Measuring Airport Quality Services

-Passenger centered model-

By
Dalal Et-tahhaf
2019

A research paper presented in part consideration for the degree of ”ST in Airport logistics and
freight management”
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank all the person that without them this research paper would not have been
possible.
I would like to express my deepest gratefulness to my supervisor mr Elkouhen Mhammed for
his guidance, encouragement and constructive criticism through every stage of the research
paper.
I would like to thank my parents brothers and friends for their love and support.
Contents
Acknowledgments
Content
Part 1 : theoretical part
Chapter 1 : DETERMINATION OF AIRPORT SERVICE QUALITY FACTORS
1.1 Definition of service quality
1.2 Dimensions of service quality
1.3 Airport service quality factors
1.4 Gap analysis model
Chapter 2 : Airport service performance
2.1 airport performance
2.1.1 airport performance indicators
2.1.2 airport service quality
2.1.3 airport domains based on passenger activities
2.2 airport passenger passenger experience
2.2.1 Definition of airport passenger experience
2.2.2 The importance of passenger experience
2.3 airport related determinants of service performance
2.3.1 passenger profile caracteristics
2.3.2 airport related determinants
2.3.3 creating more value for passenger satisfaction
2.4 summary
Chapter 3: Quality management principles
3.1 ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 - in brief
3.2 ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 concern
3.3 Genetic means
3.4 management system
Part 1: theoretical part
Chapter 1
1.1 definition of service quality
Service quality is customer’s long term evaluation of a company’s service delivery.
Customer will compare what they expected with what they actually receive during the post-
purchase stage of the purchasing process. Service quality is therefore perceived quality of
customers about a service. The SERVQUAL is one of commonly employed methods in
measuring passenger satisfactions as well (Parasuraman et al. 1988).
The concept of perceived service quality can be shown as follows:
Quality = Perception score – Expectation score
Based on this SERVQUAL conceptual model, service quality is therefore defined as the
difference between passengers’ expected and perceived quality of services, or simply the gap
between “customer perceptions of what happened during the service transaction and his
expectations of how the service transaction should have been performed (Subha & Archana,
2013, p.26)”.
2.2 Dimensions of service quality
The above definitions reveal one fact, the concept of service quality is not an independent
term, meaning, its composition depends on many factors related to service companies and
services. These factors are grouped into five broad dimensions such as, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibility each one is discussed below.
1. Reliability
Reliability is defined as the ability to perform the promised service
Reliable and accurate. Broad sense means reliability, service companies
Promises about delivery, service provisions, problem solving and pricing.
Customers love dealing with those companies, which keep their promises. And
therefore
Is an important element in the perception of the quality of service by the customer
His loyalty. Thus, service companies must be aware of customer expectations
Reliability. In the case of airport services, the dimension of reliability
Includes - regularity, attitude towards complaints, keeping customers informed,
Consistency, procedures, etc.
2. Responsiveness
Response is the willingness to help customers and provide Instant service. This
dimension focuses on the position and speed in dealing with customer requests,
questions, complaints and problems. This also focusing on punctuality, attendance,
professional commitment and so on Staff or staff. It can be calculated along the length
of time customers expect for help, answers to questions, and so on. Response
 conditions can be Can be improved through continuous presentation of the service
delivery process staff attitude towards customer requests.
3. Assurance
The third dimension of service quality is assurance dimension. It can be defined as
employee's knowledge, courtesy of the company's ability and its staff to inspire trust
and trust in its customers. this is the dimension is important in airport because
customers feel Not sure about their ability to evaluate the outcome. This dimension
focuses on knowledge, functional skill, accuracy, courtesy and other personnel and
security guaranteed by the company.
4. Empathy
The other dimension of quality of service is sympathy dimension. it's defined as caring,
individualized attention is provided to customers by Their service companies. This
dimension attempts to convey the meaning through personalized or individual services
that are unique to customers and special for the company.
This dimension is focused on a variety of services meet the different needs of
customers, and individualized or personalized services.
In this case, service providers need to know customers personal needs
5. Tangibility
The fifth dimension of service quality is the Tangibility which is defined as the
appearance of physical facilities, equipments, communication materials and
technology. All these provide enough hints to customers about the quality of service of
the firm. Also, this dimension enhances the image of the firm. Hence tangibility
dimension is very important to firms and they need to invest heavily in arranging
physical facilities.

However, it is also indicated that the approach to define a common expectation

construct may inadvertently homogenize the results. In fact, the service quality may
need to consider individual airport’s characteristics, such as cultural differences, which
could affect the perception of service quality. Similarly, other demographic factors and
trip purpose could also influence the perceptions of the traveler too.
1.3 Airport service quality factors
To measure the airport service quality and user satisfaction, a list of 13 factors is
determined according to the framework described and review of previous studies on
airport satisfaction study (Table.1). These quality measurement items form the basis
of data collection process in the satisfaction survey and the resultant analysis and
assessment.

