Lost bag rate improves as passenger traffic soars
The latest Baggage IT Insights report by air transport IT provider SITA, based on data from 280 airlines, shows that the mishandling rate dropped to 6.3 bags per 1000 passengers in 2024, down from 6.9 the previous year and a 67 per cent improvement since 2007.
The improvement comes despite 2024 being a record-breaking year for air travel, with global passenger numbers reaching 5.3 billion.
SITA reports 33.4 million bags were mishandled in 2024, with 22 million of these or 66 per cent resolved by SITA's WorldTracer global baggage tracing and matching system within 48 hours. Of the 22 million, 25 per cent were resolved within 12 hours, 38 per cent within 24 hours and 37 per cent within 48 hours.
Delayed bags are the most common issue, accounting for 74 per cent of mishandled baggage, down from 80 per cent the previous year, followed by lost or stolen bags at 8 per cent, while damaged or pilfered bags increased from 15 per cent in 2023 to 18 per cent in 2024. Transfer mishandling was the biggest cause of the problem, accounting for 41 per cent of incidents, an improvement on 46 per cent the previous year. Tagging or ticketing errors, security issues and similar factors rose slightly to 17 per cent — up three percentage points — while loading failures remained steady at 16 per cent. Operational issues including customs delays, weather and capacity constraints increased to 10 per cent from 8 per cent in 2023.
The Asia-Pacific region has the best baggage report card, with just 3.1 mishandled bags per 1000 passengers, while North America improved to 5.5 bags per 1000 passengers. Europe improved its performance, but still reported 12.3 mishandled bags per 1000 passengers.
'We're making progress, but baggage still causes stress,' says Nicole Hogg, director of baggage at SITA.
Lost baggage cost the airline industry an estimated $US5 billion ($7.6b) in 2024, with airlines and airports turning to new technology to bring this figure down and to meet passengers' growing service expectations.
'We've seen a radical shift with automation and the widespread use of real-time tracking. Passengers now expect their baggage experience to be as easy and transparent as using a rideshare or delivery app,' says David Lavorel, SITA CEO.
Real-time tracking, artificial intelligence-powered analytics and self-service solutions are all having a positive effect, according to SITA. In 2024, 42 per cent of passengers had access to real-time baggage updates, up from 38 per cent in 2023. Nearly half of travellers questioned say mobile tracking would boost their confidence in checking in a bag, while 38 per cent value the addition of digital ID tags.
In response, airlines are making the baggage journey more visible, with 66 per cent offering automated bag drop and a further 16 per cent planning to do so by 2027.
SITA highlights the integration of Apple's Share Item Location feature with SITA WorldTracer as a game changer. Airlines including British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Lufthansa, Qantas and Virgin Atlantic are among those that have adopted the feature, allowing passengers to share the location of their Apple AirTag with airlines, enabling quicker baggage recovery.
A new Modern Baggage Messaging standard was recently approved by the air transport industry, which is expected to enhance data quality and reduce baggage mishandling by a further 5 per cent.
'Every bag matters. This isn't just about reducing errors, it's about creating trust in the journey, and the technology is clearly making that possible,' says Hogg.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
08-08-2025
- West Australian
THE ECONOMIST: Hungry investors are McLovin McDonald's right now. But do golden arches have silver linings?
The success of the Golden Arches rests on three simple, sturdy foundations: a menu of reliably decent grub, at a decent price, shored up by catchy marketing. Ever since it went public in 1965, McDonald's has done best whenever it stuck to this original blueprint. When one or more of these pillars crumbles, the fast-food fortress looks shaky. A quarter of a century ago this led to a near-collapse. Overly rapid expansion in the number of outlets and, at the same time, of products on offer made it harder for burger-flippers to keep up, hurting reliability. A price war with Burger King turned downright indecent. And the ads were stale, too. The result was acid reflux for investors. Between late 1999 and early 2003 the company shed two-thirds of its market value. The wobble in the first six months of 2024 was mild by comparison. But it still made investors nauseous. McDonald's shares lost 16 per cent of their value between January and July, their worst half-yearly run since the global financial crisis of 2007–09. This time the wonky pillar was affordability, especially in America. Post-pandemic inflation had pushed average