Review of Passenger Functions

8/11/2019 Review of Passenger Functions

1/86

REHBEIN AOS

DATE 10 January, 2007

CONTACT BEN HARGREAVES

R e v

i e w

o f P a s s e n g e r s

F u n c

t i o n s a t

I n t e r n a

t i o n a l A

i r p o r t s

F o r A

u s

t r a

l i a n

C u s

t o m s S e r v

i c e


2/86

Ref: Rehbein AOS - Review ofPassenger Functions [UNCLASSIFIED]

- i - Australian Customs ServiceReview of Passengers Functions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the findings of a review of the Australian Customs Services Passengers Branchfunctions at International airports within Australia. The review focussed on the three broad themes of:efficiency; consistency; and the passenger experience.

Every airport is subject to traffic with different characteristics, resulting in differing demands forresources. In general terms, however, airport passenger flows are characterised by relatively shortperiods of very high demand, combined with long periods of little or no demand, as a direct result ofairline scheduling considerations. Such patterns make if very difficult to achieve high levels ofefficiency in the utilisation of resources at airports. Passenger flows at airports lead to an inevitablebuild-up of queues, which are absolutely necessary from an efficiency perspective.

The review did not reveal a single, overall solution to these challenges. However, a range of potentialincremental measures were identified whereby the efficiency of Customs operations and the qualityof the passenger experience could be enhanced. Implementation of these measures should be asconsistent as possible within the constraints imposed by the different airport environments.

Ultimately, responsibility for the smooth flow of passengers through an airport must rest with theairport operators. They are the only stakeholders with influence over all of the interacting processesthat occur within the airport. However, Customs should ensure that it does everything it can toeffectively manage its interactions with other airport stakeholders, in the interest of enhancingCustoms ability to perform its portfolio of responsibilities as efficiently as possible. In particular,Customs should work, at a high level, to ensure that airport operators and other influentialstakeholders clearly understand the interactions between the different processes in airports and theextent to which each agency is responsible for the smooth flow of passengers.

Since queues at airports are unavoidable, effective management of waiting passengers is importantto provide an acceptable passenger experience. Whilst queues for the primary line were generallyobserved to be orderly and well-managed, the provision of additional passenger management

resources in the primary line queues has the potential to realise significant processing efficiencies byensuring that the appropriate documents are correctly completed and ready for inspection. At thelarger airports, a net reduction in resources can be expected. The resource savings realised could bereassigned to fulfilling Customs enforcement functions or to managing passenger congestion in thebaggage hall and Secondary Examination Area. There may be a role for other industryorganisations, such as the airlines and airport operators, in ensuring passengers are adequatelyprepared. Improved signage may also help in this respect; however in isolation this is unlikely to besufficiently effective. If passenger preparation activities could be combined with a relocation ofenforcement targeting functions currently carried then behind the primary line, the synergy could help


3/86


- ii - Australian Customs ServiceReview of Passengers Functions

enhance the publics perception of Customs. Given the potential benefits that could result, this isconsidered to be a high priority area for attention.

Passenger flows in the baggage hall and queuing arrangements at the entrance to the SecondaryExamination Area were observed to be consistently problematic. This situation is ultimately causedby a fundamental lack of capacity for the conduct of quarantine inspections. Nevertheless, there aresome steps Customs could take to assist the smooth flow of passengers and overcome theseinfrastructure limitations. More active management of passengers in the baggage hall is essentialand should be considered an immediate priority. At the same time, queuing arrangements for theSecondary Examination Area at individual airports should be reviewed for effectiveness, ease ofunderstanding by passengers, the efficiency with which they utilise the available space and theextent to which they impact on passenger flows in the baggage hall. Streamlining of the Customs

and quarantine marshalling processes would also offer benefits in terms of efficiency and thepassenger experience and should be investigated as quickly as possible. A stronger and better-defined relationship with AQIS is essential to achieving both of these outcomes. Meanwhile,Customs should use the passenger facilitation task force to investigate necessary capacityenhancements within the Secondary Examination Area.

Whilst short-term resource allocation and deployment appears to be performed in an effectivemanner at all airports, this could be enhanced through the consistent application of the currentlyavailable planning tools. A more systematic long-term resource planning process, which considerswhole-of-airport requirements, can help to resolve the inevitable tension between Customsenforcement and passenger facilitation activities. An integrated planning approach will also allow alevel of resources to be delivered that more closely matches that required on a day-to-day basis toachieve Customs specific outcomes. More rigorous prediction of resource requirements will allow aneconomical roster structure to be developed and implemented, and provide greater confidence thatthe twin objectives of efficiency and effectiveness are being achieved. In order to support anenhanced resource planning process, however, a series of basic human resources indicators needto be monitored.

The use of Customs Officers to perform certain functions has been considered as part of this review.

There is the potential to accommodate part-time officers to accommodate peak period flows at thelarger airports. The potential efficiencies that this could realise warrant the development of acategory of part-time officers, subject to labour availability and engagement considerations, whichcould be utilised in the appropriate circumstances to fulfil a range of compliance-focussed functions.However, at smaller airports the flexibility offered by a completely multi-skilled workforce is essentialto efficient operations. An alternative solution might be to develop a graduated Customs Traineeprogram which would spread training costs over a longer period and allow officers to be productive incertain functions at a much earlier stage than presently.


4/86


- iii - Australian Customs ServiceReview of Passengers Functions

Infrastructure limitations will continue to present challenges to Customs and other stakeholders whoconduct operations at airports. More effective education of airport operators about the impacts oftheir decisions, combined with earlier involvement in redevelopment proposals, is required to

overcome these difficulties. The flexible deployment of Customs resources between the airport andother locations has considerable merit in achieving the most efficient utilisation of staff. Ways inwhich this could be achieved in the medium- to long-term should be given serious consideration.

Customs signage at airports needs to be comprehensively reviewed. A consistent signage policyshould be developed that addresses aspects such as the content, style and siting of Customs signsas well as interaction with the signs of other stakeholders, particularly airport operators. Themessage, form of delivery, location and audience for each sign must be considered carefully.Signage is not always the most effective medium and alternative methods of delivery for key

messages should be used where appropriate.The current inwards passenger facilitation standard is a satisfactory indicator of performance at theentry control point. However, this standard should be considered within an integrated framework ofpassenger facilitation measures covering all relevant airport processes, which Customs should workto establish through the passenger facilitation task force. Performance measures for facilitation byCustoms in the Secondary Examination Area are not appropriate. However the development of apassenger facilitation performance measure for the outward control point would be beneficial toCustoms in managing its interactions with airlines and airport operators.

In establishing framework of key performance indicators to assist management in monitoring theeffectiveness and efficiency of Customs passengers operations, it should be recognised that thecomparison of efficiency indicators between airports will be of limited value due to impracticality ofestablishing a useful benchmark. Benchmarks for efficiency need to be founded on baselineresource requirements for each individual airport established through a systematic resource planningprocess.


5/86


- iv - Australian Customs ServiceReview of Passengers Functions

PRIORITY ACTION AREAS

The principal recommendations relating to each of the key priority action areas identified by thisreview are summarised below. These key recommendations are presented in priority order and aresupported by the remaining recommendations contained within this report which are summarised inSection 6.0.

Each group of recommendations should be considered as a suite of complementary actions that, ifimplemented together, will generate substantial synergies. Furthermore, there are cost and efficiencyinteractions between each group of recommendations such that, if implemented in totality, theseactions should result in improvements to the passenger experience and consistency of practice witha net improvement in efficiency.

Passenger management and preparation:

More active management of passengers in the baggage hall is essential, from the perspective of thepassenger experience. Queuing arrangements for the Secondary Examination Area require scrutiny.Although additional resources are required for passenger management, closer relationships withAQIS would present opportunities to minimise this increase through streamlining.

