Posted at 04.10.2018
Measuring the performance of airport terminal passenger terminals offers a valuable responses to airport professionals. Researchers and practitioners alike have regarded that measuring terminal performance through strictly operational strategies (i. e. , based on airport capacity to process passengers and baggage) is not sufficient. Innovative techniques studying traveler needs and their perception of service quality have been developed over the last couple of ages. A new generation of terminal evaluation models incorporating issues, such as comfort, convenience, and ambience in the evaluation models has emerged. Existing models range based on the type of decisions supported, evaluation perspective, kind of measurements, and analysis approach used. The objective of this research is to examine high tech and state-of-practice methods and techniques used for assessing the performance of airport passenger terminals, identify their advantages, weaknesses, and synergies, and offer directions for future research.
The need for traveler satisfaction for improving airport traveler terminal performance and producing top commercial revenues is widely recognized. Recently, the International airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) proposed financing for research activities with the objective to develop innovative ideas for terminal planning and design centred at superior traveler satisfaction (Guide).
Two major trends dictate the necessity for research for air port passenger terminal performance diagnosis, specifically: i) privatisation and liberalisation of international airport operations (Reference point Graham), and ii) the continuous increase of air traffic demand (1, 2). Thus, international airports have to create their targets so as to balance strategies for accommodating additional demand and providing enough service quality to individuals in order to compete effectively in the appearing competitive market panorama.
In the academic literature and in professional practice, airport performance is mostly evaluated from three perspectives: traveler, airline, or air-port authorities (3). Considering that passengers constitute the main source of air-port revenues, their perspective merits further attention. The service quality provided by an international airport is also impacting on airline terminal selection decisions. Gaining insight about how airlines determine terminal performance provides useful information to air port managers.
The objective of this paper is threefold: first to offer an overview of the state-of-the-art and state-of-practice in the area of airport traveler terminal performance assessment, second to identify talents, weaknesses, and synergies between existing models, and third to propose directions for future research.
The remainder of the newspaper consists of five portions. Section 2 reveals the classification of existing models and techniques, section 3 presents terminal performance assessment predicated on objectively measured LOS, section 4 discusses terminal performance evaluation based on perception, while section 5 reviews passenger satisfaction surveys. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the research findings and provides guidelines for future research.
The objective of this section is to add the methodology followed to classify existing research and applications in the region of airport traveler terminal diagnosis. Three main channels of research are revealed: terminal performance assessment based on objectively measured Level of Service (LOS), terminal performance examination based on notion, and traveler satisfaction studies (see Shape 1).
"Terminal performance evaluation predicated on objectively assessed LOS specifications" targets calculating the performance of air port terminals. Models under this category assess airport passenger terminal facilities using objectively assessed metrics (e. g. , waiting time, handling time, and available space). Depending on the types of models used to estimate the variables expressing LOS, this category is further divided in two subcategories: i) 'analytical models' and ii) 'simulation models'.
"Terminal performance analysis models predicated on perception" measure the identified (by users) quality of service offered by airport traveler terminal facilities from numerous kinds of facilities and/or providers. These models measure the performance of specific facilities or the entire terminal. Data contained in the models are subjective (e. g. , perceived waiting time, ambience of terminal, and courtesy of personnel) and/or purpose. This category is split into two subcategories: 'defining LOS predicated on passenger perception' and 'producing blended LOS index'.
"Passenger satisfaction research" gauge the performance of the complete airport passenger terminal based on passenger belief. Data designed in the satisfaction studies is subjective. Satisfaction studies are put on a large number of airports and provide a opportunity to compare the performance of your airport terminal against other terminals. Three surveys for performing this kind of research are reported: the Air port Service Quality (ASQ) index produced by International airports Council International (ACI) (4), index developed by SKYTRAX (5), and index produced by J. D. Electricity (6).
In here are some, we provide an overview of the models, methods, and techniques found in all the previously listed categories.
Level of Service (LOS) standards provide airport planners, designers, and operations managers with essential information regarding the performance of varied types of facilities. For design purposes the mandatory space for terminal facilities is predicted based on required space per passenger and forecasted traffic levels. At a subsequent step the email address details are suited to the architectural notion. For operational evaluation observed or approximated values of variables expressing the LOS are compared against tabulated values deciding the corresponding LOS. The parameters required to assess terminal LOS (i. e. , space per passenger, ready time, etc. ) can be acquired through: i) field measurements (for terminals functioning), ii) the use of analytical models, and iii) the utilization of simulation models. In the next subsections, analytical and simulation models and LOS expectations incorporated in these models are presented.
