A Study On Cochin International Airport Limited-Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers' Perception

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/340675389
A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited- Competitiveness,

Performance and Passengers’ Perception
Preprint · January 2014

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34213.86243
CITATIONS
READS
0
1,447
1 author:
Igy George
Mar Athanasius College, Kothamangalam, Kerala, Inia
5 PUBLICATIONS 13 CITATIONS
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited- Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ Perception View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Igy George on 16 April 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Study on Cochin International Airport
Limited- Competitiveness, Performance
and Passengers’ Perception
Thesis Submitted to
Cochin University of Science and Technology
for the award of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in Economics
under the Faculty of Social Sciences
By
Igy George
Reg. No.3606
under the guidance of

Prof. (Dr) K.C.Sankaranarayanan
Department of Applied Economics

Cochin University of Science and
Technology
Kochi - 682022
January 2014
Certificate
This is to certify that to the best of my knowledge the thesis entitled “ A
Study on Cochin International Airport Limited - Competitiveness, Performance
and Passengers’ Perception”, is a bona-fide record of research work carried out
by Ms. Igy George, part-time research scholar under my supervision and
guidance.
The thesis is an original piece of work and has not formed the basis for
the award of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship or any other similar
title and is worth submitting for the award of degree of Doctor of Philosophy
under the Faculty of Social Sciences of Cochin University of Science and
Technology.
Certified that all the relevant corrections and modifications suggested by

the audience during the pre-synopsis seminar and recommended by the Doctoral
committee of the candidate has been incorporated in the thesis.
The work is adequate and complete and I recommend for the award of
Ph.D Degree to Ms. Igy George.
Prof. (Dr) K.C.Sankaranarayanan

(Research Guide)
þ
þ
þ þ
þ
I hereby declare that the dissertation entitled “ A Study on Cochin

International Airport Limited - Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’
Perception”, is the outcome of the original research work done by me and that it
has not previously formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma,
associateship, fellowship or any other title of recognition from any
University/Institution.
Igy George
I express my sincere gratitude to my guide Prof. (Dr) K. C. Sankaranarayanan
for his continuous support, patience, motivation and enthusiasm during my Ph.D
study. His guidance helped me throughout my research and writing of this thesis.
Under his guidance, I successfully overcame many difficulties and learned a lot. This
thesis would have remained a dream, had it not been for his guidance and mentorship. I
could not have imagined having a better advisor and mentor for my Ph.D study.
Besides my guide, I would like to thank Dr. P. Arunachalam, Head, Department

of Applied Economics, Dr. D. Rajasenan, Dr. S. Harikumar, Dr. M. Meera Bai, and
Dr. P.K. Manoj for their encouragement, insightful comments, and hard questions. I
thank Prof. P. R. Poduval, Dean, Faculty of Social Science for being very supportive
all along as the doctoral committee member.
My most sincere thanks are due to Sri. V. J. Kurian I.A.S., Managing Director,
Cochin International Airport Limited, for allowing me to access the archives of CIAL
and also to conduct the survey on the passengers at the departure lounge of the airport.
I also thank Sri. A.C.K. Nair, Airport Director, Sri. R. Venkiteswaran, former
Executive Director (Finance) & Company Secretary, Sri. George Koshy, Head, Cargo
Operations, Sri. C. Dineshkumar, Senior Manager (Operations), Main Security Officer
and other security officers of CIAL, Terminal Managers, other Staff of CIAL and
Sri.Shaju P John, Personnel Manager Naipunnya Housekeeping Services, who
extended a helping hand during the course of my research.
I would like to thank Smt. Rema Mathew I.R.S., Commissioner of Customs and
Revenue, Cochin and Sri.Ravi Namboothiri I.E.S., Assistant Commissioner, Customs
Office, Cochin Port Trust who provided me valuable information for the furtherance of
my study. Also I extend special thanks to Mr. K.S. Balaprasenan of Central Excise and
Customs for extending a helping hand in the collection of information from the Customs
department.
I wish to express my gratitude to the former secretary of Mar Athanasius College

Association, Late Prof. M.P. Varghese, for his inspiring words of encouragement
and support and to the present secretary Dr. Winny Varghese for supporting and
motivating me during my research.
I also express my gratitude for the support and motivation given to me by Dr.
Leena George, Principal, Mar Athanasius College, Kothamangalam.
My sincere thanks also goes to Dr. Martin Patrick for his valuable advice,
constructive criticism and extensive discussions about my work. Also I thank Dr. S.
Muraleedharan who helped me to streamline the study on the performance of airports. I
extend sincere thanks to Prof. V. T. Thomas who helped with his abundant
knowledge in English literature.
I gratefully acknowledge the support of Adv. K. Francis George, Ex Member of

Parliament from Idukki Constituency for the timely help and encouragement given to
me during the crucial stages of my Ph.D work.
Also I thank Dr. Rudra Pradhan, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

who allowed me to present a paper at the international conference and Dr. Amithabh
Kundu for his scholarly inputs. I thank the editorial board of IOSR Journal of
Humanities and Social Science for reviewing and publishing an article related to my
research.
My colleagues of the Department of Economics, Mar Athanasius College,

Kothamangalam, deserve a special word of thanks for their motivation and
cooperation.
I remember with gratitude the services of the librarian and the non-teaching
staff of Department of Applied Economics, Cochin University of Science and
Technology.
I take this opportunity to sincerely acknowledge the University Grants

Commission (UGC) for providing financial assistance in the form of teacher fellowship
for the materialization of this work.
I thank Dr. M. A. Florence of St. Michaels’ College, Cherthala for her timely
advice. Also I thank all my fellow researchers of the Department of Applied Economics
at Cochin University of Science and Technology who provided me a conducive
environment for research.
I wholeheartedly thank all my relatives, friends and well wishers who during the
course of my research work supported me with their prayers and encouraging words and
acts. Besides this, I thank all those who have knowingly and unknowingly helped me
in the successful completion of this project.
I would like to pay high regards to the members of my family particularly my

children Joseph, Elizabeth and Mariena for their sincere encouragement and
inspiration throughout my research work. Also I thank my loving husband for
supporting me at difficult times. I owe everything to them.
Above all, I thank the Almighty and dedicate this work to the greater glory of
His name.
Igy George
Contents
Contents.....................................................................................i
List of tables..............................................................................vii
List of figures.............................................................................xv
Chapter 1 Introduction...........................................................................1-32
1.1 Importance of air travel..................................................................2
1.2 Aviation Sector - Importance and Issues........................................5
1.3 Aviation Infrastructure........................................................7
1.4 Global scenario of Aviation Sector................................................9
1.5 Indian scenario of Aviation Sector.................................................11
1.6 Aviation in Kerala...............................................................14
1.7 Performance measurement of Airports................................................17
1.8 Competitiveness of Airports.................................................19
1.9 Perception of Airport Facilities...............................................21
1.10Research Gap........................................................................23
1.11Research Problem..................................................................23
1.12Objectives..............................................................................26
1.13 Hypothesis..........................................................................26
1.14 Methodology......................................................................26
1.14.1 Methodology for selecting factors determining competitiveness
of Airports.......................................................................27
1.14.2 Methodology for Data Collection...............................................27
1.14.3....................................................Methodology for Analysis 29
1.15Scope of the study..............................................................29
1.16 Limitations.........................................................................30
1.17 Scheme of study..................................................................31
i
Chapter 2 Literature Review and Theoretical Framework................................33-63
Part I - Literature Review
2.1 Airport performance............................................................................33
2.1.1Revenue from airport activities....................................................36
2.1.2Profitability.......................................................................39
2.2Airport Competitiveness......................................................40
2.3 Passengers’ Perception of Airport Facilities.......................................43
Part II - Theoretical Framework
2.4 Forecasting..............................................................................48
2.5 Compound annual growth rate................................................49
2.6 Fuzzy Linguistic Approach......................................................50
2.7 Importance-Performance Analysis.................................................54
2.7.1Questionnaire..........................................................................56
2.7.2Scale refinement and validation........................................................56
2.7.3Content validity and Face validity...............................................57
2.7.4Convergent validity...........................................................57
2.7.5Reliability test...................................................................57
2.7.6Suitability and Communality test - Exploratory Factor
Analysis.............................................................................58
2.7.7......................................................Confirmatory Factor Analysis 59
2.7.8Model fit indices for CFA..................................................59
2.7.9Evaluating model fit..........................................................60
2.7.10..............................................................Absolute fit indices 60
2.7.11......................................Likelihood ratio Chi-square statistic (p): 60
2.7.12 Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and
Root mean square residual....................................................61
2.7.13 Goodness of fit index (GFI) and adjusted goodness of fit
index (AGFI)...................................................................61
2.7.14.......................................................Incremental fit measures 61
2.7.15.......................................................Normal fit Index (NFI): 62
ii
2.7.16....................................................Tuker-Lewis Index (TLI): 62
2.7.17..................................................Parsimonious fit measures 62
Chapter 3 Performance of CIAL.......................................................................65-130
3.1CIAL Genesis.......................................................................65
3.2 CIAL - Structure and Scope............................................................67
3.2.1Organizational setup.........................................................69
3.2.2Scope of CIAL...................................................................70
a)Golf course and country club....................................................71
b)CIAL Trade Fair and Exhibition Centre...................................71
c)CIAL Academy................................................................71
d) Air Kerala International......................................................72
e)CIAL Infrastructures......................................................72
f) CIAL Air Services Limited (CIASL)......................................73
g) CIAL Charitable Trust.........................................................74
3.3 CIAL - Performance highlights......................................................74
3.3.1Key Performance Indicators of the Company....................................74
3.3.2Key Performance Areas of CIAL.......................................................89
a)Aircraft movements through CIAL.................................90
b)Passenger traffic through CIAL................................................97
c)Cargo Movement............................................................103
i. Domestic cargo....................................................................106
ii. International Cargo..................................................107
d) Duty Free Shops............................................................ 115
3.4 Forecasts.................................................................................116
3.4.1Aircraft Movement............................................................117
3.4.2Passenger Traffic...................................................................119
3.4.3Freight Traffic...................................................................123
3.4.4Forecast Levels and Growth Rates..........................................125
iii
Chapter 4 Competitiveness of CIAL By Using Fuzzy Linguistic Approach.......131-188
4.1 Major factors determining the competitiveness of the airports...........132
4.1.1Airport Facilities...............................................................133
a) Aeronautical Facilities.............................................133
i. Land Facilities..............................................................134
ii. Navigational Facilities.............................................136
iii.Passenger Facilities......................................................138
iv. Types of aircrafts handled.......................................143
v. Destinations..............................................................144
vi. Apron Facility..........................................................1146
vii. Cargo Movement...................................................................147
viii. Hangarage Facility..............................................................149
b) Non-Aeronautical Facilities.............................................151
i)Commercial Activities.....................................................152
ii)Gastronomy..............................................................153
iii)Leisure services.............................................................154
iv)Parking facilities......................................................155
v) Visitors facilities.......................................................156
4.1.2Airport Accessibility..........................................................158
a) Connectivity to different landmarks.................................160
4.1.3Airport Expansion Potential..............................................................163
4.1.4.......................................................................Airport Charges 170
4.1.5Geographical Factors..............................................................173
4.2 Analysis of Competitiveness Using Fuzzy Logic............................179
4.3 Identification of the most competitive airport in Kerala................186
Chapter 5 Passengers’’ Perception of Airport Facilities......................................189-235
5.1 Structural Equation Modelling............................................191
5.1 .1 Reliability test..........................................................................191
5.1.2 Suitability and Communality test - Exploratory Factor
Analysis..............................................................................192
iv
5.2 Examination of the characteristics of sample population based
on demographic features....................................................................194
5.2.1Age group of respondents...................................................................195
5.2.2Gender wise classification of respondents.........................................196
5.2.3Classification of respondents based on usage pattern........................197
5.2.4Details of previous usage of airport by the respondents....................198
5.3Domestic Terminal...............................................................................199
5.3.1Terminal facility................................................................................201
5.3.2Check-in facility.................................................................................205
5.3.3Amenities...................................................................................209
5.3.4Airport Accessibility..........................................................................211
5.3.5Overall performance of airport facilities..........................................213
5.3.6Importance- Performance Analysis and Gap analysis........................216
5.4International Terminal........................................................................217
5.4.1Terminal facility................................................................................218
5.4.2Check-in facility.................................................................................222
5.4.3Amenities...................................................................................225
5.4.4Airport Accessibility..........................................................................228
5.4.5Overall performance of airport facilities...........................................231
5.4.6Importance-Performance Analysis and Gap analysis.........................234
Chapter 6 Findings and Conclusions.......................................................................237-256
6.1 Performance of CIAL in terms of key performance indicators
and key performance areas..................................................................238
6.2 Competitiveness of CIAL.................................................................243
6.3 Passengers Perception of Airport facilities using modified IPA.........245
6.3.1Domestic Terminal...................................................................246
6.3.2International Terminal............................................................250
6.4 Gap Analysis Results.......................................................................253
6.4.1Domestic Terminal...................................................................253
v
6.4.2International Terminal............................................................254
6.5 Conclusion................................................................................254
Bibliography.......................................................................................................257-271
Appendix................................................................................................273-298
vi
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Passenger traffic of 15 airports in India during 2000-11 to
2011-12
..............................................................................................
13
Table 1.2 Data related to the three international airports in Kerala for
the year 2011-12..............................................................................16
Table 1.3 List of Statistical tools used in the study and their purpose...........29
Table 3.1 Fixed Assets as on 31.03.2012........................................................68
Table 3.2 Annual rate of growth of operating profit of CIAL......................75
Table 3.3 CAGR of Income, Operating Expenses and Operating Profit
for different periods.........................................................................75
Table 3.4 Addition of fixed assets and growth in aircraft movement and
passenger traffic
.........................................................................................................
76
Table 3.5 Return on Investment for the last 8 years........................................77
Table 3.6 Foreign Exchange earnings and outgoing from 2001-02 to
2011-12 (Rs.)....................................................................................79
Table 3.7 Rate of growth in sales revenue in foreign exchange from duty
free shops..........................................................................................80
Table 3.8 Consolidated Profit & Loss Account For 12 Years from 2000-
01 to 2011-12...................................................................................81
Table 3.9 Ratios of various components of P&L account with Total
Income (in percentage)
.........................................................................................................
82
Table 3.10 Year over Year growth percentage of various components of
Profit and Loss account
.....................................................................................................
84
Table 3.11 Breakup of operating income for previous 12 years (Rs. in
lakhs)
vii
..............................................................................................
86
Table 3.12 Comparison of share of individual heads of income in total
income
..............................................................................................
89
Table 3.13 List of aircrafts handled at CIAL.................................................90
Table 3.14 Operating airlines from CIAL and the weekly frequency of
flights
...........................................................................................
91
Table 3.15 Destination of the aircrafts operated from CIAL............................92
vii
Table 3.16 Details of aircraft movement through CIAL during the last
12 years from 2000-01 to 2011-12..................................................93
Table 3.17 Year wise growth rate (percentage) of aircraft movement
through CIAL from 2000-01 to 2011-12
.........................................................................................................
94
Table 3.18 Landing fee received and total aircraft movements during the
period from 2000-01 to 2011-12
.........................................................................................................
95
Table 3.19 Comparison of sector wise performance of CIAL with all
India aircraft movement during 2010-11 and2011-12
.........................................................................................................
96
Table 3.20 Passenger movement through CIAL during the last 12 years
from 2000-01 to 2011-12.................................................................98
Table 3.21 Total number of passengers and passenger service fee collected
during the last 12 years from 2000-01 to 2011-12
.........................................................................................................
99
Table 3.22 Details of incoming and outgoing passengers through CIAL
during the period from 2010-11 to 2011-12
.........................................................................................................
99
Table 3.23 Relationship between PSF and embarking passengers....................100
Table 3.24 Growth rates of sector wise passenger traffic and PSF
revenue..................................................................................100
Table 3.25 City Pair-Wise Scheduled International Passenger Traffic to
& From CIAL During 2010-11....................................................101
Table 3.26 Comparison of sector wise performance of CIAL with all
India passenger traffic during 2010-11 and 2011-12......................102
Table 3.27 Cargo movement during the 12 years from 2000-01to 2011-12......104
Table 3.28 Total cargo handled at CIAL and income received from cargo
operations during 2000-01 to 2011-12............................................105
Table 3.29 Freight charges to various regions for cargo in CIAL.....................106
ix
Table 3.30 Domestic Cargo Movements (Quantity in MT)...............................106
Table 3.31 International Cargo Movements (Quantity in MT).........................108
Table 3.32 Category-wise export through CIAL (Quantity in MT)..................110
Table 3.33 Product-wise Share of General Cargo Items exported through
CIAL (Qty. in MT).......................................................................111
Table 3.34 General cargo movement - product wise destinations (Qty. in
MT)........................................................................................111
x
Table 3.35 Details of location of exporters of general goods............................112
Table 3.36 Product wise distribution of perishable goods exported
(Quantity in MT)..........................................................................112
Table 3.37 Originating centres for perishable goods exports though CIAL......113
Table 3.38 Product wise destinations of perishable goods export through
CIAL..................................................................................113
Table 3.39 Details of imports through CIAL.................................................114
Table 3.40 Import through CIAL: source and destination................................115
Table 3.41 Details of duty free shop transactions for the period from
2003-04 to 2011-12..........................................................................116
Table 3.42 Fitted models for aircraft movements..............................................118
Table 3.43 Estimates for aircraft movement for the next 20 years...................118
Table 3.44 Fitted models for passenger traffic..................................................119
Table 3.45 Passenger traffic forecast for the next 20 years...............................120
Table 3.46 Historical and estimated data related to passenger traffic
through CIAL from 2000-01 to 2031-32.........................................122
Table 3.47 Fitted models for freight traffic.......................................................124
Table 3.48 Estimates of Import, Export, Domestic and total cargo
movement through CIAL for the 20 years.......................................124
Table 3.49 Forecast Levels and Growth Rates..............................................126
Table 3.50 Cumulative growth rate estimated for the 20 years (base year
2011-12).............................................................................................. 127
Table 3.51 Various performance ratios for the periods from 2000-01 to
2011-12............................................................................................... 128
Table 4.1 Distance between three international airports in Kerala.................132
Table 4.2 Land Facilities (area in acres).........................................................135
Table 4.3 Navigational Facilities......................................................137
Table 4.4 Passenger Facilities..............................................................140
Table 4.5 Summary of Grading of Passenger facilities....................................143
Table 4.6 Types of Aircrafts Handled...............................................144
xi
Table 4.7 Destination of aircrafts operated from the airports........................145
Table 4.8 Apron facilities available.................................................................147
Table 4.9 Cargo handled by the airports during 2011-12................................148
Table 4.10 Hangarage facility available at airports..........................................150
Table 4.11 Aeronautical Facilities available at three International
Airports.................................................................................150
Table 4.12 Availability of various commercial facilities at three airports........153
Table 4.13 Details of gastronomical facilities at three airports........................154
Table 4.14 Leisure services available in and around the three airports............155
Table 4.15 Vehicle parking facilities.................................................................156
Table 4.16 Various facilities available to the visitors to the airport.................156
Table 4.17 Non-aeronautical facilities available...............................................157
Table 4.18 Grading of the airports based on facilities......................................157
Table 4.19 Modes of transport linked to airport...............................................159
Table 4.20 Types of public transport services for reaching the airports............159
Table 4.21 Availability of access modes and networks to and from the
airport...................................................................................160
Table 4.22 Distance and time for access to and from airport............................161
Table 4.23 Grading of three airports with respect to distance, time and
mode of transport to reach various land marks................................162
Table 4.24 Accessibility score of three international airports...........................162
Table 4.25 Availability of land for future expansion........................................164
Table 4.26 Capacity vs. actual traffic of the three airports in Kerala..............165
Table 4.27 Expansion plans and constraints for Calicut Airport.....................165
Table 4.28 Points based on the execution status of expansion plans................167
Table 4.29 Expansion plans and constraints for Cochin airport.......................167
Table 4.30 Points based on the expected period of completion proposals.........168
Table 4.31 Expansion plans and constraints for Trivandrum airport...............169
xii
Table 4.32 Points based on the expected period of completion at
Trivandrum airport..........................................................................169
Table 4.33 Points based on the anticipated completion of the proposal...........170
Table 4.34 Airport charges at three airports in Kerala.....................................172
Table 4.35 Distance - Travel Time Chart from Three Airports to Various
District head quarters......................................................................175
Table 4.36 Averages of distance and time to reach the airports........................176
Table 4.37 Catchment Areas of Three Airports Based on Least Travel
Distance................................................................................177
Table 4.38 Catchment Areas of Three Airports Based on Least Travel
Time...................................................................................177
Table 4.39 Consolidated score of three international airports in Kerala
based on the geographical factors....................................................178
Table 4.40 Criteria for the linguistic assessment of the importance of each
factor..................................................................................179
Table 4.41 Linguistic assessment of the importance of each factor..................180
Table 4.42 Criteria for the linguistic assessment of competitiveness of
each airport......................................................................................181
Table 4.43 Calculated values of degree of competitiveness of three
airports..................................................................................181
Table 4.44 Linguistic assessment of the competitiveness of each airport..........182
Table 4.45 Maximum competitiveness of three international airports..............186
Table 4.46 Relative Euclidean Distance of three airports.................................186
Table 4.47 Ranking of the three airports based on the relative Euclidean
distance.................................................................................187
Table 5.1 Cronbach’s alpha.............................................................................192
Table 5.2 EFA Model fit - Domestic Terminal............................................192
Table 5.3 EFA Model fit - International Terminal......................................192
Table 5.4 EFA Model fit totals..............................................................193
Table 5.5 Communalities –Total......................................................................193
xii
Table 5.6 Model fit Indices for CFA- Total.................................................194
Table 5.7 Age group of the sample population................................................195
Table 5.8 Gender-wise classification of the respondents.................................196
Table 5.9 Usage-wise classification of the respondents...................................197
Table 5.10 Classification of the participants based on previous usage.............198
Table 5.11 Measurement items of four variables...............................................200
Table 5.12 Latent Variables...........................................................................201
Table 5.13 Communalities - Terminal facilities.................................................201
Table 5.14 Model fit Indices for CFA- Terminal facilities................................202
Table 5.15 Standardized Regression Weights - Terminal facilities...................205
Table 5.16 Communalities –Check-in facilities..................................................206
Table 5.17 Model fit Indices for CFA- Check-in facilities................................206
Table 5.18 Standardized Regression Weights - Check-in facilities...................208
Table 5.19 Communalities –Amenities...............................................................209
Table 5.20 Model fit Indices for CFA- Amenities..........................................209
Table 5.21 Standardized Regression Weights – Amenities...............................211
Table 5.22 Communalities – Airport Accessibility............................................212
Table 5.23 Model fit Indices for CFA- Airport Accessibility............................212
Table 5.24 Standardized Regression Weights - Airport Accessibility...............213
Table 5.25 Standardized Regression Weights for Overall quality of
airport facilities...............................................................................215
Table 5.26 Mean, CV, and Gap and Z value of variables.................................216
Table 5.27 Communalities - Terminal facilities..................................................218
Table 5.28 Model fit Indices for CFA- Terminal facilities................................219
Table 5.29 Values of Standardized Regression Weights - Terminal
facilities.................................................................................221
Table 5.30 Communalities –Check-in facilities..................................................222
Table 5.31 Model fit Indices for CFA- Check-in facilities................................223
xi
Table 5.32 Standardized Regression Weights - Check-in facilities...................225
Table 5.33 Communalities – Amenities...................................................225
Table 5.34 Model fit Indices for CFA- Amenities..........................................226
Table 5.35 Standardized Regression Weights – Amenities............................228
Table 5.36 Communalities – Airport Accessibility........................................228
Table 5.37 Model fit Indices for CFA- Airport Accessibility.........................229
Table 5.38 Standardized Regression Weights - Airport Accessibility.................230
Table 5.39 Communalities – Overall quality of airport facilities..................231
Table 5.40 Model fit Indices for CFA- Overall Airport facilities...................231
Table 5.41 Standardized Regression Weights - Total....................................233
Table 5.42 Mean, CV, Gap and Z value.............................................................234
xv
xv
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Performance of world aviation from 1950 to 2012..............................11
Figure 1.2 purposive sampling frameworks...........................................................28
Figure 3.1 Percentage of individual asset items in the total fixed assets..............69
Figure 3.2 Hierarchy of Top Management of CIAL..........................................70
Figure 3.3 Rate of growth of operating profit......................................................75
Figure 3.4 Dividend paid during the last 9 years..................................................78
Figure 3.5 Earnings Per Share (EPS)....................................................................78
Figure 3.6 Foreign Exchange earnings and outgoings (Rs. in thousands)............80
Figure 3.7 Relationship between Total Income (TI), Operating Expenses
(OE) and Other Expenses including Tax (OET)...................................83
Figure 3.8 Profit After Tax (PAT)..........................................................................85
Figure 3.9 Breakup of total income for the last 12 years......................................87
Figure 3.10 Breakup of total income for the year 2011-12.....................................88
Figure 3.11 Variation in annual growth rates of aircraft movements....................94
Figure 3.12 Growth rate of aircraft movement and landing fee revenue................96
Figure 3.13 Annual passenger movement trend for the 12 year period from
2000-01 to 2011-12..............................................................................98
Figure 3.14 annual growth rates of passenger movement and PSF income............101
Figure 3.15 City pair wise passenger traffic data during 2010-11..........................102
Figure 3.16 Cargo movement trend for the 12 year period from 2000-01 to
2011-12.................................................................................................... 104
Figure 3.17 Annual growth rate of domestic cargo movement................................107
Figure 3.18 Details of domestic cargo movement during 2002-03 to 2011-12.......107
Figure 3.19 International Cargo Growth Rate........................................................109
Figure 3.20 Details of Import and Export through CIAL....................................109
Figure 3.21 Trend line for the forecast of aircraft movements for the next 20
years..........................................................................................119
Figure 3.22 Trend lines for the forecast of passenger traffic for 20 years...............121
xv
Figure 3.23 Combined graph of historical and estimated passenger traffic
data........................................................................................123
Figure 3.24 Trend lines for the estimates of freight traffic for the next 20
years..........................................................................................125
Figure 3.25 Performance ratios of CIAL.................................................................127
Figure 4.1 Land area available at three international airports.............................135
Figure 4.2 Share of the three airports in the total volume of cargo handled.........149
Figure 4.3 Design of a Hangar..............................................................................150
Figure 4.4 Geographical Factors...........................................................................173
Figure 4.5 Travel Time Isochrone of three Airports in Kerala..............................178
Figure 4.6 Relative Euclidean distances of three airports....................................187
Figure 5.1 Components of Airport facilities..........................................................190
Figure 5.2 Age Distribution...................................................................................196
Figure 5.3 Gender wise classifications..................................................................197
Figure 5.4 Purpose of terminal usage by passengers.............................................198
Figure 5.5 Previous usage of the airport by the respondents................................199
Figure 5.6 Path diagram for performance of Terminal Facilities..........................203
Figure 5.7 Path diagram for importance of Terminal Facilities............................204
Figure 5.8 Path diagram for performance of Check-in facilities...........................207
Figure 5.9 Path diagram for importance of Check-in facilities.............................207
Figure 5.10 Path diagram for performance of Amenities........................................210
Figure 5.11 Path diagram for importance of Amenities..........................................210
Figure 5.12 Path diagram (input model) – Airport Accessibility............................213
Figure 5.13 Path diagram for performance of Overall airport facilities.................214
Figure 5.14 Path diagram for importance of Overall airport facilities...................215
Figure 5.15 Path diagram for performance of Terminal Facilities..........................219
Figure 5.16 Path diagram for importance of Terminal Facilities............................220
Figure 5.17 Path diagram for performance of Check-in facilities...........................223
Figure 5.18 Path diagram for importance of Check-in facilities.............................224
xv
Figure 5.19 Path diagram for performance of Amenities.........................................226
Figure 5.20 Path diagram for importance of Amenities............................................227
Figure 5.21 Path diagram for performance of Airport accessibility.........................229
Figure 5.22 Path diagram for importance of airport accessibility...........................230
Figure 5.23 Path diagram for performance of overall airport facilities...................232
Figure 5.24 Path diagram for performance of overall Airport facilities..................233
xi
Introducti
“As when the mind races of a man who, having travelled far over the earth,
ponders deep in thought: ‘would that I was there, or there!” Iliad (15.80-83)
Aviation helps swift and cost-effective transportation of both

passengers and goods, contributes to the overall economic growth of
nations, provides significant revenues to national public finances, creates
large number of high-value jobs and delivers extensive catalytic benefits to
international trade and tourism. According to the International Air Transport
Association (IATA), aviation plays pivotal role in driving today’s global
economy and a productive and efficient aviation industry serves as the
strong foundation for the development of our globalized economy (IATA,
2011). Airports play a strategic role in the economic development of a
country and contribute heavily to the economic growth of the region.
A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ 1

Chapter 1
Keeping this in mind, various international agencies have taken initiatives
in benchmarking the measurement of the performance of airports.
Nowadays, performance measurement of airports is the focal point in the
deliberations of the airport management and strategists. International Civil
Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Airport Council International (ACI)
have suggested various parameters to be reckoned while assessing the
performance of airports. They include productivity, efficiency, service
quality, safety, security, financial/commercial, environmental aspects and
core areas of operations. Investors and stakeholders are interested in the
financial performance; management is interested in the productivity and
commercial aspects of the airports and the factors of efficiency, safety,
security and the quality of airport operations are of importance to the users
of airports such as airlines, passengers, consignors and consignees.
1.1 Importance of Air Travel

Mobility is one of the essential needs of man and it is required for the
survival and the societal interaction of man through movement of people
and goods. In the pre historic period travel was not an easy task. It was a
struggle against the natural barriers. In ancient times, man experimented
with various modes of travel and after thousands of years of
experimentation and through trial and error, he acquired the ability to
conquer distances and natural barriers through modern means of
transportation. He continued with his experimentation with the means of
mobility and resulted in inventions that revolutionized the field of
transportation. Over the period, he conquered the distances through water,
surface and air. This journey continues and he has reached the outer limits
of the solar system ready to explore the unknown universe. In the eighteenth
2 A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’

Introduction
century, man harnessed the steam power and this was the first spark of a
great revolution in transportation. As other sources of energy replaced the
steam power, the time taken for movement of people and goods over long
distances came down considerably. In the beginning, travel was mainly for
war and trade. Even today, defence research is the major contributor to the
transportation sector. Existence of cities and nations mainly depend on the
availability of systems to transport people and goods cheaply and
efficiently. The invention of newer modes of transportation facilitated the
economic development of nations by way of increased global trades.
Transportation, a key component of economic development and human
welfare, is growing around the world as economies grow. At present,
railways and highways are used for the surface transportation while air
routes and waterways are used for aviation and shipping respectively.
Rockets use the predetermined trajectories for the space travel.
Transportation recorded a high growth rate around the world during the
latter part of the twentieth century and this growth rate is expected to
increase over time because of globalisation coupled with high growth rates
of population density and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in different
regions, says a study on transport infrastructure by Price Waterhouse
Coopers. Nowadays, nations are attempting to integrate the various modes
of transportation to enable seamless transportation to all parts of the world.
Transportation infrastructure is a deciding factor for the economic

prospects of a country and it is critical to set the transportation infrastructure
in the right perspective. It is an important criterion in determining a
country’s or region’s competitiveness. Various governments are making
massive investments in the field of transport infrastructure to improve the
accessibility of a given region by reducing travel time or increasing the
A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ Perception
Chapter 1
potential to travel. Improvement in accessibility will help to increase the
market size for manufacturing, tourism and labour. The growth rate of
transportation activity will continue to increase in the future as economic
growth fuels transportation demand and the availability of transport drives
development. A well-oiled transportation infrastructure expands the
productive capacity of a nation by increasing mobilization of available
resources and enhancing the productivity of those resources. The fast
growth of the economy in recent years has placed increasing stress on
transportation infrastructure such as railways, roads, ports and airports. The
tendency of present generation is to give importance to speed and
competency and this has led to the growth of aviation as the world’s fastest
growing means of transport. Aviation that was considered as a mode of
transportation for the elite group is now accepted as a factor for sustainable
development of trade and tourism.
Aviation is the fastest mode of transportation connecting different

destinations around the world with a single vehicle. No other mode of
transportation can transport people and goods across the globe faster than
the air transportation. Excellent gateway airports providing aviation services
of global standards, in a safe and secure environment have come up in
various parts of the world during the last century. During this period, airport
infrastructure underwent spectacular development with emphasis on
providing efficient and value added services at reasonable rate. In his study
on Competitiveness of Airports, Senguttavan (2006) observed that airports
today drive global commerce, and the airport of the future will be a
commerce hub. Next generation airports will be destination sites, providing
not only multimodal transport networks for worldwide commerce, but also
4A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ Percepti
Introduction
leisure outlets. Thus, there exists a vast potential for growth in the air
transport sector.
1.2 Aviation Sector - Importance and Issues
The role of air transport in economic development and in supporting

long-term economic growth was examined in detail in the IATA Economics
Briefing on Aviation Economic Benefits. Air transport facilitates a
country’s integration into the global economy, by providing direct benefits
for users and wider economic benefits through its positive impact on
productivity and growth. The report highlights the relationship between
global economic growth and the growth in air traffic demand. Air
transportation is a key cause and facilitator of economic growth and aviation
is a major industry employing large number of highly skilled workers.
Greater connectivity to the global air transport network can boost the
productivity and growth of economies by providing better access to markets,
enhancing links within and between businesses and providing greater access
to resources and international capital markets (IATA, 2011).
The history of modern aviation started in August 1909 when the US

Army established the first airport in the world in College Park, Maryland to
serve as a training location for the military officers. In December 1911,
civilian aircraft began flying from College Park Airport. Practical air
transport started in 1919 and during the first decade, majority of airliners
were biplanes made of wood, wire and fabric. In the second decade of 1930-
40 modern type of monoplanes, came in to vogue. The Second World War
overshadowed the third decade 1940-50 but the period saw spectacular
advancement in the operational and technical areas of air transportation. The
contribution of world war on the growth of air transport was by way of
Chapter 1
opening up of long-haul intercontinental routes, development of radio, radar
and navigational aids, night-and-bad-weather flying facilities and extensive
building of runways and aerodromes throughout the world and so on. The
fourth decade of 1950-60 saw the transformation of air transportation with
the penetration in to the long distance passenger transport and short-haul
passenger market along with the freight traffic. The big jets of Boeing and
Douglas DC-8 took over the world’s long-haul air routes in the fifth decade,
which was a significant feature in the development of air transport. The
greater appeal of quicker and more comfortable journeys stimulated a sharp
upswing in traffic on many routes and the impact of jets was decisive in its
effects on the viability of the industry. During the decades that followed, air
transport has made remarkable progress and it is probably the fastest public
transport method of carrying passengers over long distances. The growth of
air passenger traffic can be attributed to the steady decrease in the real cost
of air travel. Since the seventies, the real cost of air travel has been reduced
by over 60%, because of various factors including deregulation of the
aviation market in the 1980’s and the introduction of low cost carriers.
Travel by air is now affordable for more of the population.
The aviation sector consist of three distinct types of activity. The first
one is that of airlines transporting people and freight and the second being
ground-based infrastructure that includes the airport facilities, the services
provided for passengers on-site at airports, such as baggage handling,
ticketing and retail and catering services, together with essential services
provided off-site, such as air navigation and air regulation and the third one
being aerospace manufacturing that builds and maintains aircraft systems,
airframes and engines. The growing importance of aviation due to the

Introduction
increasing demands of the economy warrants further improvement and
expansion of the aviation infrastructure.
1.3 Aviation Infrastructure
Airports constitute a major part of the aviation infrastructure. Many

interconnected heterogeneous airport components such as the variety of
facilities, multiplicity of beneficiaries, sub-systems, rules and regulations,
procedures and processes and the deployment of human resources with
varying boundaries of responsibilities make an airport a very complex
enterprise. The two components of aviation infrastructure are airport
infrastructure and ground infrastructure. Airport infrastructure includes
runways, taxiways, ramps, terminals and other facilities in direct control of
the airport. Ground infrastructure consists of road and rail networks
connecting the airport to the metropolitan areas in the region (Grancay,
2009). The three key airport components are airside facilities, terminal
facilities and landside facilities. The airside component, which includes
taxiways, runways, navigational aids and similar things, is for
accommodating movements of departing, taxiing and landing aircrafts. The
landside and terminal facilities are used for accommodating movements of
passengers, cargo and ground vehicles.
The mission of an airport can be summarised as serving aircrafts,

ground vehicles, passengers and cargo. According to Graham (2003), the
airport product consists of a supply of both tangible and intangible services
that can be positioned to meet the needs of different market segments and he
identified the airport customers into three groups of trade, passengers and
others. The airport products are divided into three main elements of core

Chapter 1
product, actual physical product and augmented product based on the
traditional marketing theory.
Researchers who analysed the welfare effects of oligopolistic

competition among the three privatized airports in US relative to the status
quo of public airport ownership indicated that private airports would be
profitable and would improve the welfare of commercial carriers and
travellers, although privatization would lead to higher airport charges for
general aviation. (Yan and Winston, 2012).
Popovic, V. (2009) identified the two main categories of activities in

an airport as process activities and discretionary activities. Process activities
are part of passenger flow from check-in, security screening and passport
control to boarding a plane. Discretionary activities are activities that occur
while passengers are moving between processing points for example,
getting a coffee, shopping, or exchanging money. According to Popovic
(2009), there are two levels of interaction in people’s airport activities (i) the
macro-global level and (ii) the micro- domain level. The macro level
encompasses the overall passenger flow at departure, including entering the
terminal, check-in, security, customs, and boarding activities that are
integral to the process of being a departing passenger in an airport. The
micro level addresses passenger interactions at the domain level, such as the
check-in counter, currency exchange and security check. It also includes
passenger discretionary experiences such as their activities in the departure
lounge. (Popovic, 2009,). Discretionary activities are influenced by
passengers' waiting times to board which enhance the possibilities for
consumption. (E. Torres, 2005).

Introduction
Airports, which are an essential element in air transport
infrastructure, have been viewed by many researchers as full-fledged
business enterprises that provide a number of different services to airline
industry customers (Doganis, 1992; Winston and de Rus, 2008; Starkie,
2008). The two main facets of an airport’s business are the traditional
aeronautical operation and the commercial operation. Traditional operations
consist of the aviation activities associated with runways, aircraft parking
and terminals and the commercial operation include retail outlets,
advertisements, car rentals and parking, and leasing of space (Zhang and
Zhang, 1997, 2003; Forsyth, 2004; Thompson, 2007). The growing
importance of concession revenues is one of the recent trends in the airport
sector. Accordingly, the revenue of the airports from concession services are
showing an increasing trend compared to aeronautical revenue and the
concession operations tend to be more profitable than aeronautical
operations (Jones et.al., 1993; Starkie, 2001).
Airports can be termed as multi-product companies, which offer a

variety of services, such as the provision of infrastructure for the movement
of aircraft carrying cargo and passengers, ground-handling services, terminal
infrastructure, rental space, parking and shopping facilities for the customers at
the airport. The recent trend in the airport industry is to view the airports as
businesses instead of infrastructure objects and it is subject to various
evaluation methods applicable to the business units such as performance
evaluation, competitiveness analysis and service quality measurement.
1.4 Global Scenario of Aviation Sector

Since 1995, the world economy, measured in terms of GDP, grew at
2.8 per cent annually while the passenger air traffic (expressed in Revenue
Chapter 1
Passenger-Kilometres) increased at an average annual growth rate of 5.0 per
cent. International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) report on World
Aviation and the World Economy state that commercial aviation throughout
the world will continue to be affected by economic growth, technological
change, market liberalization, the growth of low cost carriers, airport
congestion, oil prices and other trends. Airports Council International (ACI)
media release on world traffic statistics shows an overall increase in global
passenger traffic in the coming years. World’s top international airports in
North America and Europe posted more gains that are modest in passenger
traffic while, air transport markets in the emerging economies continue to
show buoyant activity. ICAO data show that air traffic has doubled every 15
years and the Airbus Global Market Forecast 2010 predicts the air traffic to
double in the next 15 years. Global economic impact of aviation sector
during the year 2011was 2.2 trillion dollars. Aviation supports 3.5 percent
of global GDP. There are 3846 airports with scheduled commercial flights,
1500 airlines operating a total fleet of nearly 24000 aircrafts and
2,67,17,000 commercial aircraft movements which carried 2.8 billion
passengers. Air transport is a major global employer and the air transport
industry generates 56.6 million jobs globally. As per the split up of global
passenger traffic, domestic passengers constituted 61% while 39% are
international passengers. During the year 2011, air transport handled 48
million tonnes of freight. In spite of the various dampening factors as
illustrated in fig.1.1, the world aviation performed commendably during the
period from 1950 to 2012.
10A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ Percept
Introduction
ICAO, (http://www.icao.int/sustainability/Pages/Facts-Figures_WorldEconomyData.aspx)
Fig 1.1 Performance of world aviation from 1950 to 2012
1.5 Indian Scenario of Aviation Sector

The history of Civil Aviation in India dates back to December1912
when the first domestic air route between Delhi and Karachi under the name
Indian State Air Services along with Imperial Airways, UK commenced
operations. Three years later in 1915, Tata Sons started the first Indian
airline commencing airmail services between Madras and Karachi. At the
time of independence, India had nine air transportation companies. In 1948,
the Government of India along with Air India (Tata Airline) established the
Air India International Ltd and the first flight took off on Mumbai-London
route. Long before independence, foreign airlines catering to international
passengers were operating from India. As of March 1981, there were 35
foreign airlines, which rose to 49 in 1997.
The liberalization and open sky policies of the Government had acted
as catalyst for the growth in the civil aviation sector of India. Under this

Chapter 1
new policy, any airlines, whether Indian or foreign carriers, which meet
specified operational and safety requirements, are allowed to operate
scheduled and non-scheduled cargo services to/from any airports in India
where custom/immigration facilities are available. In addition, the country
abolished the regulatory control over cargo rates for major export
commodities so that carriers are free to set their own rates.
The Aircraft Rules, 1937, permits citizens of India or companies or

corporations registered and having their principal place of business in India
to own airports other than Government airports. The Airport Corporation
Act of 1994 ended the monopoly of government sector and allowed the
private operator in this field. Because of this legislation, State Governments,
private companies and individuals, already own a few airports. The entry of
low cost carriers in the Indian aviation market since 2003 set up new trends
in the aviation industry of India and a strain on the infrastructure at major
airports. At present, private airlines account for around 81percent of the
domestic aviation market, making India the ninth largest aviation market in
the world. According to the Air Transport Market Analysis for December
2011, released by International Air Transport Association (IATA), India had
the strongest annual growth of 16.4% increase in demand in domestic
passenger traffic. IATA, in its Airline Industry Forecast 2012-2016,
predicted that India's domestic air travel market would be having the
world’s second highest growth rate in domestic passenger traffic after
Kazakhstan but before China. Air transport to, from and within India creates
three distinct types of economic benefit and various studies focus on the
‘economic footprint’ of the industry, measured by its contribution to GDP,
jobs and tax revenues generated by the sector and its supply chain. (Oxford
Economics, 2011).