Recommendation 5: Sufficient resources should be provided in busy periods dedicated to theactive management of passengers attempting to exit the baggage hall. Customs should use thepassenger facilitation task force to investigate necessary capacity enhancements within theSecondary Examination Area (SEA).

Recommendation 8: Queuing arrangements for the Secondary Examination Area at individualairports should be further scrutinised for their effectiveness, ease of understanding by passengers,the efficiency with which they utilise the available space and the extent to which they impact onpassenger flows in the baggage hall.

Recommendation 6: Sufficient marshal resources should be provided to prevent the Customsmarshal point from being a limiting factor in the queuing process for the Secondary ExaminationArea.

Recommendation 7: The opportunity for streamlining the Customs and AQIS marshalling dutiesfor the Secondary Examination Area should be investigated through the passenger facilitation taskforce.

The provision of additional passenger management resources in the primary line queues, either byCustoms or other stakeholder organisations, has the potential to realise significant processingefficiencies, especially at larger airports. If this could be combined with a relocation of enforcementtargeting functions, the synergy could generate greater efficiencies and help enhance the publics


6/86


- v - Australian Customs ServiceReview of Passengers Functions

perception of Customs. Some of the resource savings here could be redirected to the managementof passengers in the baggage hall.

Recommendation 3: Measures to reduce entry control point cycle times by improving passengerreadiness should be adopted at SYD, MEL and BNE. Customs should seek to secure thecooperation of airlines and airport operators to achieve this. The potential benefits of this strategy atother airports should be reviewed.

Recommendation 14: Customs should review internally its publicly visible enforcement workpractices for the potential to carry out these activities in other locations so that the officersconducting them appear more active.

Recommendation 10: Customs should seek to secure the cooperation of airlines and airportoperators to ensure passengers have completed their outgoing passenger card before entering thequeue and have it ready for inspection at the desk along with their passport. This principle should beestablished at a national level as well as between the regions and individual airports.

There is potential to realise resource savings by using teams of part-time officers to accommodatethe peak period flows in highly demand-driven compliance-focussed functions at some airports.Development of a corresponding category of personnel would offer a cost-effective mechanism forthe provision of additional resources to carry out passenger management activities.

Recommendation 36: A job description for part-time officers should be developed. Mechanisms bywhich such officers could be integrated within the Customs personnel structure should beinvestigated.

Recommendation 37: Customs should consider the use of part-time officers at MEL and BNEinitially and, subject to positive results there, review the potential to engage them at SYD in light oflabour market considerations.

Resource planning and performance measurement:

A more systematic long-term resource planning process, which considers whole-of-airportrequirements, is required to allow a level of resources to be delivered that more closely matches thatrequired on a day-to-day basis to achieve Customs specific outcomes. Efficiencies will flow from theability to deliver resources in the most cost-effective manner. More systematic resource planning willalso identify baseline resource requirements for each individual airport and allow efficiency to beassessed and monitored in a meaningful way.

Recommendation 22: In planning long-term resource requirements, adequate account must betaken of anticipated variations in passenger numbers and aircraft arrival times. Resource


7/86


- vi - Australian Customs ServiceReview of Passengers Functions

requirements should be planned explicitly to achieve the current specified performance targets.Adequate resources must be allocated to resource planning activities to achieve these objectives.

Recommendation 23: Long-term resource planning for Customs enforcement activities should becarried out as rigorously as possible and the results incorporated into the overall workforce planningprocess.

Recommendation 56: The baseline predicted resource requirement should be established at eachairport in order to permit a meaningful assessment of the efficiency of resource delivery by rosters.The baseline resource requirement must be reviewed at each change of flight schedule and updatedas necessary.

Infrastructure, signage and stakeholder relationships:

Customs should ensure that it does everything it can to effectively manage its interactions with otherairport stakeholders, especially AQIS, in the interest of enhancing Customs ability to perform itsportfolio of responsibilities as efficiently as possible. Customs signage at airports needs to becomprehensively reviewed.

Recommendation 18: Customs must work to achieve a stronger relationship and clearer divisionof responsibilities between Customs and AQIS with respect to the management of passengers in theSecondary Examination Area (SEA) and baggage hall. This should be achieved through formalagreements at a national level.

Recommendation 15: Customs should ensure that it does everything in its power to effectivelymanage its interactions with other airport stakeholders, in the interest of enhancing Customs abilityto perform its portfolio of responsibilities as efficiently as possible.

Recommendation 40: A consistent signage policy should be developed. This should addressaspects such as the content, style and siting of Customs signs as well as the interaction with thesigns of other stakeholders, particularly airport operators.

Recommendation 41: The content and location of dynamic signs should be thoroughly reviewedas part of an overall signage strategy.


8/86


- vii - Australian Customs ServiceReview of Passengers Functions

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0

INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 SCOPE OF THE REVIEW 1

1.2 METHODOLOGY 1

1.3 CONTEXT 2

2.0 WORK PRACTICES & BUSINESS PROCESSES 4

2.1 PASSENGER MANAGEMENT 4

2.2 PASSENGER PERCEPTIONS 16

2.3 INTERACTION WITH OTHER AGENCIES 17

3.0 STAFFING 21

3.1 RESOURCE ALLOCATION & DEPLOYMENT 21

3.2 TRAINING 29

3.3 RECRUITMENT & SELECTION POLICY 31

3.4 SKILLING LEVELS AND CAREER PATHS 33

4.0 INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY 35

4.1 INFRASTRUCTURE CONFIGURATION 35

4.2 SIGNAGE 37

4.3 OTHER TECHNOLOGY 46

5.0 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 48

5.1 PASSENGER FACILITATION MEASURES 48

5.2 MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES 55

6.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 60


9/86


- viii - Australian Customs ServiceReview of Passengers Functions

6.1 WORK PRACTICES/BUSINESS PROCESSES 60

6.2 STAFFING 62

6.3 INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY 63

6.4 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 64

7.0 CONCLUSIONS 66

APPENDIX TERMS OF REFERENCE


10/86


- ix - Australian Customs ServiceReview of Passengers Functions

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 TYPICAL ECP QUEUE ARRANGEMENTS 6

FIGURE 2 QUEUING FOR CUSTOMS MARSHAL POINT 10

FIGURE 3 QUEUING FOR THE SECONDARY EXAMINATION AREA (SEA) AT SYD 11

FIGURE 4 TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ACTUAL AIRCRAFT ARRIVALS AGAINST SCHEDULE 22

FIGURE 5 LONG-TERM RESOURCE PLANNING METHODS 23

FIGURE 6 COMPARISON OF RESOURCE REQUIREMENT PREDICTIONS - ECP 24

FIGURE 7 RESTRICTED AREA SIGNS 39

FIGURE 8 FREE-STANDING DUTY FREE ALLOWANCE SIGNS 40

FIGURE 9 INEFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL SIGNS 41

FIGURE 10 DYNAMIC SIGNAGE FOR AUTOMATED BORDER PROCESS 42

FIGURE 11 DYNAMIC SIGNAGE AT THE ECP 43

FIGURE 12 DUPLICATION OF DIRECTIONAL SIGNS 45

FIGURE 13 COMPARATIVE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTWARD FACILITATION 54


11/86


- 1 - Australian Customs ServiceReview of Passengers Functions

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings of a review of the Australian Customs Services PassengersBranch functions at International airports within Australia. The review was carried out by RehbeinAOS Airport Consulting, on behalf of the Australian Customs Service (Customs).

1.1 SCOPE OF THE REVIEW

The full Terms of Reference for the review, defined and agreed at the outset of the study, areincluded as Appendix. In summary, the review considered the following four aspects within thecontext of Customs business objectives:

the extent to which current work practices / business processes deliver, in the most efficientand effective way possible, Customs business objectives within relevant standards;

the extent to which current staffing arrangements, including workforce planning, recruitment,deployment and rostering, deliver capable staff able to undertake the requisite businessprocesses to achieve Customs business outcomes;

the extent to which technology, and in particular signage, does or could further the efficient andeffective delivery of Customs business outcomes;

the extent to which current performance measures usefully quantify Customs business

outcomes at airports.

