- Email: [email protected]
A methodology for establishing operational standards of airport passenger terminals
Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
A methodology for establishing operational standards of airport passenger terminals Yonghwa Park* Department of Air Transport, The Korea Transport Institute, 968-5 Daechi-dong, Kangnam-gu, Seoul 135-280, South Korea
Abstract This paper discusses a methodology for establishing the operational standards of service performance of airport passenger terminals using a perception}response model. The proposed approach is de"ned by the graphical representation of passengers' collective attitudes towards the range of operational service at an airport passenger terminal. It adopts new concepts to establish service standards through a special survey to better interpret terminal operations and service level at each facility. It is expressed in terms of passengers' perception of various service levels and their response to the respective service conditions. The methodology may provide practical service standards of airport terminals and prove to be a practical and convenient technique to airport planners, designers, consultants, operators, and airport managers. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Operational standards; Level of service; Perception}response model; Processing services
1. Introduction The prime objective of many airports is to maximise user satisfaction by aiming for high service levels as perceived by users rather than suppliers (Park and Park, 1994, p. 87). Service levels and operational standards are critical performance indicators for airport planning, design, and management. Most airports that handle a large number of passengers and cargo } such as Heathrow, O'Hare, Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol, Frankfurt, and Dallas/Fort Worth } have set operational standards based on queueing time, service processing time, space requirement per passenger, and so on. Operational standards and service level at most of these airports have been set by design or physical criteria. The earliest introduction of the concept of service level and operational standards was concerned with a broad range of factors, such as temporal and spatial conditions. Currently, however, this concept is necessary to enable cross comparisons of design or physical standards and
*Tel.:#82 2 538 3536; @cis.koti.re.kr.
fax:
#82 2 553 1343;
e-mail:
yhpark
operational standards a!ecting passenger perceptions. Thus, most airports and airport authorities should be able to develop updated operational standards based on passenger perceptions to provide more comprehensive service levels to maximise their satisfaction. These service and operational standards are concerned with physical and psychological approaches. This paper discusses a new operational standards concept adapted from the perception and response (P}R) Model which was suggested by Mumayiz in 1985. Earlier work had been applied at Birmingham International Airport in Britain and provided useful information for planning and operations management at airport passenger terminals. This methodology was applied at Kimpo International Airport in Seoul, Korea, as a case study and for comparison with the P}R model.
2. Proposed methodology The perception}response model, developed by Mumayiz (1985), is de"ned as the graphical representation of the collective attitudes of a category of passengers across the full range of operational services, expressed in terms of the perception of the passenger population to
0969-6997/99/$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 9 - 6 9 9 7 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 4 0 - 4
74
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
di!erent amounts of the service measure representing di!erent levels of operation and their response to the respective service conditions classi"ed into distinct levels of satisfaction with service (Mumayiz 1985, p. 93). Mumayiz attempted to tie passengers' perception of service to time spent at an airport terminal using three linguistic criteria } (1) good, (2) tolerable, and (3) bad. Initially, passengers were asked to indicate their perception of service level on a more re"ned six-level scale, but results indicated confusion on the part of the respondents. The method used in the perception and response model was quite simple. As passengers proceeded through various airport processing points upon both arrival and departure, they were verbally asked to rate the service. The response rate for each type of answer was plotted against time spent in each facility (Ashford 1988, p. 14). Conceptually, it was expected that the responses would form a diagram of the shape shown in Fig. 1. Service standards were established by time values: ¹ and ¹ . These time values were achieved by examin ing the three curves representing passenger responses to service. Passenger opinion towards particular processing facilities under di!erent time duration was plotted as response curves. From these curves, the points at which there was a shift in perception of the majority of passengers from one state to another was de"ned as the point of a change in the level of service. Thus, service level was predominantly perceived as good from service measure 0 to ¹ , and bad beyond ¹ . Between ¹ and ¹ , service was tolerable. Hence, a good level of service is de"ned as those times at which the good curve exceeds the tolerable. A bad level of service is de"ned as those processing times for which the number of criterion bad responses exceeds the number of tolerable.
In implementing the P}R model, one should bear in mind the following facts (Mumayiz 1985, p. 94): z First, passenger perception of service is relative as well as variable. This is particularly important when setting service standards for a number of airports, or at di!erent times during which certain aspects of operation and/or demand has changed. z Second, since the model is based on passenger verbal responses, bias is probable due to poor communication, poor wording of questions, confusion and misinterpretation by passengers, unrealistic or inconsistent views held by passengers, and so on. z Third, a certain degree of implicit hypothesising is evident in the basic principles of the P}R model. The passenger experiences the service of a particular demand level only, but then estimates their personal perception for hypothetical demand levels, which the passenger has not actually experienced. z Finally, although P}R models are based on passengers' personal perceptions and response to service, the in#uence of carriers or operators is implicitly recognised and included within the P}R model. Operational service that passengers actually experience is assumed to be what providers intend to or can provide to the travelling public.
3. Application of the P}R model 3.1. Data collection method Information on an airport and its related systems can be generated from its own operational and technical characteristics, as well as from tra$c #ow and demand
Fig. 1. Conceptual diagram of perception}response model.