Ground transport
Baggage carts condition
Processing time at airport counter
Ease of finding way
Flight information display
Shopping or retail service
Restaurants
Internet access
Restrooms
Cleanliness
Security level
Speed of baggage delivery
Children play area

Table 1: airport service quality factors

1.4 Gap analysis model

Gap analysis model of service quality was developed by Parasuraman, A. et al. in the year
1985. The model indicated that customer perception of quality was influenced by a series
of five distinct gaps. They are mentioned below.
Gap - I - Gap between customer expectation and Management perception.
The reasons for this gap are the lack of adequate market research and lack Communicate
upward. This gap can be narrowed through adequate adoption Search software to know
customer needs and improve Communication system. It can be measured using the
SERVQUAL scale And compare results obtained from management and customers.
Gap - 2 - Gap between Management perception and service quality specification.
This gap exists in service companies due to lack of full hearted management commitment to
quality of service and inadequate service leadership etc.
It can be closed by unifying and preparing the service delivery process and setting appropriate
organizational objectives.
Gap - 3 - Gap between Service quality specification and service delivery.
The third gap arises from contradictions in actual service delivery, that is, service providers or
employees do not perform at expected level of management. It is because of ineffectiveness
employment, lack of incentives and appropriate motivation etc.
This gap can be eliminated by providing staff with an appropriate support system, a better
human resources management system, etc.
Gap - 4 - Gap between Service delivery and external communication.
The gap between service provision and external communication externa because of excessive
promise or ineffective communication with the client, raising customer expectations. This can
be narrowed by efficient and effictive communication system.
Gap - 5 - Gap between expected quality and perceived quality
This gap is due to the unequal expectation of customer service and service perception.This
can be overcome by identifying, measuring and monitoring customer expectations and
perceptions through the effective use of marketing and research tools.
A pictorial presentation of these five gaps are depicted in figure below
Chapter 2 : Airport Service performance
2.1 Airport performance
Being part of modern connectivity, airports have different components, each of which has
itslegal requirements.
These components are different systems and procedures, stakeholders, antiques needed to run
the airport.
Stakeholders consist of private entities (airport owners, shareholders, airlines and security);
Bodies (customs, quarantine and police); clients (passengers and visitors); Regulatory bodies
(National Transport Service, State and local Governments); and the International Air
Transport Association (IATA).
Although each stakeholder has different requirements and objectives, their continuous
cooperation is required to ensure uninterrupted airport operations (Graham, 2003; Kazda
&Caves, 2007a).
2.1.1 airport performance indicators
Based on the established guidelines of Airport Performance Measures (Wyman, 2012), there
are six main Key Performance Areas (KPAs), and 42 observed measures or Performance
Indicators (PIs). The work of Wyman (2012) is accepted as a guide to providing airport
managers with an overview and better understanding of the following six KPAs (Airports
Council International, 2012):
1. Core/Fundamental Measures of Airport Activities
These core measures are important determinants of an airport’s financial health and its impact
on the quality of air transportation. There are four indicators in an airport’s total annual
figures:
 number of passengers
 passenger origination and destination
 number of aircraft movements
 amount of freight or mail loaded.
There is also one indicator relating to the number of non-stop (direct flight) destinations.
2. Safety and Security Measures
Safety and security measures are used to track safety issues at airports. There are six such
indicators:
 runway accidents
 runway incursions
 bird strikes
 Public injuries
 occupational injuries
 loss of work time from employee injuries.

3. Service Quality Measures

There are eight indicators focused on the perception of passengers to the level quality of
service and service delivery objectives:
 Hourly capacity
 Gate departure delay
  Taxi departure delay
 Customer satisfaction
 Baggage delivery time
 Security clearing time
 Border control clearing time
 Check-in gate time

4. Productivity/Cost-Effectiveness Measures
Productivity and cost effectiveness measures are related to airport efficiency by using airport
resources to produce a certain volume of activity. There are nine of these indicators:
 Passengers per employee
 Aircraft movements per employee
 Aircraft movement per gate
 Total cost per passenger
 Total cost per movement
 Total cost per Workload Unit (WLU)
 Operating cost per passenger
 Operating cost per movement
 Operating cost per WLU

5. Financial/Commercial Measures
Financial performance indicators are used to track airport financial performance. There are
eight indicators:
Revenue per passenger
Revenue per movement
Non-aeronautical operating revenue per total operating revenue
Non-aeronautical operating revenue per passenger
Debt service as a percentage of operating revenue
Long-term debt per passenger
Debt to Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, and Amortisation (EBITDA)
ratio
 EBITDA per passenger.
6. Environmental Measures
These measures relate to the work being done at airports to minimize the environmental
impact of their operations. There are six indicators:
 Carbon
 Footprint
 Waste recycling
 Waste reduction percentage
 Percentage of renewable energy purchased by the airport
 Utilities or energy usage per square metre;
 Water consumption per passenger.

