National Academies Press: OpenBook

Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals (2011)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Research Approach
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14589.
×
Page 31

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

14 Airport Use of LOS Standards The TransSolutions team surveyed airports throughout the United States and Canada to determine what guidelines and parameters they used at their facilities for planning. The proj- ect team elected to use the online survey tool Survey Gizmo (www.sgizmo.com). Approximately 20% of surveyed air- ports responded. Of the responding airports, 65% were familiar with LOS standards and used them to plan various elements of their facilities. However, only about 30% of respondents believe that a new North American LOS standard would be a major improvement. Data Point Summary Nearly 4,000 passenger intercept interviews were conducted successfully at the seven chosen airports. The quantitative and qualitative data collection teams combined efforts at four of the seven airports. Table 7 is a summary of the data collection methods used in each functional area and the number of data points collected that contained useable perception values. There were a differing number of quantitative data points taken for each airport function across the seven airports due to passenger demand patterns and data collector scheduling. Table 8 shows the number of quantitative responses collected (that included a perception rating) by function at each airport. The data from all seven airports were tabulated, and the av- erage perception ratings for each of the airport functions were calculated. Table 9 shows the average perception ratings for each airport and each functional area. Additionally, the data were summarized for small and large airports to identify any significant differences that might exist. This information is shown in Table 10. Table 11 shows the average perception ratings for each func- tional area when the area per passenger for that process is taken into consideration. Table 12 shows the average perception ratings for each functional area when the time spent in the queue for that process, or the process itself, is taken into consideration. Pas- sengers’ tolerance for wait times of 25 min or less, although seemingly rather long, is consistent with findings reported by Mumayiz and Ashford (10). In general, there is a tendency for the perception ratings to increase (i.e., to become worse) on average as the time spent increases. The bag claim, SSCP, staffed agent check-in, and kiosk areas show statistically sig- nificant increases over time. Determination of Perception Turning Points for Area and Wait Time Tables 13 and 14 show the breakdown of the conditions that were tested to determine if there were significant differ- ences in the average perception ratings for a given airport function based on area per passenger. As noted in the previ- ous chapter, the area used in the calculation was based on air- port area surveys. Using the approach described in the previous section, the data collected indicated TPs for the various functions, as summarized in Table 15. No specific turning points were found for any functional areas when looking at the data for area available per passen- ger. Reported perception averages rarely exceeded 3.0 in any of our area-per-passenger buckets (As used here, “buckets” are a grouping of raw data into ranges.) No clear trend could be ascertained from the data. Perception values ranged from excellent (1) to very bad (5) for each function regardless of passenger space available. Turning points were determined for four functional areas with regard to waiting time. In these, a clear trend in the data could be established, and the approximate waiting time where the average perception values went from acceptable to less than acceptable could be determined. C H A P T E R 3 Findings and Applications

15 Table 7. Data collection process summary. Sample Size (7 Airports) Functional Area Data Collection Methodology Quantitative Qualitative Passenger check-in • Passenger interview before and after queuing process • Ethnographic research 283 agent 61 curbside 580 kiosk 1,008 Total 27 SSCP • Passenger interview before and after queuing process • Ethnographic research 1,012 8 APM • Passenger interview at arrival and when APM arrives • Ethnographic research 129 2 Corridor • Passenger interview in transit • Ethnographic research 345 10 Hol droo m • Passenger interview upon arrival to holdroo m and at boarding call • Ethnographic research 624 153 Bag claim • Passenger interview at arrival and after bag claimed • Ethnographic research 861 42 Total 3,979 242 84 bag drop 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

16 Table 10. Average perception ratings by airport size. Function Small/Medium Airport Average Perception Large Airport Average Perception p-value Significant Difference 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 0–5 >5–10 >10–15 >15–20 >20–25 >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. Ti me Spent in Queue or Process (min) Function 0–5 >5–10 >10–15 >15–20 >20–25 >25–30 >30–35 >35–40 >40–45 >45–50 >50–55 >55–60 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 * * * * * * * * * * * Holdroo m 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 clai m 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 per passenger. Test Condition for Functional Area per Passenger Data Group A Data Group B Condition 1 Area 5 sq ft per passenger Area > 5 sq ft per passenger Condition 2 Area 10 sq ft per passenger Area > 10 sq ft per passenger Condition 3 Area 15 sq ft per passenger Area > 15 sq ft per passenger Condition 4 Area 20 sq ft per passenger Area > 20 sq ft per passenger Table 14. Breakdown of data groups based on wait time. Test Condition for Wait Time Data Group A Data Group B Condition 1 Wait time 5 min Wait time > 5 min Condition 2 Wait time 10 min Wait time > 10 min Condition 3 Wait time 15 min Wait time > 15 min Condition 4 Wait time 20 min Wait time > 20 min Condition 5 Wait time 30 min Wait time > 30 min

