Click for next page ( 23


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 22
22 Figure 8. Average perception ratings for bag claim process by time spent in queue. the acceptable ranking (3), we can obtain the TP. For these comparison to existing Fruin and IATA passenger perception data, the TP occurs between a wait time of 20 and 25 min-- frameworks. The data show the relationship between percep- interestingly, approximately the length of time that most tion score and the amount of area available for each passenger airline passengers wait for their bags in today's airports, for a given functional area. For the graphs that show averages, which is about 5 to 10 min longer than in previous years. the size of the bubble shows the relative number of data points that make up the average for that bucket compared to the other buckets. Except in a few cases described herein, there does not Detailed Passenger Density Results appear to be a significant correlation between area per passen- This section discusses the detailed passenger density results. ger and average perception. Shown are the same results for area as previously shown for time. Where turning points were identified in the waiting- Check-in time graphs presented previously, note the absence of similar relationships in the area-per-passenger graphs presented here. Passengers were interviewed prior to joining the queue in Figures 9 through 18 show the graphical spread of the data front of the check-in facility. They were asked collected for all airports for area per passenger, both in terms of the raw data and averages of 5 sq ft per passenger area How many people are in the traveling party? buckets (e.g., 05 sq ft per passenger, 510 sq ft per passenger). How many bags are you checking? Increments of 5 sq ft were used since this would facilitate How many carts are you using? Table 23. Results for test conditions for bag claim based on waiting time. Test Condition Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference for Wait Time Condition 1 Wait time 5 min Wait time > 5 min 0.00 Yes Condition 2 Wait time 10 min Wait time > 10 min 0.00 Yes Condition 3 Wait time 15 min Wait time > 15 min 0.00 Yes Condition 4 Wait time 20 min Wait time > 20 min 0.00 Yes Condition 5 Wait time 30 min Wait time > 30 min 0.00 Yes

OCR for page 22
23 Table 24. Average passenger agent check-in process collected at all airports compared to perception of ticketing queue average passenger area. Each X represents at least one data versus area per passenger. point. Table 25 shows the results for the test conditions for this Area per Passenger (sq ft) Average Perception 1520 4.8 functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analy- >2025 3.0 sis fails to show a significant difference between area per pas- >2530 1.7 senger and average perception rating for four test conditions >3035 3.0 (1 through 4) since there were not enough applicable data. >3540 2.7 >4045 2.0 No TP is indicated for these data. >4550 n/a >5055 1.3 >5560 2.0 Kiosks The passengers' time of arrival and the number of passen- Is your trip primarily for business or leisure purposes? gers in process in the area were determined by examining video Is your trip to a domestic or international location? documentation of the area for DFW and by the two-person time-stamp method for all other airports. Table 26 shows the Additionally, the data collector noted the number of passen- average perception rating depending on how many passengers gers in the queue, the time of the observation, and the approx- were in the kiosk area. imate length of the queue based on the position of the end of the Figure 11 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure 12 queue relative to the check-in lobby configuration. For all areas shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the observed, the queue length grew proportionally to the number kiosk process collected at all airports compared to average pas- of passengers in queue (roughly 3.3. linear feet per passenger) senger area. Each X represents at least one data point. and would overflow the designated area as the queue grew. Table 27 shows the results for the test conditions for this Table 24 shows the average perception rating depending on the functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analy- check-in queue area. Note that there is no relationship between sis fails to show a significant difference between area per more space per passenger and perception of higher LOS. passenger and average perception rating for four test condi- Figure 9 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure 10 tions (1 through 4). This indicates no definable relationship shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the between area per passenger and average perception rating Figure 9. Perception ratings for agent check-in process by area per passenger.

OCR for page 22
24 Figure 10. Average perception ratings for agent check-in process by area per passenger. Table 25. Results for test conditions for agent check-in based on area per passenger. Test Condition Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference for Area Condition 1 Area 5 sq ft per passenger Area > 5 sq ft per passenger No data Condition 2 Area 10 sq ft per passenger Area > 10 sq ft per passenger No data Condition 3 Area 15 sq ft per passenger Area > 15 sq ft per passenger No data Condition 4 Area 20 sq ft per passenger Area > 20 sq ft per passenger Inadequate data for this function. Additionally, for all area buckets the average Table 28 shows the average perception rating depending perception rating generally remains better than acceptable on how many passengers were in the queue. (less than 3.0). No TP is indicated for these data. Figure 13 shows the spread of perception data, and Fig- ure 14 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the SSCP process collected at all airports compared to Security Screening Checkpoint Passengers were interviewed prior to joining the queue Table 26. Average passenger in front of the ID check at the security checkpoint. They perception of kiosk process versus were asked area per passenger. Is your trip primarily for business or leisure purposes? Area per Passenger (sq ft) Average Perception Is your trip to a domestic or international location? 05 n/a >510 2.1 >1015 1.8 Additionally, the data collector noted the number of pas- >1520 1.8 sengers in the queue, the time of the observation, and the >2025 2.5 approximate length of the queue based on the position of >2530 n/a the end of the queue relative to the SSCP configuration. For >3035 2.2 >3540 2.0 all areas observed, the queue length grew proportionally to >4045 1.9 the number of passengers in queue (approximately 2.2 linear >4550 2.1 feet per passenger) and would spill out of the designated area >5055 2.0 as the queue grew. >5560 1.5