Introduction
Aviation sector contributes INR 330 billion (0.5%) to Indian GDP and
it supports 1.7 million jobs in India. The average air transport services
employee generates nearly INR 1.3 million in Gross Value Added (GVA)
annually, which is around 10 times more productive than the average in India.
More than 130,000 scheduled international flights depart India annually,
destined for 70 airports in 50 countries. Domestically, more than 664,000
flights make 89 million seats available to passengers annually, destined to
73 airports (Oxford Economics, 2011). A comparison of the passenger
traffic through the top fifteen airports in India during 2010-11 and 2011-12
along with the growth rate and the all India percentage is given in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Passenger traffic of 15 airports in India during 2000-11 2011-12

Passenger Traffic ( Numbers ) % To Total
Airports 2010-11 2011-12 Growth Growth % Traffic
1 Delhi 29942887 35881965 5939078 20 22.11
2 Mumbai 29071913 30747841 1675928 6 18.94
3 Chennai 12049679 12925218 875539 7 7.96
4 Bangalore 11592265 12698343 1106078 10 7.82
5 Kolkata 9631672 10303991 672319 7 6.35
6 Hyderabad 7602998 8444431 841433 11 5.20
7 Cochin 4340725 4717650 376925 9 2.91
8 Ahmedabad 4043473 4695115 651642 16 2.89
9 Goa 3080037 3521551 441514 14 2.17
10 Pune 2808939 3293146 484207 17 2.03
11 Trivandrum 2526885 2814799 287914 11 1.73
12 Guwahati 1934750 2244684 309934 16 1.38
13 Calicut 2059979 2209716 149737 7 1.36
14 Lucknow 1575878 2018554 442676 28 1.24
15 Jaipur 1655212 1828304 173092 10 1.13
All India Total 143430273 162303121 18872848 13
Source: Extracted from www.aai-aero.org

Chapter 1
Aviation analysis by Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation (CAPA)
predicts that Indian aviation is set for transformational growth. As per their
projections, the airport passenger traffic will grow from 143 million in
2010-11 to 452 million by 2020. In addition, the scheduled airline fleet is
expected to grow from 430 to 1030 aircraft and general aviation to grow
from 750 to over 2000 aircraft. The forecasts made by CAPA are based on
an average GDP growth rate of 8% per annum. However, if India achieves a
GDP growth rate of 9%, the demand for air travel could increase even
faster. AAI manages 133 airports which include 14 international airports, 2
joint venture airports, 8 custom airports, 28 civil enclaves, 79 domestic
airports and 6 airports where AAI provides CNS/ATM facilities only. The
12th Plan envisages a requirement of Rs. 67,500 crores to meet the
infrastructure requirements of the airport sector.
1.6 Aviation in Kerala

Kerala the southernmost tiny state, leading the other states in
infrastructure penetration, is having three operational international airports
and two in the pipeline. The history of airports in Kerala had its origin in
1932 when Col. G.V. Raja started the Royal Flying club at Trivandrum.
Within 80 years, this small state in South India has the rare distinction of
having three functional international airports at Calicut, Cochin and
Trivandrum. While many bigger states do not have even a single
international airport, Kerala, a comparatively small state is already having
three international airports and they figure in the list of top fifteen airports
of India given in table 1.1. Data published by the Airport Authority of India
for the year 2011-12 show that the three airports in Kerala are performing
better than many of their counterparts in other states. Total aircraft

Introduction
movement through the three airports in Kerala during 2011-12 was 83570,
which is 5.41 percentage of the all India total. Total passenger traffic
through the Kerala airports during 2011-12 was 9742165, which is 6
percentage of the total passenger traffic through Indian airports. The factors
that influence the growth of air traffic in Kerala and make it a fertile ground
for aviation industry are the favourable climatic conditions, high density of
population, increasing number of expatriates, boom in the service sector etc.
The global phenomena of choosing the faster mode of transport had

its repercussions in the state of Kerala which is evident from the fact that
more people have used air traffic during the year 2011-12 and the combined
passenger movement of the three international airports in Kerala registered a
growth of 9.13 percent(AAI Report 2012) over the previous year. The three
airports in Kerala are operating both international and domestic flights. The
Airport Authority of India manages Trivandrum (TVM) and Kozhikode
(CLT) Airports while the Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL), a
company, owns the Cochin Airport.
Calicut (Kozhikode) International Airport (IATA: CCJ, ICAO: VOCL),

also known as Karipur Airport, is an International Airport serving the
Malabar area in the Northern part of the state of Kerala. This airport, called
the ‘Gateway to Malabar’, is the third busiest airport in Kerala and the
seventh busiest airport in the country in terms of international passenger
traffic and the 12th busiest airport in India in terms of overall passenger
traffic(AAI traffic report March 2011). Calicut airport, which is less than 30
km from the city of Calicut, is having a tabletop runway.
Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL) (IATA: COK, ICAO:

VOCI) also known as, ‘Nedumbassery Airport’ was set up by the

Chapter 1
Government of Kerala with Public - Private Participation (PPP). This is the
first International Airport in India outside the ambit of the Government of
India and the first of its kind developed under the PPP model in India. It is
the busiest airport in Kerala and the fourth busiest airport in the country in
terms of international passenger traffic and the seventh busiest airport in
India in terms of overall passenger traffic.
Trivandrum International Airport (IATA: TRV, ICAO: VOTV) is

located in the capital city Thiruvananthapuram and is the first airport in the
state of Kerala. In addition, it is the first International airport in a non-metro
city in India. It is an "all weather" airport in the country and is ISO 9001-
2000 certified. Trivandrum is the second busiest airport in Kerala and the
eleventh busiest airport in India in terms of overall passenger traffic. Data
related to the three airports are given in table 1.2.
Table1.2 Data related to the three international airports in Kerala for the year 2011-12
Calicut Cochin Trivandrum
Airport type Public PPP Public
Operator AAI CIAL AAI
Runway 2860 mt. 3400 mt. 3398
Area 375 acres 1300 acres 583 acres
Aircraft movement(nos.) Int’l 13450 18304 15531
Dom. 2700 21877 11708
Inter-National 1982955 2586658 1835952
Passenger movement per annum
Domestic 226761 2130992 978847
Cargo (International) MT 25400 34173 46753
Cargo (Domestic) MT 191 8533 1449
Total floor space of terminals 200000 sq.ft 578000 sq.ft 322000 sq.ft
Peak hour passenger capacity
1000 3200 1600
International+domestic
Source: www.aai-aero.org, www.airportsindia.org.in www.cochin-airport.co.in

Introduction
1.7 Performance Measurement of Airports

The introduction of commercial and private models of airport
ownership has changed the scope and significance of performance
measurement. An evaluation of the performance of the airport is essential
for the assessment of effectiveness of the investment and its impact in the
region. Humphreys, I et.al (2002) in their study on performance
measurement of airports, observed that airports, regarded as public service
facilities until the mid-1980s, were publicly owned, operated and subsidized
for the benefit of the Nation or Region. Often airports were developed as
objects of prestige by local and national government irrespective of their
commercial viability (Humphreys, 1999). Performance measurement
developed initially within this context and the move towards privatisation
has led to new performance measures being introduced to reflect the
changing management goals. Humphrey, I. et.al (2002) classified the new
measures into three categories: financial measures to monitor commercial
performance, measures to meet the requirements of government regulators
and environmental measures. The future of performance measurement at
airports is likely to be driven by the forces of commercial business focus;
increased responsiveness to targets set by regulators and increased
sensitivity to environmental standards that protect communities around
airports.
The Guide to airport performance measures published by ACI lists

six key performance areas such as core, safety and security, service quality,
productivity/efficiency, financial/commercial and environmental factors in
the measurement of airport performance. In February 2012, Airport Council
International (ACI) published the Guide to Airport Performance Measures,

Chapter 1
to help airports around the world in their performance management efforts,
by providing a useful set of performance measures which are divided into
six categories of Core, Safety and Security, Service Quality,
Productivity/efficiency, Financial/Commercial and environmental, referred
to as Key Performance Areas (KPAs). The International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) has provided guidance on airport performance
management in four KPAs, i.e., safety, quality of service, productivity and
cost effectiveness (ICAO’s Policies on Charges for Airports and Air
Navigation Services (Doc. 9082).
Anderson et.al (2013) developed a set of key performance indicators

in the five activity areas of airport operations, airport economy, airport
environmental issues, airport safety and security and airport customer
service. Development of appropriate and relevant performance indicators,
which cover the activities by all service providers of an airport, is an
important area of performance measurement. Halpern (2006) analysed the
various aspects of airport performance in connection with the ownership
pattern and performance, customer satisfaction and economic performance
and the relative growth of existing routes and increase in passenger
throughput. Halpern classifies the performance indicators into three main
groups of economic, operational and marketing. According to Sin et.al.
(2005), performance can be broadly viewed in the subjective (relative to
competition) and objective (absolute measures) perspectives. Jaworski
and Kohli (1993) classified the performance into three main groups of
consumers’ response, employees’ response and economic performance.
Economic performance is measured based on the profitability and revenue
from the airport and commercial activities at the airport.

Introduction
According to Badanik (2010), the strategies available to a particular
airport depend on its characteristics in terms of not only current traffic, but
also considering the potential of this airport concerning capacity and
demand. The current situation of an airport in terms of passenger numbers,
or traffic flows, is not necessarily a good indicator of what the airport could
become in 10 or 20 years. Some airports have grown tremendously in the
past 10 years, while others have not. Using the historical data, the
performance of the airport after certain years can be predicted using various
forecasting methods. (B. Badanik, 2010)
1.8 Competitiveness of Airports
Sarkis conducted an analysis on operational efficiency of major

airports (Sarkis, 2000). Airport Competitiveness is considered as a key
criterion for appraising the success degree of countries in the political,
economical and commercial competition fields. Sarkis (2000) argued that
benchmarking their own airports against comparable airports is one way for
airport operations managers to ensure their competitiveness.
Competitiveness is a multi-faceted concept. Competitiveness remains a
concept that is not well understood, despite widespread acceptance of its
importance. Because of the complexity, various factors need to be taken into
account while identifying the decision factors influencing the airport
competitiveness. The concept of competitiveness can be articulated at four
levels of efficiency, choice, resources and objectives. The wide-ranging
concept of competitiveness is built across three different levels of
competitiveness micro, meso and macro competitiveness i.e. firm, industry
and nation. According to Garelli et.al (2012), “the concept of
competitiveness implies a win/lose situation where one person, enterprise or

Chapter 1
nation outperforms the other. A competitive person, enterprise or nation
strives to develop a comparative advantage in an area where it can
outperform others. A high level of competitiveness in all areas is highly
unlikely. Consequently, a weakness in one domain may be compensated by
strength elsewhere. This concept has lead to the theory of specialization in
international trade developed by David Ricardo. Its most recent illustration
is the strategy of outsourcing or off shoring undertaken by many global
companies. Specialization therefore plays an important role in
competitiveness”. (Garelli, 2012)
The firm or micro-economic level notion of competitiveness is based

on the capacity of firms to compete, to grow, and to be profitable. At this
level, competitiveness resides in the ability of firms to produce consistently
and profitably products that meet the requirements of an open market in
terms of price, quality and other factors. When a firm is more competitive in
relation to its rivals, its ability to gain market share, will be greater and
uncompetitive firms will find their market share decline, and ultimately, any
firm that remains uncompetitive, will go out of business (Ronald, 2003).
Park (1997) applied a fuzzy linguistic approach in analyzing

competitiveness of nine East Asian airports. In the analysis, Park considered
eight factors, with the most important influence on airport competitiveness
being considered geographical location, followed by accessibility. The
literatures on competitiveness show that there are growing number of
instances where governments, industries and institutions undertake
competitiveness analysis.

Introduction
1.9 Perception of Airport Facilities

Evaluation of passenger satisfaction levels on airport services has
become an important issue for airport management to understand their
consumers and in designing their marketing strategies (Yeh & Kuo, 2003).
Earlier research studies have suggested that perceptions of service quality
affect feelings of satisfaction (Anderson, 1993). The quality of facilities has
direct link to the passengers’ perception of the level of excellence of the
facilities provided. Passengers’ perception of the importance and
performance of the airport facilities are usually assessed by conducting a
survey among the departing passengers. Performance refers to the
performance or satisfaction with the attribute and importance refers to the
impact this performance has on the overall experience. Unlike expectations,
which must be measured prior to the visit, importance is measured after the
visit when the visitor can make an informed judgment concerning the
attributes that were important to their visit. Satisfaction is an emotional state
and customers experience various level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction
after each service experience, according to the extent to which their
expectations were fulfilled. According to Philip Kotler, satisfaction is the
level of person’s felt state resulting from comparing a products’ perceived
performance (or outcome) in relation to the person’s expectations. (Kotler,
1998) The gap between perceived service and expectation has given rise to
the construct of service quality (Zeithaml et.al 1996, Wisniewski et.al 2010)
and also to the construct of satisfaction (Kotler P. a., 2004, Zahorik, 2007)
in which case satisfaction is linked to performance level of the business
(Canel & Fletcher, 2001). Accordingly, customer satisfaction is the key to
business success and can only be achieved by exactly understanding what

Chapter 1
customers’ expect and by evaluating the perception of the service delivery.
Here the level of satisfaction is determined by consumers upon consumption
and subsequently by comparing the perceived service with expected service.
Airport Council International (ACI) and International Civil Aviation

Organisation (ICAO) identified service quality as a major factor in
measuring the airport performance. The concept of service quality as
compared with the ordinary goods has three unique features of intangibility,
heterogeneity and inseparability of production and consumption. The feature
of intangibility makes it difficult to understand how the customers perceive
the service quality. Researchers have defined service quality as a measure of
how well the service level delivered matches customers’ expectation. It is
the consumers’ judgments about an entity’s overall excellence or
superiority, which is a form of attitude resulting from a comparison of
expectation with satisfaction. Campos and Nobrega (2009), explains that the
expectations in relation to service can be represented by a strip or zone of
tolerance.
The Importance Performance Analysis technique identifies strengths

and weaknesses by comparing the two criteria that passengers use in making
a choice. The two criteria used are the relative importance of attributes and
the passengers’ evaluation of the service in terms of those attributes. In
order to find out whether there exist any gap between the importance and
performance of the facilities available at the airport, a gap analysis is the
appropriate tool.

Introduction
1.10 Research Gap

Majority of the studies on the aviation sector is concentrating on the
service quality or economic impact of airports. Till recently the airports
were owned and controlled by the respective governments or public bodies
and hence analysis of its financial performance and the competitiveness
were of no relevance. There are only a few studies relating to financial
performance of airports, importance of airport facilities and perception of
passengers. The concept of competitiveness is getting more attention
nowadays and the available literature shows that there are no studies
available in India related to the analysis of the competitiveness of individual
airports. An integrated study, which covers the financial performance and
competitiveness of an airport and the passenger’s perception of the airport
facilities, is not seen to have conducted before. In this context, this study
assumes relevance as it is a combined work of evaluating financial
performance and competitiveness of airport along the analysis of the
passengers’ perception of the importance and performance of its facilities.
1.11 Research Problem

Aviation sector plays a pivotal role in driving today’s global economy.
It provides significant revenues to national public finances, benefits
passengers and freight with swift transportation, created large number of
high-value jobs and delivers extensive catalytic benefits to international
trade and tourism. Worldwide, the domestic and international passenger traffic
is showing a strong growth rate. With the rising levels of income, travellers
have opted for faster modes of transport. With the advancement of
technology, time became the essence of all activities and split-second
decisions became the rule of the day. Also the present generation is giving
A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ Perceptio
more importance to speed and
Chapter 1
competency than to cost. The entry of low cost carriers in the aviation
markets is another reason for quantum leap in the growth of air passenger
and goods traffic. In many remote, hilly and inaccessible areas, air transport is
the quickest and sometimes the only mode of travel available.
The importance of air travel can be seen from the report published by
Air Transport Association Group (ATAG), which show that in 2011, over
2.8 billion passengers were carried by the world's airlines. In India, there
was an increase of 13.2 percent in the passenger traffic during 2011-12
compared to the previous year. The total passenger traffic handled during
April–March 2011-12 have increased to 162.30 million (40.79 million
International and 121.51 million Domestic) from 143.43 million. The
combined passenger movement of the three international airports in Kerala
registered a growth of 9.13 percent (AAI Report 2012) over the previous
year. It means that there exists a vast potential for the growth of aviation
sector. But structures of airports are complex in nature and individual
airports are operated differently in physical, financial and management
areas. In air transport, growth largely depends on the quality of airport
infrastructure, which contributes directly to the competitiveness of the
airports and this poses a major challenge to the airport authorities to
maintain the quality and facility of airports at international standards in
order to update the competitive status of airports.
Passengers are the main users of the airports and the airport
authorities are duty bound to satisfy their needs. It is observed that the major
concerns of the international airports are (Yeh & Kuo, 2003; and Chou,
2009) to understand, evaluate and improve the quality of service provided to
the passengers. These issues directly relate to the passengers’ perception of
Introduction
airport facilities. Various indicators such as check-in facility, amenities,
terminal facilities and airport accessibility are found to be relevant in the
assessment of passengers’ perception of airport facilities. These factors are
reflected in the main objective of the airport managements of giving
maximum satisfaction to its users and to make the airport competitive by
maintaining international standards.
Because of all these factors, the international airports must be

striving hard to provide quality service to their customers by continuously
improving their performance and there by staying competitive in the market.
However, before arriving at such a conclusion a proper and scientific study
is to be conducted using regress and analytical methods. This study is
directed to make an evaluation in that direction and it is an attempt to
measure the regrouped key performance areas of financial performance,
competitiveness and the service quality (measured in terms of the
passengers’ perception of importance and performance of the airport
facility). It considers how far airports in Kerala in general, and Cochin
International Airport in particular, are competitive, how well the CIAL is
performing and its ability to meet the added requirements of air travellers.
The questions posed and answers sought in this study are:
i. What are the performance indicators and performance areas?
ii. How competitive is CIAL compared to other airports in Kerala?
iii. Whether it is an ideal airport or not?
iv. What is the perception level of the passengers about the airport
facilities?
v. What importance do the passengers give to the airport facilities?
Chapter 1
vi. Is there any gap between importance and performance of facilities?
1.12 Objectives
The objectives of the study are
1. To examine the performance of CIAL in terms of key performance

indicators and key performance areas
2. To analyse the competitiveness of CIAL as compared with the other two

airports in Kerala in terms of airport facilities, airport accessibility,
airport expansion potential, airport charges and geographical factors.
3. To find out the perception of passengers on the importance and the

performance of airport facilities available at the international and
domestic terminals of CIAL
1.13 Hypothesis
Passengers’ perception of the airport facilities are influenced by the
performance and the relative importance of the facilities, measured in terms
of four variables such as check-in facility, amenities, terminal facilities and
airport accessibility at the airport. So for an ideal airport, the levels of
importance and performance of the airport facilities do not show a gap
between them.
1.14 Methodology
The objectives of the study require both quantitative and qualitative

methods to be applied in the research. Performance and competitiveness is
measured using quantitative methods while qualitative methods are required
to measure the perception of the passengers. An exploratory case study
approach with triangulation of multiple methods and sources of information
Introduction
has been selected for the study. The research design includes a number of
different data sources and methods, including documentary analysis,
interviews and questionnaires. Methodology part is divided in to three parts,
methodology for selecting factors determining the competitiveness of
airports, methodology for data collection and methodology for data analysis.
1.14.1 Methodology for Selecting Factors Determining

Competitiveness of Airports
For selecting the factors influencing the airport competitiveness, first,

a comprehensive literature review was conducted. Based on the review,
eight factors, which are considered important in determining the
competitiveness of airports, are selected for preliminary scrutiny.
Information was collected by personally interviewing experts associated
with airports. Thirty persons were selected, ten each from three airports,
based on their expertise in the area. During the course of interviews with the
experts, the factors, which are relevant in determining the competitiveness of
airports in the circumstances prevailing in Kerala, were identified and five
factors were selected. The factors selected are airport facilities, airport
accessibility, airport expansion potential, airport charges and geographical
factors.
1.14.2 Methodology for Data Collection
The data on the importance and performance of the passengers on the

airport facilities available has been collected from primary sources. The
universe consist of the departing air passengers waiting to board the aircraft
at the security hold area of the international and domestic terminals of
CIAL from 28 Aug to 30 Aug 2012. Domestic flights from CIAL
commence from 6 AM and the last flight take off at 9.50 PM. International

Chapter 1
flights operate from CIAL during late night and early hours. The researcher
selected the time slots based on the destinations in consultation with the
airport authorities and fifty passengers were interviewed during each time
slot. A per the 2010-11 data total passenger movement through the domestic
and international terminals was 4340725. The split up for each terminal is
2359937for international and 1985242 for domestic terminal. The
proportion of international passengers to domestic passengers is 54:46.
Sample size was determined based on this proportion, which when rounded
off to the nearest ten, become 50:50. Hence, data from a sample size of 150
each from both the terminals had been collected through personal interview
with a specifically designed questionnaire by applying purposive sampling
method. Air passengers arrived earlier was selected for the interview
because they have sufficient time to answer the questionnaire. The
purposive sampling framework is illustrated in Fig.1.2.
Fig.1.2 Purposive sampling framework
Secondary data were collected from the websites of CIAL, AAI,

ICAO, DGCA, FAA, AIRBUS, Government of Kerala and Planning
Commission, annual reports of CIAL, archives of CIAL and Customs
department, various Journals and publications and books by various authors.

Introduction
1.14.3 Methodology for Analysis
Various statistical tools used to analyse the data collected from

different sources are listed in table 1.3.
Table 1.3 List of Statistical tools used in the study and their purpose
Chapter
No Methodology / Tool Purpose
To predict the future performance of key performance areas of
3 Least square method aircraft movement, passenger traffic and cargo movement
To find out how well the independent variables are able to
3 R square value
predict the dependent variable used in the forecast
3 Regression coefficients To construct an ordinary least square equation for forecasting
the performance
3 ANOVA test To test the difference in a single dependent variable
3 Compound Annual Growth rate (CAGR) To analyse the past performance of key performance areas
3 Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) To analyse the growth rate of key performance areas of airport
To analyse the maximum competitiveness of three international
4 Fuzzy linguistic Approach airports in Kerala
To solve the fuzzy relation of competitiveness and importance of
4 Sanchez methodology the five factors selected for the study
4 Euclidean Distance To find out the most competitive airport in Kerala
To determine whether the hypothesized structure provides a
good fit to the data, that is, whether there exist any relationship
5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) between the observed variables and their underlying latent or
unobserved constructs.
To find the suitability of the four variables and their total
considered for the CFA and to identify how far the sub variables
5 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
(questions) coming under each of the 4 main variables measures
them correctly.
Importance Performance Analysis To find the importance and performance perceived by the
5 (modified) respondents for each of the variables selected for the study
5 Cronbach Alpha To assess the statistical reliability of the sample data
To estimate the degree to which a hypothesized model fits the
5 Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) data.
5 Likelihood ratio Chi-square statistic (p) To compare the fit of nested models to the data
Root mean square error of
5 approximation (RMSEA) To avoid issues related to sample size
To measure the fit between the hypothesized model and the
5 Goodness of fit index (GFI) observed covariance matrix
Source: Research data
1.15 Scope of the Study

The scope of the study is limited to the period from 1999 to 2012

Chapter 1
1.16 Limitations
Time constraint: Data collection from both the terminals of CIAL
was limited to three days at the pre-determined periods and time intervals
decided by the airport authorities. Hence the data collected represent only a
cross section of passengers during a particular season.
Sample size and data: Since each data collection session lasted for
ninety minutes only, the researcher was forced to restrict the number of
respondents to minimum. In addition, the original questionnaire prepared by
the researcher for this study was modified after scrutiny by the airport
authorities.
Lack of availability of relevant data: Various authors and researchers

conducted the performance analysis based on productivity and profitability.
CIAL is outsourcing various activities including housekeeping, public
address system and ground handling, the actual data related to the labour
was not available. Hence, the performance of the airport was examined only
from the profitability (financial) angle.
Ownership pattern of the airports: Out of the three airports in Kerala,

CIAL is a private airport under the PPP model while Airport Authority of
India (AAI), a statutory body, owns the other two airports at Calicut and
Trivandrum. In the analysis of competitiveness of airports, the ownership
pattern was not taken in to consideration because CIAL is the only airport in
Kerala in which AAI is not having equity participation. Also at the time of
commencement of this study, other PPP model airports have not become
operational.

Introduction
Generalisation of the study is restricted to airports in Kerala. There
are very few academic and professional literatures available on the airports
in Kerala. Also in the changing global scenario, the passenger behaviour is
increasingly unpredictable and rapidly changing.
1.17 Scheme of Study

The thesis is organised under six chapters. It is an attempt to provide
an account of the study conducted and it has been structured in order to take
account of academic best practice for constructing a thesis (e.g. Dunleavy,
2003). Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the study. It explains the
structure, research problem, research questions, research gap, objectives,
hypotheses, methodology, tools used, scope and limitations of the study.
Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature available on performance,
competitiveness and passengers’ perception. It also gives a theoretical
perspective and defines some of the terminology used in the study. Chapter
3 examines the financial performance of the CIAL based on various
performance indicators. This chapter is a study of the various components of
the total income, profit, aircraft movement, passenger traffic, cargo
movement and duty free shop operations. Ratios and CAGR are used in this
chapter. In addition, forecast of the next twenty years operations of the
airport is estimated using regression values and least square method.
Chapter 4 deals with external benchmarking and examines the various
performance indicators of efficiency and effectiveness, and provides an
analysis of the findings in relation to the research questions on the
competitiveness of airports. Various factors determining the
competitiveness are analysed in detail in this chapter using fuzzy linguistic
approach and Euclidean distance method. Chapter 5 examines the

Chapter 1
passengers’ perception of airport facilities in terms of the importance and
the corresponding performance as perceived by the passengers who used the
domestic and international terminals of CIAL. The chapter also includes the
results of testing of hypothesis of the study using Gap analysis with respect
to the domestic and the international terminals. Chapter 6 provides the
major findings of the study and conclusions emerging from the study.
…………

Literature Review and Theoretical
In this chapter the relevant literature on the topics mentioned in the

first chapter is reviewed, key concepts and terminology used are defined and
the scope and potential for further study in the subject is explored. The
chapter is divided into two parts. First part deals with review of literature on
the financial performance, measurement of competitiveness and the analysis
of passengers’ perception of facilities at the airport. A literature search
produced several journal articles, papers and books that related to airport
infrastructure, competitiveness, performance, passengers’ perception and
gap between importance and performance of facilities at airports. The
second part explains the theoretical framework of the study.
PART I
2.1 Airport Performance
Guide to Airport Performance Measures released by ACI states that

“the area of airport performance reflects the strides made by airports to
deliver an increasingly high standard of service in multiple areas ranging
from airport cleanliness to minimization of wait times, to the provision of a
Chapter 2
wide range of attractive retail opportunities”. The Policy and Recommended
Practices Hand book published by the ACI went further in the development
of performance measurement methods of airports by stating “the
development of relevant and appropriate performance indicators represents
the best practice for airport managers. Such performance indicators should
cover activities by all service providers at an airport”. Introduction of
commercial and private models of airport ownership has changed the scope
and significance of performance measurement. An evaluation of the
performance of the airport is essential for the assessment of effectiveness of
the investment and its impact in the region. Humphreys, I et.al (2002) in
their study on performance measurement of airports, observed that airports,
regarded as public service facilities until the mid-1980s, were publicly
owned, operated and subsidized for the benefit of the nation or region. Often
airports were developed as objects of prestige by local and national
governments irrespective of their commercial viability (Humphreys, 1999).
Performance measurement developed initially within this context and the
move towards privatisation has led to new performance measures being
introduced to reflect the changing management goals. Humphrey, I. et.al
(2002) classified the new measures into three categories: financial measures
to monitor commercial performance, measures to meet the requirements of
government regulators and environmental measures. The future of
performance measurement at airports is likely to be driven by the forces of
commercial business focus, increased responsiveness to targets set by
regulators and increased sensitivity to environmental standards that protect
communities around airports.
Halpern, N (2006) observed that the measurement of relative growth

of existing routes at airports is an appropriate measure of performance. The
34A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ Percep
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
initiative on the part of the airline customers to add more frequency or seat
capacity to the existing routes will naturally stimulate the increase in
passenger throughput. Airports depend on airlines making the decision to
operate services from their airport and without airlines; airports have no
market (Francis et.al, 2004). There exists a link between ownership and
development of airline services (Leask, 2002). Performance is broadly
viewed from two perspectives of subjective (relative to competition) and
objective (absolute measures) (Sin et.al, 2005). Various researchers have
used the objective measures of performance in their studies (Narver and
Slater (1990), Ruekert (1992), Jaworski and Kohli (1993), Slater and Narver
(1994), Greenley (1995), Slater and Narver (1996), Gray et.al (2002) and
Agarwal et.al. (2003). Performance indicators are generally classified into
three main groups of measure of economic, operational and marketing
(Halpern, 2006). The three main groups of performance hypothesized and
tested by Jaworski and Kohli (1993) are consumers’ response, employee
response and economic performance. Economic performance is measured
on the basis of various indicators of market share, profitability, sales
income, return on assets and return on investment (Gray et.al, 2002,
Matsuno et.al. 2005). Gillen and Lall applied Data Envelopment Analysis
(DEA) on a panel of 21 U.S. airports over a five year period for efficiency
measurements which is an improvement of the past performance
measurements which were restricted to accounting terms and constructed
performance indices on the basis of multiple outputs produced by multiple
inputs. Gillen and Lall (1997) designed two input-output models in the
study of airport efficiency. In the terminal services model, the inputs are
number of runways, number of gates, terminal area, number of baggage
collection belts and public parking lots and outputs are number of
Chapter 2
passengers and quantity of cargo (Barrows et.al, 2009). In the movement
model inputs are airport area, number of runways, runway area and number
of employees and the outputs are aircraft movements and commuter
movements.
The financial performance of the airport in this study is measured on

the basis of its performance on key performance indicators and key
performance areas. Indicators of performance included profit, earnings per
share, foreign exchange earnings and revenue from various activities (Gillen
et. al., 1997).
2.1.1 Revenue from Airport Activities
ACI encourages the airports to develop non-aeronautical activities

and maximise non-aeronautical revenue at their facilities. Three
methodologies of Single-Till, Dual-Till and Hybrid-Till are used in
determining the aeronautical charges (Gillen, D, 2008). The Single-Till
approach considers the entire airport as one system. The aeronautical tariffs
under this approach are determined in a way to ensure that the sum of
aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues provided a pre-determined rate
of return to the airport operator, over and above his operating costs,
depreciation and taxes. Effectively, single till uses profits/ losses from non-
aeronautical activities at an airport to offset the aeronautical cost base for
determining airport charges. Under this approach, the allocation of costs
between aeronautical and non-aeronautical services is less significant that
the allowable revenue figure is based on total costs. The Dual-Till approach
considers the entire airport as two independent systems – the aeronautical
and non-aeronautical. The aeronautical tariffs under this approach are
determined in a way to ensure that the aeronautical revenues provide a pre-
determined rate of return to the airport operator, over and above his
aeronautical operating costs, depreciation and taxes. The airport operator’s
profit or loss in the non-aeronautical business has no bearing on the
aeronautical tariffs. The Hybrid-Till is a combination of Single-Till and
Dual-Till approaches. It is developed on the premise that a part of the non-
aeronautical revenues is contributed by passengers and hence a part of the
profits thereof needs to be ploughed back into the aeronautical till. The
aeronautical tariffs under this approach are determined in a way to ensure
that the aeronautical revenues provides a pre-determined rate of return to the
airport operator, over and above his operating costs, depreciation and taxes,
cross-subsidized by a certain fraction of the non-aeronautical revenues. In
the case of Delhi and Mumbai airports, 30% of the non-aeronautical
revenues are used to subsidize the aeronautical expenses. Non-aeronautical
revenue is gaining importance amongst airports globally as is indicated in
the growing share of non-aeronautical revenues in the total revenue of
airports. Airports have tried to maximize the share of their revenue from
non-aeronautical services. In most cases around the world, non-aeronautical
revenue has grown faster than aviation revenue; as a consequence, non-
aeronautical operations are now significant sources of revenues and profits
for many major airports in the world. In contrast to international airports,
revenues in Indian airports are dominated by aeronautical revenues with
limited focus on the non-aeronautical services. Non- aeronautical revenues
average is only in the range of 30-35% of total revenues. However, the PPP
airports are witnessing an increased trend in non-aeronautical revenues
(Approach Paper on Economic Regulation of Airports in India, 2012).
The relationship between the ownership pattern and the performance

is explained by Halpern, N as “ownership affects the behaviour of an airport
Chapter 2
and that it is actually its behaviour that subsequently affects performance”.
Oum et.al (2006) studied the impact of ownership pattern on the economic
and operational performance of world’s major airports. The study concluded
that ownership affects the productive efficiency and profitability of airports
and the airports that are majority owned by private interests are having more
productive efficiency and profitability than that of the airports owned by
government authorities. Advani (1998) studied the case of airport
privatisation and observed that ownership affects the marketing orientation
of an airport. Pagliari (2005) who examined the strategic issues affecting
airports observed that independently owned airports have a greater focus on
developing traffic that benefits the local area and they are likely to be more
market oriented than nationally-owned airports. Market oriented companies
are better equipped to satisfy customer needs and preferences and
subsequently perform better than companies that lack market orientation
(Day, 1994). Various researchers have examined the impact of ownership
on the performance of airports (Humphreys, 1999, Francis et.al 2000,
Humphreys and Francis 2002, Carney and Mew 2003, Lyon and Francis
2006 and Oum et.al 2006). The various categories of airports in India are
PPP airports-Brownfield, PPP airports-Greenfield, AAI airports-major, AAI
airports-non-major, Greenfield airports-non-metro, non-AAI and Greenfield
airport-Dual airport systems. Cochin International Airport Limited is the
only private sector airport in India (Ministry of Civil Aviation, 2012).
Airports operate in a complicated environment and have varying

degrees of control over the services that customers expect. One of the
characteristic features of the airport industry is the presence of significant
economies of scale. Profitability in the industry is dependent on the volume
of passenger and freight traffic throughput. Airports are associated with high
fixed costs given the need to provide a basic and necessary level of
infrastructure to support even the minimal levels of air traffic. The revenues
of an airport can be split in to aeronautical revenues and non- aeronautical
revenues. The revenue which is directly related to the aeronautical activities
of passengers and aircraft are included in aeronautical revenue and all other
revenues are non-aeronautical revenue. These can in turn be separated into
two groups: revenues from service providers located at an airport providing
services either to the airlines or to the passengers; and revenues from
activities the airport has diversified into in order to use its expertise such as
consultancy or management services. The strategies of specialization will
aim at developing the aeronautical revenues, whereas the strategies of
diversification will have the objective of increasing the non-aeronautical
revenues. According to Walker and Ruekert (1987), the three dimensions
that can be measured in relation to a company’s performance are
effectiveness, efficiency and adaptability. According to the authors,
effectiveness can be measured in terms of growth in market share,
efficiency in terms of the ratio of input and output while adaptability is the
responsiveness of the business unit to opportunities afforded by changes in
the business environment.
2.1.2 Profitability
Technically, the word profitability means the ratio of profit to

revenue. Classical economics and Marxian economics define profit as the
return to an owner of capital goods or natural resources in any productive
pursuit involving labour or a return on bonds and money invested in capital
markets. The term profit has two related but distinct meanings in Neo-
classical microeconomic theory. In accounting terms, Economic Profit is a
Chapter 2
single-period metric to determine the value created by a company in one
period, usually a year. It is Profit after tax less the equity charge. Gross
profit is defined as sales revenue minus cost of goods/services sold. Gross
profit includes general/overhead expenses like R&D, interest expense, taxes
and extraordinary items. Profit before tax is the difference between revenue
and cost of goods/services sold and all expenses except taxes. Profit after
tax means the net revenue after deducting all expenses, including taxes.
Profit after tax minus payable dividends becomes Retained Earnings.
Earnings per share is an important variable in determining a share's

price. It is the portion of a company's profit allocated to each outstanding
share of common stock and it serves as an indicator of a company's
profitability.
2.2 Airport Competitiveness
Airport Competitiveness is considered as a key criterion for

appraising the success degree of countries in the political, economical and
commercial competition fields. Sarkis conducted analysis on operational
efficiency of major airports (Sarkis, 2000). Sarkis (2000) argued that
benchmarking their own airports against comparable airports is one way for
airport operations managers to ensure their competitiveness. Park (1997)
applied a fuzzy linguistic approach in analyzing competitiveness of nine
East Asian airports. In the analysis, Park considered eight factors, with the
most important influence on airport competitiveness being considered
geographical location, followed by accessibility. The study of Park (2003)
presented an analysis of the competitive status of major airports in the East
Asia region, taking into account 5 dimensions: spatial factors, facility
factors, demand factors, service factors and managerial factors. The most
competitive airports are found to be the New Hong Kong International
Airport, Singapore Changi and Seoul Incheon International Airport. In his
earlier study Park (1997) used the factors, such as geographical
characteristics, socio-economic factors and environmental effects.
In the paper ‘Enterprise's core competitiveness evaluation method

based on fuzzy membership degree’, the authors attempted to build up the
index system of enterprise's core competitiveness from the nature of core
competitiveness to analyze enterprise's overall core competitiveness and to
determine the categorization weights, the effectiveness of the indices
concerning samples and the concept of comparative ratio from the
perspective of index classification and to evaluate the enterprise's core
competitiveness by the method of fuzzy membership degree. The authors
argue that the enterprise's core competitiveness is the source of its
sustainable competitive advantage, and the evaluation of enterprise's core
competitiveness plays an important role in core competitiveness cultivation,
application and renovation. (Don Shao, 2009).
Competitiveness is a complex concept encompassing various

elements that can be difficult to measure. The complexity of this concept
means that various aspects must be taken into account when identifying
factors for airport competitiveness. Competitiveness is a relative concept
and its measures will vary depending on the choice of various parameters.
According to Scott and Lodge (1985), competitiveness is a
multidimensional concept in the sense that being competitive requires
superiority in several aspects. Crouch and Ritchie (1999) argued that
complexity of competitiveness arises due to the unit of analysis and the
perspective of the analyst, “...politicians are interested in the

Chapter 2
competitiveness of the economy (national, regional or local), industries or
trade associations confine their interests to their own industry, and business
owners and managers worry about the ability of their own firms to compete
in specific market”.
The concept of competitiveness is gaining importance in the recent

years. Scott and Lodge (1985) defined competitiveness as “a country’s
ability to create, produce, distribute and/or service products in international
economy, while earning rising returns on its sources.” Porter (1990) defined
competitiveness as “the ability of entrepreneurs (of a country) to design,
produce and market goods and services, the price and non-price
characteristics of which form a more attractive package than that of
competitors”. According to Porter, competitive advantage is now widely
accepted as being of central importance to the success of organizations,
regions and countries (Porter, 1980, 1990). The seminal work of Porter
(1990) introduced the concept of ‘National Diamond’ where
competitiveness of a nation is analysed at sectoral level under five main
categories viz. factor conditions, demand conditions, supporting and related
industries, firm strategy, structure and rivalry and chance factor. Due to the
multidimensional nature of competitiveness, it is important to identify the
elements that compose the competitiveness. (Gooroochurn, N, 2004). An
important role in achieving competitiveness has ‘entrepreneurialism’ which
can be defined as the firm’s capacity to innovate in the production process
to access new and distinctive markets in different and unconventional ways
and to produce new or redesigned goods and services with perceived
customer benefit (Porter, 1990).

In his study, Park (1995) selected the factors influencing the airport
competitiveness. In order to determine the degree of importance to airport
competitiveness the author used an expert questionnaire using 10 factors
which was reduced to eight factors. The selected factors are Geographical
characteristics of airport, Airport accessibility, Environmental effects,
Business and operational conditions of airlines, Socio-economic effects,
Airport regional development, Level of airport charges and Availability of
expansion planning implementation.
2.3 Passengers’ Perception of Airport Facilities
An important issue before the airport management in their pursuit for

understanding the customers and market strategy formulation is the
evaluation of passenger satisfaction levels of airport facilities (Yeh &
Kuo,2003). The relationship between the perceptions of service quality and
the feelings of satisfaction (Anderson J R, 1993) has attracted many
researchers in to this field. According to Parasuraman et.al (1991), the
quality of facilities has direct link to the passengers’ perception of the level
of excellence of the facilities provided. Service quality indicators focus on
how passengers perceive the level of service provided by the airport and on
objective measures of service delivery. (Parasuraman et.al 1991). Service
quality is an important area of airport performance which reflects the efforts
made by airport to deliver high standard of service in various areas.
Passengers’ perception of the importance and performance of the airport
facilities are usually assessed by conducting a survey among the departing
passengers. Delivering high service quality is considered as an efficient way
of ensuring that a company’s offerings are uniquely positioned in a market
filled with lookalike competitive offerings (Parasuraman et.al 1991).

Chapter 2
Airports constitute a major part of the aviation infrastructure and the
existence of many interconnected heterogeneous components such as the
diversity of facilities, multiplicity of beneficiaries, sub-systems, rules and
regulations, procedures and processes and the deployment of human
resources with different classes of responsibilities make it a very complex
enterprise. Airport infrastructure comprise of runways, taxiways, ramps,
terminals and other facilities in direct control of the airport and the ground
infrastructure consists of road and rail networks connecting the airport to the
metropolitan areas in the region (Grancay, M 2009).
Perception of the passengers is a complex concept and its evaluation

requires appropriate instruments, a clear understanding of the relevant
dimensions of the concept, development of a valid questionnaire items to
measure each of the variables and the assignment of appropriate weights for
each variable (Saurina, G. C.,2002).The concept of service quality has three
unique features (Parasuraman et.al., 1988) which are heterogeneity of
features (Booms and Bitner 1981), inseparability of production and
consumption (Carmen and Langeard, 1980) and intangibility features
(Bateson, 1977, Lovelock, 1981). The feature of intangibility makes it
difficult to understand how the customers perceive the service quality
(Zeithaml,V.,1987). Many researchers have defined service quality as a
measure of how well the service level delivered by the airport matches
customers’ expectation (Lewis and Booms, 1983). It is based on the
consumers’ judgments about an airport’s overall excellence or superiority
which is a form of attitude developed from a comparison of expectation
with satisfaction (Zeithaml, V.,1987). The term performance can be defined
as the performance or satisfaction with the facility and importance can be
defined as the impact this performance has on the overall experience
(Martilla and James, 1977). Unlike expectations, which are measured prior
to the visit, importance is measured after the visit when the visitor is in a
better position to make an informed judgment concerning the facilities that
were important to their visit (Taplin, R.H., 2012). Satisfaction is an
emotional state and customers experience varying levels of satisfaction after
they experience a service which they compare with expectations.
Many approaches can be found in defining the concept of service

quality. Various propositions about the evolution of service quality in a
service organization can be seen in the studies by researchers like
Parasuraman et.al. (1985) who proposed the service quality gap
concept.From the managerial point of view, service quality gap
identification is a useful approach. Service quality is a sine qua non for the
existence of every service or business unit. Innumerable studies are
conducted by various authors and researchers in the field of service quality.
Many researchers have proposed extensions to the original quality gaps
concept in the later studies (Barsky, J, 1995).Airport Council International
(ACI) and International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) identified
service quality as a major factor in measuring the airport performance. Park
(1999) introduced a methodology for establishing the operational standards
of service performance of airport passenger terminals using a perception–
response model.
The theory of ‘zone of tolerance’ is a deciding factor in the

evaluation of service quality of a process or facility. Various aspects of the
theory and the different ways various authors (Miller J A 1977, Oliver, R.L,
1980, Swan, J.E 1980) explained this concept under different labels were
examined by Robert Johnston (1995). Parasuraman and Berry (1991)
Chapter 2
defined the zone of tolerance with reference to the customers’ evaluation of
in-process service performances. The zone of tolerance is a range of service
performance that a customer considers satisfactory. The concept of zone of
tolerance assumes that there are thresholds in performance perceptions and
that satisfaction reactions appear only if these thresholds are exceeded.
Campos and Nobrega (2009) attempted to evaluate two affirmations of
Zeithaml and Bitner (2003), “The limits of the tolerance are defined with
regard to service desired (SD) and adequate or minimum service (SM). SD
represents the level of the service provided, that the customer would like to
receive while SM reflects the minimum level of service that the customer
would tolerate. When the service is rendered, the customer evaluates the
level of service received/perceived, through his or her own perceptions.
When the service provided exceeded the desired service level, the customer
will be delighted within the zone of tolerance because they have received a
service in line with their expectations”. Service quality is very important
factor at the airport which affects the feedback or perception from the
passengers towards the service. When an airport provides an attractive
facility or a good quality service to its users it will help it to become a
competitive international airport (Norudin, M., 2012).
According to Philip Kotler (1998), satisfaction is the level of

person’s felt state resulting from comparing a products’ perceived
performance (or outcome) in relation to the person’s expectations. The gap
between perceived service and expectation has given rise to the construct of
service quality (Wisniewski, M. and Donnelly, M., 2010, Zeithaml, V. A.,
Berry, L. L. and Parasuraman, A.,1996, Woodruff, R. B., Cadoltte, E. R.
and Jenkins, R.L., 1985) and to the construct of satisfaction (Kotler, P. and
Armstrong G, 2004, Zahorik, A. J and Rust, R.T,2010). According to Canel
& Fletcher (2001), satisfaction is linked to performance level of the
business. Customer satisfaction is the key to business success which can be
achieved only by understanding what customers’ expect and how they
perceive the quality of the service delivery. The level of satisfaction of a
service or facility is expressed by consumers after consumption and by
comparing the perceived service with expected service (Bassi et.al., 2006).
The importance and performance measures give the management a

better understanding of customer perceptions to a facility or service. The
Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) framework is a business research
technique developed by Martilla and James (1977) and it is a method used
to evaluate the qualities of a product or service based on assessment of their
importance and performance from the perception of the customer
(Woodruff, R. B., Cadoltte, E. R. and Jenkins, R.L., (1985). From the IPA,
the management will not only know which attributes require immediate
attention, but also why they require immediate attention (Bacon, D.R.,
2003). The IPA technique identifies strengths and weaknesses by comparing
the two criteria that passengers use in making a choice. The two criteria
used are the relative importance of attributes and the passengers’ evaluation
of the service in terms of those attributes. Importance can be distinguished
from expectation and can be defined as the informed judgment by each
passenger concerning the facilities available at the airport that were
important to their visit. Performance is defined as the satisfaction that each
passenger perceived on the available facilities. In contrast, the SERVQUAL
technique identifies the customer satisfaction of service attributes by
comparing customer’s expectation and customer’s perception (Parasuraman,
1982).

Chapter 2
Once the values of importance and performance are evaluated the
next step is to find out the gap between them. The gap is defined as the
mean performance minus the mean importance. Gap analysis typically
compares gaps with the benchmark of zero. Positive gaps (performance
exceeds importance) are considered satisfactory while negative gaps (where
performance is lower than importance) indicate management attention may
be required (Taplin and Ross H. 2012).
PART II - THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this part various concepts and theories used in the present study
are explained.
2.4 Forecasting
Aviation forecast is a carefully formed opinion about future airport

operations and it is an essential tool in determining future needs of an
airport (ACRP-2). Its primary use is to help airport operators in optimizing
use of current facilities and making decisions in charting plans to determine
the size of the terminal, the number of bays, gates, and other important
elements of airport infrastructure. Based on the type of activities at the
airport, the parameters that must forecast are determined as aircraft
movement, passenger traffic and freight traffic through the airport. In order
to estimate the long-term variations or trend, the least square method is
used. Based on the data from 2000-01 to 2011-12, a linear trend is fitted
separately for each of the dependent variables. Since the year is given as an
interval (2000-12), the independent variable (t) is taken as 1, 2, 3… 12 to
represent the years 2000-01 to 2011-12. The airport activities for the next 20
years are estimated using the least square method. Trend line (y=at + b) is

fitted using the linear equations separately for international, domestic
sectors. Fitted models for the airport activities are used to estimate the future
airport activities for the 20 years period.
∑y = a∑t + nb {Eq. 1}
∑yt = a∑t2 + b∑t {Eq. 2}
2.5 Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is frequently used in

business presentations and reports to show how a particular part of the
business has grown over time. CAGR takes growth rates from multiple
periods and translates them into a consistent growth rate, which represents
the same growth. CAGR can be used to remove the volatility of the Year
over Year growth and smooth out the growth rate.
1
The formula to calculate CAGR is CAGR (t , t ) =  V (tn) tnt 0
1
 
0 n
V (t0)
 
where t0 – the first year of observations
tn – the last year of observations
V (t0) – the start value (or initial investment)
V (tn) – the last value observed.
2.6 Fuzzy Linguistic Approach
The seminal work of Fuzzy Sets by Lotfi (1965) describes the fuzzy
set theory and subsequent extension of fuzzy logic proposing the
membership function (or the values False and True) operate over the range
of real numbers [0, 1]. Since human judgments are often vague and cannot
Chapter 2
estimate an individual’s preference with an exact numerical value, it is more
realistic to use linguistic terms to describe the desired value and importance
of criteria as ‘very low’, ‘low’, ‘fair’, ‘high’, ‘very high’, etc. (Bellman and
Zadeh, 1970, Zadeh, 1975). Because of this type of existing fuzziness in the
process, fuzzy set theory is an appropriate method for dealing with
uncertainty and the subjective evaluation data can be more adequately
expressed in linguistic variables (Bellman and Zadeh, 1970). A linguistic
variable is defined as a variable, the values of which are words, phrases, or
sentences in a given language where such a language can either be natural or
artificial (Schmucker, 1983). Each linguistic variable may be assigned one
or more linguistic values, which in turn are connected to a numeric value
through the mechanism of membership functions.
Fuzzy set theory has been applied to solve many decision-making

problems. Fuzzy numbers are utilized to denote the approximate reasoning
of linguistic variables (Zadeh, 1975). They are used to convey the subjective
evaluation of decision-makers. Tsaur (2002) argued that it is difficult to
describe and measure the quality of airline service due to its heterogeneity,
intangibility and inseparability. In addition, human judgments are often
vague and it is not easy to express the importance of evaluation criteria and
the satisfaction of airport service using an exact numerical value. It is more
realistic to use linguistic terms to describe the perceptive value and
importance of evaluation criteria. Because of this type of existing fuzziness
in the evaluation of the quality of airport service, fuzzy set theory is an
appropriate method for dealing with uncertainty. The subjective evaluation
data can be more adequately expressed in linguistic terms.

