Baggage Tracking Implementation Guide
Baggage Tracking Implementation Guide
Baggage Tracking Implementation Guide
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
3 RESOLUTION 753 8
CURRENT RESOLUTION 8
COMPLIANCE WITH RESOLUTION 753/30.53 9
4 DISCLAIMER 10
5 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 11
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 1 of 85
9 BAGGAGE TRACKING PARTNERS 39
11 DATA CHARTER 43
ACCEPTANCE PROCESS 53
LOAD PROCESS 54
TRANSFER PROCESS 55
ARRIVAL PROCESS 56
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 2 of 85
18 LIST OF IATA STRATEGIC PARTNERS 81
19 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 83
20 LIST OF RESOURCES 84
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 3 of 85
PROJECT TITLE: Baggage Tracking, IATA Resolution 753/A4A
Resolution 30.53 Implementation Guide
DISCLAIMER. The information contained in this publication is subject to constant review in the light of
changing government requirements and regulations. No reader should act on the basis of any such
information without referring to applicable laws and regulations and/or without taking appropriate
professional advice.
Although every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, neither the International Air Transport
Association, Airlines for America nor ACI World shall be held responsible for loss or damage caused by
errors, omissions, misprints or misinterpretation of the contents hereof.
Furthermore, the International Air Transport Association, Airlines for America and ACI World expressly
disclaim all and any liability to any person, whether a purchaser of this publication or not, in respect of
anything done or omitted, and the consequences of anything done or omitted, by any such person in
reliance on the contents of this publication.
No part of the Baggage Tracking, IATA Resolution 753/A4A Resolution 30.53 Implementation Guide may
be reproduced, recast, reformatted or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without the prior written
permission from:
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 4 of 85
1 Introduction
Baggage is one of the key customer satisfaction elements for airlines. A failure to deliver the passengers’
baggage will result in the memories of the nice inflight product and good service in the air being forgotten
very quickly. The costs associated with repatriating the bag with the passenger, estimated by IATA at $100
per bag, will also quickly eat into the margins for the journey, and at the same time the additional work
needed by your staff to deal with the customer, the bag and the other airlines / airports involved will use
up the time of valuable resources. Despite the fact that mishandling has reduced by more than half since
the 2007 peak, we still spent $2.3 billion in 2015 just settling claims and repatriating baggage – that is
$0.65 for every passenger that flew; and even though the rate of mishandling is decreasing, the overall
cost to the industry is still increasing in many cases due to the growth in the number of passengers and
bags.
It is clear that our industry must continue to strive towards lower mishandling and better service. One of
the key elements, shocking in its absence from the industry today, is the capability to track a bag
throughout its journey. If baggage processing really was a factory, then we currently live in a world where
the factory has no information on the goods inwards, the processes to be applied and no idea when the
finished product is delivered to the customer. No real world factory could exist with such a lack of
information, yet the aviation industry is in exactly this situation for baggage. It is a credit to all the people
working in baggage that the mishandling rates are so low, and that they continue to drop.
Baggage tracking is a key way that our industry can continue to drive down costs and improve service at
a fundamental level. It is also central to having a capability where airlines can obtain the information
needed for passengers when their bags are mishandled regardless of which carriers were involved in the
carriage of the bag. Resolution 753 is mandatory for all members, and demands tracking in key locations.
The aim of the resolution is to reduce mishandling and therefore increase passenger satisfaction by first
recording and subsequently exchanging baggage tracking information.
It is with great pleasure, that IATA presents this guide to implementing baggage tracking according to
Resolution 753/30.53. Whilst the principle of 753/30.53 is very simple – track bags through the baggage
factories, onto aircraft and back to passengers - the implementation can be daunting. Inside this guide you
will find all the information needed to assist you in implementing tracking across the airline route network
and within individual airports, including best practices for operations of all sizes. It includes a description
of each of the key recording technologies available to the industry today, how data can be shared between
the parties involved in carrying the bag, and what the responsibilities of each party are. The guide has
been produced by the IATA 753/A4A 30.53 Implementation Sub Working Group, whose members from
airlines, airports, ground handlers and IATA Strategic Partners bring a wealth of practical information on
how to be successful at tracking.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 5 of 85
IATA remains at the forefront of the battle against mishandled bags, and can be contacted with any
questions you have through baggageservices@iata.org. A better alternative, though, would be to play an
active role in the Joint IATA 753/A4A 30.53 Implementation Sub Working Group, where the initial resolution
for tracking originated and where many exciting future developments for our industry are first discussed.
Please visit www.iata.org to learn how to participate.
Andrew Price
Head, Global Baggage Operations, August 2016
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 6 of 85
2 Executive summary
IATA Resolution 753/A4A Resolution 30.53, active from June 2018, is intended to encourage airlines to
further reduce mishandling by implementing cross-industry tracking for every baggage journey.
The resolution itself is simple, but IATA, A4A and ACI World understand that the implementation of
baggage tracking can be a complex process. Reducing the number of mishandled bags is a common
goal for everyone in the aviation industry; in today’s world, airlines cannot be expected to blindly implement
new processes without understanding the benefits of implementing these. A further complication is the
role of airports and ground handlers – the resolution places an obligation on IATA and A4A member
airlines: nevertheless in many cases, those airlines will be looking to the airports from which they operate,
and the ground handlers who load their bags, to provide the data that they need.
This document is therefore aimed at airlines, airports, or any other party with an interest in helping airlines
to meet their obligations under Resolution 753/30.53. It attempts to help the reader break down the overall
topic of ‘network wide baggage tracking’ into a set of manageable topics, and to address each of them in
turn:
1. What is meant by ‘Baggage Tracking’; what data needs to be recorded, the timeliness of that
recording and the potential methods to be used.
2. What is meant by ‘exchange of information’ as well a discussion around timeliness of exchange and
the mechanisms that can be used.
3. A discussion of how tracking and data exchange can be used to achieve the benefits outlined in the
resolution
4. A look at how Baggage Tracking partners can work together to implement a cost effective compliance
to the resolution
5. A discussion on Best Practice, and how tracking strategies could be evaluated.
The document also includes a Data Charter, which outlines the conditions that should be met when airlines
are sharing data with each other; a number of Appendices outline some Frequently Asked Questions
covering topics such as communication, collaboration and implementation; some Case Studies which
outline real-world examples relevant to resolution 753; and some additional information such as standard
process views and how irregular operations might affect tracking.
It is important to remember that this document is intended to provide guidance on how an airline might
meet their obligation, and how an airport might support their airlines in doing so. It is a guide; it is not a set
of instructions. Many of the recommendations in this document might not be appropriate for every airline;
on the same note, the approach to recording tracking data may differ across an airline’s network depending
on the infrastructure available and the size of the operation. Airlines can – and should – analyse their
baggage operation before embarking on a program to implement any of the recommendations in this
guide. That said, airlines must, as a minimum, be capable of recording and sharing tracking data as
required by the resolution.
This implementation guide has been written by members of the Joint IATA/A4A Baggage Working Group.
It is a living document which will be periodically updated.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 7 of 85
3 Resolution 753
Current resolution
Agreed version of IATA Resolution 753 effective 1 June 2018 as per 37th PSC Manual (published June
2017) *:
RESOLVED that:
IATA members shall maintain an accurate inventory of baggage by monitoring the acquisition and delivery of
baggage. “Baggage”/”Bag” means the property, as defined in applicable tariffs, of a passenger, carried in
connection with the trip for which passenger has purchased a ticket and which has been checked in.
1. Purpose
prevent and reduce mishandling by determining custody of every bag during different phases of
baggage chain,
increase passenger satisfaction, as mishandling is reduced,
reduce the possibility of baggage fraud by closing the baggage journey,
enable exceptions to be detected where baggage is delivered to a party, but not processed further,
speed up reconciliation and flight readiness for departing flights,
help measuring compliance to SLAs,
Provide evidence to an automatic interline proration process
2. Member Obligations
3. Tracking requirements
3.1 Acquisition of the bag from the passenger by the member or its agent
3.2 Delivery of the bag on to the aircraft
3.3 Delivery and acquisition of the bag between members or their agents when custody changes
between carriers
3.4 Delivery of the bag to the passenger.
References
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 8 of 85
Compliance with Resolution 753/30.53
Compliance is a loose term, as different carriers and providers of services have different versions of what
they consider compliance to be. Compliance with the resolution can be demonstrated only by an airline
and only to IATA. In general, IATA will not provide a statement of compliance for airlines; however,
airlines wishing to demonstrate excellent tracking capability may request that IATA issue a compliance
certificate for their operations, which will be valid for 1 year. This certificate does not exempt the airline
from any obligations under Resolution 753/30.53.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 9 of 85
4 Disclaimer
The baggage journey is in general a complex process which is always at the mercy of external influences.
Airports are complex environments and can be affected by many issues, from exceptional weather and
industrial action to failure of essential IT systems. Any of these issues can lead to disruptions, including
the process of baggage tracking.
In 2014, IATA published the “Baggage Disruption Handling manual,” available for free on the IATA website.
