Click for next page ( 48


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 47
47 APPENDIX B Remaining Detailed Results Figures B1 through B8 show the graphical spread of the data Figure B5 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure B6 collected for all airports for wait times, both in terms of the shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the cor- raw data and averages of 5 min time periods (e.g., 05 min, ridor area collected at all airports compared to waiting time. >510 min) The data show the relationship between percep- Each X represents at least one data point. tion score and the time spent in queue or process for a given Table B3 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area. For the graphs that show averages, the size functional area based on waiting time. Statistical analysis fails of the bubble shows the relative number of data points that to show a significant difference between time spent in the make up the average for that period compared to the other holdroom and average perception rating for two of the five periods. test conditions (2 and 3) for waiting time. This indicates that Figure B1 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure B2 there is no definable relationship between time spent waiting shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the and average perception rating for this function. Additionally, holdroom area collected at all airports compared to waiting for all time periods, the average perception rating remains time. Each X represents at least one data point. better than acceptable (less than 3.0). No TP is indicated for Table B1 shows the results for the test conditions for this these data. functional area based on waiting time. Statistical analysis fails Figure B7 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure B8 to show a significant difference between time spent in the shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the bag holdroom and average perception rating for four of the five test drop process collected at all airports compared to waiting time. conditions (2 through 5) for waiting time. This indicates no Each X represents at least one data point. definable relationship between time spent waiting and average Table B4 shows the results for the test conditions for this perception rating for this function. Additionally, for all time functional area based on waiting time. Statistical analysis fails periods, the average perception rating remains better than to show a significant difference between time spent in the bag acceptable (less than 3.0). No TP is indicated for these data. drop area and average perception rating for three of the five Figure B3 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure B4 test conditions (1 through 3) for waiting time. This is primar- shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the ily due to the low sample sizes in each bucket forcing the true curbside process collected at all airports compared to waiting estimates of the sample means to overlap considerably. Fur- time. Each X represents at least one data point. thermore, the lack of data after 15 min (as shown in Figure B3) Table B2 shows the results for the test conditions for this prevents us from making a more definitive conclusion regard- functional area based on waiting time. Statistical analysis fails ing that portion of the graph. to show a significant difference between time spent in the cor- Figures B9 through B20 show the graphical spread of the ridor and average perception rating for the first two test con- data collected for all airports for area per passenger both in ditions (1 and 2) for waiting time. This indicates no definable terms of the raw data and averages of 5 sq ft per passenger relationship between time spent waiting and average percep- area bucket (e.g., 05 sq ft per passenger, >510 sq ft per pas- tion rating for this function. Additionally, for all time periods, senger). The data show the relationship between perception the average perception rating remains better than acceptable score and the amount of area available for each passenger for (less than 3.0). No TP is indicated for these data. Note that a given functional area. For the graphs that show averages, the there are no data past 11 min and that a relationship could size of the bubble shows the relative number of data points exist past this point if the data could be collected. that make up the average for that bucket compared to the

OCR for page 47
48 Figure B1. Perception ratings for holdroom by time spent in area. Figure B2. Average perception ratings for holdroom by time spent in area.

OCR for page 47
49 Table B1. Results for test conditions for holdroom based on time spent in area. 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 .032 Yes Condition 2 Wait time 10 min Wait time > 10 min .564 No Condition 3 Wait time 15 min Wait time > 15 min .674 No Condition 4 Wait time 20 min Wait time > 20 min .721 No Condition 5 Wait time 30 min Wait time > 30 min .102 No Figure B3. Perception ratings for curbside process by time spent in queue. Figure B4. Average perception ratings for curbside process by time spent in queue.

OCR for page 47
50 Table B2. Results for test conditions for curbside based on time spent in queue. 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 .053 No Condition 2 Wait time 10 min Wait time > 10 min .322 No Condition 3 Wait time 15 min Wait time > 15 min No data Condition 4 Wait time 20 min Wait time > 20 min No data Condition 5 Wait time 30 min Wait time > 30 min No data Figure B5. Perception ratings for corridor process by time spent in transit. Figure B6. Average perception ratings for corridor process by time spent in transit.

OCR for page 47
51 Table B3. Results for test conditions for corridor based on time spent in transit. 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 .107 No Condition 3 Wait time 15 min Wait time > 15 min .409 No Condition 4 Wait time 20 min Wait time > 20 min No data Condition 5 Wait time 30 min Wait time > 30 min No data Figure B7. Perception ratings for bag drop process by time spent in queue. Figure B8. Average perception ratings for bag drop process by time spent in queue.

