the future - innovative travel solutions€¦ · the future of automated border control: making an...
TRANSCRIPT
PREPARED BY InterVISTAS CONSULTING | MAY 1, 2019
PREPARED FOR
THE FUTUREOF AUTOMATED BORDER CONTROL: MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION
A White Paper Comparing eGates and Self-service Kiosks
CONTENTS
Foreword: Why an Informed Decision is Important 3
Introduction to this Study 5
The Study: EU Airport Environment 6
Using eGates for Document Checking 6
Using eGates for Border Clearance 7
Exception Handling 7
Functionality 8
Analytical Model 9
Methodology 12
Results 13
Other Considerations 15
Summary 16
Key Findings 18
Recommendations: What Does this Mean for Future-Proofing Automated Border Control? 19
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 3
S eamless, customer-centric, exceptional customer
experience, smart and advanced processing are the
latest buzzwords emerging as differentiators and drivers
for growth, operational efficiency and sustainability in the
airport industry. All of them have a direct impact on every
touch-point in a passenger’s journey.
Border controls are challenging touch-points where
governments and airport operators need to address and
mitigate the impact of two converging issues: 1) new and
increasing security requirements and 2) the exponential
increase in international passenger growth. Airports and
passengers consistently experience long lines and delays
at high-volume, overburdened and sometimes redundant
checkpoints. The key issue impacting border control is
the lack of space and resources required to undertake the
critical security screening of passengers.
WHY AN INFORMED DECISION IS IMPORTANT
As safety concerns increase,
alongside the desire to facilitate
passenger convenience during
the border crossing process,
automated border control
systems are gaining popularity.
The adoption of these systems
is moving at a fast pace across
the world. According to Credence
Research1, the global automated
border control market was valued at
USD 526.7 million in 2017 and is expected to expand
at a compound annual growth rate (“CAGR”) of 18.3%
during the forecast period from 2018 to 2026. Ongoing
investment and technological advancements are expected
to make automated border control solutions more robust
and reliable, increasing their appeal over the coming years.
FOREWORD
The key issue impacting border control is the lack of space and resources required to undertake the critical security screening of
passengers.
1 Credence Research: Automated Border Control Market By Product Type (Automated Border Control e-Gates, Automated Border Control Kiosks), By End-Use Application (Airports, Seaports, Land Ports), By Component (Hardware, Software, Services) - Growth, Share, Opportunities & Competitive Analysis, 2018 – 2026
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 4
Demand for automated border control solutions
is currently highest at airports. In 2017, airports
accounted for more than three-fourths of the global
border automation market value, and this trend will
continue as air traffic and passenger numbers are
expected to increase over the next 20 years. With several
airport projects in the pipeline and new regulations on
the horizon, the demand for automated border control
systems will continue to rise.
In terms of value contribution, Europe was the largest
automated border control market worldwide in 2017,
accounting for over 40% of the total market value2.
According to the European Commission, it is forecasted
that annual traveller border passages into the European
Union (“EU”) will reach approximately 887 million by
2025. With this expected volume of passengers travelling
internationally, new systems are being installed or
integrated with existing systems to enhance security at
border crossings.
The EU is currently exploring various options to modernize
and improve security for the external borders of the
Schengen Area. The EU’s Smart Borders Package includes
a new Entry/Exit System (“EES”) and the European Travel
Information and Authorization System (“ETIAS”). The EES
will electronically record travellers’ time
and place of both entry and exit to
the Schengen Area. The ETIAS
will allow and keep track of
visitors from countries
who do not need a visa
to enter the Schengen
Zone. Both systems
will make more use of
automated verification
and identification
methods, based on
biometric data such as
fingerprints and facial images.
In addition to Europe, the United
States, Canada, Australia and other
countries are investing in intelligent process automation
in border control and combining emerging technologies.
Through utilizing a combination of self-service kiosks
(“kiosks”), e-passport gates (“eGates”), biometrics and
artificial intelligence, agencies can minimize interventions
while maximizing effectiveness at border crossings.
2 ibid
According to the European Commission, it is forecasted that the annual traveller border passages
into the European Union (“EU”) will reach
approximately 887 million passages by 2025.