It was agreed that the review should concentrate on Customs activities in relation to passengerfacilitation rather than its enforcement role. However, both functions interact and it is not thereforepossible to completely exclude consideration of Customs enforcement activities.

1.2 METHODOLOGY

1.2.1 FIELD VISITS

The review essentially consisted of two stages. The first stage, conducted primarily duringSeptember 2006, comprised field visits to the four representative international airports agreed inthe Terms of Reference. These airports were (in order of visitation) Melbourne Tullamarine (MEL),Perth International (PER), Adelaide (ADL) and Sydney Kingsford Smith (SYD).

Between two and three days was spent at each airport conducting a mixture of:

observation of passenger flows and overall activity in Customs controlled areas. Theseobservations were carried out during the busiest periods of the day for each process;

a review of the extent, nature and effectiveness of Customs and other relevant signage;


12/86



discussions with Customs personnel regarding work practices / business processes andstaffing issues; and

consultation with the airport operator, airlines and any other relevant agencies regardingexternal issues affecting Customs processes.

Two supplementary visits were also carried out to Brisbane International (BNE) and Cairns (CNS).The primary purpose of the visit to BNE was to assist in planning for the main field visits. In thecase of CNS, members of the review team were in the area on other business following thecompletion of the main visits. It was agreed that a visit to the airport represented a valuableopportunity for further comparison. These supplementary visits were shorter and less extensivethan the main visits only 3 - 4 hours in duration and were timed to coincide with busy periods.

1.2.2 DATA ANALYSIS AND REVIEW

The second stage, carried out during October 2006, focussed on analysis and review of thefindings of the field visits, consideration of the main objectives of the assignment and thepreparation of this report.

1.3 CONTEXT

1.3.1 CUSTOMS STRATEGIC STATEMENT

This review was carried out in the context of the corporate priorities in the Australian CustomsServicesStrategic Statement 2006-07 . These are to:

maintain the communitys confidence in the way Customs goes about performing its role; and

deliver on Customs border protection, facilitation and revenue commitments to Government.

One of the key improvement priorities identified in the2006-07 Strategic Statement is the need tofocus on improving the consistency and efficiency of Customs operations.

With these priorities in mind, this review had three broad themes:

efficiency;

consistency; and

the quality of the passenger experience.


13/86



1.3.2 THE AIRPORT ENVIRONMENT

Every airport is subject to traffic with different characteristics, in terms of:

annual passenger traffic levels; the distribution of flights throughout the day and week, and the extent to which these occur on-

schedule;

the proportions of passengers travelling on business or for leisure;

the mix of airlines and aircraft sizes serving the airport; and

the destinations served and the mix of passenger nationalities.

Differences in these factors result in different demands for resources, such that two airports areunlikely to have similar resource requirements no matter how similar they appear.

Nevertheless, some general characteristics of passenger flows at airports are worth highlighting. Inparticular, airport traffic is characterised by relatively short periods of very high demand, combinedwith long periods of little or no demand. Airline scheduling considerations result in passengerdemand profiles that are rarely uniform across the day. Rather, passenger flows tend to be veryhigh for parts of the day and very low for other parts. This is true for all but the very busiest airportsin the world. However, the variation in flows over time tends to be more acute at airports with lowertraffic levels.

Such patterns make if very difficult to achieve high efficiencies in the utilisation of resources atairports. To avoid queues completely would be financially prohibitive, in terms of the quantity ofresources and infrastructure required to cope with the highest demand peaks.


14/86



2.0 WORK PRACTICES & BUSINESS PROCESSES

2.1 PASSENGER MANAGEMENTPassenger flows at airports display two particular features which lead to an inevitable build-up ofqueues: variability in the time between successive passengers arriving for service at a particularprocess (such as check-in, security screening, or the inwards or outwards control points); and thefact that passengers often arrive in groups rather than individually. Processing times at each stageare also subject to variability. This variability can lead to delays (i.e. queues) even when averagepassenger flow rates are lower than average processing rates. A particular characteristic of airportqueues is that they can develop relatively quickly, over a period of as little as a few minutes, and

take a much longer time to dissipate.Since queues are unavoidable, effective management of waiting passengers is important to providean acceptable passenger experience. Issues such as infrastructure availability and configuration(discussed in Section 4.1) affect not only the amount of queuing passengers are subjected to butalso the quality of that experience. Passenger management is especially important when there areinfrastructure limitations to overcome.

Effective passenger management can also have flow-on efficiencies in terms of Customsprocesses. By removing delays caused by passengers being unprepared for forthcoming

procedures, the whole process can operate more smoothly and quickly. The use of signs to informpassengers about their responsibilities in the process is discussed in Section 4.2. However,interaction with people is another method that can be equally, if not more, effective. Issues relatingto the active management of passengers are discussed in the following sections.

2.1.1 ENTRY CONTROL POINT

Overt interaction between Customs and passengers in the arrivals concourse prior to the entrycontrol point (ECP) is limited, but includes some signage (discussed in Section 4.2) and the use ofdetector dogs. From the point of disembarkation of the aircraft passengers are guided by signs

provided by the airport operator and in some cases by airline personnel.2.1.1.1 Incoming Passenger Cards

Upon entry to the ECP, passengers are directed to the appropriate primary line module by signageand in some cases by marshals. Before entering the queue for the primary line, passengers mustcomplete an incoming passenger card (IPC). Some passengers need to do this in the ECP, eitherbecause they have not had the opportunity to do this previously or because they require a foreign-language version of the card.


15/86



The location of benches containing the IPCs is often such that they are not obvious to passengers.This is due to the need to keep these benches out of main flow and, in part, to limitations of theinfrastructure in the ECP queuing areas. In many cases, passengers are required to look

backwards to see the benches. Although foreign-language IPCs are available at the benches in theECP area, it was noted that the availability of these may not be obvious to passengers unless theyask. The labelling of foreign-language IPCs was generally only in English and not visible from anydistance.

It was both reported and observed by the review team that a significant number of passengerspresent incomplete or incorrect IPCs to Customs Officers at both the ECP and later at the entry tothe Secondary Examination Area. This can lead to delays in both locations whilst thedocumentation is adjusted. In many cases, it is likely that this results from passengers completing

an IPC that is not in their first language.There may be a role for other industry organisations, such as the airlines and airport operators, inensuring passengers are adequately prepared in terms of arrival documentation prior to reachingthe ECP. Customs might also consider the extent to which mechanisms such as those used byAQIS to inform passengers on-board aircraft through the use of pre-arrival messages could beemployed to this end.

Recommendation 1: Methods of better communicating the availability of incoming passengercards to passengers, including those in foreign languages, should be

considered. The role of other stakeholders, and the use of pre-arrivalmessages, whether paid for by Customs or through changes to legislationrequirements, in preparing passengers for incoming border proceduresshould be reviewed.

2.1.1.2 Queuing arrangements

Typical queuing arrangements for the ECP are shown in Figure 1. Generally, queuingarrangements for the ECP adopted the same physical layout at all of the airports visited: that of asnake queue. Separate queues for Australian and also, in most cases, New Zealand passport

holders (and their families) are provided at all of the airports visited. This arrangement isconsidered to be both desirable and acceptable due to the high proportion of travellers who are ofthese nationalities. However, it can lead to complications when there is an imbalance in theproportions of nationalities on a particular flight, or series of flights. It was noted that some airportsdo not encourage New Zealand passport holders to queue with Australian nationals. This is due tothe relatively low volumes of New Zealand nationals passing through these airports. However, fromthe point of view of consistency of the arrivals experience it is recommended that the practice ofincluding both Australian and New Zealand passport holders in a separate ECP queue bestandardised.