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
75
pattern characteristics. These information resources vary, and include such sources as government agencies, airlines, airport authorities, and others. The collection of information on passengers is often conducted by means of airport passenger surveys. Various survey methods have been used in airports around the world. Depending upon the objective, a variety of survey methods can be employed. Selection of a survey method depends not only on objective of the survey, but also on such factors as content, required personnel and periods, available techniques, and target sample size. Generally, airport survey methods or techniques are divided into direct and indirect methods. Direct methods for collecting data can be directly obtained at the airports. These survey techniques start and end at the airport. Direct data collection methods include direct observation, photographic techniques, monitoring, tailing, time-stamping, questionnaires, and interviews. Indirect methods are used when required data cannot be directly obtained from passengers at the airport. Mailback questionnaires, telephone questionnaires, statistics and documented data are options.
ciated with governmental agencies' operations is often practically unobtainable (Mumayiz 1985, pp. 115}116). A basic di$culty with surveys is that participants often have no options on topics that the surveyor considers important, thus meaningless responses to particular questions are given. Indeed, almost all survey results include some measurement of participants' non-attitudes. The surveyor generally wishes to minimise the amount of missing data. However, air passengers are often pressed for time and cannot a!ord to take the time to answer questions. Passengers also skip questions when they "nd them di$cult to answer, or hesitate to answer questions that are seen as an invasion of their personal privacy, such as those on income level and age group. Finally, restrictions on availability of "nancing and special equipment can create additional problems in carrying out surveys. Highly skilled surveyors are essential to successfully conduct a survey. Plus, they require a thorough understanding of the survey content. All these barriers can lead to the poor execution of surveys.
3.1.1. Dizculties associated with the airport surveys Many problems and di$culties associated with an airport survey are inherent in the survey itself. Causes of these problems can be classi"ed into four types: (1) complexity of organisation, (2) high security, (3) participant attitudes, and (4) poor execution of surveys. An airport is a complex system. Many organisations, including airport authorities, airlines, government agencies, and other agencies, coexist in the airport environment. Due to the number of organisations involved in the operation of an airport, an integrated data base mechanism is necessary to establish an e!ective information system. Negotiating with and co-ordinating all parties, although complicated, is essential. To conduct the airport survey with a speci"c purpose in mind, approval or authorisation from the airport authority is necessary. If too many restrictions are placed on the surveyor, the survey could be of limited value to certain airport parties due to di$culties in arranging for approval and collaboration with other parties. The airport involves a large number of supporting agencies that carry out their own operations. Because the airport must provide a high standard of security for passengers, safety-related organisations, such as those involved in security screening are the agencies most concerned about passengers and passenger surveys. Generally, they serve security screening, passport control, immigration, and customs. Their apprehension to participate in surveys or approve the conducting of observations, stems from the sensitivity of transactions performed between governmental organisations and passengers, and the con"dentiality of the control measures adopted by them. Hence, information asso-
To collect information on airport passengers, various methods can be considered. When selecting a suitable method, one should contemplate the goals of the survey, the skill of the surveyor, time factors, techniques, the cooperation of airport organisations, and passenger characteristics. A variety of survey methods have been used in airports (Meta, 1973; Ashford et al., 1976; Braaksma, 1976; Mumayiz, 1985; MuK ller and Gosling, 1991; Seneviratne and Martel, 1991). This paper focuses on measuring the performance of airport operations in the landside system from the passengers' perspective. To enhance measurements, the survey method must be comprehensive. Hence, this study has implemented a detailed survey method called a tracing}monitoring-questionnaire (TMQ) survey. This method may be represented as a comprehensive or integrative technique in measuring service and operation performance at the airport landside system. The tracing}monitoring-questionnaire survey method can be de"ned as follows: &&Surveyor follows the movement of a passenger in the service measurement unit de"ned as the dimension from airport entrance gate to departure lounge. Simultaneously, the surveyor observes the service performance measurement of the passenger, for instance, waiting time, service processing time, and walking distance between facilities. A passenger acts as a &client', timing his sequential movements, and the surveyor acts as a &monitor'. Finally, at the departure lounge, surveyors ask questions using a questionnaire about the passenger's subjective perception of service quality at each facility. The respondent and monitored passenger at each service facility are one and the same.'' Fig. 2 shows the TMQ procedure for a passenger moving
3.1.2. Proposed method of data collection
76
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
Fig. 2. The procedure of the TMQ method in the airports. Fig. 3. Location of Kimpo international airport in Seoul, Korea.