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 5
TO THIS STUDYINTRODUCTION
InterVISTAS Consulting was commissioned by
Vancouver Airport Authority’s Innovative Travel Solutions
to provide an objective comparison of automated border
controls, specifically focusing on eGates versus kiosks
and their performance for border control processing.
Border controls are highly variable and changing. As they
require the ability to perform primary document and
identity checks, as well as determine each individual’s
status for a wide array of items such as purpose of
journey, border controls need
to maintain compliance with
changing legislation across
multiple geographies.
For the purposes of this
study, an airport in the EU
was used for the conceptual
analysis. However, the
fundamentals outlined in this
white paper can be applied
to other airports around
the world. Quantitative and
qualitative factors were considered along with experience
with kiosk and eGate deployments in other similar
jurisdictions including the United States and Canada.
3 The European Economic Area (“EEA”) was established via the EEA Agreement, an international agreement which allows for the extension of the EU’s single market to non-EU member parties. The EEA links the European Union member states and three EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) into an internal market governed by the same basic rules.
While eGates are currently deployed and used for
processing European Economic Area3 (“EEA”) passport
holders and trusted travellers at numerous EU airports,
future border processing requirements, including the Smart
Borders Package, will result in additional and more complex
functionality that extends beyond current eGate capabilities.
For example, the growing frequency and types of exception
handling, which occurs when the default process does
not take place, has significant impacts on border control.
Examples include issues
with reading the e-passport,
residency questions, biometrics
registration and additional
input from the traveller. These
exceptions may require
significant interactions with
the traveller and may occupy
the processing point, which
may be an officer or a kiosk, for
prolonged periods of time.
This white paper is intended to
inform border control and airport decision-makers of the
differences between eGates and kiosks to help future-proof
border control operations and processes in a growing and
ever changing environment.
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 6
EU AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTTHE STUDY
eGates are analogous to subway turnstiles in which
tap-to-pay technologies’ functionality is the sole
determinant of whether the gate opens or not. eGates
have achieved tremendous passenger flow throughput
rates using at-speed tap payment methods in which a
binary yes or no decision is all that is required.
For airport processing purposes, such as travel document
and passenger identity verification, eGates must have
biometric capture and/or verification capabilities.
Fingers-on-the-fly (i.e. fingerprint) or distance-based
(i.e. facial) biometrics may eventually have the potential
to achieve the desired outcome.
When eGates are only used for access control, which
may only require confirmation of traveller identity, the
deployment of these verification devices at the study
airports demonstrated that eGates are the leading
self-service solution. The key factor for the successful
deployments of eGates is their clearly defined binary
USING eGATES FOR DOCUMENT CHECKING
decision-making abilities that are based on reliable and
fast read rates. To ensure unimpeded customer flow, no
additional interaction or user input functionalities can
be added.
Access to security screening at several airports, including
Munich International Airport and London’s Heathrow
Airport, exemplify applications that enable high-speed
throughput with a limited number of exceptions. Similarly,
British Airways has found that passengers who self-board
using eGates have expedited the process significantly. In
particular, British Airways noted that boarding for an A380
aircraft with over 400 passengers is 20 minutes faster
when using eGates4.
While eGates may appear to be a faster method for
processing passengers than self-service kiosks, the
specific functionality and purpose must be considered
carefully. The process time for an eGate is often 30
seconds or less per passenger, while the total “touch”
time for a kiosk is 45 to 60 seconds.
Figure 1: Boarding pass
check/eGate access to a
specific area of the airport.
This binary verification
process determines the
validity of a boarding pass.
4 http://mediacentre.britishairways.com/pressrelease/details/86/2018-247/9247
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 7
USING eGATES FOR BORDER CLEARANCE
Using eGates for immigration purposes is likely to be
more complex and involve stronger requirements.
Biometric verification of passengers is typically performed
by reading the chip contained within e-passports and
comparing the facial biometric information contained
within it against that of a live biometric capture device
such as a digital camera. In particular, the many different
standards for e-passports has resulted in poor read rates
for passport holders of certain countries. The IATA Doc
9303 standard for machine readable travel documents
can help improve these read rates, but there may be
slow uptake by certain countries or a decision not to
adopt the standard. There are other methods of pre-
registering traveller biometrics in a database instead of
directly from e-passports, such as the
U.S. Department of Homeland
Security Traveler Verification
Service. However, these
systems are nascent
and require a
dedicated system to
populate, store and
make the image-
matching library
available to the self-
service equipment.