Analytical models offer an aggregate representation of air-port operations utilizing a set of numerical expressions. Analytical models have a tendency to be simpler, less data extensive, faster, and less correct when compared with their simulation counterparts. Analytical models are more desirable to support tactical decisions (7, 8).
Simulation models provide a detailed analysis and package with a larger number of operational issues. Simulation models are more suitable to support functional decisions. According to the degree of their aspect simulation models are labeled into microscopic, mesoscopic, and macroscopic. Simulation models require more effort for his or her development and more descriptive data inputs for executing analysis (7, 8). For an in depth review of existing analytical and simulation models, the reader is described (7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13).
Analytical and simulation models calculate capacity, delays, and LOS of international airport terminals or terminal facilities using established LOS standards. A talk of existing LOS criteria follows.
LOS standards measure the real performance of international airport terminals predicated on objective indicators. Carry Canada (14) identifies the amount of service as the area provided to each individual at confirmed time (i. e. , assessed in m2 per traveler). This approach runs on the six-point level (i. e. , LOS is assessed ranging from A "excellent" to F "system breakdown"). The Carry Canada level of service concept facilitates the examination of five types of facilities in the airport terminal: check-in, waiting around/circulation facilities, keep rooms, baggage claim area, and pre-Primary Inspection Collection (PIL).
A manual calculating international airport landside capacity was developed in the 1980s by the Transportation Research Table (TRB) (15). The manual provides to airport operators, organizers, and other stakeholders guidelines to determine terminal capacity and LOS. Landside components (i. e. , traveler security screening, solution counter and baggage check, auto parking area, ground access, etc. ) are assessed based on objectively assessed metrics. Metrics integrated in the examination are: space available in ready and flow areas, seating and waiting around geometry, flight program, number of travellers, service rate, etc. The LOS of landside facilities is evaluated independently for each and every facility. Therefore, the way will not consider the effect of crowding and congestion in a single terminal service on the demand and LOS of upstream and downstream facilities.
IATA LOS expectations (16, 17) provide support for terminal design and functional assessment. LOS expectations are based on available space per traveler and implicitly include dwell time (i. e. , total time spent at a terminal center) saying that decrease of dwell time ends up with decrease of space required. IATA standards adopted and just a bit customized the six-point size (i. e. , from A "excellent" LOS to F "unacceptable" LOS) in the beginning developed by Transportation Canada. Metrics used for assessing the performance of terminal facilities are: available space, volume of passengers, passenger demand, and service rate. The 2004 version of the manual offers a more detailed examination incorporating additional variables (e. g. , required space for travellers using baggage carts, required space predicated on number of totes per traveler and probability for option of baggage carts) (17).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also developed requirements for assessing the performance of air-port traveler facilities (18). FAA expectations suggest a single space need per traveler, which ensures comfortable stay static in the terminal building. These expectations were originally developed implying a specific group of conditions reflecting operational types of procedures (i. e. , dwell time of home and international travellers, type of traditions procedures, percentage of people using ticket counters, etc. ). Given the fact that major changes in international airport operations have occurred since the benefits of these requirements (e. g. , remote control check-in and stricter security strategies), FAA criteria may not be directly suitable (19).
It must be acknowledged that currently no overall accepted LOS standard exists. However, the 2004 version of IATA LOS requirements (17) can be used by a variety of airport specialists. IATA standards can be applied to any type of air-port (e. g. , grouped by size, physical position, air carrier type, and point of termination of passenger travels). IATA specifications measure independently the LOS in each terminal center (i. e. , handling, waiting, and flow) and can support terminal planning and design, and businesses analysis.
This category requires models assess airport terminal performance by adding passenger and/or expert views. Models owned by this category aim at figuring out: i) the factors affecting the notion of terminal quality, ii) threshold beliefs for determining LOS predicated on passenger belief, and iii) the comparative importance of these factors in determining a single performance index either for a single facility or for the whole terminal. These models derive from traveler and/or expert studies and use a variety of ways to determine the weight given by the respondents to the various types of facilities and/or services in determining the overall Degree of Service. Research related to terminal performance is divided in two teams: i) determining LOS based on passenger perception and ii) producing blended LOS index.
