Transportation Planning and Technology

ISSN: 0308-1060 (Print) 1029-0354 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gtpt20

ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF QUALITY OF

SERVICE AT AN AIRPORT PASSENGER TERMINAL

MILAN JANIC

To cite this article: MILAN JANIC (2003) ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF QUALITY OF
SERVICE AT AN AIRPORT PASSENGER TERMINAL, Transportation Planning and Technology,
26:3, 239-263, DOI: 10.1080/03081060320001544601

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060320001544601

Published online: 03 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 248

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gtpt20
Transportation Planning and Technology, June 2003
Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 239–263

ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF

QUALITY OF SERVICE AT AN AIRPORT
PASSENGER TERMINAL
MILAN JANIC
OTB Research Institute, Delft University of Technology, Thijssweg 11, 2629 JA
Delft, The Netherlands

(Received 21 December 2000; Revised 19 April 2003; In final form 27 August 2003)

For the past two decades, the quality of service offered by an airport to its users –
in this case, passengers and airlines – has emerged as one of its most important
competitive tools. This period has been characterised by a relatively stable growth in
air traffic of an average annual rate of 5%, enhanced deregulation (liberalisation) of
air transport markets, and privatisation of both the airline and airport industry in the
most important regions of the world such as north America and western Europe. This
article considers a methodology for the short-term assessment and management of the
quality of service provided to passengers while passing through an airport passenger
terminal.

Keywords: Airport; Passenger terminal; Quality of service; Space Load Ratio

1. INTRODUCTION

In general, the term quality refers to ‘conformance to customer re-

quirements’. The suppliers of goods and services have always been
faced with the problem of knowing the actual consumers of their
outputs. In such a context, they have particularly wanted to know more
about the needs of these consumers in order to be able to offer goods
and services of satisfactory quality. ‘Quality of service’ has
emerged as an interesting and increasingly significant matter for
analysis and management because, apart from lack of a physical or

ISSN 0308-1060 print: ISSN 1029-0354 online  2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/03081060320001544601
240 M. JANIC

tangible form, services are consumed at the same time as they are
produced.
A modern air transport system produces services of a relatively
high quality to satisfy a wide spectrum of consumers – passengers
and airfreight shippers – needs. Such as services produced by other
transport modes, air transport may be considered as the units of
capacity offered by the system during a given period under given
conditions. These services possess some unique characteristics in
comparison to other material goods. First, they are consumed either
partly or completely at the same time as they are produced. Second,
they possess both temporal and spatial characteristics, which may be
relevant for attracting particular consumers. The temporal character-
istics reflect the fact of simultaneous production and consumption.
The spatial characteristics reflect the fact that consumers change
places during the consumption of these services. Third, these services
are intangible and heterogeneous, which means that they do not
possess any recognisable physical form which could be used for a
priori testing of their quality. Finally, they may change over time and
space as well as across particular classes of both customers (passen-
gers and freight shippers) on one side and service providers (airports
and airlines) on the other. Due to the simultaneous production and
consumption, consumers play an active role in and are a component
of the service production process.
While operating as a service system, an airport consists of demand
and supply components. Consumers of services represent demand. The
supply component is represented by infrastructure facilities and equip-
ment necessary to produce services to be consumed. The consumers of
airport services are different categories of passengers. These may be:
business and leisure passengers; departing, arriving and transit/transfer
passengers on domestic and international flights; passengers travelling
on short-, medium- and long-haul flights. The airport service infra-
structure intended to serve these passengers and their flights (aircraft)
consists of the airport airside and landside area. In this article, the
landside area will be under focus. It consists of the airport ground
access systems and passenger terminal complex. The passenger
terminal complex consists of interfaces and the passenger terminal
building [1,2].
The growth of air traffic demand and the inability of particular
airports to cope adequately with such growth have caused frequent
congestion and delays. Consequently, the planned quality of service
 QUALITY OF SERVICE 241

for passengers has often deteriorated. This has initiated consider-

able investigation into the discovery of a convenient metric for the
assessment and management of quality of service under such circum-
stances.
This article deals with a methodology for the short-term assess-
ment and management of the quality of service at an airport passen-
ger terminal. In the scope of this methodology, the article illustrates
how this quality – expressed in both temporal and spatial attributes
– can be assessed and managed by the airport operator under differ-
ent operating conditions. The article consists of five sections: Section
2 introduces the concept of quality of service in an airport passenger
terminal. It deals primarily with the attribute of space and quality.
Section 3 deals with modelling of the passenger ‘dwell’ time and its
components adopted to be the time attribute of service quality. The
elements of deterministic queuing theory are used for modelling. In
addition, the indicators of service quality, consisting of both space
and time attributes of service quality, are designed. Section 4 de-
scribes a possible application of the proposed methodology. Section
5 concludes. In some sense, this article represents a continuation of
previous investigations into quality of service of airport passenger
terminals [3–12].