EXCEPTION HANDLING
The challenge is even greater for eGates when planning
for exception handling. Different documentation
requirements such as e-passports, visas, biometric
residence permits, boarding passes, etc. exemplify the
variety of documents that may need to be read, which may
pose an issue for eGates. Other requirements for border
agencies, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Canada Border Services Agency, Australia Border Force, or
U.K. Border Force may include more than immigration and
identity checks.
There may be the need for greater flexibility in the future
as border control processing requirements change and the
ability to handle exceptions increases, such as:
• Dynamic questions depending on passenger responses;
• Biometrics registration and enrolment;
• Ability to process foreigners with permanent residency
status or visa holders; and
• Additional questions that passengers must answer at the
border such as health and pandemic related questions.
The ability of eGates to address these types of questions
may be limited. However, related steps can be quickly and
easily programmed, integrated, and deployed in self-service
kiosks. Alternatively, similar to several trusted traveller
programs, these items create opportunities to pre-populate
data for risk determination.
There may be the need for greater flexibility
in the future as border control processing
requirements change and the ability to handle exceptions increases.
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 8
In this study, foreign nationals who do not hold EEA
passports can experience a lengthy queue and wait
time before a passenger finally arrives at a traditional
processing booth. Additional capabilities may be required
to address the scenarios in which EEA passport holders
may have different requirements for journeys into EU
member countries in the future.
Self-service kiosks have a significant
amount of flexibility demonstrated by
their ability to accommodate additional
requirements, such as questions or
confirmations for passengers as well
as other interactions. Further to this,
kiosks have the ability to process
families who are travelling together,
can accommodate those with mobility
issues, and can have multi-lingual
capabilities.
The use of self-service kiosks can help provide a more
efficient process for non-EEA travellers over traditional
booth processing. Moreover, all nationals, including EEA
nationals, can use self-service kiosks.
Several other incremental operational improvements
can be made with kiosks, which cannot be made with
FUNCTIONALITY
eGates, by providing the ability to deploy kiosks outside of
the border control processing area, such as within queue
areas and hallways before border control. With Wi-Fi
enabled kiosks that only require power, kiosks can have
considerable flexibility in placement, as well as their ability
to be re-arranged or re-located as needed. This flexibility is
particularly advantageous when processing
groups of travellers as it can help mitigate
congestion within the border control
processing area.
Conversely, traditional booth
processes require a staffed
position performing highly manual
verifications. An InterVISTAS
study found that several Canadian
and U.S. airports have experienced
over 40% gains in border processing
capacity through the introduction of
self-serve kiosks. A hybrid-processing model
could include the retention of the existing eGates, but with
kiosks providing additional processing capacity for border
control officers thus reducing the number of traditional booth
positions. The extra processing capacity provided by kiosks
for border clearance frees up border control officer resources
that can be deployed to supervise eGates or for other duties.
Several Canadian and U.S. airports have experienced over 40%
gains in border processing capacity through the
introduction of self-serve kiosks.
Figure 2: eGates
(located along the back and
right) are available for EEA
nationals and trusted travellers
from 40+ countries. All other
passengers proceed through
traditional booths
on the left.
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 9
1. eGates and traditional booths: traditional booths
staffed by officers are required for passengers that
require some sort of interaction as eGates may not
have the input functionality required for dealing
with exceptions
2. Self-serve kiosks only: kiosks can process any type
of passenger as the kiosk has features that allow
passengers to interact (e.g. answer questions)
3. eGates and kiosks (instead of traditional booths):
eGates continue to be used to process eligible
travellers, while kiosks are used for other international
passengers and if there are issues with eGates, for
exception handling
ANALYTICAL MODEL
The mode of operations that could potentially be
deployed and implemented were analyzed for
scenarios with:
Figure 3: Traditional booth
at an airport
Figure 4: There
are many areas that
could be used to place
kiosks outside the
main international
arrivals hall.