Models under this category goal at growing LOS scales evaluating actual with recognized quality determinants. Thus, an index evaluating LOS of an individual facility or a group of facilities has been developed. A framework analyzing check-in facilities using psychometric scaling was developed and analyzed for the SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIRPORT TERMINAL (20). Through psychometric scaling, a range evaluating the LOS of check-in facilities is developed. An individual quantitative index calculating LOS based on holding out time and crowding is provided.
A scale calculating the belief of check-in performance at the SЈo Paulo AIRPORT TERMINAL originated (21). Individuals were asked to rate their experience at check-in counters on a five-level scale (i. e. , from 1 "unacceptable" to 5 "excellent"). Parallel to these data, waiting around time, processing time, and available space at the check-in counter were also recorded. Three criteria for measuring the performance of check-in counters on a five level range were developed: i) waiting time, ii) processing time, and iii) available space. Ready and handling time were assessed based on the amount of minutes that travellers hang on at check-in, while available space was assessed based on the square meters provided per traveler. Another LOS index for each of the three criteria is provided (i. e. , holding out time, handling time, and available space). A combined index, which steps the overall LOS considering concurrently the ready time, handling time, and available space of check-in facilities, originated.
The real and perceived by arriving and departing traveler performance of the terminal was assessed (22). The model was validated at the Chiang Kai-Shek AIRPORT TERMINAL. Travellers were asked to state their perceived waiting around and processing time for either check-in (i. e. , in case there is departing travellers) or baggage lay claim facilities (i. e. , in case there is arriving individuals) and rate the quality of the evaluated facilities. Furthermore, actual longing and digesting times at check-in and baggage say facilities were video noted. Applying the fuzzy strategy, five-point scales evaluating actual and perceived LOS predicated on target and subjective time were developed. The evaluation discovered that the perceived by travellers time is higher than the genuine time. For instance, passengers assign to check-in facilities a service level A when the genuine longing time is significantly less than 4, 4 minutes, as the threshold for the perceived ready time is 3, 4 minutes.
A similar type of research is reported (23). The research compares passenger belief of congestion level with the actual density. Data were collected from both departure and arrival individuals at Taipei international and home airports. Standards calculating service quality on the five-level scale predicated on the perception of available space for peak and non-peak times were developed. The research provides evaluations of results for: i) the same facilities in the same air port at different durations (i. e. , optimum and off-peak), ii) different facilities at the same airport, and iii) similar and various facilities at both airports. It is figured individuals are less tolerable towards congestion in baggage claim than in check-in areas. Also, people visiting during peak time might expect terminal congestions and, thus, have lower standards (i. e. , higher crowding thresholds).
The performance of control facilities (e. g. , check-in, baggage case, and security check) has been evaluated through the Perception-Response (P-R) model (24-26). The model was applied at the Birmingham, Manchester, and East Midlands international airports in britain. The P-R model procedures identified service quality of waiting facilities predicated on the passenger understanding of time put in in those facilities. A three-level level measuring the perceived service quality as "good", "tolerable", or "bad" predicated on perceived hanging around time was developed.
Psychometrical scaling has been used to build up LOS scales for total service time, total walking time, orientation I, and orientation II (27). The first orientation index is measured as the ratio between genuine and minimal walking distance, as the latter is assessed as the difference in walking time between novices and experts, divided by the path length. Individuals were asked to evaluate the walking distance, orientation, and total service time. Also, data regarding the actual walking distance was collected. Level of service standards measuring the recognized performance of terminal matching to total service time, total walking distance, orientation I, and orientation II were developed.
In the previous areas, methods and expectations for assessing the LOS of specific airport passenger facilities were presented. However, besides evaluating the performance of the average person facilities, it is useful for airport terminal planners and providers to be able to assess the entire performance of the complete terminal. Since the terminal involves some facilities and their performance may be assessed with different signals, the assessment of the relative importance of the many signals should be determined. Different methodologies have been used to determine the relative need for the facilities influencing the passenger perception of the Level of Service made available from a terminal.