First presented are the detailed results for the four functional areas (staffed agent check-in, kiosk, SSCP, and bag claim) where it was possible to discern legitimate turning points in the data for passenger wait times where the average perception values rose above acceptable (3.0). The remaining functional areas (where no legitimate turning points could be developed) are shown in Appendix B. Detailed Passenger Wait-Time Results Figures 1 through 8 show the graphical spread of the data collected for all airports for wait times, both in terms of the raw data and averages of 5-min time buckets (e.g., 0–5 min, >5–10 min). Five-minute periods were chosen as the level of resolution because smaller periods did not contain enough data points across the board to conduct relevant statistical tests. Larger periods would not provide as much resolution. The data show the relationship between perception score and the time spent in queue or process for a given functional area for the four areas that exhibited a clear trend. Check-In Table 16 shows the average perception rating depending on how long the passengers spent in the queue. Figure 1 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure 2 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the agent check-in process collected at all airports compared to waiting time. Each X represents at least one data point. For Figure 2, the size of the bubble shows the relative num- ber of data points that make up the average for that bucket compared to other buckets. Table 17 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on waiting time. Statistical analysis shows the relationship between time in queue and average perception rating to be significant for each test condition (1 through 5) for waiting time. This indicates a progressive relationship between time spent waiting and average per- ception rating. If we determine the point at which average perception passes the acceptable ranking (3), we obtain the turning point. For these data, the TP occurs around a wait time of 16 to 20 min. Kiosks Table 18 shows the average perception rating depending on the number of minutes each passenger spent waiting at the kiosk. Figure 3 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure 4 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the kiosk process collected at all airports compared to waiting time. Each X represents at least one data point. For Figure 4, the size of the bubble shows the relative num- ber of data points that make up the average for that bucket compared to the other buckets. Table 19 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on waiting time. Statistical analysis shows the relationship between time in queue and average percep- tion rating to be significant for the first four test conditions (1 through 4) for waiting time. This indicates a progressive relationship between the time spent waiting and average per- ception rating. If we determine the point at which average 17 Table 16. Average passenger perception of ticketing queue time versus length of wait. Length of Wait Average Perception 0–5 min 1.8 >5–10 min 2.2 >10–15 min 2.6 >15–20 min 3.2 >20–25 min 3.7 >25–30 min 3.2 >30–35 min 4.0 Table 15. Turning point by functional area and environmental factor. Function Area-per-Passenger TP Passenger Wait-Time TP Curbside – – Check-in agent – More than 20 min Kiosk – More than 20 min Bag drop – – SSCP – More than a value of between 10 to 30 min* APM – – Corridor – – Holdroom – – Bag claim – More than 20 min *Lack of sufficient data in this range prevents a more definitive value for the TP.

18 Figure 1. Perception ratings for staffed agent check-in process by time spent in queue. Figure 2. Average perception ratings for staffed agent check-in process by time spent in queue. Table 17. Results for test conditions for staffed agent check-in based on waiting time. Test Condition for Wait Time Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference 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 Table 18. Average passenger perception of kiosk process time versus length of wait. Length of Wait Average Perception 0–5 min 2.0 >5–10 min 2.4 >10–15 min 2.6 >15–20 min 2.7 >20–25 min 3.2

19 Figure 3. Perception ratings for kiosk process by time spent in queue. Figure 4. Average perception ratings for kiosk process by time spent in queue. Table 19. Results for test conditions for kiosk based on waiting time. Test Condition for Wait Time Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference 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 .006 Yes Condition 4 Wait time 20 min Wait time > 20 min .030 Yes Condition 5 Wait time 30 min Wait time > 30 min .656 No

