DL pushing the self-serve checkin kiosks

I am the CUSTOMER, and I should decide how I want to check in for my
flight!!




DL pushing the self-serve checkin kiosks

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Fri, Mar 19, 2004, 10:38pm (EST+5) From:
(Hilary)
My point exactly----for some transactions, you NEED a live human!
And for those transactions, there is one available. For all the other,
regular transactions, use the machine and keep the check in staff free
to deal with actual problems not just people who don't want to touch a
screen.
Hilary

maryanne kehoe wrote:

I am the CUSTOMER, and I should decide how I want to check in for my
flight!!

Unfortunatly, the big airlines are bankrupt. As a result, they need to find
any way they can to lower their cost structure because they can't fix the real
big cost items.

Unfortunatly, legacy airline employees would rather see their airline service
reduced, meals removed etc instead of accepting to match low cost carrier
working conditions/pay.

You'll note that it was the legacy carriers who introduced self check in
kiosks, not the low fare carriers (who are now starting to introduce them). If
these kiosks were such cost savers, how come low cost carriers weren't the
pionneers ? How come newcomers such as Jetblue, Jetsgo and Easyjet which began
as "internet only" outfits, didn't also begin as "self check in only" ones ?

Is it possible that IT staff needed to support those kiosks actually cost more
than check-in staff ?

Do these kiosks actually save money, or are they seen as perks given to
frequent fliers (who are most likely to use them and save time) ?

mtravelkay wrote:
They are money savers, just as selling tickets on line is.
It would be even cheaper if they could do away with the kiosks and have
people checkin via the Web.

At first glance, kiosks appear to be cheaper. But are they really ?

Do airline need to pay extra for the floor space at the airport for those
kiosks ?
In the case of Air Canada, it was a deal with IBM who supplied the kiosks if I
remember correctly. Do the maintenance costs for the hardware, software,
support end up costing more ?

There is probably some metric below which the kiosks are more expensive, and
above which, they start saving money (number of pax per hour using it, number
of problems, support manpower etc)

At least those are not like ATMs. ATMs cost more than just the machine. When
you have to load $250,000 into an ATM for a long weekend, that is $250,000 of
hard cash that the bank can't play with during that time (no interest, can't
play foreign currency gambles, etc). Multiply this by the number of ATMs a
bank has and that represents a very large amount of money that isn't
productive while inside the machine.

However, just like ATMs and later EFTPOS, I think that you find a certain
class of people who resist technology, and the younger generation adopting it
without any problems, and as they grow older, they become majority and only a
miniority still resists.

For simple travel, they are absolutely great. Just like for simple
transactions at the bank. But if you have a more complex itinerary, you need a
human to check everything for you.

Also, with a human, you can ask questions such as "is this flight heavily
booked, overbooked, etc" which you cannot ask of the automated kiosks.
(although you can ask at the gate).

maryanne kehoe wrote:
I am the CUSTOMER, and I should decide how I want to check in for my
flight!!


I am not aware of any airline that prevents checking in with an agent.
BTW, would you pay for the ability not to using kiosk or web checkin?

nobody wrote:

maryanne kehoe wrote:

I am the CUSTOMER, and I should decide how I want to check in for my
flight!!


Unfortunatly, the big airlines are bankrupt. As a result, they need to find
any way they can to lower their cost structure because they can't fix the real
big cost items.

Unfortunatly, legacy airline employees would rather see their airline service
reduced, meals removed etc instead of accepting to match low cost carrier
working conditions/pay.

You'll note that it was the legacy carriers who introduced self check in
kiosks, not the low fare carriers (who are now starting to introduce them). If
these kiosks were such cost savers, how come low cost carriers weren't the
pionneers ? How come newcomers such as Jetblue, Jetsgo and Easyjet which began
as "internet only" outfits, didn't also begin as "self check in only" ones ?

Is it possible that IT staff needed to support those kiosks actually cost more
than check-in staff ?

In these days of IT cuts, I doubt it.

Do these kiosks actually save money, or are they seen as perks given to
frequent fliers (who are most likely to use them and save time) ?