2. CONCEPT OF QUALITY OF SERVICE

2.1. Background
The quality of service provided to passengers while passing through an
airport can be analysed in terms of the scope of services provided by
the airport ground access modes and passenger terminal [3,9]. The
‘quality of service’ issue has in particular become of growing import-
ance with strengthening competition between particular airports strug-
gling to attract and retain both airlines and passengers [13]. The
important driving forces such as continuing air traffic growth,
deregulation (liberalisation) of air transport markets, and privatisation
of both the airline industry and airport services have heightened such
competition. Consequently, at many airports, apart from other options,
one of the most powerful competitive tools has appeared to be ‘quality
of service’. These airports have been interested in attempts to
‘standardise’ this quality and to maintain it at the planned (stan-
242 M. JANIC

dardised) level under all circumstances, independently of changes to

the influencing factors, including service interruptions and break-
downs.
In addition to direct users – passengers and airlines on one side, and
airport operators as the service providers on the other – the problem of
the assessment and management of quality of service has occupied
airport analysts and planners for a long time. Consequently, consider-
able research has been carried out to develop sufficiently convenient
concepts for the assessment and management of quality of service
under different operating conditions. Generally, two concepts have
been crystallised: the first consists of the empirical assessment of
quality of service and the second deals with the analytical investigation
of service quality.

2.2. Empirical Assessment of Service Quality

In most of the empirical assessments of quality of service at an airport
passenger terminal, the concept of ‘level of user satisfaction’ has been
used. In the scope of these investigations, the key actors – primarily
passengers and airport operators – have frequently and directly been
involved [6]. Passengers have usually been asked to assess quality of
service either in advance (before starting their journey) or afterwards
(after either completing particular phases of or the whole journey). In
both cases, using both present and past experience has informed the
assessment. A representative example of the direct involvement of air
passengers in the assessment of quality of service at airports has been
carried out by IATA in its Airport Monitor publication [14]. About
16 000 transatlantic passengers have been asked to assess the quality
of essential airport services at 34 European and north American
airports. Passengers were asked to assess the quality of service at each
airport with respect to 19 attributes: overall passenger convenience;
sign-posting; ground transportation; speed of check-in and efficiency
of check-in staff; lounges and waiting areas; special services for
overseas visitors; custom and immigration services; passport and visa
inspection; baggage delivery; baggage carts; shopping, restaurants;
availability of connecting flights; availability of low fares; ease of
making connections; and punctuality of departure. The results have
been shown to be useful not only for comparisons between and rating
of the airports themselves, but also for estimating the local factors
influencing quality of service. By knowing these factors, it is possible
 QUALITY OF SERVICE 243

for airport operators to undertake the necessary measures to bring the

quality of service closer to the users’ actual needs and preferences
[10,14]. However, for the airport operators (the service providers) who
have produced the services, which have been consumed at the same
time as they have been produced, they have only been able to assess
the quality of their own services a posteriori and at the end of the
production process or given period.

2.3. Analytical Investigation of Service Quality

Airport planners and researchers have usually carried out analytical
investigations of airport quality of service. In dealing with this issue,
they have also used the information from empirical investigations as
inputs to their models. The most analytical investigations of quality of
service have been based on the modelling of complex operations and
processes intended to provide services for passengers while in an
airport passenger terminal. The results of different trials have been
summarised in the form of a few key concepts (recommendations),
usually in terms of space standards to be guaranteed to each passenger
passing through a terminal. However, despite a lack of clear evidence
on the ways to determine these space standards, these recommenda-
tions have been widely adopted and applied in both the modernisation
of existing passenger terminals and the building of new ones. Some of
the typical values of these space standards are presented in Table I
[4,15–18].
Refering to Table I, level ‘A’ provides ‘excellent’ quality of service.
Level ‘B’ provides ‘high’ quality of service. Level ‘C’ guarantees a
‘good’ quality of service. Level ‘D’ provides an ‘adequate’ quality of
service. Level ‘E’ offers an ‘unacceptable’ level of service. Finally,
level ‘F’ indicates ‘zero-level’ of service quality, which occurs when
the service has collapsed.
In addition, at many airports with frequent congestion of passenger
terminals, time standards of service quality have been introduced to
express the time attribute of service quality [3,12]. These time stan-
dards have been set up to guarantee a certain (preferably fixed) service
time and the maximum waiting time for passengers while passing
through particular service phases in the terminal. However, it has often
appeared to be difficult to fulfil the established standards mainly
because of the high variations of the factors influencing the service
processes. Some of these factors have been shown to be variations of
 244

TABLE I Level of service space standards (LOS) in the airport passenger terminal

Level of service (m2/occupant)

Area A B C D E F

1. Check-in, baggage claim area 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 —

M. JANIC

2. Holding w/o bags, Hold-room, Pre-inspection 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 —
3. Wait/circulate 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.0 —

Source: AACC/IATA, 1981; IATA, 1989.