16/86



Recommendation 2: The practice of providing separate queues for Australian and NewZealand passport holders, and for holders of other passports, at the entrycontrol point should be standardised at all airports, in the interests of

ensuring a consistent arrival experience for passengers.

Figure 1 Typical ECP Queue Arrangements

A dedicated channel is also provided at all airports for the use of airline crew. This lane alsoprovides priority processing for mobility impaired passengers being assisted through the Customsprocess by the airlines, domestic passengers and APEC card holders.

Queues for the ECP were generally observed to be orderly and well-managed. However, a fewpotential issues were noted.

Generally, the queuing barriers are left open initially, in order to prevent the first passengers from aflight having to snake unnecessarily (by following the dotted arrows in Figure 1). However, queuesdevelop quickly once a flight arrives and it was observed that there is usually a very short window

during which this initial arrangement is adequate. The queue quickly extends beyond the cordonedarea and the barriers need adjusting to divert passengers into the snake. If the barriers are notrearranged quickly at the necessary time this situation results in congestion at the rear of thequeuing despite adequate queuing space being available further forward. This appeared to be aparticular problem at PER, where the ECP is fed from a downwards escalator. Such situations arenot desirable from the point of view of passenger comfort or safety and lead to a negativeperception of the quality of the passenger experience.

At airports where a marshal was observed at the entrance to the ECP queues, this practiceappeared to be well received by passengers. The marshal was able to assist passengers to join the


17/86



correct queue and was also able to adjust the queuing arrangements quickly as and when required.It was not obvious whether the marshal was specifically advising people of the need to complete anIPC, but it was observed that they were able to assist people with queries about the procedures

generally.

At most airports, each main snake queue feeds into shorter queues from which passengers moveto individual ECP races. This process does not appear to require a marshal and none wasobserved during the site visits. This queuing arrangement ensures each Custom Officer receives acontinuous supply of passengers. It therefore avoids the inefficiencies that can occur whenpassengers feed to desks from a single point and leads to the fastest ECP cycle times.

It was noted that at SYD, Australian & New Zealand passport holders form individual queues foreach ECP channel. This arrangement is equivalent, in terms of processing efficiency, to the snakearrangements adopted elsewhere. However there are two reasons in particular for consideringchanging this arrangement:

There is unused space between the lines of queuing passengers. The use of a snakearrangement could help to make more efficient use of the space in the ECP area, therebyallowing more passengers to be accommodated within a guided queuing arrangement.

Queues like this can be perceived as less fair than a snake queue. Although unfair situations(situations in which passengers do not get processed in the order in which they joined thecollective bank of queues) are expected to be less frequent for Australian & New Zealandpassengers than for other nationalities, they might still occur or be perceived to be occurring.The use of a main snake queue would avoid this.

2.1.1.3 Processing at the ECP

Detailed consideration of the procedures undertaken by Customs Officers in processingpassengers at the ECP desk itself was not within the scope of this review. However, some generalobservations were made concerning the extent to which passengers are prepared for theprocedures that will be carried out there.

The principal observation was that relatively long delays can result at the ECP desk due topassengers not having completed their IPCs correctly. This leads to a series of questions from theCustoms Officer to establish basic facts including the passengers flight number and whether theyhave any items to declare. This was especially noticeable in the case of non-Australian and NewZealand passport holders. The provision of additional resources upstream of the ECP, beforepassengers join the queue or whilst they are waiting, to inform passengers of the need to completetheir IPC and to assist them in completing it correctly could reduce these delays.


18/86



These resources could be provided by Customs or by other industry stakeholders such as theairport operators and the airlines. Even if Customs resources were used, a net reduction in ECPresources would certainly be expected at the larger airports (SYD, MEL, BNE and possibly PER).

These resources could be redeployed to fulfilling Customs enforcement functions or to managingpassenger congestion in the baggage hall and Secondary Examination Area (SEA). If passengerpreparation could be combined with a relocation of certain enforcement activities (as discussed inSection 2.2.2) the net resource savings to Customs would be even more significant. At otherairports the benefits of this strategy may be less clear, as there may be less scope to reduce cycletimes. The impacts of this strategy on ECP resource requirements at smaller airports wouldtherefore need to be reviewed on an individual basis.

Recommendation 3: Measures to reduce entry control point cycle times by improving

passenger readiness should be adopted at SYD, MEL and BNE. Customsshould seek to secure the cooperation of airlines and airport operators toachieve this. The potential benefits of this strategy at other airports shouldbe reviewed.

2.1.2 BAGGAGE HALL & SECONDARY EXAMINATION AREA

Passenger flows in the baggage hall and queuing arrangements at the entrance to the SecondaryExamination Area (SEA) were observed to be consistently problematic at all of the airports visited,with the exception of CNS. This situation is ultimately caused by a fundamental lack of capacity in

the SEA for the conduct of AQIS inspections (discussed further in Section 4.1). This lack ofcapacity is compounded by the fact that the baggage hall and SEA infrastructure configurations aredifferent at each airport. Nevertheless, the manner in which passengers are managed in thebaggage hall, through the Customs marshal point and whilst queuing and waiting in the SEA inmany cases exacerbates these problems

2.1.2.1 Baggage hall

At the larger airports, the size of the baggage hall and the need for extensive queuing space in theSEA dictate that more than one entry point to the SEA queue is necessary. This has historically

been achieved through the use of red and green channels.The use of the red (Goods to Declare) and green (Nothing to Declare) exit system was observedat both PER and at SYD (Pier C). This arrangement appeared to be problematic because of thelarge volumes of passengers using the red exit. This is more likely to be due to the large range ofitems that require a quarantine declaration than to large numbers of passengers declaring items ofCustoms interest. There was also evidence of uncertainty on the part of passengers about whichexit they should use. This seemed to be due to passengers not knowing whether they need todeclare certain items. Several passengers were observed asking Customs Officers whether theywere in the correct queue. These officers were unable direct passengers in the red queue that theycould use the green exit, because of a lack of authority to make decisions regarding AQIS


19/86



declaration requirements. At PER the situation was worsened by the fact that the queuingarrangements for the red exit prevented many passengers from seeing or reaching the green exit.

The use of the red and green channel system is in accordance with World Customs Organisation(WCO) recommendations (incorporated by ICAO as Appendix 6 to Annex 9 to the Convention onInternational Civil Aviation). However, given the high level of intervention required by AQIS onpassengers selecting the green channel, the WCO recommendations can be consideredinappropriate in the case of Australia. The review team understands that the use of the red/greenexist system is being discontinued but that this change is contingent on individual airport operatorsmodifying the infrastructure accordingly. Customs should work with the necessary stakeholders toexpedite these changes to ensure a consistent arrival experience for passengers.

Recommendation 4: Customs should work to expedite the necessary changes to infrastructureto discontinue the use of the red and green exit system at all airports,through the passenger facilitation task force. Standardisation should beachieved as quickly as possible in the interests of consistency.

In situations with multiple exits but no red/green distinction (SYD ITB, MEL and BNE), thedistribution of passengers to these exits is prone to difficulties. This is mainly due to the proximity ofthe queuing barriers to the end of the baggage carousels. As a result of baggage carouselassignments, often situations occur where one exit naturally receives more demand than the other.The resulting congestion around the exit point blocks to cross-flow of passengers between the

baggage carousels and the Secondary Examination Area (SEA) queuing area, preventingpassengers from using the other exit. This results in very long queues at one exit whilst the otherexit is relatively under-utilised. In many cases, when Customs or AQIS officers directed thepassengers, the congestion eased considerably and the level of service in the baggage hallimproved. It is the opinion of the review team that border agency personnel are, in general, notsufficiently active in managing the distribution of passengers to exits in the baggage hall.Congestion around the Customs marshal point develops quickly and can become disorderly in amatter of seconds. Personnel who are dedicated to actively managing passenger flows in thebaggage hall are therefore required to anticipate and pro-actively address these situations as they

develop. Passive measures such as signs are unlikely to be effective in these situations.