McDonald's prices up by 40 per cent from 2019. Videos of $US18 ($27) Big Mac combos went viral. The company's own forgettable marketing efforts did not. Realising its mistake, in July 2024 McDonald's launched a $US5 ($7.50) meal deal, comprising a burger, fries, nuggets and a fizzy drink. In January it packaged this together with a 'buy one, add one for $US1' offer and digital-only promotions in its app, which it called the McValue menu. McValue's memorable face is John Cena, a beefy wrestler turned Hollywood superstar. In another marketing coup, in March and April diners ate up Minecraft Movie Meals, promoted in collaboration with the video-game-inspired blockbuster, so fast that the included collectibles ran out a fortnight into the weeks-long campaign. A food-safety snafu affecting outlets in 14 states in October proved mercifully short-lived. All this has worked a treat. On August 6 McDonald's unveiled hearty results for the second quarter. Revenue, derived primarily from the licence fees, royalties and rents which franchise operators hand over to headquarters in Chicago, rose by 5 per cent, year on year, to $US6.8 billion ($10.2 billion). The preferred industry measure of same-store sales increased by 3.8 per cent globally and 2.5 per cent in America, a big improvement on four consecutive quarters of no growth or worse. McDonald's operating margin, already the industry's envy, topped 47 per cent for only the fourth time in the company's history. Investors are lovin' it, sending McDonald's market value up by 3 per cent after the earnings announcement, to $US221 billion ($330 billion). They are certainly preferrin' it to its fast-food rivals. The day before, Yum! Brands, which owns KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, saw its stock slip after its latest results came in less than finger-lickin' good. Those of Shake Shack and Chipotle, slightly fancier fast-casual chains, crashed by a fifth in the past month after each reported fewer takers for their burgers and burritos as middle-class American diners stayed away amid mounting uncertainty over the health of the world's biggest economy. As the earlier meagre quarters showed, McDonald's is not unshakeable. But aspects of its business model do allow it to withstand recent shocks better than its competitors. Take tariffs, which President Donald Trump is slapping on trading partners left and right. Given that America imports lots of food, from Brazilian beef to Colombian coffee, these levies are bound to raise restaurants' costs. In the case of Chipotle, which runs all its own outlets, or Shake Shack, which operates 329 of its 579 eateries, tariffs result in a direct hit to the bottom line. For McDonald's, these costs are borne by franchisees, who manage 95 per cent of its 13,500 American stores (and a similar share of its 30,000 or so foreign outposts). Since their payments to McDonald's are a function of sales rather than profits, franchise operators' margins can shrink without necessarily hurting the brand owner's earnings. JPMorgan Chase, a bank, calculates that it would take cost inflation of 7.5 per cent for McDonald's to feel any hit to net profit, and then only of about 1 per cent. A cost increase of just 2.5 per cent would dent Chipotle's net profit by 4 per cent and Shake Shack's by 9 per cent. For less global rivals the tariff pain is compounded by a weaker dollar, the result of Mr Trump's chaotic economic stewardship, which makes imports dearer still. McDonald's, by contrast, peddles burgers in over 100 countries and earns 60 per cent of its revenues in other currencies, compared with 43 per cent for Yum! Brands, 3 per cent for Shake Shack and 2 per cent for Chipotle. A softer greenback boosts the dollar value of these foreign sales. Yummy, indeed. Still, as investors digest the good news, they should consider two potential snags. First, McDonald's frugal menu disproportionately attracts lower-income consumers. These diners, as the company's CEO Chris Kempczinski admitted on the latest earnings call, continue to feel 'a lot of anxiety and unease'. Rather than eat out, some are opting for groceries, notes Mr Dennis Geiger of UBS, a bank. Diners with fatter wallets may prefer rival joints such as Chili's, which offers a starter, main and drink for $US10.99 — and has waiters. McDonald's risks ending up too pricey for the poor and not posh enough for the less so. Keeping prices in check is, then, vital. Yet so is keeping franchisees happy. These two imperatives are in tension. Franchise operators are permitted to set their own prices — which explains why a Big Mac will set you back $US4.36 in Austin (the same in today's dollars as the 45 cents the first one cost in 1967) but $US7.06 in Seattle. Urging them to flog McValue menus may squeeze them to breaking point, especially as their costs balloon. McDonald's may be in a sweet spot right now. But this doesn't mean things can't sour.