through the airport, as well as service measurements for each service facility. The proposed TMQ method has some advantages. First, detailed information can be obtained by tracing and monitoring passenger movements at each service facility. Second, the questionnaire respondent and the monitored passenger are identical, so the reliability of data can be maximised. Finally, it is possible to compare the passengers' perception of the provided service with actual measures of service performance. However, the biggest barrier to applying the TMQ method is gaining the approval or authorisation of sensitive airport organisations such as the airport authority or security screening and passport control agencies, since surveyors sequentially trace passenger movements from the point of check } in all the way to the departure lounge. Other di$culties include length of time per passenger, cost, and manpower requirements. In conducting a survey, the most important statistical factor is sample size. The target sample size should be determined based on the survey objectives, the method of approach and analysis, and expected outcomes. One of the "rst questions that confronts the survey designer is how big the target sample size should be. It is considerably di$cult to accurately answer this question. The target sample size of the pilot test was set at approximately 20 passengers, as a pilot test with 20}50 cases is reasonably su$cient to discover major #aws in a questionnaire before conducting the main survey (Rossi et al., 1983). Because of tough security measures, conducting an airport survey is very di$cult. Applying the proposed tracing}monitoring questionnaire survey is extremely di$cult, as the surveyor must pass through each service facility such as security screening and passport control to trace and monitor the target passenger. Hence, sample size was the most important factor in statistical analysis. The required sample size depends upon details of the analysis. Not only total sample size but also di!erent subgroups require su$cient numbers. As a rule of thumb, try to ensure that the smallest subgroup has at least 50 to 100 cases (Hoinville and Jowell, 1977, p. 61) or 20 to 50 in minor breakdowns (Rossi et al., 1983). In this study, total useful sample size suggested around 80 cases. It was not
considerably large, but this was the maximum number possible by the TMQ method under such limited circumstances. 3.2. Selected airport Seoul Kimpo International Airport (KIA), which serves Korea's capital, has been selected as a case study to apply the proposed method and to compare with the previous P}R model application, which was proposed by Mumayiz in 1985. KIA is situated to the northwest of Seoul. Kimpo is approximately 17 km (10.5 miles) from the city centre, 950 km (590 miles) from Narita, Japan, and Beijing, China, and 1,600 km (995 miles) from Hong Kong. KIA is Korea's gateway and has become a hub for Far East transit passengers travelling between Asia and Europe and America. In 1995, KIA was ranked 11th out of the world's top 50 airports in terms of passenger tra$c, which was approximately 31 million, and 10th in terms of cargo handling. Currently, the airport is experiencing signi"cant congestion during peak hours, and is reaching maximum passenger capacity. KIA's operation is restricted by topographical conditions, the poor design of the airport, and the layout of its facilities. The two parallel runways are too close to each other, only 400 m apart. This means that it is not possible for aircraft to land and take-o! simultaneously. KIA, therefore, is unpleasant to operate and utilise. Furthermore, the position of the runways points towards mountains, and the facility is close to the demilitarised zone (DMZ), which separates South and North Korea. 3.3. Conducting the survey An important consideration in conducting passenger surveys in the airports is time constraints. An airport tends to be a very pressured environment for those passing through it, and individuals always face time restrictions at each point in the process (Bolland 1991, p. 28). Hence, time must be the most important consideration in carrying out passenger surveys in airports. The questionnaire format must be brief and clear. If the questionnaire is long and complicated, many respondents may be
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
unable to complete it, rendering the results useless. An initial test questionnaire was designed, taking into account the variety of constraints and guidance. A pilot survey was conducted to identity problems. Finally, the main survey questionnaire was constructed by modifying the pilot. A variety of constraints, guidelines, and pre-test survey were decided upon and conducted in the main survey process as a case study. This TMQ survey method was planned and conducted by the author and the survey team as a methodology application. The sample population was set so that the selected data set can be randomly drawn from the same population. For the case survey, all subjects were departing passengers whose travel originated from KIA, Seoul. Transfer and arriving passengers were excluded from the possible population. This population was "rst categorised only as departing passengers, and was then further categorised into such passenger characteristics as: (1) single traveller, (2) carrying baggage on cart or trolley, and (3) experienced all service facilities. The Korean Airports Authority (KAA) and airportrelated agencies permitted the survey to be performed at Kimpo Airport during one week in June 1994. They provided great cooperation in conducting the survey, especially at security screening points and passport control areas. The members of the survey team were able to routinely pass through these check points. Only on occasion was a surveyor prevented from carrying out the survey for high security reasons. Passengers who "nished all processing requirements and "nally arrived at the departure lounge maintained their subjective perceptions of service provision. When asked, they were very willing to complete the remaining section of the questionnaire. KIA's International Terminal 2 was selected as the base for the survey as it provided a wide range of #ights and international short and long haul services by the national carriers, Korean Airlines and Asiana Airlines. The terminal, which meets a high design standard, opened in April 1988. Over a one-week period, 107 surveys were collected, with 14 cases lost by the surveyor at a speci"c area in the passenger terminal, and nine incomplete questionnaires due to misunderstanding or error. Hence, 84 useful responses were obtained, including 28 non-peak and 56 peak time surveys. The result was a relatively small sample of respondents. For a valid survey and analysis, a considerably larger sample size would have been necessary.
4. Results For departures, the P}R model was applied to airline check-in and baggage drop, security screening, and passport control. Fig. 4a and b displays the P}R model applied to scheduled short and European #ights and Fig. 4c and d for scheduled long haul #ights. Fig. 5a and
77
b shows security screening and Fig. 6a and b, passport control. Finally, Table 1 shows the service levels of Kimpo, Seoul and Birmingham International Airport, Great Britain. This is a practical comparison despite a 10 yr time gap and di!erent airport characteristics. 4.1. Check-in counter and baggage drop Scheduled short-haul passengers for airline check-in and baggage drop service at Kimpo International Airport (KIA) experienced much higher ¹ (11 min) and ¹ (19 min) than scheduled European passengers, 7.5 and 14 min, respectively, at KIA and Birmingham International Airport (BIA). However, service and operational levels for the scheduled long-haul at KIA were lower than at BIA. KIA had a ¹ service and operation measure of 13.5 min and ¹ of 22.5 min. BIA, however, established good/tolerable ¹ criterion of 15 min and tolerable/bad ¹ criterion of 25 min. 4.2. Security screening Operational standards for security screening showed noticeably di!erent behaviour. KIAs ¹ and ¹ values were signi"cantly lower than those of BIA. Service and operational standards for security screening at KIA indicated a narrow tolerable region between 1.25 and 1.75 min, while BIA had a wide tolerable region from 6.5 to 10.5 mins. The average service time for security screening at KIA was 1 min and 33 s during terminal peak periods and 1 min and 2 s during non-peak hours. The above results are probably due to the di!erent survey methods applied. The Birmingham airport survey was conducted using a grading system with stated time periods, e.g., 1, 3, and 5 min. Passengers indicated a different symbolic expression to indicate a grade of good, tolerable, or bad. By this method, it was found that passengers' recognition of time spent and actual service time at a facility were not in sync. Passengers had misconstrued time spent. For example, a passenger took one minute for security screening but thought it took much longer than the actual service time. Misjudgement would likely occur if the questionnaire contained stated time scales to be ticked by respondents. The above situation probably re#ected the behaviour of BIA passengers. The proposed method in the TMQ study took a di!erent approach. Each service time at each facility was recorded the surveyors who then verbally asked passengers to select from three criteria; short, bearable, or long. This method accurately mirrored the realities of the passengers' perceptions. 4.3. Passport control Operational standards for passport control also showed signi"cantly di!erent behaviour. KIA's respective
78
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
Fig. 4. (a) P}R model for check-in and baggage drop service at KIA (Short-haul Passengers). (b) P}R model for check-in and baggage drop service at BIA (scheduled-European passengers). (c) P}R model for check-in and baggage drop service at KIA (long-haul passengers). (d) P}R model for check-in and baggage drop service at BIA (scheduled long-haul passengers).