Recommendation 5: Sufficient resources should be provided in busy periods dedicated to theactive management of passengers attempting to exit the baggage hall.Customs should use the passenger facilitation task force to investigatenecessary capacity enhancements within the Secondary Examination Area (SEA).


20/86



2.1.2.2 Customs marshal point

Passengers are required to show their IPC to a Customs Officer at the marshal point. It wasobserved at several airports that this often results in a queue forming upstream of the marshalpoint, even before a queue has developed downstream. An extreme case of this was observed atADL, in which the queue for the Customs marshal extended around the baggage hall andprevented passengers from accessing the baggage reclaim carousel (Figure 2 ) it is acknowledgedthat this was probably not a typical situation, due to the use of Customs Trainees at the marshalpoint on that particular day. However, it illustrates the potential for this process to becomeproblematic.

Figure 2 Queuing for Customs marshal point

At SYD, it was acknowledged by Customs personnel that two marshals were required at each exitpoint to avoid this situation. However it was noted by the review team that the application of thispolicy was not always the case. A similar situation to that described above can be seen in Figure 3In this case, a single flight arrival, results in a queue around and between the baggage carouselsas people wait to pass through the Customs marshal point. The empty queuing races beyond canbe seen.


21/86



Figure 3 Queuing for the SECONDARY EXAMINATION AREA (SEA) at SYD

Recommendation 6: Sufficient marshal resources should be provided to prevent the Customsmarshal point from being a limiting factor in the queuing process for theSecondary Examination Area.

After passing through the Customs marshal point, passengers in which Customs have no interestthen have to queue again to show their IPC to an AQIS marshal. It was noted in some cases that,despite the short distance between the Customs and AQIS marshals, passengers returned theirIPC to their pocket between the two marshals. This could be avoided if the Customs marshal wereto advise or remind passengers to show their card to the AQIS marshal when they direct them tothe AQIS channel. Marshalling acts as a further constriction of passenger flow through theSecondary Examination Area (SEA). Therefore, anything Customs Officers can do to speed up theflow of passengers will serve to improve the queuing and waiting experience for many passengersoutside of the busiest periods at the larger airports. If the Customs and AQIS marshal duties could

be combined at a single point, it is expected that this would offer a substantial improvement in theflow of passengers queuing for the SEA. Streamlining the marshalling process for the SEA wouldalso realise savings in resources that could be diverted to enforcement activities or themanagement of passengers in the baggage hall.

Recommendation 7: The opportunity for streamlining the Customs and AQIS marshalling dutiesfor the Secondary Examination Area should be investigated through the passenger facilitation task force.


22/86




Because of the different physical layouts of the baggage hall and Secondary Examination Area(SEA) at different airports, queuing arrangements for the SEA vary. Queues for Customsprocesses downstream of the marshal point were observed to be generally not problematic.Adequate space appears to be available for those passengers awaiting baggage inspections inmost cases.

Queues upstream of the Customs marshal point, in the baggage hall, were observed to begenerally poorly managed. At the busier airports (SYD and MEL) this resulted in an undefinedgrouping of people waiting to pass through the Customs marshal points (the crows feet effect).During the visit to SYD (Pier B), a trial of a new queuing arrangement to provide additional queuingspace for the SEA was underway. The arrangement is intended to avoid the crows feet situation.

Although it does undoubtedly ensure a greater number of people are queuing in an orderly ratherthan haphazard fashion than would otherwise be the case, the new arrangement potentially justmoves this problem further into the baggage hall, where it has greater impact on circulation in thebaggage hall.

It is recognised that queues upstream of the Customs marshal point cannot always be avoided.Nevertheless, some simple management of those queues to direct the direction in which theydevelop could minimise the impact they have on the circulation of passengers in the baggage hall(see Section 2.1.2.1).

The review team notes that attempts to improve the queuing arrangements both upstream anddownstream of the Customs marshal point have been made on an airport-by-airport basis.However, despite the difficulties presented by individual airport configurations, it would appear thatthere is room to further increase the effectiveness of these arrangements at some airports.

Recommendation 8: Queuing arrangements for the Secondary Examination Area at individualairports should be further scrutinised for their effectiveness, ease ofunderstanding by passengers, the efficiency with which they utilise theavailable space and the extent to which they impact on passenger flows in

the baggage hall. 2.1.2.4 Express exit gate

It was observed in SYD that an express exit gate (EEG) initiative was in place. The EEG is seen byAQIS as a proactive way to manage risk by preventing those that pose no threat to the border fromqueuing for the Secondary Examination Area (SEA).

Recommendation 9: The value of the express exit gate system in relieving congestion in theSecondary Examination Area should be reviewed through the passengerfacilitation task force.


23/86



2.1.3 OUTWARDS CONTROL POINT

2.1.3.1 Outgoing Passenger Cards

At some airports, a security guard provided by the airlines, or a voluntary airport ambassador, isstationed at the entrance to the OCP to ensure one or all of the following:

all persons entering the Customs controlled area hold a valid boarding card;

passengers have the necessary documentation ready for presentation; and

no trolleys are taken into the Customs controlled area.

The extent to which these non-Customs resources are provided varies between airports. In somecases they are provided all the time that the OCP is open, in other cases only during the busiestperiods. The most important function, from the point of view of Customs processing, is ensuring theall passengers complete (correctly) an outgoing passenger card (OPC). A significant number ofpassengers at SYD were observed presenting at the primary line without a completed OPC. Thisrequired them to go to the back of the queuing area to fill one out. Not only is this frustrating for thepassengers, who may have already queued for a substantial period, but it reduces the efficiency ofCustoms processing operations.

As described in Section 2.1.1.3, substantial benefits could flow to Customs as a result of evenslight reductions in OCP cycle times. Ensuring all passengers have a completed OPC would helpto reduce the average cycle time. Although the provision of an additional Customs resources tofulfil this function might be justified on the basis of the resource savings it would achieve forCustoms, such an approach seems unnecessary given that the function could be performedadequately by the resources already available.

Recommendation 10: Customs should seek to secure the cooperation of airlines and airportoperators to ensure passengers have completed their OPC beforeentering the queue and have it ready for inspection at the desk along with

their passport. This principle should be established at a national level aswell as between the regions and individual airports.

As with the ECP, the location and visibility of OPCs was not always optimal. At SYD (Pier B) duringthe peak period a large number of passengers were observed using the benches to completeOPCs. This created congestion around the entrance to the OCP queue.


Queuing arrangements for the OCP are much simpler than for the ECP, due to the fact that no

distinction is made between the different nationalities of passengers. At most airports, operates in


24/86



the same way as those at the ECP (see Section 2.1.1.2). The use of marshals in the OCP queue isnot generally the case at most airports. The exception is in SYD (Pier B). Given that at otherairports the OCP queue manages to operate satisfactorily without a dedicated marshal, the need

for one at this particular location might be reviewed.

It was reported during the review that the implementation of an electronic queue managementsystem is being considered to avoid the need for a marshal. This could have a detrimental impacton OCP processing cycle times. The potential impacts of electronic queue management systemsare discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.2.

2.1.3.3 Passenger presentation behaviour

One of the main difficulties for Customs with the departures process is the difficulty in predicting

when passengers will proceed through the OCP. Two aspects of passenger behaviour werereported as being significant in this regard:

the lack of control over passengers between the time they check-in and the time they proceedto the OCP; and

the impact of large groups of passengers presenting together.

Ideally, from Customs viewpoint, relocation of the security screening point immediately ahead ofthe OCP would assist in providing a smoother and more controlled flow of passengers. This wouldreduce the queuing space required and potentially offer reductions in the number of Customs

Officers required in the peak period to maintain acceptable queue lengths. Customs, through thepassenger facilitation task force, should press for the relocation of the security screening pointimmediately prior to the OCP, as has been included in the current redevelopment plans for BNEand MEL.