2.1.2 Airport service quality

Airport service quality can be measured from several perspectives:
Passengers, airlines and airport operators (Lemer, 1992). These users have different
perceptions of airport performance. Lemer (1992) further emphasized that service
performance measurement characteristics are context-dependent, as there is no global or
accurate definition of airport performance defining passenger satisfaction as a key
performance indicator for airport operations, Yeh and Kuo (2003) Conducted a study to assess
the quality of airport service according to six distinctive service attributes:
 Staff Courtesy
 processing time
 Security
 Comfort
 Convenience
 Information.
In terms of passenger satisfaction,Martin Seagas (2006) applied the queue theory to the
proposed time and waiting time for different airport service operations. This study provided a
quantitative model for measuring quality perception based on two important aspects:
1. Average Waiting time,
2. level of congestion in the airport facilities.
Average waiting Time is determined by the check-in service and the average number of
passengers Wait, while the congestion level is determined by the size of the service area, And
grade length (Martin-Cejas, 2006).
Assessing service quality has also become the focus of a recent project called Personalised
Airport Systems for Seamless Mobility and Experience (PASSME) with the main aim to
reduce passenger time at airports within the European Union by 60 minutes (De Lille, 2015;
PASSME Project, 2015). Moreover, De Lille (2015) incorporated the following key airport
and aircraft areas within the PASSME project for service improvement: (i) Arrive at Airport,
(ii) Check-in and Bag Drop, (iii)Security, (iv) Lounge, (v) Boarding Gate, (vi) On-Board, (vii)
Disembark and Customs, (viii) Baggage Claim, and (ix) Exit Airport.
A passenger-driven assessment requires understanding of all processing and discretionary
activities from departure to arrival terminals. Various airport domains at airport passenger
terminals are reviewed in the next section. This section introduced a variety of airport
indicators in assessing service quality at airports. To provide deeper analysis on the
application of various airport indicators, it is necessary to deconstruct the current airport
models.
2.1.3 airport domains based on passenger activity
To provide a better understanding of service performance assessment, this section reviews the
different airport ranges at the terminal. There are many airport areas that travelers must pass
through before the flight in the departure lounge, and after their trip to the arrival lounge.
Based on IATA definition, Figure 1.3 shows eleven airport domains for departure, and three
airport domains for arrival (International Air Transport Association, 2014).
 Figure 1.3 IATA’s Airport Processing Domains (IATA, 2014)
Keeping in mind that the IATA provides a vision for the experienced passenger-centered
experience on the use of customized technology to improve passenger processing, Popovic et
al (2010) has developed a concept for airport ranges based on passenger-focused activities.
Thisapproach classifies airport passenger activities into "processing" and "non-processing"
activities, including the following six departure domains and five arrival domains:
1. Departure
a. Processing domains: Check-in, Security, Immigration Customs, Boarding
b. Non-processing domains: Arrive at Airport, Waiting/Retail Area
2. Arrival
a. Processing domains: Disembark, Immigration, Baggage Claim, Customs
b. Non-processing domains: Depart Airport
The processing airport domains at departure and arrival terminals are dedicated to compulsory
activities that need to be completed in an orderly manner, while discretionary domains refer to
various optional passenger activities.To explore relevant domains at airport terminals, this
research follows the passenger-focused concept developed by Popovic et al. (2010). This
concept differs from IATA’s concept that concentrates on the use of dedicated technology in
differentiating airport processing stages. As shown in Figure 1.3, there are four IATA stages at
check-in: pre-travel, ticket issuance, check-in, and document scanning.
Popovic et al. (2010) argued that these four activities at the check-in domain could be
categorised as processing activities. For example, the second step in Figure 1.3(ticket
issuance) can occur at check-in, at home via the internet, or before the first step (pre-travel).
Similarly, with a focus of passenger-centred activities rather than a focus on the use of
dedicated technology, the security domain covers activities on IATA’s two security processing
stages (i.e. access and security).
The non-processing domains of “Arrive at Airport” and “Depart Airport” in the Popovic et al.
(2010) concept also cover many passenger activities, from the selection of ground
transportation from/to the airport to the use of various airport facilities such as ATMs, rest
rooms, lounges, trolleys, retail outlets, and Wi-Fi. To measure passenger satisfaction for these
non-processing activities, many researchers use “Airport Access” and “Airport Facilities” as
two domains as they have different evaluation criteria. While “Airport Access” relates to the
infrastructure support connecting airport and ground transportation experienced by
passengers, “Airport Facilities” covers a wide range of facilities inside airport terminal
buildings (Bogicevic, Yang, Bilgihan, & Bujisic, 2013; W. L. Chang, Liu, Wen, & Lin, 2008;
Eboli & Mazzulla, 2009; Liou, Tang, Yeh, & Tsai, 2011; Rhoades, Waguespack, & Young,
2000; Tsai, Hsu, & Chou, 2011).
Moreover, Kirk (2013) research found that the other non-processing airport domain,“Retail
Area”, is an important domain because although not everyone made a purchase, every
participant in his sample of 71 passengers visited at least one retail outlet in the airport. Other
researchers have also included ‘retail area’ as a significant evaluation criterion to measure
passenger satisfaction (Atalik, 2009;Bogicevic et al., 2013; Correia & Wirasinghe, 2013;
Correia, Wirasinghe, & Barros,2008; George, 2013; J.D. Power and Associates, 2010; Liou et
al., 2011).
Taking into account the importance of Airport Access, Airport Facilities, and Retail Area for
both departure and arrival terminals, Wiredja, Popovic, and Blackler (2015) included these
three non-processing domains in their composition of airport domains
(Figure 2.3):
1. Departure
a. Processing domains: Check-in, Security, Immigration Customs, Boarding
b. Non-processing domains: Airport Access, Airport Facilities, Retail Area.
2. Arrival
a. Processing domains: Disembark, Immigration, Baggage Claim, Customs
b. Non-processing domains: Airport Access, Airport Facilities, Retail Area.