The document is intended to help minimize the effect of disruptions to the baggage process. Following
the guidelines contained in this document will help airport operators, airlines and ground handlers to:
Assess the severity of a disruption event and decide how to deal with it
Put an action plan in place to deal with unavoidable disruptions such as weather delays
Put procedures in place to minimize the impact of avoidable disruptions such as IT failures
This Implementation guide for Resolution 753/30.53 is not intended to be a set of instructions; it has been
created to provide examples of best practice in the aviation industry in relation to Baggage Tracking
Resolution 753/30.53. Some of the recommendations in this document may not be appropriate for your
airport or operation; some will need to be adapted in order to be applicable.
The document was created by the Baggage Tracking Sub-Group, which was formed by the Joint IATA/A4A
Baggage Working Group. It comprises a number of experts from airlines, airports and airport suppliers
who have combined their knowledge and expertise in order to create a set of baggage tracking
recommendations.
The information contained in this publication is subject to constant review. The Baggage tracking Sub-
Group would welcome feedback on the document; either on ways in which it can be improved, or, more
importantly, on how you have used the information contained within to implement your baggage tracking
project. This document is intended to be a living document which will be periodically updated. Please
provide your feedback by submitting the following form: Baggage Tracking Implementation Guide
Feedback.
Although every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, neither the International Air Transport
Association, Airlines for America nor ACI World shall be held responsible for any loss or damage caused
by errors, omissions, misprints or misinterpretation of the contents hereof. Furthermore, IATA, A4A and
ACI World expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person or entity, whether a reader of this
publication or not, in respect of anything done or omitted, and the consequences of anything done or
omitted, by any such person or entity in reliance on the contents of this publication.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 10 of 85
5 Glossary of Terms
ACCEPTANCE - the initial transference of possession, control and/or security of checked baggage from
a passenger to a member or its agent for carriage.
ARRIVAL FACILITY - the final delivery point at which time the transference of possession, control, and/or
security of checked baggage is returned to the passenger.
AS NEEDED – the exchange of data between airlines involved in a bag’s journey should be defined
between those airlines involved in that journey. See Section 7 for a further discussion on Data Exchange.
BAGGAGE CART or TROLLEY - temporary load device used to transport bags from the baggage area
to the ramp (or vice versa) for loose load aircraft or holds
BAGGAGE, CHECKED (equivalent to “registered luggage”) - baggage placed in the care and custody of
an airline by a passenger, for which the passenger has purchased a ticket and been checked in, and for
which the airline has issued a baggage tag; this extends to include baggage accepted as checked at a
departure gate if said baggage will only be returned to the passenger at an arrivals facility.
BAGGAGE MESSAGES - Baggage information messages transmitted by members, which may include
the Baggage Transfer Message (BTM), Baggage Source Message (BSM), Baggage Processed Message
(BPM), Baggage Unload Message (BUM), Baggage Not Seen Message (BNS), Baggage Control Message
and Baggage Manifest Message (BMM), and Baggage Request (BRQ) as described in PSC RM RP1745.
BAGGAGE TRANSFER - Baggage arriving at a point on one flight and continuing its journey on another
flight within a defined time limit.
BULK HOLD – The area in an aircraft where bags are loose loaded (loaded individually), rather than in a
Unit Load Device.
CHANGE IN CUSTODY - the transference of possession, control and/or security of checked baggage
from a member or its agent to another member or its agent.
CUSTODY - the assumption of possession, control and/or security of checked baggage by a member or
its agent
DATA EXCHANGE - the exchange of data between a user and a system; two users; two systems; or a
number of systems.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 11 of 85
DELIVERY - the carriage of checked baggage from the airport of origin to either the airport of destination
or the local address as provided by the passenger.
EVENTS - demonstration of delivery and/or acquisition of checked baggage when custody changes,
and/or the provision of an inventory of checked baggage upon departure of a flight.
EXCEPTION PROCESSING - identification of baggage that has had a change in custody but did not
progress further due to the separation of the baggage from the passenger’s ticketed itinerary and requires
Expedition/RUSH to the passenger’s final destination.
EXPEDITE BAGGAGE or RUSH BAGGAGE - baggage that has become separated from its passenger
and requires manual expedition via reflighting to the passenger’s final destination.
EXTENSIBLE MARKUP LANGUAGE (XML) - a markup language that defines a set of rules for encoding
documents in a format that is both human readable and machine readable, as defined by the W3C’s XML
specification and other related specifications, all of which are free open standards.
INJECT - the introduction point of checked baggage into any applicable baggage system
INVENTORY - an accurate count of all checked baggage which is either accepted or acquired by a
member or its agent for carriage in connection with the trip for which a passenger has purchased a ticket
and which has been checked in.
LPN - License Plate Number. The LPN serves to identify the respective piece of baggage in Automated
Baggage System (ABS) and Departure Control Systems (DCS) and acts as a key to access the data
exchanged in Baggage Information Messages as defined in RP1745. Also referred to as a 10 digit bar
code or 10 digit bag tag.
PRORATION - division of a joint fare, rate or charge between the carriers concerned on an agreed basis.
RECONCILIATION - the verification of baggage belonging to passengers who are travelling on that
specific flight or baggage that has been subjected to other security control measures in compliance with
regulatory requirements (e.g. ICAO Annex 17)
RECORD - to set down in writing or some other permanent form the acceptance, acquisition, or change
in custody of checked baggage for later reference.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 12 of 85
RECORDING – the action of taking a record
SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT (SLA) - a document in which the service levels to be provided by a third
party ground handler and the service levels expected by the member are mutually agreed.
TAIL-TO-TAIL or FIN-TO-FIN - the transfer of baggage, freight and mail from aircraft to aircraft without
an intermediate point.
TEN DIGIT BAR CODE / TEN DIGIT BAG TAG– see LPN (License Plate Number)
TRACKING POINT - any place or position in which a baggage record is created to identify time and
location.
UNIT LOAD DEVICE (ULD) - a pallet or container used to load baggage, freight and mail on wide-body
aircraft and specific narrow-body aircraft.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 13 of 85
6 Bag Tracking Options
This section describes the four mandatory tracking points required in order to comply with Resolution
753/30.53. It defines what a tracking point is, and describes what is recorded and at which locations. There
are examples of recording methods and a review of the technologies, which can be used to provide the
tracking points as well as considerations for using each of the listed technologies.
* Change in custody: the transference of possession, control and/or security if checked baggage from
a member or its agent to another member or its agent.
These obligations translate to the minimum set of recorded tracking points as referred in section 3 –
tracking requirements of the Resolution 753/30.53 as follows:
Acquisition of the bag from the passenger by the member or its agent Acceptance
Delivery of the bag on to the aircraft Load
Delivery and acquisition of the bag between members and their agents when custody changes
between carriers Transfer
Delivery of the bag to the passenger Arrival
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 14 of 85
ACCEPTANCE LOAD TRANSFER ARRIVAL
= 4 tracking points
* Change in custody: the transference of possession, control and/or security if checked baggage from
a member or its agent to another member or its agent.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 15 of 85
The 4 mandatory tracking points are reflected in the baggage journey as showed below.
Please note that Acceptance will occur when the baggage is placed in the care and custody of an airline
by a passenger as defined under section 5 – glossary of terms for “baggage, checked”. An acceptance
process is outlined in sub section 13.1 Appendix B – Sample Process Views. Additionally, acceptance
covers all bags including oversized bags.
The four tracking points have been chosen because they form the minimum set of points that allow to
record every bag as it enters and leaves the airport.
A tracking point for the check-in (e.g. at bag drop) 1 will tell the airline how many pieces of baggage have
been accepted, and a tracking point at aircraft loading 2 will tell the airline that the bag has departed the
originating airport on a particular flight. This is not the same as reconciliation, which confirms that the bag
and the passenger are on the same flight.
When a bag is transferred 3 through a subsequent station then there should be a further event representing
that the bag has been seen at the transfer process of the airport. This event tells the airline that the bag is
at the transfer station, and is important as it confirms the bag is one that should be available for the next
flight. A baggage loader often has a list of expected baggage for a flight, and if a bag is missing he is
unable to determine if the bag is available at the airport or missed its inbound flight.
The last point of tracking is at the arrivals carousel at the final destination 4. This tracking event tells the
airline that the baggage journey is over and that the bag has been delivered. It is the only way that the
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 16 of 85
airline can prove to passengers making a claim that the bag was really delivered to the reclaim carousel.
A tracking event for loading the bag onto the inbound flight is not sufficient as this does not cater for bags
that are accidently delivered to the transfer area, cargo area or offloaded.
With a tracking point at arrivals it is also possible to capture bags sent to arrivals in error, and of course
the transfer tracking point can perform the same function for bags sent to transfer in error. Baggage
runners nay then be sent to collect these bags and ensure they are sent through the correct processes.
Passenger Name
PNR
Outbound flight number and date
Inbound flight number and date
Onward flight number and date
Security/Sequence Number
Tracking action/event
Time and date of recording
Station of recording
Recording Location/device (physical location)
Container ID (ULD, Trolley or Cart)
If the recommended data elements are available by association, it does not need to be repeated; for
example, recording the ten digit bag tag and the flight number/date would enable the passenger name and
PNR to be obtained from a reservations system.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 17 of 85
Where and how can a tracking point be recorded
The following tables describe the possible tracking points where custody change can be recorded, the
recommended data element for the tracking points and examples of recording methods.