They are money savers, just as selling tickets on line is.
It would be even cheaper if they could do away with the kiosks and have
people checkin via the Web.

nobody wrote:

mtravelkay wrote:

They are money savers, just as selling tickets on line is.
It would be even cheaper if they could do away with the kiosks and have
people checkin via the Web.


At first glance, kiosks appear to be cheaper. But are they really ?

Do airline need to pay extra for the floor space at the airport for those
kiosks ?
In the case of Air Canada, it was a deal with IBM who supplied the kiosks if I
remember correctly. Do the maintenance costs for the hardware, software,
support end up costing more ?

Asked and answered. They save money. If they didn't save money, I doubt
airlines would be trying so hard to get people to use them instead of
human check in lines. Another poster indicated a hard sell from at least
one airline. If the machines couldn't save money do you think the
airline would be trying to get people to use them. In order to use them
the first time, airlines were (or are) giving away miles.


There is probably some metric below which the kiosks are more expensive, and
above which, they start saving money (number of pax per hour using it, number
of problems, support manpower etc)

At least those are not like ATMs. ATMs cost more than just the machine. When
you have to load $250,000 into an ATM for a long weekend, that is $250,000 of
hard cash that the bank can't play with during that time (no interest, can't
play foreign currency gambles, etc). Multiply this by the number of ATMs a
bank has and that represents a very large amount of money that isn't
productive while inside the machine.

A certain amount of cash has to be available anyway. Whether it is in
the bank vault or not. Tellers have also been replaced by direct deposit.

However, just like ATMs and later EFTPOS, I think that you find a certain
class of people who resist technology, and the younger generation adopting it
without any problems, and as they grow older, they become majority and only a
miniority still resists.

Those that risk cost saving measures like E-Tickets should be served,
but not at the expense of people willing to use the money saving
devices. If the transaction can be handled by an ATM or Airline Kiosk,
and a person wants to have it handled by a bank teller or ticket agent,
then it is only fair for them to pay the cost of providing the service.

For simple travel, they are absolutely great. Just like for simple
transactions at the bank. But if you have a more complex itinerary, you need a
human to check everything for you.

Machines can check complex itinararies. Complex itineraries are still
flown one flight at a time.

Also, with a human, you can ask questions such as "is this flight heavily
booked, overbooked, etc" which you cannot ask of the automated kiosks.
(although you can ask at the gate).

Kiosks can be programmed to answer such requests. It would be no big
deal, if the airlines wanted, to show the percentage of seats booked.

mtravelkay wrote:
Asked and answered. They save money. If they didn't save money, I doubt
airlines would be trying so hard to get people to use them instead of
human check in lines.

But it could be a prediction that they will eventually save money, eventhough
initially they won't.

Another poster indicated a hard sell from at least
one airline. If the machines couldn't save money do you think the
airline would be trying to get people to use them.

It *could* just mean that they are not as succesful as airlines had
anticipated and are still costing too much money for the number of pax they process.

But I agree that the concept should eventually handle more people. It is a
shame though that the time savings that these kiosks bring have been, in many
cases, totally obliterated by the extra time it takes to navigate US airports/security.

Machines can check complex itinararies. Complex itineraries are still
flown one flight at a time.

But when you get into codeshares, it can get complicated, especially for
checked luggage, and most especially if you are travelling on miltiple tickets
and you need luggage checked to final destination. Another one is when you are
interlining with another airline.

Note that ata human desk, it still depends on having an experienced agent
which makes a big difference when you have a complex itinerary (or a
problematic one).

Kiosks can be programmed to answer such requests. It would be no big
deal, if the airlines wanted, to show the percentage of seats booked.

Generally, airlines want to dumb things down way too much when the public gets
to touch stuff directly. Look at their web sites compared to the good old
eaasy sabre.

nobody wrote:

mtravelkay wrote:

But I agree that the concept should eventually handle more people. It is a
shame though that the time savings that these kiosks bring have been, in many
cases, totally obliterated by the extra time it takes to navigate US airports/security.

In most places I travel, I haven't noticed much, if any, delay due to
security. I do still notice long lines of people in checkin however.



Machines can check complex itinararies. Complex itineraries are still
flown one flight at a time.