Recommendation 11: Customs should, through the passenger facilitation task force, encourageairport operators to relocate the security screening point immediately priorto the outwards control point wherever possible.

Even so, mechanisms by which variations in departing passenger flows can be better anticipated

are required. There is very little that Customs can do to ensure that passengers leave adequatetime to complete Customs formalities at the OCP and clear security in advance of their flightdeparture time. This is the joint responsibility of the airlines and the airport operators. However,Customs would be in a stronger position to avoid criticism if it developed and promoted aperformance standard for queuing and processing through the OCP. The definition and use of suchas standard is discussed further in Section 5.1.3.2.

At PER, late presentation of passengers at the OCP appears to be particularly common due to thenumber of concessions landside and the quality of the waiting space airside. Here, the review team

observed Customs Officers keeping track of the number of passengers on each flight processed


25/86



through the OCP by using a mechanical card counter. Simple comparison with the number ofpassengers booked on each flight allows any late surges of passengers to be anticipated andimmediate resource requirements to be more precisely estimated. Whilst counting cards would be

impractical at larger airports, information could be made accessible to the OCP supervisor at eachairport to allow them to track in real time passenger flows through the OCP.

Recommendation 12: The number of passengers that have passed through the OCP for eachflight should be monitored and compared with the known passengernumbers in real time to assist in determining immediately forthcomingresource requirements for the OCP to enable achievement of agreed performance outcomes.

The impact of tour groups was highlighted at a number of airports as negatively impacting onCustoms ability to minimise queue times. The impact of tour groups on achievement of queue timestandards was investigated using computer simulation modelling. The results revealed that, fordata typical of MEL, the impact of including a proportion of large groups reduced the facilitation rateachieved by between 0.5 and 1.0% if processing resources remain the same. This translates to anincrease in average queue time per passenger of 30 40 seconds.

In order to deal effectively with large groups of passengers arriving at the same time, Customsrequires two key pieces of information: advance notice of their imminent arrival; and the ability todivert resources temporarily to the OCP processing function. The former can be achieved, to a

certain extent, by the use of CCTV resources to monitor the development of groups of passengersin the landside departure concourse. Such a system is being developed at SYD. However, this canonly provide a relatively short period of notice about impending groups. It also relies on Customspersonnel having the time to monitor the CCTV images sufficiently regularly.

A superior arrangement would be to secure the cooperation of the airlines in passing oninformation about large groups of passengers. This information should, to a relatively reliableextent, be available to the airlines through the check-in process. Advance notice of the presence oftour groups on particular flights could be used in conjunction with CCTV monitoring to anticipateresource requirements.

If Customs were to promulgate and commit to an outwards passenger facilitation standard then thisshould be on the understanding that its achievement can only be achieved if the airlines provideinformation about group check-ins to Customs.

Recommendation 13: Customs should secure the cooperation of the airlines in developing andimplementing a formal arrangement for advising Customs, as far inadvance as possible, of the presence of large groups of passengers onflights and providing notification when these check-in.


26/86



2.2 PASSENGER PERCEPTIONS

2.2.1 CUSTOMS RESPONSIBILITIES

There is a widespread but inaccurate perception amongst travellers that Customs is responsible forall of the negative experiences flowing to passengers from the time of disembarkation to clearanceof the Secondary Examination Area (SEA). This situation is not helped by the fact that airportoperators themselves sometimes convey the same inaccurate perception. In particular people oftenattribute all delays as a result of AQIS intervention in the SEA to Customs. This may be due to acombination of:

a lack of understanding of the split of responsibilities between different agencies;

the high visibility of Customs officers relative to those of other agencies, including AQIS; and

an absence of interest in who is responsible for each part of the process.

Passengers passing through an airport are subject to a sequence of processes, each of which isthe responsibility of different agencies. All of these separate processes interact, either directly orindirectly. The state of flow of passengers in one process, therefore, is a function of the state offlow in all other processes. The capacity of the whole system is constrained by the activity with thelowest throughput. Ultimately, therefore, responsibility for the smooth flow of passengers throughan airport must rest with the airport operator as the only stakeholder with influence over all of theprocesses.

Customs should work, at a high level, to ensure that airport operators and other influentialstakeholders clearly understand the interactions between the different processes in their airportsand the extent to which each agency is responsible.

2.2.2 CUSTOMS OFFICER ACTIVITY

A further widespread misconception surrounds the activity of Customs Officers during busyperiods. There is a perception that many Customs officers are doing nothing when in fact they arecarrying out essential enforcement duties. This is a misconception that, it seems, is an easy targetfor passengers and even the media to spread when criticising the arrivals process at some ofAustralias busiest international airports.

During the field visits to airports the following situations were observed that were considered tohave the potential to fuel this misconception:

multiple Customs Officers allocated to marshal duties with only one checking IPCs;

the presence of Customs Trainees undergoing on-the-job training with accompanying mentors.


27/86



Despite the inaccuracy of the perception it is considered important that Customs acts to adjustwherever possible any work practices that unnecessarily serve to add to this misconception. Whilstrecognising the importance of Customs enforcement activities, the review team believes there is

potential to make adjustments to some of these practices without reducing their effectiveness.

Recommendation 14: Customs should review internally its publicly visible enforcement work practices for the potential to carry out these activities in other locations sothat the officers conducting them appear more active.

2.3 INTERACTION WITH OTHER AGENCIES

Customs interacts on a day-to-day basis with a number of major stakeholders in the airportenvironment. The activity of these stakeholders can have a significant influence on Customs ability

to perform its passenger facilitation and border protection duties at airports. It is, therefore, inCustoms interest to manage as far as possible these interactions.

Key stakeholders with which Customs has an interest in managing interactions include:

The Department of Immigration & Citizenship (DIAC)

the Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service (AQIS);

airport owners/operators; and

airlines (and their representatives).

In general, there is a requirement for closer local relationships with all of these stakeholders. Aframework for cooperation that extends beyond the level of individual airports is also required, witha formal process to escalate issues which cant be resolved locally.

Recommendation 15: Customs should ensure that it does everything in its power to effectivelymanage its interactions with other airport stakeholders, in the interest ofenhancing Customs ability to perform its portfolio of responsibilities asefficiently as possible.

The nature of the interaction between Customs and each of these stakeholders is discussed in thefollowing sub-sections.

2.3.1 DIAC

The principal relationship between Customs and DIAC is the ECP/OCP processing activitiesperformed by Customs Officers on behalf of DIAC. The Customs / DIAC interface appears to workwell for both inwards and outwards processes. DIAC officers are closely positioned for Customsreferrals, in most cases seated adjacent to the Customs Primary Support Officer (PSO) at the

Primary Support Point (PSP). This achieves minimum disruption to the processing of other


28/86



passengers and allows DIAC to attend to any issues referred in a subtle and efficient manner. Evenso, there may be potential to reduce the double-handling of passengers through even greaterlevels of integration between Customs and DIAC. Situations which require passengers to be

referred firstly from the primary line to the Customs PSO and subsequently to DIAC can contributenegatively to the passenger experience. This situation could be prevented, and resource savingsrealised, by consolidating the procedures carried out at the PSP into a single organisation.

Recommendation 16: Customs and DIAC should consider whether there is scope to consolidatethe processes at the primary support point so that they are carried out by asingle authority .

A particular problem that was highlighted in discussions with Customs Officers was the need atsome airports to continually refer travel documents to the PSP for a repetitive issue. Referrals tothe PSP take time which contributes negatively to average processing times at the control point.Minimising the occurrence of these has the potential to realise significant resource savings (seeSection 2.1.1.3). Unnecessary referrals also consume the attention of the PSO who, in somecases, has other responsibilities relating to the efficient function of the ECP or (more commonly)the OCP.