The tracking point can only be used as change of custody if all the recommended elements are available.
Airlines should aim to record as many tracking points as are available.
Possible
Recommended data
tracking point Example of how to record the tracking point
elements to record
locations
Check-in
LPN, Outbound Flight,
Counter (airport Manual or handheld scanner (barcode, OCR, RFID)
Station, Time
/ off airport)
LPN, Outbound Flight,
Bag Drop Self-service bag drop reader (barcode, OCR, RFID)
Station, Time
Fixed inline scanner (barcode, OCR, RFID)
Security LPN, Outbound Flight, Handheld scanner (barcode, OCR, RFID)
Screening Station, Time Manual entry (e.g. on a fixed or mobile workstation
associated with the screening system)
Fixed inline scanner (barcode, OCR, RFID)
LPN, Outbound Flight, Handheld scanner (barcode, OCR, RFID)
BHS
Station, Time Manual entry (e.g. on a fixed or mobile workstation
associated with the screening system)
LPN, Outbound Flight,
Gate Manual or handheld scanner (barcode, OCR, RFID)
Station, Time
BRS LPN, Outbound Flight,
Manual or handheld scanner (barcode, OCR, RFID)
Station, Time
Notes:
In general, the tracking point should be recorded as early as possible after the physical handover
from the passenger; this applies especially to cases where downstream systems (e.g. BHS,
Security Screening, BRS, etc.) are being used to indicate acquisition.
For gate tracking points, this would be for bags accepted by the airline at the gate, such as mobility
aids or carry-on luggage that cannot remain in the cabin (e.g. due to space or item size limitations).
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 18 of 85
6.4.2 Recording LOAD
Possible
Recommended data
tracking point Example of how to record the tracking point
elements to record
locations
Bag bulk loaded LPN, Outbound Flight, Handheld scanner or fixed belt loader reader
into hold Station, Tracking Action (Barcode, RFID)
Bag loaded into LPN, Outbound Flight,
ULD Station, Tracking Action, Manual or handheld scanner (barcode, OCR, RFID)
(See note) Container ID
Outbound Flight, Station,
ULD position in
Tracking Action, Container
hold Data entry into a BRS (manual, barcode, RFID)
ID (plus all associated
(See note)
LPNs)
Bag loaded into LPN, Outbound Flight,
trolley/ cart (See Station, Tracking Action, Manual or handheld scanner (barcode, OCR, RFID)
note) Container ID
Either: Outbound Flight,
Station, Tracking Action,
Data entry into a BRS (manual, barcode or RFID)
Trolley/cart load Container ID (plus all
into hold associated LPNs);
(See note) Or: LPN, Outbound Flight,
Handheld scanner or fixed belt loader reader
Station, Tracking Action (2
(Barcode, RFID)
step process)
Notes:
If an airline records the “Delivery of Bag on to the Aircraft” tracking point by recording the loading
the bag into a loading device (ULD, Baggage Trolley or Cart), there is a risk that the bag may not
actually be loaded onto the aircraft; for example, the bag may fall out of the load device during
transport, or the load device may not be actually loaded/transferred onto the aircraft. The airline
should therefore mitigate this risk by defining suitable operational processes. This could range
from training to ensure loaders close curtains or other physical restraints to prevent bags from
falling off, to implementing a two-step process for baggage trolleys or carts to scanning bags onto
the load device and then repeating the scan as the bags are transferred into the hold.
Tail to tail containers fall into the “ULD Position in Hold” tracking point, but tracking is performed
by recording the ULD or container ID, and the inventory of bags in the container will need to be
obtained from the originating carrier.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 19 of 85
6.4.3 Recording TRANSFER
Change of custody from the delivering carrier to the receiving carrier must be agreed between the relevant
parties. Ideally, recording the presence of the bag at a single agreed tracking point should act as both the
demonstration of delivery and demonstration of acquisition. There may be one or more agreed tracking
points, and they may vary depending on time or other operational factors (e.g. regular vs oversize bags).
When third parties are involved (e.g. interline ground handlers), recording of additional custody changes
between agents acting on behalf of the same carrier is also recommended. See the case studies in
Section 14 for more details.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 20 of 85
6.4.4 Recording ARRIVALS
Possible tracking Recommended data Example of how to record the tracking point
point locations elements to record
Carousel LPN, Inbound Flight, Fixed inline scanner (barcode, OCR, RFID)
Delivery Station, Time Handheld scanner (barcode, OCR, RFID)
Special Bag
LPN, Inbound Flight,
Claim Delivery Handheld scanner (barcode, OCR, RFID)
Station, Time
(e.g. oversize)
Direct delivery LPN, Inbound Flight,
service to Station, Time,
Manual or handheld scanner (barcode, OCR, RFID)
passenger Recording Location,
Tracking Action
Notes:
For direct delivery to passenger, this may be plane-side, on the jet-bridge, elsewhere at the
airport, or off-site (e.g. direct delivery to hotel/cruise ship, delayed bags, etc.)
Considerations: All baggage is today identified with a barcode, which makes optical scanning the
most common way of identifying baggage. Laser scanners or Imagers are widely implemented
through the aviation industry. A disadvantage of optical scanning is that it requires line of sight to
scan the baggage tag. Baggage tags can also be damaged through handling, so the readability
decreases during the bag journey. The cost of fixed scanners is relatively high, and labor costs
should also be taken into account.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 21 of 85
6.5.2 Manual recording
Manual recording is a valid method for collection of tracking point data. Manual recording is typically
done, when there is an IT-failure or the baggage tag have been destroyed to a degree, where it cannot
be read automatically. As the tracking information is printed on the tag, it does not require information
from external systems to obtain a manual reading / recording. Data is typically not shared in real-time,
when using manual recording. IATA Resolution 740 defines the requirement for interline baggage tags
supporting manual recording.
Considerations: Manual recording can be done without any investment in scanner equipment or
automated baggage handling systems. Manual recording is labor and time-intensive and has a
higher risk of mis-recording than automated technologies. If the bag journey is changed, it is likely
not captured using manual recording of the bags. In addition, use of bingo stickers and sheets may
not be an option for airlines who use Electronic Bag Tags and/or Home Printed Bag Tags, so an
alternative mechanism must be identified.
Considerations: RFID can be a cost-effective way to track baggage; however, the cost of both
infrastructure and tags should be taken into account - all baggage needs to be identified with an
RFID tag, which increases the cost of the label. RFID does not require line of sight to scan the tag,
so the read rates are typically higher compared to laser and OCR scanning. RFID can beneficially
be offered as complementary to barcode and OCR, if all bags are not identified with an RFID tag.
For more information, please refer to the “RFID For Baggage Tracking Business case 2016”, at
https://www.sita.aero/resources/type/white-papers/rfid-for-baggage-tracking
Considerations: The number of suppliers of OCR technology has increased in the last few years,
which has a beneficial effect on cost. OCR has the advantage that should a barcode not be
legible, the OCR reader can decipher the numeric tag which could prevent the bag being sent for
manual inspection. Additional information such as flight number and passenger name can also
help identifying and processing duplicate bag tags.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 22 of 85
6.5.5 Other technologies: Bluetooth (BLE), NFC, Wi-Fi, GPS or other
Less prevalent in the industry are tracking technologies based on Bluetooth, NFC, Wi-Fi, GPS or other.
These technologies could offer many of the same advantages as the more commonly used technologies,
when applied to tracking. No IATA resolutions or RP defines the requirements for using these technologies
for baggage identification.
Consideration: While these techniques may be suitable for in-house tracking, the lack of
standardization across baggage systems for these technologies may limit their usefulness. Usage
of any active transmission technologies must demonstrate compliance to FAA Advisory Circular
91-21-C.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 23 of 85
End to End Baggage Tracking
The below table illustrates a complete end to end baggage tracking for background information. Please
note that several tracking points shown below go beyond the 753/30.53 requirements.
As well as recording the individual position of a bag at each stage in its journey, baggage tracking data
can be used to measure overall performance from the start of the baggage journey to the final stage, when
the bag is returned to the passenger.
Stages 1 - 15 (A-O) are stages within the bag journey, which will provide the customer/airline a full account
of all stages the bag will travel through until it arrives at the point of destination.
Stage 16 (P) may occur if the bag is mishandled; in that case, it will be tracked to the customer’s
home/delivery address (13)
Legend:
Cells in pink are sub states within the BHS/Loading and delivery process and reflect “status
changes”.
Cells in yellow would be information hub airports would source from Airport systems BHS/BSS.
Cells in green would be information from operational tools (e.g. CDS, BRS) and tracking tools.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 24 of 85
Tracking Irregularities Operations
There are many irregular scenarios that airlines, airports and ground handlers face during day to day
operations during the handling of baggage, including mishandling baggage, tagless bags, gate bags, crew
bags, out-of-gauge bags, arms and weapons, and more.