 QUALITY OF SERVICE 245

the intensity of demand for a service which, together with the diver-
sities between particular customers constituting this demand, have
caused variations of both the service and waiting time at particular
service facilities. For example, at the check-in counters, passenger
service time has been determined initially by the technical characteris-
tics of the facilities. However, in practice, it has varied significantly
across different categories of passengers mainly due to the inherent
differences between them on one side, and because of the differences
in skills of the check-in personnel on the other [1]. In order to reduce
such variations, the time standards in terms of maximum waiting and
service time, which would be guaranteed to each passenger have been
set up in the form of time spots of 5, 10 and 15 min. However, since
at many airports these standards have been adapted to suit local
conditions they have never become the universally accepted recom-
mendations or guidelines such as for example the IATA space stan-
dards [3].
In most cases of analysing and planning of airport terminals, space
and time standards for service quality have been considered indepen-
dently of each other. For example, during the initial phase of terminal
design, the size of a particular terminal has been determined by
multiplying the chosen space standards of service quality given in
Table I with the expected number of passengers expected to be there
simultaneously. The size of the area determined in such a way has
guaranteed the standardised (planned) quality of service with respect to
the space criterion. The area has then been enlarged by additional
space required for installing the appropriate service facilities and
equipment [5,18]. A relatively complex task to compose different areas
into a compact technological and physical entity has usually been
carried out at the end of the initial planning phase. In such a case it has
been assumed that the capacity of particular service facilities has
automatically guaranteed the time standards of service quality, if such
standards have been set up at all.
However, in practice, the ability to maintain simultaneously the time
and space standard of quality of service is frequently shown to be
difficult. Under such circumstances, the airport operator is confronted
with the problem of managing the actual quality of service in the
short-term, for example, during peak hours. In particular such manage-
ment aims to maintain the promised quality of service either at a
projected or any other lower but still acceptable level under given
short-term, operational circumstances [3,17,18].
246 M. JANIC

3. MODELLING QUALITY OF SERVICE

Once an airport terminal is built, the quality of service is expected to

be constant and guaranteed according to the space/time standards
determined in advance for given traffic conditions. However, in real
life situations, the planned space and time standards may deteriorate
either individually or together. For example, deterioration of space
standards can be caused by flight delays since an increased concen-
tration of occupants may occur in particular areas of a terminal due to
such delays. In such a case both time and space standards have
deteriorated, the former because of reducing the available (guaranteed)
space per occupant, and latter because of the increased time, which
should be spent in such ‘reduced’ space. In addition, a failure of the
terminal service facilities may cause a similar type of deterioration of
service quality. Under such circumstances the question arises if and for
how much particular standards of the quality of service can be
mutually compensated by taking into account the fact that both are
mutually dependent and both can deteriorate simultaneously and/or be
restored. For example, when the space standard of service quality is set
at level C (see Table I), each passenger in front of any of the
processing facilities such as ticketing, check-in counter, and/or bag-
gage claim device will be assigned a space of 1.2 m2. In addition, the
time standard may be set to determine maximum waiting time, usually
in the form of spots of 5, 10 or 15 min. The question is to investigate
what will happen with the quality of service if these standards deterio-
rate either individually or together, and if it is possible to deploy the
concept of indifference curves to explain the dependability of both
space and time attribute of service quality under a process of deterio-
ration. One among a number of responses to the above questions has
consisted of the design of a suitable model for estimating the depend-
ability between the time and space standards of service quality. The
model has been calibrated by using the data obtained from passenger
interviews. However, although very sophisticated, this approach was
shown to be very difficult and relatively expensive for frequent
applications [8,10]. Alternatively, some analytical models have
emerged. The methodology developed in this article represents a
continuation of these previous efforts and consists of three parts. In the
first part the ‘load’ of particular areas of a terminal in terms of the
number of occupants simultaneously being there is determined by
using elements of deterministic queuing theory [19]. The second part
 QUALITY OF SERVICE 247

consists of developing the concept of ‘indicator of service quality’

(ISQ), which combines both the time and space attributes of service
quality [17,18]. The last part of the methodology deals with the
creation of the other indicator called ‘space load ratio’ (SLR), which
expresses the ratio between actual and planned ISQ.

3.1. Indicator of Service Quality (ISQ)

ISQ is designed to bring together both space (‘static’) and time
(‘dynamic’) attributes of the quality of service. For such purposes, ISQ
can be defined as the ratio between the cumulative passenger delay
carried out in a given area and the total size of that area. The
cumulative passenger delay is expressed by the units of passenger
time. Square metric units are used to express the size of the area in
question. A general expression for determining ISQ can be formulated
as follows:
ISQ ⫽ W (S)/S (1)
where W(S) ⫽ the cumulative passenger delay carried out in the area of
size, S; S ⫽ the size of the area in question.
Equation (1) indicates that ISQ is conceptualised to express the
average ‘load’ per unit of area in question in terms of passenger time
units. By definition, this ‘load’ is uniformly distributed over the area.
That means that the passengers are uniformly distributed over the area
in question and in each unit of that area they spend on average the
same time. This assumption appears to be reasonable to approximate
the frequent real-life situations in which, according to the observations
carried out at many airports, passengers always tend to disperse over
the available space uniformly, particularly while expecting to wait
there for a long time.
The ISQ for a complete terminal as well as for the individual areas
of the terminal can be designed. Thus, ISQd for the passenger terminal
as a whole, ISQs for the service area(s), ISQw for particular typical
waiting area(s), and ISQp for passageways and walkways can be
determined.