perception passes the acceptable ranking (3), we obtain the TP. For these data, the TP occurs within a wait time of 21 to 25 min. Security Screening Checkpoint Table 20 shows the average perception rating depending on how long the passengers were in the checkpoint queue. Figure 5 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure 6 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the SSCP process collected at all airports compared to waiting time. Each X represents at least one data point. For Figure 6, the size of the bubble shows the relative num- ber of data points that make up the average for that bucket compared to the other buckets. There was a noticeable lack of data past the 10- to 12-minute mark—an indication that such conditions occur infrequently in practice, given the TSA’s focus on providing shorter wait times for passengers during the study time frame. Table 21 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on waiting time. Statistical analysis shows the relationship between time in queue and average perception rating to be significant for each test condition (1 through 5) for waiting time. This indicates a progressive relationship between time spent waiting and average perception rating. If we deter- mine the point at which average perception exceeds the accept- able ranking (3), we obtain the TP. For these data, the TP likely occurs around a wait time of above 10 min. Bag Claim Table 22 shows the average perception rating depending on how long the passengers spent in the bag claim process. Figure 7 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure 8 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the bag claim process collected at all airports compared to wait- ing time. Each X represents at least one data point. For Figure 8, the size of the bubble shows the relative num- ber of data points that make up the average for that bucket compared to the other buckets. Table 23 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on waiting time. Statistical analysis shows the relationship between time in queue and average perception rating to be significant for all five test conditions (1 through 5) for waiting time. This indicates a progressive relationship between time spent waiting and average perception rating. If we determine the point at which average perception passes 20 Table 20. Average passenger perception of security queue time versus length of wait. Length of Wait Average Perception 0–5 min 1.8 >5–10 min 2.4 >10–15 min 2.6 Figure 5. Perception ratings for SSCP process by time spent in queue.

Figure 6. Average perception ratings for SSCP process by time spent in queue. Table 21. Results for test conditions for SSCP based on waiting time. Test Condition for Wait Time Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference 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 Table 22. Average passenger perception of bag claim process time versus length of wait. Length of Wait Average Perception 0–5 min 1.6 >5–10 min 1.8 >10–15 min 2.3 >15–20 min 2.9 >20–25 min 2.9 >25–30 min 2.9 >30–35 min 4.0 Figure 7. Perception ratings for bag claim process by time spent in queue.

22 Figure 8. Average perception ratings for bag claim process by time spent in queue. Table 23. Results for test conditions for bag claim based on waiting time. Test Condition for Wait Time Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference 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 the acceptable ranking (3), we can obtain the TP. For these data, the TP occurs between a wait time of 20 and 25 min— interestingly, approximately the length of time that most airline passengers wait for their bags in today’s airports, which is about 5 to 10 min longer than in previous years. Detailed Passenger Density Results This section discusses the detailed passenger density results. Shown are the same results for area as previously shown for time. Where turning points were identified in the waiting- time graphs presented previously, note the absence of similar relationships in the area-per-passenger graphs presented here. Figures 9 through 18 show the graphical spread of the data collected for all airports for area per passenger, both in terms of the raw data and averages of 5 sq ft per passenger area buckets (e.g., 0–5 sq ft per passenger, 5–10 sq ft per passenger). Increments of 5 sq ft were used since this would facilitate comparison to existing Fruin and IATA passenger perception frameworks. The data show the relationship between percep- tion score and the amount of area available for each passenger for a given functional area. For the graphs that show averages, 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 appear to be a significant correlation between area per passen- ger and average perception. Check-in Passengers were interviewed prior to joining the queue in front of the check-in facility. They were asked • How many people are in the traveling party? • How many bags are you checking? • How many carts are you using?

• Is your trip primarily for business or leisure purposes? • Is your trip to a domestic or international location? Additionally, the data collector noted the number of passen- gers in the queue, the time of the observation, and the approx- imate length of the queue based on the position of the end of the queue relative to the check-in lobby configuration. For all areas observed, the queue length grew proportionally to the number of passengers in queue (roughly 3.3. linear feet per passenger) and would overflow the designated area as the queue grew. Table 24 shows the average perception rating depending on the check-in queue area. Note that there is no relationship between more space per passenger and perception of higher LOS. Figure 9 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure 10 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the agent check-in process collected at all airports compared to average passenger area. Each X represents at least one data point. Table 25 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analy- sis fails to show a significant difference between area per pas- senger and average perception rating for four test conditions (1 through 4) since there were not enough applicable data. No TP is indicated for these data. Kiosks The passengers’ time of arrival and the number of passen- gers in process in the area were determined by examining video documentation of the area for DFW and by the two-person time-stamp method for all other airports. Table 26 shows the average perception rating depending on how many passengers were in the kiosk area. Figure 11 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure 12 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the kiosk process collected at all airports compared to average pas- senger area. Each X represents at least one data point. Table 27 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analy- sis fails to show a significant difference between area per passenger and average perception rating for four test condi- tions (1 through 4). This indicates no definable relationship between area per passenger and average perception rating 23 Figure 9. Perception ratings for agent check-in process by area per passenger. Table 24. Average passenger perception of ticketing queue versus area per passenger. Area per Passenger (sq ft) Average Perception 15–20 4.8 >20–25 3.0 >25–30 1.7 >30–35 3.0 >35–40 2.7 >40–45 2.0 >45–50 n/a >50–55 1.3 >55–60 2.0

