I’m still trying to figure out why they don’t already use trackers. RFID tags are dirt cheap and it’s 20 years old technology. They already have a process where they add barcode stickers at checkin, slap some RFID in there too.
Barcodes need line of sight with scanners and close range. RFID detectors can sense tags at larger distances and just based on general proximity.
BLE is also an option, comparison to RFID would depend on setup particularities. RFID would be the more natural choice for throwaway, recyclable stickers that just need to store a short “dumb” ID.
RFID is easier to read, so you could set up scanners at more places. Also easier to walk around looking for a bag and know that it’s somewhere in this pile.
You have to change a lot of equipment to make it useful. Most major airports have very complicated machinery that uses the barcodes, which feeds into the baggage handlers. I don’t know how they fix that machinery to make BLE worth it.
They don’t have to convert their entire luggage handling setup to RFID, just use it to augment their lost luggage detection.
Add RFID readers at strategic points and feed their data into a computer, which in turn feeds it to a replicated database. When a piece of luggage is lost look in that database to see where’s the last RFID blip. Also very easy to let the customer see their luggage positions on a website.
I’m still trying to figure out why they don’t already use trackers. RFID tags are dirt cheap and it’s 20 years old technology. They already have a process where they add barcode stickers at checkin, slap some RFID in there too.
They certainly can and do use a tracking system.
I get notifications from Delta every time my bag moves once it’s checked in - loaded, unloaded, what pickup.
There’s nothing really wrong with barcodes. NFC/RFID would be a logical upgrade though, and just has to integrate into the existing system.
I think you mean BLE. As far as I understand it, RFID doesn’t have any particular advantage over barcodes for tracking luggage.
Barcodes need line of sight with scanners and close range. RFID detectors can sense tags at larger distances and just based on general proximity.
BLE is also an option, comparison to RFID would depend on setup particularities. RFID would be the more natural choice for throwaway, recyclable stickers that just need to store a short “dumb” ID.
RFID is easier to read, so you could set up scanners at more places. Also easier to walk around looking for a bag and know that it’s somewhere in this pile.
Still an additional cost they’d rather avoid.
Surprised they don’t offer it as a $20 up charge…
You have to change a lot of equipment to make it useful. Most major airports have very complicated machinery that uses the barcodes, which feeds into the baggage handlers. I don’t know how they fix that machinery to make BLE worth it.
They don’t have to convert their entire luggage handling setup to RFID, just use it to augment their lost luggage detection.
Add RFID readers at strategic points and feed their data into a computer, which in turn feeds it to a replicated database. When a piece of luggage is lost look in that database to see where’s the last RFID blip. Also very easy to let the customer see their luggage positions on a website.