The types of this category goal at growing an index calculating the LOS of the whole terminal. Terminal quality as perceived by transfer passengers has been explored (28). Transfer travellers have quite different needs as compared to departing and arriving travellers. For instance, transfer passengers do not utilize access network or check-in facilities. A survey conducted at the Bandaranaike International Airport in Sri Lanka asked transfer passengers to evaluate lots of facilities impacting on the performance of the airport terminal. These facilities included: transit, rest rooms, restaurants and bars, duty free outlets, security, other facilities, and overall air-port. Factors influencing the perceived LOS are: quality of advice/ signage/ guidelines, quality of music information/ information staff, quality of Trip Information Displays, option of seats in transfer area, availability of normal water, and courtesy/ helpfulness of security staff. It was motivated that the courtesy/helpfulness of security personnel has the best influence on perceived service quality.
The factors influencing the quality of service of international airport traveler terminals has been researched through a personal interview surveys with departing individuals at the Montreal AIRPORT TERMINAL (29). The conclusions of this study suggest that travellers assign different importance to factors depending on the type of international airport facility in mind. For flow facilities provision of information was discovered as the main determinants of the grade of service. For longing facilities seat availableness received the best position, while for the processing facilities waiting time, was recognized as the most crucial factor. Here it is important to stress the actual fact that the service quality determinants differ among passenger groups i. e. , individuals are grouped according to their purpose of trip, gender, and get older.
Another study conducted at the same airport terminal (29) recognized six variables that exert the best influence on air-port passenger terminal performance (30): i) information, ii) hanging around time, iii) convenience, iv) option of chairs, v) concessions, and vi) inside environment. On the basis of these six variables, the creators propose four indices to gauge the performance of the terminal in conditions of information provision, longing time, availability of seating, and concessions. At the same time, it is known that specific studies are required to identify choices regarding convenience and inner environment. Although this research provides an approach for calculating the four quality indicators, it generally does not provide any interpretation or suggestions regarding the focus on levels.
The factors impacting the grade of airport passenger terminal businesses have been recognized using expert thoughts (e. g. , airport directors and consultants) (31). On the basis of this study, the following four factors were discovered as influencing air port passenger terminal service quality: passenger service (i. e. , food and drink, rest-room facilities, retail and duty free, and special services), international airport gain access to (i. e. , car parking, rentals car services, and floor vehicles), airline-airport software (i. e. , gate boarding areas, baggage promise facilities, and information displays), intra-terminal travelling (i. e. , this factor consists of a single signal).
The fuzzy multi-attribute decision making procedure was used to build up a amalgamated index for evaluating the performance of air-port traveler terminals (32). The six traits assessing passenger terminals were: comfort, handling time, convenience, thanks to staff, information awareness, and security. Five travel experts required part in the survey score the performance of 14 Asia-Pacific airfields. Through the fuzzy concept, a standard service performance index combining all performance sizes originated. This index was used to ranking 14 international airports in Asia-Pacific.
The overall performance of the passenger terminal of SЈo Paulo International Airport was evaluated using AHP (33). The AHP model was carried out using data from 100 randomly selected passengers. The following types of facilities and their features were found in this analysis: parking (courtesy, security, and availability of parking places), departure hall (security, orientation, information, comfort, and services), check-in (control and holding out time, and courtesy), departure lounge (courtesy and comfort), and concessions (courtesy and variety of stores. This study identified that the most crucial facility in identifying terminal service quality is check-in, while concessions were discovered as having the lowest importance. Center attributes with the best influence on recognized service quality include security, orientation, producing time, and comfort.
An index for deciding overall terminal performance originated in (34). Facilities contained in the research were: enplaning curbside, solution counter-top and baggage deposit, security screening process, departure lounge, circulation areas, concessions, walking distance, and orientation. Individuals at the SЈo Paulo AIRPORT TERMINAL were asked to evaluate the performance of every type of service. The next facilities impacting on terminal quality were recognized: curbside, check-in, security screening, gate lounge, orientation, and concessions. Through Regression Research, it was driven that curbside gets the greatest impact on recognized service quality, accompanied by orientation, gate lounges, and check-in facilities.
The most the above researched studies consider as service quality constructs only factors controllable by the air port. It's advocated that along those factors, the service personnel affects the perception of terminal quality (35). Three sizes of terminal quality are recognized in (35): i) servicescape (i. e. , objective factors, which are controllable by the company), ii) service staff, and iii) services. Each dimensions is explained by sub sizes: servicescape (i. e. , spatial structure and function, ambient conditions, and signals and icons), service personnel (i. e. , attitude, behaviours, and experience), and services (i. e. , production, maintenance, and leisure).