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 for Area Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference 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 perception rating generally remains better than acceptable (less than 3.0). No TP is indicated for these data. Security Screening Checkpoint Passengers were interviewed prior to joining the queue in front of the ID check at the security checkpoint. They were asked • Is your trip primarily for business or leisure purposes? • Is your trip to a domestic or international location? Additionally, the data collector noted the number of pas- sengers in the queue, the time of the observation, and the approximate length of the queue based on the position of the end of the queue relative to the SSCP configuration. For all areas observed, the queue length grew proportionally to the number of passengers in queue (approximately 2.2 linear feet per passenger) and would spill out of the designated area as the queue grew. Table 28 shows the average perception rating depending on how many passengers were in the queue. 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 Table 26. Average passenger perception of kiosk process versus area per passenger. Area per Passenger (sq ft) Average Perception 0–5 n/a >5–10 2.1 >10–15 1.8 >15–20 1.8 >20–25 2.5 >25–30 n/a >30–35 2.2 >35–40 2.0 >40–45 1.9 >45–50 2.1 >50–55 2.0 >55–60 1.5

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 for Area Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference 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

Figure 13. Perception ratings for SSCP process by area per passenger. Holdrooms Passengers were intercepted in the holdroom and asked to rate their holdroom experience on a scale of 1 to 5. They were also asked • Is your trip primarily for business or leisure purposes? • Is your trip to a domestic or international location? Video evidence was used to determine the number of pas- sengers in the holdroom area at the time of the observation for DFW and by the two-person time-stamp method for all other airports. Table 30 shows the average perception rating 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 many instances of poor perception ratings (>3) associated with very low passenger density (more than 15 sq ft per passenger— IATA LOS A). Figure 16 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the holdroom process collected at all airports compared to average passenger area. For Figure 16, 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. Table 31 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analy- 26 Table 28. Average passenger perception of security queue versus area per passenger. Area per Passenger (sq ft) Average Perception 5–10 2.4 >10–15 2.3 >15–20 2.0 >20–25 1.9 >25–30 1.9 >30–35 n/a >35–40 2.3 >40–45 1.3 >45–50 1.7 >50–55 1.9 >55–60 1.9 average passenger area. Each X represents at least one data point. Table 29 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analy- sis fails to show a significant difference between area per pas- senger and average perception rating for two of the four test conditions (1 and 2) because sufficient data were not avail- able, but the results show a significant difference for the test conditions 3 and 4. However, for all buckets the average per- ception rating remains better than acceptable (less than 3.0) so no TP is indicated for these data.

Figure 14. Average perception ratings for SSCP process by area per passenger. 27 Table 29. Results for test conditions for SSCP based on area per passenger. Test Condition for Area Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference 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- senger and average perception rating for two of the four test conditions (3 and 4), and sufficient data were not available for the first two test conditions. The average perception of 4.0 at 10 sq ft represents only a few data points. Baggage Claim Passengers were intercepted at the end of their bag claim process and asked to rate their bag claim experience on a scale 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? Video evidence was used to determine the number of pas- sengers in the bag claim area at the time of the observation for DFW and by the two-person time-stamp method for all other airports. Table 32 shows the average perception rating depend- ing on how many passengers were in the bag claim area. Figure 17 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure 18 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the bag claim process collected at all airports compared to average pas- senger area. Each X represents at least one data point. Table 33 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analysis Table 30. Average passenger perception of holdroom experience versus area per passenger. Area per Passenger (sq ft) Average Perception 10–15 1.6 >15–20 1.8 >20–25 2.3 >25–30 1.5 >30–35 3.1 >35–40 2.4 >40–45 1.8 >45–50 1.5 >50–55 1.7 >55–60 1.7

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 for Area Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference 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