Applying a fuzzy linguistic variable approach to the measurement of
competitiveness of the three airports in Kerala, the methodology of
Karwowski and Mital (1986) and Wilhelm and Parsaei (1991) has been
adopted. In order to analyse airport's competitiveness, two fuzzy linguistic
variables are defined: importance (X) and competitiveness (Y). Where
variable X is the importance associated with each of the competitive factors,
and the other variable Y is the competitiveness of each airport to represent
its potential market power.
The general terms, competitiveness and importance, are still

imprecise and can be further modified using a linguistic hedge or modifier,
which is an operation that modifies the meaning of a term or, more
generally, of a fuzzy set (Zimmerman, 1991).The concept of linguistic
hedges or modifiers is very important and useful for using linguistic
variables in fuzzy logic. A hedge acts as a modifier in order to determine the
meaning of an arbitrary term of the set using natural language statements
such as very, fairly, highly, indeed, more or less, low etc.
The primary values of the two variables X and Y are defined on the
universe of discourse [0, 1] and the operators’ form using a linguistic hedge
can be given new variable values. Suppose R(x) and R(y) are defined as a
semantic rule for associating a meaning with each variable name and it is a
fuzzy subset on the universe of discourse for linguistic variable X and Y.
Therefore, we assume that the primary values of X = importance of
variables and new variable values using hedges are:
R1(x) = {most important (A1)} = x4
R2 (x) = {more important (A2)} = x2

Chapter 2
R3 (x) = {important (A3)} =x
R4 (x) = {less important (A4)} = x.5
R5 (x) = {unimportant (A5)} = 1-x
R6 (x) = {least important (A6)} = 1-x2
The new values of linguistic modified variables are defined such as
R1 (y) = {indeed superior (B1)} = y6
R2 (y) = {more superior (B2)} = y3
R3 (y) = {superior (B3)} = y1.5
R4 (y) = {average (B4)} =y
R5 (y) = {inferior (B5)} = 1-y1.5
R6 (y) = {more inferior (B6)} = 1-y3
R7 (y) = {most inferior (B7)} = 1-y6
To solve the fuzzy relation of two linguistic variable X and Y, the

methodology used by Sanchez (1976) for solving the basic linguistic
equation is adopted.
xi = rij yj {Eq.
1}
Where xi is the value of importance of a competitive factor i,
yj is the value of competitiveness of an airport j
rij is a fuzzy relation of factor i and airport j
Since xi = rij yj,
rij = x Ti ③ y j {Eq.2}
52A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ Perce
where x is the transpose of x
T
i i
③ is a compositional operator
 1 if Rj ( x)  Rj (
y)
  {Eq.3}
R ( y) if R (x)  R ( y)
 j j j 
The intersection of these fuzzy relation rij for j=1, 2, 3 are obtained
by fuzzy intersection as
Rj = ∩i rij = Min (rij) {Eq. 4}

i
Hence, a fuzzy relation as a rule of compositional inference can

describe the competitiveness of each airport R jmax (y). Competitiveness of
each airport is calculated using the fuzzy relation
Rj max (y) = max Rj (y) {Eq. 5}

y
The relative Euclidean distance ƒ(A) is defined in terms of a metric

distance of A from any of the nearest crisp sets. This distance is used to
measure each airport’s competitiveness. The airport having the shortest
distance is the most competitive one. The concept relative Euclidean
distance (δj) in a nutshell can be explained as the average of the square root
of the sum of the squares of the difference between the ideal compatibility
function and the maximum compatibility function for the competitiveness of
the airport and it can be defined as:
1
δ 
 12
[R
Rj *( y)  ( y)]2

n 
j = max
y 
where , n is the number of elements in the universe of discourse
R*(y) is the ideal compatibility function in terms of the linguistic variable of
highly superior for an airport j
Chapter 2
Rjmax(y) is the maximum compatibility function for the competitiveness of
the airport j.
2.7 Importance-Performance Analysis
Martilla and James (1977) introduced Importance - Performance

Analysis (IPA). IPA is based on the mean performance and mean
importance obtained from surveyed respondents for each of several attribute
or characteristics of a service or product. Performance refers to the
performance or satisfaction with the attribute and, importance to the impact
this performance has on the overall experience. Unlike expectations, which
must be measured prior to the visit, importance is measured after the visit
when the visitor can make an informed judgment concerning the attributes
that were important to their visit. The mean performance and mean importance
are plotted and divided in to four quadrants. Quadrant I represent the attributes
for which the perception seems to be very important to the respondents, but
performance levels are low. This implies that improvement efforts should be
concentrated here. Quadrant II represents the attributes for which there are
high levels of importance and performance perceived by the sample
population. The message here is to keep up the good work. Quadrant III
represents the attributes that have low importance as well as performance.
Although the performance levels are low in this quadrant, this is not a matter of
concern since the attributes in this quadrant are not perceived to be very
important by the respondents. This is a low priority cell and hence only
limited resources should be expended. Quadrant IV contains the attributes
which are of low importance but are perceived to be high performing.
Respondents are satisfied with the performance of these attributes and the
managers should restrict any overutilization of resources on these.

According to Bruyere, et.al (2002), importance performance analysis
has limited utility except for rare situations in which the target population is
homogeneous (Brett L. Bruyere, 2002). More oftern users present a
diversity of attitudes and demographics. According to Barsky (1995), lower
importance ratings are likely to play a lesser role in affecting overall
perceptions, while higher importance ratings are likely to play a more
critical role in determining customer satisfaction (Barsky, J, 1995). The
objective is to identify which attributes or combinations of the attributes are
more influential in repeat purchase behavior and which have less impact.
The information is valuable for the development of marketing strategies in
organizations (Ford, J. 1991).
The Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) method applied in this

study differs from the conventional IPA developed by Martilla and James
(1977). Instead of the graphical representation of the mean performance and
mean importance calculated from the survey data, structural equations are
used to evaluate the regression equation for each of the variables. Using this
regression equation, values of each of the variables, which are free of
personal prejudices, measurement bias and doubt over the appropriate
placement of crosshairs, are found out to determine whether performance
and importance are high or low for both the importance and performance.
This method will overcome the limitation pointed out by Bruyere, et.al
(2002). Importance-Performance Analysis and the related gap analysis are
carried out using the estimated values. This method of conducting
importance performance analysis gives results free from measurement bias.
A modified Importance-Performance Analysis (George. I, 2013) and the
related analysis of performance minus importance gaps are carried out using
the estimated values of each of the four variables obtained using the
Chapter 2
regression equation. Structural equations were used to evaluate the
regression equation for each of the variables selected. Regression equation
gives the relationship between the variables performance and importance
expressed by the respondents. For example, one unit of increase/decrease in
Qi results Xi unit increase/decrease in performance and Yi unit
increase/decrease in importance. Hence final equations are,
Performance = ∑ Qi Xi (1)
Importance = ∑ Qi Yi. (2)
2.7.1 Questionnaire
A questionnaire was the instrument used in this research to collect

data. A newly designed questionnaire has to satisfy the Scale refinement and
validation.
2.7.2 Scale Refinement and Validation
Validity is the most critical evaluation and indicates the degree to

which instrument measures, what it is supposed to measure. Validity can
also be considered as utility. Validity, the extent to which differences found
with a measuring instrument, reflects the true differences among those being
tested. Empirically validated scales can be used directly in the other studies
in the field for different programmes. A scale for a construct is useful for
application by different researchers in different studies only if it is
statistically reliable and valid. The major forms of validity are content
validity, construct validity and face validity.

2.7.3 Content Validity and Face Validity
In order to test the content validity, which is a non-statistical type of

validity, the researcher consulted various experts and academic
professionals in this field and ensured that the questionnaire is measured
with sufficient content validity. Face validity is very close to content
validity. The content validity depends upon a theoretical basis for assuming
of a test that it is assessing all domains of a certain criterion while face
validity relates to whether the test appears to be good measure, judged by
the experts in the field.
2.7.4 Convergent Validity
Convergent validity refers to the degree to which a measure is

correlated with other measures that is theoretically predicted with and it is
done by using confirmatory factor analysis where each item in the scale is
checked with the help of coefficient called bentler-bonett fit index (NNFI or
TLI). It is one of the approaches to the construct validity.
2.7.5 Reliability Test
It is necessary to assess the statistical reliability of the sample data

before any further validation analysis or carrying out Confirmatory Factor
Analysis. The term reliability refers to the degree of dependability,
consistency or stability of a scale. An unreliable scale will lack consistency
of measuring the same item to the extent. There are four good methods of
measuring reliability. Test-retest technique, multiple forms, inter-rater and
Split half reliability. In the case of field survey, internal consistency is
estimated by using Cronbach alpha. A high value of the Cronbach alpha
coefficient suggests that the items that make up the scale hang together and

Chapter 2
measure the same underlying construct. An alpha value of 0.70 or above is
considered as the criterion for demonstrating strong internal consistency,
alpha value of 0.60 or above is considered significant.
2.7.6 Suitability and Communality Test - Exploratory Factor Analysis
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is applied to find the suitability

of the selected variables and their total considered for the confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) and to identify how far the sub variables (questions)
coming under each of the main variables measures them correctly. If the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value for all the variables are above the recommended
value of 0.5 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical
significance, it suggest the factorability of the correlation matrix. EFA is a
method used for testing effects of each of these four main variables and this
is done by using a communality of each of the four variables. Communality
is the extent to which an item correlates with all other items or in other
words communality gives the variance accounted for a particular variable by
all the factors. Higher communalities are better. If the communalities for a
particular variable are low (between 0.0-0.4), then that variable will struggle
to load significantly on any factor. Low values indicate questions for
removal after examining the pattern matrix.
Both EFA and CFA are used to understand shared variance of

measured variables that can be attributable to a factor or latent construct.
EFA and CFA are conceptually and statistically distinct analyses. EFA is
used to identify factors based on data and to maximize the amount of
variance explained. There are no specific hypotheses about how many
factors will emerge and what items or variables these factors will comprise.
Even if these hypotheses exist they are not incorporated into and do not
affect the results of the statistical analyses. In short, EFA deals with theory
building while CFA deals with theory testing.
2.7.7 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The CFA process determines whether the hypothesized structure

provides a good fit to the data, or in other words that a relationship between
the observed variables and their underlying latent or unobserved, constructs
exist (Child, 1990). CFA evaluates a priori hypotheses that have a
theoretical basis. CFA require the researcher to hypothesize in advance the
number of factors and which measures load on to and reflect which factors.
Hence, in contrast to exploratory factor analysis, where all loadings are free
to vary, CFA allows for the explicit constraint of certain loadings to be zero.
Structural equation modelling (SEM) software is typically used for

performing confirmatory factor analysis. CFA is normally used as a first
step to assess the proposed measurement model in a SEM. Majority of the
rules of interpretation for assessment of model fit in SEM apply equally to
CFA. The difference between CFA and SEM is that, in CFA, there are no
directed arrows between latent factors. That is, while in CFA, factors are not
presumed to directly cause one another, SEM often specify particular factors
and variables to be causal in nature. In the context of SEM, the CFA is often
called 'the measurement model', while the relations between the latent
variables with directed arrows are called 'the structural model'.
2.7.8 Model fit Indices for CFA
Fitting a model to data involve solving a set of equations. One side,

there is the model with its parameters whose values are to be estimated, on
the other side there are the sample statistics that we know to be good

Chapter 2
estimates of the corresponding population values. In SEM, usually it is
assumed that the sample data follow a multivariate normal distribution, so
that the means and covariance matrix contain all the information. The basic
model in statistical modelling is Data = Model + Error
2.7.9 Evaluating Model Fit
Unlike the other statistical methods, which require only one

statistical test to determine the significance of the analyses, in CFA, several
statistical tests are used to determine how well the model fits to the data. A
good fit between the model and the data does not mean that the model is
“correct”, or even that it explains a large proportion of the covariance. A
“good model fit” is the indication that the model is plausible.
2.7.10 Absolute Fit Indices
Absolute fit indices determine how well the a priori model fits, or
reproduces the data. Absolute fit indices include, but are not limited to, the
Chi-Square test, RMSEA, GFI, AGFI, RMR, and SRMR.
2.7.11 Likelihood Ratio Chi-square Statistic (p):
The chi-squared test indicates the difference between observed and

expected covariance matrices. Values closer to zero indicate a better fit,
smaller difference between expected and observed covariance matrices. The
level of acceptable fit is usually p value greater than 0.05 or 0.01. Chi-
squared statistics is used to directly compare the fit of nested models to the
data. Since there is a possibility of Type I error and Type II error, other
measures of fit are also applied in the testing.

2.7.12 Root mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA and

Root Mean Square Residual
The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) avoids

issues of sample size by analyzing the discrepancy between the
hypothesized model, with optimally chosen parameter estimates, and the
population covariance matrix. The RMSEA ranges from 0 to 1, with smaller
values indicating better model fit. A value of .06 or less is indicative of
acceptable model fit.
The root mean square residual (RMR) and standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR) are the square root of the discrepancy between the
sample covariance matrix and the model covariance matrix. The RMR may
be somewhat difficult to interpret, however, as its range is based on the
scales of the indicators in the model. The SRMR removes this difficulty in
interpretation and ranges from 0 to 1 with a value of .08 or less being
indicative of an acceptable model.
2.7.13 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) and Adjusted Goodness of Fit

Index (AGFI)
The goodness of fit index (GFI) is a measure of fit between the

hypothesized model and the observed covariance matrix. The adjusted
goodness of fit index (AGFI) corrects the GFI, which is affected by the
number of indicators of each latent variable. The GFI and AGFI range
between 0 and 1 with a cut off value of .9 generally indicating acceptable
model fit.
2.7.14 Incremental Fit Measures
Relative fit indices, which are also called “incremental fit indices”
and “comparative fit indices”, compare the chi-square for the hypothesized
Chapter 2
model to one from a “null”, or “baseline” model. This null model usually
contains a model in which all of the variables are uncorrelated, and as a
result, has a very large chi-square (indicating poor fit). Relative fit indices
include the normed fit index and comparative fit index. The comparative fit
index (CFI) analyzes the model fit by examining the discrepancy between
the data and the hypothesized model while adjusting for the issues of sample
size inherent in the chi-squared test of model fit and the normed fit index.
CFI values range from 0 to 1 and a CFI value of .9 or more is considered to
indicate acceptable model fit.
2.7.15 Normal fit Index (NFI):
The normed fit index (NFI) analyzes the discrepancy between the
chi-squared value of the hypothesized model and the chi-squared value of
the null model. However, this NFI was found to be very susceptible to
sample size. A recommended value of NFI is 0.9 or greater. The value
closure to 1.0 indicates perfect fit.
2.7.16 Tuker-Lewis Index (TLI):
The non-normed fit index (NNFI) also known as the Tucker-Lewis

index (TLI). It was built on an index formed by Tucker and Lewis in 1973
to resolve some of the issues of sample size. Values for both the NFI and
NNFI should range between 0 and 1, with a cut-off of .95 or greater
indicating a good model fit.
2.7.17 Parsimonious Fit Measures
Considering the above values, a conclusion was reached about the

final model of each factor and their relationships. Correlation was then used
to explore the relationships among the factors of independent and
moderating variables. Multiple regressions were used to explore the
relationship between independent and moderating factors. SEMs with latent
variables are used to analyse relationships among variables. The reasons for
the widespread use of these models are their parsimony (they belong to the
family of linear models), their ability to model complex systems (where
simultaneous and reciprocal relationships may be present such as the
relationship between quality and satisfaction), and their ability to model
relationships among non-observable variables while taking in to account
measurement errors. Recommended fit indices for CFA are p >0.05,
Normed χ2 <3, GFI >0.90, AGFI >0.90, NFI >0.90, TLI >0.90, CFI >0.90,
RMR<1, RMSEA<0.05.
Based on the literature review, an analysis of the performance of

CIAL seems to be the apt starting block for the present study. Accordingly,
next chapter presents a study on the performance of CIAL.
…………

Performance of Cochin International Airport
CIAL is the first PPP model airport in India and the performance of
this airport had inspired the authorities to approve the PPP model in
constructing new airports. Due to the peculiarities associated with CIAL, a
study about the origin, structure and financial performance (present and
future) of CIAL is conducted in this chapter.
3.1 CIAL - Genesis

The historic city of Cochin is the commercial hub of the state of
Kerala and one of the fastest growing tier II metro cities in India. The
aviation history of Cochin began with an airstrip on the Willington Island,
built in 1936, intended for transporting officials engaged in the
modernisation of Cochin Port. During World War II, the Royal Indian Navy
chose Cochin as their headquarters in Southern India and the airstrip was
converted as an air station-cum-landing craft and seaplane base. After
Independence, the Indian Navy operated the airport and permitted civilian
aircrafts to use the facility. The airport with a runway length of 4500 ft. was

Chapter 3
inadequate to provide facilities for big aircrafts and had development

constraints because of technical and geographical reasons.
The Gulf boom of the eighties generated a large demand for

international air travel as more and more people from the state of Kerala
expatriated to the gulf countries looking out for better prospects. Since the
facilities at the two airports at Trivandrum and Calicut were not sufficient to
meet the needs of the people of Kerala, they depended on the international
airport at Mumbai for their foreign travel. Exploitation by the travel agents
and the visa agents were a regular phenomena during that period. In the year
1990, demand for expansion of the Cochin airport, to accommodate large
aircrafts to facilitate direct flights to the middle-east, was turned down by
the navy on security reasons.
A survey conducted by AAI in June 1993 revealed that one in every

nine passengers passing through Bombay international airport had their
origin or destination at Kerala. With the growing demand for a new airport,
the state government decided to construct a new airport at Cochin and to
phase out the existing airport. With the Airports Authority of India, which
owns and operates all civil airports in India, expressing its inability to invest
huge resources required for setting up a new airport, the stage was set for
the first Greenfield airport in the country. On March 30, 1994, a new public
limited company, Cochin International Airport Limited, with an authorised
capital of 900 million rupees was incorporated. The new company, with
equity participation from government of Kerala and the public, has become
a model outside the ambit of the Government of India. On 25 May 1999 the
President of India inaugurated the new airport at Nedumbassery 28
kilometres north east of the city of Cochin. In May 2000 the airport
achieved international status. The first aircraft by Air India commenced its
Performance of Cochin International Airport Limited
international operation on 10th June 1999 to Damam. The Air India Jumbo
Jet Boeing 747 touched down for the first time in Kerala on 21 st June 1999.
Domestic flight started on 1st July 1999.
Cochin is strategically located in the international air map with three

major international air routes intersecting near Cochin. All three national
highways passing through Kerala (NH 47, NH 17 and NH 49) are easily
accessible from the airport. The airport is between Alwaye and Angamaly
railway stations in the main railway line from Kanyakumari to Delhi. One of
the biggest seaports in the country, the Cochin Port and the largest container
transhipment terminal in India, the Vallarpadam Container terminal, are in
the close vicinity of the airport. The airport is 28 kilometres from Ernakulam
junction railway station. The aerodrome elevation is 30 ft and the aerodrome
reference points are LAT. 10 09 08 N and LONG. 76 24 25.3 E. Calicut and
Coimbatore airports are 170 kms. away and Thiruvananthapuram airport is 235
kms away. The airport is just 30 kms from Sea Port, 15 kms from Cochin
Economic Zone and 10 Kms from the Industrial and Commercial capital of
Kerala. The Tirupur –Coimbatore cargo hub, which is a key cargo market
for south India is only 225 kms from this airport.
3.2 CIAL - Structure and Scope

The authorised capital of CIAL as on 31.03.2012 is Rs.4000 million
and paid up value is Rs.3060.6million. The shares are subscribed by the
Government of Kerala, NRIs, industrialists, financial institutions, airport
service providers and over 10,000 investors from 29 countries. The
company issued only one class of equity shares having a par value of Rs.10
per share. For the last nine years since 2003-04 the company is regularly
paying dividend to the shareholders. The Government of Kerala is the single
largest investor in the project with 32.24% stake. Government Companies
Chapter 3
like Air India, BPCL, AAI and HUDCO holds 11.72% of the shares, foreign
companies like Abu Dhabi based Emke Group, the Oman based Galfar
Group, UAE based Majeed Bukatara Trading together hold 5.24% of the
shares, other Indian companies have 8.29% stake, while Scheduled
commercial banks like Federal Bank, SBT and Canara Bank holds 5.72% of
the shares. Individual investors from 29 countries subscribed the remaining
36.78% of shares. Presently it is one of the most profitable airports in the
country. Estimated original cost of the airport was at Rs.100crores (US$18.2
million) which expected to commence operation in 1997. The airport had
45,000 m2 (480,000 sq ft) of floor space at the time of its inauguration in
1999. The company is operating a composite airport with facilities for cargo
movement and duty free shop. As per the original plan, CIAL envisioned six
phases of expansion over a period of 20 years. The main aim of CIAL is to
position itself as a pioneer in aviation infrastructure and generate sustainable
& profitable revenue streams by establishing a strategic hub in Southern
India. The original cost of the fixed assets of the company as on 31.03.2012
was Rs.574.13 crores. The details of which is given in table 3.1
Table 3.1 Fixed Assets as on 31.03.2012
Description COST (Rupees )
Land 1242118533
Buildings And Civil Works 1351062931
Golf Course Development 133383963
Runway Roads And Culverts 1769701014
Plant And Machinery 1142013743
Office Equipment 6060483
Computer And Accessories 28785858
Furniture And Fixtures 40121250
Vehicles 28012534
574,12,60,309
Source: CIAL Annual Report 2011-12

COMPUTER AND ACCESSORIES, 0.5% FURNITURES AND FIXTURES, 0.7%

OFFICE
EQUIPMENT, 0.1% VEHICLES, 0.5%
PLANT AND MACHINERY, 19.9
%
LAND , 21.6%
RUNWAY ROADS AND CULVERTS, 30.8% BUILDINGS AND CIVIL

WORKS, 23.5%
GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT, 2.3%
Fig.3.1 Percentage of individual asset items in the total fixed assets.
3.2.1 Organizational setup
The management of the company comprises of a Board of Directors

having eleven members with the Chief Minister of Kerala as the ex-officio
Chairman. Under Article 125(1) of the Articles of Association of the
Company, the Government of Kerala has the powers to appoint the
managing director, which need to be approved by the Board of Directors.
Three executive directors, who manage the finance, operations and
engineering divisions, report to the managing director. The head of cargo
operations also reports directly to the Managing Director. Organizational
structure of the top management of CIAL is given in fig.3.2

Chapter 3
Fig. 3.2 Hierarchy of top management of CIAL
Fig.3.2 shows hierarchy of the top management and there are senior
managers under each executive director with various managers reporting to
them. Next in the line are assistant managers and other lower level
employees. As per the annual report for the year 2011-12, the employee
strength of CIAL is around 515. As the power to appoint the managing
director rests with the Government of Kerala, most of the time the person
appointed to the post are senior officers in the Indian Administrative Service
(IAS). The current Managing Director is also the Principal Secretary to the
Government of Kerala.
3.2.2 Scope of CIAL
The purpose behind the formation of CIAL was to construct, own,

operate and maintain an airport of international standards at Cochin. The
share holding pattern of CIAL permits the company to extend its area of
operation outside the airport operations. In this part, a brief description of the
initiatives of CIAL other than airport operation is given. The major
initiatives worth mentioning are the Golf course and country club,
Convention Centre, CIAL

Academy, Air Kerala International, CIAL Infrastructures, CIAL Air
Services Limited (CIASL), and CIAL charitable trust.
a) Golf course and country club
The CIAL Golf & Country Club (CGCC) designed over an area of
130 acres of land is owned and operated by the CIAL. CGCC is designed to
play to a length of over 7400 yards and is the only 18 holes course now in
Kerala, with Bermuda Tifdwarf on the greens and Bermuda 419 on the tees
and fairways. CGCC is an eco friendly all weather championship course.
Five large lakes covering sixty seven thousand square meters adorn the
landscape providing exciting challenges to golfers.
b) CIAL Trade Fair and Exhibition Centre
The CIAL Trade Fair and Exhibition centre having a total built up
area of 43400 sq.ft. is the largest air conditioned facility of its kind in
Kerala. Located strategically near to CIAL, this fully air conditioned facility
which is suitable for hosting trade expos, major business meets,
conferences, marriages and other social events. It has a parking space for
about 350 cars constructed as part of the land utilization plan to unlock the
value of land available for commercial deployment. The main hall (without
pillars) has an area of 29,000 sq ft which can accommodate 100 stalls of
standard dimensions in addition to two meeting halls with seating capacity
of 130 and 200 persons respectively.
c) CIAL Academy
CIAL Academy is another initiative of Cochin International Airport

Ltd in collaboration with Indira Gandhi National Open University. Young
and energetic aspirants in the aviation industry are exposed to international

Chapter 3
facilities, faculties and industrial experts to mentor and mould them
effectively for professional excellence. Participants are imparted with hands
on experience in the aviation sector and there are no other institutions
capable of providing such facilities. Vision of CIAL Academy is to develop
and emerge as a Centre of Excellence for aviation industry and offer career
oriented learning experience to aspirants in the country. The academy offers
MBA in Aviation Business Management, Fire and Safety Management,
Airport Operations Management, Air Cargo Management, Security
Management, Airport Ramp Handling, Rescue and Fire fighting, HR
management, Marketing, Finance and Operations Management.
d) Air Kerala International
The Cochin International Airport Limited had launched a fully

owned subsidiary, Air Kerala International Services Ltd, in 2006, to start
international flight operations. As per the norms prescribed by the Ministry
of Civil Aviation, an airline can launch international flights only if it had
operated domestic flights for five years with a minimum fleet of 20 aircrafts.
Since it would not be economically feasible to operate domestic service
alone for five years, the company has not commenced commercial activities.
e) CIAL Infrastructures
As part of diversification strategy, CIAL has incorporated a new

subsidiary company CIAL Infrastructures Limited with an authorised capital
of Rs.50 crores with objective of venturing into infrastructure development
and generation of power from non conventional sources of energy like solar
power, wind energy and also development of mini hydel stations.

f) CIAL Air Services Limited (CIASL)
Aviation sector in India had witnessed unprecedented growth with

the advent of numerous low cost airlines and due to tremendous increase in
air travel. This has created a demand for third party maintenance services
and trained personnel to support this business. The low cost airlines because
of their business model are not in a position to invest in aircraft maintenance
and training facilities in India. India’s emergence as a low cost service
centre creates an opportunity for third party maintenance of aircrafts in the
Asia-Pacific region. CIASL, which is a subsidiary of CIAL has
commissioned a 1,35,000 sq ft (12,500 m2) maintenance, repair and
overhaul (MRO) facility on 32 acres (130,000 m2), at an initial cost of
rupees 80 crores (US$15 million). The first phase includes hangars for two
narrow-body aircraft with facilities for a line maintenance run up bay,
workshops, aircraft parking and a taxiway link. In the second phase an
additional two narrow-body hangars and two wide-body hangars, more
parking bays and workshops are proposed. CIASL is in the final stages of
negotiations with Romania-based Aerostar for sophisticated technology tie-
up for aircraft maintenance and repair facility. The company has obtained
approvals from Director General of Civil Aviation for undertaking line
maintenance services up to a check on Airbus A320 aircraft fitted with
VT2500 engines, General Civil Aviation Authority, UAE, Srilankan Civil
Aviation Authority, Qatar Civil Aviation Authority and Civil Aviation
Authority of Singapore. Also the company is expecting approval from the
European Aviation Safety Agency. The company has also set up a line
maintenance facility to undertake transit checks to aircraft operating at
Trivandrum airport.

Chapter 3
g) CIAL Charitable Trust
As part of the company’s corporate social responsibility initiatives, a

charitable trust was constituted and the company is transferring 0.5% of the
profit before tax to the trust for this purpose.
3.3 CIAL - Performance Highlights

Up to the year 1999, ownership of the airports in India was with the
Airport Authority of India (AAI). When Cochin International Airport started
functioning in 1999 the ownership pattern was different from that of the
other airports. CIAL, which is a public limited company, with an investor
base varying from the state government to individuals owned the new
airport. Since the company is of a public private participatory (PPP) model,
profitability of the company is an important performance indicator.
In order to analyse the performance of the company, the researcher

identified few key performance indicators (KPI) and key performance areas
(KPA). Key performance indicators included various financial parameters
such as profit, earnings per share, foreign exchange earnings, traffic revenue
and non-traffic revenue of the company since its inception. Key
performance areas (KPA) included various operational areas such as aircraft
movement, passenger traffic, freight traffic and duty free shop operations.
3.3.1 Key Performance Indicators of the Company
Annual rate of growth of operating profit of the company since the

date of commencement of commercial operations is given in table 3.2

Table 3.2 Annual rate of growth of operating profit of CIAL
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
YEAR
INCOME 3058 4406 7552 8526 10026 11067 11187 13821 17306 21163 24559 27594
OPERATING EXPENSES 873 994 2186 2385 3343 4593 4776 6841 8736 9951 10715 12071
OPERATING PROFIT 2185 3413 5366 6141 6684 6474 6411 6980 8570 11212 13844 15523
RATE OF GROWTH % - 56 57 14 9 -3 -1 9 23 31 23 12
Source: Annual reports of CIAL from 2000-01 to 2011-12
Table 3.2 shows that the company generated operating profit since
the date of commencement of operations. The operating profit is before
interest payments and depreciation. It can be seen from table 3.2 that during
the years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the operating surplus declined slightly and
thereafter it had recovered considerably.
60 56 57
50
40
30
20 31
10 23 23
0
14 12
10 9 9
-1
-3
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-
-
Fig. 3.3 Rate of growth of operating profit

Table 3.3 CAGR of Income, Operating Expenses and Operating Profit
CAGR
Base Year 2000-01 2006-07 2000-01
End Year 2005-06 2011-12 2011-12
TOTAL INCOME 29.3% 19.8% 22.1%
OPERATING EXPENSES 39.4% 20.4% 27.0%
OPERATING PROFIT 24.3% 19.3% 19.5%
Source: Research

Chapter 3
CAGR of total income, operating expenses and operating profit are
calculated separately for five-year periods with 2000-01 and 2006-07 as
base years and for the entire eleven-year period. CAGR of total income for
the first five years is 29.3% and for the next five years is 19.8% and for the
entire eleven years, the rate is 22.1%. Similarly, the CAGR of operating
expenses are 39.4%, 20.4% and 27% respectively. For operating/gross
profit, the CAGR up to 2005-06 is 24.3% and for the next five years from
2006-07 to 2011-12 is 19.3%. CAGR of operating profit for the entire
eleven-year period taking 2000-01 as base year is 19.5%. One reason for the
substantial variation in the CAGR of the three parameters for the two
periods is that for the first five-year period, the figures for the base year was
very low since it was the initial period of the airport after commencing
operations. For the second five-year period, the base year figures were high
compared to the first period and hence the CAGR was on a lower side
compared to the first five-year period. During the period between 2004-05
and 2006-07, the income of the company was almost stagnant while the
operating profit of the company dwindled. The company undertook
expansion programmes during these period and the details of expansion and
its impact are given in table 3.4. These investments had helped the company
to tide over the turmoil in the aviation industry due to the Euro zone crisis
and global slowdown.
Table 3.4 Addition of fixed assets and growth in aircraft movement and passenger traffic
Addition of Fixed Aircraft movement growth Passenger traffic growth
Year Assets during the year rate (%) rate (%)
(Rs. in lakhs) International Domestic International Domestic
2005-06 4118.37 10.85 15 14.76 24.00
2006-07 975.15 23.8 73 23.77 54.70
2007-08 2024.87 15 38 23.89 38.49
Source: Research

Table 3.4 shows that with the infusion of additional capital into the
system by way of fixed assets there was a sharp climb in the growth rates of
passenger traffic and aircraft movement. Within very few years of
commencement of operations the company could pay dividend to the
investors. During the last four years the dividend paid to the share holders of
the company had increased progressively. The details of the profit before
tax (PBT), profit after tax (PAT), and dividend declared and paid and
earnings per share are given in table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Return on Investment for the last 8 years

2011-
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 12
Profit Before Tax (PBT) 3604.50 4802.68 3880.37 4439.75 5123.30 6893.10 9660.81 11620.89 13443.4
TAX 1492.94 1923.44 701.91 720.75 442.00 958.80 1909.11 2611.00 3240
Profit After Tax (PAT) 2111.56 2879.24 3178.46 3719.00 4681.30 5934.30 7751.70 9009.89 10203.4
Dividend Proposed 1172.99 1482.40 1488.63 1763.69 2368.50 2960.60 3553.00 4440.00 4737
Dividend Paid
8% 10% 10% 8% 8% 10% 12% 15% 16%
(On Paid Up Value)
Earnings Per Share (EPS) 1.44 1.94 2.14 1.69 1.58 2.00 2.62 3.04 3.45
Table 3.5 shows that the PBT and PAT over the years are growing
steadily. The company started distributing dividend based on the
performance during the year 2003-04. Since then the company is paying
dividend uninterruptedly. The earnings per share (EPS) also show consistent
growth. The company paid a dividend of 16% for the year 2011-12, which is
the highest in its history. The earnings considered in ascertaining the
company’s earnings per share comprise of the net profit after tax.
Chapter 3
18%
16% DIVIDEND PAID
14%
12%
10%
DIVIDEND
8% 16%
6% 15%
12%
4% 10% 10% 10%
2% 8% 8%8%
0%
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

YEAR
Fig. 3.4 Dividend paid during the last 9 years

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
E
0.5
0
1.44 1.94 2.14 1.69 1.58 2 2.62 3.04 3.45
2003-042004-052005-062006-072007-082008-092009-102010-112011-12
Fig. 3.5 Earnings Per Share (EPS)
The foreign exchange earnings of the company during the last 12
years are showing remarkable improvement and the outgoings controlled
efficiently. The transactions in foreign currency are accounted at the
exchange rates prevailing on the date of the transaction. Monetary assets
and liabilities denominated in foreign currency are converted into the
exchange rate prevailing on the last date of accounting year and the resultant
exchange rate difference, if any, are adjusted in the profit and loss account.
Table 3.6 shows the details of the foreign exchange transactions for the last
eleven years.
Table 3.6 Foreign Exchange earnings and outgoing from 2001-02 to 2011-12
Source: Annual reports of CIAL from 2001-02 to 2011-
Chapter 3
Table 3.6 shows that the non-traffic revenue constitute major portion
of the foreign exchange earnings of the company. Sales revenue from the
duty free shops in the airport contributed 80% of total foreign exchange
earnings while import of duty free goods constituted 95% of foreign
exchange outgoings during 2011-12. Royalty from ground handling
constituted 19% of the foreign exchange earnings. Table 3.7 gives the
details of rate of growth of sales revenue in foreign exchange from the duty
free shops during the last 9 years.
Table 3.7 Rate of growth in sales revenue in foreign exchange from duty free shops
Year 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Growth
rate % 58 70 44 43 8 68 7 1 44
Table 3.7 shows that except in three years, 2007-08, 2009-10 and
2010-11, the sales revenue from duty free shops in foreign exchange grew at
a brisk rate in the initial periods but slumped in the middle years and during
2011-12, the revenue grew by 44 percent.
11093
6859
earnings outgoings
8209
4087 7890
372750
266028
1825
569 898 575870
463503426578
406642
Fig. 3.6 Foreign Exchange earnings and outgoings (Rs. in thousands)
326388
230390192599
In order to have 135947
an idea about the financial health of the company,
23702 82555
133
consolidated statement of the profit and loss account of the company for the
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
first 12 years of operation is prepared. The data are presented in table 3.8.
Table 3.8 Consolidated Profit & Loss Account For 12 Years from 2000-01 to 2011-
Source: Annual reports of CIAL from 2000-01 to 2011-

Chapter 3
Table 3.8 shows that since 2002-03, the company is making steady
progress and the surplus in the profit and loss account is showing an
increasing trend. The company started paying dividend from the year 2003-
04 and wiped out the initial losses by the year 2006-07. Further the surplus
in the profit and loss account transferred to the balance sheet is showing an
increasing trend. Based on the figures reported in table 3.8, the relationship
of various components of the profit and loss account with the total income
of the company is calculated and is presented in Table 3.9. The figures in
Table 3.9 show the share of each component in the total income. CAGR of
PAT for the 11-year period is 19.1%.
Table 3.9 Ratios of various components of P&L account with Total Income (in %)
Year OE/TI OET/TI PAT/TI PSF/TI LF/TI IC/TI DFI/TI
2000-01 28.55 161.87 -90.42 3.85 28.99 1.87
2001-02 22.56 120.34 -42.90 7.25 26.36 4.78
2002-03 28.95 20.14 50.91 5.16 19.62 3.87
2003-04 27.97 47.26 24.77 5.86 22.77 4.58 10.5
2004-05 33.34 37.94 28.72 5.96 19.77 5.91 15.2
2005-06 41.50 29.77 28.73 6.34 18.05 6.63 20.6
2006-07 42.69 24.06 33.24 8.56 22.80 6.30 29.1
2007-08 49.50 16.63 33.88 8.75 22.93 6.40 30.2
2008-09 50.48 15.23 34.29 7.23 18.80 6.37 36.8
2009-10 47.02 16.35 36.63 6.83 15.40 6.39 33.2
2010-11 43.63 19.69 36.68 6.52 14.40 5.42 29.9
2011-12 43.75 19.28 36.98 6.31 12.95 5.26 33.9
OE - Operating Expenses, OET - Other Expenses including Tax, PAT - Profit after Tax,
PSF - Passenger Service Fee, LF - Landing Fee, IC - Income from Cargo Operations,
DFI-Duty Free Shop Income, TI - Total Income.

Fig. 3.7. Relationship between Total Income (TI), Operating Expenses (OE) and Other Expenses
150. including Tax (OET)
00 To find out the growth percentage of the various parameters, further
135.
analysis
00 of the individual heads of income are done and the result is given in
table
120. 3.9. All figures given in table 3.10 represent the year-over-year growth
00
rate of various components in the P&L account. Negative sign indicates that
105.
the 00performance of the company on that head during the year is less than
that
90.0of the previous year.
0
75.0
0
60.0
0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 201
45.0
0
30.0
0
15.0
0 OE/TI OET/TI PAT/TI

Chapter 3
Table 3.10 Year-over-Year growth percentage of various components of Profit and Loss
Source: Research

A glance through table 3.10 reveals the fact that the initial surge in
the growth of total income lost its momentum during the middle years and
again the further growth is showing a declining trend. The main reason for
this trend may be that the volume had increased substantially and with the
existing infrastructural facilities it is not practical to maintain the same
growth percentage. Once the next phase of expansion is completed, there
might be a complete turnaround in the trend. Except in four years, the
percentage growth of the operating expenses is less than that of the total
income.
12000
PROFIT AFTER TAX (PAT) 10203
9010
1000 Fig.3.8 Profit after Tax (PAT) 7752
0
A detailed breakup of the operating income,5934 a major head in the
8000
profit and loss account will help to know more about 4681 the performance of the
3845 3719
6000
company in the operating front. 2879 3178
Passenger Service Fees (PSF) collected
2112
from
4000 embarking passengers includes a component towards security
expenses
2000 and the balance towards passenger facilitation charges. In
accordance
0
with the guidelines issued
2- 020706-041200-11-08289 2002-03
by the
2003-04
Ministry
2004-05
of Civil
2005-062006-07
Aviation,
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-112011-12
share of PSF relating to passenger facilitation is recognised as income and
-2000
the amount representing security component is kept apart as liability for
meeting security related expenses. In addition to the traffic and non- traffic
revenue, the company is deriving income by way of interest on deposits held
with the banks. Balance sheets of the immediate past twelve years were
analysed and the data so obtained are given in table 3.11.

8 Table 3.11 Breakup of operating income for previous 12 years (Rs. in lakhs)
Chapter 3
A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’

Table 3.11 reveals that the traffic revenue contributed only 21
percentage of the total income of the airport. This is in line with the global
trend of giving stress to non-aeronautical income by the airports. Sales
revenue from the duty free shops, rent & services and royalty together
contributed 53 percent of the total income. Landing fee collected during the
last 12 years from the aircrafts is 18% of the total income. Income from
cargo operations constituted 6% of the total income. Total income from all
sources of the airport for the last 12 years is Rs.1587.52 crore out of which
the operating income is Rs.1089.90 crore. Two pie charts representing the
breakup of total income for the year 2011-12 and the 12 year period from
2000-01 to 2011-12 are given in fig.3.9 and fig.3.10.
OTHER INCOME 4% Landing Fee 18%

DUTY FREE SHOP SALES
27% Parking & Housing Fee
0.3%
TNLCharges 2%
Aerobridge Charges
0.5%
User's Fee 6%
Passenger Service Fee

Security Charges 7%
X-ray i n spection
1.4%
charges 0.7%
Public Admission Fees
0.9%
Royalty 17% Commercial pass Income from Cargo Rent & services 9%
0.05% Operations 6%
coach parking Golf Course and
charges Facilities
0.01% 0.2%
Fig. 3.9 Breakup of total income for the last 12 years

Chapter 3
Public Admission F Aerobridge and

Charges Income from
FacilitiesX-ray Golf Course
inspection charges 1%0%
ees 1%
Security Charges 4% 1% Parking & Housing Fee 0%
Income from Cargo Operations
5%
OTHER INCOME 6%
Passenger Service Fee 6%
DUTY FREE SHOP SALES 34%
Rent & services 12%
Landing Fee 13%

Royalty 17%
Fig.3.10 Breakup of total income for the year 2011-12
A comparison of the historical data with the previous year figures is

done to find out whether the trend obtained from the historical data is
applicable to the current years’ performance. Table 3.12 is the comparison
of share of individual items in the total income for the twelve-year period
with that for the year 2011-12 and the variation.
On a comparison of the share of individual heads of income in the

total income for the 12 year period from 2000-01 to 2011-12 with that for
the year 2011-12 shows that the share of landing fee in the total income has
come down to 12.95% from an average of 18.14% for the 12 year period.
Users’ fee is not collected since 2006-07 and hence the same is not reflected
in the figures for 2011-12. Major increases in the year 2011-12 compared to
the average for the 12-year period are noted in the income from sale at duty
free shops and rents & royalty.

Table 3.12 Comparison of share of individual heads of income in total income during the year
2011-12 and for the 12 year period from 2000-01 to 2011-12.
% OF TOTAL INCOME
Variation
With The
During 2011-12 For The Last 12 Years consolidated
Figure (%)
Landing Fee 12.95 18.14 -5.19
Parking & Housing Fee 0.25 0.26 -0.01
Terminal Navigational Landing Charges 0.00 1.86 -1.86
Aerobridge Charges 0.90 0.51 0.39
User's Fee 0.00 5.87 -5.87
Passenger Service Fee 6.31 6.82 -0.51
X-ray inspection charges 0.29 0.71 -0.42
Public Admission Fees 0.91 0.94 -0.03
Rent & services 12.29 9.41 2.88
Income from Cargo Operations 5.26 5.73 -0.47
Income from Golf Course and Facilities 0.80 0.25 0.55
Commercial pass for Travel agents 0.00 0.05 -0.05
Courtesy coach parking charges 0.00 0.01 -0.01
Royalty 16.82 16.71 0.11
Security Charges 3.44 1.40 2.04
Duty Free Shop Sales 33.93 26.94 6.99
Other Income 5.85 4.40 1.45
3.3.2 Key Performance Areas of CIAL
From table 2.10, the key performance areas (KPA) of CIAL are
identified as landing fee, aircraft movement, passenger service fee,
passenger movement, income from cargo operations, cargo movement and
income from duty free shop sales.

Chapter 3
3.3.2a Aircraft movements through CIAL
The runway at CIAL is one of the longest runways in India which

can handle all types of aircrafts. Table 3.13 shows the list of aircrafts
handled at CIAL.
Table 3.13 List of aircrafts handled at CIAL

Sl. No Type of aircraft
1. Boeing 747
2. Airbus 300
3. Embraer
4. B-777
5. B-737
6. A-310
7. A-319
8. A-320
9. A-321
10. ATR-42
11. ATR-72
12. B-744
13. Q-400
Source: www.cial-aero.org
It is evident from table 3.13 that the airport is handling all types of
major aircrafts due to its runway capacity. The international traffic is
increasing and the airport is attracting more aircrafts every year. Details of
the operating airlines at CIAL along with the weekly frequencies of the
flights are given in table 3.14.