By analysing information on the nature of each referral to the PSP and the associated outcome,any trends in referrals can be identified. Suitable measures to prevent further recurrences ofcommon referrals such as document machine-readability issues, can then be agreed between

Customs and DIAC.Recommendation 17: Customs and DIAC should cooperate to minimise the referral of

documents to the primary support point for common issues that can beresolved quickly and effectively at the primary line.

2.3.2 AQIS

Customs and AQIS share responsibility for the activity in the Secondary Examination Area (SEA),

however as noted elsewhere the capacity of AQIS processing here has flow-on impact on otherareas, in particular the baggage hall. Despite this, there appear to be no formal arrangements inplace for the sharing of responsibilities between AQIS and Customs in relation to the managementof passengers within and attempting to exit the baggage hall.

The nature of the relationship between Customs and AQIS varied across the four airports visited.Given that cooperation between AQIS and Customs personnel on a day-to-day basis is vital to theeffective functioning of the Secondary Examination Area (SEA), clearer responsibilities andstronger relationships between the two organisations are essential to address the problemscurrently experienced at many airports.


29/86



Recommendation 18: Customs must work to achieve a stronger relationship and clearer divisionof responsibilities between Customs and AQIS with respect to themanagement of passengers in the Secondary Examination Area (SEA)

and baggage hall. This should be achieved through formal agreements ata national level.

2.3.3 AIRPORT OPERATORS

Relationships with airport operators appear, to a large extent, to be focussed around commercialissues relating to space occupied.

In certain cases, airport operators have attributed to Customs the responsibility for many issuesthat manifest in Customs controlled areas, regardless of whether the root cause of these problems

is within Customs control. The level of understanding by airport operators of Customs and AQISprocesses, and the interactions between them, is variable but generally low. Consequently, thereappears to be a need for Customs (and AQIS) to educate airport operators about the requirementsof the regulatory framework.

It also seems that airport operators, when considering redevelopment plans, may not alwaysinvolve Customs early enough in the process. Fundamental decisions affecting the amount andlayout of space for Customs activities may already have been made by the time Customs has sightof the proposals. As a result, Customs may be left to deliver its objectives whilst continually

endeavouring to overcome infrastructure limitations that might have been avoided through earlierconsultation.

On a more immediate level, arrangements for things such as baggage trolley storage andreplenishment can affect activity in the baggage hall by restricting the space available forpassenger circulation.

Recommendation 19: Customs must educate airport operators more effectively about the impactof the decisions they take on the ability of Customs to expedite the flow of passengers through the airport.

2.3.4 AIRLINES

Airlines have principal control over the flight schedules which dictate Customs resourcerequirements. Whilst Customs has no influence over the shape of airline schedules, the provisionof more complete and accurate information by the airlines can help Customs in short-term planningto accommodate the inevitable variations from schedule that occur in practice.

There are a number of areas where expanded relationships with airlines and their representativescan improve Customs ability to perform its role and streamline the passenger processing. These

include airlines providing more accurate passenger numbers for both arrivals and departures.


30/86



Earlier advice on actual arrival times is essential as differences of as little as ten minutes eitherside of schedule can create major blockages and delays in the ECP and Secondary ExaminationArea (SEA). This is especially important at smaller airports. The potential for real-time access to

airlines operations control software, which can provide up-to-the-minute information on computedgate arrival times and numbers of passengers, should be investigated.

Recommendation 20: Customs should investigate the opportunities for access to and sharing ofairline arrival time and passenger loading information in the most efficientmanner.

Baggage delivery arrangements were reported at many airports as affecting operations in thequeuing area for the Secondary Examination Area (SEA). The assignment of baggage carousels isa function of airline handling arrangements and Customs has little opportunity to influence this,particularly at larger airports. Nevertheless, the level of Customs influence can be improvedthrough better relationships with airlines and airport operators. This is evidenced by changes tocarousel allocation made at SYD to facilitate the express exit gate trial. At PER, with only onehandling agent, arrangements are in place regarding the order of assignment which appear to workwell.

Recommendation 21: Customs should continue to build relationships with airline representativesto facilitate beneficial baggage delivery arrangements wherever possible.


31/86



3.0 STAFFING

3.1 RESOURCE ALLOCATION & DEPLOYMENTThere are three aspects to this process:

roster development, primarily through biannual roster reviews to accommodate airlineschedules changes usually effective in October and April each year;

operational planning, to determine daily resource requirements for each function and initialallocation of tasks to Customs Officers; and

dynamic redeployment of personnel throughout the day/shift of operations.

Each stage is considered in more detail in the following sub-sections.

3.1.1 ROSTER DEVELOPMENT

Biannual reviews are conducted once the new seasons airline schedules are published. Followingthis the resource requirements are calculated and the roster build process commences. This entireprocess is done manually and based on historical data and the forthcoming airline schedulepatterns.

3.1.1.1 Primary Line Resource Requirements

The process commences with the allocation of staffing to the primary ECP and OCP functions.Currently, each airport determines these resource requirements based on a simplistic formula-based method. The exact process used varies at each airport. Nevertheless, the methodology ateach airport is fundamentally the same. This is as follows:

1) Passenger flow rates for each day are determined from the flight schedules and averagepassenger loads.

2) Each day is broken down into periods. (These might be hours or, for smaller airports, a single

flight arrival might constitute one period). For each period, the number of primary officersrequired to process the number of passengers arriving in that period is calculated

The current resource planning methodology is based on scheduled aircraft arrival and departuretimes, average passenger loads and average processing rates. Once the actual aircraft arrivaltimes and passenger loads are known for a given day, this method can be expected to provide asufficiently close approximation of the number of primary officers required throughout the day. It istherefore applicable for operational planning purposes (see Section 3.1.2). However, the currentresource planning approach is not necessarily the most suitable for long-term workforce planningtasks such as roster development, because:


32/86



It ignores the uncertainty that surrounds aircraft arrival times, passenger loadings andpassenger processing cycle times.

It does not explicitly take into account of the need to achieve particular passenger facilitationperformance targets.

The importance of aircraft arrival times in particular is illustrated by Figure 4 which shows thedistribution of actual arrival times relative to schedule at MEL during the 2005-06 schedule year.Only around 22% of flights arrived within 5 minutes of the scheduled time of arrival (STA), andmore than 40% of flights were off schedule by more than 15 minutes. Almost 20% of flights arrived30 minutes or more early or late.

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

- 1 2 0

- 1 0 0 - 8

0 - 6

0 - 4

0 - 2

0 0 2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

1 2 0

1 4 0

1 6 0

Actual Arrival Time - STA (Mins)

P e r c e n t a g e o

f F l i g h t s

Figure 4 Typical distribution of actual aircraft arrivals against schedule

An improved methodology would take account of these factors. The current process and asuggested enhanced long-term resource planning methodology are outlined in Figure 5


33/86



Figure 5 Long-term resource planning methods

A comparison of the number of primary officers predicted by the current and enhanced planningmethods was undertaken. The results are illustrated in Figure 6

Two significant conclusions can be drawn from these results:

i) Firstly, the current methodology may underestimate the number of inwards primary officersrequired to be available during the peak period in order to meet the current inwards passengerfacilitation standard.

ii) Secondly, the required distribution of these resources across the day varies substantially fromthat which might be expected if it is assumed that flights always arrive on schedule.