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 10
For the purposes of the high-level model, passengers were considered one of two types:
Passenger Type A: eligible to use eGates (e.g.
EEA passport holders, trusted travellers, etc.).
These passengers are coloured blue in the
diagrams below.
Passenger Type B: not eligible to use eGates and require
interaction or user input (e.g. other international visitors).
These passengers are coloured green in the diagrams below.
Those few passengers that have significant processing
needs (e.g. exception handling), are coloured red.
Conceptual operations under the three scenarios shown in the following illustrations.
1Scenario eGates & Traditional Booths
Figure 5: Eligible passengers (e.g. EEA
passport holders, trusted travellers, etc.) can use
the eGates, while all other passengers must use
traditional booths.
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 11
2
3
Scenario
Scenario
Self-Serve Kiosks
eGates & Self-Serve Kiosks
Figure 6: All passenger types can use the self-serve kiosks.
Figure 7: A hybrid of the previous two scenarios, eligible passport holders can use the eGates, while all other passengers can
use self-serve kiosks.
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 12
METHODOLOGY
A simulation is generally a better predictor of reality
than a static analytical model since it captures
interactions over time. A stochastic computer simulation
was developed based on these three operating scenarios
to demonstrate the relative performance between the two
types of passengers. Each scenario was tested under
identical conditions, such as the same volume and mix
of passenger types arriving each hour, same number of
cases requiring exception handling, etc.
Scenarios 2 and 3 used fewer border control officers
since the per officer processing capacity and rate is much
higher for kiosks compared to traditional booth positions.
The specific simulation parameters used for the analysis
are as follows:
Scenario
eGates & Traditional Booths
Scenario
Self-Serve Kiosks
Scenario
eGates & Self-Serve Kiosks
Processing Points/Resources
• 6 eGates
• 3 border control officers (1 eGate supervisor, 2 at traditional booths)
• 6 self-serve kiosks
• 1 border control officer performing kiosk supervision & document verification
• 6 eGates
• 4 kiosks
• 2 border control officers (1 eGate supervisor, 1 performing kiosk supervision & document verification)
Passenger Arrival Rate 250 passengers per hour
Passenger Mix5 • 65% Eligible to use biometric passports (Pax Type A)
• 35% Non-eligible and require user input (Pax Type B)
• 4% Of all passengers have significant processing needs (exception handling)
Processing Rates • eGates (Pax Type A): 30s w/12s std dev
• Booths (Pax Type B): 1m w/30s std dev
• Exception handling: 5m w/30s std dev
• Kiosks (Pax Type A): 45s w/12s std dev
• Kiosks (Pax Type B): 1m w/30s std dev
• Document Verification (All Pax Types): 6s w/3s std dev
• Exception handling: 5m w/30s std dev
• eGates (Pax Type A): 30s w/12s std dev
• Kiosks (Pax Type B): 1m w/30s std dev
• Document Verification (All Pax Types): 6s w/3s std dev
• Exception handling: 5m w/30s std dev
1 2 3
5 65% eligibility to use eGates was assumed for this analysis.
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 13
Scenario
eGates & Traditional Booths
Scenario
Self-Serve Kiosks
Scenario
eGates & Self-Serve Kiosks
Total Average Border Control Time
• All Passengers: 13m 12s
• Pax Type A: 2m 50s
• Pax Type B: 34m 58s
• All Passengers: 2m 18s
• Pax Type A: 2m 13s
• Pax Type B: 2m 27s
• All Passengers: 2m 29s
• Pax Type A: 2m 14s
• Pax Type B: 2m 57s
Average Queue Times
• eGate (Pax Type A): 0s
• Booths (Pax Type B): 32m 52s
• Kiosks (All Pax): 9s • eGate (Pax Type A): 0s
• Kiosks (Pax Type B): 11s
Average Queue Size/Length
• eGate (Pax Type A): No queue
• Booths (Pax Type B): 51 pax
• Kiosks (All Pax): 0.64 pax • eGate (Pax Type A): No queue
• Kiosks (Pax Type B): 0.27 pax
1 2 3
RESULTS
Through conducting a trial of 1,000 runs over a
simulated eight-hour period with a one-hour “warm-
up” period for each run, the model simulated over six
million passengers processed through the system.