Table 3.14 Operating airlines from CIAL and the weekly frequency of Performance of Cochin International Airport Limited
Source: www.cial-

Chapter 3
During 2011-12, more than 20 airlines operated from CIAL. Total
aircraft movements per week at CIAL was around 858. Within a short span
the airport could connect to more destinations than its counterparts in the
state of Kerala. The 29 destinations connected to CIAL are given in table
3.15
Table 3.15 Destination of the aircrafts operated from CIAL

1 Abudhabi 11 Dammam 21 Mumbai
2 Agatti 12 Delhi 22 Muscat
3 Ahmadabad 13 Doha 23 Nagpur
4 Al-Ain 14 Dubai 24 Riyadh
5 Baharin 15 Goa 25 Salalah
6 Bangalore 16 Hyderabad 26 Sharjah
7 Calicut 17 Jeddah 27 Singapore
8 Chennai 18 Kolkata 28 Trivandrum
9 Coimbatore 19 Kuala Lumpur 29 Vishakapattanam
10 Colombo 20 Kuwait
Source: www.cial-aero.org
Table 3.16 gives the sector wise breakup of total aircraft movement
through CIAL for the last 12 years. Though the airport was inaugurated in
1999, it got the international status in 2000 only. Hence only the data from
2000-01 to 2011-12 are given in table 3.16

Table 3.16 Details of aircraft movement through CIAL during the last 12 years from 2000-01
to 2011-12
Year International Domestic Total
2000-01 2454 7847 10301
2001-02 4308 7170 11478
2002-03 6280 6814 13094
2003-04 8591 7567 16158
2004-05 10323 8288 18611
2005-06 11444 9531 20975
2006-07 14172 16501 30673
2007-08 16335 22833 39168
2008-09 19047 22125 41172
2009-10 18068 23476 41544
2010-11 18465 22615 41080
2011-12 18324 22817 41141
CAGR 20.1% 10.2% 13.4%
Source: CIAL annual reports from 2000-01 to 2011-12
The uncertainty and turmoil of the Euro zone along with the
volatility of crude oil prices affected the aviation industry adversely and
many airline companies undertook cost-cutting measures like route
rationalization and withdrawal from several routes. The turmoil in the
international aviation industry affected the performance of CIAL in the
international sector as seen from table 3.16. CAGR of international,
domestic and total aircraft movements are 20.1%, 10.2% and 13.4%
respectively. Table 3.17 presents the details of year-wise growth rate of
aircraft movement through CIAL. The figures represent the percentage
growth over the previous year.

Chapter 3
Table 3.17 Year-wise growth rate (percentage) of aircraft movement through CIAL from
2000-01 to 2011-12
International Domestic Total
Growth Over Previous Growth Over Previous Growth Over Previous
YEAR Year (%) Year (%) Year (%)
2000-01
2001-02 75.55 -8.63 11.43
2002-03 45.78 -4.97 14.08
2003-04 36.80 11.05 23.40
2004-05 20.16 9.53 15.18
2005-06 10.86 15.00 12.70
2006-07 23.84 73.13 46.24
2007-08 15.26 38.37 27.70
2008-09 16.60 -3.10 5.12
2009-10 -5.14 6.11 0.90
2010-11 2.20 -3.67 -1.12
2011-12 -0.76 0.89 0.15
From table 3.17 it can be seen that the growth rate peaked during the
year 2006-07 and thereafter the rate started to climb down ultimately
showing negative growth during the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Fig.3.11
clearly displays the variation in the annual growth rates.
TOTAL Growth over previous year
46.24 DOMESTIC Growth over previous year

GROWTH RATE in
INTERNATIONAL Growth over previous year

11.43 23.40 27.70
14.08 15.18 12.70
5.12
0.90 -1.12 0.15
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
YEAR
Fig.3.11 Variation in annual growth rates of aircraft movements

Though the growth of total aircraft movement turned out to be
negative during 2010-11, the landing fee received by CIAL is showing a
growth during the same period.
Table 3.18 Landing fee received and total aircraft movements during the period from 2000-
01 to 2011-12
TOTAL
YEAR AIRCRAFT GROWTH RATE (YoY) LANDING FEE GROWTH RATE (YoY)
MOVEMENTS
2000-01 10301 88640757
2001-02 11478 11.43 116132209 31.01
2002-03 13094 14.08 148154219 27.57
2003-04 16158 23.40 194169505 31.06
2004-05 18611 15.18 198261728 2.11
2005-06 20975 12.70 199706796 0.73
2006-07 30673 46.24 255042942 27.71
2007-08 39168 27.70 316896294 24.25
2008-09 41172 5.12 325406408 2.69
2009-10 41544 0.90 325993528 0.18
2010-11 41080 -1.12 353648358 8.48
2011-12 41141 0.15 357468027 1.08
TOTAL 325395 2879520771
CAGR 13.4% 13.5%
The growth rate for the year 2011-12 has come down alarmingly to a
meagre 1.08 percent after touching the bottom line of 0.18 during 2009-10.

Chapter 3
46.24
31.01 31.06
27.57 27.71 27.7
23.4 24.25 GROWTH RATE AIRCRAFT
GROWTH RATE LANDING FEE
14.08 15.18
11.43 12.7
8.48
5.12
2.11 0.73 2.690.90.18 0.15 1.08
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10-1.12

2010-11 2011-12
Fig.3.12 Growth rate of aircraft movement and landing fee revenue.
Sector-wise performance of CIAL vis-à-vis all India aircraft

movements during the years 20110-11 and 2011-12 are analysed in table 3.19.
Table 3.19 Comparison of sector-wise performance of CIAL with all India aircraft movements
during 2010-11 and 2011-12
ALL INDIA
CIAL ALL INDIA TOTAL ALL INDIA %
Sector RANKING
2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12
International 18465 18324 300197 309286 6.15 5.92 4 4
Domestic 22615 22817 1093565 1235360 2.07 1.85 9 11
Total 41080 41141 1393762 1544646 2.95 2.66 7 7
Source: Compiled from various reports of AAI and CIAL
Table 3.19 shows that even though the ranking in the domestic sector
slipped by two places in the year 2011-12 the airport could manage to
maintain the overall seventh position in the all India ranking for aircraft
movement. CIAL continued to retain the fourth position behind Delhi,
Mumbai and Chennai in respect of international aircraft movement during
the year 2011-12.

3.3.2b Passenger Traffic through CIAL
The turmoil in the euro zone did have its effect on the international
passenger traffic through CIAL. The domestic passenger traffic through the
airport during 2008-09 took a dip while in the international sector it showed
a growth though at a reduced rate. Due to continuous process of
modernisation of the terminal facilities, there was a quantum leap in the
passenger traffic during the relevant periods. The arrival and departure halls
in the international terminal are located on the first floor and equipped to
handle a peak hour capacity of 1200 passengers. There are 23 immigration
counters at the arrival hall. The arrival hall has four conveyor belts with
individual flight indicators to alert passengers on their respective baggage.
There are 27 emigration counters available at departure and 23 immigration
counters at the arrival terminal. Two customs channels are available for
‘arriving’ passengers namely Red and Green. The Green channel is a ‘Walk
through’ channel, through which arriving passengers without dutiable items
can walk through. The Red channel is for clearance of passengers with
dutiable items. The domestic terminal complex has exclusive arrival and
departure areas spread over a floor area of 10,000 sq.mt, with a peak hour
passenger handling capacity of 400 incoming and 400 outgoing. It is fully
integrated with all modern passenger amenities to cater to the domestic
travellers to/from Cochin. Sector wise details of the passenger movement
through CIAL for the last 12 years is given in table 3.20.

Chapter 3
Table 3.20 Passenger movement through CIAL during the last 12 years from 2000-01 to 2011-12
YEAR INTERNATIONAL DOMESTIC TOTAL
2000-01 315000 457000 772000
2001-02 419249 413565 832814
2002-03 590718 419568 1010286
2003-04 861004 471597 1332601
2004-05 1006158 590054 1596212
2005-06 1154717 731661 1886378
2006-07 1429172 1131898 2561070
2007-08 1770612 1567530 3338142
2008-09 2010114 1352687 3362801
2009-10 2232346 1713757 3946103
2010-11 2359937 1985242 4345179
2011-12 2586658 2130992 4717650
CAGR 21.1% 15% 17.9%
Table 3.20 reveals that the highest growth recorded was during 2006-
07 and 2007-08 and this coincides with the completion of the second phase
of expansion of the airport.
5000000 4345179 4717650

4500000
4000000 3946103
3500000 3338142 3362801
3000000
2500000 2561070
2000000
1500000 1886378
1000000 1596212
500000 1332601
772000 832814 1010286
0
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
INTERNATIONALDOMESTICTOTAL
Fig. 3.13 Annual passenger movement trend for the 12 year period from 2000-01 to 2011-12

Passenger Service Fee is collected from the embarking passengers
from the airport. Table 3.21 gives the details of total number of passengers
and passenger service fee collected during the last 12 years from 2000-01 to
2011-12.
Table 3.21 Total number of passengers and passenger service fee collected during the last
12 years from 2000-01 to 2011-12.
Year Total No. of Passengers Passenger Service Fee (PSF)
2000-01 772000 11765904
2001-02 832814 31944944
2002-03 1010286 38968967
2003-04 1332601 49996635
2004-05 1596212 59737782
2005-06 1886378 70148718
2006-07 2561070 95787692
2007-08 3338142 120947721
2008-09 3362801 125135033
2009-10 3946103 144579130
2010-11 4345179 160211742
2011-12 4717650 174086901
TOTAL 29701236 1083311169
CAGR 17.9% 27.8%
Source: Annual reports of CIAL 2000-01 to 2011-12
Data related to the details of embarking and disembarking passengers

through the airport for the last two years is given in Table 3.22
Table 3.22 Details of incoming and outgoing passengers through CIAL during the period from
2010-11 to 2011-12
Year Incoming Passengers Outgoing passengers Total Passengers
2010-11 2146514 2198665 4345179
2011-12 2359188 2358462 4717650
Source: CIAL, archives.

Chapter 3
Table 3.22 shows that out of the 4711068 passengers passed through
CIAL, 2355489 were outgoing during the year 2011-12. The relationship
between the embarking passengers and the PSF revenue is given in table 3.23
Table 3.23 Relationship between PSF and embarking passengers

Year Embarking Passengers PSF collected PSF per embarking passenger
2010-11 2198665 160211742 73
2011-12 2359188 174086901 74
Source: Compiled from annual reports and archives of CIAL
Table 3.23 shows that passenger service fee earned by CIAL during
the last two years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are Rs. 160211742 and
Rs.174086901 respectively.
Table 3.24 Growth rate of sector wise passenger traffic and PSF revenue
International Domestic Passenger service
passengers passengers Total passengers fee (psf)
Annual growth Annual growth rate Annual growth Annual growth
Year %
rate % rate % rate %
2000-01 - - - -
2001-02 33.09 -9.50 7.88 171.50
2002-03 40.90 1.45 21.31 21.99
2003-04 45.76 12.40 31.90 28.30
2004-05 16.86 25.12 19.78 19.48
2005-06 14.76 24.00 18.18 17.43
2006-07 23.77 54.70 35.77 36.55
2007-08 23.89 38.49 30.34 26.27
2008-09 13.53 -13.71 0.74 3.46
2009-10 11.06 26.69 17.35 15.54
2010-11 5.72 15.84 10.11 10.81
2011-12 9.61 7.34 8.57 8.66
Source: Annual reports of CIAL 2000-01 to 2011-12

60
50
35.8
40 31.9 30.3
GROWTH RATE IN
30 19.8
21.3 18.2 17.3
20 10.1
7.9 8.6
10 0.7
0
0
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011
-10 YEAR
INTERNATIONALDOMESTICTOTALPSF
-20
Fig.3.14 Annual growth rate of passenger movement and PSF income
It can be seen from Fig.3.14 that the growth rate of total passenger
movement and the income from passenger service fee are almost similar.
Data related to the city pair wise traffic through CIAL during 2010-11 is
extracted from the report published by Director General of Civil Aviation
and given in Table 3.25.
Table 3.25 City Pair-Wise Scheduled International Passenger Traffic to & from CIAL during 2010-11
Passengers in numbers
Sl. No. CITY PAIRPAX TO INDIA PAX FROM INDIA TOTAL
1. DUBAI-COCHIN 250913 244375 495288
2. SHARJAH-COCHIN 219301 226656 445957
3. DOHA-COCHIN 113564 121214 234778
4. MUSCUT-COCHIN 94350 94184 188534
5. ABUDHABI-COCHIN 86413 96198 182611
6. BAHARAIN-COCHIN 46053 53374 99427
7. RIYADH-COCHIN 40036 42550 82586
8. SINGAPORE-COCHIN 36519 39275 75794
9. KUWAIT-COCHIN 33238 33740 66978
10. KUALALUMPUR-COCHIN 33080 30571 63651
11. JEDDAH-COCHIN 22595 22305 44900
12. DAMMAM-COCHIN 14940 18163 33103
13. SALLAH-COCHIN 8474 8222 16696
14. MALE-COCHIN 0 93 93
999476 1030920 2030396
Source: Extracted from Annual statistics of DGCA, City pair-wise international traffic to
and from India 2010-11.
A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ Perception 101
Chapter 3
Table 3.25 shows that Sharjah, Dubai and Doha are the major paired
cities to/from where more passengers travelled. Fig. 3.15 is the graphical
representation of the city-pair wise passenger traffic data using bar diagram.
Fig.3.15 City pair wise passenger traffic data during 2010-11
6000 495288
00
As445957
shown in table 1.1, CIAL stood at seventh position in overall
5000 TOTAL PASSENGERS
passenger
00 traffic during the year 2011-12. Sector wise performance of CIAL
234778
4000
vis-à-vis 18853182611
all India passenger traffic during the years 2010-11 and 2011-12
00 99427 82586 75794 66978 63651 44900
are given in table 3.26 3310316696
3000 93
00
Table 3.26 Comparison of sector wise performance of CIAL with all India passenger traffic
2000 during 2010-11 and 2011-12
00 CIAL ALL INDIA TOTAL ALL INDIA % ALL INDIA RANKING
SECTOR 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12
1000
International 2358579 2586658 37907547 40796403 6.22 6.34 4 4
00
Domestic 1982146 2130992 105522726 121506718 1.88 1.75 10 11
0
Total 4340725 4717650 143430273 162303121 3.03 2.91 7 7
Source: Compiled from various reports of AAI and CIAL
Table 3.26 shows that even though the ranking in the domestic sector
slipped by one place in the year 2011-12 the airport could manage to
maintain the overall seventh position in the all India ranking for
passenger traffic.
CIAL retained the fourth position behind Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai in
respect of international passenger traffic during the year 2011-12.
3.3.2c Cargo Movement
Though surface transport accounts for the majority of the world’s

freight traffic, air cargo is indispensable for industries that transport
perishables such as seafood or flowers, high value low-weight goods like
consumer electronics or pharmaceuticals and time-critical goods. Supply
chain business partners are today facing huge challenges due to the volatile
nature of global economy. There is a strong demand for right mix of options
and solutions to satisfy the needs of all segments of the business by the
cargo industry. The cargo service centre of CIAL provides the industry with
multitude of choices. Cochin International Airport is striving to stay as one
of the leading international air cargo centres in southern part of India. The
new air cargo centre at CIAL which was commissioned on 1 st December
2000 has implemented the single service provider concept. There are
separate areas dedicated for the storage and handling of domestic (inbound,
outbound including courier) and international cargo including the
transhipment cargo. More than 15 scheduled and non-scheduled carriers
with over 80 aircraft movements daily reach hundreds of cities worldwide.
The cargo village has separate centre for marine products, couriers and
express cargo, valuable and vulnerable cargo. The total area of the cargo
village is 50 acres. The entire International air cargo centre is a customs
bonded area. Details of the cargo movement through CIAL during the 12
year period from 2000-01 to 2011-12 is given in table 3.27
Chapter 3
Table 3.27 Cargo movement during the 12 years from 2000-01to 2011-12
International Domestic
Year Quantity % Of Total Quantity % Of Total Total
2000-01 1532 100 na 0 1532
2001-02 5951 74.8 2000 25.2 7951
2002-03 8664 77.3 2548 22.7 11212
2003-04 13326 78.8 3581 21.2 16907
2004-05 18274 82.2 3965 17.8 22239
2005-06 17666 81.7 3960 18.3 21626
2006-07 17011 77.6 4921 22.4 21932
2007-08 20852 77.0 6218 23.0 27070
2008-09 24389 79.3 6372 20.7 30761
2009-10 35532 85.5 6029 14.5 41561
2010-11 34153 83.1 6938 16.9 41091
2011-12 35541 83.0 7303 17.0 42844
Cumulative Total 232891 81.2 53835 18.8 286726
Table 3.27 shows that international cargo constitutes a major portion
of the total cargo movement through CIAL. Cumulative total for the 12 year
period from 2000-01 to 2011-12 shows that 81.2 percent of total cargo
movement was on the international sector. The trend of annual cargo
movement is shown in fig 3.16. The domestic cargo movement follows a
constant track while international cargo movement has shown more or less
an increasing trend.
415614109142844
30761
27070
222392162621932
16907
11212
7951
1532
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
INTERNATIONALDOMESTICTOTAL
Fig.3.16 Cargo movement trend for the 12 year period from 2000-01 to 2011-12
Relationship between cargo movement and income received from the
cargo operations is given in table 3.28
Table 3.28 Total cargo handled at CIAL and income received from cargo operations during
2000-01 to 2011-12
Total Cargo Income From Cargo Income Per Mt Of
Year Handled Operations Cargo
2000-01 1532 5733345 3742
2001-02 7951 21081228 2651
2002-03 11212 29246657 2609
2003-04 16907 39024260 2308
2004-05 22239 59291214 2666
2005-06 21626 73332627 3391
2006-07 21932 70495424 3214
2007-08 27070 88511782 3270
2008-09 30761 110166168 3581
2009-10 41561 135167470 3252
2010-11 41091 133037849 3238
2011-12 42844 145035070 3385
286726 910123094 3174
Table 3.28 shows that a total cargo of 286726 MT was handled at

CIAL during the twelve year period from 2000-01 to 2011-12 and the
income received from cargo operations during the same period was
Rs.91.01 crore. Table 3.29 gives the details of various charges at CIAL.
There are no fixed rules and policies for freight charges levied by airline
companies. Freight charges are different in different airports, which are
fixed by the airline management. The prevailing freight charge in CIAL for
the products exported to different countries are given in table 3.29
Chapter 3
Table 3.29 Freight charges to various regions for cargo in CIAL
Country Freight per KG
Far East Rs.40
Europe Rs.75
USA Rs.90
Dubai Rs.45
Source: CIAL archives
Cargo movement through CIAL recorded a significant growth since
2000-01. The tonnage of cargo handled by CIAL in the international and
domestic sectors from 2000-01 are analysed in the succeeding sections.
3.3.2c (i) Domestic cargo
CIAL had a separate centre with an area of 10,000 sq. ft for the
handling and storage of the domestic cargo. CIAL is the sole service
provider at this centre, with concerned airlines looking after the customer
services. Separate strong room facilities for the valuable and vulnerable
cargo, including a separate area for handling the dangerous goods are
available at CIAL. Details of the domestic cargo movement through CIAL
from 2002-03 to 2011-12 is given in table 3.30
Table 3.30 Domestic Cargo Movement (Quantity in MT)

Domestic Cargo Growth Rate % of Total
Year Receipts Despatches Total Receipts Despatches Total Receipts Despatches
2002-03 1428 1120 2548 56 44
2003-04 1866 1715 3581 31 53 41 52 48
2004-05 2068 1897 3965 11 11 11 52 48
2005-06 2406 1554 3960 16 -18 0 61 39
2006-07 2681 2240 4921 11 44 24 54 46
2007-08 3766 2452 6218 40 9 26 61 39
2008-09 4067 2305 6372 8 -6 2 64 36
2009-10 4302 1727 6029 6 -25 -5 71 29
2010-11 5018 1920 6938 17 11 15 72 28
2011-12 5099 2204 7303 2 15 5 70 30
60
growth rate
40 40.54
24.27 26.36
20
10.72 15.08
-0.13 2.48 -5.38
0 0 5.26
2002-032003-042004-052005-062006-072007-082008-092009-102010-112011-12
-20
Fig.3.17 Annual growth rate of domestic cargo movement
According to the data given in table 3.30, the major component of

domestic cargo is the receipts which constituted nearly 70% of the total
domestic cargo movement. Annual growth rate chart is given in fig.3.17 and
a bar diagram illustrating share of both the components of domestic cargo is
given in fig.3.18
8000
RECEIPTS DESPATCHES
6000 1920 2204
2452 2305 1727
4000
2240
1897 1554
2000 1715 50185099
1120 3766 4067 4302
1428 2068 2406 2681
0 1866
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Fig. 3.18 Details of domestic cargo movement during 2002-03 to 2011-12
3.3.2c (ii) International Cargo
CIAL has specialized facilities for handling international cargo

which include the Centre for Dry Cargo (CDC) which has an area of 50,000
Sq Ft, with dedicated space for handling and storage of Import and Export
Cargo. Export facilities at CIAL include separate warehouse area allocated
Chapter 3
for storage facilities, inspection areas and two work stations for unitization
with four delivery lines, strong room facilities for valuable and vulnerable
cargo, dedicated storage area for the dangerous goods and hi-tech security
system including Explosive Trace Detector (ETD).
Import facilities at CIAL included separate area allocated for

warehouse, storage and inspection. And there are areas for de-stuffing and
for transhipment cargo storage, dedicated unaccompanied baggage handling
and clearance area, delivery of urgent and direct delivery cargo, strong room
facilities for valuable and vulnerable cargo, dedicated storage area for the
dangerous goods and separate walk in coolers for the import perishable cargo.
Another facility for international cargo operations is the centre for

perishable cargo which is a state of art centre for perishable cargo with an
area of 22,000 sq.ft. for export-import of perishable cargo having all modern
facilities in line with international standards. The airport provides
transhipment cargo facilities with a dedicated warehouse allocated for the
transhipment cargo.
Table 3.31International Cargo Movement (Quantity in MT)

International Growth % % of total
Year Import Export Total Import Export Total Import Export
2000-01 570 962 1532 37 63
2001-02 2008 3943 5951 252 310 288 34 66
2002-03 2375 6289 8664 18 59 46 27 73
2003-04 3842 9484 13326 62 51 54 29 71
2004-05 5182 13093 18274 35 38 37 28 72
2005-06 5590 12077 17666 8 -8 -3 32 68
2006-07 4364 12647 17011 -22 5 -4 26 74
2007-08 5828 15024 20852 34 19 23 28 72
2008-09 6055 18334 24389 4 22 17 25 75
2009-10 9871 25661 35532 63 40 46 28 72
2010-11 9286 24867 34153 -6 -3 -4 27 73
2011-12 9358 26183 35541 1 5 4 26 74
Table 3.31 indicates that out of the 1532 MT of international cargo
handled in2000-01 export constituted 63% and it rose to 68% in 2005-06
and reached 74% in 2011-12. Annual growth rate chart is given in fig.3.19
and a bar diagram illustrating share of both the components of international
cargo is given in fig.3.20
120.00
100.00
80.00
INTERNATIONAL CARGO GROWTH RATE %
53.81
60.00 45.59 45.69
37.13
40.00
22.58
16.96
20.00 4.06
-3.33-3.71 -3.88
0.00
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
-20.00
Fig.3.19 International Cargo Growth Rate
30000
2566124867 26183
IMPORT EXPORT
25000
20000 18334
15000 15024
130931207712647
10000 9484 9871 9286 9358
5000 6289
3943 5182 5590 4364 58286055
3842
962 20082375
0570
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-
Fig. 3.20 Details of Import and Export through CIAL
Chapter 3
From table 3.27, it can be seen that 83% of the cargo handled at
CIAL during 2011-12 was in the international sector. Hence analysis of
international cargo movement is conducted in this part based on category,
product and destination. Out of the total international cargo movement, 74%
represents exports from India. Data obtained from the archives of cargo
division of CIAL is only up to the period 2009-10 which shows that export
items mainly consist of general cargo and perishable goods. Details of
category wise export is given in table 3.32
Table 3.32 Category-wise export through CIAL (Quantity in MT)

Quantity in MT Growth rate %
General Perishable Others Total General Perishable Total
2002-03 3017 3126 146 6289
2003-04 4656 4781 47 9484 54.3 52.9 50.8
2004-05 7520 5507 65 13093 61.5 15.2 38.0
2005-06 6520 5496 60 12077 -13.3 -0.2 -7.8
2006-07 5534 7050 63 12647 -15.1 28.3 4.7
2007-08 6543 8406 75 15024 18.2 19.2 18.8
2008-09 5883 12359 92 18334 -10.1 47.0 22.0
2009-10 7465 18196 0 25661 26.9 47.2 40.0
Source: Cargo division, CIAL
Since the software of the cargo division was not updated till the date
of collection of data, the absolute value of various items exported was not
available. Hence only a percentage of each items exported in each category
is taken in the present study. Product wise breakup of the general cargo
items exported through CIAL is given in Table 3.33
Table 3.33 Product-wise share of general cargo Items exported through CIAL (Qty. in MT)
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Electronics 1509 2328 3760 3260 2767 2767 2942 3733
Spices 603 931 1504 1304 1107 1107 1177 1493
Machinery castings,
302 466 752 652 553 553 588 747
spare parts
Garments 302 466 752 652 553 553 588 747
Coir Products 121 186 301 261 221 221 235 299
Cardamom, Tea 121 186 301 261 221 221 235 299
Others 60 93 150 130 111 111 118 149
Total 3017 4656 7520 6520 5534 5534 5883 7465
Source: Cargo division, CIAL archives
From the data available at CIAL, it is seen that all the general cargo
is exported to middle east countries for transhipment because there was no
facility at CIAL to export products directly to their actual destinations. All
these exports first sent to Middle East for transhipment to their destinations.
Arrangements for transhipment are made by the airline companies. Product
wise destinations of the general cargo items are given in table 3.34.
Table 3.34 General cargo movement - product wise destinations (quantity in MT)
Items Destination 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Europe 754 1164 1880 1630 1383 1383 1471 1866
Electronic Items Far East 453 698 1128 978 830 830 882 1120
USA 302 466 752 652 553 553 588 747
Spices Europe 603 931 1504 1304 1107 1107 1177 1493
Europe 211 326 526 456 387 387 412 523
Machinery
USA 91 140 226 196 166 166 176 224
Europe 151 233 376 326 277 277 294 373
Garments
USA 151 233 376 326 277 277 294 373
Coir Products Dubai 121 186 301 261 221 221 235 299
Cardamom Saudi Arabia 121 186 301 261 221 221 235 299
Others 60 93 150 130 111 111 118 149
Total 3017 4656 7520 6520 5534 5534 5883 7465
Chapter 3
The exporters of general cargo items spread across a large area
including Tirupur, Coimbatore, Kannur and the units situated in the close
proximity of the airport. The sources of various general items exported are
given in Table 3.35.
Table 3.35 Details of location of Exporters of general goods.

Items Exporter/Location
Electronics OEN Connectors, Mulanthuruthy
Machinery Castings, Spare parts Coimbatore
Spices Synthite Plant Lipids,AVT, Vazhakulam,Kacor,
Garments Tirupur,Bangalore,Kitex, V-Star, Kannur
Rubber Products Coir Mat, Alappuzha, John's Ernakulam
Cardamom AVT
Another major item in the international cargo handled at CIAL is the

perishable goods. Growth rate of export of perishable goods over the years
given in table 3.36 reveal an increasing trend. Data regarding the export of
perishable items and their share in the total exports are given in table 3.36.
Table 3.36 Product wise distribution of perishable goods exported (Quantity in MT)
2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009-
Item 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Vegetables 2345 3586 4130 4122 5288 6305 9269 13647
Fruits 313 478 551 550 705 841 1236 1820
Flowers 186 292 350 340 432 504 742 1103
Fish 190 281 310 320 414 510 756 1080
Meat 38 58 63 66 76 95 140 215
Hatching
36 48 47 49 57 67 124 182
Egg
Others 19 38 55 50 78 84 93 149
3126 4781 5506 5497 7050 8406 12359 18196
It can be seen from table 3.36 that vegetables constituted major
portion of the export of perishable goods from CIAL. Originating centres of
various perishable goods exported through CIAL is given in table 3.37
Table 3.37 Originating centres for perishable goods exports though CIAL.
Items Location
Vegetables Marthandom, Dindigul
FRUITS (Mainly Bananas) Various Parts Of Kerala
Flowers Coimbatore, Dindigul
Fish Alapuzha, Kochi, Kollam, Lakshadweep (Tuna)
Meat Angamaly
Hatching Egg Udumalpet
Table 3.37 reveals that the vegetables which form a major part of the
perishable goods exported and flowers and hatching eggs mainly come from
Marthandum and Dindigul in the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu. The
destinations of the perishable goods exported through CIAL are mainly Gulf
area. Details of the destinations of perishable goods exported through CIAL
was extracted from the unpublished data supplied by the cargo division of
CIAL. The destinations of different items of the perishable goods exported
through CIAL are given in Table 3.38.
Table 3.38 Product wise destinations of perishable goods export through CIAL.
Items Destination
Vegetables Gulf Countries
Fruits Doha, Dubai
Fish Dubai, Singapore
Meat Baharin
Flowers Sharjah, Dubai.
Hatching Egg Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
Chapter 3
Detailed data related to imports through CIAL were not readily
available at the airport due to various reasons. From the general data available
related to imports through CIAL, the imports can be classified into four
categories namely commercial cargo for trading purpose, unaccompanied
baggage mainly used household items, trans-shipment cargo and courier
cargo for business purpose. Commercial cargo constitutes 30% of the total
imports. But in value terms this is much higher than the other three
categories which constitute 70% of the imports. Major constituents of
commercial cargo are electronic items, lab products etc. Data related to
imports through CIAL were extracted from various records available at
CIAL. The same is consolidated with appropriate balancing and is given in
table 3.39
Table 3.39 Details of imports through CIAL

Commercial/ Consolidated
Year Courier Baggage Trans-shipment cargo
2002-03 1476 899 0
2003-04 1478 1577 787
2004-05 1503 1356 2323
2005-06 2084 2108 1398
2006-07 1874 378 2112
2007-08 2315 742 2771
2008-09 1668 2467 1920
2009-10 2717 3759 3395
Details of the originating centres of the imports through CIAL were

collected from the archives of CIAL. The list containing the details of the
originating country and the end user is given in table 3.40.
Table 3.40 Import through CIAL: source and destinations
Items Originating Country End User
Commercial Cargo Europe, USA, Far East OEN, Shipyard
Un Accompanied Baggage Middle East House Holds
Transhipment Cargo Middle East Various Destinations
Courier Cargo Middle East Business Houses
3.3.2 d Duty Free Shops
Duty Free operations at CIAL commenced in May 2002. Cochin

Duty Free Shop is managed and operated by Alpha Retail, a UK based
renowned duty free operator. Table 3.11 shows that 34% of the total income
during 2011-12 came from duty free shop sales. In its pursuit to generate
higher non-aeronautical revenue, CIAL has set up shopping facilities in the
international terminal which happen to be the first full-scale duty free shop
in India, and one of the largest managed by Alpha Kreol, a joint venture
between Alpha UK and Kreol Middle East. The duty-free shop in the
arrivals hall has an area of 13,000 sq ft (1,200 m2) spread over two floors
and the 10000 sq.ft. duty free shop in the departure terminal allows
passengers to make a last minute purchase of selected products which will
be given in a special sealed bag (Security Tamper Evident Bags - STEB)
which should not be opened before the final destination. Details of the duty
free shop operations are given in table 3.41.
Chapter 3
Table 3.41 Details of duty free shop transactions for the period from 2003-04 to 2011-12
2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011-
04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Sales Income From
895.80 1520.25 2283.54 3250.49 4168.87 6365.75 7018.96 7336.95 9363.67
Duty Free Shop
Purchases Of
855.18 1116.49 1961.62 1921.68 3169.68 3796.13 3681.30 4338.68 5459.44
Duty Free Goods
Duty Free Shop
33.97 55.74 82.25 116.94 151.77 249.16 249.86 300.98 355.46
Management Fees
Gross Profit 6.65 348.03 239.67 1211.88 847.42 2320.45 3087.80 2697.29 3548.76
Growth Rate Of
5133 -31 406 -30 174 33 -13 32
Gross Profit (%)
Growth Rate Of Sales 69.71 50.21 42.34 28.25 52.70 10.26 4.53 27.62
Source: Source: Annual reports of CIAL from 2003-04 to 2011-12
Sales revenue from the duty free shops during the nine years from
2003-04 to 2011-12 shows positive trend as seen from table 3.41. Gross
profit shown in table 3.41 included closing stocks. In contrast to the sales
revenue, gross profit, which is calculated by deducting purchases and
management fee from sales revenue at times show negative growth.
Average annual growth rate for the eight years from 2004-05 to 2011-12 is
35.70% and CAGR of sales income is 34.1%.
3.4 Forecasts
Aviation forecast is a carefully formed opinion about future airport
operations and it is an essential tool in determining future needs of an
airport. In economic terms, the forecasts of activity are usually meant to
reflect the demand for aviation services. Forecasts help decision makers in
making supply-side assessment and judgements and they are essentially
demand-side tools. In aviation sector three types of forecasts, short term,
medium or intermediate term and long term, are used. Short term aviation
forecasts are projections for not more than five years and they are often used
in the operational planning, assessment of personnel requirements, planning
incremental improvements or expansions of landside facilities, terminal
areas, cargo facilities and general aviation hangar and so on. Intermediate
term forecasts are for periods of six to ten years and long term forecasts are
projections from eleven to twenty years. These are used to plan major
capital investments which include new terminal or tower facilities, new
runways or taxi ways, extension of existing runways and acquisition of land.
In certain cases forecasts beyond twenty years are undertaken for assessing
the need for additional airports and other aviation facilities (ACRP-2). The
primary use of forecasts is to help airport operators in optimizing use of
current facilities and making decisions in charting plans to determine the
size of the terminal, the number of bays, gates, and other important elements
of airport infrastructure. Based on the type of activities at the airport, the
parameters that must forecast are determined. The principal objective of this
part is to estimate the future aircraft movement, passenger traffic and freight
traffic at CIAL.
In order to estimate the long-term variations or trend, the least square

method is used. Based on the data from 2000-01 to 2011-12, a linear trend is
fitted separately for each of the dependent variables. Since the year is given
as an interval (2000-12), the independent variable is taken as 1, 2, 3…. 12 to
represent the years 2000-01 to 2011-12.
3.4.1 Aircraft Movement
The forecast of the level of aircraft operations at the airport defines

the future runway and taxiway requirements. The aircraft movement for the
next 20 years is estimated using the least square method. Trend line is fitted
Chapter 3
separately for international, domestic and total aircraft movement. Fitted
models for the aircraft movements are given in table 3.42 and using the
models the estimates of the aircraft movements for the 20 year period is
calculated as given in table 3.43.
Table 3.42 Fitted models for aircraft movements

Aircraft movement Models
International y = 1599.80 t + 1918.88
Domestic y = 1901.06 t + 2441.76
Total y = 3500.t + 4360.
Table 3.43 Estimates for aircraft movement for the next 20 years
2012-13 22716 27156 49872
2013-14 24316 29057 53373
2014-15 25916 30958 56874
2015-16 27516 32859 60374
2016-17 29115 34760 63875
2017-18 30715 36661 67376
2018-19 32315 38562 70877
2019-20 33915 40463 74378
2020-21 35515 42364 77879
2021-22 37114 44265 81380
2022-23 38714 46166 84880
2023-24 40314 48067 88381
2024-25 41914 49968 91882
2025-26 43514 51869 95383
2026-27 45113 53770 98884
2027-28 46713 55672 102385
2028-29 48313 57573 105886
2029-30 49913 59474 109387
2030-31 51513 61375 112887
2031-32 53113 63276 116388
Forecasts of aircraft movement for the 20 year period from 2011-12
show that by the year 2031-32, total aircraft movement through CIAL will
be 116388 from 41141 in the year 2011-12.
150000
100000
Aircraft
50000
0
0 5 10 Year 15 20 25 30 35
INTERNATIONAL DOMESTIC TOTAL
Fig. 3.21 Trend line for the forecast of aircraft movements for the next 20 years
3.4.2 Passenger Traffic
The forecast of the level of passenger traffic helps to determine the

size of the terminal, the number of gates, and other important elements of
airport infrastructure. In order to estimate the passenger traffic for the next 20
years the least square method is used. Separate trend lines are fitted for
international, domestic and total passenger traffic. Fitted models for the
passenger traffic are given in table 3.44 and the estimates of the passenger
traffic for the next twenty years calculated using these models is given in table
3.45.
Table 3.44 Fitted models for passenger traffic

Passenger traffic Models
International y = 217689 t - 20341
Domestic y = 172575 t - 41275
Total y = 390264 t - 61616
Chapter 3
Table 3.45 Passenger traffic forecast for the next 20 years
2012-13 2809622 2202200 5011822
2013-14 3027311 2374775 5402086
2014-15 3245001 2547350 5792351
2015-16 3462690 2719925 6182615
2016-17 3680380 2892500 6572880
2017-18 3898069 3065075 6963144
2018-19 4115759 3237650 7353409
2019-20 4333448 3410225 7743673
2020-21 4551138 3582800 8133938
2021-22 4768827 3755375 8524202
2022-23 4986517 3927950 8914467
2023-24 5204206 4100525 9304731
2024-25 5421896 4273099 9694996
2025-26 5639585 4445674 10085260
2026-27 5857274 4618249 10475524
2027-28 6074964 4790824 10865789
2028-29 6292653 4963399 11256053
2029-30 6510343 5135974 11646318
2030-31 6728032 5308549 12036582
2031-32 6945722 5481124 12426847
14000000.00
INTERNATIONAL DOMESTIC TOTAL
12000000.00
10000000.00
8000000.00
6000000.00
No. of
4000000.00
2000000.00
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 Years 25 30 35
Fig.3.22 Trend lines for the forecast of passenger traffic for 20 years
With respect to the forecast of passenger traffic, the researcher

intends to apply the essential part of forecasting, which is an evaluation of
the results. A simple method to evaluate the forecast is to graph key forecast
results against historic trends to determine whether the forecast appears
reasonable. Out of the four key performance areas, passenger traffic is of
paramount importance with respect to the airport under study and hence, the
researcher selected to evaluate the forecasting of passenger traffic to
determine whether the results are reasonable. The data given in table 3.46 is
the consolidation of the historical data and the forecasted results.
Chapter 3
Table 3.46 Historical and estimated data related to passenger traffic through CIAL from 2000-01
to 2031-32
Year Total
2000-01 772000
2001-02 832814
2002-03 1010286
2003-04 1332601
2004-05 1596212
2005-06 1886378
2006-07 2561070
2007-08 3338142
2008-09 3362801
2009-10 3946103
2010-11 4345179
2011-12 4717650
2012-13 5011822
2013-14 5402086
2014-15 5792351
2015-16 6182615
2016-17 6572880
2017-18 6963144
2018-19 7353409
2019-20 7743673
2020-21 8133938
2021-22 8524202
2022-23 8914467
2023-24 9304731
2024-25 9694996
2025-26 10085260
2026-27 10475524
2027-28 10865789
2028-29 11256053
2029-30 11646318
2030-31 12036582
2031-32 12426847
Source: Compiled from annual reports of CIAL and research data
In order to find out whether the estimates are consistent with the
historical trend, a graph is drawn using the combined data given in table
3.46. Fig 3.23 is the graphical representation of the combined data.
11646318 1203658122426
TOTAL 11256053
10865789
10475524
10085260
9304731
8914467
9694996
8524202
8133938
7743673
Number of
7353409
6963144
6572880
6182615
5792351
5402086
5011822
4717650
4345179
3946103
3362801
3338142
2561070
13326105196212
1886378
1010286
832814
772000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
-01
-02
-03
-04
-05
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-06
-07
-08
-09
-15
-16
-17
Fig.3.23 Combined graph of historical and estimated passenger traffic data.
The graph (fig.3.23) shows that the estimated passenger traffic
through CIAL for the period from 2012-13 to 2031-32 is a natural extension
of the historical data for the period from 2000-01 to 2011-12. Hence it can
be presumed that the forecast is reasonable.
3.4.3 Freight Traffic
The forecast of the level of freight traffic helps to determine the size
of the airport infrastructure, which is required to handle the future volume.
In order to estimate the freight traffic for the next 20 years the least square
method is used. Separate trend lines are fitted for import, export, domestic
and total freight traffic. Fitted models for the freight traffic are given in
Chapter 3
table 3.46 and the estimates of the freight traffic for the next twenty years
calculated using these models is given in table 3.47.
Table 3.47 Fitted models for freight traffic

Freight traffic Models
Import y = 791.6 t+216
Export y =2279 t - 770
Domestic y = 531.7 t + 1171
Total y = 3668.t + 48.28
Table 3.48 Forecasts of import, export, domestic and total cargo movement through CIAL for the
20 years from 2012-13 to 2031-32
Import Export Domestic Total
2012-13 10507 28864 8085 47739
2013-14 11298 31144 8616 51408
2014-15 12090 33424 9148 55076
2015-16 12882 35703 9680 58745
2016-17 13673 37983 10211 62414
2017-18 14465 40262 10743 66082
2018-19 15257 42542 11275 69751
2019-20 16048 44822 11807 73419
2020-21 16840 47101 12338 77088
2021-22 17632 49381 12870 80756
2022-23 18423 51660 13402 84425
2023-24 19215 53940 13934 88093
2024-25 20007 56219 14465 91762
2025-26 20798 58499 14997 95430
2026-27 21590 60779 15529 99099
2027-28 22382 63058 16061 102768
2028-29 23173 65338 16592 106436
2029-30 23965 67617 17124 110105
2030-31 24757 69897 17656 113773
2031-32 25548 72177 18188 117442
140000
IMPORT EXPORT
DOMESTIC TOTAL
120000
100000
80000
Quantity in
60000
40000
20000
Year
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Fig.3.24 Trend lines for the estimates of freight traffic for the next 20 years
3.4.4 Forecast Levels and Growth Rates

From the estimated figures for the future aircraft movement,
passenger traffic and cargo movement for the ensuing twenty years period,
average annual growth rates and cumulative growth rates for various periods
are calculated using the year 2011-12 as base year. The results are given in
table 2.49 and 2.50 respectively.
Chapter 3
Table 3.49 Forecast Levels and Growth
Source: Research
Table 3.50 Cumulative growth rate estimated for the 20 years (base year 2011-12)
2012-13 2016-17 2021-22 2026-27 2031-32
Passenger Traffic 106 139 181 222 263
Aircraft Movement 121 155 198 240 283
Cargo 111 146 188 231 274
Estimates for the next 20 years as given in table 3.49 and the growth
rates given in table 3.50 show that passenger traffic may grow up to 2.63
times from the figures for the base year and aircraft movements may rise up
to 2.83 times and the freight traffic up to 2.74 times that of the base year
2011-12. Also, Fig 3.23 shows that the result of the forecast with regard to
the passenger traffic is reasonable.
From the data collected, various performance ratios such as PAT to

capital employed, PAT to fixed assets, total income to total capital, total
income to fixed assets and employee payment to total income of CIAL are
calculated and given in Table 3.51.
Fig.3.25 Performance ratios ofPAT/FIXED

PAT/CAPITAL CIAL ASSET
TOTAL INCOME/CAPITAL EMP.PAYMENT/TOTAL
TOTAL INCOME/FA
INCOME
75.00%
65.00%
55.00%
45.00%
35.00%
25.00%
15.00%
5.00%
-5.00%
-15.00%
-25.00%
-35.00%
Chapter 3
Table 3.51 Various performance ratios for the periods from 2000-01 to 2011-
Source: Research
Key performance indicators of CIAL in the financial sector are
identified as profit, earnings per share, foreign exchange earnings, traffic
revenue and non-traffic revenue of the company. Operational areas in CIAL
such as aircraft movement, passenger traffic, freight traffic and duty free
shop operations are identified as the key performance areas for the purpose
of this study. Total income of the airport for the eleven year period is
analysed and the CAGR of total income for the first five years is 29.3% and
for the next five years it is 19.8% and for the entire eleven years, the rate is
22.1%. Commercial revenue from the duty free shops, rent & services and
royalty together contributed 70 percent of the total income during 2011-12.
On the aircraft movement area, 20 airlines operated 858 flights per week to
and from CIAL during 2011-12 connecting 29 destinations. Sharjah, Dubai
and Doha are the major paired cities to/from where more passengers
travelled. International cargo constituted 81.2 percent of the total cargo
movement through CIAL. Estimates for the next 20 years show that
passenger traffic may grow up to 2.63 times from the figures for the base
year and aircraft movements may grow up to 2.83 times and the freight
traffic up to 2.74 times that of the base year 2011-12. Though the total
income of the airport became stagnant during 2006-07, additional
investment in the infrastructure to the tune of Rs.7118.4 lakhs between the
period from 2005 and 2008 helped the company to recover from the
stagnancy. Compared to other airports in India CIAL retained the fourth
position behind Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai in respect of international
passenger traffic and aircraft movement during the year 2011-12. Exports
constituted 74% of the total international cargo movements and in the
domestic sector, incoming cargo constituted 70% of cargo movement.
Various ratios to the total income are showing a uniform pattern which is an
Chapter 3
indication of the stability in the operations of CIAL. With the ratio of profit
after tax to total income above 36 percent during the last 3 years, CIAL is
having comparatively very high profitability.
In this part of the study, the researcher got solid proof to substantiate
that CIAL is a profitable airport. There is a strong relationship between
profitability and competitiveness. Since competitiveness implies being
better than others, a study of the competitiveness of the three international
airports in Kerala is conducted in the next part of the study.
…………
Competitiveness of Cochin International Airport Limited by Using Fuzzy Linguistic
Competitiveness in the context of the present study implies the

operational efficiency of an airport in comparison to other airports with
respect to the relevant factors. Kerala, a comparatively smaller state is
already having three international airports and all the three airports are
performing exceedingly well. Because of the multiplicity of operators
including private parties and the possibility of oligopolistic practices and
stiff competition, the airports in Kerala are in the process of upgrading their
facilities. Competitiveness of an airport is reflected in the various facilities
attached to the airport. The situation in Kerala is unique compared to other
international airports in India where the minimum distance between two
international airports is more than 500 kms. In this scenario, an analysis of
the competitiveness of the three international airports in Kerala by
conducting a study of major factors determining competitiveness seems
appropriate. Thus, the thrust area of this chapter is to analyse the
competitiveness of the three international airports in Kerala. In fact this
analysis will lead us to find the competitiveness of CIAL vis-à-vis the other
international airports in Kerala.
Chapter 4
Table 4.1 Distance between three international airports in Kerala
From To Distance
Calicut Cochin 155
Cochin Trivandrum 235
Trivandrum Calicut 400
Source: www.aai-aero.org
4.1 Major Factors Determining the Competitiveness of the