3.1.1. Size of Particular Areas

In order to determine the ISQ for any area of a passenger terminal, it
is necessary to know the size of the relevant (‘reference’) area (Eq.
248 M. JANIC

(1)). Intuitively, it can be concluded that this is a constant (planned)

value determined in advance while building a passenger terminal. For
example, for the above cases, the size of the ‘reference area’ can be
determined as follows [5,12,19,30]:

S0N0, for the whole terminal; 


S⫽ ⬘
S1lN1, for the areas around the service facilities; 
(2)
S2lN2s ⫹ (N2 ⫺ N2s)S2l, for the waiting areas with seats
S3lN3 ⬅ LW, for passageways and walkways 
where Skl ⫽ the space standard, which guarantees level of service, l, in
the area of type, k, for a standing passenger; S⬘kl is analogous to Skl for
a seating passenger (k ⫽ 0 for the whole terminal; k ⫽ 1 for any service
facility; k ⫽ 2 for waiting area; and k ⫽ 3 for passageway and walk-
way; l ⬅ A, B, C, D, E, F, see Table I); Nk ⫽ the ‘projected number’ of
passengers expected to be simultaneously in the area of type, k;
N2s ⫽ the number of seats in the waiting or waiting/processing area; L,
W ⫽ the length and width of passageway (or walkway), respectively.

3.1.2. Actual Load of Particular Areas

The actual ‘load’ of particular areas expressed by the cumulative
passenger delay W(S) in Eq. (1) can be determined separately for the
whole terminal as well as for its particular parts.

3.1.2.1 Passenger Terminal Load – Concept of Dwell Time.

In order to determine the ISQ for the whole terminal it is necessary to
estimate passenger dwell time, which represents the time from the
moment a passenger enters to the moment that passenger leaves the
terminal. This time can be assessed by using the elements of determin-
istic queuing theory [18–20]. According to this theory, a typical
process of entering and leaving the terminal during some period can be
schematically presented by two curves of cumulative passenger counts
of the form shown in Figs 1 and 2. Fig. 1 depicts the process of serving
departure passengers and Fig. 2 depicts the process of serving arriving
passengers. In both cases the horizontal axis represents time and the
vertical axis represents cumulative passenger counts.
In Fig. 1, curve Ad(t) represents the cumulative number of departing
passengers entering a terminal by time, t. This curve is usually
assumed to be continuous and smooth [19]. The number of passengers
 QUALITY OF SERVICE 249

FIGURE 1 Service process for departing passengers while in terminal.

which instantly depart the airport once a flight takes off (curve Dd(t))
is not continuous and may vary from about 30 (as they are taken away
by a small aircraft) to several hundred (if they leave the airport on a
large jet) scheduled to depart approximately at the same time. Both
curves Ad(t) and Dd(t) may be assumed to represent either the average
curves obtained for the specific set of individual realisations or the
individual realisations themselves [19]. From these curves, some char-
acteristics of the passenger service process can be estimated. The total
dwell time of all departing passengers that pass through a terminal
during time (0, Td) can be determined as follows [19]:

冕 冘 冋T ⫺ t ⫹  2 ⫺ (1 ⫺ )(d ⫺ 2 册 N (3a)
T
Nd(Td)
di di
Wd(0, Td) ⫽ Ad(t)dt ⫺ d di i i i
i⫽1
0

where Ad(t) ⫽ the cumulative number of departing passengers entering

the terminal by time, t; Nd(t) ⫽ the number of flights departed by time,
t, (t 苸 (0, Td)); i ⫽ the average load factor of ith departing flight;
Ni ⫽ the seating capacity of ith departing flight; Td ⫽ the period in
which the process is observed; di ⫽ the average delay of ith departing
250 M. JANIC

FIGURE 2 Service process for arriving passengers while in terminal.

flight; di ⫽ the boarding time of ith flight;  ⫽ a binary variable, which
takes value ‘1’ if flight i is not delayed, and the value ‘0’, otherwise.
Equation (3a) takes into account the impact of eventual delays of
departure flights on the cumulative passenger dwell time. It can easily
be shown that any departure delay actually prolongs dwell time since
passengers generally arrive at the airport according to the timetable
and without any prior consideration of the eventual interruptions of
their departure flights, which may happen in the meantime. From Eq.
(3a), the average dwell time per passenger and the average number of
passengers being simultaneously in passenger terminal during period
(0, Td) can be estimated [19]. As can be seen, Eq. (3a) is valid if the
condition (Td—(tdi ⫹ di)) ⱖ 0 is fulfilled; otherwise, flight i is assumed
to be either cancelled or rescheduled to the next period Td ⫹ 1
(Td ⫹ 1 ⬎ Td).
Fig. 2 shows the characteristics of dwell time for arriving passen-
gers. Curve Aa(t) represents the cumulative number of arriving passen-
gers, which enter the terminal by time t. Curve Da(t) represents the
cumulative number of passengers which leave the terminal by time (t).
Similarly, like in the case of departing passengers, the main character-
istics of dwell time for these passengers can be determined by using
 QUALITY OF SERVICE 251

elements of deterministic queuing theory [19]. Thus, the total dwell

time of passengers arrived at a passenger terminal during time (0, Ta)
can be determined as follows:

