testimony
Testimony of Kevin P. Mitchell
Chairman, Business Travel Coalition
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science andTransportation
Regarding the Registered Traveler Program
February 9, 2006
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee thank you for inviting the Business Travel Coalition (BTC) to submit testimony on this important subject, and for your interest in the views of the customer of the commercial air transportation system.
This statement will cover the following areas:
§ Background
§ Problem Statement
§ Market Demand
§ RT Program Benefits
§ Private Sector Rationale
§ Privacy
§ Equity
I. BACKGROUND
In the weeks immediately following 911, BTC conducted meetings in every region of the country to identify barriers to the return of business travelers to the skies, rental cars, hotel rooms and restaurants. A major theme in those meetings was the need for some sort of pre-screening program for business travelers, referred to then as “trusted traveler.” BTC has been advocating such a program since.
During the ensuing years, Congress, DOT, TSA, DHS and other industry participants’ interest has waxed and waned. However, business travelers have never lost interest in the now-called Registered Traveler (RT) program. BTC surveys since 2001 and right up to January 2006 show a huge airport security screening problem and great business traveler frustration. Thankfully, Congress and TSA are now fully committed to RT program implementation, though misperceptions about the program and some marketplace confusion remain.
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT
“It is faster to clear El Al security than to get to the gate at a US airport. It has taken me over 2 hours to reach the gate at Honolulu, San Diego, Rochester, Albany and DC in the past two months. Security is critical - but there MUST be a better way.”
This is a representative quote from one of 644 business travelers who participated in a January 2006 BTC survey. During peak business travel times, security screening wait times can vary widely. This is a huge problem for business travelers, 64% of whom responded that without a RT program they believed that wait times at their home airports would likely get worse. With air passenger growth expected to be 3% to 5% over the coming years, and TSA’s screening budget shrinking, these travelers’ concerns appear well-founded.
In a June 2005 BTC survey of 651 business travelers, 37% indicated that long lines were their #1 concern. Some 38% indicated that inconsistency of screening processes and the unpredictability of wait times among airports was #1. Some observers dismiss such concerns by referring to average wait times posted by TSA. As a success metric, average wait times obscure much higher peak travel wait times, which tend to disproportionately impact business travelers, for example, en route to early morning meetings. This metric becomes more meaningful when the extra time that business travelers must pad their schedules with, due to screening time unpredictability, is added in.
Unpredictability of wait times steals the business traveler’s valuable time. Not knowing whether an airport security line will be 5 or 50 minutes long requires that business travelers arrive at an airport 90 minutes or more in advance, sometimes cutting short a productive meeting with a client or important work in the office. The enterprise-wide productivity of the corporations that fund business travel activities is negatively impacted, and by extension, so is the national economy.
Handicapped business travelers are especially impacted by current screening processes and have been given very little attention in this debate. Theirs is an airport security experience of extra time, inconvenience and stress. Consider these statements from business travelers writing to BTC:
“Give me a photo ID or take a picture of the stump of my missing right foot so I don’t have to undress each time I travel using airports."
“I’m handicapped missing my right foot. I wear special shoes. When I remove my shoes I can’t walk, I can only hop. Why can’t TSA give me a photo ID stating I’m handicapped so I’m not held up for additional screening?”
“I have metal knees and activate the walk-thru detector. If I do not set it off, it is not working properly but I keep my mouth shut to avoid an airport lockdown. Thus, I know I will be subject to secondary screening and will have to take off my shoes.”
III. MARKET DEMAND
In an April 2002 BTC survey of 181 corporate travel managers, 69% of respondents indicated that they thought their travelers would support a “Trusted Traveler” program. In a follow-up June 2002 survey of 408 very frequent business travelers, 72% indicated they would support a “Registered Traveler” program to speed and improve the quality of airport security processes. Fast forwarding to a 2005 BTC survey, 77% of business travelers indicated they would “strongly support” or “support” a Registered Traveler program.
Of course, surveys do not always tell the whole story. It was not until July 2005 that the industry had a chance to see if true marketplace demand would materialize. The Orlando airport contracted with a RT service firm to provide services for $79.95 per member, per year. Over 14,000 travelers have enrolled to date. Feedback from members has been overwhelmingly positive. (Listen to RT member interview on BTC Radio at http://btcblog.typepad.com/btcradio/.)
Another important indicator of demand is that the majority of major North American airports are actively investigating the RT program responding to business traveler demand in their markets. Several have already made decisions to implement. Likewise, many North American airlines are keenly interested in the program.
IV. RT PROGRAM BENEFITS
A. RT Members
The major benefit of a RT program, from the perspective of the business traveler, is the high degree of certainty regarding an efficient processing through airport security. There are other benefits under consideration by TSA such as not having to remove shoes, laptops, or outer clothing. Such benefits will come after RT service providers implement enabling service lane technologies.