service level standards, ¹ and ¹ , were 2.75 and 4.5 min. BIA's standards were 6.5 and 10.5 min, which were exactly the same values as for security screening. It is di$cult to understand why the same results were produced both at security check and at passport control. Normally,
passport control requires more time than security screening. The average service time at KIA was 4 min and 53 s at peak times, and 2 min and 37 s at non-peak. The di!erent passenger behaviour was caused by the problem mentioned above.
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
79
Fig. 5. (a) P}R model for security screening service at KIA. (b) P}R model for security screening service at BIA.
Fig. 6. (a) P}R model for passport control service at KIA, (b) P}R model for passport control service at BIA.
5. Conclusion This paper described practical applications of the proposed methodology for establishing operational service
performance standards of an airport passenger terminal using the perception}response model. The proposed approach attempted to tie passengers' perception of service level to time spent at an airport terminal processing
80
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
Table 1 Operational framework KIA vs. BIA Service facility
Airport
for
international
KIA BIA KIA BIA KIA BIA KIA BIA
channel:
Service criteria by time spent (min.) Good
Check-in (short-haul) Check-in (long-haul) Security screening Passport control
departure
Tolerable 11 7.5 13.5 15 1.25 6.5 2.75 6.5
Bad 19 14 22.5 25 1.75 10.50 4.5 10.5
facility using three linguistic variables. This method, however, is still in its rudimentary stages of development. Operational standards have been considered, however there was no possibility of investigating any interaction between space provision and time spent in the process. Temporal and spatial variables strongly a!ect a passenger's perception of service level. By this method, it is possible to discover that passenger responses do not precisely re#ect their perceptions, due to the time lag between service perception and response. The mail-back questionnaire survey, which was used by Mumayiz at Birmingham International Airport, had different time bases. That is, passengers' perception occurred at the airport terminal but the response was given at some other place after the journey had "nished. For example, a passenger took 20 min for check-in and but completed the questionnaire after his trip. Thus, he had to depend upon memory to answer questionnaire questions. The response, therefore, possesses the possibility that perceived time is longer or shorter than the actual 20 min service experienced. The problem of time lag can be overcome using the proposed TMQ survey method. This method attempt to minimise time lag where passengers' service time is measured by surveyors who then ask passengers questions to obtain their instant perceptions. The P}R model can provide airport terminals with practical operation standards and may prove to be a
convenient technique for airport planners, designers, consultants, operators, and airport managers. As long as service and operation standards require a more comprehensive framework that is based on the linkage between passenger perceptions of service provision and the form of performance standards, such as queueing time, service processing time, and baggage delivery time. It would be helpful to provide a higher level of service to airport passengers. References Ashford, N.J., 1988. Level of service design concept for airport passenger terminals } a European view. Transportation Planning and Technology 12, 5}21. Ashford, N.J., Hawkins, N., O'Leary, M., Bennetts, D., McGinity, P., 1976. Passenger behaviour and design of airport terminals. Transportation Research Board Record 588, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 18}27. Bolland, S.L., 1991. An Investigation of ground access mode choice for departing passengers. Masters Dissertation, Department of Transport Technology, Loughborough University of Technology, England. Braaksma, J.P., 1976. Time-stamping: a new way to survey pedestrian tra$c in airport terminals. Transportation Research Board Record 588, National Research Council, Washington, DC., pp. 27}35. Hoinville, G., Jowell, R., 1977. Survey Research Practice. Heinemann, London. Meta Consulting Group in London, 1973. Heathrow passenger and baggage survey-vol. 1: Main Report. Prepared for Department of Trade and Industry by Meta Consulting Group, London, February. Mumayiz, S.A., 1985. A Methodology for planning and operations management of airport passenger terminals: a capacity-level of service approach. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Transport Technology, Loughborough University of Technology, England. MuK ller, C., Gosling, G.D., 1991. A framework for evaluating level of service for airport terminals. Transportation Planning and Technology 16, 45}61. Park, Y.H., Park, O.W., 1994. Review of the in#uencing factors for the level of service at the airport passenger terminal (Korean). Journal of the Institute for Aviation Industry and Policy Studies 1, Institute for Aviation Industry and Policy Studies, Hankuk Aviation University, Korea. Rossi, P., Wright, J., Anderson, A., (Eds.), 1983. Handbook of Survey Research. Academic Press, New York. Seneviratne, P. N., Martel, N., 1991. Variables in#uencing performance of air terminal buildings. Transportation Planning and Technology 16, 3}28.