Perth Now
06-08-2025
- Perth Now
Record jackpot for US Open tennis champions
The US Open is to become the first tennis tournament ever to reward its players with a $US90 million ($A139 million) prizemoney windfall. The US Tennis Association is once again offering the largest purse in tennis history, as it announced on Wednesday the men's and singles winners would receive record $US5 million ($A7.7 million) jackpots. The total players' fund will top the $US75 million ($A116 million) in 2024, the previous highest purse in tennis history -- an increase of 20 percent. The season's final grand slam event will begin with a new mixed doubles event which will feature a $US1 million ($A1.5 million) winner's cheque on August 19-20. Singles competition starts on a Sunday for the first time on August 24 in an event that will expand from 14 days to 15. The increases at Flushing Meadows come as the sport's leading players have been in discussions with each of the four slams in a bid to receive a higher percentage of revenues at the US Open, Wimbledon, French Open and Australian Open. Novak Djokovic, Coco Gauff and 2024 US Open champions Aryna Sabalenka and Jannik Sinner were among 20 players who signed a letter sent to the heads of the four events in March seeking more prize money and a greater say in what they called "decisions that directly impact us." Since then, some players have held talks with the majors. This year's singles winners' cheques represent a 39 percent hike from last year's $US3.6 million ($A5.5 million). At Wimbledon, which ended last month, prize money went up about seven percent to about $US73 million ($A113 million). With AP
Sydney Morning Herald
31-07-2025
- Sydney Morning Herald
The man who isn't listening to Trump's ‘Golden Age' story
'A reasonable base case is that the effects on inflation could be short-lived, reflecting a one-time shift in the price level. 'But, it is also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more persistent, and that is a risk to be assessed and managed,' he said. 'We're going to need to see the data, and it can go in many different directions. We're going to make a judgement based on all of the data.' The data to date appears benign. The economy grew at an apparently very robust 3 per cent annualised rate in the June quarter, prompting the White House to claim it as evidence that Trump's policies have ignited a new 'Golden Age.' Beneath the headline number, however, things weren't quite as golden. In the first quarter of the year the economy actually contracted, as companies front-loaded their imports to get in ahead of Trump's tariffs. In the June quarter, those bloated inventories were run down and imports fell away. If the first half is looked at as a whole, the economy grew at an annualised rate of 1.25 per cent. In the same half last year, when Joe Biden was in the White House, it grew at 2.3 per cent. Moreover, the US inflation rate, at 2.7 per cent, is still above the Fed's target of 2 per cent and, even before the bulk of Trump's tariffs are active, there are signs of tariff-related goods inflation. To date, on the available data, there is no evidence of a need to reduce rates. Indeed, a case could be mounted for a rate rise. Powell said he still expected tariffs to flow through to consumer prices but that the process might be slower than expected and that some companies might be finding it difficult to fully pass on the costs to consumers because consumers were unwilling or unable to pay higher prices. A case in point is the US car manufacturing sector, where the companies have yet to raise their prices despite substantial tariff-related cost increases. General Motors has estimated the tariffs will cost it between $US4 billion and $US5 billion ($6.2 billion-$7.8 billion) this year. Ford said on Wednesday that the tariffs would cost it $US3 billion this year. Loading Some US companies are starting to raise prices. Amazon, Walmart and other retailers have said they will have to raise some prices and, also on Wednesday, the giant consumer products group, Procter & Gamble, said it would raise prices on about a quarter of its product range because it expects a $US1 billion hit from the tariffs. In theory, the tariffs should produce a one-time impact on prices and inflation. The complex layers of duties Trump has imposed on raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods, the messy way in which the tariffs are being rolled out and the degree of uncertainty in what the final trade picture will look like, given the key deals with major trading partners are more statements of intent rather than conventional detailed and binding trade agreements, however, complicates evaluations of their effects. Powell said it was a 'very dynamic time' for trade negotiations but 'we are still aways away from seeing where things settle down.' 'What we see now is, basically, the very beginning of whatever the effects turn out to be on goods inflation. They may be less than people estimate, or more than people estimate. They are not going to be zero. 'Consumers will pay some of this. Businesses will pay some of this. Retailers will pay some of this. We're just going to have to see it through,' he said. Trump has been piling on the pressure on Powell, even using a blowout in the costs of the Fed's renovations of its Washington headquarters to try to pressure him to resign or provide an excuse to fire him 'for cause.' He wants lower interest rates to help generate greater economic growth and lower the cost of servicing the US government's soaring debt levels – debt that will increase substantially as a result of his 'One Big Beautiful Bill' that cut taxes and increased spending. Powell said the government's interest costs weren't something the Fed took into account. 'We have a mandate and that's maximum employment and price stability. We don't consider the fiscal needs of the federal government. It's just not something we take into consideration,' he said. He also left open the possibility that, after his term as chair ends next year, he might serve out the rest of his term as a governor, which doesn't end until 2028, despite the administration saying that he should, as other chairs have, leave the board when he relinquishes the chair. Trump is going to appoint a successor to Powell who will do his bidding, or at least try to. The administration expects to appoint that person in the near term and hopes that they will, before they displace Powell, effectively become a 'shadow' chair whose views influence the Fed and markets and overshadows Powell's. The worst-case scenario for Trump is that Powell doesn't bow out gracefully, remains a governor and retains his influence over the majority of the Open Market Committee members. In effect, because he is seen as a protector of the Fed's independence from politics and politically-driven decision-making – vital for its credibility and the stability of US financial markets – he would become the shadow chair. Loading That would really frustrate and infuriate Trump, but might help avoid a meltdown in US financial markets that could occur if the Fed were seen as being captured and directed by Trump.