Figure 2.3. Various Airport Domains in the Passenger Experience

Adapted from Wiredja et al. (2015, p. 2240)
The structural relationship between a set of airport domains and overall service performance
is shown in Figure 3.3. The sets of airport domains consist of seven departure domains, four
transit domains, and seven arrival domains, as detailed below (Wiredja et al., 2015):
1. Departure: -Airport Access - Airport Facilities -Check-in - Security
Screening - Immigration and Customs - Retail Area, and Boarding
2. Transit: - Security Screening, -Baggage Claim, - Airport Facilities, and
Retail Area
3. Arrival: - Disembarkation - Immigration, - Baggage Claim – Customs and Quarantine
- Airport Facilities -Retail Area, and Airport Access.
 Figure 3.3 Structural Relationships between Airport Domains and Airport Service
Performance
2.1.3.1 Airport Domains at Departure Terminals
This section reviews the selection of service attributes for all airport domains at departure
terminals. The processing domains at departure terminals are check-in, security screening,
immigration and customs, and boarding. Meanwhile, the non-processing domains are airport
access, airport facilities, and the retail area.
2.1.3.1.1 Departure Airport Access
A number of leading independent surveys – including ASQ Survey, J.D Power, and
SKYTRAX – use airport access as an evaluation criterion to measure passenger satisfaction.
Several indicators have been used to measure the performance of individual aspects of airport
access. These indicators are: (i) options of ground transportation to/from the airport, (ii)
parking facilities, and (iii) value for money of parking facilities (Airports Council
International, 2008; J.D. Power and Associates, 2010; Kramer et al., 2013; SKYTRAX,
2014a). Many researchers also selected the availability of public transport and public parking
as measures of airport service performance (Atalik, 2009; Bogicevic et al., 2013; W. L. Chang
et al., 2008; Chao et al., 2013; Eboli & Mazzulla, 2009; Liou et al., 2011; Rhoades et al.,
2000; Seyanont, 2011; Tsai et al., 2011).
 Airport Departure Facilities
Airport facilities have been selected by many independent surveys and researchers as a key
evaluation domain in assessing airport service quality based on passenger experience. This
includes facilities at all airport areas where passengers undertake activities, both before
security checkpoints (landside airport area) and after security checkpoints (airside airport
area). More specifically, airport facilities have been selected as an evaluation domain in three
types of airport performance models: (i) equal-based indicator performance models (Atalik,
2009; Bogicevic et al., 2013;W. L. Chang et al., 2008; Y. C. Chang & Chen, 2012a; Liou et
al., 2011; Rhoades et al., 2000); (ii) weight-based indicator performance models (Chao et al.,
2013; Chou, 2009; Eboli & Mazzulla, 2009; George, 2013; Mikulic & Prebezac, 2008;
Seyanont, 2011; Tsai et al., 2011); and (iii) passenger satisfaction benchmarking surveys
(Airports Council International, 2008; J.D. Power and Associates, 2010; Kramer et al., 2013;
SKYTRAX, 2014a).
Several indicators based on passenger-perception have been used to measure service
satisfaction at airport terminal buildings: (i) the availability of banking or ATM facilities; (ii)
the sanitary condition of restrooms; (iii) the comfort of waiting area or airport lounge; (iv) the
availability of information desk and display; (v) the availability of trolleys; (vi) the
availability of internet or Wi-Fi; and (vii) the comfort of the terminal.
 Check-in
As a prominent airport domain, check-in has been quantitatively and qualitatively assessed by
many researchers in assessing airport service performance. However, Section 3.1 highlighted
that absolute quantitative measures of check-in performance (such as measures of waiting
times, processing times, and congestion levels)
cannot be taken as accurate measures of passenger satisfaction. This is because a longer
queuing time does not always result in a passenger’s perception of low
satisfaction.Subsequently, Section 3.2 explained that all overall airport performance models
based on passenger-driven experience have used check-in as an important evaluation domain
in which to measure passenger satisfaction. Check-in has been used in three types of airport
performance models: (i) equal-based indicator performance models (Bogicevic et al., 2013;
W. L. Chang et al., 2008; Liou et al., 2011; J. W. Park, 2007; Rhoades et al., 2000); (ii)
weight-based indicator performance models (Chao et al., 2013; Chou, 2009; Correia &
Wirasinghe, 2013; Eboli & Mazzulla, 2009; George, 2013; Mikulic & Prebezac, 2008; Yeh &
Kuo, 2003); and (iii) passenger satisfaction benchmarking surveys (Airports Council
International, 2008; J.D. Power and Associates, 2010; Kramer et al., 2013;SKYTRAX,
2014a).
With weight-based indicator performance models, in which passengers are given the
opportunity to indicate all airport domains and their characteristics (attributes) from the most
important to the least important, Correia and Wirasinghe (2013) found that the most important
airport domain was check-in, followed by departure lounge, departure hall, parking, and retail
area.
The implementation of Internet check-in facilities by almost all international airlines has
resulted in an enhanced passenger travel experience by reducing queuing and processing
times at the check-in counters (Airports Council International, 2007).Most passengers using
this online facility have completed all the required activities,such as providing their personal
details, selecting their seats, and printing their boarding passes. It only remains for them to
drop their baggage at check-in.Several common indicators based on passenger perception
have been used to measure service satisfaction at the check-in domain: (i) the perception of
waiting time (or queue length or queuing time); (ii) staff courtesy or helpfulness; and (iii)
check-in efficiency.
 Departure Security Screening
Security screening is a non-compromised airport domain based on strict procedures that need
to be fully complied with to ensure the safety of all passengers. Some researchers have chosen
security screening as an evaluation domain in which to measure passenger satisfaction. Some
common indicators have been used: (i) staff courtesy; (ii) a feeling of security, and belief that
a thorough job has been done; and (iii) perception of waiting or queuing time (Airports
Council International, 2008;Bogicevic et al., 2013; W. L. Chang et al., 2008; Chou, 2009;
Correia et al., 2008;Eboli & Mazzulla, 2009; Y. H. Park, 1999; Tsai et al., 2011).
Sometimes, check-in staff repeat information to passengers for their preparatory activities
prior to security screening in order to ensure that they are aware of: (i) what they cannot carry