It needs to be stressed that Resolution 753 is not intended to cover all baggage and operational tracking
processes of the IATA member carriers, but rather is intended to encourage the member carriers to ensure
a minimum set of baggage handling actions are tracked (specifically, bag acceptance from passengers;
custody exchange between carriers; bags loaded on departed aircraft; bag delivery to passenger).
Many types of irregular operations and baggage exceptions will be encountered at some point, but the
requirements of the resolution do not distinguish between normally handled bags and those bags handled
under exceptional circumstances or irregular operations. Each airline can address their more irregular
baggage scenarios in their own manner, but when bags are encountered at the touch points described
elsewhere in this document, their handling should be recorded in the same manner as regular bags.
Additional guidance and clarification for the treatment of some baggage irregularities can be found in
Section 15.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 25 of 85
7 Baggage Data Exchange
Resolution 753 has a distinct statement on the exchange of data among member airlines:
“Be capable of exchanging the above information (1..3) with other members or their agents as
needed.”
The purpose of this statement is to require IATA Member Carriers, when sharing the responsibility of
handling interline bags, to exchange the tracking events defined in R753.
Generic information related to baggage data exchange can be found under section 12 Appendix A –
Frequently Asked Questions on baggage data exchange.
The retention period of baggage tracking data should be long enough as per what is warranted under
R753/R30.53. The length of time could vary depending on the usage of data. When the data usage if for
proration purposes, it is recommended airlines retain the data for 3 years leaving enough time to close the
cases.
For the receiver of the data, each approach regarding the timeliness of data exchange results in different
degrees of opportunity to benefit from the data exchange and subsequent picture of the bag’s journey.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 26 of 85
Benefits to data exchange recipient
Benefits in Resolution 753 As each
On Flight Batch data
bag is On request
Completion delivery
processed
Prevent and reduce mishandling
Yes, via Yes, via Yes, via
by determining custody of every
Yes retrospective retrospective retrospective
bag during different phases of
analysis analysis analysis
baggage chain
Yes, via Yes, via Yes, via
Increase passenger satisfaction,
Yes retrospective retrospective retrospective
as mishandling is reduced
analysis analysis analysis
Reduce the possibility of baggage Yes, via
fraud by closing the baggage Yes Yes Yes retrospective
journey analysis
Enable exceptions to be detected Yes, via
Yes, Yes,
where baggage is delivered to a Yes retrospective
retrospectively retrospectively
party, but not processed further analysis
Yes, where
information for
Speed up reconciliation and flight inbound flights
Yes No No
readiness for departing flights is available at
time of
departure
Yes, via
Help measuring compliance to
Yes Yes Yes retrospective
SLAs
analysis
Provide evidence to an automatic
Yes Yes Yes Yes
interline proration process
While any exchange of data can lead to the benefits stated in the resolution, each member must evaluate
which timing of data exchange will benefit them the most, also considering the cost of implementation.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 27 of 85
Note that to effectively manage the data exchange of the acquisition and delivery events, digital storage
of this information is highly recommended. If a manual process is used for any of the tracking
requirements consideration of how this information will be stored and exchanged with another member is
advised.
Data Delivery Brokers: In this case, a 3rd party broker is used to delivery electronic data,
invariably having well defined formats for the information (e.g. RP1745 messages such as
BPM, BMM, BCM) from an IT system of one party to an IT system of the other party. These
brokers generally operate over well established and supported networks and protocols (e.g.
MQ, Web Services).
o Considerations: The main benefit of using a broker is the low maintenance in terms of
connectivity, support, and continuity that would be required in maintaining direct links
to all parties with whom data could be exchanged. A broker also generally enables real-
time communication of tracking events. A disadvantage is that such data delivery
services may come with usage charges. Furthermore, on-demand exchange of
communication, where the request is also transmitted through the broker, is less
commonly supported by brokers.
Point to Point data links: Point-to-Point would generally require a bilateral agreement with
the exchanging members establishing direct communication paths. Communication and
message protocols can be standard (e.g. MQ, Web Services using RP1745 messages) or
customized, based on the needs of the members doing the exchange.
o Considerations: The benefits include the ability to establish direct communication
using either standard or customized communication protocols and message formats,
which can also more easily support additional data fields. Point to point data links
support real-time communication and the ability to customize the link provides
opportunity to implement on-demand communication. Although there may be a cost in
setting up the links and the bilateral software, this is generally a cost effective way to
exchange data with regular partners, though customizations to formats or request-
response protocols may increase cost.
Community repository: One party can collect, store, and provide access to baggage tracking
data for multiple parties. The repository could be a common-use system (e.g. BRS or BHS) at
an airport or a specific bag tracking data repository managed by an alliance or group of airlines.
o Considerations: Although there may be little or no direct data movement between two
parties, access through controls in a repository allows interested parties to connect and
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 28 of 85
extract their portion of the common data as and when they require. Depending on the
controls, this could be done real-time, on a batch basis, or on an as-needed basis. As
with any system with multiple parties, proper data-access permissions need to be
enforced. In most instances, the party providing the common data generally has no
substantial costs to making the data available, assuming the repository already has that
capability, although the extracting party may have charges to pay (e.g. data delivery or
extraction charges, etc.).
Email/Fax: It may be a form of point-to-point, but email and fax are still technologies that are
open to stakeholders to exchange data of common interest for Resolution 753 purposes.
o Considerations: Although low to zero cost, email and fax do not support most of the
goals of the Resolution. They can provide evidence in a manual proration process, but
little else. This is primarily due to the additional manual effort on the part of the sender
to prepare the information being exchanged, and the complexity for the receiving party
to extract and make efficient use of the information.
RP1745 formatted messages: BSMs, BPMs, BMMs are all possible formats for exchanging
check-in, tracking, sorting, screening and loading data.
o Considerations: This is the recommended message format for real-time or batch data
exchange, e.g. on completion of flight processing. For data exchanges on-demand,
however, this format may not be as effective.
o Note: Important changes have been made to RP1745. Revisions include changes to
‘.J’ processing information and also the processing information data element code set
in attachment “A”, along with a number of example messages 5
Baggage XML messaging: Baggage XML schema version 1 will be published in June 2017
as part of the IATA PADIS release 6.
o Considerations: Baggage XML will become a new data exchange format and will
modernize the current legacy standards for baggage, which will lead to a better
baggage performance and lower airline costs. Note that XML messaging formats are
not yet in operational use.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 29 of 85
CSV files: CSV is a standard, flexible format, and is relatively easily processed by standard
desktop tools, as well as being relatively human-readable.
o Considerations: This is the recommended message format for emailed data
exchange, if used. The structure of the data within the CSV would need to be defined
and agreed-to between the members exchanging the data.
Other structured data formats: Many other data structures can be used, particularly for point-
to-point data links. Possibilities include XML and JSON.
o Considerations: For point to point data links, if RP1745 messages are not used, the
custom format will most likely fall into this category. Customizing the format in this way
may allow for more efficient delivery, batch delivery, or to meet another specific need.
Paper/PDF: Neither paper or PDF are generally suitable for automatic processing by electronic
means and would generally be reserved (though not recommended) for when email or fax is
the delivery protocol.
o Considerations: The receiver will typically work manually with the data provided;
further processing would be required in order to realize any but the most cursory benefit.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 30 of 85
8 Realising the benefits of baggage tracking
Resolution 753/30.53 is not just intended as an obligation on member carriers, but more importantly, as a
means of driving improvement for the individual carriers and within the baggage operations of the industry
as a whole. This chapter outlines specific examples of how the current scope of Resolution 753/30.53
can actually deliver some of these benefits through the use of the tracking data beyond simply having the
information on file for compliance. In reality, the benefits will be determined by the quality of data available.
The chapter covers the following topics showing different scenarios when applicable for illustration
purposes:
Clearly, if the loaders of the departure flight were aware that the transfer bag was on the arrival belt, they
could dispatch someone to collect it before flight departure.
Airport or Airline implements arrival scanning (automated or manual) to record the Resolution
753/30.53 tracking point – delivery of bag to passenger
Data from this tracking point is transferred in near real time, via BPMs, to the local Baggage
Reconciliation System (BRS) where the bag locations, contained in the BPMs, are recorded
and presented for each bag.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 31 of 85
Baggage loaders, through the BRS become aware of the “last location” of the missing bag and
are able to save the bag from mishandling, time permitting.
Airlines work with the airports (if necessary) to gain access to BPM data from the sortation
process to cover their Resolution 753/30.53 obligation for recording the transfer of baggage
between member carriers.
Data from this tracking process is made available to the baggage tracing system so that when
a tag number is entered, the agent is able to view the last activities recorded for that tag.
Rather than complete the delayed bag claim, the agent can request a staff member to retrieve
the bag from the sortation process and allow the passenger to leave with their luggage in hand.
If the ground staff new that the bags were offloaded and deposited in good time, the flight may have been
able to wait those few extra minutes for the bags to be delivered.
Airlines work with the airports (if necessary) to gain access to BPM data from the sortation
process to cover their Resolution 753/30.53 obligation for recording the transfer of baggage
between member carriers.
Data from this tracking process is made available to the baggage reconciliation system so that
loaders can know the time and location of induction of the transfer bags.
