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

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.

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

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

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.

Literature Review
Technique Employed

Authors

Fuzzy set theory

Park (1994); Ndoh and Ashford (1994); Teng

(2000); Yen et. al (2001); Yeh and Kuo (2002).

Utility theoretic approach

Omer and Khan (1998); Khan (1990); Siddiqui

(1994).

Psychometrical scaling theory

Muller (1987); Muller and Gosling (1991); Ndoh and

Ashford (1993).

Perception-response concept

Mumayiz (1985); Mumayiz and Ashford (1986);

Ashford (1986); Mumayz (1991); Park (1999).

Logit Models

Yen (1995)

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.

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.

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.

Theoretical Framework
Successive Categories Method (Psychometric Scaling Technique)

v LOS
jLOS ji
ji

vkiUB kUB ki

Probability distribution
function of the category
boundaries

Probability distribution
function of the quantitative
LOS ratings

Stimulus j will be rated at or below category k if

v jki v LOS
vkiUB jLOS kUB ji ki 0
ji
Probability that a passenger group will judge
quality at or below category k is :

1UB
cat. 1

category 2

2UB LOS
j

3UB

cat. 3

Quantitative continuum scale

Pjk kUB jLOS / j

cat. 4

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

Surveys Content
Nominal data: gender, purpose of trip (business/tourism),
type of flight (international/domestic), number of checkedin 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.

Results Provided
LOS standards for
individual
components

Curbside
Check-in counter
Security Screening
Departure Lounge
Baggage Claim

Results Provided (cont.)

Overall LOS Measures
Walking Distance
Total Time
Orientation
Overall LOS
evaluation as a
function of individual
components.

1. Waiting Time at the Check-in

(Sao Paulo/Guarulhos International Airport)
Group

Range (min)

Value (min)

WT = 0

0.00

16

1.64

WT = 1

1.00

09

1.57

WT = 2

2.00

05

1.97

WT = 3

3.00

13

1.52

WT = 4

4.00

06

0.84

WT = 5

5.00

05

0.89

5 < WT 10

7.93

14

1.20

10 < WT 15

13.43

14

0.71

15 < WT 25

20.40

15

0.62

10

25 < WT 35

33.36

11

(0.52)

11

35 < WT 55

49.14

07

(1.49)

12

55 < WT 75

68.75

04

(2.63)

Total:

119

Plot of the Data and Regression Line

(Check-in/Sao Paulo)

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)

Proposed LOS Standards

(Check-in/Sao Paulo)
LOS

WAITING TIME (min)

<1

1 - 17

17 - 34

34 - 58

> 58

2. Processing Time at the

Baggage Claim Calgary Airport

LOS
Ca
lg ary

= 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.)

LOS

Processing Time at
Baggage Claim (min)

<1

1 - 14

14 - 20

20 - 26

> 26

3. Overall Terminal Evaluation

(Departing Passengers - Sao Paulo/Guarulhos Intl. Airport)

Curb

Check-in

Sec.

Dep.

Walking

Screen.

Lounge

Distance

Orientation

Curbside

1.0

Check-in

0.2

1.0

Security Screening

0.4

0.2

1.0

Lounge

0.3

0.2

0.3

1.0

Walking Distance

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.2

1.0

Orientation

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.4

1.0

Concessions

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.4

Concessions

1.0

Composite Equation
(Sao Paulo/Guarulhos International Airport)
LOS(overall) =
w0 + w1 LOS(curb) +w2 LOS(check-in) + w3 LOS(sec. sc.) + w4 LOS(lounge) +
w5 LOS(walking dist.) + w6 LOS(orientation) + w7 LOS(concessions)

Where
LOS(overall) = overall terminal LOS ratings
LOS(curb),

LOS(check-in),

LOS(sec.

screen.),

LOS(lounge),

LOS(walk.

dist.),

LOS(orientation), and LOS(concessions) = LOS ratings for each individual components

w0 = intercept
w1, w2, w3, w4, w5, w6, and w7 = parameters of the equation.

Parameters - Final Results

(Sao Paulo/Guarulhos International Airport)
Component Parameters Standard Error
Intercept
0.841
0.327
Curbside
0.246
0.065
Check-in
0.144
0.069
Lounge
0.151
0.057
Orientation
0.229
0.063
Purpose
0.214
0.094
R2 = 0.470
F = 19.538
Observations: 116

t Stat
2.575
3.809
2.094
2.643
3.656
2.291

P-value
0.011
0.000
0.039
0.009
0.001
0.024

Composite Equation - Final Model

(Sao Paulo/Guarulhos International Airport)

LOS(overall) = 0.841 + 0.246 LOS(curb) +0.144 LOS(check-in) +

+ 0.151 LOS(lounge) + 0.229 LOS(orientation) + 0.214 (purpose)

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.

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.

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