1 / 26

Anderson Correia Department of Civil Engineering University of Calgary- Canada

Evaluation of Level of Service at Airport Passenger Terminals: Individual Components and Overall Perspectives. Anderson Correia Department of Civil Engineering University of Calgary- Canada. Level of Service Definition.

kanoa
Télécharger la présentation

Anderson Correia Department of Civil Engineering University of Calgary- Canada

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of Level of Service at Airport Passenger Terminals: Individual Components and Overall Perspectives Anderson Correia Department of Civil Engineering University of Calgary- Canada

  2. Level of Service Definition The term Level of Service expresses the quality of the experience which passengers perceive they encounter in the terminal. It addresses the wide range of factors that influence this experience.

  3. Establishing level of service (LOS) measures is an area of interest for both airlines and airport operators.

  4. LOS evaluations have been individually undertaken, without a standard methodology or reporting system (Humphreys and Francis, 2000).

  5. The TRB - FAA study (TRB, 1987) recognized that the capacity of any airport passenger terminal component can not be evaluated without LOS definitions, but there is little agreement concerning these definitions.

  6. Literature Review

  7. Deficiencies of Former Approaches • No standard method. • Insufficient passenger input. • LOS developed arbitrarily. • Oversimplifications. • Focus on departing passengers. • Focus on North-American and European airports. • No airport wide LOS standards.

  8. Research Objectives • Development of LOS standards for individual components and for the airport terminal as a whole according to passenger perceptions and movement types. • Complete analysis of departing passengers. • Partial analysis of arriving passengers. • Use of revealed preference data type. • Multi-attribute analysis.

  9. Techniques Employed in This Research • Psychometric Scaling Technique: to transform qualitative data into quantitative data. • Regression Analysis: (1) to correlate passenger ratings of LOS and characteristics of facilities; and (2) to obtain the degree of importance of different components in the overall LOS.

  10. Theoretical FrameworkSuccessive Categories Method (Psychometric Scaling Technique)

  11. Data Collection • Rio de Janeiro International: June. 11-15. 2003 • Sao Paulo International: June. 16-22. 2003 May. 10-16. 2004 • Sao Paulo Domestic: June. 23-29. 2003 • Calgary International: Jan. 19-23. 2004

  12. Surveys Content Nominal data: gender, purpose of trip (business/tourism), type of flight (international/domestic), number of checked-in bags, and party size. User responses of LOS (divided into five categories: 1-poor, 2-regular, 3- fair, 4-good, 5-excellent). Stimulus data: waiting time, processing time, availability of space, walking distance, total time, etc.

  13. Results Provided LOS standards for individual components • Curbside • Check-in counter • Security Screening • Departure Lounge • Baggage Claim

  14. Results Provided (cont.) • Overall LOS Measures • Walking Distance • Total Time • Orientation • Overall LOS evaluation as a function of individual components.

  15. 1. Waiting Time at the Check-in(Sao Paulo/Guarulhos International Airport)

  16. Plot of the Data and Regression Line(Check-in/Sao Paulo)

  17. Causal Relationships (Check-in/Sao Paulo) • LOS = 1.597 - 0.06 (WT) • R2 = 0.97 • F = 262.30 • Chi-Square = 13.476 • (compared with 33.429 at 5% significance level)

  18. Proposed LOS Standards(Check-in/Sao Paulo)

  19. LOS Processing Time at Baggage Claim (min) A < 1 B 1 - 14 C 14 - 20 D 20 - 26 E > 26 2. Processing Time at the Baggage Claim – Calgary Airport = 1.88 - 0.11 (PT) (t = 5.686) (t = - 4.053) R2 = 0.80 F = 16.426 Chi-Square = 12.631 Chi-Squarecritic = 18.307 (5% signif. - 10 d.f.)

  20. 3. Overall Terminal Evaluation(Departing Passengers - Sao Paulo/Guarulhos Intl. Airport)

  21. Composite Equation(Sao Paulo/Guarulhos International Airport)

  22. Parameters - Final Results(Sao Paulo/Guarulhos International Airport)

  23. Composite Equation - Final Model (Sao Paulo/Guarulhos International Airport)

  24. Main Contributions • Provision of a comprehensive method to evaluate airport LOS according to passenger perceptions. • Development of overall LOS measures. • Analysis of the impact of each individual component in the overall LOS. • Validation of the technique with 400 interviewed and observed passengers in two countries. • Practical to use: provision of A-E LOS ranges.

  25. Conclusions • All statistical analyses provide satisfactory goodnes-of-fit test results. • Application of the theoretical framework provide reasonable and applied standards. • The methodology can be applied to any airport. • Data collection is complex, but feasible.

  26. Future Research • Application of the proposed methodology to various airports nationwide to obtain a comprehensive LOS evaluation. • Verification of the impact of socio-economic variables in the perceived LOS. • LOS of connecting passengers.

More Related