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

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.

32 Conclusions Relationship Between Passenger Perception of LOS and Area The results of the data collection and analysis did not iden- tify a relationship between passengers’ perceptions of LOS and the amount of space that was available to them for any airport function studied. There are two important aspects of this finding: 1. The data did not indicate a turning point for any airport function studied where the average perception becomes unacceptable for passengers based on the amount of avail- able space around them. This may be because there were not many times during our data collection period when passengers felt they had to compromise their personal space due to congestion. Perhaps one reason for this is that the facilities were generally well designed to handle the de- sign demand. Another reason may be that passengers avoid situations where overcrowding may occur and either wait in adjacent or nearby areas or choose to engage in other activities (such as shopping or dining). 2. It is clear that higher levels of area per passenger do not enhance passenger perception of any functional area. There are many instances where in the same location, with the same area per passenger, some passengers perceived the LOS to be high while others perceived the LOS to be low. This re- sult implies that something other than area per passenger is driving the perception. Additionally, this result indicates that intentionally increasing the size of the functional area in the hope of attaining higher levels of passenger satisfaction will not achieve that result. Since a turning point for perception due to area afforded each passenger could not be found during our data collection, the study team cannot propose a space-planning guideline based on empirical research findings. In the absence of fur- ther research, we suggest continued use of the LOS C space allocations recommended by the IATA Airport Development Reference Manual (1), with the following caveats: • All necessary airport terminal processors should be present in the design and sized to produce a balanced flow. • There should be convenient, adjacent, or nearby places for passengers to wait when congestion in one particular area produces excessive density, since the study observed that pas- sengers self-regulate their comfort by waiting in other areas. • Passenger demand used to size the space to the LOS C standard should be based on the end of the planning or design horizon. Thus airport owners and business part- ners should understand that the initial space on opening day will result in a better LOS and that passenger growth over the design life of the facility may result in the facility degrading to LOS C. The study team’s reasoning for proposing this space- planning and design standard is as follows: • The prevailing practice at North American airports for many years has been to develop facilities to provide at least IATA LOS C. This study indicates that passengers are largely satisfied with the space available to them at the air- ports studied. Additionally, the prevalent use of the LOS C design criteria appears to be financially acceptable to proj- ect sponsors. • The IATA LOS C space guidelines and the LOS C space guidelines proposed by John Fruin (2) are approximately equivalent when accounting for the presence or absence of checked baggage at various airport processors. Dr. Fruin’s research on pedestrian queuing behavior was extensive and has served as a sound basis for planning and design for many years. C H A P T E R 4 Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research

33 Relationship Between Passenger Perception of LOS and Time The data collection and analysis did show a relationship between the amount of waiting/processing time a passenger experiences and his or her perception of LOS. Waiting time appears to have a negative effect for processes where passen- gers wait in queue for a limited number of processors, such as staffed agent check-in and bag claim. Although the data did not indicate a graduated decline in passengers’ perceptions of LOS associated with wait time, we were able to determine TPs for several of these airport functions where the average per- ception becomes unacceptable. Due to the nature of this data collection (finite data collection resources coupled with facilities/operations that performed reasonably well even during peak travel periods), the study did not delineate TPs for every airport function studied. For the four areas where the study team did identify turn- ing points in wait-time data (i.e., when passenger perception changed from acceptable to unacceptable), passenger tolerance was surprisingly high relative to typical planning and design criteria. This finding may be the result of inherent bias in the passenger intercept survey technique—fairly tolerant people are the ones willing to participate in surveys. Therefore, rela- tively longer wait times are required to exceed the limits of their patience. Differences in Passenger Perceptions of LOS Associated with Air Service Market Differences Airport planners are frequently asked about potential dif- ferences in passengers’ expectations regarding LOS that might be associated with the type of air service they are using. Study data were analyzed to identify differences between legacy carrier and low-cost carrier passengers, business and leisure passengers, and international and domestic passen- gers. Generally, there were few differences identified. The study data indicated no significant difference between percep- tions of LOS between business and leisure passengers. There were significantly different and slightly lower perception ratings from international passengers in the SSCP and the holdroom areas. Low-cost carrier passengers had significantly different and slightly lower perceptions of the curbside check-in and bag- gage claim areas, while they had significantly different and slightly higher perceptions of the holdroom area. The study team further proposes that no special airport de- velopment design considerations related to space or wait time be contemplated, based on an assumption that the LOS per- ceptions of passengers categorized by their type of air service are inherently different. The data simply do not support such initiatives. Certainly there are objective differences in sizing parameters associated with aircraft type or capacity as well as differences in load factor or processing requirements based on government policy (in the case of domestic versus inter- national passengers) associated with different air service pas- senger types. The study team attributes this lack of difference in passenger perceptions of LOS to the fact that passengers are likely to use all of these types of air service, and their percep- tion of LOS is inherent rather than a function of the carrier they are using. Ethnographic Findings Related to Passengers’ Perception of LOS The ethnographic findings of the data collection study are some of the most significant. The results of the ethnographic study support the conclusions of the quantitative data collec- tion. However, the qualitative analysis identified other factors wholly unrelated to time or space that may have a significant impact on passenger perception or even be the key to their dynamic or holistic perception of the entire process. Cer- tainly, many of these factors are controlled by individual air- lines or government agencies, and some of these factors could be influenced by the airport during the design process. Many of these factors are not considered explicitly or early in the plan- ning and design process or are left for tenants or concessionaires to achieve as part of their development responsibility. The study data indicate that achieving higher levels of passenger percep- tion of LOS requires that the airport planning and design process have more influence over these factors. A key finding of the ethnographic data collection is that in order to reduce passengers’ stress and thus increase their per- ceptions of LOS, it is important that they feel they are in control of the success of their journey. For example, the finding that passengers’ perceptions of LOS are associated with wait time is an expression of this concern about the success of their journey (and unfortunately, sometimes beyond the control of the air- port planner or owner). However, examples of airport planning and design matters that affect the passengers’ perception of con- trol include • Intuitive wayfinding: This includes not only a well-designed and -implemented signage system, but more importantly, design that supports clear passenger sight lines through the successive steps in their journey, from landside to airside and vice versa. Sight lines must be considered early in the design stage if it is a goal to achieve unobstructed views through each successive terminal processor. Providing these clear sight lines may affect facility development cost, so it is important to develop design criteria that weight such intuitively obvi- ous wayfinding heavily. • Short walk distances or quick travel times: Passengers need to trust that they have enough time to travel from landside

