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.

47 Figures B1 through B8 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 periods (e.g., 0–5 min, >5–10 min) The data show the relationship between percep- tion score and the time spent in queue or process 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 period compared to the other periods. Figure B1 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure B2 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the holdroom area collected at all airports compared to waiting time. Each X represents at least one data point. Table B1 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on waiting time. Statistical analysis fails to show a significant difference between time spent in the holdroom and average perception rating for four of the five test conditions (2 through 5) for waiting time. This indicates no definable relationship between time spent waiting and average perception rating for this function. Additionally, for all time periods, the average perception rating remains better than acceptable (less than 3.0). No TP is indicated for these data. Figure B3 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure B4 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the curbside process collected at all airports compared to waiting time. Each X represents at least one data point. Table B2 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on waiting time. Statistical analysis fails to show a significant difference between time spent in the cor- ridor and average perception rating for the first two test con- ditions (1 and 2) for waiting time. This indicates no definable relationship between time spent waiting and average percep- tion rating for this function. Additionally, for all time periods, the average perception rating remains better than acceptable (less than 3.0). No TP is indicated for these data. Note that there are no data past 11 min and that a relationship could exist past this point if the data could be collected. Figure B5 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure B6 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the cor- ridor area collected at all airports compared to waiting time. Each X represents at least one data point. Table B3 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on waiting time. Statistical analysis fails to show a significant difference between time spent in the holdroom and average perception rating for two of the five test conditions (2 and 3) for waiting time. This indicates that there is no definable relationship between time spent waiting and average perception rating for this function. Additionally, for all time periods, the average perception rating remains better than acceptable (less than 3.0). No TP is indicated for these data. Figure B7 shows the spread of perception data, and Figure B8 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the bag drop process collected at all airports compared to waiting time. Each X represents at least one data point. Table B4 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on waiting time. Statistical analysis fails to show a significant difference between time spent in the bag drop area and average perception rating for three of the five test conditions (1 through 3) for waiting time. This is primar- ily due to the low sample sizes in each bucket forcing the true estimates of the sample means to overlap considerably. Fur- thermore, the lack of data after 15 min (as shown in Figure B3) prevents us from making a more definitive conclusion regard- ing that portion of the graph. Figures B9 through B20 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 bucket (e.g., 0–5 sq ft per passenger, >5–10 sq ft per pas- senger). The data show the relationship between perception 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 A P P E N D I X B Remaining Detailed Results

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

49 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. 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 .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 Table B1. Results for test conditions for holdroom based on time spent in area.

50 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 .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 Table B2. Results for test conditions for curbside based on time spent in queue. 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.

51 Table B3. Results for test conditions for corridor based on time spent in transit. 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 .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.

52 Table B4. Results for test conditions for bag drop 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 .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 does not appear to be a significant correlation between area per passenger and average perception. Figure B9 shows the spread of perception data, and Fig- ure B10 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the agent check-in process collected at all airports com- pared to average passenger area. Each X represents at least one data point. Table B5 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 was no applicable data. No TP is in- dicated for these data. Figure B11 shows the spread of perception data, and Fig- ure B12 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the SSCP process collected at all airports compared to av- erage passenger area. Each X represents at least one data point. Table B6 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), but the results show a significant differ- ence for the test conditions 3 and 4. However, for all buckets, the average perception rating remains better than acceptable (less than 3.0) so no TP is indicated for these data. Figure B13 shows the spread of perception data, and Fig- ure B14 shows the distribution of average perception ratings for the kiosk process collected at all airports compared to av- erage passenger area. Each X represents at least one data point. Table B7 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analysis Figure B9. Perception ratings for agent check-in process by area per passenger.

53 Figure B10. Average perception ratings for agent check-in process by 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 Table B5. Results for test conditions for agent check-in based on area per passenger. Figure B11. Perception ratings for SSCP Process by area per passenger.

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 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 Figure B13. Perception ratings for kiosk process by area per passenger.

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

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 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 – No data

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 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 .891 No Condition 4 Area 20 sq ft per passenger Area > 20 sq ft per passenger .553 No

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.

Table B10 shows the results for the test conditions for this functional area based on area per passenger. Statistical analysis fails to show a significant difference between area per passenger and average perception rating for the fourth test condition. 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. Addition- ally, for all area buckets, the average perception rating gen- erally remains better than acceptable (less than 3.0). No TP is indicated for these data. 59 Table B10. 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