Notwithstanding the importance of the benefits above, RT members stand to benefit in other ways such as:
1) Customer Service. A RT program member at Orlando called the customer service “beyond excellent” and spoke of being “pampered” by the RT service provider’s staff. This is important and valued by business travelers.
2) Interoperability. Today a business traveler flying out of a major hub likely has access to an airline’s Elite security line, if they qualify. However, at least 50% of a business traveler’s experience is at his non-home airport where there may or may not be an Elite line hosted by his preferred airline. Moreover, many business travelers originate out of mid-size airports where such Elite lines may not exist. TSA has rightly set a standard that mandates that a RT member can use his card, without additional cost, at any airport serviced by any RT service provider. Interoperability is not a big technological challenge. (See Addendum: BTC Interoperability Statement.
3) Boarding Passes. The ability to go through security and secure a boarding pass on the air side would benefit business travelers and bring relief to kiosk stations during peak times.
4) Smaller Land Side Crowds. Avoiding large crowds on the relatively low-security land side of an airport is important as airport lobbies have been historically high profile, easy terrorist targets. Moving business travelers through security efficiently, and improving overall security system throughput, is prudent risk management. Corporate Risk Managers would value having traveling employees enter the more secure air side of an airport as quickly as possible.
5) Safer Travel. Since 911, the so-called security hassle has caused many business travelers to drive their cars in short-haul markets (under 500 miles). The falloff has only partially rebounded. Southwest Airlines, for example, still reports a 20% decline in short haul for its Love Field operations. Driving a car is exceedingly more dangerous than traveling by airplane. More efficient security would help save lives on the highways, reduce congestion and help the environment.
6) Handicapped Travel. Greater respect, customer service and convenience await the thousands of handicap travelers who navigate North American airports.
B. Benefits: Traveling Public
1) Faster Processing. A properly functioning RT program, in the mold of the interstate electronic fast pass tolling, will improve the overall throughput for non-RT program travelers saving them time. For example, a dedicated RT lane, that represents 10% of the throughput capacity, could actually handle 15% or more of the passengers due to the prescreening and service configuration efficiencies. Public security lines will not become longer. Moreover, where physically feasible, RT vendors will likely pay for the construction and equipping of entirely new lanes.
2) Smaller Crowds. With business travelers bypassing land side kiosks for boarding passes and moving through security quickly, and overall faster security system throughput, the traveling public’s experience and safety will improve.
C. Benefits: TSA
1) Optimizing Limited Resources. Air traffic is expanding, TSA’s budget is shrinking. RT allows TSA to NOT focus on 100% of passengers as if they were all equal threats to the aviation system. RT will allow TSA to focus its limited resources of money, time, people and equipment on a smaller subset of the traveling public.
2) Enhanced Security. In joining a RT program, a traveler receives better service in return for being subjected to a higher level of information-based security, and physical security screening. An example would be a shoe scanner that is paid for by the RT provider and deployed to identify explosives. Such a device would be used so that a RT member would not have to remove his shoes. This technology is superior to X-ray machines currently used. As such, the 10% to 15% of travelers who generate 40% to 50% of airports’ traffic will actually receive greater security scrutiny making the overall system more secure.
3) Crowd Control. As mentioned, TSA’s mission would be supported if the large crowds that often build up on the land side were significantly reduced.
4) Customer Service. TSA will be implementing a randomizing of RT processes and benefits. This represents a best-in-class security approach in use throughout the world and is not mutually exclusive of the desire of business travelers wanting more certainty in the screening process. What business travelers want is the certainty of the amount of time they will need to budget for security, not the absolute predictability of process components. Add to this the enhanced customer service provided by the RT providers and TSA can be commended for improving the customer service result.
D. Benefits: Airlines
1) Cost. RT service providers and their customers will incur all the costs of establishing, marketing and operating the program. Moreover, some RT providers will likely be willing to revenue share with airlines in turn for their help in marketing the program to their frequent flyer bases.
2) Additional Passenger Revenues. The last 6 airline passengers who board typically make the difference between profit and loss on a given flight. A consistent, positive security experience will bring back many of those high-yield business travelers who have abandoned airlines for automobiles, trains, limos, buses, fractional jets and other options, including not taking a trip.
3) Customer Service. The RT program will provide the opportunity for exceptional customer service for airlines’ best customers.
E. Benefits: Airports
1) Better Service. Business travelers can comprise 10% to 20% of an airport’s total customer base, but 40% to 50% of its traffic. Clearly it is every airport architect’s and operator’s mission to service these important customers well. RT is a strategic solution to this problem.
2) Revenues. Winning back business travelers who have defected to other modes of transportation or communications technology, e.g., video conferencing, is a priority for airports. It has a direct bearing on maintaining air services to many markets. Likewise, airports benefit from greater parking and concession revenue with increased numbers of business travelers.