Seeing that the missing bags were inducted and are on their way, the ground staff can make
better decision on leaving without missing bags, or not.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 32 of 85
to be available on the specific bags that were mishandled (relighted, recorded in baggage tracing system
etc.).
It would be invaluable to have statistics that shows, over a certain period of time, that bags dropped at
certain default induction points within X minutes of departure had a greater rate of mishandling. This
could then be used to set new operating procedure for short and hot connecting bags, so that they are
processed in a manner and at times that reduce their likelihood of being mishandled.
Required data:
Information on actual reflighted bags from BRS and DCS reflighting and/or baggage tracing
system files.
Tracking Point from induction to sortation process - recording the transfer of baggage between
member carriers.
Scheduled and/or actual flight departure times.
The answers to these questions can allow a carrier to be able to improve or optimise the rules it has set
for the segregation of baggage, particularly at outstations, or, it may highlight certain stations that are
systematically not following the segregation procedures set by the carrier.
Required data:
Information on actual reflighted bags from BRS and DCS reflighting and/or baggage tracing
system files.
Loading manifests - recording the bags that were loaded on departure (Resolution 753/30.53).
Tracking data from induction to sortation - recording the transfer of baggage between member
carriers (Reso 753/30.53).
Tracking data from arrival bag delivery - recording the delivery to passengers (Resolution
753/30.53).
Scheduled and/or actual flight departure times.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 33 of 85
Ensuring fairer pro-rationing of mishandled bag charges
When a pro-ration claim comes from one carrier to another, due to the mishandling of a shared interline
bag, the payment of the costs are shared, by default, in a ratio of the mileage flown. However, if it can be
demonstrated that custody of the bag was passed from carrier A to carrier B at an agreed exchange point
(i.e. a transfer bag tracking point for Resolution 753/30.53) then carrier A could effectively reject the claim
if it can be seen that this exchange took place well before the onward flight was due to depart.
Thus, recording both the exchange of custody between carriers (Resolution 753/30.53 obligation) and the
time at which it occurs can allow for a more equitable sharing of mishandling charges between interline
partners.
Well, if those handling the connecting flight are aware that the flight has arrived and that the passengers
have boarded, they are very likely to wait those extra minutes for the bags to show up and get loaded.
But, these bags are never going to show as they were not loaded at the arrival station.
The Resolution 753/30.53 solution: if the carriers both implement their obligation under Resolution
753/30.53, and both are willing to exchange the information on loaded interline bags with each other in a
timely manner (e.g. BMMs or BPMs), then the departing carrier can have this data available in their
baggage reconciliation system at departure time. This allows those handling the flight to be aware that
the bags are not going to show. Of course, the bags are mishandled, but it does not have an additional
negative impact of causing the delay of an entire flight due to lack of shared awareness.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 34 of 85
Those with knowledge of the bag’s current status are likely to be in a different country and often in
a wildly different time zone (asleep).
Current processes for locating bags may require manual investigation due to lack of tracking data.
There is generally a time lag between a request to find a bag and a response that the bag has
been found and processed.
When a carrier invests in efforts to track their baggage under Resolution 753/30.53, and the tracking
methods result in baggage messages (BPMs, BMMs) being exchanged, this opens up opportunity to share
the Resolution 753/30.53 tracking data with baggage tracing teams. As tracking information (acceptance,
loading, baggage exchange, and delivery) is collected to comply with Resolution 753/30.53, it can also
allow these tracing agents to, not only know what is happening and whether further work is required on
their part, but they can often provide passengers with a more positive statement on their mishandled
baggage.
So, rather than stating “file this baggage claim and we will contact you when we have an update”, the
agent might be able to state more positively that “the bag was loaded in LHR, it was seen in the system at
JFK where you transferred but it missed the connection. However, our staff in JFK have already loaded it
on the next flight and it should be with use this evening”.
Fraud prevention/reduction
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 35 of 85
8.7.1 Baggage Delivery times
A full implementation of the tracking of bags to arrival belts (delivery to passengers) together with the
delivery of the data to an IT system for analysis can allow more information to be derived at baggage
delivery time:
First and last bag times: a KPI that is typical in the industry but is not current measured at all
airports.
Quality of service: some carriers want to have priority bags delivered first but often have no
means of determining how frequently this objective is being compromised.
Spread of late delivered bags: A first bag being delivered late could still mean that all the other
bags were delivered before the target time for the last bag. Equally, a first bag being delivered
on time, could still result in the bulk of the remaining bags being delivered late. By individually
recording the baggage delivery of each bag, more advance performance statistics can be
measured and process improvements made accordingly.
By analysing this information, it should be possible for a carrier to spot the level of occasions where large
percentages of bags, checked-in in good time, were not loaded as the time of departure approached.
Cross checking such statistics with the incidents of late departing flights and times might indicate a lack
of baggage handling resource at particular times and airports but it could also highlight poor baggage
handling procedures that are risking the airlines on-time-departure ratings.
In saying that, with the introduction of more baggage tracking, and in particular for those carriers that
comply to the resolution using more electronic, automated and real-time techniques, opportunities will
open up to be able to share baggage handling updates with passengers as they continue on their journey.
The Resolution 753/30.53 tracking points could allow more carriers to include a “Check my bag” option in
their mobile apps to show passengers:
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 36 of 85
Carriers may feel that this is open to negative results, in cases where the bag does get mishandled, but it
is also the case that 99.4% of the time, their passengers will get “positive news” about their bag as they
complete their trip.
Equally important, in this era of self-service where airlines have less access to their passengers, such
facilities will increase the usage of airline mobile apps, ensuring that the airline continues to have a means
of communicating with their passengers, even those that wish to do an entire self-service journey.
Tracking information can also be used in the baggage claims process. Normally, complaints and claims
are handled through airline baggage services or the ground handling agents globally. With baggage
tracking information, airlines can also decide how they want to inform their customers:
Customers could be getting more information quickly about their baggage delivery.
Some claims could be treated via airline websites and/or mobile applications avoiding waits at the
baggage service office.
Complex baggage claims could be more customized to ensure everyone’s needs are met.
In the case of pro-ration evaluation, with custody exchange locations and times being readily available,
an officer should be able to accept or reject another carriers claims for pro-ration using more precise
information than is currently available to them.
With this direct data access, a service agent should be able to:
Identify whether the bag may simply be misplaced at the arrival airport
Report on the last know location of the bag (providing the customer with confidence)
Report that the bag is already found and loaded on the next flight from the origin.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 37 of 85
8.9.3 Customer service agents
Even if an airline is not willing to provide passengers with direct access to live baggage tracking updates,
having a central data store and application interfaces will allow customer service representatives in a call
centre or based at the airport to be able to give updates on baggage handling to passengers who may
have concerns.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 38 of 85
9 Baggage Tracking Partners
Where this infrastructure meets the requirements of Resolution 753/30.53, it shall be the preferred practice
to use such infrastructure. Widespread use of existing tracking and tracing solutions is key to cost-
effective implementation for airlines and other stakeholders.
Use of standard baggage service messages, such as those described in IATA 1745 or future standards,
is preferred.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 39 of 85
Airports
Airports have a key role to play in generation of Resolution 753/30.53 data; and, importantly, can use the
data generated for the resolution to drive improvements in their own processes.
Airports compete for airline business. Airlines are more likely to operate at airports that have a good
Baggage Handling & Tracking infrastructure that supports Acquisition and Delivery, and can provide that
information to the airlines; especially if that data can be provided in real time. A shared infrastructure is
also much simpler to manage for an airport than having multiple systems physically competing for space
around the baggage belts. An airport that can help provide the data needed by a member carrier for
compliance with Resolution 753/30.53 will be seen as a valuable airline partner.
Baggage tracking data can also be used to great effect to support operations at the airport itself. For
instance, it could be used to monitor passenger baggage flows through an airport; to prioritise baggage
for hot connections; and to manage and improve general performance of the Baggage Handling System[s]
and processes. Accurate data can also be used to provide information to all stakeholders about the
location and status of baggage; and it could support more accurate charging for delivered BHS facilities
as the tracking figures for the Airport and the Airline should come from the same source.
Interline Airlines
Most mishandling occurs during transfer, especially between interline airlines. Airlines that can exchange
accurate, trusted data can support each other by simplifying the collection process. For example, the
resolution calls for tracking of custody change between airlines, which in some cases will be recorded by
both the inbound and outbound airline separately. If a single agreed tracking point provided by one of the
airlines (or their providers) could demonstrate that custody change this would reduce and simplify the
amount of data generated and, in most cases, simplify the operation by reducing the number of physical
scans required.
In addition, providing a detailed and reliable inventory of bags can also open up opportunities for safe and
secure tail to tail handling and thus reduce minimum connection times.
The same data used by airlines and airports can also be used by Ground Handlers to demonstrate and
improve staff productivity and effectiveness and optimise staffing.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 40 of 85
10 Best Practice for Infrastructure
The guide so far has discussed the benefits of recording and exchanging the tracking data mandated by
Resolution 753/30.53, and Section 7.1 discussed the merits of automated, real-time exchange. While
implementing these strategies will maximize the benefits of end-to-end baggage tracking and tracing, they
are not cost effective for all operations; in particular for smaller operations (whether a smaller airport, or a
satellite operation at a larger airport).