The results for these passengers under the three
scenarios are as follows:
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 14
The results demonstrated the following:
• When processing passengers eligible
to use eGates (Passenger Type A), all
scenarios had minimal queues
• Queues would generally form when
exception handling takes place and
occupies a border control officer for
extended periods of time under the
eGate & traditional booth scenario
• In Scenarios 2 and 3, most of the
additional processing time was required
to address the exceptions taking place
at the kiosks, with less time required of
the officers overseeing the kiosks.
• The use of kiosks appears to free up
border officer resources for other
tasks, such as supervising eGates or
other duties.
Although the simulation model results are
highly impacted by the passenger mix, the
cascading effects of exception handling
for traditional booths results in an overall
passport control time including queuing
(Scenario 1) that is an average of 11
minutes longer for all passengers than that
1 2 3Scenario
(eGates & booths) (kiosks only) (eGates & kiosks)
All Passengers
mm:ss
Passengers Type A
Passengers Type B
Scenario Scenario
40:00
30:00
20:00
10:00
0:00
Figure 8: Total average border control time for each of the three scenarios
13:12
2:50 2:18 2:13 2:29 2:14 2:572:27
34:58
of the scenarios in which exception handling takes place
at kiosks (Scenarios 2 and 3). In the case of passengers
not eligible to use eGates (Passenger Type B), the benefits
are even more pronounced with reductions of 32 minutes
in processing and queue time through the use of kiosks
instead of traditional booths.
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 15
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
PRICE
The significantly different average processing time
results from the analytical model above are one
of many considerations. Another consideration is that
the price per eGate has been found to be at least 30%
higher than that of a self-service kiosk from the same
supplier due to higher costs associated with moving and
motorized parts as well as a larger footprint within
the facility.
Additionally, the total lifecycle cost of kiosks can be
significantly lower than eGates due to lower overall
maintenance requirements. Kiosks have low physical
maintenance requirements since they have minimal
moving parts as kiosk software updates are their primary
maintenance requirement. The physical maintenance is
much higher for eGates over the life of the equipment as
their automated doors require servicing.
FLEXIBILITY
K iosks have significantly more functionality and
flexibility than eGates as additional passenger
questions or family group processing can easily be
integrated and captured through the user interface. Much
of this functionality may not require a software update
and can be administered immediately by the kiosk owner,
such as providing processing capabilities in another
language. This flexibility helps ensure that kiosks are
future-proofed against additional requirements.
eGates tend to be fixed in place, whereas kiosks are
more portable with Wi-fi connectivity, which allows their
installation throughout the arrival flows of an airport,
minimizing congestion at border control points.
Both eGates and kiosks can be used for immigration and
emigration in departures and arrivals.
THE TWO-STEP PROCESS
Kiosks enable the use of a two-step process that
frees border control authorities from cumbersome
administrative functions, such as data entry, biometric
collection, etc. The first step moves administrative functions
to the self-serve kiosks and a second step of document
verification and supervision by border officers. The second
step adds a level of security by empowering the border
officer to have the final approval to allow a traveller into the
country. The automation of the administrative function and
added security are particularly appealing to most border
control authorities around the world.
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 16
eGates
Self-Serve Kiosks
Reads all travel documents? No Yes
Biometric capture and verification?
Yes Yes
Interactive and transactional capabilities?
Limited Yes
Deployment location Fixed at boundary between cleared and un-cleared areas
Variable locations
Approximate footprint 120 cm x 240 cm per eGate 90 cm x 60 cm per kiosk
Average process rate/speed 30 seconds per passenger (requires traditional booths or kiosks for non-eligible passengers)
30 to 60 seconds per passenger
Percentage of passengers that can use the solution
60% 98%
Overall estimated border control time
~15 minutes
(~40 minutes for non-eligible passengers)
~2 minutes
Cost6 €18,000 to €22,500 per eGate €13,500 to €18,000 per kiosk
Maintenance considerations Mechanical and electronic components
Electronic components
6 From supplier quotes obtained during implementation support projects.
SUMMARY
T he following table summarizes and highlights some of the key capabilities and features of eGates and self-serve
kiosks. Key considerations include both a quantitative and qualitative comparison of functionality, space, processing
rates, expected total border control times (wait times and process times) and cost.