A methodology for establishing operational standards of airport passenger terminals Yonghwa Park* Department of Air Transport, The Korea Transport Institute, 968-5 Daechi-dong, Kangnam-gu, Seoul 135-280, South Korea
Abstract This paper discusses a methodology for establishing the operational standards of service performance of airport passenger terminals using a perception}response model. The proposed approach is de"ned by the graphical representation of passengers' collective attitudes towards the range of operational service at an airport passenger terminal. It adopts new concepts to establish service standards through a special survey to better interpret terminal operations and service level at each facility. It is expressed in terms of passengers' perception of various service levels and their response to the respective service conditions. The methodology may provide practical service standards of airport terminals and prove to be a practical and convenient technique to airport planners, designers, consultants, operators, and airport managers. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Operational standards; Level of service; Perception}response model; Processing services
1. Introduction The prime objective of many airports is to maximise user satisfaction by aiming for high service levels as perceived by users rather than suppliers (Park and Park, 1994, p. 87). Service levels and operational standards are critical performance indicators for airport planning, design, and management. Most airports that handle a large number of passengers and cargo } such as Heathrow, O'Hare, Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol, Frankfurt, and Dallas/Fort Worth } have set operational standards based on queueing time, service processing time, space requirement per passenger, and so on. Operational standards and service level at most of these airports have been set by design or physical criteria. The earliest introduction of the concept of service level and operational standards was concerned with a broad range of factors, such as temporal and spatial conditions. Currently, however, this concept is necessary to enable cross comparisons of design or physical standards and
*Tel.:#82 2 538 3536; @cis.koti.re.kr.
fax:
#82 2 553 1343;
e-mail:
yhpark
operational standards a!ecting passenger perceptions. Thus, most airports and airport authorities should be able to develop updated operational standards based on passenger perceptions to provide more comprehensive service levels to maximise their satisfaction. These service and operational standards are concerned with physical and psychological approaches. This paper discusses a new operational standards concept adapted from the perception and response (P}R) Model which was suggested by Mumayiz in 1985. Earlier work had been applied at Birmingham International Airport in Britain and provided useful information for planning and operations management at airport passenger terminals. This methodology was applied at Kimpo International Airport in Seoul, Korea, as a case study and for comparison with the P}R model.
2. Proposed methodology The perception}response model, developed by Mumayiz (1985), is de"ned as the graphical representation of the collective attitudes of a category of passengers across the full range of operational services, expressed in terms of the perception of the passenger population to
0969-6997/99/$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 9 - 6 9 9 7 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 4 0 - 4
74
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
di!erent amounts of the service measure representing di!erent levels of operation and their response to the respective service conditions classi"ed into distinct levels of satisfaction with service (Mumayiz 1985, p. 93). Mumayiz attempted to tie passengers' perception of service to time spent at an airport terminal using three linguistic criteria } (1) good, (2) tolerable, and (3) bad. Initially, passengers were asked to indicate their perception of service level on a more re"ned six-level scale, but results indicated confusion on the part of the respondents. The method used in the perception and response model was quite simple. As passengers proceeded through various airport processing points upon both arrival and departure, they were verbally asked to rate the service. The response rate for each type of answer was plotted against time spent in each facility (Ashford 1988, p. 14). Conceptually, it was expected that the responses would form a diagram of the shape shown in Fig. 1. Service standards were established by time values: ¹ and ¹ . These time values were achieved by examin ing the three curves representing passenger responses to service. Passenger opinion towards particular processing facilities under di!erent time duration was plotted as response curves. From these curves, the points at which there was a shift in perception of the majority of passengers from one state to another was de"ned as the point of a change in the level of service. Thus, service level was predominantly perceived as good from service measure 0 to ¹ , and bad beyond ¹ . Between ¹ and ¹ , service was tolerable. Hence, a good level of service is de"ned as those times at which the good curve exceeds the tolerable. A bad level of service is de"ned as those processing times for which the number of criterion bad responses exceeds the number of tolerable.
In implementing the P}R model, one should bear in mind the following facts (Mumayiz 1985, p. 94): z First, passenger perception of service is relative as well as variable. This is particularly important when setting service standards for a number of airports, or at di!erent times during which certain aspects of operation and/or demand has changed. z Second, since the model is based on passenger verbal responses, bias is probable due to poor communication, poor wording of questions, confusion and misinterpretation by passengers, unrealistic or inconsistent views held by passengers, and so on. z Third, a certain degree of implicit hypothesising is evident in the basic principles of the P}R model. The passenger experiences the service of a particular demand level only, but then estimates their personal perception for hypothetical demand levels, which the passenger has not actually experienced. z Finally, although P}R models are based on passengers' personal perceptions and response to service, the in#uence of carriers or operators is implicitly recognised and included within the P}R model. Operational service that passengers actually experience is assumed to be what providers intend to or can provide to the travelling public.
3. Application of the P}R model 3.1. Data collection method Information on an airport and its related systems can be generated from its own operational and technical characteristics, as well as from tra$c #ow and demand
Fig. 1. Conceptual diagram of perception}response model.