Airports
Factors influencing the airport competitiveness were identified using

the technique mentioned in chapter 1 (1.10.2) and the five factors were
selected were analysed using secondary data. The factors selected included
various sub-variables which are explained hereunder.
Airport facilities (APF): - This included both aeronautical and non-

aeronautical facilities.
Aeronautical facilities include land facilities, navigational facility,

passenger facility, number of aircrafts, destination, and connectivity to
different area, apron service, cargo and hangarage. Non-aeronautical
facilities include commercial activities, gastronomy, leisure services,
parking facilities and visitor’s facilities.
Airport Accessibility (APA): Factors such as distance, time and mode of

transport to reach various land marks and adjacent population canters are
included in analysing accessibility.
Airport Expansion Potential (AEP): The chances of executing the

proposed expansion plan within a period of 3 years is given weightage over
the other regular proposals that are only in the formative stage. Both
aeronautical and non-aeronautical facilities are separately considered.
Competitiveness of Cochin International Airport Limited by Using Fuzzy Linguistic Approach
Airport Charges (APC): Landing and Parking charges, X-ray baggage and
rental charges and passenger charges are included in this factor.
Geographical factors (APG): - This included three major factors namely

catchment area, distance and travel time.
4.1.1. Airport Facilities
An airport can be described as an operational system comprising

infrastructural facilities, equipment, systems and personnel, which
collectively provide a service to a customer (Vreedenburgh, 1999).The
airport acts as a processing facility for passengers, baggage and freight and a
service facility to aircraft and airlines (Vreedenburgh, 1999). Airport
facilities can be classified into aeronautical facilities and non-aeronautical
facilities (M.R. Pitt, 2001). The aeronautical services can be very diverse
and range from runways to air-traffic management and ground services.
Non-aeronautical services which support the airport functioning are more
diverse. The facilities available at an airport have a significant impact on the
performance of the airport.
4.1.1 a Aeronautical Facilities
An airport’s major role is to sell aeronautical services and facilities such as

the provision of runways, taxiways, aprons and terminals to airlines and in
the process, they also sell services such as shops, catering and car parks
usually through concessionaires, direct to the passengers, local residents and
other customers. Aeronautical facilities include land facilities, navigational
facilities, passenger facility, and number of aircrafts, destinations and
connectivity, apron service, hangarage and cargo facilities.
Chapter 4
i) Land Facilities
Land facilities include mainly the runway area and the terminal area.
Depending on the availability of land, airports construct runways, which can
accommodate large aircrafts. Future expansion of the airports depends
largely on the availability of land, which is contagious to the existing
airports. With the vast potential existing for the aviation sector, the facilities
at the existing airports cannot remain stagnant. All the major airports in the
world are continuously upgrading and expanding their facilities and
operations. In table 4.2, land facilities available at the three international
airports under study for aeronautical and non-aeronautical purposes are
listed. Being the latest entry into the group of international airports in
Kerala, CIAL is more planned than the other two airports. An area of 1300
acres of land is kept at the disposal of the airport. Calicut airport is having a
tabletop type runway and the scope of expansion from the existing area of
378 acres is limited due to the geographic location of the airport.
Trivandrum airport is situated in an area of 583 acres in the middle of the
city and hence it is not easy to acquire more land for the expansion of the
airport. Accordingly, each of the three airports was graded based on the
availability of area under their disposal. For this purpose, the highest value
in each category is taken as the benchmark and other two airports are graded
with reference to this value. When used carefully, benchmarking is a
powerful analytical tool. Hence, in each category, the airport having the
highest value is awarded the maximum point of 1 and others are awarded
points representing the ratio of their respective values to the benchmark
value. Average of the total points is the grading of the respective airports,
which is given in table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Land Facilities (area in acres)

Grading of the airports
Facilities Cochin Calicut Trivandrum Cochin Calicut Trivandrum
Total Land Area of the Airport 1300 378 583 1 0.3 0.4
Aeronautical Area 860 378 583 1 0.4 0.7
Non-Aeronautical Area 440 0 0 1 0.0 0.0
Average/ Grade of the airport 1 0.2 0.4
Source: AAI
Table 4.2 shows that CIAL is the only airport in Kerala, which holds
land for non-aeronautical use. Calicut airport (CLT) has space constraint and
the tabletop type runway makes it difficult for the airport any further
expansion. The Trivandrum international airport (TVM) is situated in an area
where further lateral expansion is practically improbable. Comparison of the
three airports is an easy task considering the fact that there is significant
difference among the airports in the land holding position. CIAL scored full
points in the case of availability of land area for both aeronautical and non-
aeronautical facilities. Figure 4.1 provides the graphical representation of
the data, which shows the visible difference in the matter of land available
for various purposes at the three airports. It can be seen from figure 4.1 that
there is no scope for providing non-aeronautical facilities to the passengers at
Calicut and Trivandrum airports due to lack of land area.
1400 1300
1200
1000
800 860
600
400 583 583
200 378 378 440
0
0 0
TOTAL LAND AREA AERONAUTICAL AREA NON-AERONAUTICAL AREA

COCHIN CALICUT TRIVANDRUM
Fig. 4 1 Land area available at three international airports
Chapter 4
ii) Navigational Facilities
Navigational facility included any facility used, available for use or

designated for use in the aid of air navigation. Landing areas, lights,
signalling, radio direction-finding, or radio or other electronic
communication and any other structure or mechanism having a similar
purpose of guiding or controlling flight or the landing or takeoff of aircraft
are included in the navigational facilities. Navigational facilities in a modern
airport include landing facilities during day and night and during bad
weather, landing aids, lighting of the runway, communication and
surveillance facilities and runway and taxiway facilities. Navigational
facilities available at the airport determine the efficiency and quality of the
airport. With the development of technology and introduction of new
methods and procedures in the aviation sector, the navigational facilities
arranged at the airport need to be up-graded progressively. No airport can
stay in the race by offering outdated and insufficient navigational facilities.
With the introduction of sophisticated aircrafts by the airline companies,
airports are under great pressure to upgrade their facilities to attract more
airlines and passengers. Navigational facilities available at the three
international airports at Cochin, Calicut and Trivandrum are collected and
the grading is done using quantitative and logical analysis. For the facilities,
which can be measured, benchmark value is fixed as the highest observed
value and other airports are graded with reference to the benchmark. Where
certain facilities are of common nature, the existence and non-existence of
such facilities are taken into account and for every ‘YES’ one point is
awarded and no point is given for a ‘NO’. Average of the total score is taken
as the grade of the particular airport with respect to the navigational
facilities. Grading of the three international airports based on the

navigational facilities available is given in table-4.3.
Table 4.3 Navigational Facilities

Facilities Cochin Calicut Trivandrum
NIGHT LANDING FACILITIES YES YES YES
LANDING AIDS
VASI YES YES YES
PAPI YES NO YES
ILS CAT YES YES YES
RUNWAY LIGHT
EDGE LIGHT YES YES YES
THRESHOLD LIGHT YES NO YES
WINGBAR/ EDGE YES NO YES
TAXIWAY EDGE LIGHTING YES NO YES
PRECISION APPROACH INDICATOR YES NO YES
APPROACH LIGHT CAT-1 YES YES YES
LEAD-IN-LIGHTING NO YES NO
Navigation Aids
HELIPAD FOR AIR TAXI YES NO NO
45 M high control tower YES NO YES
Automatic Visual Range Assessor YES NO YES
Hotlines to other ATC centres YES NO YES
Digital Airport Met info Service YES YES YES
VHF communication facilities YES YES YES
Distance Measuring Equipment I & II (DME) YES YES YES
Non Directional Beacon (NDB) YES YES YES
Doppler VHF Omni range I & II(DVOR) YES YES YES
Advanced airport surveillance radar (ASR) YES NO YES
Monopulse Secondary Surveillance Radar (MSSR) YES NO YES
0.96 0.5 0.91
Chapter 4
From the data in table-4.3, it can be seen that availability of
navigational facilities at the three airports under study are improving as days
go by. There are big schemes in store for the upgradation of the navigational
facilities at all the three airports. With all the three airports showing growth
trends, lot of activities are going on in these airports for the upgradation of
the navigational facilities. Data collected from the website of AAI show
that both Cochin and Trivandrum airports are possessing state-of-the-art
navigational facilities, while Calicut airport is catching up with the leaders
very fast. Airports Authority of India has provided runway lead-in lighting
system for the first time in India at Calicut airport. For grading the facilities
at the airports, total numbers of facilities in all the three airports are
compiled and points are awarded based on maximum number of facilities
available at each airport. This method is followed in order to give weightage
to all the facilities that exist in each airport. Data in table-4.3 show that
CIAL could edge past TVM in the matter of navigational facilities provided
and matters at CLT need to be much improved.
iii) Passenger Facilities
Facilities extended to the users of an airport is of prime importance

and based on the quality and variety of the facilities that are available more
passengers will be inclined to use the airport. Passenger facilities available
at an airport are divided into five categories, viz; aeronautical, business and
communication, general facilities, transportation and parking facilities and
shopping facilities. In this chapter, only a quantitative study is conducted to
find out the various facilities in each of the three international airports.
Passenger facilities included computerized passenger check-in counters,
airline computerized check-in counters airline offices, baggage scan,
customs & security check, CUTE System for check-in, dynamically

configurable and fully computerized check-in counter displays, security
control system, closed circuit camera system, X-ray machines for screening
the registered baggage, aerobridges, emigration & customs, Integrated
Flight Information Display System (FIDS), public address system, security
hold, illuminated signage for adequate guidance/direction in and around the
terminal and public address system. Business and communication facilities
include banking and money exchange services, business centre with
facilities for Internet, photocopy, print, fax, scan, e-ticketing, internet
calling, Wi-Fi internet, conference halls, currency exchange bureau,
facilitation counter, free phone services, gift and curio shops, traveller
requisite shops and public telephone with STD / ISD facility. Facilities
under the general category include child care room, waiting room, drinking
water facilities, public convenience for ladies and gents separately, fire
detection and control system, first aid room, free passenger baggage
trolleys, medical room, postal facility, prayer room, public conveniences,
relaxing lounge, reserved lounge, VIP rooms, guest rooms, tourist
information counter, toilets & wash area and left luggage facility.
Transportation and parking facilities include fully computerized prepaid taxi
and entry ticketing counters; inter terminal bus service, pre-paid taxi car
service, hotel pick-ups, city bus service, general taxi service, car rental
service, inter-state bus service, inter-state taxi car service, railway and
inland water navigation facility. Shopping facilities in the airport include
duty free arrival and departure shops, free porter-age service for
convenience of old, infirm, handicapped and unaccompanied ladies /
minors, snacks kiosks, tobacconist, book stalls, restaurant, coffee, tea and
Chapter 4
snack bars. Data in respect of the available Passenger facilities at the three
international airports are given in table 4.4
Table-4.4 Passenger Facilities

Facilities Cochin Calicut Trivandrum
Aeronauticalfacilities
Computerized passenger check-in counters YES YES YES
Airline computerized check-in counters /offices YES YES YES
Baggage scan YES YES YES
Customs & security check YES YES YES
Cute system for check-in YES YES YES
Dynamically configurable and fully computerized check-in
counter displays YES YES YES
Security control closed circuit camera YES YES YES
X-ray machines for screening baggage YES YES YES
Aerobridges YES YES YES
Emigration & customs YES YES YES
Flight information display system YES YES YES
Integrated flight information display system (fids) and
public address system. YES YES YES
Security hold YES YES YES
Modern illuminated signage for adequate guidance /
YES YES YES
direction in and around the terminal
Public address system YES YES YES
Business & communication facilities
Banking facilities and money exchange services YES YES YES
Business centre with facilities for internet, photocopy,
print, fax, scan, e-ticketing, internet calling YES YES YES
Wi-fi internet facility YES NO YES
Conference halls/convention centre YES NO NO
Currency exchange bureau YES YES YES
Facilitation counter YES YES YES
Free phone services YES YES YES
Gift and curio shops, traveller requisite shops YES YES YES
Public telephone facility with std / isd facility YES YES YES
General facilities
Child care room YES YES YES
Waiting room YES YES YES
Drinking water facilities, public convenience for ladies and
gents separately YES YES YES
Fire detection and control system. YES YES YES

First aid room YES YES YES
Free passenger baggage trolleys YES YES YES
Medical room YES YES YES
Postal facility YES YES YES
Prayer room YES YES NO
Public conveniences YES YES YES
Relaxing lounge YES YES YES
Reserved lounge, vip room and guestrooms YES YES YES
Tourist information counter YES YES YES
Toilets & wash area YES YES YES
Left luggage facility YES YES YES
Transportation & parking facilities
Fully computerized prepaid taxi and entry ticketing
counters YES NO YES
Inter terminal bus service NO NO NO
Pre-paid taxi car service YES YES YES
Hotel pick-ups YES YES YES
City bus service YES NO NO
General taxi service YES YES YES
Car rental service YES YES YES
Inter-state bus service/connection YES NO NO
Car parking facilities YES YES YES
Railway YES NO YES
Inland water navigation facility YES NO NO
Shopping facilities
Duty free departure shop YES YES YES
Free porter-age service for old, infirm, ladies / minors YES YES YES
Duty free shop .arrival YES YES YES
Snacks kiosks YES YES YES
Tobacconist: cigarettes, cigars and chewing tobacco YES NO NO
Tr / book stalls travel requisites YES YES YES
Duty paid shop YES NO YES
Restaurant, coffee, tea and snack bars YES YES YES
Source: websites of AAI & CIAL
Details of the passenger facilities available at the three international

airports are listed and based on quantitative score, grade points are
calculated. It is observed that the airports are continuously upgrading their
facilities. Based on the data in table 4.4, the three airports are graded and the
Chapter 4
result shows which airport is extending more facilities to the passengers
than the other two international airports. For grading, each facility is given a
weight and weighted score was calculated as given in table-4.
As the facilities are allocated different weightage, facility in each

airport is graded based on availability of the services in the particular
airport. Accordingly, weightage from 1 to 4 is allotted to each facility and
the facilities available in each airport is graded from A to D. Weightage is
allocated based on importance of the facility assessed using personal
interview with experts in the industry. For the purpose of grading, data
regarding actual physical existence of a particular facility in each airport is
collected in a ‘yes/no’ format and grade allotted in the following manner.
Out of the three airports, the airport having maximum number of facilities is
given ‘A’ grade, the airport having more than 90 percent is awarded ‘B’
grade, the airport with 80-90 percent of the maximum facilities is graded as
‘C’, and the airport having less than 80 percent of the maximum facility is
given ‘D’ grade. Table 4.5 presents the details of the grading done in respect
of each airport.
Based on the data recorded in table-4.4, it is noted that CIAL is

extending more facilities to the passengers than the facilities available at the
other two airports and hence A grade is given to CIAL for all the five
facilities. In the case of TVM, except in the transportational and parking
facilities, which got B grade, all other facilities are classified under A grade.
In the case of CLT, aeronautical and general facilities are classified under A
grade, business & communication facilities and shopping facilities are
classified under B grade and transportational & parking facilities are graded
under C. Accordingly, the combined grade position of the passenger
facilities available at the three airports are calculated by estimating the total
grade points for all the five facilities. .CIAL stood first with 53 grade points,
TVM which reached the second spot, got 49 grade points and CLT stood
third with 41 grade points.
Table - 4.5 Summary of Grading of Passenger facilities

Cochin Calicut Trivandrum
Grade Grade Grade
Weight Grade point Weight Grade point Weight Grade point
Aeronautical
4 A 16 4 A 16 4 A 16
facilities
Business &
communication 3 A 12 3 B 9 3 A 12
facilities
General facilities 1 A 4 1 A 4 1 A 4
Transportation
3 A 12 3 C 9 3 B 9
&parking facilities
Shopping facilities 2 A 8 2 B 6 2 A 8
Total 13 52 13 41 13 49
Grade 1.0 0.79 0.94
iv) Types of aircrafts handled
Number and type of aircrafts operating from an airport is a pointer

towards the passenger movement from that airport. The more the number of
aircrafts the more are the number of passengers using the airport. Runway
capacity is an important factor, which influence the number and variety of
the aircrafts operating from an airport. Grade points of the three airports are
given in Table-4.6. With the ongoing runway up gradation and
modernization works at all the three airports, the capacity to handle
Chapter 4
advanced type of aircrafts will be enhanced. Up gradation of the airports is
required to attract more airlines to the airport.
Table-4.6 Shows that Cochin airport is handling more types of

aircrafts with Trivandrum closely following. With the runway constraint,
Calicut is lagging behind the other two airports.
Table-4.6 Types of Aircrafts Handled

Boeing 747 Boeing 747 Boeing 747
Airbus 300 Airbus 300 Airbus 300
Embraer
777 777 777
737 737 737
310 310
319 319
320 320 320
321 330 321
ATR-42 ATR-42
ATR-72 330
11 6 10
1 0.55 0.91
Accordingly Cochin international airport scored full point while

Trivandrum got 0.91 and Calicut got 0.55point.
v) Destinations
Competitiveness of an airport with regard to aeronautical facilities is

mostly depending on the destinations connected and the number of airlines
operating from there. As the facilities at the airports are up-graded, more
airlines opt to operate from those airports and as a result, more destinations
are served by the airport. The secondary data collected show that there is an
upward trend in the destinations covered by each airport. The various
destinations to where aircrafts operated from the respective airports are
given in table-4.7.
Table-4.7 Destination of aircrafts operated from the airports

Abudhabi Abudhabi Abu dhabi
Agatti Al ain Ahamedabad
Ahamedabad Baharin Baharin
Al-ain Bangalore Bangalore
Baharin Coimbatore Bhubneswar
Bangalore Dammam Chandigarh
Calicut Delhi Chennai
Chennai Doha Colombo
Coimbatore Dubai Dammam
Colombo Jeddah Delhi
Dammam Kochi Doha
Delhi Kuwait Dubai
Doha Mangalore Hyderabad
Dubai Mumbai Kochi
Goa Muscat Kolkata
Hyderabad Ras al khaimath Kozhikode
Jeddah Riyadh Kuwait
Kolkata Salalah Male
Kuala lumpur Sharjah Mumbai
Kuwait Muscat
Mumbai Raipur
Muscat Riyadh
Nagpur Salalah
Riyadh Sharjah
Salalah Singapore
Sharjah Nagpur
Singapore Calicut
Trivandrum Al-ain
Vishakapattanam
29 19 28
1 0.66 0.97
Source: Websites of AAI & CIAL
Chapter 4
List of destinations to where flights are operated from the respective
airports obtained from the websites of AAI and CIAL are given in table-4.7.
Based on the number of destinations, each airport is graded using the
highest score as benchmark score. Since more destinations are connected
from CIAL, the number of destinations connected to CIAL is taken as
benchmark value and other airports are graded based on this value. CIAL is
connected to 29 destinations while Trivandrum Airport is connected to 28
destinations only. Calicut airport is in the third position with 19 destinations.
vi) Apron facility
An Apron is a paved or hard-surfaced area around the hangars and

terminal buildings of an airport. This area may also be called the 'ramp,' and
it may be used for the stationing of aircraft for the embarkation and
disembarkation of passengers, for loading and unloading of cargo and for
parking. Apron is defined as that part of an aerodrome, other than the
manoeuvring area, intended to accommodate the loading and unloading of
passengers and cargo; the refuelling, servicing, maintenance and parking of
aircraft; and any movement of aircraft, vehicles and pedestrians necessary
for such purposes. This includes every other part of an aerodrome. These are
the largest paved areas at an airport where the airlines park their aircrafts for
loading and unloading passengers. At large airports, they have "fingers" or
pedways that run from the terminal building to the aircraft. Most airports,
including the larger ones, have at least some gates where the passengers
actually leave the terminal building through a door and walk across a
portion of the terminal apron to board the aircraft. (Aviation Topic of the
Week Michael Oxner, September 28, 2003)
Availability of apron service at the airports is considered for grading

the airport in the field of aeronautical facilities and grading details are given
in table-4.8. As observed earlier, the facilities at the three airports are being
upgraded continuously and it can be noticed that a stiff competition is going
on between the three airports in Kerala to equip themselves with more
facilities. All the three airports are having their own strong areas in the case
of apron facility.
Table-4.8 Apron facility available

Bays 13 10 20
Aerobridge bays 5 0 4
Remote bays 11 16 4
Total 29 26 28
1 0.90 0.97
Data in table-4.8 show that there is not much difference between the
three airports and again using the highest value as the bench mark value, the
three airports are graded. Since CIAL has the highest value of 29 and other
airports scores are less, CIAL has got maximum points followed by TVM
with 0.97 grade point and CLT with 0.90 grade points.
vii) Cargo Movement
As is the case with passenger facilities, cargo facilities also vary

greatly in three airports with respect to the volume of materials handled. As
a result, the size of the building facilities and the nature of the handling
methods also vary. Because only a small percent of air cargo is carried,
loose or in bulk, all modern air-cargo facilities are designed to handle
Chapter 4
containers. Competition for cargo traffic is also another type, where airports
are compelled to supply qualitatively different services than passenger
handling. Air cargo facilities usually consist of apron for aircraft parking
and movement of support equipment, cargo buildings for the transfer of
cargo between airside and landside, parking and manoeuvring areas. For the
purpose of the study, only the volume of cargo handled by each airport for a
specified period is considered. Cargo handled by the airports during the year
2011-12 is collected for grading the airport and the data are given in table-
4.9. For grading, a benchmark value is selected which is the highest score
among the three airports.
Table-4.9 Cargo handled by the airports during 2011-12

Quantity of cargo handled in MTs. Cochin Calicut Trivandrum
International 34173 25400 46753
Domestic 8533 191 1449
Total 42706 25591 48202
Grade point 0.89 0.54 1
The data in table-4.9 show that TVM is handling more cargo than the
other two airports while Trivandrum airport handle 46753 MT of
international cargo, Cochin airport handled 8533MT of domestic cargo.
Calicut airport handled 25400 MT of international cargo and a nominal 191
MT of domestic cargo during the year 2011-12. Aggregate cargo handled by
Trivandrum, Cochin and Calicut airports are 48202, 42706 and 25591 MTs
respectively. From the table it can be seen that 41% of the total air cargo
movement was through Trivandrum airport while Cochin and Calicut
followed with 37% and 22% respectively.
Total volume of cargo handled
Trivandrum 41% Cochin37%
Calicut22%
Fig.4.2 Represents the share of the three airports in the total volume of cargo handled
viii) Hangarage Facility
Hangar is a large structure at an airport where aircraft can be kept

and maintained. A hangar is a closed structure to hold aircraft or spacecraft
in protective storage. Most hangars are built of metal but other materials
such as wood and concrete are also used. Hangars are used for protecting
the aircrafts from weather, from direct sunlight, and for maintenance, repair,
manufacture, assembly and storage of aircraft on airfields. Airlines
operators prefer airports with hangarage facility. Hangarage facility
available at the three international airports is given in Table-4.10 and
airports are graded accordingly. Fig. 4.3 is a typical design of a hangar to
store an aircraft.
Chapter 4
Fig.4.3 Design of a Hangar

Table-4.10 Hangarage facility available at airports
Hangarage available Yes No Yes
Grade point 1 0 1
Source. www.aai-aero.org
Table 4.10 shows that while both Cochin and Trivandrum airports
are having hangarage facilities, Calicut airport does not have the same
facility. Accordingly, both Cochin and Trivandrum got one point each for
the hangarage facility.
Table-4.11 Aeronautical Facilities available at three International Airports

Land Facilities 1.00 0.20 0.40
Navigational Facilities 0.96 0.50 0.92
Passenger Facilities 1.00 0.79 0.94
Number of Aircrafts 1.00 0.55 0.91
Destinations 1.00 0.66 0.97
Apron service 1.00 0.90 0.97
Cargo movement 0.89 0.54 1.00
Hangarage Facility 1.00 0.00 1.00
0.98 0.52 0.89
Source: Research Data
The grade points scored by the three international airports on

account of the aeronautical facilities available at each airport are
consolidated to find out the average score and the result is given in table
4.11. While Cochin and Trivandrum airports have performed well in various
fronts, facilities at the Calicut airport need up gradation on many areas.
Calicut airport lags far behind the other two airports in the area of land
facilities and hangarage facility. Cochin international airport is holding
sufficient area for the future expansion of aeronautical as well as non-
aeronautical facilities. This is the only area where Trivandrum airport could
not catch up with Cochin airport.
4.1.1.b Non-Aeronautical Facilities
Various studies suggest that all commercial activities within the

airport as well as services to other external companies, as long as they are
not part of the operational activity at the relevant airport, are to be
considered as non-aviational activity. Hence any activity which is not
directly or indirectly associated with the handling of aircraft as well as
getting anything (passengers, cargo) to and from the aircraft are to be
reckoned as non aeronautical activity. As airport economics are undergoing
rapid and drastic changes, non-aviation has become an important component
of revenue generation for modern airports. Non-aviation activities have
become increasingly important for airports. This sector has become more
complex and diverse in recent years. As a result, non-aeronautical activities
are considered as an important indicator of an airport’s performance. The
non-aeronautical activities include activities such as retail, rentals,
commercial activities, gastronomy, leisure services including construction
of golf courses to provide relaxation to transit passengers, parking facilities
Chapter 4
and visitor’s facilities. Airports are in the process introducing many
innovative measures that include hotels and convention facilities; property
development, advertising, consumer services, car parking and rental
services, foreign exchange, lounges and loyalty cards, to increase their
revenue so that they can offer reduced or zero airport charges. For
evaluating the non-aeronautical activities this analysis took commercial
activities, gastronomy, leisure services, parking facilities and visitors
facilities as variables.
i) Commercial Activities
A different set of competitive forces exist as regards the commercial

services that the airports sell to passengers and other consumers. For
example, if these are considered part of the general retail business, there are
many retailers available to offer such products and many passengers to buy
them. Moreover, airport operators are likely to be in a relatively strong
position with their suppliers because of the attractiveness of their captive
and often affluent passenger market. Commercial activities include banking
facilities, business centre, convention centre, conference hall, duty free
shops, banking, foreign currency exchange facility and other services for
customers. Generally, either in the terminal building or in its vicinity these
facilities are available. These facilities and services may be provided by
airport authorities or by any public/private body. Table-4.12 is the data
regarding the existence of these facilities in the three international airports
in Kerala.
Table-4.12 Availability of various commercial facilities at three airports

Banking Facilities YES YES YES
Business Centre YES YES YES
Currency exchange YES YES YES
ATM YES YES YES
Shopping YES YES YES
Convention centre YES NO NO
Conference halls YES YES YES
7 6 6
1 0.86 0.86
Source: Websites of CIAL and AAI.
Table 4.12 shows the details of various commercial activities
available at the three international airports. It is observed that except for the
presence of a full-fledged convention centre at CIAL, all the three airports
are offering almost identical services to its users. The facilities are graded
according to the availability and Cochin is having the most facilities hence it
is given maximum points while the other two airports scored 0.86 points
each.
ii) Gastronomy
Gastronomy is the practice or art of choosing, cooking, and eating

good food or about the cookery of a particular area or simply the art and
science of fine eating. Airports have a broad scope for bars, cafes and
restaurants offering a wide variety of food and beverages provided by local
and international food and beverage outlets. These outlets offer visitors and
travellers caffeine kicks, cold beers, fresh sandwiches, healthy meals and
mouth-watering snacks. Brochures and handy maps of the shopping and
gastronomy area are usually made available throughout the airport. With a
Chapter 4
vast selection of restaurants, cafes and snack bars, offering something for
every palate, the visitors can have fine dining experience in a classic spicy,
exotic dish of local gastronomy. Details of the gastronomical facilities
available at the three airports are given in table-4.13
Table-4.13 Details of gastronomical facilities at three airports

Snacks Kiosks YES YES YES
Restaurant/snack bar YES YES YES
Major hotels YES NO YES
3 2 3
1 0.67 1
Source: various websites of CIAL and AAI
Data given in table 4.13 show the gastronomical facilities available at

the three airports. It can be seen that while at Cochin and Trivandrum, the
visitors can experience the local gastronomy with the presence of large
number of hotels, restaurants, snack bar and kiosks within or close to the
airport but visitors at Calicut airport may not be that much lucky in finding a
star hotel nearby. Point wise, Cochin and Trivandrum got full points while
Calicut got 0.67 point.
iii) Leisure services
Leisure activities are activities, which people engage in during their

free time. These activities are not work oriented or do not involve life
maintenance tasks. What may be a leisure experience for one person may
not be for another; whether an experience is leisure depends on many
factors, which include enjoyment, motivation, and choice. These facilities
available in the three airports are listed in Table 4.14.
Table-4.14 Leisure services available in and around the three airports

Golf Club YES NO NO
Book stalls YES YES YES
Tobacconist YES NO NO
3 1 1
1 0.33 0.33
From the data given in table-4.14, Cochin is leading the other two
airports in the field of making available leisure facilities to the
visitors/passengers. The presence of a fully functional golf club is the
difference between CIAL and the other two airports. Also CIAL is offering
the services of a tobacconist to those who are interested in gulping a few
puffs before a long journey.
iv Parking facilities
In most of the airports, different types of car parking can be

observed. First one is ‘on-airport parking’, which means parking within the
airport boundary and usually close to the airport terminals, making transfer
times very quick and most of them are within walking distance. Second type
of parking is ‘off-airport car parks’. This is substantially cheaper, albeit
further away from the airport terminal making transfer times slightly longer.
Then there is another type of parking known as meet and greet parking
which is also known as ‘valet parking’ where the passengers can drop off
and pick up their vehicle from directly outside the airport terminal and a
driver parks the car. Another type of parking is ‘Terminal Curb side
Parking’ where a passenger is driven by a driver or friends to the airport can
park the vehicle in the area to park the vehicle for getting down from the car
Chapter 4
and taking luggage off the car. Generally, curb side parking is only meant
for quick loading or unloading and the driver is not allowed to stay beyond a
specified period. People usually consider things like security, transfer times
and vehicle park facilities while selecting an airport. Table 4.15 gives details
of the vehicle parking facilities as discussed herein before which are
available at the three international airports.
Table-4.15 Vehicle parking facilities

Car parking yes yes yes
Transport vehicle parking yes yes yes
Valet parking no no no
Terminal curb side parking yes yes yes
1 1 1
Source: websites of CIAL and AAI
Table 4.15 shows the various parking facilities available at the three
airports. Cochin international airport, which is the latest entry to the
international airports in Kerala and having largest land area among the three
airports, is having larger capacity for parking of cars. All the three airports
are having transport vehicle parking facility though at different numbers.
Terminal curb side parking facility is available at all the three airports. All
the three airports have not yet introduced the valet parking facility.
v) Visitor’s facilities
Table-4.16 various facilities available to the visitors to the airport

City bus service To and From airport YES NO NO
Guest rooms YES YES YES
parking area YES YES YES
3 2 2
1 0.67 0.67
Source: websites of aai and cial
Table 4.16 shows that CIAL is having more facilities to the visitors
than the other two airports. While the public transport is available from the
curb side of the terminal at CIAL, this facility is lacking at the other two
airports. Guest room and parking area for the visitors’ vehicles are available
at all the three airports.
Table- 4.17 Non-aeronautical facilities available

Commercial Activities 1 0.86 0.86
Gastronomy 1 0.67 1
Leisure services 1 0.33 0.33
Parking Facilities 1 1 1
Visitors’ facilities 1 0.67 0.67
Average Score/ Grade 1 0.71 0.77
Source: Research Data
Table 4.17 presents the consolidated grades scored by the individual
airports because of various non-aeronautical facilities available at the
respective airports. Compared to the other two airports, CIAL is offering
more non-aeronautical facilities to its users. While CIAL got full points for
the facilities, Trivandrum and Calicut could muster on 77% and 71%
respectively. Grading of the airport based on the airport facilities at the three
international airports in Kerala is given in table 4.18.
Table-4.18 Grading of the airports based on facilities

Factor Cochin Calicut Trivandrum
Aeronautical 0.97 0.51 0.90
Non-aeronautical 1 0.71 0.77
Average Score/ Grade 0.99 0.61 0.84
Chapter 4
Table 4.18 presents the consolidated grade points obtained by the
three airports on account of the aeronautical and non-aeronautical facilities
available at these airports. Cochin airport has almost scored a perfect score
on account of the airport facilities. Trivandrum airport also scored
comparatively well with a score of 0.84 point. Calicut airport is a distant
runner among the three airports scoring only 0.61 point.
4.1.2 Airport Accessibility
Air transport serves a time-sensitive market and therefore the surface

access to airports should be efficient. Connectivity between airports and
adjacent population centres form an integral part of infrastructure of each
airport. Better access to the transportation system will increase its attractiveness
to customers. Airport accessibility examines the extent to which land use
and transport systems enable individuals to reach airports via any
combination of transport modes. Accessibility is measured in various ways.
Distance and travel time are generally used as the measure of

accessibility. Since there is always a chance for congestion on the road, the
distance between locations may not be a good notion for accessibility.
Hence, access travel time is considered as a better indicator of accessibility.
In this study, Airport Accessibility (APA) refers to among others, surface
transport availability, public transport facility and distance and time for
access to and from airport. The availability of various modes of transports to
reach the airport and the network to reach various landmarks from the
airport is measured to find out the accessibility to airports is measured as a
function of the distance and time taken to travel from the district
headquarters to its nearest airport. If a city centre is closer to an airport, it
has greater accessibility to the airport.
Table-4.19 Modes of transport linked to airport

State Highway YES YES YES
National Highway YES YES YES
Other major roads YES YES YES
Railway YES NO YES
Water transport YES NO NO
5 3 4
1 0.60 0.80
Data related to the surface and water links to the three airports is
given in table 4.19. The CIAL is strategically located with easy access to all
three National Highways passing through Kerala (NH 47, NH 17 and NH
49) and is only half-an-hour drive away from the city. CLT is located away
from the major highways. NH 17 is the nearest national highway to the
airport. TVM is situated inside the city and hence it is accessible from NH
47 and the state highways. While Cochin and Trivandrum airports are
accessible through rail, Calicut airport is far away from the nearest railway
station. Only Cochin is having the water transport facility. The presence of
seaport, ferry service and a major container terminal helped CIAL to edge
past the other two airports.
Table-4.20 Types of public transport services for reaching the airports

Low Floor Ac Bus Yes No No
State Transport Yes No Yes
Chartered/ Tourist Yes Yes Yes
Private Service Yes Yes Yes
Taxi Yes Yes Yes
Average 5 3 4
1 0.60 0.8
Chapter 4
Table 4.20 presents the data regarding the availability of public
transport and taxi services at the three international airports. It can be seen
from the table that Volvo low floor bus services are available from CIAL as
also the state transport bus services from terminal curb side. Availability of
public transport system from the terminal curb side is a boon to those who
use the airport since there is substantial savings on account of transportation
cost to and from the airport. The other two airports do not have this facility
and airport users have to depend on taxi or private service for their journey
to and from the airport. Grades obtained by the three airports are
consolidated in table 4.21.
Table-4.21 Availability of access modes and networks to and from the airport
Surface transport availability 1 0.60 0.80
Public Transport facility 1 0.60 0.80
Average Score 1 0.60 0.80
Table-4.21 presents the consolidated information with respect to

availability of various access modes and transport networks to reach the
airports. From the individual scores, the average score in respect of each
airport is calculated.
a) Connectivity to Different Landmarks
Since distance and travel time are better measure of accessibility, the
distance from various landmarks to the airport, time for the travel and the
mode of transports available are gathered. The data collected are given in
table 4.22.
Table-4.22 Distance and Time for Access to and From Airport

From Airport Distance (in kms.) Time (mins.) Mode of Transport
To CLT CHN TVM CLT CHN TVM CLT CHN TVM
Commercial centres 28 26 6 45 20 15 2 4 3
Industrial areas 25 15 9 45 20 15 2 3 3
Administrative centre 21 20 4 30 30 10 2 3 3
Sea port 30 28 21 50 30 30 2 4 4
Major hotels 21 2 2 30 5 5 3 4 4
Tourist spots 26 6 6 45 10 10 3 4 4
Distric hq 28 25 4 45 30 10 3 3 3
Railway station 30 4 4 50 15 15 3 3 3
Connectivity to different areas from the airport is used to grade the

airports and the data used for the grading are given in table-4.22. In order to
grade each airport the distance from airport to various landmarks, time taken
to reach the landmarks and the various mode of transport available to the
users to reach airport are given in table 4.22. In the column of mode of
transport the number denotes the type of transport facilities available to
reach the airport or the nearest city centre. While calculating the time taken
to travel the distance from the airport to various landmarks, is assumed that
traffic congestion in the roads is uniform in the case of all the three airports
and hence no correction factor need to be applied.
Chapter 4
Table-4.23 Grading of three airports with respect to distance, time and mode of transport to
reach various land marks
From airport Distance Time Mode of transport
Least Least Highest
To value CLT CHN TVM value CLT CHN TVM value CLT CHN TVM
Commercial centres 6 0.2 0.2 1.0 15 0.3 0.8 1 4 0.5 1 0.8
Industrial areas 9 0.4 0.6 1.0 15 0.3 0.8 1 3 0.7 1 1
Administrative centre 4 0.2 0.2 1.0 10 0.3 0.3 1 3 0.7 1 1
Sea port 21 0.7 0.8 1.0 30 0.6 1.0 1 4 0.5 1 1
Major hotels 2 0.0 1.0 1.0 5 0.2 1.0 1.0 4 0.8 1 1
Tourist spots 6 0.2 1.0 1.0 10 0.2 1.0 1.0 4 0.8 1 1
Distric HQ 4 0.1 0.2 1.0 10 0.2 0.3 1 3 1 1 1
Railway station 4 0.1 1.0 1.0 15 0.3 1.0 1 3 1 1 1
Average Score 0.30 0.58 1.0 0.30 0.80 1.0 0.70 1.00 1.00
Grade 0.44 0.78 1.0
Based on the data in table 4.23, each airport is graded using a

benchmark value, which is the least value in the case of time and distance, and
the highest value in the case of various modes of transport facilities available to
reach the airport. Since Calicut airport is situated away from the city centre,
in the adjacent district of Malapuram, the values are on the higher side,
which resulted on receiving lower grade compared to the other airports.
Table-4.24 Accessibility score of three international airports

Factor Cochin Calicut Trivandrum
Mode of access 1.00 0.60 0.80
Accessibility 0.78 0.44 1.00
Average score/grading 0.89 0.52 0.90
Table 4.24 shows that Trivandrum airport is having better

accessibility options where as Cochin airport is having more choices in
mode of access. Due to the remoteness, Calicut airport could not score
substantially in both aspects
4.1.3 Airport Expansion Potential
A diversification strategy of a firm consists in developing activities

which are not related to its core business. This strategy can correspond to a
reduction of a firm’s exposure to a risk. Indeed, if its core business is
affected by a crisis, the firm can still generate profits through another
strategy. For airports, strategies of diversification aim to develop the non-
aeronautical activities. They are considered increasingly important strategic
axes by airports to stabilize and balance the airport economy. Airport
capacity is not created overnight, hence there is a need to adopt a proactive
approach to airport development, identifying and preparing for potential
constraints. In the coming years, land scarcity will be the major challenge
for airport development in India. The land requirements of airports are
massive and they will have to fight with other users of land, for this
increasingly expensive asset. The cost of land is going to have a strong
impact on the viability of many airport projects. Kerala, which is already
having three international airports, has the highest per capita traffic ratio
except the six states with metro airports and it has a unique traffic mix
dominated by international passengers from the Gulf. Since any inertia in
implementing the proposals for expansion will be fully exploited by rivals,
airports cannot be lethargic in executing the projects. Hence, in this study,
the possibility of executing the proposed expansion within a period of 3
years is given weightage over the other regular proposals that are only in
various stages of planning.
Chapter 4
Land is the essential factor for expansion of an airport. Additional
terminals and runways are required to meet the growing passenger and
aircraft traffic. Table 4.25 presents the position of the three airports with
respect to the future requirement of land for expansion.
Table 4.25 Availability of land for future expansion

Airport Land requested by AAI
Calicut 137 acres
Cochin Sufficient land for future expansion
Trivandrum 170 acres
Table 4.25 shows that both Calicut and Trivandrum airports are
facing shortage of land for future expansion while Cochin airport is holding
sufficient land for future expansion.
Capacity of an airport to handle the increasing passenger traffic is an

important factor affecting the performance of the airport. Centre for Asia
Pacific Aviation (CAPA) in its report on Indian Civil aviation made
comments on the current position and the future requirements of Indian
airports. According to the report Cochin airport, which had traffic of 4.7
million in 2011 against the capacity of 10 million is holding sufficient land
for future expansion. Trivandrum airport, which had a capacity to handle 5.1
million passengers per annum, had traffic of 2.7 million in 2011. Calicut
airport which is having a capacity to handle 3.4 million per annum had a
passenger traffic of 2.2 million in 2011 may have problems when a new
airport coming up in the nearby district of Kannur and shortage of land for
expansion.
Table-4.26 Capacity vs. actual traffic of the three airports in Kerala

Airport Pax traffic in Estimated
2011 current
capacity CAPA comments
(million) (million)
Cochin 4.7 10 Sufficient land for future expansion at the current site
New terminal will assist, however, needs to start
Trivandrum 2.7 5.1 planning for a new airport soon.
Competing airport at Kannur may divert some traffic,
Calicut 2.2 3.4 but new terminal will be required and plans for a new
airport should commence.
Source: CAPA Report 2012
Table 4.27 Expansion plans and constraints for Calicut Airport
Expected
Proposals period of Constraints
completion
New passenger amenities and facilities For the expansion of Kozhikode airport, 137 acres
like international arrival block, new of land is needed. About 126 families had to be
apron parking stand, airport emergency evicted for the purpose. The proposal for setting
medical centre, automated air traffic up a new terminal for international flight
service centre, ADS-B surveillance operations at the southern side of the runway has
system, advanced bomb detection and been lying in cold storage because of the cold
disposal system inspection and 5 years response of the local people to the airport’s
automated inline baggage system, the expansion plans. An increased number of poultry
first of its kind in India that will do away and meat stalls in the neighbouring panchayaths
with the separate X-raying of baggage in recent years and dumping of slaughter waste
are proposed. in open spaces has been attracting birds,
particularly scavenger birds, raising concerns of
the airport authorities about aviation safety.
Automatic Dependent The approach to Calicut airport runway is
Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), a surrounded with hills and valleys. The approach
satellite-based radar tracking system funnel area of the runway 28 is a 30 m to 70 m
connecting to all airports in South India. deep undulated valley up to a distance of
This will eliminate the conventional and 6,000 m, immediately following the tabletop
existing ground-based radar system. 3 years runway of 2,860 m (9,380 ft) long. This terrain
needs a special type of Approach guidance
lighting system to enhance safety for aircraft
operations during night and poor visibility
conditions.
Mechanisation of Air Traffic Control, road The development of the airport has been pending
connectivity, and barracks for the Central for a long time due to the issues related land
Industrial Security Force personnel. Steps acquisition. According to the Airports Authority of
had been taken to set up a 17,000 sq.m 4 years India, it is awaiting the transfer of additional land
arrival hall at a cost of Rs.90 crore from the state government for taking up
infrastructural projects.
Source:
Chapter 4
Expansion proposals pending with the three airports are given in
tables 4.27, 4.29 and 4.31. The details of expansion proposals of the three
airports are extracted from the websites of CIAL, AAI, Ministry of Civil
Aviation and DGCA. Based on the expected time to complete the project
and weightage attached to the project period, points are allotted to each
airport, which are given in tables 4.28, 4.30 and 4.32.
Table 4.27 reveals that the expansion plans for the Calicut
International airport hit a roadblock due to non-availability of land. The
tabletop runway is raising safety concerns for the aircrafts. In spite of these
constraints, the authorities are proceeding with the up-gradation of the
airport facilities. In addition, the setting up of the fourth international airport
at Kannur will considerably reduce the catchment area of Calicut airport. On
a perusal of table 4.27 reveals that Calicut airport is not planning for any
non-aeronautical expansion and the proposed expansion is depending on
availability of land. For the purpose of rating it is assumed that the
Government will acquire the required land in due course and that the
proposed expansions will take place in phases within a range of 3 to 5 years.
Based on the anticipated time of completion of the expansion proposals,
weightage is attached to each proposal. If the proposal is expected to
complete within three years, 100% weightage is given. In the case of
proposals that require 4 years to complete, weightage of 90% is attached and
if the anticipated time of completion of the proposal is 5yeras or more, then
a weightage of 50% is attached to that proposal. Weightage allotted to the
expansion programme based on the time of completion and the
corresponding points are given in table-4.28.
Table- 4.28 Points based on the execution status of expansion plans.