3) Crowd Control. As previously mentioned, moving passengers from the less secure land side of an airport to the air side enhances the overall security environment. Additionally, the more time passengers have on the air side, the more they will spend in stores generating revenue for the airport.
V. PRIVATE SECTOR RATIONALE
The private sector’s primary role will be to work with airport authorities to establish and market a RT program. TSA will set and oversee security standards. RT providers will be encouraged, through marketplace forces, to continually enhance the customer service experience in the RT lane. The competencies required for success include branding, consumer marketing, subscription-based services and strategic marketing alliances. These are not the usual competencies found in governments.
VI. PRIVACY
Business travelers have become sensitive to data privacy issues, particularly over the past few years. TSA and airlines have misused data, and commercial data aggregators have failed in their mission to protect consumers’ information. Identity theft is on the rise. For RT to work system-wide it needs a critical mass of members, supported by low member costs, met service expectations and strict privacy protections.
The Orlando RT model, having generated 14,000 members to date, appears to have hit the mark with the RT service provider’s data privacy commitments. TSA’s proposal to use commercial databases as an exclusive way to provide additional RT program benefits is overreach in BTC’s view, and could significantly dampen business traveler demand for the RT program.
VII. EQUITY
Some observers are of the view that the RT program asks a citizen to pay a fee to demonstrate that he or she is not a terrorist risk, and some find this offensive. However, no one is asking a citizen to do anything. The marketplace and capital providers are simply offering a service. Moreover, travelers are paying today, through TSA security fees, to demonstrate that they are not terrorist threats before they are allowed to board a plane. Importantly, all costs associated with the RT program will be borne by RT service providers and their customers, not taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, BTC is very supportive of the RT program and appreciative of a renewed TSA commitment to reach out to the travel industry for input. We believe we are on the cusp of creating the best airport security protocol in the world.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.
Addendum
Registered Traveler Interoperability
Business Travel Coalition
January 2006
The June 2005 launch of the Orlando Registered Traveler program marked the expansion of the Registered Traveler program to the private sector. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had incubated the program by testing technology and piloting the overall concept at five airports. With Orlando, it was turned over to the private sector for a rollout that would be self-supported. Orlando Registered Travelers have begun to receive their Clear Cards, from Verified Identity Pass Inc., the program service provider, and are utilizing a designated "fast lane" and line at Orlando airport.
As Registered Traveler (RT) programs expand, travelers will be able to use fast lanes at other airports across the country. Since TSA has mandated that private sector RT programs be interoperable, Registered Travelers will benefit from the program network no matter what company provides their card.
Standards To Be Set
Since testing the technology in the pilots, TSA has aimed to make the programs interoperable so that members who enrolled at Los Angeles, for example, could use their cards at Dulles. Making the pilot programs interoperable has been more difficult than it will be to make future RT programs interoperable. That's because, in order to test different technologies, TSA purposely created five completely separate programs that used different hardware and software. That was the point: to test different technologies. This complication makes linking the pilot pro-grams, so that they are interoperable with their present configurations, a hurdle.
However, interoperability among future programs — and even between and among the pilot airports — is not actually a difficult issue if the pilots are viewed as testbeds for establishing the common, interoperable standard. Indeed, TSA, after testing the technology in the pilot programs, seems to have set a standard in Orlando that service providers will use for future RT programs.
TSA combined the use of iris images and fingerprint images, and in detail pro-vided a technical spec for the operation of the program. Thus, to make the existing pilot programs interoperable with Orlando and future RT programs, the simplest way would be for pilot airports to require any RT service provider bidding to set up shop for a rolled-out private sector program to agree to reissue the existing members' cards for free in return for their having participated in the pilot. It is cheaper and easier than trying to create a software fix that will not be necessary in the future.
Put simply, interoperability is an obstacle easily overcome by taking the standards set by TSA in Orlando (or for that matter any modified standard that TSA sets once it sees how operations work in Orlando) and applying them to future RT programs.
Clearinghouse Structure
The second interoperability issue has to do with a clearinghouse that would combine the names of those enrolled in RT programs at various airports and by service providers. Someone enrolled in a program at O'Hare run by service provider A must be able to have his card recognized by a program at Tampa run by service provider B. Thus, a clearinghouse would be needed to collect the names of currently valid members and send them along with daily updates to all the kiosks run by all of the providers at all of the airports.
This represents a simple technology challenge, given that TSA has already set common membership criteria (it approves all members based on one standard), and apparently set the common technology standards for biometric capture and the smart card. The primary requirements of the clearinghouse would be meeting the strictest privacy and security requirements set by the service providers, having the trust and confidence of TSA, and the ability to do this without adding more than a few pennies of cost to the customer for this relatively simple task.
In short, with TSA having been active in the hard work of setting the technology and security standards, the path to interoperability is not nearly as difficult as it has been depicted.