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
75
pattern characteristics. These information resources vary, and include such sources as government agencies, airlines, airport authorities, and others. The collection of information on passengers is often conducted by means of airport passenger surveys. Various survey methods have been used in airports around the world. Depending upon the objective, a variety of survey methods can be employed. Selection of a survey method depends not only on objective of the survey, but also on such factors as content, required personnel and periods, available techniques, and target sample size. Generally, airport survey methods or techniques are divided into direct and indirect methods. Direct methods for collecting data can be directly obtained at the airports. These survey techniques start and end at the airport. Direct data collection methods include direct observation, photographic techniques, monitoring, tailing, time-stamping, questionnaires, and interviews. Indirect methods are used when required data cannot be directly obtained from passengers at the airport. Mailback questionnaires, telephone questionnaires, statistics and documented data are options.
ciated with governmental agencies' operations is often practically unobtainable (Mumayiz 1985, pp. 115}116). A basic di$culty with surveys is that participants often have no options on topics that the surveyor considers important, thus meaningless responses to particular questions are given. Indeed, almost all survey results include some measurement of participants' non-attitudes. The surveyor generally wishes to minimise the amount of missing data. However, air passengers are often pressed for time and cannot a!ord to take the time to answer questions. Passengers also skip questions when they "nd them di$cult to answer, or hesitate to answer questions that are seen as an invasion of their personal privacy, such as those on income level and age group. Finally, restrictions on availability of "nancing and special equipment can create additional problems in carrying out surveys. Highly skilled surveyors are essential to successfully conduct a survey. Plus, they require a thorough understanding of the survey content. All these barriers can lead to the poor execution of surveys.
3.1.1. Dizculties associated with the airport surveys Many problems and di$culties associated with an airport survey are inherent in the survey itself. Causes of these problems can be classi"ed into four types: (1) complexity of organisation, (2) high security, (3) participant attitudes, and (4) poor execution of surveys. An airport is a complex system. Many organisations, including airport authorities, airlines, government agencies, and other agencies, coexist in the airport environment. Due to the number of organisations involved in the operation of an airport, an integrated data base mechanism is necessary to establish an e!ective information system. Negotiating with and co-ordinating all parties, although complicated, is essential. To conduct the airport survey with a speci"c purpose in mind, approval or authorisation from the airport authority is necessary. If too many restrictions are placed on the surveyor, the survey could be of limited value to certain airport parties due to di$culties in arranging for approval and collaboration with other parties. The airport involves a large number of supporting agencies that carry out their own operations. Because the airport must provide a high standard of security for passengers, safety-related organisations, such as those involved in security screening are the agencies most concerned about passengers and passenger surveys. Generally, they serve security screening, passport control, immigration, and customs. Their apprehension to participate in surveys or approve the conducting of observations, stems from the sensitivity of transactions performed between governmental organisations and passengers, and the con"dentiality of the control measures adopted by them. Hence, information asso-
To collect information on airport passengers, various methods can be considered. When selecting a suitable method, one should contemplate the goals of the survey, the skill of the surveyor, time factors, techniques, the cooperation of airport organisations, and passenger characteristics. A variety of survey methods have been used in airports (Meta, 1973; Ashford et al., 1976; Braaksma, 1976; Mumayiz, 1985; MuK ller and Gosling, 1991; Seneviratne and Martel, 1991). This paper focuses on measuring the performance of airport operations in the landside system from the passengers' perspective. To enhance measurements, the survey method must be comprehensive. Hence, this study has implemented a detailed survey method called a tracing}monitoring-questionnaire (TMQ) survey. This method may be represented as a comprehensive or integrative technique in measuring service and operation performance at the airport landside system. The tracing}monitoring-questionnaire survey method can be de"ned as follows: &&Surveyor follows the movement of a passenger in the service measurement unit de"ned as the dimension from airport entrance gate to departure lounge. Simultaneously, the surveyor observes the service performance measurement of the passenger, for instance, waiting time, service processing time, and walking distance between facilities. A passenger acts as a &client', timing his sequential movements, and the surveyor acts as a &monitor'. Finally, at the departure lounge, surveyors ask questions using a questionnaire about the passenger's subjective perception of service quality at each facility. The respondent and monitored passenger at each service facility are one and the same.'' Fig. 2 shows the TMQ procedure for a passenger moving
3.1.2. Proposed method of data collection
76
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
Fig. 2. The procedure of the TMQ method in the airports. Fig. 3. Location of Kimpo international airport in Seoul, Korea.