in hand luggage (such as sharp or flammable items, and volumes of liquid no larger than 100
ml); and (ii) what they have to place in a separate plastic bag (such as a limited amount of
aerosols, liquids and gels). Preparatory activities have an impact on the amount of time spent
during security screening (Kirk et al., 2012). If passengers have performed some preparatory
activities beforehand (such as removing all risk items, such as laptops, metal and sharp items,
and liquids), it helps airport authorities to reduce queue length and processing time at the
security screening domain. When passengers are not prepared, they have to return for a
second scan, or have their bags searched. This results in delays to other passengers at the
security clearance point (Kirk et al., 2012). As well as X-ray screening, there is random
security screening to ensure passengers are not carrying any prohibited drugs.
 Departure Immigration and Customs
Like Security Screening, Immigration is another key airport domain where airport
management and the relevant government authorities can have a conflict of interest. On the
one hand, immigration is considered as a non-compromised domain, where all passengers
have to fully comply with the procedure, and with government regulations. On the other hand,
many airports aim to deliver best service by conducting an efficient and effortless
immigration process.
Passenger perception of waiting or queuing time and staff courtesy are two main indicators
used to measure satisfaction at the immigration domain (Airports Council International, 2008;
Bogicevic et al., 2013; W. L. Chang et al., 2008; Chao et al., 2013; Tsai et al., 2011; Yeh &
Kuo, 2003). However, researchers are not always granted permission to conduct passenger
satisfaction surveys relating to this domain (Correia & Wirasinghe, 2013).
New technology, such as biometric-based automatic immigration systems, has been applied to
certain passenger segments at many major international airports, in order to reduce queuing
and processing times for immigration clearance (Airports Council International, 2007; Wong
et al., 2008). In the absence of new technology, experienced passengers normally complete the
Outgoing Passenger Card (OPC) without error, thus helping airport authorities to reduce
queue length and processing time at the immigration counters. Failure to complete this
document has been identified as a major source of delay during immigration clearance
(Rehbein AOS Airport Consulting, 2007).
 Departure Retail Area
The departure retail area is an essential airport domain, where passengers spend most of their
discretionary time at the departure terminal. Livingstone (2013) identified two discretionary
passenger retail experiences – in the landside retail areas (before the security check point) and
in the airside retail areas (beyond the security check point). Kirk’s (2013) activity-based study
of three Australian international airports (Brisbane, Gold Coast, and Melbourne) found that,
on average,departing passengers spent 36% of their time in processing activities and 64% in
discretionary activities. It is also important to note that the departure/landside retail area has
many facilities that are often utilised by both passengers and wavers before passengers enter
the airside areas.
Having completed three processing domains (check-in, immigration, and security
screening), passengers spend their time in the airside retail area. Boarding is the only
processing stage remaining, so most passengers do their discretionary activities at this stage
(e.g. visiting retail outlets, making purchases, watching television, browsing the Internet, and
buying food). Meanwhile, some frequent flyers spend their time at premium airline lounges
while waiting to board their planes.
Some research has only included the retail area as part of airport facilities or airport service
(Airports Council International, 2008; Chao et al., 2013; Rhoades et al., 2000), or as part of
the waiting area (Correia & Wirasinghe, 2013) or other airport component (George, 2013;
Liou et al., 2011). Meanwhile, other studies have considered the retail area as a specific
airport domain (J.D. Power and Associates, 2010), or have used a few evaluation attributes to
measure overall passenger satisfaction with the retail area (Atalik, 2009; Bogicevic et al.,
2013; Correia et al., 2008; Seyanont, 2011).
In contrast, this research considers the airside retail area as a prominent airport domain. It
takes into account that the passenger retail experience in this area is affected by three main
factors: (i) airside discretionary time, (ii) whether passengers are alone or with companions,
and (iii) domain locations (Livingstone, 2013).
Passenger perceptions of the following common indicators are employed in this study to
assess service satisfaction in the departure retail area: (i) variety of shops,(ii) value for money
in the shops and cafés, (iii) and shopping facilities.
 Boarding
Boarding, where passengers leave the departure terminal and enter their aircraft, is the last
processing domain. Only a small amount of research has included boarding as an evaluation
component when measuring passenger service satisfaction (Y. C. Chang & Chen, 2012a;
Rhoades et al., 2000; SKYTRAX, 2014a). In this current research, three common indicators
have been used to measure passenger satisfaction at the boarding domain: (i) efficiency of
boarding procedure, (ii) staff courtesy, and (iii) the availability of an aerobridge.
To expedite the process, boarding at both international and domestic terminals is started thirty
minutes before the scheduled departure time. First and business class passengers are invited to
board first, followed by frequent flyers, passenger with special needs, and passengers
travelling with a baby and/or young children. Last to board are passengers seated in the back
rows, then passengers seated in the front rows. Moreover, staff courtesy (including the clarity
of the information they provide), and limitations on hand luggage can avoid unnecessary
boarding delay. In addition to a lap-top or hand bag, many airlines allow first or business class
passengers to carry two pieces of hand luggage (7 kg or less); economy class passengers, on
the other hand, are allowed one piece of hand luggage (7 Kg or less).
As opposed to use of aerobridges, a few LCCs require passengers to exit the terminal building
and take stairs to board their plane. Apart from providing the cost-saving strategy of removing
the aerobridge facility, they argue that removing the aerobridge facility is necessary for cost-
saving reasons (De Neufville, 2008; Gold Cost Airport, 2012; Malaysia Airports, 2014), the
lack of this facility can affect disabled passengers, or all passengers in the case of bad
weather.