OCR for page 22
25 Figure 11. Perception ratings for kiosk process by area per passenger. Figure 12. Average perception ratings for kiosk process by area per passenger. Table 27. Results for test conditions for kiosk based on area per passenger. Test Condition Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference for Area Condition 1 Area 5 sq ft per passenger Area > 5 sq ft per passenger .380 No Condition 2 Area 10 sq ft per passenger Area > 10 sq ft per passenger .190 No Condition 3 Area 15 sq ft per passenger Area > 15 sq ft per passenger .241 No Condition 4 Area 20 sq ft per passenger Area > 20 sq ft per passenger .280 No

OCR for page 22
26 Table 28. Average passenger Holdrooms perception of security queue versus area per passenger. Passengers were intercepted in the holdroom and asked to rate their holdroom experience on a scale of 1 to 5. They were Area per Passenger (sq ft) Average Perception also asked 510 2.4 >1015 2.3 Is your trip primarily for business or leisure purposes? >1520 2.0 >2025 1.9 Is your trip to a domestic or international location? >2530 1.9 >3035 n/a Video evidence was used to determine the number of pas- >3540 2.3 sengers in the holdroom area at the time of the observation >4045 1.3 >4550 1.7 for DFW and by the two-person time-stamp method for all >5055 1.9 other airports. Table 30 shows the average perception rating >5560 1.9 depending on how many passengers were in the holdroom. Figure 15 provides an example of the spread of perception data for one processor--holdrooms. Each X represents at least one data point. It is important to note that there are average passenger area. Each X represents at least one data many instances of poor perception ratings (>3) associated with point. very low passenger density (more than 15 sq ft per passenger-- Table 29 shows the results for the test conditions for this IATA LOS A). functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analy- Figure 16 shows the distribution of average perception sis fails to show a significant difference between area per pas- ratings for the holdroom process collected at all airports senger and average perception rating for two of the four test compared to average passenger area. For Figure 16, the size conditions (1 and 2) because sufficient data were not avail- of the bubble shows the relative number of data points that able, but the results show a significant difference for the test make up the average for that bucket compared to the other conditions 3 and 4. However, for all buckets the average per- buckets. ception rating remains better than acceptable (less than 3.0) Table 31 shows the results for the test conditions for this so no TP is indicated for these data. functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analy- Figure 13. Perception ratings for SSCP process by area per passenger.

OCR for page 22
27 Figure 14. Average perception ratings for SSCP process by area per passenger. Table 29. Results for test conditions for SSCP based on area per passenger. Test Condition Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference for Area Condition 1 Area 5 sq ft per passenger Area > 5 sq ft per passenger No data Condition 2 Area 10 sq ft per passenger Area > 10 sq ft per passenger Inadequate data Condition 3 Area 15 sq ft per passenger Area > 15 sq ft per passenger .025 Yes Condition 4 Area 20 sq ft per passenger Area > 20 sq ft per passenger .034 Yes sis fails to show a significant difference between area per pas- Baggage Claim senger and average perception rating for two of the four test conditions (3 and 4), and sufficient data were not available Passengers were intercepted at the end of their bag claim for the first two test conditions. The average perception of 4.0 process and asked to rate their bag claim experience on a scale at 10 sq ft represents only a few data points. from 1 to 5. They were additionally asked Is your trip primarily for business or leisure purposes? Is your trip to a domestic or international location? Table 30. Average passenger perception of holdroom experience Video evidence was used to determine the number of pas- versus area per passenger. sengers in the bag claim area at the time of the observation for Area per Passenger (sq ft) Average Perception DFW and by the two-person time-stamp method for all other 1015 1.6 airports. Table 32 shows the average perception rating depend- >1520 1.8 >2025 2.3 ing on how many passengers were in the bag claim area. >2530 1.5 Figure 17 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure 18 >3035 3.1 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the bag >3540 2.4 claim process collected at all airports compared to average pas- >4045 1.8 >4550 1.5 senger area. Each X represents at least one data point. >5055 1.7 Table 33 shows the results for the test conditions for this >5560 1.7 functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analysis

OCR for page 22
28 Figure 15. Perception ratings for holdroom process by area per passenger. Figure 16. Average perception ratings for holdroom process by area per passenger. Table 31. Results for test conditions for holdroom based on area per passenger. Test Condition Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference for Area Condition 1 Area 5 sq ft per passenger Area > 5 sq ft per passenger No data Condition 2 Area 10 sq ft per passenger Area > 10 sq ft per passenger Inadequate data Condition 3 Area 15 sq ft per passenger Area > 15 sq ft per passenger .440 No Condition 4 Area 20 sq ft per passenger Area > 20 sq ft per passenger .432 No