through the airport, as well as service measurements for each service facility. The proposed TMQ method has some advantages. First, detailed information can be obtained by tracing and monitoring passenger movements at each service facility. Second, the questionnaire respondent and the monitored passenger are identical, so the reliability of data can be maximised. Finally, it is possible to compare the passengers' perception of the provided service with actual measures of service performance. However, the biggest barrier to applying the TMQ method is gaining the approval or authorisation of sensitive airport organisations such as the airport authority or security screening and passport control agencies, since surveyors sequentially trace passenger movements from the point of check } in all the way to the departure lounge. Other di$culties include length of time per passenger, cost, and manpower requirements. In conducting a survey, the most important statistical factor is sample size. The target sample size should be determined based on the survey objectives, the method of approach and analysis, and expected outcomes. One of the "rst questions that confronts the survey designer is how big the target sample size should be. It is considerably di$cult to accurately answer this question. The target sample size of the pilot test was set at approximately 20 passengers, as a pilot test with 20}50 cases is reasonably su$cient to discover major #aws in a questionnaire before conducting the main survey (Rossi et al., 1983). Because of tough security measures, conducting an airport survey is very di$cult. Applying the proposed tracing}monitoring questionnaire survey is extremely di$cult, as the surveyor must pass through each service facility such as security screening and passport control to trace and monitor the target passenger. Hence, sample size was the most important factor in statistical analysis. The required sample size depends upon details of the analysis. Not only total sample size but also di!erent subgroups require su$cient numbers. As a rule of thumb, try to ensure that the smallest subgroup has at least 50 to 100 cases (Hoinville and Jowell, 1977, p. 61) or 20 to 50 in minor breakdowns (Rossi et al., 1983). In this study, total useful sample size suggested around 80 cases. It was not
considerably large, but this was the maximum number possible by the TMQ method under such limited circumstances. 3.2. Selected airport Seoul Kimpo International Airport (KIA), which serves Korea's capital, has been selected as a case study to apply the proposed method and to compare with the previous P}R model application, which was proposed by Mumayiz in 1985. KIA is situated to the northwest of Seoul. Kimpo is approximately 17 km (10.5 miles) from the city centre, 950 km (590 miles) from Narita, Japan, and Beijing, China, and 1,600 km (995 miles) from Hong Kong. KIA is Korea's gateway and has become a hub for Far East transit passengers travelling between Asia and Europe and America. In 1995, KIA was ranked 11th out of the world's top 50 airports in terms of passenger tra$c, which was approximately 31 million, and 10th in terms of cargo handling. Currently, the airport is experiencing signi"cant congestion during peak hours, and is reaching maximum passenger capacity. KIA's operation is restricted by topographical conditions, the poor design of the airport, and the layout of its facilities. The two parallel runways are too close to each other, only 400 m apart. This means that it is not possible for aircraft to land and take-o! simultaneously. KIA, therefore, is unpleasant to operate and utilise. Furthermore, the position of the runways points towards mountains, and the facility is close to the demilitarised zone (DMZ), which separates South and North Korea. 3.3. Conducting the survey An important consideration in conducting passenger surveys in the airports is time constraints. An airport tends to be a very pressured environment for those passing through it, and individuals always face time restrictions at each point in the process (Bolland 1991, p. 28). Hence, time must be the most important consideration in carrying out passenger surveys in airports. The questionnaire format must be brief and clear. If the questionnaire is long and complicated, many respondents may be
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
unable to complete it, rendering the results useless. An initial test questionnaire was designed, taking into account the variety of constraints and guidance. A pilot survey was conducted to identity problems. Finally, the main survey questionnaire was constructed by modifying the pilot. A variety of constraints, guidelines, and pre-test survey were decided upon and conducted in the main survey process as a case study. This TMQ survey method was planned and conducted by the author and the survey team as a methodology application. The sample population was set so that the selected data set can be randomly drawn from the same population. For the case survey, all subjects were departing passengers whose travel originated from KIA, Seoul. Transfer and arriving passengers were excluded from the possible population. This population was "rst categorised only as departing passengers, and was then further categorised into such passenger characteristics as: (1) single traveller, (2) carrying baggage on cart or trolley, and (3) experienced all service facilities. The Korean Airports Authority (KAA) and airportrelated agencies permitted the survey to be performed at Kimpo Airport during one week in June 1994. They provided great cooperation in conducting the survey, especially at security screening points and passport control areas. The members of the survey team were able to routinely pass through these check points. Only on occasion was a surveyor prevented from carrying out the survey for high security reasons. Passengers who "nished all processing requirements and "nally arrived at the departure lounge maintained their subjective perceptions of service provision. When asked, they were very willing to complete the remaining section of the questionnaire. KIA's International Terminal 2 was selected as the base for the survey as it provided a wide range of #ights and international short and long haul services by the national carriers, Korean Airlines and Asiana Airlines. The terminal, which meets a high design standard, opened in April 1988. Over a one-week period, 107 surveys were collected, with 14 cases lost by the surveyor at a speci"c area in the passenger terminal, and nine incomplete questionnaires due to misunderstanding or error. Hence, 84 useful responses were obtained, including 28 non-peak and 56 peak time surveys. The result was a relatively small sample of respondents. For a valid survey and analysis, a considerably larger sample size would have been necessary.
4. Results For departures, the P}R model was applied to airline check-in and baggage drop, security screening, and passport control. Fig. 4a and b displays the P}R model applied to scheduled short and European #ights and Fig. 4c and d for scheduled long haul #ights. Fig. 5a and
77
b shows security screening and Fig. 6a and b, passport control. Finally, Table 1 shows the service levels of Kimpo, Seoul and Birmingham International Airport, Great Britain. This is a practical comparison despite a 10 yr time gap and di!erent airport characteristics. 4.1. Check-in counter and baggage drop Scheduled short-haul passengers for airline check-in and baggage drop service at Kimpo International Airport (KIA) experienced much higher ¹ (11 min) and ¹ (19 min) than scheduled European passengers, 7.5 and 14 min, respectively, at KIA and Birmingham International Airport (BIA). However, service and operational levels for the scheduled long-haul at KIA were lower than at BIA. KIA had a ¹ service and operation measure of 13.5 min and ¹ of 22.5 min. BIA, however, established good/tolerable ¹ criterion of 15 min and tolerable/bad ¹ criterion of 25 min. 4.2. Security screening Operational standards for security screening showed noticeably di!erent behaviour. KIAs ¹ and ¹ values were signi"cantly lower than those of BIA. Service and operational standards for security screening at KIA indicated a narrow tolerable region between 1.25 and 1.75 min, while BIA had a wide tolerable region from 6.5 to 10.5 mins. The average service time for security screening at KIA was 1 min and 33 s during terminal peak periods and 1 min and 2 s during non-peak hours. The above results are probably due to the di!erent survey methods applied. The Birmingham airport survey was conducted using a grading system with stated time periods, e.g., 1, 3, and 5 min. Passengers indicated a different symbolic expression to indicate a grade of good, tolerable, or bad. By this method, it was found that passengers' recognition of time spent and actual service time at a facility were not in sync. Passengers had misconstrued time spent. For example, a passenger took one minute for security screening but thought it took much longer than the actual service time. Misjudgement would likely occur if the questionnaire contained stated time scales to be ticked by respondents. The above situation probably re#ected the behaviour of BIA passengers. The proposed method in the TMQ study took a di!erent approach. Each service time at each facility was recorded the surveyors who then verbally asked passengers to select from three criteria; short, bearable, or long. This method accurately mirrored the realities of the passengers' perceptions. 4.3. Passport control Operational standards for passport control also showed signi"cantly di!erent behaviour. KIA's respective
78
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
Fig. 4. (a) P}R model for check-in and baggage drop service at KIA (Short-haul Passengers). (b) P}R model for check-in and baggage drop service at BIA (scheduled-European passengers). (c) P}R model for check-in and baggage drop service at KIA (long-haul passengers). (d) P}R model for check-in and baggage drop service at BIA (scheduled long-haul passengers).
