Skip to main content

Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport Terminals (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:


Pages 7-13

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 7...
... Impact of Passenger Differences on Passenger Perceptions of Service The initial project approach was for data to be collected in airport passenger processing areas at 10 (later adjusted to seven) North American airports, to quantify objective measures of passenger service (processing and wait time, number of passengers in queue, square feet per passenger, and so forth)
Read the entire page →
From page 8...
... . TransSolutions initially used four methods to understand passenger perceptions of level of service in relation to the space available to them and the process time involved in their journey: 1.
Read the entire page →
From page 9...
... Predominant Destinations Purpose of Travel Terminal Configuration (per Terminal) Landside Terminals FAA Region DFW Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport -- Dallas, TX Large Connecting Legacy Domestic/ international Leisure, business Decentralized Multiple Southwest AUS Austin-Bergstrom International Airport -- Austin, TX Medium O&D Low cost Domestic Business Centralized Single Southwest ATL Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport -- Atlanta, GA Large Connecting Legacy, low cost Domestic/ international Business Centralized Single Southern LAS McCarran International Airport -- Las Vegas, NV Large O&D None Domestic Leisure, business Centralized Multiple*
Read the entire page →
From page 10...
... . It was performed similarly to the kiosk process above, although the first interview with the passengers occurred when they first arrived to the claim area, and the final interview occurred after the final passengers claimed their bags and were ready to depart.
Read the entire page →
From page 11...
... The data collectors were positioned so that there were no intervening holdrooms, restrooms, or shops to divert passengers. The team thus collected objective passenger processing data, including wait time, number of passengers in queue, and square feet per passenger.
Read the entire page →
From page 12...
... For this case, our null hypothesis was that the actual average perception ratings are equal for the two populations under consideration in each test (Data Group A and Data Group B)
Read the entire page →
From page 13...
... Catalog of captured data points, IAD. Functions 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 6.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • average perception
  • international airport
  • perception ratings
  • wait time
  • data collectors

  • perception rating
  • centralized single
  • bag claim
  • business centralized
  • domestic business

  • processing time
  • worth international
  • spent waiting
  • fort worth
  • passengers occurred

  • cost domestic
  • analysis approach
  • interview occurred
  • decentralized multiple
  • single southern

  • none domestic
  • perception difference
  • null hypothesis
  • connecting legacy
  • standard statistical

  • las vegas
  • atlanta international
  • significant difference
  • transsolutions team
  • oakland international


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.