This section discusses possible strategies for operations of different sizes, and offers suggestions for Best
Practice in various different cases. We would welcome to hear any feedback from you about your future
plans for implementation: baggageservices@iata.org
10.1.1 Considerations
The points below outline the sort of questions that should be asked of the airport in question in order to
properly evaluate the best approach when considering a tracking strategy. This list is by no means
exhaustive.
Does the airport have a Baggage Reconciliation System; or are bags otherwise scanned
already by other common use systems at the airport?
Is the data in any existing airport system available for export to a third party; and if so, how can
this data be obtained (for instance, IATA standard BPM, BMM, CPM; web service; API;
spreadsheet)?
Is a message broker available, either within the airport environment or on a wider scale?
Is Wi-Fi widely available at the baggage handling points (load, transfer or arrival) and/or on the
ramp; or if not, is Wi-Fi available elsewhere, such as at the gate within the terminal building?
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 41 of 85
1. Real time scanning via BRS system (Departure and Arrival)
Bags scanned in real-time as each bag is loaded/offloaded
Data acquired from airline system using standard interface and stored locally or passed to
centralised system
2. Offline scanner (Departure and Arrival)
Scanner records bag tags as each bag is loaded/offloaded
Records uploaded periodically or post departure to centralised system
If no communications infrastructure available, scanner is taken back to hub airport and
uploaded retrospectively
3. Departure scanning - based on bingo sheet
“Confirm departure load” by scanning bingo sheet; could be scanned at departure airport,
arrival airport (using Bingo Sheet copy sent with the aircraft) or elsewhere (using emailed
copy)
4. Departure scanning – based on exception reporting
“Confirm departure load” by exception reporting; Nil bags are left behind, post departure =
100% uplift
This is a valid approach only when there is no overlap of build
Should not be used in conjunction with arrival exception reporting
5. Arrivals scanning - based on departure load (arrival at hub operation)
“Confirm arrival” by scanning; Scanner records bag tags on arrival
6. Arrivals scanning - based on departure load (arrival at smaller operation)
“Confirm arrival” by exception reporting; Nil bags left on the aircraft = 100% bags arrived.
This is a valid approach only when there is no overlap of arrival
Should not be used in conjunction with departure exception reporting
7. Arrival & Transfer confirmation – by recording the bags on CCTV
A method to determine which bag is which within the CCTV system will help enable tracking
of individual bags
8. Arrival & Transfer confirmation – by manual recording of bag tags (e.g. Excel spreadsheet)
to record bag status as arrived or transferred
Match bags tags against departure records
Case Studies
Appendix C (Section 14) contains a number of Airline and Airport case studies describing possible best
practice for operations of different sizes. More case studies will be added in later releases of this guide;
please forward any submissions to baggageservices@iata.org
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 42 of 85
11Data Charter
The baggage data that is collected during the implementation of Resolution 753/30.53, particularly when
it comes to data being shared, is an area that raises natural concerns among IATA/A4A Member Carriers
– even if those carriers are both willing to exchange baggage data. Carriers have an overall responsibility
for the exchange of information as required by the resolution. The opportunity for misuse or mishandling
of sensitive data is clearly present, and so the Resolution 753/30.53 Data Charter is intended to be a set
of conditions that Member Carriers agree to adhere to. The purpose is to ensure that those providing data
have confidence that it will not be mismanaged or misused; while those receiving data are aware of some
basic responsibilities in relation to the data being provided.
A checked-in bag’s journey is deemed to include the airports, flights and baggage
handling systems and processes that it must go through, from initial acceptance from a
passenger to the return of that bag to that passenger.
The Primary Stakeholders during a bag’s journey can be any/all of the following:
Any IATA/A4A Member Carrier that is expected to transport or handle the bag
during any part its journey.
Any airport or terminal management organization (“Airport”) that is expected to
process the bag through an airport or terminal under its control.
Any non-Member Carrier that is expected to transport or handle the bag during any
part of a bag’s journey.
For simplicity, references to IATA/A4A Member Carriers and Primary Stakeholders within
this charter also apply to Baggage Service Providers acting on their behalf,
IATA/A4A Member Carriers may receive baggage handling data from Primary
Stakeholders other than IATA/A4A Member Carriers (e.g. Airports, non-IATA/A4A
members). The terms of this charter also apply to data received by IATA/A4A Member
carriers from such organisations.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 43 of 85
When baggage handling data is captured by an IATA/A4A Member Carrier, they are
obliged to provide this data to other IATA/A4A Member Carriers that are expected to
transport or handle the bag during any part its journey.
Baggage handling data exchanged between two IATA/A4A Members Carriers should be
provided in a manner and format that is agreeable to both parties.
When an IATA/A4A Member Carrier is receiving baggage handling data from another
Primary Stakeholder, they must ensure that:
delivery of the data has been approved by the Primary Stakeholder that created or
captured the data.
data, or information derived from the data, is not used in a manner that would
compromise the reputational or commercial interests of the Primary Stakeholder
that has provided the data.
data or information derived from the data, is not provided to any third party other
than a Primary Stakeholder, against the expressed wishes of the Primary
Stakeholder that provided the data.
any cost for the exchange of data is borne by the receiving IATA Member Carrier,
unless otherwise agreed.
data is stored in a safe and secure manner.
data is managed in a manner that conforms to national and international
regulations in relation to data security and privacy.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 44 of 85
12Appendix A – Frequently Asked Questions
IATA will capture in the Frequently Asked Questions of the implementation guide feedback received from
external stakeholders. This is a non-exhaustive list that will be updated regularly.
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/ops-infra/baggage/Pages/baggage-tracking-industry-feedback.aspx
Feedback can also be done regarding other aspects of the implementation guide.
How does IATA support airline members in getting ready for the Resolution 753
implementation?
IATA has developed different resources such as:
IATA Resolution 753
Baggage Tracking Implementation Guide
Regional workshops
IATA Readiness Certificate
Consultancy Services
Training Baggage Tracking - Implementation and Compliance
1 year to go campaign
Airports support to airlines questionnaire
Resolution 753 Tracker
Webinars (as of 2018)
For information on the resources and how to get the information please contact: baggage@iata.org
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 45 of 85
Could IATA take the lead and communicate with different airport authorities?
IATA is collaborating closely with ACI World to communicate key messages regarding how airports can
support airlines meet their 753 obligations. This is conveyed to airports through different channels (e.g.
presentations at ACI industry meetings and conferences).
What would be the consequences if an airline could not be 753 compliant by June
2018?
IATA does not monitor or verify that airlines have implemented or comply with our resolutions. IATA is
effectively an industry group of airlines that work together for mutual benefit, and like any group, when all
the members agree to do something then it should be done.
There can be some effects from failing to implement IATA Resolution 753:
Prorates: It is intended, but not yet actioned, that airlines that cannot provide tracking data for their
baggage should bear the entire cost of baggage claims for their interline journeys.
Interline Agreements: Some airlines are placing a requirement for the sharing of baggage data
in their interline agreements, and therefore this could be a key capability for maintaining those
agreements.
Missing out IATA Resolution 753 benefits: It is important to remember that the resolution
provides medium to long term benefits for airlines and airports. Some of the benefits show a direct
relation to mishandling reduction, data analysis and passenger satisfaction improvement.
Therefore, each member should very carefully consider their approach to implementing IATA Resolution
753, even if they are not compliant at the June 1st 2018 date. We would hope that all members have a
plan for implementation and would be able to demonstrate their commitment to baggage tracking.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 46 of 85
INDUSTRY WORKING TOGETHER
Does IATA organize joint discussions inside and outside alliances for common
implementations?
In 2017, IATA organized baggage tracking workshops to raise awareness on Resolution 753 in different
regions.
Given that each airport location has its specificities, it is best for airlines and airports to identify the
appropriate forum to discuss baggage tracking locally (e.g. Local Baggage Committee, Airline Operators’
Committee).
In addition, IATA encourages airline members to seek direct support from their alliances if applicable.
How does IATA encourage joint participation between airports, vendors and
airlines on innovation for baggage tracking?
Several opportunities exist to foster innovation related to baggage tracking such as:
Industry events (e.g. IATA World Passenger Symposium, ACI-NA Annual General Meeting,
AAAE/ACC Design Symposium, Transportation Review Board Annual Conference (TRB), ACI-
Airports at Work, Passenger Terminal Expo);
Industry meetings (e.g. Participants of the IATA Baggage Working Group are airlines, airports,
IATA Strategic Partners in addition to IATA, A4A and ACI World).
For more information please contact: baggage@iata.org
Why should the industry work together for Resolution 753 if it is an IATA
requirement for IATA member airlines?
Baggage tracking is a key way that our industry can continue to drive down costs and improve service at
a fundamental level.
For details on benefits see section 8. Realizing the benefits of baggage tracking in the implementation
guide.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 47 of 85
What are the appropriate forums baggage stakeholders could use to discuss the
implementation of Resolution 753?
IATA encourages airline members to engage locally with all key stakeholders involved in baggage
activities early in the process in order to define together the best strategy to maximize the benefits the
Resolution 753 could bring.