service level standards, ¹ and ¹ , were 2.75 and 4.5 min. BIA's standards were 6.5 and 10.5 min, which were exactly the same values as for security screening. It is di$cult to understand why the same results were produced both at security check and at passport control. Normally,
passport control requires more time than security screening. The average service time at KIA was 4 min and 53 s at peak times, and 2 min and 37 s at non-peak. The di!erent passenger behaviour was caused by the problem mentioned above.
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
79
Fig. 5. (a) P}R model for security screening service at KIA. (b) P}R model for security screening service at BIA.
Fig. 6. (a) P}R model for passport control service at KIA, (b) P}R model for passport control service at BIA.
5. Conclusion This paper described practical applications of the proposed methodology for establishing operational service
performance standards of an airport passenger terminal using the perception}response model. The proposed approach attempted to tie passengers' perception of service level to time spent at an airport terminal processing
80
Y. Park / Journal of Air Transport Management 5 (1999) 73}80
Table 1 Operational framework KIA vs. BIA Service facility
Airport
for
international
KIA BIA KIA BIA KIA BIA KIA BIA
channel:
Service criteria by time spent (min.) Good
Check-in (short-haul) Check-in (long-haul) Security screening Passport control
departure
Tolerable 11 7.5 13.5 15 1.25 6.5 2.75 6.5
Bad 19 14 22.5 25 1.75 10.50 4.5 10.5
facility using three linguistic variables. This method, however, is still in its rudimentary stages of development. Operational standards have been considered, however there was no possibility of investigating any interaction between space provision and time spent in the process. Temporal and spatial variables strongly a!ect a passenger's perception of service level. By this method, it is possible to discover that passenger responses do not precisely re#ect their perceptions, due to the time lag between service perception and response. The mail-back questionnaire survey, which was used by Mumayiz at Birmingham International Airport, had different time bases. That is, passengers' perception occurred at the airport terminal but the response was given at some other place after the journey had "nished. For example, a passenger took 20 min for check-in and but completed the questionnaire after his trip. Thus, he had to depend upon memory to answer questionnaire questions. The response, therefore, possesses the possibility that perceived time is longer or shorter than the actual 20 min service experienced. The problem of time lag can be overcome using the proposed TMQ survey method. This method attempt to minimise time lag where passengers' service time is measured by surveyors who then ask passengers questions to obtain their instant perceptions. The P}R model can provide airport terminals with practical operation standards and may prove to be a
convenient technique for airport planners, designers, consultants, operators, and airport managers. As long as service and operation standards require a more comprehensive framework that is based on the linkage between passenger perceptions of service provision and the form of performance standards, such as queueing time, service processing time, and baggage delivery time. It would be helpful to provide a higher level of service to airport passengers. References Ashford, N.J., 1988. Level of service design concept for airport passenger terminals } a European view. Transportation Planning and Technology 12, 5}21. Ashford, N.J., Hawkins, N., O'Leary, M., Bennetts, D., McGinity, P., 1976. Passenger behaviour and design of airport terminals. Transportation Research Board Record 588, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 18}27. Bolland, S.L., 1991. An Investigation of ground access mode choice for departing passengers. Masters Dissertation, Department of Transport Technology, Loughborough University of Technology, England. Braaksma, J.P., 1976. Time-stamping: a new way to survey pedestrian tra$c in airport terminals. Transportation Research Board Record 588, National Research Council, Washington, DC., pp. 27}35. Hoinville, G., Jowell, R., 1977. Survey Research Practice. Heinemann, London. Meta Consulting Group in London, 1973. Heathrow passenger and baggage survey-vol. 1: Main Report. Prepared for Department of Trade and Industry by Meta Consulting Group, London, February. Mumayiz, S.A., 1985. A Methodology for planning and operations management of airport passenger terminals: a capacity-level of service approach. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Transport Technology, Loughborough University of Technology, England. MuK ller, C., Gosling, G.D., 1991. A framework for evaluating level of service for airport terminals. Transportation Planning and Technology 16, 45}61. Park, Y.H., Park, O.W., 1994. Review of the in#uencing factors for the level of service at the airport passenger terminal (Korean). Journal of the Institute for Aviation Industry and Policy Studies 1, Institute for Aviation Industry and Policy Studies, Hankuk Aviation University, Korea. Rossi, P., Wright, J., Anderson, A., (Eds.), 1983. Handbook of Survey Research. Academic Press, New York. Seneviratne, P. N., Martel, N., 1991. Variables in#uencing performance of air terminal buildings. Transportation Planning and Technology 16, 3}28.