34 to their outbound gate to catch their flights. Although travel time information may assuage passenger fears, short walk distances are most comforting (as well as less exhaust- ing). Passenger walk distances, or alternatively passenger conveyance systems that reduce travel time, must be an inherent consideration when evaluating airport develop- ment alternatives. • Ubiquitous and reliable flight status information: Informa- tion about the current time, the time required to complete each successive processing step, and flight status are all necessary for passengers to feel that the success of their journey is not being threatened. This information must be provided so that it is available wherever a passenger may be stuck waiting in the airport. It is also necessary for the pas- senger to feel comfortable that he/she has time to use airport concessions to acquire food, beverage, or retail items. Pro- vision of systems that provide reliable flight status informa- tion require cooperation with the air carriers or investment in newly developed systems that rely on FAA-based flight status information. Additionally, these systems must be located in many areas of the terminal, along the passengers’ routes of travel, or delivered to passengers individually via their mobile communications devices. Amenities that reflect a respect for passengers’ time and needs are another important factor in their high perception of LOS. This is validated by their frustration with long wait times. If they are expected to wait for long periods in a hold- room, they want amenities that allow them to use their time productively. Such items include spaces where they can work, plug in their electronic devices, and connect to the internet easily. Therefore, it is important that these concerns be taken into account when designing and planning holdrooms and other airside spaces. The data collection highlighted a special subset of passenger needs: a desire for spaces that provide sanctuary. Passengers’ well-documented preference for clean facilities is certainly a fundamental aspect of sanctuary. This includes concessions or other terminal spaces (in the holdroom or elsewhere) where passengers can wait comfortably for their flights. For some pas- sengers this may be a quiet place; for others this may be a place where they can watch the news/sporting events or listen to music. In both cases, passengers need reliable flight status in- formation so that they can relax and enjoy the activity they have chosen to pass the time. This is the space-related quality that influences passenger perception of high LOS—the qual- ity of the space and how well it is designed to respond to their needs—rather than the quantity of the space. The airport design should include these areas of sanctuary regardless of whether they are included in concessionaires’ facilities. All of these qualitative factors that influence passenger perception have a definite impact on the planning and de- sign process and add to the cost of facility development. Therefore, given the challenge in raising financial support for airport facility development, it is critically important that the value of these matters to passengers be accurately quantified. Recommended Further Research More Data Collection? The study team did not anticipate that the data collection analysis would fail to identify a relationship between quantity of space and passengers’ perception of LOS. However, further review of literature regarding the initial development of the LOS framework indicated that it was based on fairly limited research. When the test of the data collection approach was completed at DFW and the study team learned that the data collection study might not support the traditional view of passenger LOS, the study team took a number of measures to ensure that sample sizes for the quantitative data were ade- quate to support study conclusions. Therefore, it is not the study teams’ recommendation that more quantitative data collection be undertaken. More Effective Survey Techniques Should future researchers desire to complete additional study on passenger perception of service based on density, the study team’s suggestion is that new survey techniques be iden- tified to capture and quantify passengers’ experiences and per- ceptions. The study team has extensive experience in surveying passengers in ways that are unbiased, minimally intrusive, and objective, and these methods were employed in this research. However, methods that require a harried traveler to interact with another person during his or her journey require a level of tolerance that may not be representative of the traveling public. Therefore, when passengers do choose to participate in data collection efforts, the data come from two sets of passen- gers: those who are patient and willing to take the time to speak with researchers and those who have been angered by some incident during their journey that motivates them to speak about their experience. The ethnographic methods appear to be very successful in discerning passenger perceptions. However, the cost of each data point is significantly high, especially compared to the cost of collecting quantitative data. Since the completion of this research, the study team has been looking for new survey techniques. Techniques that em- ploy mobile technologies such as questionnaires completed and delivered via cell phones and text messaging are promis- ing. Additionally, airports and the TSA are collecting passen- ger wait-time data at airport processing points through the use

of passive Bluetooth technology. The study team recommends that such techniques be explored and tested for their efficacy in quantifying passengers’ actual experience as well as their perceptions of it. The study team does advocate wider use of ethnographic methodology in discerning passenger expectations and per- ceptions. This approach may be the only way to understand what truly influences passenger perceptions. When less-biased, more cost-effective survey techniques can be identified, it may be worthwhile to attempt more data collection to determine the turning point in the minimum amount of space that is sat- isfactory to a passenger. 35