Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 14
14
CHAPTER 3
Findings and Applications
Airport Use of LOS Standards Table 12 shows the average perception ratings for each
functional area when the time spent in the queue for that
The TransSolutions team surveyed airports throughout the process, or the process itself, is taken into consideration. Pas-
United States and Canada to determine what guidelines and sengers' tolerance for wait times of 25 min or less, although
parameters they used at their facilities for planning. The proj- seemingly rather long, is consistent with findings reported by
ect team elected to use the online survey tool Survey Gizmo Mumayiz and Ashford (10). In general, there is a tendency for
(www.sgizmo.com). Approximately 20% of surveyed air- the perception ratings to increase (i.e., to become worse) on
ports responded. average as the time spent increases. The bag claim, SSCP,
Of the responding airports, 65% were familiar with LOS staffed agent check-in, and kiosk areas show statistically sig-
standards and used them to plan various elements of their nificant increases over time.
facilities. However, only about 30% of respondents believe
that a new North American LOS standard would be a major
improvement. Determination of Perception
Turning Points for Area
and Wait Time
Data Point Summary
Tables 13 and 14 show the breakdown of the conditions
Nearly 4,000 passenger intercept interviews were conducted that were tested to determine if there were significant differ-
successfully at the seven chosen airports. The quantitative and ences in the average perception ratings for a given airport
qualitative data collection teams combined efforts at four of function based on area per passenger. As noted in the previ-
the seven airports. Table 7 is a summary of the data collection ous chapter, the area used in the calculation was based on air-
methods used in each functional area and the number of data port area surveys.
points collected that contained useable perception values. Using the approach described in the previous section, the
There were a differing number of quantitative data points data collected indicated TPs for the various functions, as
taken for each airport function across the seven airports due summarized in Table 15.
to passenger demand patterns and data collector scheduling. No specific turning points were found for any functional
Table 8 shows the number of quantitative responses collected areas when looking at the data for area available per passen-
(that included a perception rating) by function at each airport. ger. Reported perception averages rarely exceeded 3.0 in any
The data from all seven airports were tabulated, and the av- of our area-per-passenger buckets (As used here, "buckets"
erage perception ratings for each of the airport functions were are a grouping of raw data into ranges.) No clear trend could
calculated. Table 9 shows the average perception ratings for be ascertained from the data. Perception values ranged from
each airport and each functional area. excellent (1) to very bad (5) for each function regardless of
Additionally, the data were summarized for small and large passenger space available.
airports to identify any significant differences that might Turning points were determined for four functional areas
exist. This information is shown in Table 10. with regard to waiting time. In these, a clear trend in the data
Table 11 shows the average perception ratings for each func- could be established, and the approximate waiting time where
tional area when the area per passenger for that process is taken the average perception values went from acceptable to less
into consideration. than acceptable could be determined.
OCR for page 15
15
Table 7. Data collection process summary.
Sample Size (7 Airports)
Functional Area Data Collection Methodology
Quantitative Qualitative
283 agent
· Passenger interview before and 61 curbside
Passenger
after queuing process 580 kiosk 27
check-in
· Ethnographic research 84 bag drop
1,008 Total
· Passenger interview before and
SSCP after queuing process 1,012 8
· Ethnographic research
· Passenger interview at arrival and
APM when APM arrives 129 2
· Ethnographic research
· Passenger interview in transit
Corridor 345 10
· Ethnographic research
· Passenger interview upon arrival to
Holdroom holdroom and at boarding call 624 153
· Ethnographic research
· Passenger interview at arrival and
Bag claim after bag claimed 861 42
· Ethnographic research
Total 3,979 242
Table 8. Quantitative data collected at each airport by function.