Expected period of completion & weightage
Nature of proposals 3 years 4 years 5 years & above
(100%) (90%) (50%) Average
Aeronautical facilities 1.00 0.90 0.50 0.80
Non aeronautical facilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average score 0.40
The proposed expansions are expected to be carried out in a time
bound manner and some proposals will take up to 5 years to complete. Thus,
the weightage points are awarded according to length of project period.
Average points for the expansion of the aeronautical facilities at Calicut
airport is 80. Since no non-aeronautical facilities are proposed, no point is
awarded. Hence, the average points for Calicut airport is 0.40.
Table 4.29 Expansion plans and constraints for Cochin airport.
Expected period of
Proposals completion Constraints
The Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL) plans to initiate its second Proposal is to be
phase of expansion after a proposed public issue of its equity share capital in 3 years approved by the
the coming financial year. general body
Plans to diversify its operations by taking up consultancy works for other Competition from
airport operators and developing public infrastructure like power, roads and 4 years existing players
energy.
Proposal for establishment of a swank new lounge for international travel. 3 years Nil
KITCO is in the final stages of designing the new terminal building to cater to Approval from the
the growth in passenger traffic for the next 15 years. 4 years board of Directors
Six phases of expansion over a period of 20 years is envisioned, the third Nil
phase of which was completed in 2009 4 years
The current international terminal is to be converted completely into a domestic
terminal, as a new state-of-the-art international terminal will be built. As per the
plans, the new international terminal would come up on the eastern side of the
existing structure. The built up space of the new terminal would be 1,000,000 sq ft
(92,903 m2) having segregated departures and arrivals at different levels. The
terminal will have 16 aero-bridges and an additional 30 parking bays. The new
terminal would have a capacity to handle 4800 passengers at any given point of 3 years
time. The arrivals will have 12 baggage carousels and increased immigration
facilities. The new Int'l terminal which will cost 600 crore (US$109.2 million)
will have two levels, the ground level for arrivals and the top level for departures.
It will be able to handle 12 million passengers annually and 4800 passengers
during peak hours. The terminal is expected to be commissioned by the last
quarter of 2014 can
manage passenger traffic till 2030.
The current domestic terminal is proposed to be converted into Royal Pavilion that
would handle VIP and private chartered flights and jets. The current international
3 years
terminal, when converted into a domestic terminal, will have 5 aero-bridges and 10
boarding gates facility, apart from increased parking bays.
AEROTROPOLIS and CIAL Tour Division (CTD) are planned 3 years
Source: websites of CIAL, DGCA, AAI & MOCA
Chapter 4
Weightage attached to each proposal is consolidated and bifurcated
in to aeronautical and non-aeronautical facilities and the final score is given
in table-4.30. Since Cochin airport is holding sufficient land for many of the
proposed expansions, and the required funds are expected to flow in through
the proposed public issue, anticipated time for completion of the projects are
less than three years and weightage attached accordingly.
Table- 4.30 Points based on the expected period of completion proposals.

(100%) (90%) (50%) Average
Average score 0.95
Previous expansion programmes at CIAL are seem to be completed
before the target dates. Being an airport under the PPP model, the efficiency
in implementing the development plans are on a fast track. With the
proposed public issue, funds required for the proposed expansions are
expected to flow in without any hindrance. All the previous projects were
completed in time and the airport is holding sufficient land for the execution
of the projects. Since some of the projects proposed by the CIAL may take
more than 3 years to complete, average points scored after applying the
appropriate weightage is 0.95
Table 4.31 Expansion plans and constraints for Trivandrum airport.

Proposals Constraints
A new terminal is to be a 28,800 m² area. A three-storey
building with a total floor area of approximately
23,300m². The passenger-handling capacity of the new
terminal will be approximately 1.95 million each year, The major portion of the land to be acquired and handed
with peak-hour handling capacity of 1,600 departing and over to the AAI is on the thickly populated Karali-
arriving passengers. The project will be executed in two Vallakadavu side. As in the first and second phases, the
phases. The first phase, costing INR1.65bn, includes the administration anticipates opposition from the local
construction of the terminal building, apron and car park, people.
airline offices, plant rooms and other supporting facilities.
The terminal building will cost INR1.15bn, with the car
park accommodating 575 cars.
The second phase will cost INR800m. The key works There has not been any initiative for acquiring 32.8
include the lateral expansion of the terminal building by hectares of land required for setting up the domestic
27m on the Chaka side and by 40.5m on the Karali side. terminal adjacent to the new international terminal
An approach road from the NH 47 bypass crossing the building and to create ancillary facilities. Following the
canal will also be constructed in this phase. More than 82 delay in acquiring land for the final phase, the AAI has
acres would be acquired for second stage of expansion of already wound up its Project Division.
the airport
Proposal for a multi-modal hub at the Trivandrum
international airport will make it the only airport in its
category, having all five modes of transport - rail, road, The proposal involves the cleaning of the Parvathy
air, inland waterway and sea - forming a great hub. A Puthanar canal that flows right in front of the new
cruise terminal can be set up at Shanghumugham, instead terminal building.
of Vizhinjam where the sea meets the airport adding
another dimension to holiday travel.
It can be seen that many of the proposals will require more time to
materialize due to the constraints observed. Hence the anticipated time for
completion of the projects is reckoned as more than four years and
weightage is attached accordingly. Points scored by Trivandrum airport is
given in table-4.32
Table- 4.32 Points based on the expected period of completion at Trivandrum airport.
Average
(100%) (90%) (50%)
Average score 0.60
Chapter 4
Trivandrum airport is situated in the middle of the city and the area is
thickly populated. Any attempt to acquire additional land is likely to be met
with public opposition. It is reported in the news papers that AAI had
already wound up their project division at Trivandrum airport. On a
conservative level, the period of implementation of the proposals is assumed
to be 4 years and points are awarded after applying appropriate weightage.
Accordingly the average point scored by the Trivandrum airport is 0.60.
Table 4.33 Points based on the anticipated completion of the proposal

Points based on expected period of completion & weightage
Nature of proposals
Aeronautical facilities 0.80 0.95 0.70
Non aeronautical facilities 0.00 0.95 0.50
Average score 0.40 0.95 0.60
Source: Research data.
Table 4.33 is the consolidation of the average scores of the three

airports on account of the anticipated period for completion of the airport
expansion proposals both on aeronautical and non-aeronautical fronts.
4.1.4 Airport Charges
The term airport charges constitute the aeronautical revenues of

airports, which together with commercial revenues add up to total revenues.
Level of airport charges theoretically reflect the costs of an airport that are
usually made up of operational costs. However, the costs for major
investments also supposed to be financed by airport charges. Airport
charges are regulated by legislation, because airports are regarded as natural
monopolies due to their large and fixed capital infrastructure, which leads to
a high market power. The Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA)
Act, 2008 provides for the establishment of an Airports Economic

Regulatory Authority to regulate tariff and other charges for the aeronautical
services rendered at airports and to monitor performance standards of
airports. Levy of Passenger Service Fee is as per rule 88 of the Indian
Aircraft Rules 1937, which is collected by licensee from embarking
passengers. It has two components, namely, Security Component and
Facilitation Component. Security Component is utilised for incurring the
expenditure in respect of the Aviation Security Force deployed at the
airports and related equipments. The Facilitation Component is appropriated
by the airport operator towards services provided to the passengers at the
airport. As per section 22 of the AAI Act, the AAI can charge fees for the
amenities given to the passengers and visitors at any airport, civil enclave,
heliport or airstrip. Provision to levy User Development Fee is included in
rule 89 of the Aircraft rules 1937. This provision is made to ensure fair
return to the airport operators on the investments made for providing airport
services. It can be seen that as the airports strive to increase revenue share
from non-core activities, they turn to be more and more passenger and
commercial oriented. In this study, airport charges in respect of route
navigation facility, terminal navigation and landing, parking and passenger
service are considered. Data with respect to the three airports are given in
table 4.34.
Chapter 4
Table-4.34 Airport charges at three airports in Kerala
(CLT) (CIAL) (TVM) CLT CHN TVM
Payable to AAI AAI AAI
Route Navigation Facility Charges (RNFC) 4620 4620 4620 1 1 1
Terminal navigation landing charges
Below 10 mt 1087 1087 1087 1 1 1
10 mt and above 6546 6546 6546 1 1 1
Passenger service fee 207 207 207 1 1 1
Service charges for extension of watch hours: 4500 4500 4500 1 1 1
Landing charges
International flights
Upto 100 mt 413 228 250 0.6 1 0.9
Above 100 mt 472 306 336 0.6 1 0.9
Other than international
Upto 100 mt 231 171 188 0.7 1 0.9
Above 100 mt 231 229 252 1.0 1.0 0.9
Parking& housing charges
Upto 100 mt 548 500 810 0.9 1.0 0.6
Above 100 mt 10.3 10 10.8 0.97 1 0.93
4.8 6.0 5.2
0.8 1.0 0.9
Source: websites of AAI and CIAL
Data in table 4.34 indicate only a slight variation in respect of the

charges levied at the three airports. The major variation is with respect to
the landing and parking charges levied at the three airports. The rates are
marginally low at CIAL. In order to grade the three airports, a bench mark
value is selected which is the least value among the three airports. Then the
other two airports are graded based on this benchmark value. It can be seen
from the table that variation in respect of the charges for landing, parking
and housing of aircrafts have resulted in the lowest grade to the Calicut
International airport preceded by Trivandrum International airport and

CIAL where the charges are the least and is ahead of the others.
4.1.5 Geographical Factors
DISTANCE CATCHMENT AREA TRAVEL TIME
Fig.4.4 Geographical Factors

Airport Geographical factors in the wider sense comprise of the
tropical conditions, terrain, distance from various locations, travel time,
catchment area, networks and location. The sole purpose of transportation is
to overcome space and in this process is influenced by various
constraints such as topography, distance, time, administrative divisions.
Since the three airports under study are situated in comparatively close
proximity, in the study only three major factors namely catchment area,
distance and travel time are analysed. If an airport is closer to the city
centre, then more benefits are derived because of shorter average
commuting times from the airport to centres of activity. If there is
congestion and lack of alternatives to road access then connectivity to the
airport would be hampered. When the location of an airport gets closer to
the city centre, more externalities such as the opportunity cost for the land
devoted to the airport, the number of people adversely affected by noise,
and incompatibilities with local land uses are incurred. Thus, an inverse
Chapter 4
relation between the benefits and externalities could be observed with
respect to the location of an airport.
The concept of catchment area is used to define the area within

which most of the existing or potential traffic of an airport lies. There is a
chance of overlapping catchment areas, where two or more airports compete
for the same traffic. If the airports are having overlapping catchment areas,
then the main determinant for passengers to choose an airport is the location
of the airport. The concept of catchment area can be explained in different
ways. It can be based on number of people who live in the geographical
area, which is determined by a particular distance to the airport or based on
the number of people who live in the geographical area, from which access
takes a particular time to the airport. Based on these observations an
airport’s catchment area can be described by constructing an "isochrone"
around the airport. However, based on the purpose of travel of the
passengers, there may lead to differences in suitable isochrones. This is
mainly because business passengers are more time-sensitive than leisure
passengers and hence they are willing to pay a higher price to use the airport
with the shortest surface travel time. While for long-distance travellers, it
will amount to only a smaller share of their overall journey time and hence
they might be willing to prefer a longer journey to the airport than short-
distance travellers might. In this study, the catchment area is determined
based on the duration of time taken to travel to an airport. The size of
catchment areas and overlaps between catchment areas of neighbouring
airports could provide useful evidence of the potential for, and strength of,
competition between these airports. The purpose of mapping of surface
access travel times is to establish the proximity of surrounding districts to a
particular airport, according to the time taken to travel by surface transport
from the district capital to a particular airport. The maps are a factual
representation of travel times and do not take account of actual passenger
activity or population density.
For the purpose of this study, only the data related to the travel
distance and travel time are considered. The distance and time taken to
travel the distance from the district capital to various airports is calculated
with the help of Google map and the data are reproduced in table 4.35.
Table 4.35 Distance - Travel Time Chart from Three Airports to Various District head quarters
From ► Calicut Cochin Trivandrum
Distance Time Distance Time Distance Time
TO ▼ KM Min. KM Min. KM Min.
Alappuzha 235 245 90 90 150 130
Ernakulm 175 180 25 30 217 210
Idukki 248 280 98 125 254 310
Kannur 120 150 260 310 486 510
Kasargod 209 250 350 410 583 647
Kollam 318 310 160 160 64 60
Kottayam 245 250 85 100 165 156
Kozhikode 32 35 180 210 404 420
Malappuram 23 25 130 160 371 325
Palakkad 110 100 110 100 339 300
Pathanamthitta 300 315 150 160 110 125
Thiruvananthapuram 387 260 240 230 6 15
Thrissur 101 125 50 55 279 268
Wayanad 107 105 240 260 476 486
Source: Compiled from googlemap.com
Table 4.35 presents the data regarding the distance from various
district headquarters to the three airports and the minimum time to reach the
Chapter 4
airport from these centres. In order to convert these data in to a numerical
value, the average of these distances and corresponding travel times are
calculated and the least value is taken as the benchmark value and points are
allotted. The results are given in table 4.36
Table 4.36 Averages of distance and time to reach the airports

Average distance to reach the airport 186 KM 155 KM 279 KM
Average time to reach the airport 188 MIN 171 MIN 283 MIN
Average time in hours 3:08 2:51 4:43
score 0.91 1.00 0.60
The average distance and average time taken, to reach each airport
from the various district headquarters of Kerala is given in table 4.36. Using
the least value as the benchmark value, corresponding scores of the three
airports are calculated. Since Cochin airport is situated in the centre of
Kerala, the average distance from various district head quarters is the least.
Trivandrum airport is in the southern end of Kerala and hence its average
distance and time are the highest among the three airports.
Catchment areas of the three airports are demarcated using least

travel distance and least travel time to reach the respective airports from the
district headquarters. Table 4.37 presents the details of the catchment areas
of the three airports based on the least travel distance.
Table 4.37 Catchment Areas of Three Airports Based on Least Travel Distance
From Calicut from Cochin From Trivandrum
Distance Distance Distance
TO ▼ KM TO ▼ KM TO ▼ KM
Malappuram 23 Ernakulm 25 Trivandrum 6
Kozhikode 32 Thrissur 50 Kanyakumari 63
Wayanad 107 Kottayam 85 Kollam 64
Palakkad 110 Alappuzha 90 Pathanamthitta 110
Kannur 120 Idukki 98
Kasargod 209 Palakkad 110
Points 0.61 0.85 1.0
Source: research data
The entire Malabar area is served by the Calicut airport and the
central Kerala is served by Cochin airport. Trivandrum airport caters to the
travel needs of southern districts and also Kanyakumari district of
Tamilnadu. Though the catchment area of Trivandrum airport is small
compared to the other two airports, the average time to reach the airport
from the catchment area is less and hence maximum point is allotted to this
airport. Catchment areas of the three airports based on the least travel time
is given in table 4.38.
Table 4.38 Catchment Areas of Three Airports Based on Least Travel Time
From Calicut From Cochin From Trivandrum
To ▼ Time Min. TO ▼ Time Min. TO ▼ Time Min.
Malappuram 25 Ernakulm 30 Trivandrum 15
Kozhikode 35 Thrissur 55 Kanyakumari 60
Wayanad 105 Kottayam 100 Kollam 60
Palakkad 100 Alappuzha 90 Pathanamthitta 125
Kannur 150 Idukki 125
Kasargod 250 Palakkad 100
0.59 0.85 1.0
Chapter 4
Calicut
Cochin
Trivandrum
Fig.4.5 Travel Time Isochrone of three Airports in Kerala

Table 4.39 Consolidated score of three international airports in Kerala based on the
geographical factors.
Points based on average distance & time 0.91 1.0 0.60
Points based on distance 0.61 0.85 1.0
Points based on time 0.59 0.85 1.0
Average score 0.70 0.90 0.87
4.2 Analysis of Competitiveness using Fuzzy Logic
Fuzzy linguistic variable approach is applied to measure the

competitiveness of CIAL in comparison to other two international airports
in Kerala. Two fuzzy linguistic variables importance (X) associated with
each of the competitive factors defined by personal interview with the
experts and competitiveness (Y) of each airport is calculated by analysing
the collected secondary data. The values of competitiveness of each airport
are divided into six linguistic criteria, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, and B6. In this
analysis, R(x) and R(y) are defined as a semantic rule for associating a
meaning with each variable name. The primary values of the two variable X
and Y are defined on the universe of discourse [0, 1].The competitiveness of
CIAL is calculated in a step by step process as follows.
Step 1
The competitiveness of each airport is analysed by setting up the

degree of importance of the influencing factors and linguistically assessing
it by selecting the values of importance (X). In order to assess the relative
degree of importance of five factors, the data obtained through personal
interview with the experts in the airport field was used. The criteria used for
assessing the linguistic importance of each factor is given in table 4.40
Table 4.40 Criteria for the linguistic assessment of the importance of each factor
Linguistic value of Relative Degree of
Criteria Importance Importance
Most important (A1 ) [ 0.90,1.00]
More important (A2) [ 0.80,0.89]
Important (A3) [0.70, 0.79]
Less important (A4) [0.60, 0.69]
Least important (A5) [0.50, 0.59]
Unimportant (A6) [0.00, 0.49]
Source: survey data
Chapter 4
In table 4.40, importance of the five factors is divided in to six
categories from ‘most important’ to ‘unimportant’. Based on the criteria
given in table 4.40, the importance of each of the influencing factors to the
airport competitiveness was assessed linguistically by selecting values of the
variable X= importance, which is given in table 4.41.
Table 4.41 Linguistic assessment of the importance of each factor

Relative Degree of
Factors Linguistic value of Importance
Importance
Airport Facilities (APF) 1.00 A1
Airport Accessibility (APA) 0.95 A1
Airport Expansion Potential (AEP) 0.90 A1
Airport Charges (APC) 0.65 A4
Airport Geographical Factors (APG) 0.54 A5
Assessment of the relative degree of importance and the

corresponding linguistic values of the five factors based on the inputs from
the interview with the experts and on the criteria given in table 4.40, are
done and the values are given in table 4.41. Airport facilities (APF) are
having the highest degree of importance of 1.00 followed by Airport
accessibility and Airport expansion potential (AEP), which have values of
0.95 and 0.90 respectively. The value of the relative degree of importance of
airport charges is 0.65 and that of airport geographical factors is 0.54. The
linguistic values of A1, A1, A1, A4 and A5 are assigned to the five factors as
shown in table 4.41. Hence, the three factors, APF, APA and AEP are
linguistically assessed as the most important with respect to the study of
competitiveness of the international airports in Kerala.
The values related to the competitiveness of each airport with respect

to the five factors are assessed after analysing the secondary data collected
from various sources. To assess the airport competitiveness, linguistic
criteria based on the values of the linguistic variable Y as shown in table
4.40 are used. The values of competitiveness of each airport are divided into
six linguistic criteria as given in table 4.42.
Table 4.42 Criteria for the linguistic assessment of competitiveness of each airport
Criteria
Highly superior (B1 ) 0.90 - 1.00
More superior (B2) 0.80 - 0.89
Superior (B3) 0.70 - 0.79
Average (B4) 0.60 - 0.69
Below average (B5) 0.50 - 0.59
Inferior (B6) 0.00 - 0.49
Where U is the set of universe of discourse [0,1] ={0.0,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5, 0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1.0}
Each airport is graded as given in table 4.43 based on the results got
after analysing the secondary data collected in respect of the three international
airports in Kerala, and this grade value is converted in to linguistic
assessment of the competitiveness using the criteria given in table 4.41 and
the results are given in table 4.44.
Table- 4.43 Calculated values of degree of competitiveness of three airports

Values of Y
Factors Calicut Cochin Trivandrum
Airport Facilities (APF) 0.61 0.99 0.84
Airport Accessibility (APA) 0.52 0.89 0.90
Airport Expansion Potential (AEP) 0.40 0.95 0.60
Airport Charges (APC) 0.80 1.00 0.90
Airport Geographical Factors (APG) 0.70 0.90 0.87
Chapter 4
Table 4.44 Linguistic assessment of the competitiveness of each airport
Competitiveness
Factors Importance
Airport Facilities (APF) A1 B4 B1 B2
Airport Accessibility (APA) A1 B5 B2 B1
Airport Expansion Potential (AEP) A1 B6 B1 B4
Airport Charges (APC) A4 B2 B1 B1
Airport Geographical Factors (APG) A5 B3 B1 B2
Linguistic variables assigned to the various factors related to the
three international airports in Kerala given in table 4.44 show that airport
facilities which is assigned an importance of A1 is having varying
competitiveness values. Calicut international airport for which the calculated
degree of competitiveness is 0.61 was assigned a linguistic value of B 4 for
the airport facilities. Cochin and Trivandrum airports were assigned B1 and
B2 respectively. In the case of the factor airport accessibility, linguistic
values assigned to the Calicut, Cochin and Trivandrum airports are B5, B2
and B1 respectively. The factor, airport expansion potential had the lowest
competitiveness value for Calicut airport followed by Trivandrum and
Cochin. The linguistic values assigned to these airports are B6, B4 and B1
respectively. Linguistic value of competitiveness for airport charges is the
lowest for Calicut (B2) while Cochin and Trivandrum were assessed with
the value B1. Geographical characteristics are assessed as the least
important and the linguistic value of competitiveness assigned to these
factors for Calicut, Trivandrum and CIAL are B3, B2 and B1respectively.
Step 2
In this step, the compatibility functions of fuzzy linguistic variables,
X and Y are used to calculate the values of linguistic assessment rij, in
equation (3) in chapter 2, in respect of each airport and each influencing

factor. There are five influencing factors for each of the three selected
airports. Based on this, 15 fuzzy relations representing the five factors for
each airport are obtained. For instance the fuzzy relation r12, which
represents the competitiveness of factor airport facilities (i=1) for Cochin
International airport (j=2), is shown below. Airport facilities are assessed as
most important (A1) in terms of importance and the competitiveness of
CIAL with respect to this factor is assessed as highly superior (B1).
1
if Ri(x)≤Rj(y)
r1 Rj(y) if Ri(x)>Rj(y)
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.008
0.026
= 0.063 ③ [0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000]
0.130
0.240
0.410
0.656
1.000
=
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
Chapter 4
In the same manner, 15 fuzzy relations are calculated for the three
airports in respect of the five factors of competitiveness.
Step 3
Based on the 15 fuzzy relations obtained in step 2, the intersection

(Rj) of fuzzy relations in equation (4) in the methodology, associated with
each of the three selected airports across the five influencing factors to the
competitiveness, are calculated. Thus based on equation (4) given in chapter
2, the minimum of all r ’s
i
for the five factors in respect of the three airports
are extracted, and they are given in the three matrices R1, for Calicut airport,
R2, for Cochin airport and R3, for Trivandrum airport.
R1 (for airport 1, Calicut)

0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 0.253 0.354 0.465 0.586 0.716 0.854 1.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.586 0.716 0.854 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.716 1.000 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512 1.000 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512 1.000 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512 1.000 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512 0.729 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512 0.146 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.284 0.146 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.284 0.146 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.284 0.146 0.000
R2 (airport 2, Cochin)
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
R3 (for airport 3, Trivandrum)
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512 0.729 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.729 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.729 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000
Step 4
From the three matrices R1, R2 and R3 maximum competitiveness of

each of the three airports were extracted by using the equation (5) in chapter
2. The maximum competitiveness of each airport with regard to the five
influencing factors so calculated are given in table- 4.45
Chapter 4
Table 4.45 Maximum competitiveness of three international airports
Airport Fuzzy relation Values of maximum competitiveness
[ 0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 0.253 0.354 0.465 0.586
Calicut R1(max) (y)
0.716 1.000 1.000]
[0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
Cochin R2(max) (y)
0.262 0.531 1.000]
[0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343
Trivandrum R3(max) (y)
0.512 0.729 1.000]
4.3 Identification of the Most Competitive Airport in Kerala
From table 3.44, the maximum competitiveness of each airport is

obtained and to find out the most competitive airport, the relative Euclidean
distance is calculated.
After calculating the maximum competitiveness of each of the three

selected airports in step 4 the relative Euclidean distance (δ j) was calculated
to measure each airport’s competitiveness. From the values of δ j the most
competitive airport is selected on the basis of shortest distance. Values of
R*(y) and the calculated values of relative Euclidean distance are given in
table 4.46. Relative Euclidean distance and the corresponding ranking of the
three international airports in Kerala is given in table 4.47
Table 4.46 Relative Euclidean Distance of three airports

B1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262 0.531 1.000 δj
Calicut 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.062 0.114 0.175 0.219 0.206 0.220 0.000 0.0871
Cochin 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0001
TVM 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.012 0.029 0.051 0.062 0.039 0.000 0.0391
In the table 4.46, B1 is the value of the ideal compatibility function
in terms of the linguistic variable of highly superior for an airport j.
Relative Euclidean distance is calculated using the maximum values of the

three matrices R1, R2 and R3.
Table 4.47 Ranking of the three airports based on the relative Euclidean distance
Rank Airport Relative Euclidean distance
1 Cochin 0.0001
2 Trivandrum 0.0391
3 Calicut 0.0871
Table 4.47 shows that CIAL is having the shortest relative Euclidean
distance of 0.0001 followed by Trivandrum with a value of 0.0391 and
Calicut with 0.0871. Since CIAL is having minimum relative Euclidean
distance in terms of the compatibility function for the competitiveness of the
airport, it is ranked as the most competitive airport in Kerala.
Relative Euclidean distance

calicut, 0.0871
Trivandrum, 0.0391
cochin, 0.0001
Fig.4.6. Relative Euclidean distance of three airports
Basically heuristic algorithms solve really difficult problems

reasonably well within a reasonable amount of time. The competitiveness
of each airport is calculated by the relative Euclidean distance and the most
competitive airport in Kerala is found to be the CIAL. It is the first
Greenfield airport in the country under PPP and the result of this study
justifies the move for liberalisation in the equity structure of future airports
in India.
Chapter 4
In this chapter it is found that CIAL is the most competitive airport in
Kerala though not the ideal one. This warrants for a study on the state of
affairs of the facilities at the airport based on passengers’ perception. Hence
a study on the passengers’ perception of the performance and the
importance of various facilities at the airport is conducted in the next
chapter.
…………
Passengers' Perception of Airport Facilities -Using Modified Importance - Performance
The facilities available at CIAL which come under three major areas
namely airside facilities, terminal building facilities and landside facilities
are classified based on their characteristics so as to enable the passengers to
evaluate it. Accordingly, the airport facilities are classified into four broad
categories such as check-in facilities, amenities, terminal facilities and
airport accessibility. The impact of these facilities on the passengers are
analysed using a structured questionnaire.
The main aim of this chapter is to measure the importance that the
passengers had given to various facilities available at the domestic and
international terminals of CIAL and the satisfaction perceived by them. For
assessing the importance and perception of performance, an Importance-
Performance Analysis (IPA) is conducted. Importance in the present study
can be defined as the weightage that each passenger has given to the
facilities available at the airport. Performance is defined as the satisfaction
Chapter 5
that each passenger perceived on the available facilities. A gap analysis is
applied to find out whether there exist any gap between the importance and
performance of the facilities available at the domestic and international
terminals. The IPA technique identifies strengths and weaknesses by
comparing the two criteria that passengers use in making a choice: the
relative importance of attributes and passengers’ evaluation of the service in
terms of those attributes.
Fig.5.1 Components of Airport facilities
The four main variables used in the analysis are the processes related
to check-in facility, amenities, terminal facilities, airport accessibility. The
main variables are bifurcated into 28 sub-variables.
Passengers' Perception of Airport Facilities -Using Modified Importance - Performance Analysis
5.1 Structural Equation Modelling

In this chapter, structural equations are used to evaluate the
regression equation for each of the variables. Using the regression equation,
values of each of the variables, which are free of personal prejudices,
measurement bias and doubt over the appropriate placement of crosshairs
are found out to determine whether performance and importance are high or
low for both the importance and perception. IPA and the related gap
analysis are carried out using the estimated values.
5.1.1 Reliability test
It is necessary to assess the statistical reliability of the sample data

before any further validation analysis or carrying out Confirmatory Factor
Analysis. The term reliability refers to the degree of dependability,
consistency or stability of a scale. An unreliable scale will lack consistency
of measuring the same item to the extent. There are four good methods of
measuring reliability. Test-retest technique, multiple forms, inter-rater and
Split half reliability. In the case of field survey, internal consistency is
estimated by using Cronbach’s alpha. A high value of the Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient suggests that the items that make up the scale hang together and
measure the same underlying construct. An alpha value of 0.70 or above is
considered as the criterion for demonstrating strong internal consistency,
alpha value of 0.60 or above is considered significant. In this study,
Cronbach’s alpha is calculated for all the four variables separately for the
domestic and international terminals for the perceived importance and
performance of the quality of airport facility is calculated. Values of
Cronbach’s alpha given in table 5.1, shows that the refined scale is reliable.
Chapter 5
Table 5.1 Cronbach’s alpha
Domestic International
Variables Performance Importance Performance Importance
Check-in facility 0.788 0.729 0.773 0.755
Amenities 0.766 0.669 0.611 0.640
Terminal facilities 0.716 0.813 0.812 0.861
Airport accessibility 0.728 0.661 0.624 0.770
Total 0.749 0.707 0.794 0.695
5.1.2 Suitability and Communality test - Exploratory Factor Analysis
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is applied to find the suitability

of the four variables and their total considered for the confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) and to identify how far the sub variables (questions) coming
under each of the 4 main variables measures them correctly. The EFA
model fit indices for the four variables and their totals are given in table 5. 2
Table 5.2 EFA Model fit - Domestic Terminal

Check-in Terminal Airport
Amenities
facility facilities accessibility
P I P I P I P I
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
.755 .675 .573 .515 .697 .684 .505 .503
Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity -Chi 449.798 286.130 144.716 57.529 493.189 667.925 8.637 42.932
df 28 28 10 10 55 55 3 3
Sig. <0.001 <0.001 .000 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 .035 <0.001
Table 5.3 EFA Model fit - International Terminal
Check-in Terminal Airport
Amenities
facility facilities accessibility
P I P I P I P I
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
.685 .631 .611 .599 .799 .708 .654 .649
Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity -Chi 407.458 393.964 144.346 83.675 742.938 916.007 22.014 54.302
df 28 28 10 10 55 55 3 3
Sig. <0.001 <0.001 .000 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Table 5.4 EFA Model fit totals

P I P I
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .607 .690 .692 .692
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity -Chi 215.818 172.579 279.479 176.420
df 6 6 6 6
Sig. <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value for all the 4 variables found to be

exceeding the recommended value of 0.5 and the Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the
correlation matrix.
EFA is a method used for testing effects of each of the four main
variables and this is done by using a communality of each of the four
variables. Communality is the extent to which an item correlates with all
other items or in other words, communality gives the variance accounted for
a particular variable by all the factors. Higher communalities are better. If
the communalities for a particular variable are low (between 0.0-0.4), then,
that variable will struggle to load significantly on any factor. Low values
indicate questions for removal after examining the pattern matrix. All the
communalities calculated in the present study are greater than 0.4 indicating
the suitability of factorization with these variables.
Table 5.5: Communalities –Total

Performance Importance Performance Importance
Check-in facility .590 .425 0.557 0.485
Amenities .689 .676 0.612 0.633
Terminal facilities .828 .805 0.774 0.779
Airport accessibility .609 .442 0.508 0.457
Chapter 5
Table 5.6 Model fit Indices for CFA- Total
Performance Importance Performance Importance
χ2 3 .001 3 .001
DF 1 1 1 1
P 00.078 .978 00.078 .978
Normed χ2 3 .001 3 .001
GFI 0.990 1.000 0.990 1.000
AGFI 00.9 1.000 00.9 1.000
NFI 00.986 1.000 00.986 1.000
TLI 00.941 1.000 00.941 1.000
CFI 00.990 1.000 00.990 1.000
RMR 0.632 .003 0.632 .003
RMSEA 00.119 0 00.119 0
For the analysis, initially an input model was developed by using

AMOS-7 graphics. This initial model is refined to reach the final model.
5.2 Examination of the characteristics of sample population

based on Demographic Features
As mentioned in the methodology section of the first chapter, the
sample size consisted of 300 passengers, 150 each from domestic and
international terminals. The different characteristics of the sample
population of the passengers separately for the domestic and international
terminals are examined for conducting the analysis within the suggested
framework, which takes into account the relationship between different
variables.
5.2.1 Age group of respondents
Based on the age of the respondents, the researcher classified them

into different groups separately for the domestic and international terminals.
Table 5.7 is the details of age wise classification of the respondents.
Table 5.7 Age group of the sample population
Age Domestic International Total
Number 54 32 86
18-28
% 36.0% 21.3% 28.7%
Number 57 62 119
29-42
% 38.0% 41.3% 39.7%
Number 29 50 79
43-55
% 19.3% 33.3% 26.3%
Number 10 6 16
56-65
% 6.7% 4.0% 5.3%
Data in table 5.7 show that 36% of the domestic travellers and 21.3%
percentage of the international travellers are in the age group of 18 to 28.
The domestic and international passengers in the age group 29-42 are 38%
and 41.3% respectively. The domestic and international passengers in the
age group of 43-55 are 19.3% and 6.7% and in the age group 56-65 are and
33.3% and 4% respectively. Fig.5.2 is the graphical representation of age
distribution of the respondents.
Chapter 5
6
50
International
62
32 56-65
Termi
43-55
29-42
10
18-28
29
Domestic
57
54
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Number of respondents
Fig. 5.2 Age Distribution
5.2.2 Gender wise classification of respondents
The sample population is classified into two groups for both

domestic and international terminals separately based on their gender and
the data is given in table 5.8.
Table 5.8 Gender wise classification of the respondents

Gender Domestic International Total
Number 124 122 246
Male
Percentage 82.7% 81.3% 82.0%
Number 26 28 54
Female
Percentage 17.3% 18.7% 18.0%
Table 5.8 shows that 82 % of the respondents are males and 18% of
the respondents are females. The pattern is almost similar for both the
terminals.
1 1
M Fem
2 2
Figure 5.3 Gender wise classifications
5.2.3 Classification of respondents based on Usage Pattern
In order to analyse the pattern of usage among the sample

population, the details of their usage of the airport is collected and the data
are given in table 5.9
Table 5.9 Usage wise classification of the respondents

Experience Domestic International Total
Number 135 138 273
Arrival/Departure
Percentage 90.0% 92.0% 91.0%
Number 12 12 24
Departure Only
Percentage 8.0% 8.0% 8.0%
Number 3 0 3
Transit
Percentage 2.0% .0% 1.0%
Table 5.9 shows that 91% of the respondents used the airport for
arrival and departure while 8% used the airport only for departure. Transit
passengers constituted only 1% of the total respondents.
Chapter 5
TRANSITDEPARTUREBOTH
0
International 12
138
3
Domestic 12
135
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Fig. 5.4 Purpose of terminal usage by passengers
5.2.4 Details of previous usage of airport by the respondents.
The details of the previous usage of the airport by the sample

population are collected from the respondents to find out their frequency of
usage of airport.
Table 5.10 Classification of the participants based on previous usage

Qualification Domestic International Total
Number 20 15 35
First time user
Percentage 13.3% 10.0% 11.7
Number 65 71 136
In the last 3 months
Percentage 43.3% 47.3% 45.3%
Number 19 22 41
3 to 6 months ago
Percentage 12.7% 14.7% 13.7%
More than 6 months ago Number 46 42 88
Percentage 30.7% 28.0% 29.3%
Table 5.10 shows that out of the 150 respondents interviewed at the
domestic terminal, 13.3% were first time users while 43.3% used the airport
with in the last 3 months. 30.7% of the respondents previously used the
airport more than six months ago and the remaining 12.7% last used it
between 3 to 6 months ago. Out of the 150 respondents from the
International terminal 10% are first time users and 47.3% have used the
airport in last three months. The respondents who last used the airport
between 3 to 6 months are 14.7% and the remaining 28% used the terminal
more than 6 month ago.
More than 6 months ago

3 to 6 months agoIn the last 3 months
First time user
42
22
International
71
15
46
Domestic 19
65
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 5.5 Previous usage of the airport by the respondents
5.3 Domestic Terminal

The perceived quality of the facilities at domestic terminal of the
CIAL is measured in this part. The study used 28 measurement items, which
are listed in Table 5.11. These items were presented to the sample
population in the form of a structured questionnaire. For the present study,
Cronbach’s alpha is calculated for all the four variables and the values given
in table 5.1 show that refined scale is reliable. EFA was carried out to find
Chapter 5
the suitability of the 4 variables as given in table 5.2. Further, Structural
model of each of the equation for the 4 variables and the totals are
separately formed to carry out CFA to identify how far the sub variables/
questions coming under each of the 4 main variables measures them
correctly by using a communality of each of the four variables.
Table 5.11 Measurement items of four variables

Q1 Immigration/Emigration process
Q2 Customs process.
Q3 Shopping experience and the product mix and price at the airport
Q4 Road accessibility to airport
Q5 Car Parking Services
Q6 Security Screening process
Q7 Check-in process
Q8 Overall cleanliness, comfort and ambience of the Terminal Building
Q9 Services, price and variety at the Food & Beverage services/ coffee kiosks/ snack bar etc.
Q10 Staff friendliness
Q11 Baggage alert and claim procedures
Q12 Public Announcement system and flight information display board.
Q13 Public conveniences provided at the airport
Q14 Facilities at the lounges
Q15 Cleanliness of the toilet and wash area
Q16 Service, attitude and efficiency of the Airport staff
Q17 Service, attitude and efficiency of the Airlines staff
Q18 Service, attitude and efficiency of the Security/Customs/Immigration staff
Q19 Service, attitude and efficiency of the Housekeeping staff
Q20 Meet & greet facility
Q21 Walking distance between the International and domestic terminals
Q22 Banking/ATM facilities.
Q23 Tobacconist services? (chewing tobacco, cigars, cigarettes)
Q24 Facilities at child care room
Q25 Facilities at Business centre
Q26 Facility of free porter-age for old/infirm/handicapped and unaccompanied ladies
Q27 Ambience at prayer room
Q28 Overall satisfaction with the services and facilities at the Cochin lnternational Airport
The four latent variables selected for the present study are given in
table 5.12.
Table 5.12 Latent Variables

Latent variables
Terminal facilities
Check-in facility
Amenities
Airport accessibility
5.3.1 Terminal Facility
12 questions related to the terminal facilities were presented to the

airport users and they were asked to rate the services at five point scale with
1 for poor, 2 for average, 3 for fair, 4 for good and 5 for excellent to
measure their perception of performance. The same questionnaire was given
to them to rate the airport facilities compared with the services of similar
airports if any the respondent visited earlier. The table 5.13 gives the
communalities of the 12 questions coming under the terminal facilities for
performance and importance.
Table 5.13: Communalities - Terminal facilities

Performance Importance
Q8 Overall cleanliness and comfort at the Terminal Building. 0.443 0.620
Q10 Staff friendliness. 0.730 0.500
Q12 Public Announcement system and flight information display. 0.539 0.558
Q13 Public conveniences provided. 0.514 0.771
Q14 Facilities at the lounges. 0.605 0.550
Q15 Cleanliness of the toilets and wash areas. 0.655 0.632
Q19 Service, attitude and efficiency of the Housekeeping staff 0.668 0.734
Q20 Meet & greet facility. 0.508 0.635
Q24 Facilities at child care room. 0.614 0.694
Q26 Facilities of free porter-age 0.724 0.704
Q27 Ambience at prayer room. 0.610 0.785
Q28 Overall satisfaction with the services and facilities at the CIAL 0.443 0.620
Chapter 5
From table 5.13 it is seen that all the communalities are greater than
0.4 and hence it is assumed that all the variables are included in the final
analysis. The model fit indices of both the Performance and Importance of
the terminal facilities are given in table 5.14.
Table 5.14. Model fit Indices for CFA- Terminal Facilities

χ2 58.119 49.148
DF 41 31
P .040 .020
Normed χ2 1.418 1.585
GFI 0.945 .948
AGFI 0.900 .889
NFI 0.913 .929
TLI 0.954 .949
CFI 0.972 .971
RMR .113 .047
RMSEA 0.053 0.063
Table 5.14 shows that the normed χ2 is less than 3 and almost all the
fit indices of GFI, AGFI, NFI, TLI, CFI, RMR and RMSEA are greater than
the minimum recommended level as given in table 5.6 which indicate that
the construct is of best-fit model.
Figure 5.6 Path diagram for performance of Terminal Facilities
In the path diagram given in fig.5.6, the rectangles represent

observed factors (independent variables). Ovals drawn in the diagram
represents unobserved variable (dependent variable) that is passengers’
perception of performance of terminal facilities. The curved double-headed
arrow represents correlations or co-variances among the unobserved
variables and the straight-headed arrows represent the factor loadings of the
observed variables. The small circles with arrows pointing from the circles
to the observed variables represent errors /unique factors, which are also
known as, squared multiple correlation of the standard error (R2). From the
figure 5.6 it is clear that the most contributing factor for the performance of
terminal facilities is Q15 (cleanliness of toilets and wash areas) with a
regression weight/ factor loading of 0.813, followed by Q28 (overall
Chapter 5
satisfaction of the terminal facilities) having a regression weight 0.799, Q14
(facilities at lounges) came in the third position (0.679). Other factors in the
order of importance are Q19, Q13, Q12, Q8, Q10, Q27, Q20, Q24 and Q26.
The squared multiple correlations ( R2 ) indicate that only Q15, Q28, Q14,
Q19, Q13, Q12 and Q8 with values 0.66, 0.64, 0.46 , 0.43, 0.34, 0.29 and
0.27 respectively are the major contributors in evaluating the performance
of terminal facilities. R2 is used to find out how well the independent
variables are able to predict the dependent variable. It gives the proportion
of variance in the dependent variable accounted for by the set of
independent variables chosen for the model. In the present study, R square
value of 0.66 for the independent variable Q15 that is cleanliness of toilets
and wash areas can predict 66% of the variance in the dependent variable
that is the passengers’ perception of the performance of terminal facilities.
Q8 .55 e1
.74 Q10.32
e2
.57
.63 .40
.83 Q12 e3
.63 .68
.76 Q13 e4 .28
Terminal Facilities Importance .40
.62 .27
Q14 e5
.19 .58 -.26
.15 Q15 -.33
.23 e6
.39 .27 -.47
.26 Q19
.04 e7 .17 -.40
e8 .39
Q20
.02 .26
Q24 e9 .15
.05 .29
Q26 e10
.07 .51
Q27 e11
Figure 5.7 Path diagram for importance of Terminal Facilities
The path diagram, given in figure 5.7, shows that the factor Q13,
Q15, Q8, Q12, Q14, Q19 and Q10 are the most contributing factors for the
importance of terminal facilities. In addition, the R 2 value indicates that
factors Q13, Q15, Q8, Q12, Q14, Q19 and Q10 are the major contributors in
importance of terminal facilities
Table 5.15 Standardized Regression Weights - Terminal facilities

Q8 Overall cleanliness and comfort at the Terminal Building. 0.520 0.743
Q10 Staff friendliness. 0.420 0.566
Q12 Public Announcement system and flight information display. 0.535 0.632
Q13 Public conveniences provided. 0.580 0.827
Q14 Facilities at the lounges. 0.679 0.632
Q15 Cleanliness of the toilets and wash areas. 0.813 0.764
Q19 Service, attitude and efficiency of the Housekeeping staff 0.658 0.623
Q20 Meet & greet facility. 0.147 0.189
Q24 Facilities at child care room. -0.079 0.152
Q26 Facilities of free porter-age -0.085 0.227
Q27 Ambience at prayer room. 0.171 0.256
Q28 Overall satisfaction with the services and facilities at the CIAL 0.799 --
The regression model for the terminal facilities for performance and
the importance are
Performance = 0.520 Q8 + 0.420 Q10 + 0.535 Q12 + 0.580Q13 + 0.679 Q14 +

0.813 Q15 +0.658 Q19 + 0.147 Q20 – 0.079Q24 -0.085Q26 +
0.171 Q27 + 0.799 Q28
Importance = 0.743 Q8 + 0.566 Q10 + 0.632 Q12 + 0.827 Q13 + 0.632 Q14 +
0.764 Q15+0.623 Q19 + 0.189 Q20 + 0.152 Q24 + 0.227 Q26 +
0.256 Q27
5.3.2 Check-in Facility
In order to assess the passengers’ perception about the performance

of check-in facilities at the airport and its importance, eight variables at 5
Chapter 5
point Likert scale was put before the respondents and the communalities
calculated with respect to the 150 respondents is given in Table 5.16.
Table 5.16: Communalities –Check-in facilities

Q1 Immigration/ Emigration process. 0.778 0.445
Q2 Customs process. 0.879 0.582
Q6 Security Screening process. 0.568 0.598
Q7 Check-in process. 0.463 0.679
Q11 Baggage alert and claim procedures. 0.471 0.493
Q16 service, attitude and efficiency of the airport staff: 0.410 0.597
Q17 service, attitude and efficiency of the Airlines staff 0.544 0.408
Q18 Efficiency of the security/Customs/Immigration staff 0.705 0.456
Table 5.16 shows that all the communalities are greater than 0.4
indicating the suitability of factorization with these variables.
Table 5.17 Model fit Indices for CFA- Check-in facilities

χ2 13.710 20.204
DF 15 14
P .548 .124
Normed χ2 .914 1.443
GFI .948 .968
AGFI .946 .917
NFI .970 .931
TLI 1.00 .953
CFI 1.00 .977
RMR .075 0.033
RMSEA 0 0.055
The Table 5.17 indicates that all the indices, GFI, AGFI, NFI, TLI,
CFI, RMR and RMSE are all within the prescribed limit. Therefore, the
final model given here is a saturated model.
Q1 .32 e1
e2 e3 .71
.57 Q2 .28 e4 e5 e6 e7
.53 Q6 Q7.42
Q11 Q16 Q17
e8
.23
.65 Q18 .27
.15 .24
.52
.39 .17 -.09
Check-in facility .41 .44
.67 .71
.84
.19
Figure 5.8 Path diagram for performance of check-in facilities
From the figure 5.8 it is clear that the most contributing factor for the
performance of check-in facilities is Q18 (Efficiency of the
security/Customs/Immigration staff) with a regression weight of 0. 844,
followed by Q17 (service, attitude and efficiency of the Airlines staff)
having a regression weight 0. 665, Q 6 (Security Screening process) came in
the third position (0.646). Other factors in the order of importance are Q1,
Q2, Q7, Q16 and Q11. The R 2 indicate that only Q18, Q17, Q6, Q1, Q2 and
Q7 are the major contributors in the performance of check-in facilities.
Q1 .12 e1
.07 e2 e3
.35 Q2 -.37
.36 e4 e5 e6
.27 e7 -.24
Q6
.60 e8
Q7.71 .45
.84
.32
.57
Q11
.17
.41
Q16
.51 Q17 -.17
.17
.26
Q18 .34
Figure 5.9 Path diagram for importance of Check-in facilities
Chapter 5
From the figure 5.9 it is clear that the most contributing factor for the
importance of check-in facilities is Q7 (Check-in process) with a regression
weight of 0. 843, followed by Q6 (Security Screening process) having a
regression weight 0. 599, Q 11 (Baggage alert and claim procedures) came
in the third position (0.570). Other factors in the order of importance are
Q18, Q16, Q17, Q1 and Q2. The R 2 indicate that only Q7, Q6, Q11 and Q18
are the major contributors in the importance of check-in facilities.
Table 5.18 Standardized Regression Weights - Check-in facilities