34/86



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 : 0

0

1 : 0

0

2 : 0

0

3 : 0

0

4 : 0

0

5 : 0

0

6 : 0

0

7 : 0

0

8 : 0

0

9 : 0

0

1 0 : 0

0

1 1 : 0

0

1 2 : 0

0

1 3 : 0

0

1 4 : 0

0

1 5 : 0

0

1 6 : 0

0

1 7 : 0

0

1 8 : 0

0

1 9 : 0

0

2 0 : 0

0

2 1 : 0

0

2 2 : 0

0

2 3 : 0

0

Time of Day

P r i m a r y

O f f i c e r s

R e q u

i r e

d

Current (15 min)

Current (Hourly)

Enhanced

Figure 6 Comparison of resource requirement predictions - ECP

Based on these conclusions, it is suggested that the current formula-based methods do not takesufficient account of this variability and therefore do not predict the potential long-term resourcerequirement for primary officers with sufficient accuracy. Without a rigorous baseline predicted levelof resources, it is impossible to ensure efficiency in rostering practices (as discussed in Section5.2.1).

Given the quantity and quality of the data available to Customs, there is no reason why historicalvariations in aircraft arrival times and other factors cannot be incorporated in the long-termresource planning process more rigorously. This could be achieved through the application ofcomputer simulation modelling specific to individual airports.

Recommendation 22: In planning long-term resource requirements, adequate account must be

taken of anticipated variations in passenger numbers and aircraft arrivaltimes. Resource requirements should be planned explicitly to achieve thecurrent specified performance targets. Adequate resources must beallocated to resource planning activities to achieve these objectives.

Whilst from the above discussion it can be concluded that a more rigorous approach to resourceplanning will lead to an increased number of Customs Officers being required to fulfil primary linefunctions, it should be recognised that these officers will not be required to carry out primaryprocessing functions for all of the time that they are available to do so. The increased resourceavailability will, however, afford Customs greater flexibility and confidence in deploying resources tomeet actual primary processing requirements on any given shift. The increase in resources


35/86



predicted by the enhanced planning method over the current one is approximately 16% (in terms ofCustoms Officer-hours). Depending on the traffic levels and distribution on a particular day, someof this increased resource capacity can be devoted to other functions, such as enforcement.

Furthermore, having increased resources available from rostered personnel should reduce theextent of more expensive overtime that might otherwise be used to achieve passenger processingtargets.

An improved long-term resource planning process will not necessarily, therefore, lead to anincrease in the total Customs resource requirement. However, both an integrated approach toplanning overall resource requirements and sufficient flexibility in the deployment of officers arerequired in order to ensure the most efficient supply of resources.

3.1.1.2 Other Resource Requirements

Procedures for estimating enforcement resource requirements differ from airport to airport,according to the size and other characteristics of the operation. There would appear to be benefitsin a more formalised long-term planning process for enforcement resources. The operationalplanning methodology used at SYD to determine resource requirements (described in Section3.1.2) would appear to have the potential to be extended to long-term planning. This would allow amore systematic assessment of the level of enforcement resources to be included in long-termworkforce planning, by taking account of the anticipated risk levels of individual flights.

Recommendation 23: Long-term resource planning for Customs enforcement activities shouldbe carried out as rigorously as possible and the results incorporated intothe overall workforce planning process.

It is also important when planning overall resource requirements to take due account of the extentto which the same resources will be available to carry out different functions (i.e. the extent towhich resources can be flexibly deployed). Whilst there is a need to provide sufficient resources tobe available for passenger facilitation activities as required, it must be recognised that theseresources will not be fully utilised by these activities every day. Aggregate resource requirementsfor compliance and other activities must clearly be planned in conjunction. The suggested

approach would be to plan for enforcement requirements first. The extent to which enforcementand other resources such as administration can realistically be made available to satisfy primaryline processing requirements can then be assessed. This availability should then be subtractedfrom the primary officer requirement.

By systematic planning of resource requirements, both for each function and holistically, predictedresource levels that more closely match those required to deliver Customs specific outcomes canbe ensured. The most economical roster structure can then be determined to deliver the predictedresource requirement. By adopting a systematic, integrated, approach to long-term resourceplanning, Customs can have more confidence that the rosters will deliver levels of resources that


36/86



allow greater flexibility in dealing with expected day-to-day variations in demand in a more cost-effective manner.

Furthermore, a systematic baseline analysis of each airport will allow the efficiency of operations tobe meaningfully assessed. This matter is discussed further in Section 5.2.1.

3.1.1.3 Roster structures

Roster structures vary from airport to airport but are commonly based around a team structure.Each team is scheduled to commence at different times to suit airline schedules. This is consideredto be a generally appropriate concept in a high pressure environment where team members needto be familiar with the skills and capabilities of their colleagues. However, opportunities to rotateteam members regularly should be considered in order to ensure consistency of work practices

between teams.Recommendation 24: Team members should be rotated regularly to facilitate consistency of

work practice between teams.

In the larger airports core roles are covered off with full time Customs Officers, supplemented asnecessary with part-time staff (management and officer initiated) and other types of employee suchas Contract Officers (PER) and Customs Intermittent Employees (ADL & SYD). The extent towhich each roster is comprised of each category of employee is dependent on the profile of overallresource requirement (primary officer and other resources) over the day and the week. Generally,

however, the more constant the demand for resources the higher the proportion of full-timeemployees that can be justified. The appropriate mix will also depend on considerations regardingflexible deployment of resources outside the airport environment (see Section 4.1.2).

An inconsistency was identified in rostering practices for the air border security (ABS) function. Atmost of the airports visited the ABS role was separated and operated under a separate roster. Theexception to this practice is where ABS officers are included within the normal roster. Because theduties vary considerably from those of other officers operating in the passenger arrivals anddeparture areas, with little opportunity for redeployment between ABS and other roles, separaterosters are considered the most appropriate structure to use for this function.

Rosters are also subject to local considerations surrounding shift lengths and attendance patterns.These are important as they could help to minimise absenteeism.

The final step in the roster development process is the consultation with the Roster Committee.Once the consultation process is complete the roster receives final local approval prior to beingforwarded to central office human resources for its approval. This mainly relates to ensuring theroster is compliant with various regulatory requirements such as OH&S.

It is understood that Customs is currently in the early stages of procuring a new integrated Human

Resources and Roster Allocation software package. However, it is expected that it will be some


37/86



time, possibly up to 2 years, before this is commissioned and functional for use in the developmentof airport rosters.

A roster development tool is used at SYD to develop a roster structure to deliver, as closely aspossible, the resource requirement produced by the resource planning process. It is suggested thatthis could realise benefits if applied at other airports. In particular, roster options should becomprehensively costed prior to the consultation stage to ensure that non cost-effective options areruled out. It is understood that roster proposals can be costed on request by central office.However, it is considered beneficial for local managers to be able to approximately cost alternativeroster structures during the development process.

Recommendation 25: A roster development tool, similar to that used currently at SYD, should be provided to all airport managers to assist in the development of rosteroptions to meet the planned resource requirements. The tool shouldinclude a method for estimating the cost of different roster structures, withthe preferred options subject to detailed costing prior to consultation withstaff.

3.1.2 OPERATIONAL PLANNING

This practice varies airport to airport, in the larger airports this task is performed the day prior andthen adjusted early on the day of operation. In the smaller airports it is performed weekly and,again, adjusted on the day of operation. Both systems appear to work satisfactorily in their propercontext.

SYD has the most rigorous system of operational planning in place. There is a comprehensiveplanning process which occurs the day prior to operation. This task is performed by a rosteredLevel 3 Operational Airport Planner (OAP). Two planning tools are used, the National AirportPlanning Interface (NAPI) and People Soft:

NAPI: Data includes flight details, estimated passenger numbers and levels of operationalactivity required.

People Soft: This provides staff available as per the seasonal roster.

NAPI is used to varying degrees at different airports. Apart from at SYD, where it is used as a keyresource management and planning tool, NAPI is used only to a limited extent. It is considered thatthe use of NAPI could assist in operational resource planning at all airports. The data currentlyavailable in NAPI will adequately satisfy the resource planning activities at all airports.

Recommendation 26: Customs should encourage and facilitate the application of NAPI at eac

Documents

Review of Passenger Functions