冘 [N  (T ⫺ t ⫺  /2] ⫺ 冕D (t)dt
T0
Na(Ta)
Wa(0, Ta) ⫽ aj aj a ai ai a (3b)
j⫽1
t0

where taj ⫽ the arrival time of flight j, (0 ⱕ ta1 ⱕ ta2 ⱕ … ⱕ taj ⱕ …

ⱕ taM ⱕ Ta); aj ⫽ the time needed for passengers to disembark flight j
and enter the terminal; t0 ⫽ the time, which the arriving passengers
need to pass through the terminal (t0 ⬎ ta1), for example it is the
average dwell time of an arriving passenger; transit/transfer passengers
need this time as the ‘connection time’ to join other departing passen-
gers in the terminal departure lounges (gates). The other symbols are
analogous to those in the Eq. (3a).
In order to assess and manage the quality of service provided to
passengers while in the airport passenger terminal, the concept of
dwell time may be used at two levels. At the first general level, the
quality of service may be improved by shortening total dwell time.
This may be justified particularly for business passengers since other
classes of passenger (for example, leisure travellers) seem less sensi-
tive to the length of dwell time. However, both classes of passenger
have been shown to be sensitive to flight delays since these generally
prolong duration and increase inconvenience of the whole journey. At
the second level, the structure (content) of dwell time may emerge as
an important factor influencing quality of service. Generally, according
to the type of activities performed for passengers while in a terminal,
the dwell time consists of three parts: the waiting and service time that
passengers spend at the service facilities (such as ticketing and check-
in counters, security counters, immigration counters, baggage claim
devices, etc.); the ‘slack’ time that passengers spend in the dedicated
waiting areas (such as central hall, departure lounge area, restaurants,
duty-free shops, etc.); and the time that passengers need to pass
between different areas within the one terminal. In this case, they use
passageways/walkways to move from one part of the terminal to the
other.

3.1.2.2. The Check-in Counter Area as a Typical Processing Area.

The time that passengers spend in specific service phases depends
primarily on the temporary relationships between the demand for a
particular service and the capacity of that service facility. Different
252 M. JANIC

FIGURE 3 Typical queuing situation at check-in counter area.

service facilities are positioned ‘in line’ (serial order) with respect to
passenger pathways through the terminal. The demand for a service
can be measured by its intensity, which is expressed by the number of
passengers requesting service at a particular service facility per unit of
time [1,2]. The capacity of a service facility depends on the number of
processors (servers) that operate that common service facility. The
average processing time per unit of demand (e.g. per passenger) and
the service discipline in operation (e.g. either ‘first come-first served’
(FCFS) or some other priority discipline) are the additional factors
influencing the capacity of that service facility. Whenever the demand
for service exceeds the capacity of a service facility, queues form and
delays occur. The length of queues and delays at any instant depends
on the past and current relationships between demand and capacity.
The airline ticketing and check-in counter areas are some of the typical
examples of the processing areas for departing passengers in an airport
passenger terminal. Fig. 3 shows a scheme of the typical demand –
capacity relationship at the check-in counter area.
By using Eqs (1) and (2), the ISQ for the check-in counter area can
be computed, as follows:
 QUALITY OF SERVICE 253

W(S1l, ) pax min

冋paxmmin册
ISQp(S1l, l, ) ⫽
SilN1l
⬅
冤 m2
pax
pax 冥 ⫽ 2 (4a)

in which

冕 冕
 

W(Sil, ) ⫽ [A(S1l, t) ⫺ D(S1l, t)]dt ⫽ [A(S1l, ) ⫺ n1
1t]dt

0 0

⫽ 冕A(S , t)dt ⫺

n
 1 1
2
1l (4b)
2
0

where (n1
1) ⫽ the ‘ultimate’ capacity of the service facility; n1 is the

number of service units per service facility of type 1 (i.e. the number
of check-in counters operating as a common service facility);
1 is the
average service rate of the service unit of type (1)(
1 ⫽ 1/t1, where t1
is the average service time per passenger per service unit);  ⫽ the
duration of the ‘busy’ period at the service facility.
The constructions A(S,t) and D(S,t) in Eq. (4b) are always assumed
to represent the continuous and smoothed curves of cumulative passen-
ger counts [19]. The curve A(S,t) is S-shaped [20] and is dependent on
the type of flights(s) (domestic, international), type of trips (business,
leisure), length of flight (short, medium, long haul), as well as on the
prevailing modal split at the airport ground access systems [1,2,5]. If
the service facility operates at the capacity level, the curve D(S,t) will
be a straight line, whose slope depends on the ‘ultimate’ capacity of a
service facility. Otherwise, when the intensity of demand is lower than
capacity, D(S,t) will coincide with the curve A(S,t) [12,19,20].

3.1.2.3. Departure Lounge as a Typical Combination of the Waiting

and Processing Area.
The departure lounge represents an example of the area of an airport
terminal where an evident combination of both the waiting and pro-
cessing activities over departing passengers simultaneously takes
place. Fig. 4 shows a simplified queuing situation which occurs in the
departure lounge. It is assumed that only one departing flight, delayed
for some time, occupies the gate at a time [12].
For this case, by using Eqs (1) and (2), the actual ISQ can be
determined as follows:
W(S2l, )
ISQwp ⫽ (S2l, l, ) ⫽ ⬘ (5a)
S N2s ⫹ (N2 ⫺ N2s)S2l
2l
254 M. JANIC

FIGURE 4 Typical queuing situation in departure lounge area.

in which

冕 冕
tdt ⫹ 冕 N dt
  ⫹d
⬘
W(S2l, ) ⫽ A(S2l, )dt ⫺ 2
0 ( ⫺ N/
2) 

⫽ 冕A(S , t)dt ⫺ (N /2
) ⫹ N d


⬘2 ⬘
2l 2 (5b)
0

where N⬘ ⫽ the number of passengers boarding the flight [A (S2l,

) 苸 N];
2 ⫽ the rate of boarding the flight, for example the rate the
departure lounge empties (passengers per unit of time); d ⫽ the anti-
cipated delay of departure flight. The other symbols are analogous to
those in the previous equations.