The forum could be an Airline Operators’ Committee (AOC) or a Local Baggage Committee (LBC) as
defined in IATA Resolution 744.
In some cases, the contribution from industry providers would be required. If this is the case, a list of
IATA Strategic Partners can be found under section 18 of the implementation guide.
It is important to note that Resolution 753 does not mandate one way of doing things and is based on
consistency of processes and not on technologies.
How can airlines achieve Resolution 753 for the airports without BHS/BRS?
Resolution 753 does not mandate one way of doing things when it comes to collecting, recording and
exchanging the baggage data. Airlines can meet the Resolution 753 requirements by using manual
processes.
For additional information on manual processes see 6.5.2 Manual recording section and 7.2 How to
exchange baggage tracking data in the implementation guide.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 48 of 85
TYPES OF BAGS FALLING UNDER RESOLUTION 753
Oversized and special baggage (e.g. sports equipment, wheelchairs, strollers, etc.)
Live animals under the provision of IATA Resolution 780, Article 3 Interline Checking of Baggage
Gate bags (see section 15 Appendix D treatment if irregularities operations in the implementation
guide).
Resolution 753 places an obligation on IATA and A4A member airlines. However in many cases, airlines
will be seeking the support from stakeholders involved in the baggage journey such as airports.
For details on benefits see section 8. Realizing the benefits of baggage tracking in the implementation
guide.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 49 of 85
BAGGAGE DATA EXCHANGE
As we received a lot of questions related to baggage data exchange, please find below some generic
information for reference. However, it is strongly recommended for airlines to review the appropriate
regulations related to data that should be adhered to when baggage tracking is collected, exchanged and
used.
The exchange of baggage tracking data (as opposed to check-in data) could be regarded, under this
resolution, as a simple extension of this process, and could therefore be considered to be within existing
agreements. However, this guide is not intended to countermand local or international data protection
regulations, and all parties (airlines, airports and ground handlers) should ensure that any such data
exchange is within these regulations.
The only additional information that interline carriers would likely share, above and beyond the content of
currently shared BSMs, could be:
Handling events that are required by resolution 753 (passenger acceptance, bags loaded on
departure, transfer process and passenger delivery).
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 50 of 85
What happens if the baggage tracking information is shared with too many
parties?
The only entities that could have access to newly exchanged baggage tracking data are effectively the
same parties that currently receive BSMs relating to the bag being handled:
Ground Handlers
Interline Airline Partners
Airports
IT system providers appointed by Airlines or Airports
In the case of baggage tracking data, it is likely that the recipients of any exchanged data will only be a
sub-set of these entities.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 51 of 85
For Resolution 753, a data charter (section 11) has been added to the baggage tracking implementation
guide so that those attempting to comply with the resolution can understand the obligations of member
airlines and their agents in relation to baggage tracking data management.
As best practice, IATA also strongly recommends for airlines to review the appropriate regulations related
to data that should be adhered to when baggage tracking is collected, exchanged and used.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 52 of 85
13Appendix B - Sample Process Views
The following section outlines typical acceptance, load, transfer and arrival processes.
Acceptance Process
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 53 of 85
Load Process
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 54 of 85
Transfer Process
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 55 of 85
Arrival Process
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 56 of 85
14Appendix C – Case Studies
Appendix C contains a number of Airline and Airport case studies. The case studies offer suggestions for
best practice for operations of different sizes.
… Mr. X enters the plane and flights to CDG. So does his bag.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 57 of 85
4. Aircraft Unload
Agents come under the aircraft and unload ULD and bulk. They scan ULD and bulk so that, thanks to
ULD inheritance, all bag status are known.
These BPMs are retrieved by AF bag tracking viewer so that AF can follow the bag in BHS. Information
exchange occurs between the airport and AF.
… Mr. X enters the plane and flights to ATL. So does his bag.
More widely, Delta and AF works together to share BSMs and BPMs and BMMs in certain cases so that
they will be compliant with RP753.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 58 of 85
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 59 of 85
Case Study – Etihad and Luggage Logistics
What options?
Several options were considered, including the following:
Implement our own BRS solution at those airports: this solution is by
far the most expensive, as it requires system and infrastructure
investment. Moreover, the infrastructure to ensure connectivity might
not be available at the airport (WiFi / mobile network coverage etc.).
This option was discarded.
Do nothing: that option wouldn’t have helped us in implementing 753,
nor improving operations. Therefore, it was not considered a viable
solution.
Implement a back-office tracking tool without automated reconciliation.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 60 of 85
Bingo cards are brought back into a back-office environment where they get scanned into our
tracking system by a USB bar-code scanner. Only requirement is a computer with internet
connection to access the tracking database.
Information is then added to our database of BRS-covered airports, allowing us to have loading
information and positions for all bags on our flights.
Advantages:
Limited cost: no infrastructure cost, limited equipment at the airport (USB scanner). The main
cost relates to the tracking system itself.
Provides electronic information out of bingo cards – allows for further processing and analytics.
Scanning bingo cards in the tracking database is a simple and quick task. From our experience,
an average of 10 min is required for a Narrow Body aircraft and 20 min for a Wide Body.
Warnings:
This setup does not provide system reconciliation, the baggage reconciliation process in use at
the airport shall remain.
While BRS information provides timestamps for processed bags (bag loaded in container,
dispatched to the aircraft, loaded in the aircraft etc.), offline scanning only provides a tracking
position and no time stamping.
To be used for further usage than 753 compliance, information shall be added early enough to
allow for planning and review.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 61 of 85
Case Study – FRA/MUC/VIE/ZRH and Lufthansa Group
The model study contains the tracking points along the journey of customer baggage considering IATA
Reso753.
The study is based on our expert group of the airports FRA, MUC, VIE, ZRH and the Lufthansa Group.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 62 of 85
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 63 of 85
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 64 of 85
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 65 of 85
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 66 of 85
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 67 of 85
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 68 of 85
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 69 of 85
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 70 of 85
Case Study - Interline Delivery and Acquisition at Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX)
Note: This case study suggests a possible best practice at a large multi-terminal airport. The last paragraph
goes beyond the requirements of IATA Resolution 753 to show additional benefits that could be gained
from additional scanning points.
At Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), there are nine terminals. As a major transfer hub, there are
many passengers on interline connections who must also change terminals. These passengers (and their
bags) are the focus of this case study.
When a flight arrives, a passenger with an interline connection disembarks and starts their transfer process
to the next terminal. The carrier (or their ground handler) unloads the flight, and delivers the interline bag
to a specified interline connection location, and potentially scans the bag with their own system. Another
ground handler – the interline ground handler – picks up the interline bag. When they do, they scan the
bag tag with a mobile handheld scanner, and specify where they are and what they’re doing (e.g. pickup
at T8 interline connection point). The scanner is connected to a cloud system that also receives BSMs and
flight information. The interline ground handler is provided outbound flight information, including terminal,
gate, and time to departure. In addition, the system generates a BPM to indicate that the bag has been
scanned, and where. The system also stores the record of the transaction for future analysis, if needed.
The interline ground handler takes the bag to the outbound terminal, and drops it off at another specified
interline connection location. Again, they scan the bag, specify where they are, and what they’re doing
(e.g. drop-off at T2 interline connection point). Another BPM is generated, and another transaction is
recorded. The outbound airline (or their ground handler) comes to the interline connection location, picks
up their bag (possibly scanning it with their own system), and brings it to the outbound flight to be loaded.
There are two points that this case study helps to demonstrate in terms of Resolution 753. First of all,
regardless of the process, the agreements between the carriers defines which of the scans (e.g. pickup or
dropoff) are the delivery and acquisition between the carriers. Two airlines may agree that once the
interline ground handler delivers the bag (i.e the dropoff scan at T2) that single transaction is both the
delivery and acquisition. Other airlines may agree that the pickup scan is the delivery and acquisition.
Airlines should aim to agree a single tracking points to indicate custody change.
Secondly, regardless of the agreement between carriers, additional scans are useful for the tracking of the
bag through the airport. The outbound carrier knows that bags are usually dropped off within 10-15 minutes
of the pickup scan. They can monitor the pickup (either in the interline system or in another system which
received the BPMs) and plan to ensure the bag makes it onto the plane. If, on the other hand, the bag
never arrives, the tracing of the bag’s journey through the airport has more touch points. This helps narrow
down where the bag was lost, and therefore recover it.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 71 of 85
15 Appendix D – Treatment of Irregularities Operations
As a general rule, the treatment under Resolution 753 of baggage irregularities, and processes that deviate
from normal operation, should be looked at in precisely the same way as normal hold baggage.
If the bag is taken from the passenger, the event should be recorded.
If custody of the bag changes from one carrier to another or is delivered to a transfer point agreed
by both carriers, then it should be recorded.
If the bag is loaded on departure, it should be recorded.
If the bag is delivered to a passenger, then the event should be recorded.
How the Member Carriers process the bags before and after these particular touch points is for the carrier
to decide as specific baggage handling processes for irregular baggage operations is outside the scope
of this document.
This Appendix is intended to given some direction in the handling of some baggage irregularities, but only
in how their processing might be affected by resolution 753 obligations.