2.1.3.1.2 Airport Domains at Transit Terminals

While a significant amount of research has assessed passenger needs in departure terminals,
limited research has considered their needs during transit. This current study addresses this
limitation by recognising that transfer passengers have different needs than those of
originating and terminating passengers. The few studies that have used various assessment
models to measure the overall satisfaction of transit passengers are: (i) J. W. Park and Jung
(2011), using SERVQUAL (an equal-based indicator performance model); (ii) De Barros et al.
(2007), using regression analysis (a weight-based indicator performance model); and (iii)
Seyanont (2011), using statistical techniques of factor, regression, and Variance Analyses (a
weight-based indicator performance model).
Facilities and retail areas have been the most frequent targets in the evaluation of assessing
airport service performance at transit terminals. De Barros et al. (2007), however, also
selected security screening for evaluation – the only selected processing domain among their
(seven) evaluated facilities at transit terminals.
Based on their regression analysis, De Barros et al. (2007) found that security screening for
transfer passengers had the highest impact value on overall airport performance. This is due to
the time-consuming, unpleasant, and awkward experience of this domain.
In this research, the baggage transfer area is also considered to be an important domain
contributing to overall service performance. This is because transit passengers prefer that
airports provide automatic and secure baggage transfer to their connecting flights. However,
to date, there has been limited research to examine the impact of self-service baggage transfer
on overall airport performance.
To address this oversight, this current study explores relevant attributes for four airport
domains at the transit terminal based on passenger activities: (i) Transit Security Screening,
(ii) Baggage Transfer, (iii) Airport Facilities, and (iv) Retail Area.
 Transit Security Screening
Security screening during transit is also mandatory airport processing domain for all
passengers with connecting flights. The security screening process includes compulsory x-ray
(to screen personal cabin luggage), a walk-through metal detector (to screen all passengers),
and random bag and body searches (to detect anything not initially cleared by the x-ray and
metal detector). It is important for the security screening staff to treat passengers with
courtesy, and to attempt to make their experience as smooth as possible (De Barros et al.,
2007). What also needs to be considered in this regard is the fact that the security screening at
the transfer terminals is the second compulsory screening for all transfer passengers (i.e.
having undergone their first screening at the departure terminal).
In this study, the following attributes for security screening at transfer terminals are
employed: (i) staff courtesy; (ii) a secure feeling, and a sense of a thorough processbeing
undertaken; and (iii) passenger perception of waiting or queuing time.
 Baggage Transfer
Major international hub airports (e.g. Singapore, Dubai, and Frankfurt) provide automatic
baggage transfer for all passengers if they are travelling with the same airline, and within its
extended network (e.g. Star Alliance, SKYTRAX, and Flying Blue). However, some airports
require passengers to do other activities themselves,such as collecting their bags from an
international terminal; rechecking them in at a domestic terminal; and leaving the
international terminal to take a shuttle bus to a domestic terminal. This might not be well
accepted by all passengers, including those with special needs (e.g. elderly and disabled
passengers, and passengers travelling with a baby and small children).
To examine the impact of transit baggage handling on overall airport service performance,
this research applies two attributes at the transit domain: (i) the availability of automatic
baggage handling at the transfer terminals, (ii) and secure baggage delivery (i.e. no missing,
damaged, or delayed baggage).
 Transit Airport Facilities
Limited research has been conducted to assess service quality in transit terminals (De Barros
et al., 2007; J. W. Park & Jung, 2011; Seyanont, 2011). Based on passenger activities during
transit, this research measures passenger satisfaction with transit airport facilities by the
following attributes: (i) the ease of connection among airport terminals; (ii) the availability of
money changing or ATM facilities; (iii) the sanitary condition of restrooms; (iv) the comfort
of the waiting area or airport lounge; (v) the availability of an information desk and
information displays; (vi) the availability of internet or Wi-Fi; (vii) the walking distance to the
departure gate; and (vii) the availability of showers or accommodation within the airside
transit area.
 Transit Retail Area
Considering that transfer passengers have discretionary waiting time, the transit retail area is
used by most passengers to undertake activities such as going to restrooms, visiting retail
outlets, browsing the internet, and buying food. Premium passengers (first and business class,
and gold frequent flyers), on the other hand,spend their time at airline lounges where they are
supported by a wide range of facilities such as restrooms, showers, food and beverages,
newspapers and magazines, internet and Wi-Fi, and the airline desk.
Only a few researchers have measured airport service quality in the transit retail area. Their
research used various approaches: (i) Regression Analysis (De Barros et al., 2007); (ii)
SERVQUAL (J. W. Park & Jung, 2011); and (iii) the Service Quality Model of Fodness and
Murray (Seyanont, 2011). In this current research, several common indicators, based on
passenger-perception, were used to measure service satisfaction in the transit retail areas: (i)
variety of shops; (ii) value for money of shops and cafés; (iii) variety of foods and beverages;
and (iv) shopping facilities (e.g. allowing passengers to hand-carry liquor bought in the transit
retail area).
2.1.3.1.3 Airport Domains at Arrival Terminals
A review of relevant attributes of some airport domains at arrival terminals is needed because
the current performance models only measure basic attributes of the activities of arriving
passengers, as discussed in Section 4.1. Passenger satisfaction in the arrival terminal has been
measured for the following domains: (i) immigration, (ii) baggage claim, (iii) customs and