3.1.2.4. Passageway/walkway.
The time taken to pass through a passageway or walkway is particu-
larly important for transit/transfer passengers who always have a
limited time in which to change flights. At airports with significant
numbers of such transfer passengers, the significance of this time is
 QUALITY OF SERVICE 255

greater. The walking time is dependent on the walking distance and

walking speed. Consequently, it may appear to be important at airports
where walking distances are very long. Apart from the size and
configuration of the passenger terminal, the length of walking dis-
tances may additionally be dependent on the organisation and manage-
ment of the use of the apron/gate complex [21,22]. The walking speed
can depend on the way of walking, having baggage and using trolleys
for carrying baggage, and on the availability and use of moving
sidewalks [23].
In order to estimate the ISQ for a passageway or walkway, let us
assume that a passageway/walkway is represented as the area of length
L and width W (L ⬎ ⬎ W), which is initially designed to provide the
space for N3 passengers. These passengers are guaranteed the space
standard of service quality S3l (see Table I and Eq. (2)). It is also
assumed that this area can never come into saturation; the capacity of
entrances is always greater than the intensity of the passenger flows
entering. The average time of passing through the passageway is
denoted by . The intensity of passenger flow entering the passageway
() is assumed to be constant during time . By using Little’s formula
the number of passengers simultaneously occupying the passageway
during  can be determined as follows [19]:
N() ⫽ ()L/V[()] (6a)

where V[()] ⫽ the average speed of passenger flow through the

passageway.
When  is equal to  ⫽ L/V[()], then, by using a slight
modification of this expression [19], on the basis of the Eq. (6a), the
cumulative time which passengers spend in the passageway can be
computed as:

冕 冋()2册冋V[()] 册
L/V[()/2
L 2
W(S3l, ) ⫽ N()dt ⫽ (6b)
0
The average speed of passenger flow through a passageway V[()]
can be determined similarly as in traffic flow theory where the average
speed of a moving entity (vehicle) along a lane depends on the density
of entities (vehicles) on the lane (one-way traffic) as follows [24]:

V() ⫽ V0 1 ⫺ 冉 K()
Kmax
冊n⫹1
2 (6c)

where V0 ⫽ the average speed of the ‘free’ flow of moving entities (in
256 M. JANIC

this original case this is a free walking speed of passengers through the
passageway who do not interfere with each other); K() ⫽ the average
density of moving entities, for example the passengers per unit of area
of the passageway in ; K() ⫽ [()L/(V0/2)]/(LW); (Vo/2 is the passen-
ger speed at the maximum intensity of the arriving flow); Kmax ⫽ the
maximum density of moving entities, for example the passengers per
unit of space S3l, which guarantees the quality of service l (see Table
I and Eq. (2)) (Kmax ⫽ 1/S3l pax per square meter).
By inserting K() and Kmax into Eq. (6c), then, by setting n ⫽ 1, and
by placing the obtained value for V() into Eq. (6b), the actual ISQ for
the passageway can be determined, as follows:

冋()2册冤
冊冥
L 2
ISQ (S3l, l. ) ⫽
冉 ()S
/(LW)
3l
V0 1 ⫺ 2
VW 0

⫽冉 冊冋 册
LW() 1 2
(6d)
2 V W ⫺ 2()S
0 3l

3.1.3. Projected Load of Particular Areas

Generally, the projected ISQ for the terminal as the whole or any of its
areas can be determined by the following expression:
 pax min
ISQk ⫽
1 pax tkl 
Skl
⬅
 m2 
pax 
⫽
m2
冉
pax min
冊 (7)
 pax 
where tkl ⫽ the time standard of service quality in the area of type k;
this is the maximum time allowed for an occupant to stay in the unit
of space, which guarantees the level l of the space quality of service
(see Eq. (2)); Skl ⫽ the space standard, which guarantees quality of
service l to the single occupant while in the area k (see Table I and
Eq. (2)).

3.2. ‘Space Load Ratio’ (SLR)

As both the designed and empirical ISQ are known, they can be
compared. A common way to carry out such comparison is to divide
the empirical ISQ by the designed one. The ratio between them is
 QUALITY OF SERVICE 257

called the SLR. Referring to queuing theory this ratio is analogous to

the load factor . In such a context, total passenger delay which is
assigned to the unit of available space is analogous to the arriving
traffic flow figuring in queuing theory. The time that is assigned to
passengers in advance while occupying each unit of the available area
is analogous to the customer’s service time figuring in queuing theory
[19]. Similarly as load factor , the SLR r can vary between zero and
values up to and above one. For example, if r ⫽ 0 there is no load in
the area in question. As the value of r varies between (0) and (1), the
load of the area will allow the occupants to enjoy a higher actual
quality of service than has been planned. If r ⫽ 1 the occupants will get
exactly the same quality of service as has been planned. This value of
r can be used as the ‘reference’ value. Finally, when r ⬎ 1 the load of
the area is increased to the level at which the planned (guaranteed)
quality of service deteriorates.

4. APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

In order to illustrate the variations of the SLR r with respect to key

influencing parameters, a set of numerical experiments is carried out.
The results are summarised in Figs 5, 6 and 7.
Fig. 5 shows the relationships between the SLR r (vertical axis) and
number of passengers A (S1l,), who request service at the check-in
counter facility (horizontal axis) during the period of  ⫽ 35 min. This
interval is a ‘busy’ period in which the demand for service exceeds the
capacity of the service facility. The demand for service has the
following characteristics: during the first 10 min of the ‘busy’ period
, half the total number of passengers arrive at the check-in counter
facility; during the next 15 min, a further third of the total number of
passengers arrive; during the last 10 min the final sixth of passengers
arrive. There are n check-in counters operating as a ‘common’ service
facility, for example it is assumed that all service units serve passen-
gers from all flights. The service rate per passenger is taken to be

1 ⫽ 0.667 pax/min, e.g. 1 ⫽ 1.5 min/pax [5]. From Table I the space
standard of service quality ‘C’ (1.2 m2/pax) is assigned to each passen-
ger while waiting in the check-in counter area. In the case where n ⫽ 6
check-in units, the space for N1 ⫽ 250 occupants in front of the facility
has been projected. In the case where there were n ⫽ 8 service units the
space for N1 ⫽ 350 occupants has been projected. In the sensitivity
analysis, the total number of passengers arriving at the check-in
258 M. JANIC

FIGURE 5 Dependence of the space load ratio on intensity of passenger flow at

check-in counter area.

facility, A(S1, ⫽ 35)l ⫽ c, the number of check-in counters, and the time
standard of the quality of service are varied as parameters.
The continuous line ABCDE and the hashed line FGHIJ in Fig. 5
show the variations of the SLR r with respect to the key influencing
factors. As can be seen, it generally increases with increasing demand
for service (all other parameters are fixed). When r exceeds the
reference value 1, it may be an indication for the airport operator to
undertake measures to restore the quality of service and bring it back
to the projected level (r ⫽ 1.0). Two actions may be available. First,
the time standard of the quality of service t1s can be increased. In a
given example it could be done twice, first time by increasing t1s from
5 to 10 min, and the second time by increasing t1s from 10 to 15 min
(see line ABCDE in Fig. 5). Nevertheless, this action seems to be very
constrained since the SLR r may increase continuously due to the
growth of demand. It will not necessarily be possible to bring it back
to the level of about 1 simply by prolonging the time standards of the
 QUALITY OF SERVICE 259

FIGURE 6 Dependence of the space load ratio on intensity of passenger flow in

departure lounge.

quality of service. In the example given, it can be seen that when

passenger demand exceeds the value of 450, r can be kept about 1 only
by imposing a relatively long (and unacceptable) delay (more than
15 min) as the time standards of service quality. Under such circum-
stances, the quality of service in terms of space standards can be
reduced. For example, the airport will not be able to guarantee the
space quality of service ‘C’ but ‘D’. However, this is of necessity a
limited and short-term measure since very soon it will have to be
followed by a planned expansion of the particular area under stress to
restore previous standards of service quality. This will also include
increasing the capacity of the service facility by adding new service
units. After changing the configuration of the service system, a new
cycle of management of time and space standards of service quality
can begin.
Fig. 6 illustrates the example of estimating the quality of service for
a departure lounge. A ‘busy’ period lasts  ⫽ 40 min. 400 passengers
are assumed to board the flight during . They arrive at the departure
lounge according to the following pattern: 20% of total passengers
260 M. JANIC

FIGURE 7 Dependence of the space load ratio on intensity of passenger flow through
passageway/walkway.

arrive during the first 20 min; a further 70% enter during the next
10 min (e.g. during the interval from 20 to 10 min before closing the
flight for boarding); and the last 10% arrive during the last 10 min
before the end of boarding the flight. The time of 15 min is needed for
400 passengers to board the flight (i.e. the emptying rate of the
departure lounge is equal to
2 ⫽ 400/15 (pax/min)). The time standard
of quality of service is taken to be t2/wp ⫽ 15 min.
The relevant SLR r is plotted against the anticipated delay of the
flight departing the lounge. Similarly, as in the case of the check-in
counter facility, r increases as flight delay increases and decreases the
available area of the departure lounge. In general, it will deviate from
the reference value 1 if the same number of passengers is expected to
stay in a smaller space for a longer time, which might be intuitively
expected.
Fig. 7 shows the variations of the SLR r with respect to the intensity
of the passenger flow entering a passageway, and the passageway’s
 QUALITY OF SERVICE 261

width. It is assumed that the passageway operates at a low to medium

traffic load (volume), which seems to be a typical real-life situation at
many airports. ‘Free’ speed of passengers is taken to be V0 ⬵ 1.37
(m/s) [23]. Each passenger is assigned the space standard of S3/l ⬅ c ⫽
1.9 m2, which corresponds to the quality of service level ‘C’ (see Table
I). The average prescribed time of a passenger staying in the unit area
of a passageway is estimated to be t3p ⫽ 2.8 s (t3p ⬵ (1.9)/(1.37/2) ⫽
2.8 s). It is assumed that the actual passenger speed is reduced to a half
of the ‘free’ speed V0 because of increased interference between
passengers in a passageway.
The results indicate that the SLR r (vertical axis) increases in line
with the increasing intensity of passenger flow entering the passage-
way (horizontal axis) and decreases with an enlargement of the
passageway (e.g. by increase in its width). In the example given, the
SLR r is represented by the continuous line and is equal to 1 when the
intensity of passenger flow approaches the value of 20–30 pax/min.
In the sensitivity analysis a case when the average passenger speed
would be doubled was also considered (V0(new) ⫽ 2V0). Increase in
moving speed would be achieved by installing moving side walkways.
The relationship between the SLR r and the intensity of passenger flow
entering the passageway marked by the hashed line in Fig. 7 shows
that r can be maintained below the ‘reference’ value of 1 for the wide
range of the intensity of demand. This in turn indicates that the quality
of service can always be maintained at a level higher than has been
projected.