Models assessing the perceived performance of air-port passenger terminal provide useful insight for : i) developing a combined index measuring the grade of service for the complete passenger terminal instead of individual facilities and services, and ii) incorporating the tastes of the terminal users in deciding the level of service offered.
Satisfaction studies provide information related to the dimension of the performance of air-port terminals from a passenger perspective. Since traveler studies are somehow standardized and performed at different kinds of terminals, they provide the foundation for a comperative performance examining similar types of facilities.
Airports Council International (ACI) executes the Airport Service Quality (ASQ) survey, which actions the passenger satisfaction at airports (4). ASQ actions the performance of both terminal facilities and the whole terminal. The performance of the next five service areas is assessed through 16 traits. The features include: ground transportation to/from airport, availability of parking facilities, affordability of parking facilities, option of baggage carts/trolleys, longing time at check-in queue/range, efficiency of check-in staff, courtesy and helpfulness of check-in staff, waiting around time at passport/personal Identification inspection, courtesy and helpfulness of inspection staff, courtesy and helpfulness of security personnel, thoroughness of security inspection, waiting around time at security inspection, feeling of being safe and sound, ease of finding the right path through the airport, flight information monitors, and walking distance inside the terminal. ASQ can be used to rank international airport terminals. A prioritization examination identifies service areas, which require further improvements.
A survey assessing airport terminal performance and comparing performance among international airports has been produced by (5). Over 655 airports take part in the survey. According to traveler satisfaction airports are placed in five categories (i. e. , from one to five star airports). Passenger satisfaction is assessed predicated on 27 items split into five categories: terminal comfort and amenities, security and immigration, outlets, food, and beverages, getting around, and general items. Through the "Passenger Reviews and Traveller Records" feature, SKYTRAX collects data related to passenger desires. People are asked to evaluate online an international airport and talk about their suggestions for further improvement. The business will not provide guidance concerning how to satisfy passenger dreams, however, lists suggestions for improvement for each and every participating airport terminal.
A survey calculating traveler satisfaction has been developed in (6). Six factors evaluated through 27 characteristics are identified to impact terminal performance: international airport accessibility, baggage promise, check-in/baggage check process, terminal facilities, security check, and food and retail services. A standing of North American airports grouped by size (i. e. , large, medium, and small) is shown (36).
Beside the presented organizations calculating passenger satisfaction, airports take on their own initiatives for increasing the environment traveller experience. International airports analyse passenger reviews aiming at determining quality problems and taking actions to remove them. Analysing the accumulated data on twelve-monthly basis supports airport terminal management along the way of continuous performance improvement.
In conclusions, satisfaction studies are performed at a huge number of international airports. The most extensively applied technique is the review produced by ACI (4). Over 100 international airports be a part of the ASQ study conducting over 200. 000 passenger interviews yearly. The index not only steps overall traveler satisfaction, but also presents a benchmarking tool, which gives a opportunity to compare performance among a large pool of international airports. Satisfaction surveys support operations research and marketing decisions. To be able to validate the models, subjective data is necessary. Studies in this category examine overall terminal satisfaction from traveler perspective.
A state-of-the-art and state-of-practice overview of models assessing air-port passenger terminal was presented. Relevant research was classified to three categories (i. e. , terminal performance analysis predicated on objectively assessed LOS, performance examination based on understanding, and passenger satisfaction studies). Desk 1 summarizes terminal analysis models, their applications, and types of decisions reinforced.
The field of air port passenger terminal Degree of Service performance assessment has evolved as time passes. Early approaches included only objective methods of specific facilities (e. g. , check-in, baggage case, and security verification) composed of the airport passenger terminal. These purpose measurements (e. g. , holding out time, handling time, and available space) are being used in order to create and/or assess the amount of Service for confirmed terminal. Subsequent improvements had led to the intro of the point of view of individuals in determining the Level of Service. Another important development in the modelling of air-port passenger terminal LOS diagnosis is your time and effort to examine not only individual facilities, but also to offer an index measuring the amount of Service for the entire terminal.
A conclusion appearing from this literature review is that there is a convergence on the types of facilities that needs to be used in examining the Level of Service and the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that needs to be found in order to determine them. The comparative need for the factors influencing the performance of different kinds of facilities differs according to the type of center. Also, the perception of the LOS differs among different types of traveler teams (e. g. , recurrent vs. less consistent flyers). Furthermore, it should be stressed that there is complementarity among different solutions. More specifically, models developed for individual facilities can be used in conjunction to models evaluating the relative importance of each facility to be able to assess the Level of Service for the whole airport passenger terminal.