Q1 Immigration/ Emigration process. 0.566 0.352
Q2 Customs process. 0.527 0.271
Q6 Security Screening process. 0.646 0.599
Q7 Check-in process. 0.518 0.843
Q11 Baggage alert and claim procedures. 0.393 0.570
Q16 service, attitude and efficiency of the airport staff: 0.415 0.411
Q17 service, attitude and efficiency of the Airlines staff 0.665 0.408
Q18 Efficiency of the security/Customs/Immigration staff 0.844 0.510
The regression model for the check-in facilities for Performance and the
importance are
Performance = 0.566 Q1 + 0.537Q2 + 0.646Q6 + 0.518Q7 + 0.393 Q11 +

0.415 Q16 + 0.665 Q17 + 0.844 Q18.
Importance = 0.352 Q1 + 0.271 Q2 + 0.599 Q6 + 0.843 Q7 + 0.570 Q11 +

0.411 Q16 + 0.408 Q17 + 0.510 Q18.
5.3.3 Amenities
In order to assess the passengers’ perception of performance and

importance of the various amenities provided at the airport, five questions
were presented to the respondents. The communalities corresponding to five
amenities selected for study is exhibited in table 5.19.
Table 5.19: Communalities – Amenities

Perception Importance
Q3 Shopping experience, product mix and price at airport 0.782 0.434
Q9 Services and price at the Food & Beverage services/ coffee kiosks 0.764 0.460
Q22 Banking/ATM facilities. 0.587 0.429
Q23 Tobacconist services? (chewing tobacco, cigars, cigarettes) 0.643 0.759
Q25 Facilities at Business centre. 0.681 0.723
Table 5.19 shows that all the five variables used for the factor
analysis have values greater than 0.4.
Table 5.20 Model fit Indices for CFA- Amenities

χ2 5.017 8.721
DF 2 5
P .081 .121
Normed χ2 2.508 1.744
GFI .987 .977
AGFI .902 .930
NFI .966 .851
TLI .890 .930
CFI .978 .923
RMR .101 .044
RMSEA .101 .071
Chapter 5
Tables 5.19 and 5.20 give the model fit for the performance and
importance of the variable amenities and are well within the recommended
level of fit.
2.45
Q3 e1
.12
Q9 e2
1.57
.35 .00
.01 Q22 e3
.17 .03
Amenities .12 Q23 .34
e4
.49.39
.02
Q25 e5
Figure 5.10 Path diagram for performance of Amenities

From figure 5.10 it is clear that the most contributing factor for the
performance of amenities is Q3 (Shopping experience and the product mix
and price at the airport) with a regression weight of 1.567, followed by Q9
(Services, price and variety at the Food & Beverage services/ coffee kiosks/
snack bar etc.) having a regression weight 0. 350. The R2 value indicate that
only Q3 shopping experience and the product mix and price at the airport is
the major contributor in the performance of amenities.
.00
Q3 e1
.01
Q9 e2
.05
.09 .02
.16 Q22 e3
.44 .19
Amenities e4
Q23
1.14
1.30
Q25 e5
Figure 5.11 Path diagram for importance of Amenities
From figure 5.11 it is clear that the most contributing factor for the
importance of amenities is Q25 (Facilities at Business centre) with a regression
weight of 1.138 followed by Q23 (Tobacconist services, chewing tobacco,
cigars, cigarettes)) having a regression weight 0.439. R2 values indicate that
only Q25 (facilities at Business centre) and Q23 (tobacconist services) are the
major contributors in assessing the importance of amenities.
Table 5.21Standardized Regression Weights – Amenities

Q3 Shopping experience and the product mix and price at the airport 1.567 0.050
Q9 Services, price and variety at the Food & Beverage services 0.350 0.089
Q22 Banking/ATM facilities. 0.006 0.157
Q23 Tobacconist services? (chewing tobacco, cigars, cigarettes) 0.174 0.439
Q25 Facilities at Business centre. 0.123 1.138
The regression model for the amenities for performance and

importance are
Performance = 1.567 Q3 + 0.350 Q9 + 0.006 Q22 + 0.174 Q23 + 0.123 Q25.
Importance = 0.050 Q3 + 0.089 Q9 + 0.157 Q22 + 0.439 Q23 + 1.138 Q25.
In the case of assessing passenger’s perception of performance and

importance about the airport accessibility, three questions regarding the road
accessibility to airport, car parking services and distance between the
international and domestic terminals were presented to the sample
population.
Chapter 5
Table 5.22: Communalities – Airport Accessibility
Q4 Road accessibility to airport. .647 .775
Q5 Car Parking Services. .907 .790
Q21 Walking distance between the terminals. .693 .949
Table 5.22 shows that the communalities of all the variables for both
performance and importance are greater than 0.4.
Table 5.23 Model fit Indices for CFA- Airport Accessibility

χ 2 0.2
DF 1
P 1
Normed χ 2
0.2
GFI .999 1
AGFI .999 1
NFI .980 1
TLI 980 1
CFI .969 1
RMR .031 1
RMSEA 0.119 0.301
One difference from the earlier models and this model is that the
initial model itself is the saturated model and a path diagram indicating the
Standardized Regression Weights for both the cases of performance and
importance cannot be produced. Hence, the initial input model is given for
reference.
Q4 1
e1
1
Q5 1
e2
1
Q21 e3
Figure 5.12 Path diagram (input model) – Airport Accessibility

Table 5.24 Standardized Regression Weights - Airport Accessibility
Q4 Road accessibility to airport. 0.282 0.841
Q5 Car Parking Services. 0.952 0.864
Q21 Walking distance between the terminals. 0.803 0.974
The regression model for the airport accessibility for performance

and importance are
Performance = 0.282 Q4 + 0.952 Q5 + 0.804 Q21
Importance = 0.841 Q4 + 0.864 Q5 + 0.974 Q21
5.3.5 Quality of overall Airport Facilities
The value of the variables such as check-in facility, amenities,

terminal facilities and airport accessibility are calculated as the sum of the
questions coming under each of the four variables. All the communalities
calculated and the values given in table 5.5 are greater than 0.4 indicating
the suitability of factorization with these variables. The fit indices, the error
measure and the goodness of fit measures for the CFA model given in figure
5.13 and 5.14 are already exhibited in table 5.7. These measures indicate
well fit of the model for both the Performance and Importance.
Chapter 5
.67
Check-in facility e1
.69 -1.17
Amenities
e2
.82
.83 .61
Terminal facilities e3
Performance .78
.28
.53Airport accessibility
e4
Figure 5.13 Path diagram for performance of Overall airport facility
In the path diagram given in fig.5.13, the rectangles represent the

total of the observed factors. Ovals drawn in the diagram represents
unobserved variable (dependent variable), that is, passengers’ perception
about the performance of various services at the airport. The curved double-
headed arrow represents correlations or co-variances among the unobserved
variables and the straight-headed arrows represent the factor loadings of the
observed variables. The small circles with arrows pointing from the circles
to the observed variables represent errors /unique factors, which are also
known as, squared multiple correlation of the standard error (R 2). From the
figure 5.13, it is clear that the most contributing factor for the performance
airport facilities is amenities with a regression weight/ factor loading of
0.830, followed by check-in facilities having a regression weight 0.818.
Terminal facilities is the third contributing factor in the performance of
overall service quality and airport accessibility is having comparatively low
influence in the performance of overall service quality. The squared
multiple correlations (R2) indicate that amenities check-in facilities and
terminal facilities are having almost equal role in the performance of overall
facilities at the airport.
.32
Check-in facility e1
.35
.56 Amenities e2
.59 1.08
1.04Terminal facilities e3
Importance .27
.43 .18
e4
Figure 5.14 Path diagram for importance of overall airport facility
In the path diagram given in fig.5.14, it is clear that the most

contributing factor for the importance of service quality is the terminal
facilities with a regression weight/ factor loading of 1.038, followed by
amenities and check-in facility. Airport accessibility is having
comparatively low influence in the assessment of the importance of overall
service quality. The squared multiple correlations (R2) indicate that terminal
facilities, amenities and check-in facilities are having major role in the
importance of overall airport facility.
Table 5.25 Standardized Regression Weights for Overall quality of airport facilities
Check-in facility 0.818 0.564
Amenities 0.830 0.591
Terminal facilities 0.780 1.038
Airport accessibility 0.531 0.427
Chapter 5
The regression model for the overall airport facilities for perception
of performance and importance are
Performance = 0.818 Check-in facility + 0.830 Amenities + 0.780

Terminal facilities + 0.531 Airport accessibility
Importance = 0.564 Check-in facility + 0.591 Amenities + 1.038

Terminal facilities+ 0.427 Airport accessibility.
5.3.6 Modified Importance- Performance Analysis and Gap analysis
Using the regression equations, the values of performance and

importance assessed by each respondent for each of the four variables and
the overall airport facility are calculated and these values are used for the
Modified Importance-Performance Analysis. The values of mean,
coefficient of variation (CV), Gap and the Z and p value the 1% level of
significance are given in Table 5.26.
Table 5.26 Mean, CV, Gap and Z value of variables

Variables Mean CV Mean CV GAP Z Value p Value
Check-in facility 17.37 22.22 19.50 18.05 -2.14 -5.392 <0.001*
Amenities 13.93 29.36 14.84 11.99 -0.91 -2.603 0.01*
Terminal facilities 5.50 47.64 5.52 20.29 -0.02 -0.097 0.923
Airport accessibility 5.45 34.50 8.96 19.31 -3.51 -18.643 <0.001*
Overall airport facility 56.43 24.33 67.99 12.78 -11.57 -9.51 <0.001*
(*) Significant at 1% level
Table 5.26 shows that the mean value for the Performance of the
check-in facilities is 17.37 and that of Importance is 19.50 and the resulting
Gap of -2.14 is found to be statistically significant at 1% level. Similarly the
gap of -0.91 observed in the case of amenities also is found to be
statistically significant. However, the gap for the terminal facilities (-0.02) is
very small and the p value indicate that this is not statistically significant. In
the case of airport accessibility, a statistically significant gap of -3.51 is
recorded. Finally, for the overall rating the gap is -11.57 which is
comparatively very high. The CV indicates that in the case of performance a
wide variation exist among the respondents where in the case of importance
the responses are more or less stable.
For the domestic terminal, the hypothesis in this study is accepted in

terms of the terminal facility as the p-value is statistically not significant and
there is not much difference between the values of performance (5.50) and
importance (5.52). For the other variables of check-in facilities, amenities
and airport accessibility the null hypothesis is rejected on account of
significant p-values (<0.01) and gap values.
5.4 International Terminal
The perceived performance and importance of the facilities at the

international terminal is evaluated by 28 independent variables (questions)
and 4 dependent variables, which are listed in table 5.12 and 5.13. For the
present study, Cronbach’s alpha is calculated for all the four variables and
the values given in table 5.1 shows that refined scale is reliable. EFA was
carried out to find the suitability of the 4 variables as given in table 5.2.
Further, structural model of each of the equation for the 4 variables and the
totals are separately formed to carry out CFA to identify how far the sub
variables/ questions coming under each of the 4 main variables measures
them correctly by using a communality of each of the four variables.
Chapter 5
5.4.1 Terminal Facility
In order to measure the passengers’ perception of the performance of

the facilities at the international terminal, 12 questions related to the
terminal facilities were prepared and the sample population was asked to
rate the services at a five point scale with 1 for poor, 2 for average, 3 for
fair, 4 for good and 5 for excellent. The same questionnaire was used once
again to rate the airport facilities compared with the services of similar
airport if any, the respondent visited earlier. Table 5.27 gives the
communalities of the 12 questions coming under the terminal facilities for
performance and importance with respect to the international terminal.
Table 5.27: Communalities - Terminal facilities

Q8 Overall cleanliness and comfort at the Terminal Building. .533 .648
Q10 Staff friendliness. .488 .758
Q12 Public Announcement system and flight information display. .491 .735
Q13 Public conveniences provided. .657 .788
Q14 Facilities at the lounges. .595 .857
Q15 Cleanliness of the toilets and wash areas. .535 .708
Q19 Service, attitude and efficiency of the Housekeeping staff .628 .786
Q20 Meet & greet facility. .525 .816
Q24 Facilities at child care room. .775 .878
Q26 Facilities of free porter-age .741 .800
Q27 Ambience at prayer room. .699 .842
Q28 Overall satisfaction with the services and facilities .533 .648
The results given in table 5.27 show that all the communalities are
greater than 0.4 and hence it is presumed that all variables are included in
the final analysis.
Table 5.28 Model fit Indices for CFA- Terminal facilities

χ2 46.204 49.166
DF 37 30
P .143 .015
Normed χ2 1.249 1.639
GFI .954 .950
AGFI .903 .891
NFI .947 .948
TLI .980 .979
CFI .989 .978
RMR .090 .035
RMSEA .041 .065
Values given in table 5.28 show that the normed χ2 is less than 3 and
almost all the fit indices are greater than the minimum recommended level
and this indicate that the construct is of best-fit model.
Figure 5.15 Path diagram for performance of terminal facilities
Chapter 5
For the analysis, initially an input model was developed by using
AMOS-7 graphics. The rectangle in the figure 5.15 represents observed
factors, ovals drawn in the diagram represent unobserved variable, that is,
satisfaction. The curved double-headed arrows represent correlations or co-
variances among the unobserved variables and the straight-headed arrows
represent the factor loadings of the observed variables. The small circles
with arrows pointing from the circles to the observed variables represent
errors
/unique factors, which are also known as, squared multiple correlation of the
standard error.
.67
e1
Q8
.32
Q10 e2 -.57
.82 .2
.57 .65 e3 7
Q12
.81 .66
.81 e4
Q13
Terminal Facilities .48
.6 .41
Importance 4 Q14 e5 .34
.62 -.12
.79
Q15 e6
.75 .5
.57 -.27
.40 Q19 e7 2 -.22
.15 .16 .21
Q20 e8
.32 .2
.14 .02 9
Q24 e9 .25 .29
.10
Q26 e10 .32
.02
Q27 e11 .55
Figure 5.16 Path diagram for Importance of terminal facilities
This initial model was refined to reach the final model. Table 5.29 is
the values of standardized regression weights of performance and
importance of the terminal facilities at the international terminal of CIAL.
Figure 5.15 shows that the most contributing factor for the perception of
performance of terminal facilities in the order of priority are Q13, Q14, Q8,
Q28, Q15, Q19, Q12, Q10, and Q20 with a regression weight/ factor loading
ranging from 0.793 to 0.296. The squared multiple correlations (R2) indicate
that only Q13, Q14, Q8, Q28, Q15, Q19, Q12 and Q10with values 0.63,
0.54, 0.49, 0.48,
0.46, 0.41, 0.36 and 0.28 respectively are the major contributing variables
influence the perception of performance of terminal facilities.
Figure 5.16 shows that the most contributing factor for the
importance of terminal facilities in the order of priority are Q8, Q13, Q12,
Q15, Q19, Q14, Q10, Q20 and Q26 with a regression weight/ factor loading
ranging from 0.822 to 0.320. The squared multiple correlations ( R2 )
indicate that only Q8, Q13, Q12, Q15, Q19, Q14, and Q10 with values 0.67,
0.66, 0.65, 0.62, 0.57, 0.41
and 0.32 respectively are the major contributing variables influence the
perception of importance of terminal facilities at the international terminal.
Table 5.29 Values of Standardized Regression Weights - Terminal facilities
Q8 Overall cleanliness and comfort at the Terminal Building. .702 .822
Q10 Staff friendliness. .528 .568
Q12 Public Announcement system and flight information .596 .808
Q13 Public conveniences provided. .793 .815
Q14 Facilities at the lounges. .735 .641
Q15 Cleanliness of the toilets and wash areas. .679 .788
Q19 Service, attitude and efficiency of the Housekeeping staff .643 .753
Q20 Meet & greet facility. .296 .405
Q24 Facilities at child care room. .152 .146
Q26 Facilities of free porter-age .095 .320
Q27 Ambience at prayer room. .093 .140
Q28 Overall satisfaction with the services and facilities at the .692 --
Chapter 5
The regression model for the terminal facilities for performance and
the importance are
Performance = 0.702 Q8 + 0.528 Q10 + 0.596 Q12 + 0.793 Q13 + 0.735

Q14 + 0.679 Q15 +0.643 Q19 + 0.296 Q20 + 0.152 Q24 +
0.095 Q26 + 0.093 Q27 + 0.692 Q28
Importance = 0.822 Q8 + 0.568 Q10 + 0.808 Q12 + 0.815 Q13 + 0.641

Q14 + 0.788 Q15+0.753 Q19 + 0.405 Q20 + 0.146 Q24 +
0.320 Q26 + 0.140 Q27
5.4.2. Check-in Facility
For evaluating performance, eight variables related to the check-in

facilities were selected and the communalities calculated with respect to the
150 respondents. The values of the communalities of each variable is given
in table 5.30
Table 5.30: Communalities –Check-in facilities

Q1 Immigration/ Emigration process .728 .465
Q2 Customs process .664 .571
Q6 Security Screening process .589 .618
Q7 Check-in process. .518 .750
Q11 Baggage alert and claim procedures .457 .534
Q16 service, attitude and efficiency of the airport staff .490 .700
Q17 service, attitude and efficiency of the Airlines staff .561 .597
Q18 Efficiency of the security/Customs/Immigration staff .661 .378
Values given in table 5.31 show that all the communalities are
greater than 0.4 and is an indication of the validity of the selection of
variables for the CFA. Model fit indices calculated for CFA with respect to
the check-in facilities are given in table 5.31
Table 5.31 Model fit Indices for CFA- Check-in facilities

χ2 11.537 26.946
DF 12 15
P .484 .029
Normed χ2 .961 1.796
GFI .981 .956
AGFI .942 .893
NFI .972 .933
TLI 1.00 .941
CFI 1.00 .968
RMR .066 .043
RMSEA 0 0.073
Table 5.31 shows that normed Chi-square value is less than the
recommended value of 3 and all other indices, RMR and RMSEA are all
within the prescribed limit. Therefore, the final model given here is a
saturated model.
.31
Q1 e1
.47
.41
.56 Q2 e2
.64 .29 .16
.54 Q6 e3
.17
.48
.32 -.09
Check-in facility Q7 .23
.70 Performance
e4
.27
.52 Q11 .48 -.37
e5
.87
Q16 .07 e6
Q17.27 -.98
e7
.45
Q18 .75 e8
Figure 5.17 Path diagram for performance of Check-in facilities
Chapter 5
The path diagram given in figure 5.17 shows that the most
contributing factors for the performance of check-in facilities in the order of
priority are Q18, Q11, Q2, Q1, Q6, Q17, Q7 and Q16 with regression
weights/ factor loadings ranging from 0.865 to 0.296. The squared multiple
correlations (R2) indicate that only Q18, Q11, Q2, Q1, Q6, Q17 and Q7 with
values in the range 0.75 to 0.23 are the major contributing variables
influence the perception of the performance of check-in facilities.
07
.
Q1 e1
.27 .02
Q2 e2 -.30
.15
.18
.42 Q6 e3
1.02
Check-in facility Importance
Q7 0.99
.63 .54
.40 e4
.48
.59 Q11 e5
.30 Q16 .23 .28
e6 e7 .29
.3 e8
Q17 .09
.46
Q18
Figure 5.18 Path diagram for importance of Check-in facilities
Figure 5.18 shows that the most contributing factors for the
importance of check-in facilities in the order of priority are Q7, Q11, Q17,
Q16, Q6, Q18 and Q1 with a regression weight/ factor loading ranging from
1.020 to 0.266. The squared multiple correlations ( R2 ) indicate that only
Q7, Q11, Q17 and Q16 with values 0.99, 0.40, 0.34 and 0.23 respectively
are the major contributing variables influence the perception of the
importance of check-in facilities at the international terminal.
Table 5.32 Standardized Regression Weights - Check-in facilities

Q1 Immigration/ Emigration process. .561 .266
Q2 Customs process. .637 .146
Q6 Security Screening process. .540 .424
Q7 Check-in process. .476 1.020
Q11 Baggage alert and claim procedures. .696 .632
Q16 service, attitude and efficiency of the airport staff: .266 .481
Q17 service, attitude and efficiency of the Airlines staff .520 .587
Q18 Efficiency of the security/Customs/Immigration staff .865 .300
The regression model for the check-in facilities is
Performance = 0.561 Q1 + 0.637 Q2 + 0.540 Q6 + 0.476 Q7 + 0.696 Q11

+ 0.266 Q16 + 0.520 Q17 + 0.865 Q18.
Importance = 0.266 Q1 + 0.146 Q2 + 0.424 Q6 + 1.020 Q7 + 0.632 Q11

+ 0.481 Q16 + 0.587 Q17 + 0.300 Q18.
5.4.3 Amenities
The communalities corresponding to five amenities selected for the

study are exhibited in table 5.33.
Table 5.33: Communalities – Amenities

Shopping experience and the product mix and price at Duty
Q3 .693 .656
Free shop.
Q9 Services, price and variety at the Food & Beverage services .705 .517
Q22 Banking/ATM facilities. .656 .439
Q23 Tobacconist services? (chewing tobacco, cigars, cigarettes) .650 .772
Q25 Facilities at Business centre. .725 .643
Chapter 5
Values given in table 5.33 indicate that all the five variables are used
for the factor analysis as their values are greater than 0.4.
Table 5.34 Model fit Indices for CFA- Amenities

χ2 7.268 8.258
DF 4 4
P .122 .083
Normed χ2 1.817 2.065
GFI .982 .980
AGFI .931 .923
NFI .950 .903
TLI 940 .858
CFI .976 .943
RMR .064 .038
RMSEA 0.074 .085
Tables 5.33 and 5.34 give the model fit for the performance and
importance of the variable amenities and are well within the recommended
level of fit.
.02
Q3 e1
.00 .38
Q9 e2
.14
-.01 .46
.68 Q22 e3
.45
Amenities Performance .67 Q23 e4
.81 .65
Q25 e5
Figure 5.19 Path diagram for performance of Amenities
performance of amenities in the order of priority are Q25, Q22 and Q23
with regression weights/ factor loadings of 0.807, 0.682 and 0.674
respectively. The squared multiple correlations (R2) indicate that Q25, Q22
and Q23 with values 0.65, 0.46 and 0.45 respectively are the major
contributing variable influence the perception of the performance of
amenities.
Q3 .16 e1
.15
Q9 e2
.40
.38 .18 -.29
.43 Q22 e3
.46
.21
Amenities .78
Importanc
Q23 e4
.60
Q25 e5
Figure 5.20 Path diagram for importance of Amenities
importance of amenities in the order of priority are Q3, Q9, Q22, Q23 and
Q25 with regression weights/ factor loadings of 0.776, 0.463, 0.429, 0.395
and 0.382 respectively. The squared multiple correlations (R2) indicate that
only Q3 and Q9 with values 0.60 and 0.21 respectively are the major
contributing variable influence the perception the importance of amenities
of the international terminal.
Chapter 5
Table 5.35 Standardized Regression Weights – Amenities
Q3 Shopping experience and the product mix and price at the airport Duty Free. .137 .395
Services, price and variety at the Food & Beverage services/ coffee kiosks/
Q9 -.006 .382
snack bar etc.
Q22 Banking/ATM facilities. .682 .429
Q23 Tobacconist services? (chewing tobacco, cigars, cigarettes) .674 .463
Q25 Facilities at Business centre. .807 .776
The regression model for the amenities for performance and importance are
Performance = .137 Q3 - .006 Q9 + 0.682 Q22 + 0.674 Q23 + 0.807 Q25.
Importance = 0.395 Q3 + 0.382 Q9 + 0.429 Q22 + 0.463 Q23 + .776 Q25.
In order to assess the passengers’ perception of performance and

importance of the airport accessibility, three questions were presented to the
respondents. The three questions asked are regarding the road accessibility
to airport, car parking services and distance between the international and
domestic terminals.
Table 5.36: Communalities – Airport Accessibility

Q4 Road accessibility to airport. .455 .780
The communalities of all the variables for both performance and
importance are greater than 0.4.
Table 5.37 Model fit Indices for CFA- Airport Accessibility

χ2 .001 .225
DF 0 0
P
Normed χ2
GFI 1 0.999
AGFI 1 1.000
NFI 1 .996
TLI 1 1.000
CFI 1 .996
RMR 0 .017
RMSEA 0 .341
.22
.282 Q4 e1
Airport accessibility Performance
.21
.952 Q5 e2
.803 .17
Q21 e3
Figure 5.21 Path diagram for performance – Airport Accessibility

Figure 5.21 shows that, most contributing factors for the performance
of airport accessibility in the order of priority are Q5, Q4 and Q21with
regression weights/factor loadings of 0.877, 0.337 and 0.270 respectively.
The squared multiple correlations (R2) indicate that only Q5 with value 0.77
is the major contributing variable influence the perception performance of
airport accessibility.
Chapter 5
.85
3.91 Q4 e1
.02
Q5
Airport accessibility Importance e2
.14
.00
Q21 e3
.02
Figure 5.22 Path diagram for Importance – Airport Accessibility
Figure 5.22 shows that, most contributing factor of the importance of

airport accessibility is Q4 with a regression weight/factor loading of 3.907.
The squared multiple correlations (R2) indicate that only Q4 with value 0.85
is the major contributing variable influence the perception of the importance
of airport accessibility at the international terminal.
Table 5.38 Standardized Regression Weights - Airport Accessibility

Q4 Road accessibility to airport. .337 3.907
The regression model for the airport accessibility for performance

and the importance are
Performance = 0.337 Q4 + 0.877 Q5 + 0.270 Q21

Importance = 3.907 Q4 + .141 Q5 + 0.015 Q21
5.4.5 Quality of overall Airport Facilities
Value of the variables, check-in facility, amenities, terminal facilities

and airport accessibility, are calculated as the sum of the questions coming
under each of these variables and the results are given in table 5.39
Table 5.39 Communalities – Overall quality of airport facilities

Amenities .689 .676
Terminal facilities .828 .805
Airport accessibility .609 .442
All the communalities calculated are greater than 0.4 indicating the
suitability of factorization with these variables.
Table 5.40 Model fit Indices for CFA- Overall airport facility
χ2 .001 3.292
DF 0 2
P 0.193
Normed χ2 1.646
GFI 1 989
AGFI 1 .944
NFI 1 .982
TLI 1 .978
CFI 1 .993
RMR 0 .209
RMSEA 0 0.066
Chapter 5
The fit indices, the error measure and the goodness of fit measures
for the CFA model given in figure 5.23 and 5.24 are exhibited in Table 5.40.
These measures indicate well fit of the model for both Performance and
Importance. The regression coefficient is given in table 5.41 and the
corresponding regression equation is given beneath table 5.41.
.56
.75 Check-in facility
e1
-.43
.79 Amenities .62
e2
Performance
.92
.84
Terminal facilities
e3 .21
.61
.37
e4
Figure 5.23 Path diagram for performance of overall airport facility
The path diagram given in figure 5.24 shows that the contributing
factors for the perception of overall airport facility in the order of priority
are terminal facilities, amenities, check-in facility and airport accessibility
with regression weights/ factor loadings 0.917, 0.786, 0.747 and 0.609
respectively. The squared multiple correlations (R2) indicate that terminal
facilities, amenities, check-in facility and airport accessibility with values
0.84, 0.62, 0.56 and 0.37 respectively influence the perception of quality of
overall facilities at the international terminal.
.28
.53 Check-in facility e1
.49
.70 Amenities e2
Importance
.96 .93
Terminal facilitiese3
.50
.25
e4
Figure 5.24 Path diagram for importance of overall airport facility
Figure 5.24 shows that contributing factors for the importance of

overall airport facility, in the order of priority, are terminal facilities,
amenities, check-in facility and airport accessibility with regression weights/
factor loadings 0.962, 0.702, 0.530 and 0.500 respectively. The squared
multiple correlations (R2) indicate that terminal facilities, amenities, check-
in facility and airport accessibility with values 0.93, 0.49, 0.28 and 0.25
respectively influence the perception of importance of overall facilities at
the international terminal.
Table 5.41 Standardized Regression Weights - Total

Amenities .786 .702
Terminal facilities .917 .962
Airport accessibility .609 .500
The regression model for performance and importance of overall

airport facility are
Chapter 5
Performance = 0.747 Check-in facility + 0.786 Amenities + 0.917
Importance = 0.530 Check-in facility + 0.702 Amenities + .962

5.4.6 Modified Importance-Performance Analysis and Gap analysis
Using the regression equations, performance value and importance

value of each respondent for each of the 4 variables and the total are
calculated and these values are used for the Modified Importance-
Performance Analysis. The mean value, the coefficient of variation, Gap
and the Z value at 1% level of significance are given in the table 5.42.
Table 5.42 Mean, CV, Gap and Z value

Performance Importance Z p
Variables GAP
Mean CV Mean CV value Value
Check-in facility 14.08 25.99 14.37 13.71 -0.28 -0.848 0.398
Amenities 4.13 73.61 7.55 15.23 -3.43 -13.634 <0.001*
Terminal facilities 18.28 25.93 21.57 19.47 -3.29 -6.223 <0.001*
Airport accessibility 4.26 35.45 12.92 31.97 -8.66 -23.712 <0.001*
Overall airport facility 61.10 26.32 66.92 13.52 -5.82 -4.034 <0.001*
(*) Significant at 1% level
From table 5.42 the mean value for performance of check-in facilities
is 14.08 and that of Importance is 14.37 resulted in a Gap of -0.28 which is
very small and the p value indicates that this is not statistically significant.
Similarly the gap of -3.43 observed in the case of amenities is found to be
statistically significant. The gap for the terminal facilities is -3.29 and the p
value is found to be statistically significant at 1% level. In the case of airport
accessibility, a statistically significant gap of -8.6 is recorded. Finally, for
overall airport facility, the gap is -5.82 and the p-value indicates that this is
statistically significant. The values of CV indicate that in the case of
performance, there exist wide variations between the respondents whereas
in the case of importance, the responses except in the case of airport
accessibility are more or less stable
For the international terminal, the hypothesis in this study is accepted

in terms of the check-in facility as the p-value is statistically not significant
and there is not much difference between the values of performance (14.08)
and importance (14.37). For the other variables of terminal facilities,
amenities and airport accessibility, the null hypothesis is rejected on account
of significant p-values (<0.01) and gap values. The gap between the
importance and performance for the check-in facilities at the international
terminal is insignificant as international airports all over the world follow
almost uniform practices in the check-in process.
…………
Findings and
Measurement of performance, analysis of competitiveness and

perception of the passengers about the facilities of an airport make a holistic
study and a wide range of stake holders are benefitted from the results. In
the performance analysis almost all the operational details of the airport are
examined from the financial angle and future trends are forecasted. In the
competitiveness analysis, performances of the three international airports in
Kerala in terms of the five factors which determine the competitiveness are
reckoned for an analysis using fuzzy linguistic approach. In the case of
analysing passengers’ perception of the airport facilities, the importance and
performance of four variables are considered and a modified importance-
performance analysis method was adopted to find out the gap between the
perceived importance and performance of the concerned facilities. This is a
multidimensional study and it was conducted with the following objectives.
 To examine the performance of CIAL in terms of key performance

indicators and key performance areas
Chapter 6
 To analyse the competitiveness of CIAL as compared with the other
two airports in Kerala in terms of airport facilities, airport
accessibility, airport expansion potential, airport charges and
geographical factors.
 To find out the perception of passengers on the importance and the

performance of airport facilities available at the international and
domestic terminals of CIAL
The hypothesis formulated in this study is a general one regarding the

passengers’ perception of performance and the relative importance of the
airport facilities measured in terms of four variables such as check-in
facility, amenities, terminal facilities and airport accessibility at the airport.
For an ideal airport, the levels of importance and performance of the airport
facilities do not show a gap between them.
Findings of the study in respect of the objectives are given below.
6.1 Performance of CIAL in terms of Key Performance

Indicators and Key Performance Areas
CIAL is the first PPP model airport in India and the performance of
this airport had inspired the authorities to approve the PPP model in
constructing new airports. The purpose behind the formation of CIAL was
to construct, own, operate and maintain an airport of international standards
at Cochin. The airport is just 30 Kms from Sea Port, 15 Kms from Cochin
Economic Zone and 10 Kms from the Industrial and Commercial capital of
Kerala. The authorised capital of Cochin International Airport Limited
Company as on 31.03.2012 is Rs.4000 million and paid up value is
Findings and Conclusions
Rs.3060.6million. For the last nine years, (that is from 2003-04) the
company is regularly paying dividend to the shareholders.
Key performance indicators of CIAL in the financial sector are

identified as profit, earnings per share, foreign exchange earnings, traffic
revenue and non-traffic revenue of the company.
Company generated operating profit since the date of

commencement of operations. During the years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the
operating surplus declined slightly and thereafter it had recovered
considerably. For operating/gross profit, the CAGR up to 2005-06 is 24.3%
and for the next five years from 2006-07 to 2011-12 is 19.3%. CAGR of
operating profit for the entire eleven-year period taking 2000-01 as base
year is 19.5%. One reason for the substantial variation in the CAGR of the
three parameters for the two periods is that for the first five-year period, the
figures for the base year was very low since it was the initial period of the
airport after commencing operations. For the second five-year period, the
base year figures were high compared to the first period and hence the
CAGR was on a lower side compared to the first five-year period. During
the period between 2004-05 and 2006-07, the income of the company was
almost stagnant while the operating profit of the company dwindled. The
company undertook expansion programmes during this period. Additional
investments during the period 2004-05 to 2007-08 had helped the company
to record a sharp climb in the growth rates of passenger traffic and aircraft
movement. This helped the company tide over the turmoil in the aviation
industry due to the Euro zone crisis and global slowdown.
The company wiped out the initial losses by the year 2006-07. It
started distributing dividend based on the performance from the year 2003-
Chapter 6
04. During the last four years, the dividend paid to the share holders of the
company had increased progressively from 10% during 2008-09 to 16%
during 2011-12. Sales revenue from the duty free shops in the airport
contributed 80% of total foreign exchange earnings while import of duty
free goods constituted 95% of foreign exchange outgoings during 2011-12.
Royalty from ground handling constituted 19% of the foreign exchange
earnings. Sales revenue from duty free shops in foreign exchange in the
initial periods recorded a sharp growth but in the middle years it declined.
The growth rate of sales revenue during 2011-12 is 44 percent.
Traffic revenue contributed only 21 percentage of the total income of

the airport and this is in line with the global trend of giving stress to non-
aeronautical income by the airports. It is seen that sales revenue from the
duty free shops, rent & services and royalty together contributed 53 percent
of the total income. Share of landing fee collected from aircrafts in the
total income during the last 12 years is 18% and income from cargo
operations constituted 6% of the total income. Total income from all sources
of the airport for the 12 year period ending on 2011-12 is Rs.1587.52 crores
out of which the operating income is Rs.1089.90 crores. In addition to the
traffic and non- traffic revenue, the company is deriving income by way of
interest on deposits held with the banks.
Operational areas in CIAL such as aircraft movement, passenger

traffic, freight traffic and duty free shop operations are identified as the key
performance areas for the purpose of this study.
During 2011-12, more than 20 airlines operated from CIAL. Total

aircraft movements per week at CIAL was around 858. CAGR of
international, domestic and total aircraft movements for the 12 year period
from 2000-01 were 20.1%, 10.2% and 13.4% respectively. Growth rate of
total aircraft movements at CIAL peaked during the year 2006-07 and
thereafter the rate started to climb down which resulted in a negative growth
rate of -1.12 during 2010-11. During 2011-12 the growth rate was 0.18 %.
Even though the ranking in the domestic sector slipped by two places in the
year 2011-12, the airport managed to maintain the overall seventh position
in the all India ranking for aircraft movement. CIAL retained the fourth
position behind Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai in respect of international
aircraft movement during the year 2011-12. Sharjah, Dubai and Doha are
the major paired cities to/from where more passengers travelled.
The growth rate of domestic passenger traffic through the airport

during 2008-09 was the lowest. But due to continuous process of
modernisation of the terminal facilities, there was a quantum leap in the
passenger traffic. CAGR of international, domestic and total passenger
traffic for the 12 year period from 2000-01 to 2011-12 were 21.1%, 15%
and 17.9% respectively. Passenger service fee collected by CIAL during the
year 2011-12 was Rs.74 per embarking passenger. CIAL maintained the
overall seventh position in the all India ranking for passenger traffic. CIAL
retained the fourth position behind Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai in respect of
international passenger traffic during the year 2011-12.
International cargo constituted 83% of the total cargo movement

through CIAL during 2011-12. Daily more than 15 scheduled and non-
scheduled carriers with over 80 aircraft movements transport cargo to
hundreds of cities worldwide. Exports constituted 74% of the total
international cargo movements and in the domestic sector, incoming cargo
constituted 70% of cargo movement. Export items mainly consist of general
Chapter 6
cargo and perishable goods. General cargo is exported to Middle East
countries for transhipment because there was no facility at CIAL to export
products directly to their actual destinations. Exporters of general cargo
items spread across a large area including Tirupur, Coimbatore, Kannur and
the units situated in the close proximity of the airport. Vegetables
constituted major portion of the export of perishable goods from CIAL.
Destinations of the perishable goods exported through CIAL are mainly
Gulf area. Imports through CIAL are classified in to four categories namely
commercial cargo for trading purpose, unaccompanied baggage mainly used
household items, trans-shipment cargo and courier cargo for business
purpose. Commercial cargo constitutes 30% of the total imports. But in
value terms this is much higher than the other three categories which
constitute 70% of the imports. Major constituents of commercial cargo are
electronic items, lab products etc.
Cochin Duty Free Shop is managed and operated by Alpha Retail,

and 34% of the total income during 2011-12 came from duty free shop
sales. Average annual growth rate (AAGR) of duty free shop sales for the
eight years from 2004-05 to 2011-12 is 35.70% and CAGR of sales income
for the same period is 34.1%.
Forecasts for the next 20 years show that passenger traffic may grow
up to 2.63 times from the figures for the base year and aircraft movements
may grew to 2.83 times and the freight traffic up to 2.74 times that of the
base year 2011-12.
Various ratios to the total income are showing a uniform pattern

which is an indication of the stability in the operations of CIAL. With the
ratio of profit after tax to total income above 36 percent continuously for the
last 3 years, CIAL is having comparatively very high profitability.
6.2 Competitiveness of CIAL
Five factors of airport facilities, airport accessibility, airport

expansion potential, airport charges and geographical characteristics
influencing the airport competitiveness were identified and analysed using
fuzzy linguistic approach. Airport facilities included both aeronautical and
non-aeronautical facilities. Airport accessibility comprised of the factors
such as distance, time and mode of transport to reach various land marks and
adjacent population centres. In Airport Expansion Potential, the chances of
executing the proposed expansion plan within a period of 3 years are given
weightage over the other regular proposals that are only in the formative
stage. Airport Charges include landing and parking charges, X-ray baggage
and rental charges and passenger charges. Geographical factors included
three major variables namely catchment area, distance and travel time.
CIAL is the only airport in Kerala, which holds land for non-
aeronautical use. Calicut airport has space constraint and the tabletop type
runway makes it difficult for the airport any further expansion. The
Trivandrum international airport is situated in an area where further lateral
expansion is practically improbable. In the matter of navigational facilities
provided, CIAL edged past Trivandrum and Calicut. CIAL is extending
more facilities to the passengers than the facilities available at the other two
airports. Cochin airport is handling more types of aircrafts with Trivandrum
closely following. With the runway constraint, Calicut is lagging behind the
other two airports. CIAL is connected to 29 destinations while Trivandrum
Airport is connected to 28 destinations and Calicut airport is in the third
Chapter 6
position with 19 destinations. 41% of the total air cargo movement in Kerala
was through Trivandrum airport while Cochin and Calicut followed with
37% and 22% respectively. Cochin and Trivandrum airports are having
hangarage facilities and Calicut airport does not have the same facility.
Compared to the other two airports, CIAL is offering more non-aeronautical
facilities to its users. Trivandrum airport is having better accessibility
options where as Cochin airport is having more choices in mode of access.
Due to the remoteness, Calicut airport could not score substantially in both
aspects. CIAL is ahead of the other two airports in respect of the airport
expansion potential measured on the basis of the anticipated period for
completion of the expansion proposals both on aeronautical and non-
aeronautical fronts. Airport charges are the least at CIAL and highest at
Calicut. The entire Malabar area is served by the Calicut airport and the
central Kerala is served by Cochin airport. Trivandrum airport caters to the
travel needs of southern districts and also Kanyakumari district of
Tamilnadu. Though the catchment area of Trivandrum airport is small
compared to the other two airports, the average time to reach the airport
from the catchment area is less.
Fuzzy linguistic approach and the Euclidean distance theory are

applied on the data related to the five major factors. Linguistic variables
assigned to the various factors related to the three international airports in
Kerala shows that airport facility which is assigned an importance of A1 is
having varying competitiveness values. Calicut international airport for
which the calculated degree of competitiveness is 0.61 was assigned a
linguistic value of B4 for the airport facilities. Cochin and Trivandrum
airports were assigned B1 and B2 respectively. In the case of the factor
airport accessibility, linguistic values assigned to the Calicut, Cochin and
Trivandrum airports are B5, B2 and B1 respectively. The factor, airport

expansion potential had the lowest competitiveness value for Calicut airport
followed by Trivandrum and Cochin. The linguistic values assigned to these
airports are B6, B4 and B1 respectively. Linguistic value of competitiveness
for airport charges is the lowest for Calicut (B2) while Cochin and
Trivandrum were assessed with the value B1. Geographical characteristics
are assessed as the least important and the linguistic value of
competitiveness assigned to these factors for Calicut airport is B3, for
Trivandrum airport, B2 and for CIAL it is B1.
CIAL is identified as the most competitive airport in Kerala. The

result of the analysis shows that a high level of competitiveness in all areas
except airport accessibility is visible in respect of CIAL. Though CIAL is
the most competitive airport, it missed the distinction of becoming an ideal
airport due to the existence of a Euclidean distance of 0.0001 from the most
compatibility function of 0.0000. The next competitive airport is
Trivandrum with a Euclidean distance 0.0391 and the least competitive is
Calicut airport with a distance of 0.0871.
6.3 Passengers’ Perception of Airport Facilities using

Modified Importance - Performance Analysis
Four main variables of check-in facility, amenities, terminal
facilities, airport accessibility are used in the analysis. The main variables
are bifurcated into 28 sub-variables.
A scrutiny of the demographic characteristics of the respondents

cooperated in the survey show that 36% of the domestic travellers and
21.3% percentage of the international travellers are in the age group of 18 to
Chapter 6
28. The domestic and international passengers in the age group 29-42 are
38% and 41.3% respectively. The domestic and international passengers in
the age group of 43-55 are 19.3% and 6.7% and in the age group 56-65 are
and 33.3% and 4% respectively. 82 % of the respondents are males and 18%
of the respondents are females. 91% of the respondents used the airport for
arrival and departure while 8% used the airport only for departure. Transit
passengers constituted only 1% of the total respondents.
In order to analyse passengers’ perception, initially an input model

was developed by using AMOS-7 graphics. This initial model was refined
to reach the final model. Perception of passengers on the importance and the
performance of airport facilities available at the international and domestic
terminals of CIAL are analysed using structural equation modelling.
Structural equations were used to evaluate the regression equation for each
of the variables selected. Regression equation gives the relationship between
the variables performance and importance expressed by the respondents.
6.3.1 Domestic Terminal

13.3% of the respondents were first time users while 43.3% used the airport
with in the last 3 months. 30.7% of the respondents previously used the
airport more than six months ago and the remaining 12.7% last used it
between 3 to 6 months ago.
The most influencing factor for the perception of performance of

overall airport facilities is amenities with a regression weight/ factor loading
of 0.830, followed by check-in facilities having a regression weight 0.818.
Terminal facilities with a regression weight of 0.780 are the third
contributing factor and airport accessibility with a regression weight 0.531
is having comparatively low influence in the perception of performance.
The squared multiple correlations (R2) indicate that amenities, check-in

facilities and terminal facilities are having equal role in predicting the
performance of airport facilities
The most influencing factor for the importance of overall airport

facilities is the terminal facilities with a regression weight/ factor loading of
1.038, followed by amenities (0.591) and check-in facility (0.564). Airport
accessibility (0.427) is having comparatively low influence in the
assessment of the importance of overall airport facilities. The squared
multiple correlations (R2) indicate that terminal facilities, amenities and
check-in facilities are having major role in predicting the importance of
overall airport facilities of the airport.
In the case of the four dependent variables, the influence of the

individual factors (independent variables) on the passengers’ perception are
obtained from the path diagrams and the most contributing factor for the
performance of terminal facilities is found to be Q15 (cleanliness of toilets
and wash areas) with a regression weight/ factor loading of 0.813, followed
by Q28 (overall satisfaction of the terminal facilities) with a regression
weight 0.799 and Q14 (facilities at lounges) in the third position (0.679).
Other factors in the order of importance are Q19 (Service, attitude and
efficiency of the Housekeeping staff), Q13 (Public conveniences provided),
Q12 (Public Announcement system and flight information), Q8 (Overall
cleanliness and comfort at the Terminal Building), Q10 (Staff friendliness),
Q27 (Ambience at prayer room), Q20 (Meet & greet facility), Q24
(Facilities at child care room) and Q26 (Facilities of free porter-age). The
squared multiple correlations ( R2 ) indicate that only Q15, Q28, Q14, Q19,
Q13, Q12 and Q8 with values 0.66, 0.64, 0.46 , 0.43, 0.34, 0.29 and 0.27
Chapter 6
respectively are the major influencing independent variables in evaluating
the performance of the dependent variable terminal facilities. R2 gives the
proportion of variance in the dependent variable accounted for by the set of
independent variables chosen for the model. In the present study, R square
value of 0.66 for the independent variable Q15 that is cleanliness of toilets
and wash areas can predict 66% of the variance in the dependent variable
that is the passengers’ perception of the performance of terminal facilities.
Likewise, passengers’ perception of importance of the dependent variable is
influenced by the independent variables Q13, Q15, Q8, Q12, Q14, Q19 and
Q10. R2 value indicates that factors Q13, Q15, Q8, Q12, Q14, Q19 and Q10
are the major influencing contributors in the passengers’ perception of
importance of terminal facilities. In the case of other factors, the R2 values
are not significant and hence they don’t have much influence in the
passengers’ perception of importance of the terminal facility.
In the case of the second dependent variable, check-in facility, the

influence of the independent variables in passengers’ perception of
performance in the order of priority are found to be Q18 (Efficiency of the
security/ Customs/ Immigration staff) with a regression weight of 0. 844,
followed by Q17 (service, attitude and efficiency of the Airlines staff)
having a regression weight 0.665 and Q6 (Security Screening process) with
0.646. Other factors in the order of importance are Q1 (Immigration/
Emigration process), Q2 (Customs process), Q7 (Check-in process), Q16
(service, attitude and efficiency of the airport staff) and Q11 (Baggage alert
and claim procedures). The R2 indicate that only Q18, Q17, Q6, Q1, Q2 and
Q7 are the major contributors in the performance of check-in facilities.
Similarly the most contributing factor for the importance of check-in
facilities is Q7 (Check-in process) with a regression weight of 0. 843,
followed by Q6 (Security Screening process) having a regression weight 0.