quarantine, and (iv) landside and airside facilities (Airports Council International, 2008;
Atalik, 2009; Chao et al., 2013; Liou et al., 2011; Lubbe, Doughlas, & Zambellis, 2011;
Seyanont, 2011; Yen et al., 2001).
As well as reviewing the four above-mentioned domains, this section also includes three other
airport domains in the arrival terminal: disembarkation, retail area, and airport access. This
inclusion serves to provide a greater number of airport indicators, based on a full set of
passenger activities at the arrival terminals.
 Disembarkation
Disembarkation is the first passenger activity at the arrival terminal. To measure passenger
satisfaction at disembarkation as part of overall service performance, researchers have used a
few different approaches. Unless a specific disembarkation attribute, such as disembarkation
time, was used (Lubbe et al., 2011), disembarkation was considered as part of a general
attribute such as complaint handling (Chao et al., 2013); arrival service (SKYTRAX, 2014a);
interaction between airport staff and passengers (Seyanont, 2011); or overall service (Airports
Council International, 2008). These attributes evaluated service performance based on the
passenger perceptions captured in their responses.
As well as waiting time in the disembarkation domain, other specific disembarkation
attributes can be considered: (i) the availability of an aerobridge; and (ii) the ease of way-out
finding. This attribute also addresses the ongoing complaints of LCC passengers who argue
that aerobridges are necessary not only to ease mobility issues for disabled passengers or
passengers travelling with babies, but also to ensure the safety and comfort of all passengers
(Apolonio, 2013; Puspadevi, 2011).
 Arrival Immigration
Unlike immigration domains at the departure terminals, to date, limited research has measured
passenger satisfaction at arrival terminals (Airports Council International, 2008; Chao et al.,
2013; Kramer et al., 2013). This is despite the fact that both arrival and departure immigration
domains have equally important functions. There is also a tendency to simplify the
measurement of the immigration domain at the arrival terminal. For instance, passport
inspection for arriving passengers was rated in one attribute (overall satisfaction), while
passport inspection for departing passengers was rated in two attributes: (i) waiting time at
passport inspection, and (ii) courtesy of inspection staff (Airports Council International, 2008;
Kramer et al., 2013). However, it is crucial to evaluate waiting time at passport inspection at
the arrival terminal. While many airports have implemented biometric checks to reduce
queuing time, including face and finger biometric data capture, not every airport has done so
for certain passenger segments.
Again, to redress the limitations of the research to date, this study adds a third attribute to the
measurement of service satisfaction at the arrival immigration domain: waiting time to obtain
visa (a pre-requisite for entry into some countries).
 Baggage Claim
Baggage claim is an essential arrival terminal domain, and some researchers have measured
service satisfaction with this domain using various types of performance models: (i) equal-
based indicator performance models (Atalik, 2009; Bogicevic et al., 2013; W. L. Chang et al.,
2008; Liou et al., 2011; Lubbe et al., 2011); (ii) weight-based indicator performance models
(Chao et al., 2013; Seyanont, 2011; Tsai et al., 2011); and (iii) passenger satisfaction
benchmarking surveys (Airports Council International, 2008; Kramer et al., 2013).
The above-mentioned studies, however, measured only one service attribute for overall
satisfaction with baggage handling and baggage delivery time. Passengers could give overall
response for this only one attribute although they might have different perceptions of each
particular service (i.e. secure baggage handling and delivery time). Again, to address this
limitation, this research measures passenger perception of two attributes for the baggage claim
airport domain: (i) baggage delivery time, and (ii) secure baggage delivery (i.e. relating to
missing, damaged, or delayed baggage).
 Customs and Quarantine
Customs and Quarantine is the last processing domain at the airport arrival terminal. As for
immigration, airport authorities consider Customs and Quarantine a non-compromised
domain, where all passengers have to fully comply with airport procedure and government
regulations. Cooperation from passengers in completing the IPC correctly, and making
accurate customs declarations for certain goods,reduces queue length and processing times at
this domain. Some major airports also provide their IPCs in a few major languages for the
convenience of all passengers, and to avoid any misunderstandings.
A small amount of research included Customs and Quarantine as an evaluation domain to
measure service satisfaction based on passenger experience (Airports Council International,
2008; Chao et al., 2013; Kramer et al., 2013; Liou et al., 2011). While some studies only
established one service attribute for Customs and Quarantine, this study measures three
attributes: (i) waiting or queue time at customs and quarantine, (ii) courtesy of inspection
staff, and (iii) clarity of information for customs and quarantine declaration.
 Airport Arrival Facilities
Unlike airport facilities at the departure terminal, which was selected by many independent
surveys and researchers as a key evaluation domain in assessing airport service performance
based on passenger experience, airport facilities at the arrival terminal were mostly ignored.
Some airports, however, do pay more attention to the latter by providing free services for
incoming passengers (e.g. Melbourne Airport provides free baggage trolleys for incoming
passengers, but charges outgoing passengers for their use).
Although passengers might spend less time at arrival terminals than departure terminals, the
former provide passengers with their first impressions of a country.
Furthermore, the availability of certain facilities, such as currency exchange, is important. For
example, many passengers only exchange their home currency to a local currency at the
arrival terminal because the local currency is not available outside the country.
In brief, this research considers the following attributes in measuring passenger satisfaction
for the airport arrival domain: (i) the availability of baggage trolleys; (ii) the availability of