Function ATL AUS DFW IAD LAS OAK SDF Total
Curbside 37 ** ** 8 ** 11 5 61
Check-in agent 48 27 142 ** 43 23 ** 283
Kiosk 123 106 43 137 44 38 89 580
Bag drop 4 53 ** 15 12 ** ** 84
SSCP 156 96 238 205 136 114 67 1,012
APM 18 * 96 ** 15 * * 129
Corridor 72 75 52 25 57 28 36 345
Holdroom 129 77 31 130 127 55 75 624
Bag claim 113 101 134 191 97 130 95 861
Total 700 535 736 711 531 399 367 3,979
*No APM at this airport
**No data collected
Table 9. Average perception ratings for each airport by function.
Function ATL AUS DFW IAD LAS OAK SDF
Curbside 1.7 1.9 ** 1.8 1.6 2.2 1.2
Check-in agent 2.7 2.6 2.1 ** 2.7 1.9 **
Kiosk 2.1 1.6 1.4 2.2 2.2 1.7 2.3
Bag drop 1.4 2.2 ** 2.4 2.3 ** **
SSCP 1.5 1.8 2.1 2 1.7 2.1 2.2
APM 1.6 * 1.4 * 1.5 * *
Corridor 1.7 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.8
Holdroom 2.4 1.7 2.2 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8
Bag claim 2 1.6 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.7 1.6
*No APM at this airport
**No data collected
OCR for page 16
16
Table 10. Average perception ratings by airport size.
Small/Medium
Large Airport
Airport Significant
Function Average p-value
Average Difference
Perception
Perception
Curbside 1.19 1.93 0.001 Yes
Ticketing 2.22 2.42 0.159 No
Kiosk 2.12 2.16 0.832 No
Bag drop 2.19 2.16 0.893 No
SSCP 1.99 1.89 0.310 No
Corridor 1.72 2.07 0.001 Yes
Holdroom 1.79 1.97 0.056 No
Bag claim 2.06 2.21 0.012 Yes
Table 11. Average perception ratings by function based on area per passenger.
Area per Passenger (sq ft)
Function
05 >510 >1015 >1520 >2025 >25
Check-in agent 2.3 2.1 2.6 4.2 3.0 2.0
Kiosk 1.0 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.5 1.7
Bag drop * * 2.2 2.4 1.9 2.3
SSCP 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.9 2.0
APM * 2.0 * * * 1.4
Corridor * * * * * 1.9
Holdroom * 4.0 1.6 1.8 2.3 1.9
Bag claim * * * 2.1 2.3 2.2
*No data collected
Table 12. Average perception ratings by function based on wait time spent in process.
Time Spent in Queue or Process (min)
Function
05 >510 >1015 >1520 >2025 >2530 >3035 >3540 >4045 >4550 >5055 >5560
Curbside 1.5 2.1 2.3 * * * * * * * * *
Check-in agent 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.2 3.4 3.1 4.1 4.3 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.3
Kiosk 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.7 3.3 * * * * * * 2.0
Bag drop 2.2 2.3 2.6 1.0 * * * * * * * *
SSCP 1.8 2.4 2.6 1.0 * 2.0 3.6 3.5 * * * 2.0
Corridor 1.8 * * * * * * * * * * *
Holdroom 2.4 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.1 1.9
Bag claim 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.9 2.9 2.9 4.0 4.0 2.8 1.0 4.0 4.0
*No data collected
Table 13. Breakdown of data groups based on area Table 14. Breakdown of data groups based
per passenger. on wait time.
Test Condition for Test Condition for
Data Group A Data Group B
Functional Area Data Group A Data Group B Wait Time
per Passenger Condition 1 Wait time 5 min Wait time > 5 min
Condition 1 Area 5 sq ft per passenger Area > 5 sq ft per passenger
Condition 2 Wait time 10 min Wait time > 10 min
Condition 2 Area 10 sq ft per passenger Area > 10 sq ft per passenger
Condition 3 Wait time 15 min Wait time > 15 min
Condition 3 Area 15 sq ft per passenger Area > 15 sq ft per passenger
Condition 4 Wait time 20 min Wait time > 20 min
Condition 4 Area 20 sq ft per passenger Area > 20 sq ft per passenger
Condition 5 Wait time 30 min Wait time > 30 min