5. CONCLUSION

This article has developed a methodology for the assessment and

management of the quality of service provided to passengers while
passing through an airport passenger terminal. Quality of service has
been expressed by actual and projected (planned) time and space
standards (attributes). In order to combine these standards simul-
taneously the ISQ has been designed and the SLR has been derived as
the ratio between the actual and projected (expected) ISQ. The numeri-
cal experiments with the model have been carried out, by using
hypothetical inputs, to compute the SLR for the check-in counter area,
departure lounge area, and passageway/walkway. The outputs have
shown that the proposed methodology can be applied appropriately to
262 M. JANIC

the short-term assessment and management of the quality of service by

comparing the actual SLR with its ‘reference’ value.
Sensitivity analysis has shown that the SLR is sensitive to changes
in influencing parameters such as the intensity of demand for a service,
the service rate of particular service facilities, and the time and space
standards of the quality of service.

References
[1] Ashford, N., M.H.R. Stanton and C.A. More (1984) Airport Operations (John
Wiley and Sons, New York).
[2] Horonjeff, R. and X.F. McKelvey (1994) Planning and Design of Airports, 4th
edn (McGraw Hill, New York).
[3] Ashford, N. (1988) ‘Level of service design concept for airport passenger
terminals: a european view’, Transportation Research Record 1199, 19–32.
[4] IATA (1989) Airport Terminal Reference Manual, 7th edn (International Air
Transport Association, Montreal).
[5] Janic, M. and T. Jovanovic (1990) Capacity Evaluation of the Airport Passenger
Terminal Building: Case Study — Terminal 2 — Ljubljana Airport (Institute of
Transportation, Ljubljana).
[6] Martel, N. and N.P. Senevirante (1990) ‘Analysis of factors influencing on quality
of services in passenger terminal building’, Transportation Research Record
1273, 1–10.
[7] McKelvey X.F. (1988) ‘Use of an analytical queuing model for airport terminal
design’, Transportation Research Record, 1199, 4–11.
[8] Müller, C. and D.G. Gosling (1991) ‘A framework for evaluating level of service
for airport terminals’, Transportation Planning and Technology 16, 45–61.
[9] Omer, F.K. and M.A. Khan (1988) ‘Airport landside level of service estimation:
utility theoretic approach’, Transportation Research Record 1199, 33–40.
[10] Park, Y. (1999) ‘A methodology for establishing operational standards of airport
passenger terminals’, Journal of Air Transport Management 5, 73–80
[11] Senevirante, N.P. and C.S. Wirasinghe (1989) ‘On the optimal width of pedestrian
corridors’, Transportation Planning and Technology 13, 195–203.
[12] Wirasinghe, C.S. and M. Shehata (1988) ‘Departure lounge sizing and optimal
seating capacity for a given aircraft/flight mix: i) single gate, ii) several gates’,
Transportation Planning and Technology 13, 57–71.
[13] Barrett, S.D. (2000) ‘Airport competition in the deregulated european aviation
market’, Journal of Air Transport Management 6, 13–27.
[14] AACC/IATA (1981) Guidelines for Airport Capacity/Demand Management (In-
ternational Air Transport Association, Geneva).
[15] Hart, W. (1985) The Airport Passenger Terminal (John Wiley and Sons, New
York).
[16] Lemer, C.A. (1992) ‘Measuring performance of airport passenger terminals’,
Transportation Research — A 26, 37–45.
[17] Rowland, R. (1994) ‘Feel the quality’, Airport Business September, 72–74.
[18] Odoni, A.R. and R. deNeufville (1992) ‘Passenger terminal design’, Transporta-
tion Research — A, 26A, 27–35.
[19] Newell, G.F. (1982) Application of Queuing Theory, 2nd edn (Chapman and Hall,
London).
[20] Tosic, V. (1992) ‘A review of airport passenger terminal operation analysis and
modelling’, Transportation Research — A, 26A, 3–26.
 QUALITY OF SERVICE 263

[21] Babic, O., D. Teodorović and V. Tosic (1984) ‘Aircraft stand assignment to
minimise walking’, Journal of Transportation Engineering 110, 55–66.
[22] Haghani, A. and M.C. Chen (1998) Optimising gate assignment at airport
terminals’, Transportation Research — A, 32, 437–454
[23] Lovas, G.G. (1994) ‘Modelling and simulation of pedestrian traffic flow’, Trans-
portation Research — B, 28B, 429–443.
[24] Gazis, C.D. (1974) Traffic Science (John Wiley and Sons, New York).