As airlines seek new ways to expand their networks and meet growing demand for seamless travel, the industry is increasingly turning to connected travel models that bridge gaps between carriers without relying on traditional interline agreements. While self-connecting itineraries have opened up greater choice and flexibility for passengers, they have also introduced operational challenges around baggage handling, disruption management and journey coordination.
In this Q&A, Hugh Aitken, COO of Dohop, discusses how the company is helping airlines address these challenges through technology-driven solutions designed to create smoother multi-carrier journeys. He explains the limitations of conventional self-connect travel, where passengers often bear responsibility for transferring baggage and managing missed connections, and outlines how Dohop’s BagConnect and ConnectSure frameworks aim to establish clearer operational accountability across the travel chain.
Aitken also explores the broader evolution of connected travel, highlighting how airlines are leveraging virtual interline partnerships to extend network reach, improve customer experience and reduce operational complexity. Drawing on his extensive experience across aviation and travel technology, including senior leadership roles at Skyscanner and easyJet, he shares insights into the future of baggage integration, disruption recovery and the industry’s shift toward a more seamless, end-to-end passenger journey.
1. What are the key operational challenges airlines currently face in managing baggage across multi-carrier journeys without traditional interline agreements?
Without interline agreements, carriers don’t coordinate baggage handling across flights. Passengers are often responsible for reclaiming and rechecking bags between flights, which means there is no continuous chain of custody or consistent data flow across the trip.
From the airline’s perspective, this creates several very real problems. If a passenger misses a connection because of delays at baggage reclaim or check-in, that reflects negatively on the journey they bought, even if operationally it sits outside the airline’s control. That can mean higher servicing costs, more customer support cases, and reputational impact.
Second, there’s no way to intervene. Without visibility into the bag’s location or whether the passenger has completed the transfer process, connecting airlines are unaware of the traveller, and selling airlines can’t proactively manage disruptions or protect onward legs.
Finally, it pushes cost and complexity back into the system. Airports end up processing more bags landside, which increases congestion and handling pressure, leading to inefficiencies that ultimately feed back into airline operations and costs.
2. How does BagConnect technically enable coordinated airside baggage transfers, and what differentiates it from existing interline baggage systems?
Traditional interlining is built on bilateral agreements and requires coordination across carriers, handlers, and infrastructure.
BagConnect applies the same level of coordination to journeys without interline agreements, where passengers are typically responsible for reclaiming and rechecking their bags, and the responsibilities between carriers are unclear. It enables airside baggage transfer with defined handover points between carriers, creating a clearer chain of custody as bags move from one leg to the next.
While similar in outcome to traditional interline, BagConnect is delivered through Dohop’s platform and doesn’t require the same level of system integration or formal agreements. That makes it possible to extend coordinated baggage handling across a wider set of partners while reducing the operational friction typically associated with self-connecting journeys.
3. In what ways does Dohop’s connected travel model improve efficiency for airlines while reducing pressure on airport and ground handling teams?
From an efficiency standpoint, the connected travel model enables airlines to expand their networks and capture demand beyond their own routes without the cost and complexity of traditional interline or codeshare agreements. In our partnership with easyJet, for example, the airline can create and sell multi-carrier connections without relying on formal interline agreements, offering a faster, more flexible way to expand route coverage and respond to market demand.
By structuring journeys as a single trip with clear operational rules from booking through to arrival, connected travel allows airlines to avoid managing fragmented segments. That improves consistency across servicing, disruption handling, and baggage transfer.
For airports and ground handlers, the impact is more direct. When journeys are supported end-to-end, fewer passengers are moving between airside and landside to manage connections or baggage. That reduces congestion, lowers the volume of bags requiring reprocessing at check-in, and eases pressure on handling teams, particularly during peak periods or disruptions.
4. Could you elaborate on how the ConnectSure framework enhances disruption management and passenger protection across multi-leg itineraries?
ConnectSure addresses one of the biggest gaps in multi-carrier travel: what happens when something goes wrong.
In many traditional multi-carrier itineraries – and virtually all self-connecting itineraries – disruption handling is disjointed. If a delay causes a missed connection, responsibility typically falls to the passenger, and there’s no clear process across carriers for resolving it. Even when passengers accept that risk at booking, the experience still reflects on both the airline selling the trip and the airline operating the disrupted leg, especially when there’s no coordinated way to support the onward journey.
ConnectSure changes that by defining how disruptions are managed across the full journey. The selling airline is responsible for the passenger experience, including communication and support, even when multiple carriers are involved. That makes it possible to rebook or assist passengers, rather than leaving them to navigate each leg independently.
When all stakeholders (including airport and ground teams) work within a defined framework for handling disrupted journeys, it helps reduce operational friction during irregular operations.
5. How are airlines responding to the growing demand for self-constructed itineraries, and what role does Dohop play in supporting this shift?
Airlines recognise the surge in demand for self-connecting travel, particularly for long-haul or underserved routes. By working with partners like Dohop, they’re actively seeking ways to bring that passenger behaviour back under a structured, airline-defined model rather than leaving it unmanaged, enabling them to capture demand that might otherwise be lost while taking back control of the end-to-end journey.
This reflects the shift toward offer–order models and modern retailing, where airlines can sell inventory beyond their own networks while retaining ownership of the customer experience across pricing, servicing, and delivery, even when multiple carriers are involved.
In partnerships like Air Europa’s with easyJet, this approach enables airlines to combine long-haul and domestic networks into a single, bookable journey, extending their reach into new markets without relying on traditional interline structures.
6. What measurable impact has Dohop seen in terms of reduced mishandling, missed connections, or operational costs through its solutions?
Specific impacts can vary by partner and market, but Dohop works closely with all its airline partners to manage connection times, reduce mishandling and minimise costs. We continually refine protocols and parameters based on real-world performance, for example, adjusting connection times where data shows passengers are consistently missing or making their flights, to find the balance between avoiding congestion and increasing risk of disruption to travellers.
The overall effect is a more controlled and predictable journey, which helps ensure itineraries are both reliable and scalable. It also reduces the operational burden on both airlines and airports. Over time, this approach is becoming more tailored, moving from broad assumptions to more dynamic, route- and airport-specific optimisation that improves both efficiency and the traveller experience.
7. Looking ahead, how do you see connected travel evolving, particularly in relation to baggage integration and seamless passenger experience?
Connected travel is becoming the standard way of operating multi-carrier journeys.
As airlines continue moving toward offer–order retailing, the focus expands beyond individual flights to how they deliver the entire journey across partners. That includes baggage, servicing, and disruption handling working together as part of a single experience.
Baggage integration will play a central role. The expectation is that bags move with the passenger across carriers without added steps, supported by clearer data sharing and defined handovers behind the scenes.
At the same time, connectivity is becoming more modular. Airlines can participate in a shared ecosystem, expand into new markets, and adjust partnerships more dynamically without being tied to traditional interline structures.
Ultimately, the expectation shifts from “making connections work” to delivering journeys that are consistent, predictable, and easy to navigate, regardless of how many carriers are involved.
Author bio:
Hugh Aitken is the COO of Dohop, a travel technology company enabling connected travel through virtual interline and disruption management solutions. He has held several senior roles across travel tech and aviation, bringing broad experience across airlines, airports and digital platforms. Before joining Dohop in 2025, he was at Skyscanner, where he held several senior leadership roles, including overseeing its global flights and B2B businesses. He has also held senior commercial positions at easyJet and within the UK airport sector, giving him a strong understanding of how technology can better connect journeys and improve the overall traveller experience.