No new acceptance tracking is needed. the original acceptance from the passenger still applies
No baggage exchange tracking is needed as it’s the same carrier holding custody.
The loading of the reflighted bag on the new flight should be recorded
A record of the delivery of the bag to the passenger at their home or hotel (as opposed to an arrival
belt) will be required.
No new acceptance tracking is needed. the original acceptance from the passenger still applies
A record of a physical bag exchange or delivery to an agreed transfer point should be recorded.
The loading of the reflighted bag on the new flight should be recorded by the new carrier
A record of the delivery of the bag to the passenger at their home or hotel (as opposed to an arrival
belt) will be required.
In the rare occurrence where a mishandled bag is encountered at an airport where none of the interline
partners operate it is suggested that:
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 72 of 85
The carrier that agrees to transport the bag will need to record an acceptance of the bag (or a
custody change) to confirm that they now have and will process the physical bag. An “On Hand”
message might suffice but only if the carrier recording this message was going to perform the bag
transport.
That transporting carrier will need to record the loading of the bag on the departing aircraft
The custody exchange of the bag by the next carrier or the delivery of the bag to the passenger
will need to be recorded.
In all of the above, the principles of Resolution 753 are consistently maintained, with required touchpoints
being recorded.
After this acceptance, any loading, custody exchange and standard delivery at the final destination should
be handled in the same way as all other hold baggage from a resolution 753 tracking viewpoint.
If the entity retagging the bag is one of the interline carriers for the bag, but no formal custody change or
transfer has occurred, then they should record the bag as now being in their possession (thus confirming
the custody change) and then process the bag as normal.
In the rare occurrence where the entity retagging the bag is not involved in the formal transport of the bag
it is suggested that the carrier will need to record an acceptance of the bag (or a custody change) to
confirm that they now have and will process the physical bag.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 73 of 85
16 Appendix E – Baggage tracking action sheet
The below considerations and questions are indicative and do not represent an exhaustive list to help
key stakeholders in the aviation industry prepare for IATA Resolution 753 / A4A Resolution 30.53.
The considerations and questions are following the requirements contained in IATA Resolution 753 /
A4A Resolution 30.53 which are processed based and not technology based.
Each airline and airport location has its own specificities and these should be taken into account when
putting together an implementation plan.
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 74 of 85
Baggage Tracking implementation at your hub
Are there any plans for 753/30.53 implementation coming from your baggage services
department in your Hub?
How is your hub airport implementing 753/30.53 and what are the timelines?
What is the appropriate forum to discuss baggage tracking at your hub with all the key stakeholders
(e.g. AOC – Airline Operators’ Committee)?
Check-in
What are the possible touchpoints where the custody change could be recorded?
What are the different types of tags issued (e.g. self-service generated tags, normal on-demand
baggage tags, etc.)
What is the process for capturing the tracking information for all the above mentioned bag tags?
Load
Where do you scan the bags put in sealed containers (e.g. build)? For information, bags that were
scanned at build and placed in a sealed container do not need to be re-scanned under the aircraft.
How do you record the position of sealed containers (ULDs) at the time of the loading?
How and where do you scan loose loaded bags and how do you transport the loose loaded bags
(e.g. baggage trolleys/carts with no netting/cover)? For information, the loose loaded bags need
to be scanned onto the aircraft rather than at build.
What process do you use to reconcile the number of bags you are supposed to load from the
check-in information versus the number of bags you have under the aircraft?
Transfer
Where would it make sense to have the change in custody for the transfer bags (e.g. bag
exchange, aircraft unloaded, connecting drop location, BHS)?
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 75 of 85
Arrivals
How are the bags scanned for passengers receiving their bags at the aircraft stand? This may be the
case for strollers and other mobility aids.
How is the delivery of bags being recorded for passengers receiving their bags at non-airport
locations such as their homes?
Baggage Tracking implementation outside the hub (at stations your airline flies to)
It is recommended to make a list of your stations and assess the readiness for 753/30.53 at every station.
Are they familiar with Resolution 753/30.53 and the various implementation strategies contained in
the implementation guide?
What is the situation regarding baggage tracking at each station? Has baggage tracking been in
place (is the option/solution “available”? And has your airline been “in” (switched on…)
Do you have any existing agreements between your airline, ground handler(s) and airport related to
baggage tracking?
Has Resolution 753/30.53 been discussed through the Airport Operation Committee? Do they have
some common approach?
Is there maybe a common approach to take with some solution alliance partners?
Which solution might be the optimal for the implementation of Resolution 753/30.53 at each station?
Do you have a plan for sending and receiving baggage messages with other interline carriers involved
in the journey?
(Please note that sending a PDF in an e-mail would not be advised at all for automated airports
where RP1745 formatted messages would be better – e.g. BPMs and BMMs).
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 76 of 85
Do you know how you will agree with each interline carrier how to exchange data (e.g. on-demand
vs operational, the information reported – scheduled batch delivery vs on request, data format,
frequency and technology used)?
Do you know how you will store the baggage tracking data?
Have you contacted your hub airport to help getting some baggage messages?
It is recommended for ground handlers to work with airlines regarding baggage tracking and resolution
753/30.53.
In your view, what role should the ground handler play in the implementation of 753/30.53?
Have you identified how you could support the airlines in the implementation of 753/30.53?
Have the airlines you serve contacted you regarding the implementation of 753/30.53?
Do you have an agreement with the airlines related to baggage tracking?
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 77 of 85
Baggage tracking data collection & archiving
Bingo PC/ Connected Standalone
LAN WLAN 3G/4G
Cards Laptop Scanner HHTs
Check-in
area
*Acceptanc
e
Office
rooms
Bag Hall
*Load
Make up
Area
*Load
Aircraft
*Load
Offloading
Stations
*Transfer
Offloading
Stations
*Arrival
Baggage message
Do you already have the baggage tracking data needed? For example:
How could an airline receive messages from your airport (e.g. Message Distribution System, Enterprise
Service Bus, Message Queues)?
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 78 of 85
What process does your airport use to exchange baggage information?
Data Transmission
BRS Baggage Processed No message
Email Other
report Message (BPM) available
Check-in area
*Acceptance
Office rooms
Make up Area
*Load
Aircraft
*Load
Offloading
Stations
*Transfer
Offloading
Stations
*Arrival
* Core / mandatory tracking points
Does your airport have a common use infrastructure for baggage processes?
Are you ensuring that as many elements as possible are captured (e.g. weight)?
For more information, please check the ACI World website at: http://www.aci.aero/About-
ACI/Priorities/Airport-IT/Initiatives
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 79 of 85
17Appendix F - Resolution 753/30.53 and Airport Charges
As per ICAO’s guidance (para 6.16 of doc 9562 refers), investment in an enhanced baggage handling
system (baggage infrastructure) may reduce the number of agents required in the future thereby reducing
future operating costs. Transportation efficiency benefits may also accrue to the air carriers and would
include savings arising from the quicker turnaround of aircraft, and possibly greater service reliability and
predictability.
As a result, any improvement in baggage’s handling systems would result in lower costs for the users and
cannot justify an increase in the level of charges. Conversely, long-term reduction in the cost-base of
charges should ensued.
In any case and in line with ICAO’s policies on charges in Doc 9082, any cost pertaining to baggage
handling system and passed onto users through charges must be non-discriminatory, subject to
meaningful consultation with the airlines and their representative organizations (respectively in between
all parties concerned), related to the efficient cost of providing the facilities and services, and transparently
justified.
For any specific airport charges related query in relation to the implementation of Resolution 753 at your
particular airport please contact IATA Airport Charges team: aviationcharges@iata.org
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 80 of 85
18List of IATA Strategic Partners
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 81 of 85
Ms. Bengt Mueck
Siemens Postal, Parcel &
Product Lifecycle Management - Airport
Airport Logistics GmbH
Bengt.Mueck@siemens.com
Mr. Nigel Pickford
Director Marketing Operations and
SITA http://www.sita.aero
Insight
Nigel.Pickford@sita.aero
Mr. Satoshi Takenaka
Toyo Kanetsu Solutions K.K. http://www.toyokanetsu.co.jp/global Executive Corporate Officer
takenaka@toyokanetsu.co.jp
Ms. XinXin Zhang
TravelSky Technology Ltd. http://www.travelsky.net/
zhangxinxin@travelsky.com
Mr. Shaun Penton
Ultra Electronics Airport
https://www.ultra-as.com Portfolio Manager
Systems
shaun.penton@ultra-as.com
Mr. Alan Neves
Vanguard ID Systems http://www.vanguardid.com National RFID Account Manager
alan@vanguardid.com
Rachel Wesson,
Zafire http://www.zafire.com Head of Sales & Marketing
rwesson@Zafire.com
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 82 of 85
19 List of contributors
IATA would like to thank the following contributors to Issue 3 of this Implementation guide:
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 83 of 85
20List of Resources
PSCRM
IATA Resolution 753
Baggage Tracking Implementation Guide
Baggage Tracking Implementation Guide
www.iata.org/baggage
(issue 3, November 2017)
Baggage Tracking | IATA 753/A4A 30.53 | Implementation Guide Issue 3.0 | 13 November 2017 | Page 84 of 85