Due to the increasing importance of passenger belief in assessing the grade of service of air-port passenger terminals, a dependence on models considering the overall traveler experience at the terminal is rising. Future research for expanding these models should: i) consider both tangible and intangible actions of performance (e. g. , comfort of terminal and quality of information), as well as steps associated with the performance of the service personnel, ii) provide the capability of calculating both the relative need for each service determinant and the amount of satisfaction identified by the individuals in relation to the service provided to them, and iii) understand the result of traveler characteristics on the recognized quality of services. These models provides useful support for making decisions that will increase the passenger experience at air-port terminals and therefore will increase airport passenger terminal elegance.
Terminal LOS Performance Assessment Based on Standards
Terminal planning and design
Terminal LOS Standard
Pre-Primary Inspection Line
Transport Canada, 1979 (14)
Transport Research Panel, 1987 (15)
FAA, 1988 (18)
IATA, 1995 (16)
IATA, 2004 (17)
ACRP Spreadsheet Models (10)
ED Airport Suite
SAMANTA (7, 11, 12, 13)
Manataki, 2010 (12)
Athens International Airport
Objective and Subjective
Muller &Gosling, 1991 (20)
San Francisco International Airport
Objective and Subjective
Correia &Wirasinghe, 2007 (21)
SЈo Paulo International Airport
Check-in and baggage say Passenger
Objective and Subjective
Actual and perceived waiting time
Actual and identified processing time
Yen et al. , 2001 (22)
Chiang Kai-Shek International Airport
Objective and Subjective
Actual and recognized crowding
Yen &Teng, 2003 (23)
Taipei international and local airports
Perception-Response (P-R) model
Mumayiz, 1985 (24)
Birmingham, Manchester, and East Midlands international airports in the United Kingdom
S. Mumayiz &Ashford, 1986 (25)
Ashford, 1988 (26)
Objective and Subjective
Total service time
Total longing time
Correia et al. , 2008 (27)
SЈo Paulo International Airport
Developing Blended LOS Index
Regression Analysis (RA)
Transfer passenger facilities
Quality of information/ signage/ directions
Quality of audio tracks information/ information staff
Quality of Trip Information Displays
Availability of seats in transfer area
Availability of taking in water
Courtesy/ helpfulness of security staff
de Barros et al. , 2007 (28) Bandaranaike International Airport in Sri Lanka
Regression Evaluation (RA)
Martel &Seneviratne, 1990 (29) Montreal International Airport
Regression Evaluation (RA)
Objective and Subjective
Provide indices measuring:
Availability of seats
Seneviratne &Martel, 1991 (30) Montreal International Airport
Factor Research (FA)
Passenger service issues (i. e. , food and drink, rest-room facilities, retail and duty free, and special services)
Airport gain access to (i. e. , parking, rentals car services, and floor transportation)
Airline-airport software (i. e. , gate boarding areas, baggage claim facilities, and information exhibits)
Intra-terminal vehicles (i. e. , this factor contains a single signal).
Rhoades et al. , 2000 (31)
Factor Research (FA)
Domestic frequent flyers
Servicescape (i. e. , spatial layout and function, ambient conditions, and signs and symbols)
Service staff (i. e. , attitude, behaviours, and experience)
Services (i. e. , production, maintenance, and leisure)
Fodness &Murray, 2007 (32)
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Parking (courtesy, security, and option of parking areas)
Departure hall (security, orientation, information, comfort, and services)
Check-in (handling and waiting around time, and courtesy)
Departure lounge (courtesy and comfort)
Concessions (courtesy and variety of stores).
Bandeira et al. , 2007 (33)
SЈo Paulo International Airport
Regression Analysis (RA)
Purpose of trip
Correia et al. , 2008 (34)
SЈo Paulo International Airport
Courtesy of staff
Yeh &Kuo, 2003 (35)
Passenger Satisfaction Survey
Airport Service Quality (ASQ)
Passport/personal Identification control
Finding the way
Terminal comfort and amenities
Security and immigration
Shops, food, and beverages
J. D. Power
Check-in/baggage check process
Food and retail services
J. D. Power (6)