Figure 17. Perception ratings for bag claim process by area per passenger. market, and airline type. Table 34 shows the data groupings for each test condition. Table 35 shows the breakdown between business and leisure passenger average perception ratings for each of the functional group data sets. However, none of the functional groupings indicated statistically significant differences be- tween the perception averages. Therefore, we could not dis- cern any impact that trip purpose had on passenger percep- tion rating. This finding is consistent with work reported by Seneviratne and Martel in 1991 (5). Table 36 shows the breakdown between domestic and in- ternational passenger average perception ratings for each of the functional group data sets. Only the SSCP areas and hold- rooms indicated statistically significant differences between the perception averages. Table 37 shows the breakdown of airline by type. Legacy carriers are airlines such as American, Continental, and Delta. Low-cost carriers are those such as Southwest and Jet Blue. Due to sample size and other factors, only the bag claim, curbside, and holdroom functions showed statistically signif- icant differences in mean perception ratings between these types of carriers. Table 38 shows the perception data by the airline type. Qualitative (Ethnographic) Results Table 39 shows the overall tally of responses from the qual- itative study for general categories of interest. Note that a pas- senger could contribute more than one comment. We have highlighted the top five response categories for each comment type for clarity. 29 Table 32. Average passenger perception of baggage claim experience versus area per passenger. Area per Passenger (sq ft) Average Perception 15–20 2.1 >20–25 2.3 >25–30 2.6 >30–35 2.4 >35–40 n/a >40–45 2.4 >45–50 2.0 >50–55 2.4 >55–60 1.6 fails to show a significant difference between area per pas- senger and average perception rating for the fourth test condition (4). There were no data available for the first three conditions (1 through 3), but a relationship could exist if the data could be collected for that region. Additionally, for all area buckets, the average perception rating generally remains better than acceptable (less than 3.0). No TP is indicated for these data. Passenger Perceptions Associated with Air Service Categories To determine if the average perception data showed signif- icant differences based on the other information collected, the data were grouped for various test conditions for each of the factors of interest: purpose of trip, destination or arrival

30 Figure 18. Average perception ratings for bag claim process by area per passenger. Table 33. Results for test conditions for bag claim based on area per passenger. Test Condition for Area Data Group A Data Group B p-value Significant Difference 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 .610 No Table 34. Additional breakdowns of data groups. Test Condition for Purpose of Trip Data Group A Data Group B Condition 1 Business Leisure Condition 2 Domestic International Condition 3 Legacy carriers Low-cost carriers Table 35. Average perception ratings by function and passenger trip purpose. Function Business Leisure p-value Significant Difference Curbside 1.5 1.8 .236 No Check-in agent 2.3 2.5 .155 No Kiosk 2.2 2.1 .290 No Bag drop 2.3 2.1 .406 No SSCP 2.0 1.9 .098 No APM 1.6 1.5 .313 No Corridor 1.9 1.9 .588 No Holdroom 1.9 1.9 .750 No Bag claim 2.2 2.1 .222 No Table 36. Average perception ratings by function and passenger arrival or destination market. Function Domestic International p-value Significant Difference Curbside 1.7 * – No data Check-in agent 2.4 2.5 .326 No Kiosk 2.1 2.2 .471 No Bag drop 2.2 2.2 .982 No SSCP 1.9 2.2 .001 Yes APM 1.5 1.5 .778 No Corridor 1.9 1.7 .371 No Holdroom 1.8 2.1 .027 Yes Bag claim 2.1 2.4** .417 No *No international passengers at curbside **Passengers who arrived at up-line international gateways

31 Table 37. Breakdown of airline type for carriers sampled for this study. Legacy Carriers Low-Cost Carriers American AirTran Continental Allegiant Delta JetBlue Northwest Southwest US Airways United Table 38. Average perception ratings for each function by type of airline. Function Legacy Carriers Low-Cost Carriers p-value Significant Difference Curbside 1.2 1.8 .012 Yes Check-in agent 2.3 2.5 .142 No Kiosk 2.1 2.3 .076 No Bag drop 2.1 2.7 .247 No Holdroom 1.9 1.8 .013 Yes Bag claim 2.2 2.4 .037 Yes Table 39. Qualitative data summary. Response Category Positive Comment Negative Comment Would Like to See Cleanliness 17 1 0 Congestion 0 6 0 Dining 17 5 12 Family friendly 1 1 9 Handicapped facilities/procedures 6 2 1 Moving walkways 0 1 6 Noise level 0 7 0 Paid amenities 0 1 5 Parking 2 2 2 Personal Amenity Space/Comfort 16 11 20 Restrooms 6 2 1 Shuttle system 3 4 1 Smoking facilities 3 2 3 Train system 18 3 0 TSA/ICE issues 22 15 3 Airport layout (size/distance/convenience) 11 9 0 Rental car facility 2 0 0 Airline customer service (agent-based) 14 13 0 Airport customer service (information booth) 5 1 1 Information displays (airline/flight info) 2 3 1 Airline customer service (machine-based/kiosks) 8 7 2 Airline logistics (flight delays/baggage handling) 4 20 0 Free amenities (television/outlets/Wi-Fi/clocks) 7 5 18 Wayfinding (signage/information booths) 28 14 12

Next: Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research »
Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 55: Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals examines passenger perception of level of service related to space allocation in specific areas within airport terminals.

The report evaluates level-of-service standards applied in the terminal planning and design process while testing the continued validity of historic space allocation parameters that have been in use for more than 30 years.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!