OCR for page 47
52 Table B4. Results for test conditions for bag drop 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 .137 No Condition 2 Wait time 10 min Wait time > 10 min .410 No Condition 3 Wait time 15 min Wait time > 15 min .247 No Condition 4 Wait time 20 min Wait time > 20 min No data Condition 5 Wait time 30 min Wait time > 30 min No data other buckets. Except in a few cases described herein, there erage passenger area. Each X represents at least one data does not appear to be a significant correlation between area point. per passenger and average perception. Table B6 shows the results for the test conditions for this Figure B9 shows the spread of perception data, and Fig- functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analy- ure B10 shows the distribution of average perception ratings sis fails to show a significant difference between area per pas- for the agent check-in process collected at all airports com- senger and average perception rating for two of the four test pared to average passenger area. Each X represents at least conditions (1 and 2), but the results show a significant differ- one data point. ence for the test conditions 3 and 4. However, for all buckets, Table B5 shows the results for the test conditions for this the average perception rating remains better than acceptable functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analy- (less than 3.0) so no TP is indicated for these data. sis fails to show a significant difference between area per pas- Figure B13 shows the spread of perception data, and Fig- senger and average perception rating for four test conditions ure B14 shows the distribution of average perception ratings (1 through 4) since there was no applicable data. No TP is in- for the kiosk process collected at all airports compared to av- dicated for these data. erage passenger area. Each X represents at least one data Figure B11 shows the spread of perception data, and Fig- point. ure B12 shows the distribution of average perception ratings Table B7 shows the results for the test conditions for this for the SSCP process collected at all airports compared to av- functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analysis Figure B9. Perception ratings for agent check-in process by area per passenger.

OCR for page 47
53 Figure B10. Average perception ratings for agent check-in process by area per passenger. Table B5. 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 Figure B11. Perception ratings for SSCP Process by area per passenger.

OCR for page 47
54 Figure B12. Average perception ratings for SSCP process by area per passenger. Table B6. 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 Figure B13. Perception ratings for kiosk process by area per passenger.

OCR for page 47
55 Figure B14. Average perception ratings for kiosk process by area per passenger. Table B7. 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 fails to show a significant difference between area per passen- Figure B17 shows the spread of perception data, and Fig- ger and average perception rating for four test conditions (1 ure B18 shows the distribution of average perception ratings through 4). This indicates no definable relationship between for the bag drop process collected at all airports compared to area per passenger and average perception rating for this average passenger area. Each X represents at least one data function. Additionally, for all area buckets, the average per- point. ception rating generally remains better than acceptable (less Table B9 shows the results for the test conditions for this than 3.0). No TP is indicated for these data. functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analysis Figure B15 shows the spread of perception data, and Fig- fails to show a significant difference between area per passen- ure B16 shows the distribution of average perception ratings ger and average perception rating for two of the four test con- for the corridor process collected at all airports compared to ditions (3 and 4). There were no data available for the first two average passenger area. Each X represents at least one data conditions, but a relationship could exist if the data could be point. collected for that region. Note that for all area buckets with data Table B8 shows the results for the test conditions for this the average perception rating generally remains better than functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analy- acceptable (less than 3.0). No TP is indicated for these data. sis fails to show a significant difference between area per pas- Figure B19 shows the spread of perception data, and Fig- senger and average perception rating for four test conditions ure B20 shows the distribution of average perception ratings (1 through 4) since there were no data in that range. No TP is for the bag claim process collected at all airports compared to indicated for these data, but a significant relationship could average passenger area. Each X represents at least one data exist if the data could be collected for that region of the graph. point.

OCR for page 47
56 Figure B15. Perception ratings for corridor process by area per passenger. Figure B16. Average perception ratings for corridor process by area per passenger. Table B8. Results for test conditions for corridor 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 No data

OCR for page 47
57 Figure B17. Perception ratings for bag drop process by area per passenger. Figure B18. Average perception ratings for bag drop process by area per passenger. Table B9. Results for test conditions for bag drop 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 .891 No Condition 4 Area 20 sq ft per passenger Area > 20 sq ft per passenger .553 No

OCR for page 47
58 Figure B19. Perception ratings for bag claim process by area per passenger. Figure B20. Average perception ratings for bag claim process by area per passenger.

OCR for page 47
59 Table B10. Results for test conditions for bag claim 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 .610 No Table B10 shows the results for the test conditions for this three conditions (1 through 3), but a relationship could functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical exist if the data could be collected for that region. Addition- analysis fails to show a significant difference between area ally, for all area buckets, the average perception rating gen- per passenger and average perception rating for the fourth erally remains better than acceptable (less than 3.0). No TP test condition. There were no data available for the first is indicated for these data.