599 and Q 11 (Baggage alert and claim procedures) in the third position
(0.570). Other factors in the order of importance are Q18, Q16, Q17, Q1 and
Q2. The R2 indicate that only Q7, Q6, Q11 and Q18 are the major
contributors in the importance of check-in facilities.
Passengers’ perception of the performance of the dependent variable

amenities is influenced by the independent variables of Q3 (Shopping
experience and the product mix and price at the airport) with a regression
weight of 1.567, followed by Q9 (Services, price and variety at the Food &
Beverage services/ coffee kiosks/ snack bar etc.) having a regression weight
0.350. Other factors of Q22 (Banking/ATM facilities), Q23 (Tobacconist
services) and Q25 (Facilities at Business centre) do not have significant
influence on the passengers’ perception of the performance of amenities.
The R2 value indicate that only Q3 shopping experience and the product mix
and price at the airport. And the most contributing factor for the importance
of amenities is Q25 (Facilities at Business centre) with a regression weight
of
1.138 followed by Q23 (Tobacconist services, chewing tobacco, cigars,
cigarettes) with 0.439. R2 values indicate that only Q25 (facilities at
Business centre) and Q23 (tobacconist services) are the major contributors
in assessing the importance of amenities.
In the case of the fourth dependent variable, airport accessibility, the

influencing independent variables in the order of priority are Q5 (Car
parking services) with a regression weight of 0.952, Q21(Walking distance
between the terminals) with the value 0.803 and Q4 (Road accessibility to
airport) with regression weight 0.282. Also passengers’ perception of the
Chapter 6
importance of airport accessibility is most influence by Q1 followed by Q5
and Q21.
6.3.2 International Terminal
10% of the respondents are first time users and 47.3% have used the
airport in last three months. The respondents who last used the airport
between 3 to 6 months are 14.7% and the remaining 28% used the terminal
more than 6 month ago.
The influencing factors for the perception of performance of overall

airport facilities of the international terminal in the order of priority are
terminal facilities, amenities, check-in facility and airport accessibility with
regression weights/ factor loadings 0.917, 0.786, 0.747 and 0.609
respectively. The squared multiple correlations (R2) indicate that terminal
facilities, amenities, check-in facility and airport accessibility with values
0.84, 0.62, 0.56 and 0.37 respectively influence the performance of overall
airport facilities.
The influencing factors for the importance of overall airport facilities

in the order of priority are terminal facilities, amenities, check-in facility
and airport accessibility with regression weights/ factor loadings 0.962,
0.702, 0.530 and 0.500 respectively. The squared multiple correlations (R 2)
indicate that terminal facilities, amenities, check-in facility and airport
accessibility with values 0.93, 0.49, 0.28 and 0.25 respectively influence
passengers’ perception of importance of overall airport facilities of the
international terminal.
While analysing the 28 independent variables, various degrees of

their influences on the dependent variables are revealed and the most
contributing
factor for the perception of performance of terminal facilities in the order of

priority are Q13, Q14, Q8, Q28, Q15, Q19, Q12, Q10, and Q20 with a
regression weight/ factor loading ranging from 0.793 to 0.296. The squared
multiple correlations (R2) indicate that only Q13, Q14, Q8, Q28, Q15, Q19,
Q12 and Q10with values 0.63, 0.54, 0.49, 0.48, 0.46, 0.41, 0.36 and 0.28
respectively are the major contributing variables influence the perception of
performance of terminal facilities.
For the perception of importance of terminal facilities, most

contributing factors in the order of priority are Q8, Q13, Q12, Q15, Q19,
Q14, Q10, Q20 and Q26 with a regression weight/ factor loading ranging
from 0.822 to 0.320. The squared multiple correlations ( R2 ) indicate that
only Q8, Q13, Q12, Q15, Q19, Q14, and Q10 with values 0.67, 0.66, 0.65,
0.62, 0.57, 0.41
and 0.32 respectively are the major contributing variables influence the
perception of importance of terminal facilities at the international terminal.
For the second dependent variable of check-in facilities, the

influencing factors in the order of priority are Q18, Q11, Q2, Q1, Q6, Q17,
Q7 and Q16 with regression weights/ factor loadings ranging from 0.865 to
0.296. The squared multiple correlations (R2) indicate that only Q18, Q11,
Q2, Q1, Q6, Q17 and Q7 with values in the range 0.75 to 0.23 are the major
contributing variables influence the perception of the performance of check-
in facilities.
Similarly the most contributing factors for the passengers’ perception

of importance of check-in facilities in the order of priority are Q7, Q11,
Q17, Q16, Q6, Q18 and Q1 with a regression weight/ factor loading ranging
from 1.020 to 0.266. The squared multiple correlations (R 2 ) indicate that
only Q7, Q11, Q17 and Q16 with values 0.99, 0.40, 0.34 and 0.23
Chapter 6
respectively are the major contributing variables influence the perception of
the importance of check-in facilities at the international terminal.
The influencing independent variables for passengers’ perception of

the third dependent variable amenities in the order of priority are Q25, Q22
and Q23 with regression weights/ factor loadings of 0.807, 0.682 and 0.674
respectively. The squared multiple correlations (R2) indicate that Q25, Q22
and Q23 with values 0.65, 0.46 and 0.45 respectively are the major
contributing variable influence the perception of the performance of
amenities.
Also the most contributing factor for the importance of amenities in

the order of priority are Q3, Q9, Q22, Q23 and Q25 with regression
weights/ factor loadings of 0.776, 0.463, 0.429, 0.395 and 0.382
respectively. The squared multiple correlations (R2) indicate that only Q3
and Q9 with values 0.60 and 0.21 respectively are the major contributing
variable influence passengers’ perception of the importance of amenities of
the international terminal.
In the case of the fourth dependent variable of airport accessibility,

contributing factors for the passengers’ perception of performance in the
order of priority are Q5, Q4 and Q21with regression weights/factor loadings
of 0.877, 0.337 and 0.270 respectively. The squared multiple correlations
(R2) indicate that only Q5 with value 0.77 is the major contributing variable
influence the perception performance of airport accessibility.
And the passengers’ perception of the importance of airport

accessibility is influenced by Q4 with a regression weight/factor loading of
3.907. The squared multiple correlations (R2) indicate that only Q4 with
value 0.85 is the major contributing variable influence the perception of the
importance of airport accessibility at the international terminal.
6.4 Gap Analysis - Results
The hypothesis in this study is a general hypothesis. The general

hypothesis is tested to prove that the levels of importance and performance
of the airport facilities at both the terminals of CIAL do not show a gap
between them. The four particular variables hypothesised are terminal
facilities, check-in facilities, amenities and airport accessibility. The
hypothesis is tested using gap analysis for the domestic and international
terminals separately.
6.4.1 Domestic terminal
Mean value for the Performance of the check-in facilities is 17.37

and that of Importance is 19.50 and the resulting Gap of -2.14 is found to be
statistically significant at 1% level. Similarly the gap of -0.91 observed in
the case of amenities also is found to be statistically significant. However,
the gap for the terminal facilities (-0.02) is very small and the p value
indicate that this is not statistically significant. In the case of airport
accessibility, a statistically significant gap of -3.51 is recorded. For the
overall airport facility, the gap is -11.57 which is comparatively very high.
The CV indicates that in the case of performance a wide variation exist
among the respondents where in the case of importance the responses are
more or less stable.
Hence for the particular variable terminal facilities, the hypothesis is

accepted as the p-value is statistically not significant and there is not much
difference between the values of performance (5.50) and importance (5.52).
Chapter 6
But in terms of the other variables of check-in facility, amenities and airport
accessibility, the hypothesis is rejected on account of significant p-values
(<0.01) and gap values.
6.4.2 International Terminal
Mean value for performance of check-in facilities is 14.08 and that of

Importance is 14.37 and the Gap of -0.28 is very small and the p value
indicates that this is not statistically significant. Similarly the gap of -3.43
observed in the case of amenities is found to be statistically significant. The
gap for the terminal facilities is -3.29 and the p value is found to be
statistically significant at 1% level. In the case of airport accessibility, a
statistically significant gap of -8.6 is recorded. For overall airport facility,
the gap is -5.82 and the p-value indicates that this is statistically significant.
Hence for the particular variable check-in facility, the hypothesis is

accepted as the p-value is statistically not significant and there is not much
difference between the values of performance (14.08) and importance
(14.37). For the other variables of terminal facilities, amenities and airport
accessibility, the hypothesis is rejected on account of significant p-values
(<0.01) and gap values.
6.5 Conclusion
Past performance of CIAL was examined in respect of the various
performance areas and performance indicators and projections for the next
twenty years based on the historical data were obtained using appropriate
forecasting methods. Relevance of the forecasts was checked with the
historical trend and it was found that the forecasts are reasonable. The
forecasts which project a growth in the airport operations up to three times
of the base period warrants serious thinking on the part of the airport
management in the direction of runway expansion, additional terminal
buildings, additional parking space, more counters, bays, gates and
additional investment in infrastructure. Since the airport is already
possessing sufficient land for the expansion programmes and surpluses in
their balance sheet, the management can confidently go ahead with its plans
for expansion. This study revealed that CIAL is the most competitive airport
in Kerala and the competitiveness and profitability of CIAL, which is the
first PPP model airport in India, is a pointer towards the effectiveness of
these types of airports and should act as a catalyst to start more such airports
in future. At the same time, though CIAL is the most competitive airport, it
is not an ideal airport because of the Euclidean distance. This shows that
there are areas which need to be improved and the study revealed that the
airport is having the potential to reach the ideal position. The result of the
gap analysis shows gaps between importance and satisfaction levels of
passengers with respect to the airport facilities and this finding should act as
a wakeup call to the airport authorities to give more attention to the facility
management at the airport. On a comparison between the two terminals of
the airport, it is found that the gap between the importance and performance
for the check-in facilities at the international terminal is insignificant as
international airports all over the world follow almost uniform practices in
the check-in process. Also the international travellers reach the airport
minimum three hours prior to the departure and they will be using almost all
the facilities available at the airport. In the case of domestic terminal,
majority of the passengers arrive just in time and they go through the check-
in counter directly to the boarding gate. This means that the domestic
passenger usually does not have time to experience various facilities at the
Chapter 6
airport and hence they have very little complaint about the terminal
facilities.
The study revealed that CIAL is a waiting lion ready to leap at the
right time. The incredible performance of the airport in its first twelve years
and the optimistic forecasts for the next 20 years which show a three-fold
increase in the areas of passenger traffic, aircraft movement and freight
traffic will certainly put CIAL in a prominent position among the airports in
India.
…………
Bibliograp
Articles in Journals
Adam-Smith Y.,(1997), ‘More Ivy League than gold, silver and bronze’.
Airlines International, vol.3 (2), 7, pp. 8-14.
Adam-Smith Y.,(1998), ‘The airport service decathlon’. Airlines

International, vol. 4 (3), , pp. 8-14.
Arpita Mukherjee, R. S.,(2003), ‘Maritime and Air Transport Services:

India’s Approach to Privatization’, Transport and Communications
Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific, , pp. 27-53.
Bacon, D.R.,(2003), ‘A comparison of approaches to importance-

performance analysis’, International Journal of Market Research, 45,
1, pp. 55-71.
Barraclough, S.,(2000), ‘The Politics of Privatisation in the Malaysian

Health Care System; Contemporary South East Asia’, International
Journal of Retail Distribution Management, 22 (2), pp. 340.
Bassi, F. and Guido, G.,( 2011), ‘Measuring Customer satisfaction: From

Product performance to consumption experience’, Journal of
Consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction and complaining behaviour,
vol.19, pp. 76-88.
Bolton, R.,(1991), ‘A multistage model of customer’s assessments of

service quality and value’, Journal of Consumer Research, 17, pp.375-
384.
Bibliography
Brooks, P. W. ,(1967), ‘The Development of Air Transport’. Journal of

Transport Economics and Policy, pp. 164-183.
Campos, D. F., Nobrega, K. C., (2009), ‘Importance and the Zone of

Tolerance of Customer Expectations of Fast Food Services’, Journal
of Operations and Supply Chain Management vol.2 (2), pp. 56 - 71.
Carmen, J. and Langeard, E., (1980), ‘Growth Strategies of Service firms’

Strategic Management Journal, pp. 7-22.
Carman, J., (1990), ‘Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment

of the SERVQUAL dimensions’ Journal of Retailing, 66, pp. 33-55.
Carol Newman, J. R., 2012, ‘Industry Switching in Developing Countries’,

The World Bank Economic Review, Vol.27, No.2, pp. 357–388.
Chong, B., (2005), ‘Crafting an effective customer retention strategy: a

review of halo effect on customer satisfaction in online auctions’,
International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 2
(1), pp. 12-26.
Chou, C.C., (2009), ‘A Model for the evaluation of airport service quality’,
Transport 162, pp. 207- 213
Cronin, J. J., (1992), ‘Measuring service quality: A re-examination and

extension’, Journal of Marketing, 56, pp.55-68.
Crouch G. I and Ritchie B. J. R., (1999), ‘Tourism, competitiveness, and

societal prosperity’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 44, No.3, pp.
137-152.
Bibliography
E. Torres, J. D., (2005), ‘Passenger waiting time in an airport and

expenditure carried out in the commercial area’. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 11 (6), pp. 363-367.
Fletcher, C. E., (2001), ‘Hospital registered nurses’ job satisfaction and

dissatisfaction’. Journal of Nursing Administration, 31(6), pp. 324–
331.
Ford, J. B., (1991), ‘Importance - performance analysis as a strategic tool

for service marketers: the case of service quality perceptions of
business students in New Zealand and the USA’. European Journal of
Marketing, 27 (2), pp. 59-70.
Fornell, C. a., & Anderson, E. W., (1994), ‘Customer satisfaction, market

share, and profitability: findings from Sweden’. Journal of Marketing,
pp. 53-66.
George, Igy,(2013), ‘Modified Importance-Performance Analysis of Airport

Facilities- A Case study of Cochin International Airport Limited’, IOSR
Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol.17 issue 4, pp.9-15
Gillen, David; Lall, Ashish, (1997) “Developing measures of airport

productivity and performance: an application of Data Envelopment
Analysis”, Transportation Research Part E, 33 (4), pp. 261-273.
Gillen, David, Ashish Lall, (2003), ‘some competitive advantages for low
cost carriers: Implications for airports’, Journal of air Transport
Management, Vol.10, No.1, pp.41-50
Grancay M., (2009), ‘Evaluating competitiveness of airports - Airport

competitiveness index’, Munich Personal RePEc Archive (16488).
Bibliography
Ian Humphreys, G. F, (2002), ‘Performance measurement: a review of

airports’, International Journal of Transport Management, 1, pp. 79-
85.
Johnston, Robert, (1995), ’The Zone of Tolerance: Exploring the

Relationship between Service Transaction and Satisfaction with the
overall Service’, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 6 (2), pp.46-61
Joshi D. R.,(2011), ‘Determinants of Competitiveness: A Study of the

Indian Auto-Component Industry’: Journal of Competitiveness, 1 (1),
pp. 7-9
Kara, A. L., (2005), ‘A Paradox of Service Quality in Turkey: The

Seemingly contradictory relative importance of tangible and
intangible Determinants of Sensitivity and Perfectionism’. Journal of
Marketing Research, 38, pp. 386-394.
Karwowski W, & Mital A., (1986), ‘Potential Applications of Fuzzy Sets in

Industrial Safety Engineering’, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, pp.
105-120.
Kesharwani, T. R., (1976) ‘Development of Transportation in India: A

Broad Perspective’ Economic and Political Weekly; Vol. 11, No. 26, ,
pp. 960- 964.
Lemer, A., (1992), ‘Measuring performance of airport passenger terminals’.

Transportation Research, 26A (1), 37-45.
M.R. Pitt, A. B.,(2001), ‘Developing a strategic direction for airports to

enable the provision of services to both network and low-fare
carriers’, Vol. 19 Iss: 1/2, pp.52 - 60.
Bibliography
Martin, D., (1995), ‘An Importance Performance Analysis of Service

Providers; Perception of Quality Service in Hotel Industry’, Journal of
Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 3 (1), pp. 5-17.
Norudin Mansor, &. S., (2012), ‘Internationalization of Service Quality: A

Case of Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Malaysia’. International
Journal of Business and Behavioural Sciences, 2 (12), 11-25.
Oliver, R., (1981), ‘Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in

retail settings’. Journal of Retailing; 57, 25-48.
Oliver, R.L.,(2008), ‘A Cognitive model of the Antecedents and

Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions’, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol.17, 460-469
Parasuraman A., Zeithaml, Valerie, (1980), ‘A conceptual model of service

quality and its implications for future research’. Journal of Marketing,
49, 1985, 41-50.
Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for

measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of
Retailing, 64, 41-50.
Park, N.K., & Cho, D.S., (1997), “The effect of strategic alliance on
performance: A study of international airline industry”, Journal of Air
Transport Management, Vol. 3(3), pp. 155-164
Park, Y., (1999), ‘A methodology for establishing operational standards of

airport passenger terminals’. Journal of Air Transport Management, 5
(2), 73-80.
Bibliography
Park, Y., (1997), ‘Applications of a fuzzy linguistic approach to analyse

Asian airports’ competitiveness’. Transport Planning Technology
20(4), 291–309
Park, Y., (2003), ‘An analysis for the competitive strength of Asian major
airports’, Journal of Air Transport Management, 9(6), 353–360
Ray Wang S, (2011), ‘Evaluation of customer perceptions on airline service

quality in uncertainty’. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences,
25, pp. 419-437.
Reidenbach, R., (1990), ‘Exploring perceptions of hospital operations by a

modified SERVQUAL approach’, Journal of Health Care Marketing,
10, 47-55.
Rhoades D. W, (2000), ‘Developing a quality index for US airports’.

Managing Service Quality, 10 (4), 257-262.
Rowland, R., (1994), ‘Feel the quality’. Airline Business, 10, 72-74.
Sanchez, E., (1976), ‘Resolution of Composite Fuzzy Relation Equations’,

Information and Control, Vol. 30, pp. 38-48.
Seneviratne, P.,(1994) , ‘Criteria for Evaluating Quality of Service in Air

Terminals’, Transportation Research Record 1461, Airport and
Airspace Planning and Operations, pp. 24-30.
Sohail M.S, A.-G. A, (2005), ‘Measuring service quality at King Fahd

International Airport’, International Journal of Services and Standards,
1 (4), 482-493.
Bibliography
Swan, J. E, (1988), ‘Consumer Satisfaction Related to Disconfirmation of

Expectation and Product Performance’; Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour, 1, 40-47.
Taplin, Ross H., (2012), ‘Competitive importance-performance analysis of

an Australian wildlife park’. Tourism Management Journal, Vol.33
(1), 29-37
Teas, K., (1993), ‘Expectations, performance evaluation and consumer’s

perceptions of quality’. Journal of Marketing, 57, 18-24.
Timothy C, Matisziw, Chieh-Lung Lee and Tony H. Grubesic, (2012), ‘An

analysis of essential air service structure and performance’, Journal of
Air Transport Management 18 5e11.
Turowski, K, (2004) ‘Methodological standard for service specification.

International Journal of Services and Standards, 1 (1), , 98-111.
Urban, W., (2009), ‘Service quality gaps and their role in service
enterprises development. Technological and Economic Development
of Economy’, Baltic Journal on Sustainability, 15 (3), 631-645.
Wisniewski, M. and Donnelly, M., (2010), ‘Measuring Service Quality in

the Public Sector: The Potential of SERVQUAL’, Total Quality
Management, 7 (4), 357-365.
Woodruff, R. B., (1985),Cadoltte, E. R. and Jenkins, R.L., ‘Modelling

Consumer Satisfaction Process Using Experiences Based Norms’,
Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 296-304.
Yeh, C.H. Kuo, Y.L., (2003), ‘Evaluating passenger services of Asia-

Pacific international airports’. Transportation Research Part E. 39(1),
Bibliography
35-48,doi:10.1016/S1366-5545(02)00017-0,http://dx.doi.org/,
10.1016/S1366-5545(02)00017-0
Zadeh, L. A., (1965), ‘Fuzzy Sets’, Information and Control, Vol. 8, pp.
338- 353.
Zeithaml, V. A, Berry, L. L and Parasuraman, A., (1996), ‘The Behavioural

Consequences of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, pp. 31-46.
Articles in a Book
Barrows, Carlos Pestana, Assaff, Albert, (2009), Airport Performance

Models in Productivity Change in USA Airports- Gillen Lall
Approach Revisited, pp. 26-30
Bateson, John E.G., (1977),Do we need service marketing?, Marketing

Consumer Services, New Insights, Marketing Science Institute, pp.77-
115 .
Bateson, John E.G., (2006), Why we need Service Marketing, in O.C.

Ferrel, S.W. Brown, and C.W. Lamb, Jr, (Eds), Conceptual and
Theoretical Development in Marketing, Chicago: American Marketing
Association, pp. 131-146.
Briano, Enrico Caballini, Claudia Mosca, Roberto Revetria, Roberto Testa,

Alessandro, (2008), Guidelines and Perspectives to Enhance Italian
Port Competitiveness ENRICO
Booms, B.H. and Bitner, M.J., (1981) Marketing Strategies and organisation
structure for service firms, Marketing of services, Donnelly, J. and
George, W. (Eds.), American Marketing, Chicago, , pp. 47-51
Bibliography
Feldman D., (1998), Effective marketing: a key to airport success. In G. B.

(Eds.) Handbook of Airline Marketing, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp.
657-665.
Gillen, David and Hans-Martin Niemeier, (2008), Comparative Political

Economy of Airport Infrastructure in the European Union: Evolution
of Privatization, Regulation and Slot Reform, in Clifford Winston and
Gines de Rus (Eds) Aviation Infrastructure Performance: A Study in
Comparative Political Economy, Brookings Institution, Washington
DC.
Lewis, R.C. and Booms, B.H, (1983), The Marketing aspects of service quality,
Emerging perspectives on services marketing, Berry, L., Shostact, G.
and Upah, G., (Eds.), American Marketing Association, pp. 99-107.
Lovelock, C. H., (1981), Why marketing management need to be different

for services, Marketing of services, Donnelly, J. and George, W.
(Eds.), American Marketing, Chicago, pp. 5-9.
Miller J.A., (1977), Exploring Satisfaction, Modifying models, Eliciting

Expectation, Posing Problem and Making Meaningful Measurements,
in Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfaction and
Dissatisfaction, Hunk, H.K. (Ed.) Marketing Science Institute,
Cambridge. Massachusetts.
O’Sullivan, A. S., (2003), Economics: principles in action. (M. Needham,

Ed.) Prentice Hall.
Oxford Economics, India Country Report, (2011), Benefits of Aviation,

Oxford, U.K.
Bibliography
Saurina, G. C., (2002), Predicting Overall Service Quality. A Structural

Equation Modelling Approach (A. F. (Editors), Ed.) Developments in
Social Science Methodology, 217-238.
Tretheway M., (1998), Airport marketing: an oxymoron? In G. B. Keller

(Ed.); Handbook of Airline Marketing;, (pp. 649-656). Newyork:
McGraw-Hill.
Zahorik, A. J and Rust, R.T., (2007), Modelling the Impact of Service

Quality of Profitability: A Review: in Swartz T.A., Bowen, D.E. and
Brown, S.W. (Eds), Advances in services marketing and management,
49-64. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Ed.)
Books
Anderson, John Robert, Rules of the Mind, Psychology Press, Hillsdale,

1993.
Barsky, J., World-Class Customer Satisfaction, Chicago, IL: Irwin

Publishing, 1995.
Bryman, A. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Board T. R., Asset and Infrastructure Management for Airports—Primer

and Guidebook, 2012.
Carlos Y. Kaduoka M., Airport Technology and Competitiveness. SITA, 2012.
Child, Dennis, The Essential of Factor Analysis. 3rd (Ed), Cassel

Educational Ltd; London; 1990.
Doganis, R., The Airport Business, Routledge, London, 1992.
Kotler, P., Marketing Management: An Asian Perspective; Prentice-Hall, 1998.
Bibliography
Kotler, P. and Armstrong G., Principles of Marketing, 10th Edition Chapter

7, 2004
Lipczynski, J. W., Industrial Organization: Competition, Strategy & Policy

(Third Ed.). Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2009.
Porter, M. E., Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior

Performance, New York, Free Press, 1985.
Porter, M. E., The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York,

MacMillan Inc, 1990.
Price, L., The role of airports as economic development drivers: Towards

Sustainable Airport Development. Dublin: Mott MacDonald, 2006.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers, European Business School, Transportation &

Logistics 2030 Volume 2: Transport Infrastructure — Engine or
hand-brake. Supply Chain Management Institute, 2010.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J., Services Marketing: Integrating Customer

Focus across the Firm, McGraw Hill, New York, 2003.
Zimmerman, H., Fuzzy Set Theory and its Applications, 2nd edition, Kluwer
Academic, Boston, 1991.
Conference Articles
Anderson Granberg T and Oquillas Munoz, A,(2013) Developing key

performance indicators for airports, ENRI Int. Workshop on
ATM/CNS, Tokyo, Japan, 2013.
B. Badanik I. L, ‘Future Strategies for Airports’, (2010), 27th International

Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences. ICAS 2010.
Bibliography
Campos, D. F, Nobrega K. C,(2009), ‘Importance and the Zone of Tolerance of

Customer Expectations of Fast Food Services’, International Conference
of the Production and Operations Management Society, 2009.
Crouch, G. I., and Ritchie, B. J. R.,(1994) ‘Destination competitive -

exploring foundations for a long-term research program’, Proceedings
of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada 1994 Annual
Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia,1994, pp. 79–88.
Don Shao D. L, (2009), Enterprises' Core Competitiveness evaluation

method based on fuzzy membership degree, International Conference
on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 5, pp. 2533-2537.
Gillen, David,(2008), Airport Governance and Regulation: the Evolution

over Three Decades of Aviation System Reform, Paper prepared for
Madrid Workshop on Transport Economics, ‘Models of Airport
Ownership and Governance’ Madrid, October 10, 2008.
Popovic V.,(2009), Passenger experience in an airport: an activity-centred

approach. IASDR 2009 Proceedings, COEX, Seoul.
Senguttavan ,P., (2006), Competitiveness of airports, 2006.
Senguttavan. P., (2011), Indian Airport Competitiveness and its Efficiency: Key
Strategy to develop an airport hub, Competitiveness Index of Airports,
Vreedenburgh M.,(1999), Airport Operational Efficiency. ICAO Airport

Privatization Seminar for the NAM/CAR/SAM regions.
Zadeh, L. A.,(1973) The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and its

Application to Approximate Reasoning, Memorandum ERL-M 411,
Berkeley.
Bibliography
Publications
ACRP-2, Airport Aviation Activity Forecasting, A Synthesis for airport

Practice, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C,2007.
ACRP-55,Passenger Level of Service and Spatial Planning for Airport

Terminals; Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.,2011.
Airbus Industries, Global Market Forecast (2010-2029), Airbus Industries,

Toulouse, 2011.
Airport Authority of India Traffic figures 2009 -2011
Airport Council International, Airport Performance Measurement (2012) -

Guide to Airport Performance Measures, Oliver Wyman Inc.
Airport Council International, Quarterly Bulletin, Q1 2011
Government of India: Consultation paper on Issues relating to Air

Connectivity in regional, remote and inaccessible areas of the country,
2012.
ICAO, Annexes to Convention on International Civil Aviation- annex.14

aerodromes, Montreal, Canada, 2006.
ICAO: (2012) JOURNAL 3-4.
IMD world competitiveness year book: 2011 app.III ACI. (2012).
IMD World Competitiveness Year Book: (2011).
Infrastructure Development Finance Company Limited (2008), India

Infrastructure Report 2008, Business Models of the Future: Oxford
University Press.
Kerala Tourism Policy 2012, Department of Tourism, Government of

Kerala.
Bibliography
Kerala Tourism Statistics 2009, 2011: Department of Tourism, Government

of Kerala, 2010.
Ministry of Civil Aviation, G. O.2012, Approach paper on Economic

Regulations of Airports in India.
Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India (2009): Norms and

Standards for Determining the Capacity of Airport Terminals.
Ministry of Tourism, Government of India (2012): Identification of Tourism

Circuits across India. IL&FS Infrastructure Development Corporation
Ltd.
Ronald L. M.-N.,(2003) A Study on the Factors of Regional

Competitiveness, The European Commission Directorate-General
Regional Policy.
The Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India (2012): Civil Aviation

Policy – Consultation with stake holders.
Research Studies
Clausen, T.,(2010) Airport Ground Staﬀ Scheduling. Kgs. Lyngby:

Department of Management Engineering Technical University of
Denmark.
Đula Borozan, J. J. Strossmayer,(2009), Regional Competitiveness: Some

Conceptual Issues and Policy Implications.
Gillen David and William Morrison, (2008), Airport Governance and

Regulation in the 21st Century, mimeo, Centre for Transportation
Studies, University of British Columbia.
Halpern N, (2006)Market Orientation and the Performance of Airports in

Europe’s Peripheral Areas: Canfield University.
Bibliography
Hasselgren, B., (2012), Government’s role for transport infrastructure. KTH

Royal Institute of Technology.
Inniss, T. R., (2000), Stochastic Models for the Estimation of Airport

Arrival Capacity Distributions: National Centre of Excellence in
Aviation Operations Research (NEXTOR), University of Maryland.
Jing, X. Y.,(2007), Benchmarking Competitiveness of Cargo Airports,

National University of Singapore.
Liebert, D. V., (2011), Airport Benchmarking: An Efficiency Analysis of

European Airports from an Economic and Managerial Perspective,
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Jacobs University Bremen.
Scott B. R and Lodge G.C, (1985), U S competitiveness in the world

economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Xu Yun Jing, (2007), Benchmarking Competitiveness of Airports, National

University of Singapore.
Websites
http://www.aai.aero/misc/trivandrum_airport.pdf
www.benefitsofaviation.aero/, IATA. (2011): Benefits of aviation.

Retrieved Dec 18, 2013, from Benefitsofaviation.aero:
http://mod.nic.in/samachar/dec15-02/html/ch13.htm:, Sainik Samachar; INS

Venduruthy- its past and Present. Illustrated Weekly Magazine of the
Armed Forces of India, December 20, 1953
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/595592/. Scotti, D. (2011). Low

Cost Airlines: Burgeoning Segment of Indian Aviation Industry. Dublin:
http://elsevier.com
Bibliography
www.cial-aero.
http://www.aai.aero/allAirports/airports.jsp
http://www.airportsindia.org.in/traffic_news/traffic_news.jsp
http://www.dgca.nic.in/
www.faa.gov/
http://planningcommission.nic.in/
…………
Appen
‘An analysis of the competitiveness of three international airports in Kerala

by using Fuzzy Linguistic Approach’ paper presented at the
International Conference on Frontiers of Infrastructure Finance at IIT
Kharagpur, India from December 29-30, 2011
‘Passengers Perception of Airport Facilities -A Case study’ paper presented

at the tenth AIMS International Conference on Management at Indian
Institute of Management, Bangalore from January 6-9 2013
‘Modified Importance-Performance Analysis of Airport facilities - A Case

study of Cochin International Airport Limited’ published in the IOSR
Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Volume X, Issue X (Nov.-
Dec.2013),e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845.
‘Analysis of the Competitiveness of the three International Airports in

Kerala Using Fuzzy Linguistic Approach’ published in the book
‘Project Finance’ edited by Rudra P Pradhan, Professor, IIT
Kharagpur and published by Bloomsburry Publishing India
Pvt.Ltd.,pp.37-48,2012, ISBN 978-81-924302-2-5.
Appen
Appen
Attached questionnaire is a part of the ongoing research work of Ms. Igy George, Research Scholar, Department of Applied
Economics, CUSAT, to measure the users' perception of the facilities and services available at CIAL.
Please select the terminal Terminal Terminal Both
Please mention your Nationality
Above
Your age 18-28 29-42 43-55 56-65 65
Your gender male Female
Arrival departu arrival &
Your typical usage of this airport only re only transit departure
First In the 3 to 6
more than 6
When did you last use this airport before this visit time last 3 months
months ago
user months ago
Please put a tick mark [ √ ] in the column which according to you is a 1 2 3 4 5
true statement of the facilities/services available at CIAL Poor Average Fair Good Excellent
1. Your impression about the Immigration/Emigration process.
2. Your impression about the Customs process.
Your impression about shopping experience and the product mix
3.
and price at the airport Duty Free.
4. Your impression about the Road accessibility to airport.
5. Your impression about Car Parking Services.
6. Your impression about the Security Screening process.
7. Your impression about the Check-in process.
Your impression about the overall cleanliness, comfort and
8.
ambience of the Terminal Building.
Your impression about services, price and variety at the Food &
9.
Beverage services/ coffee kiosks/ snack bar etc.
10. Your impression about the staff friendliness.
11. Your impression about the baggage alert and claim procedures.
Your impression about the Public Announcement system and
12.
flight information display board.
Your impression about the public conveniences provided at the
13.
airport.
14. Your impression about the facilities at the lounges.
15. Your impression about the cleanliness of the toilet and wash
Appendix
area.
Your impression about the service, attitude and efficiency of the
16.
following staff:
17. a).Airlines staff
18. b).Security/Customs/Immigration staff
19. c).Housekeeping staff
Please answer questions from 20 to 27 only if you have used the following facilities:
20. Your impression about the meet & greet facility.
Walking distance between the International and domestic
21.
terminals.
22. Your impression about the banking/ATM facilities.
Your impression about the tobacconist services? (chewing
23.
tobacco, cigars, cigarettes)
24. Your impression about the facilities at child care room.
25. Your impression about the facilities at Business centre.
Your impression about the facility of free porter-age for
26.
old/infirm/handicapped and unaccompanied ladies and minors.
27. Your impression about the ambience at prayer room.
Overall, how satisfied were you with the services and
28.
facilities at the Cochin lnternational Airport?
29. Any suggestions or comments about this airport:
Thank you for taking part in this survey
Appen
Attached questionnaire is a part of the ongoing research work of Ms. Igy George, Research Scholar, Department of Applied Economics, CUSAT, to measure
the users' perception of the facilities and services available at CIAL.
Please select the terminal International Terminal Domestic Terminal Both
Please mention your Nationality
Above
Your age 18-28 29-42 43-55 56-65 65
Your gender male Female
Arrival departur
Your typical usage of this airport only e only transit arrival & departure
In the 3 to 6
First time more than 6 months
When did you last use this airport before this visit last 3 months
user ago
months ago
Please put a tick mark [ √ ] in the column which according to 1 2 3 4 5
you is a true statement of the facilities/services available at
CIAL on a 5 point scale
1. Importance of Immigration/Emigration process.
2. Importance of Customs process.
3. Importance of shopping experience and the product
mix and price at the airport Duty Free.
4. Importance of Road accessibility to airport.
5. Importance of Car Parking Services.
6. Importance of Security Screening process.
7. Importance of the Check-in process.
8. Importance of the overall cleanliness, comfort and
ambience of the Terminal Building.
9. Importance of services, price and variety at the
Food & Beverage services/ coffee kiosks/ snack bar
etc.
10. Importance of the staff friendliness.
11. Importance of the baggage alert and claim
procedures.
12. Importance of the Public Announcement system
and flight information display board.
13. Importance of the public conveniences provided at
the airport.
14. Importance of the facilities at the lounges.
Appendix
15. Importance of the cleanliness of the toilet and

wash area.
16. Importance of the service, attitude and efficiency
of the following staff:
17. a).Airlines staff
18. b).Security/Customs/Immigration staff
19. c).Housekeeping staff
Please answer questions from 20 to 27 only if you have used the following facilities:
20. Importance of the meet & greet facility.
21. Walking distance between the International and
domestic terminals.
22. Importance of the banking/ATM facilities.
23. Importance of the tobacconist services? (chewing
tobacco, cigars, cigarettes)
24. Importance of the facilities at child care room.
25. Importance of facilities at Business centre.
26. Importance of the facility of free porter-age for
old/infirm/handicapped and unaccompanied ladies
and minors.
27. Importance of prayer room.
28. Overall, how important is the services and facilities
at the Cochin lnternational Airport in connection
with your journey?
Any suggestions or comments about this airport:
Thank you for taking part in this survey

Appendix
Model Summary
Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
Estimate
1 .996a .992 .991 74683.16066
a. Predictors: (Constant), year
b. Dependent Variable: INTERNATIONAL
Coefficients
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) -20341.242 45964.308 -.443 .668
1
year 217689.486 6245.320 .996 34.856 .000
a. Dependent Variable: INTERNATIONAL
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .958
a
.918 .910 195336.28692
b. Dependent Variable: DOMESTIC
Coefficients
Standardized
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) -41274.758 120221.174 -.343 .738
1
year 172574.976 16334.841 .958 10.565 .000
a. Dependent Variable: DOMESTIC
Appendix
Model Summary
Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
Estimate
1 .986a .972 .970 248633.82685
b. Dependent Variable: TOTAL
Coefficients
Standardized
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) -61616.000 153023.542 -.403 .696
1
year 390264.462 20791.805 .986 18.770 .000
a. Dependent Variable: TOTAL

Appendix
AIRPORT 1 CALICUT A1 B4
R11 0.000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
0.800 0.900 1.000
0.000
0.002 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.008 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.026 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.063 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.130 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.240 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.410 0.000 0.100 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.656 0.000 0.100 0.200 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800
0.900 1.000
Appendix
R21 0.000 1.000 0.968 0.911 0.836 0.747 0.646 0.535 0.414
0.284 0.146
0.000
0.000 0.002 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.008 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 0.000
0.026 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 0.000
0.063 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 0.000
0.130 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 0.000
0.240 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 0.000
0.410 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 0.000
0.656 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 0.146 0.000
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.284 0.146 0.000
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.646 0.535 0.414 0.284
0.146 0.000
1.000 0.968 0.911 0.836 0.747 0.646 0.535 0.414 0.284
0.146 0.000

Appendix
R31 0.000 1.000 0.999 0.992 0.973 0.936 0.875 0.784 0.657
0.488 0.271
0.000
0.000 0.002 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.008 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 0.000
0.026 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 0.000
0.063 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 0.000
0.130 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 0.000
0.240 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 0.000
0.410 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 0.000
0.656 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 0.000
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 0.271 0.000
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.488
0.271 0.000
1.000 0.999 0.992 0.973 0.936 0.875 0.784 0.657 0.488
0.271 0.000
Appendix
R41 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343
0.512 0.729 1.000
0.316
0.447 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.548 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.632 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.707 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343
0.512 1.000 1.000
0.775 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343
0.512 1.000 1.000
0.837 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343
0.512 1.000 1.000
0.894 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343
0.512 0.729 1.000
0.949 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343
0.512 0.729 1.000
1.000 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343
0.512 0.729 1.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512
0.729 1.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512
0.729 1.000

Appendix
R51 1.000 0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 0.253 0.354 0.465 0.586
0.716 0.854 1.000
0.900
0.800 0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 0.253 0.354 0.465 0.586
0.716 0.854 1.000
0.700 0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 0.253 0.354 0.465 0.586
0.716 0.854 1.000
0.600 0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 0.253 0.354 0.465 0.586
0.716 1.000 1.000
0.500 0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 0.253 0.354 0.465 0.586
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.400 0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 0.253 0.354 0.465 0.586
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.300 0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 0.253 0.354 0.465 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.200 0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 0.253 0.354 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.100 0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 0.253 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.032 0.089 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000
Appendix
AIRPORT 2 COCHIN
R12 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000
0.002 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.240 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.410 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.656 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262
0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262
0.531 1.000

Appendix
R22 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343
0.512 0.729 1.000
0.000
0.002 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.008 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.026 0.000 0.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.063 0.000 0.001 0.008 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.130 0.000 0.001 0.008 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.240 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.410 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.656 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512

1.000 1.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512

0.729 1.000
Appendix
R32 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000
0.002 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
.240 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
.410 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

1.000 1.000 1.000
.656 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

1.000 1.000 1.000
.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 1.000 1.000
.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000

Appendix
R42 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 0.531 1.000
0.316
0.447 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.548 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 1.000 1.000
0.632 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 1.000 1.000
0.707 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 0.531 1.000
0.775 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 0.531 1.000
0.837 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 0.531 1.000
0.894 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 0.531 1.000
0.949 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 0.531 1.000
1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
Appendix
R52 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 0.531 1.000
0.900
0.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 0.531 1.000
0.700 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 0.531 1.000
0.600 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 0.531 1.000
0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 0.531 1.000
0.400 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 0.531 1.000
0.300 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 1.000 1.000
0.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 1.000 1.000
0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000

Appendix
AIRPORT 3 TRIVANDRUM
R13 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343
0.512 0.729 1.000
0.000
0.002 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.008 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.026 0.000 0.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.063 0.000 0.001 0.008 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.130 0.000 0.001 0.008 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.240 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.410 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.656 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512

1.000 1.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512

0.729 1.000
Appendix
R23 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000
0.002 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.240 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.410 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.656 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000

Appendix
R33 0.000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
0.800 0.900 1.000
0.000
0.002 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.008 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.026 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.063 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.130 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.240 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.410 0.000 0.100 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.656 0.000 0.100 0.200 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800

0.900 1.000
Appendix
R43 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118
0.262 0.531 1.000
0.316
0.447 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.548 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 1.000 1.000
0.632 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 1.000 1.000
0.707 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 0.531 1.000
0.775 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 0.531 1.000
0.837 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 0.531 1.000
0.894 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 0.531 1.000
0.949 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 0.531 1.000
1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118

0.262 0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000

Appendix
R53 1.000 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343
0.512 0.729 1.000
0.900
0.800 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343
0.512 0.729 1.000
0.700 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343

0.512 0.729 1.000
0.600 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343

0.512 0.729 1.000
0.500 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343

0.512 1.000 1.000
0.400 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343

0.512 1.000 1.000
0.300 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.200 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.100 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000 1.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

1.000 1.000
Appendix
R1
0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 0.253 0.354 0.465 0.586 0.716

0.854 1.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.586 0.716

0.854 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.716

1.000 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512

1.000 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512

1.000 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512

1.000 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512

0.729 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512

0.146 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.284

0.146 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.284

0.146 0.000
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.284

0.146 0.000
R1 max 0.000 0.032 0.089 0.164 0.253 0.354 0.465 0.586 0.716
1.000 1.000

Appendix
R2
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
R2 max 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262
0.531 1.000
Appendix
R3
0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512

0.729 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.729 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.729 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.047 0.118 0.262

0.531 1.000
R3 max 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.027 0.064 0.125 0.216 0.343 0.512
0.729 1.000
View publication stats

A Study On Cochin International Airport Limited-Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers' Perception

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study On Cochin International Airport Limited-Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers' Perception

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited- Competitiveness,

Preprint · January 2014

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

under the guidance of

Department of Applied Economics

Certified that all the relevant corrections and modifications suggested by

Prof. (Dr) K.C.Sankaranarayanan

I hereby declare that the dissertation entitled “ A Study on Cochin

Besides my guide, I would like to thank Dr. P. Arunachalam, Head, Department

I wish to express my gratitude to the former secretary of Mar Athanasius College

I gratefully acknowledge the support of Adv. K. Francis George, Ex Member of

Also I thank Dr. Rudra Pradhan, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

My colleagues of the Department of Economics, Mar Athanasius College,

I take this opportunity to sincerely acknowledge the University Grants

I would like to pay high regards to the members of my family particularly my

Aviation helps swift and cost-effective transportation of both

A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ 1

1.1 Importance of Air Travel

2 A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’

Transportation infrastructure is a deciding factor for the economic

Aviation is the fastest mode of transportation connecting different

1.2 Aviation Sector - Importance and Issues

The role of air transport in economic development and in supporting

The history of modern aviation started in August 1909 when the US

6 A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’

1.3 Aviation Infrastructure

Airports constitute a major part of the aviation infrastructure. Many

The mission of an airport can be summarised as serving aircrafts,

A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ 7

Researchers who analysed the welfare effects of oligopolistic

Popovic, V. (2009) identified the two main categories of activities in

8 A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’

Airports can be termed as multi-product companies, which offer a

1.4 Global Scenario of Aviation Sector

Fig 1.1 Performance of world aviation from 1950 to 2012

1.5 Indian Scenario of Aviation Sector

A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ 1

The Aircraft Rules, 1937, permits citizens of India or companies or

1 A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’

Table 1.1 Passenger traffic of 15 airports in India during 2000-11 2011-12

A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ 1

1.6 Aviation in Kerala

1 A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’

The global phenomena of choosing the faster mode of transport had

Calicut (Kozhikode) International Airport (IATA: CCJ, ICAO: VOCL),

Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL) (IATA: COK, ICAO:

A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ 1

Trivandrum International Airport (IATA: TRV, ICAO: VOTV) is

1 A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’

1.7 Performance Measurement of Airports

The Guide to airport performance measures published by ACI lists

A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ 1

Anderson et.al (2013) developed a set of key performance indicators

1 A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’

1.8 Competitiveness of Airports

Sarkis conducted an analysis on operational efficiency of major

A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ 1

The firm or micro-economic level notion of competitiveness is based

Park (1997) applied a fuzzy linguistic approach in analyzing

2 A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’

1.9 Perception of Airport Facilities

A Study on Cochin International Airport Limited – Competitiveness, Performance and Passengers’ 2