or increase in variation in the future. Typically this involves evidence of mistake proofing, SPC knowledge, and operator training.

  • Even if there was some clearly defined process for making this decision, an agreement between customer and supplier will always be required. We recommend you have this discussion as early as possible before preparing a package, to make sure the customer will consider this option, and the amount of evidence is agreed upon ahead of time. There may be very high severity characteristics (safety critical or operation critical) that will be difficult to justify for sampling, even with high Ppk values, due to the severity of even one escape.


    Example

    Let's look at a generic example, and see how we compare against the three criteria. Let's assume you have an inspection process that measures the gap between two parts. The gap is recorded into a database, and the results are tracked on an Individuals and Moving Range chart (SPC control chart). 



    Stable? 

    As you can see, there is no out of control conditions identified on either chart, so we feel confident that the process has been stable during the time period of this chart. Let's assume this is a six month history of 100 data points.

    Capable? 

    Since we've already shown a stable process, we next check the normality of the data. The chart looks good, but technically it fails the normality test. However, this is due to the resolution of our data. If we go one more decimal point, the normality test passes. Therefore, our data is normally distributed.



    Next, we look at the capability histogram compared to the customer requirements, and look at the Ppk calculation.


    Clearly, the data falls well within the lower and upper specification (tolerance) limits of 15 +/- 0.20. 
    Ppk is calculated at 2.40, which is better than a six sigma process. There would be a very remote chance of a failure due to random chance. Therefore, the process is considered capable.

    Risk Mitigation?

    Now that we have capable and stable performance, we still need to give the customer confidence that we can maintain this performance into the future. 

    We recommend including the following information in your discussions and proposal:
    • List of past defects and outliers, along with root cause corrective action that includes a mistake proofing device implemented to prevent recurrence.
    • Operator and engineering records on SPC training classes completed.
    • Documentation showing how the operator enters data, reviews charts for out of control conditions, and takes action when required.
    • Updated PFMEA with a history of completed actions that reduced the highest RPN scores, and regular meeting minutes showing updates to the PFMEA with a cross-functional team.
    • History of SPC charts on this process, to prove that the SPC charts are not brand new, and that the common and special cause variation has been improved over time.
    • Operator training program, to show how new employees are properly trained and supervised with regular oversight until skill competency is proven.
    • Good documentation and work instructions on the process (mainly pictures, clear explanations, cautions, color-coding, etc), to give confidence that a new operator would not produce defects.
    • Key parameters that have been flowed to the supplier to help control variation on this measurement.
    • History of a stable supply chain (no recent supplier changes or disruptions).
    Not every single one of these will be required. Some customers might ask for more than this. However, the more you can complete and provide with your proposal, the higher the probability it will be approved. Want to improve your chances even more? Show the customer what cost savings you can provide to them by reducing or eliminating the step!

    Most likely, the first request for elimination will be rejected by your customer, but hopefully they will agree to a reduced sampling plan (check every other part, instead of every one). After a few months of success, maybe every 4th or 10th part will be checked, until eventually the test or inspection is eliminated.

    Conclusion

    Without any clear industry documentation or guidance on how to reduce or eliminate inspection or test in your process, we hope this provides you with a starting point, to see if your process is eligible or not. The more evidence you can share with your customer regarding stability, capability and risk mitigation will increase the chance that they will agree to a reduction or elimination of a test or inspection step. Giving the customer a financial incentive to approve doesn't hurt either...

    What are your experiences with this? Have you been successful? Does your customer refuse to accept any evidence?