But when you get into codeshares, it can get complicated, especially for
checked luggage, and most especially if you are travelling on miltiple tickets
and you need luggage checked to final destination. Another one is when you are
interlining with another airline.

What does the agent at the counter do other do in such cases? I doubt
the process is that complicated or most agents couldn't do it. If you
are on a codeshare, I don't see how an agent is better to handle
printing boarding passes than a kiosk. After all, they area interacting
with the same computer.


Note that ata human desk, it still depends on having an experienced agent
which makes a big difference when you have a complex itinerary (or a
problematic one).

I mever indicated we are doing away with human agents, but the
overwhelming percentage of checkin can be easily done with the kiosks.
Plus if it is something the machine isn't currently programmed to do,
then there should be no fee. However, if it is something the kiosk could
do, I have no more problem with that person paying more just as the
people that refuse electronic tickets pay more.


Kiosks can be programmed to answer such requests. It would be no big
deal, if the airlines wanted, to show the percentage of seats booked.


Generally, airlines want to dumb things down way too much when the public gets
to touch stuff directly. Look at their web sites compared to the good old
eaasy sabre.

Stating the percentage of seats booked isn't really a complex issue. It
would be dumbing down if you compare it with the ability to process seat
selection, etc. All it has to do is retreive the percentage of sets
booked and present it on the screen. However, I don't think airlines
would do that as they don't want to panic people by showing booking is
at 105 percent, when the no show rate is usually 8 percent for the
flight. Passengers will think there isn't room, when there would
normally be room.

mtravelkay wrote:

I am not aware of any airline that prevents checking in with an agent.
BTW, would you pay for the ability not to using kiosk or web checkin?

In effect, if you pay for a paper ticket (which most airlines now surcharge),
you can check in at the counter.

mtravelkay wrote:
I mever indicated we are doing away with human agents, but the
overwhelming percentage of checkin can be easily done with the kiosks.

In the USA yes because it has such a large domestic market. Elsewhere, it may
be a different story.

Plus if it is something the machine isn't currently programmed to do,
then there should be no fee.

There should never be a fee to check-in at a human desk. First of all, it
would cost more to collect the fee, take more than that it is worth. Secondly,
there are many cases where the CUSTOMER may need to ask some questions (such
as "can you put me on an earlier flight or reroute me due to thunderstorms in
the connecting airport) but end up with a "no, can't do that" and then the
agent proceeds with the simple check-in.

Also, look at the "Airline" episodes where they brought babies without
paperwork. How is a kiosk supposed to handle checking the baby's ID to make
sure it is below 2 years of age ?

Consider the case of a fully booked flight. Do you rather have the couple and
baby "stopped" at the check-in counter and their check-in process not done, or
would you rather they check in and be stopped at the gate ?

(think about 3 seats becoming free if the parents argue to a point where they
miss check-in deadline). Same thing with the fat people. Would you rather
have them blocked at the check-in process to pay the extra fee, or would you
rather have that done at the gate during boatrding process when there is very
little time left ?

In the end, you're simply shifting the manpower requirements from check-in to
gate areas.

complex check-in process.

Consider a trans-pacific flight connecting to a short domestic leg. Since you
started travel, that domestic leg wass cut/changed. And you are checking in at
an airport where your airline has a virtual presence (handled by another
airline). It has happened to me that after 10 minutes of fiddling with the
computer, the agent called "the office upstairs" and then they told me that
they'd give me the boarding pass for that leg at the gate because they were
unable to process it here.

Stating the percentage of seats booked isn't really a complex issue.

It is very difficult to get those numbers "officially" from an airline. But
from a check-in or gate staff, they can easily be coaxed into giving you that
information (or at least qualify the overbooking as light, or very bad).


would do that as they don't want to panic people by showing booking is
at 105 percent, when the no show rate is usually 8 percent for the
flight. Passengers will think there isn't room, when there would
normally be room.

Exactly. Hence the dumbing down of the customer-accessed airline information systems.

Oh, here is another one that needs human intervention: you have travel
vouchers (tourist packages that give you X flights for a fixed price) and you
need to add/change a flight.

If you add all of the possibile check-in/changes optiosn to the kiosks, they
will become too complex for grand mothers to use and thus defeat their
purpose. Remember that check in agents get extensive training.