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 17
These results demonstrate that processing times and border officer efficiency can be vastly improved. Lessons from the
study airport can be applied to different border processes around the world that may be transitioning from a combination
of eGates and traditional booths to a mix of channels appropriate for different streams of passengers.
For those locations with only traditional booths and no border automation implemented, the deployment of self-service
kiosks provides an effective solution to minimize space used, incur the lowest cost of investment in assets, and achieve a
low total cost of ownership.
A comparative analysis
shows that benefits of
self-serve kiosks include
flexible positioning, very high
usability rates and lower cost
(both purchase price and
maintenance).
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 18
KEY FINDINGS
Below is an overview of the key findings as they relate to six areas of importance for border
control and processing:
1. BINARY APPLICATIONS
eGates are efficient if border control passage is based
solely on a simple yes or no response and there are no
exceptions to address.
2. QUEUING TIME
When a passenger is eligible to use biometrically-
enabled e-passports for self-service automated border
processing, both eGate and kiosk solutions perform
well. When a passenger is not eligible to use an
e-passport and requires interaction or user input, kiosks
outperform traditional booths by reducing queuing
times by more than 32 minutes on average.
3. EXCEPTION HANDLING
When using eGates and traditional booths, the
simulation results indicate that queues would generally
form when exception handling takes place and
occupies a border control officer for extended periods
of time. When traditional booths are replaced with
kiosks, much of the exception handling takes place at
kiosks which frees up border control officer resources
and reduces the number of passengers not eligible to
use eGates, and waiting in queues, by almost 96%.
4. FUNCTIONALITY AND FLEXIBILITY
Kiosks have significant functionality and flexibility
over eGates as additional passenger questions and
interactions can easily be integrated with and captured
through the user interface. Software updates can be
administered immediately by the kiosk owner, which
helps future-proofing against additional requirements
such as changing policies, international rules, dynamic
border threats, pandemics, surge of illegal activity, etc.
eGates tend to be fixed in place, whereas kiosks are
portable and can be moved easily when needed.
5. OVERALL BORDER CONTROL TIME
Using a hybrid combination of eGates and kiosks,
overall border control time is reduced by 81% for all
passenger types, making it an efficient solution for
processing time.
6. PRICING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The price per eGate is at least 30% higher than that of
a self-service kiosk, and the total lifecycle cost of kiosks
is significantly lower than eGates due to lower overall
maintenance requirements.
The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 19
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR FUTURE-PROOFING AUTOMATED BORDER CONTROL?
RECOMMENDATIONS
When making decisions related to automating
border control, it is recommended that a system
of solutions be designed to meet growing passenger
demands and dynamic requirements. These solutions
including maximizing efficiencies through a two-step
kiosk border control process or a hybrid solution of
eGates and kiosk technology.
A hybrid approach combines the use of eGates for
passengers who are eligible to use them, along with a
two-step kiosk process for non-eligible passengers that
may require interaction or user input. Kiosks provide
exception handling for eGates. Kiosks also support the
deployment of supervisors and document verification
officers during the second step in the process. eGates
and kiosks are typically supported by a
traditional booth that provides final
exception handling.
A kiosk solution or a hybrid
solution of eGates and kiosks
is superior to a solution that
uses eGates and a traditional booth. As this comparative
report demonstrates, the kiosk-only solution and the
hybrid eGates/kiosks solution reduce overall passenger
processing time and queues, provide physical space
requirement flexibility and, most importantly, provide
resource efficiencies for border control booths. Kiosks
can also meet the immigration needs of any government
in the world as they provide the software flexibility, which
is easy and effective to implement, required to meet
continuous changes in immigration processes.
As security is heightened and international passenger
volumes exponentially increase, automated border control
solutions are gaining momentum. The kiosk solution
and hybrid eGates/kiosks solution provide customizable
options that can help modernize border
management. They ensure the airport
experience for passengers is efficient,
safe and seamless, while evolving
with the changing needs and pace
of tomorrow’s traveller.
A kiosk solution or a hybrid solution of
eGates and kiosks is superior to a solution
that uses eGates and a traditional booth.