public phone or Wi-Fi; (iii) the availability of money changing or ATM facilities; (iv) the
availability of information desk and information displays; and (v) the sanitary condition of
restrooms.
 Arrival Retail Area
The arrival retail area is another arrival terminal domain where passengers can spend their
discretionary time. However, researchers have mostly ignored this domain when measuring
passenger satisfaction. Indeed, retail areas can have specific attractions for arriving
passengers. For example, Melbourne Airport offers special promotions on certain products
only for arriving passengers. Departing passengers can also buy these products, but they can
only collect them in the airside retail area on their next arrival in Melbourne.
As well as being an ideal place for passengers to meet their greeters upon their arrival at
airports, the arrival landside retail area has many facilities for the use of both parties. For
example, if passengers miss their pick-up coach at London’s Heathrow Airport and need to
wait for the next scheduled coach, they can visit a cafe and/or relax while waiting.
In summary, several common attributes are measured to assess passenger perception of
service satisfaction at the arrival retail area: (i) variety of shops, (ii) value for money in shops
and cafés, and (iii) variety of food and beverages.
  Arrival Airport Access
The availability of public transport and public parking has been selected (among other
evaluation attributes) by many researchers to measure airport service performance at
departure terminals, as elaborated in Section 4.2. However, most research did not consider
this attribute in evaluating arrival access. This is even though convenient and easy access to
ground transportation is also expected by arriving passengers. For instance, many passengers
arriving in the afternoon (peak hour) at Soekarno-Hatta Jakarta International Airport are
dissatisfied because they have to queue about an hour for a regular taxi.
In this research, two attributes are assessed to determine passenger satisfaction with airport
arrival access: (i) options of ground transportation to/from the airport,and (ii) the ease of
connection to parking facilities (for those using private transport),or taxi queue lengths (for
those using public transport).
2.2 Airport passenger experience
This section begins with a description of various passenger activities in airport terminals, and
then reviews the importance of passenger experience while undertaking these activities. It
then explores specific measures to improve this experience through improved service
performance. Some unresolved passenger complaints are also discussed to informing more
passenger-driven service in the future.
2.2.1 Definition of passenger experience
Popovic et al. (2010) describe airport passenger experience as activities and interactions that
passengers undergo in an airport terminal building. Passenger experience is categorised into
two broad categories: (i) processing activities, and (ii) discretionary activities. Processing
activities are those that should be completed by every passenger in sequence upon arrival at
the airport – check-in, security screening, immigration, and boarding – while discretionary are
optional,unordered activities based on each passenger’s freedom of choice (Kirk,
2013;Popovic et al., 2010).
In this research, ‘airport passenger experience’ represents the complete set of passenger
activities covering departure, transit, and arrival terminals, at both processing and non-
processing domains. In the airport performance context, the role of passenger experience is
important in determining the perceived value of airport service quality.
2.2.2 The importance of passenger experience
As the major stakeholders of any airport, passengers should ideally have the right to express
their opinions, including their level of satisfaction with airport services.
Furthermore, their needs must be investigated to identify what is important to them,and how
airports and/or airlines respond to any inadequacy (Airports Council International, 2000). As
passengers’ first impressions of airport facilities couldinfluence their perceptions of airport
service, Martin-Cejas (2006) recommended that airports provide comfortable and convenient
facilities.
Kramer, Bothner, and Spiro (2013) argued that a competitive advantage can be gained by
offering an outstanding passenger experience. Thus, passenger experience has become a
strategic priority form any airports. Several airports around the world–including Incheon
Airport in South Korea, Changi Airport in Singapore, and Indianapolis in North America,
among others – have served their customers with outstanding quality. Kramer et al. (2013)
also presented five common competitive factors affecting airport service quality: (i) speed of
journey through the airport; (ii) cleanliness; (iii) a selection of value for money services; (iv) a
positive gate experience; and (v) customer service/courtesy of staff. Many airport operators
are working hard to improve efficiency and to offer positive passenger experience before and
after security checkpoints.
Developed and implemented by ACI, the Airport Service Quality (ASQ) Survey helps airports
in their continuing efforts to improve the quality of passenger service (Airports Council
International, 2017), and is conducted every month for all participating airports. Selected
departing passengers complete the survey to express their opinions on how airport services
met their expectations. The ASQ Survey measures the Level of Service through a series of
observations, monthly feedback, and a range of deliverables (from management summaries to
databases) that are capable of displaying each recorded observation (Bogicevic et al., 2013).
The Level of Service is determined by 34 customer satisfaction indicators (Airports Council
International, 2008).Some researchers have also measured passenger experiences based on
overall Level of Service using a number of customer satisfaction indicators such as waiting
time at check-in, waiting time at security, number of available baggage carts, waiting time at
immigration, information convenience, and terminal facilities (Bogicevic et al., 2013; W. L.
Chang et al., 2008; Chao, Lin, & Chen, 2013; Correia & Wirasinghe, 2006; Correia et al.,
2008; Fodness & Murray, 2007; Tsai et al.,2011; Yeh & Kuo, 2003).
SKYTRAX (2014a) has conducted annual performance reviews for almost all world airports
and airlines since 1999. For example, they systematically surveyed more than 18 million
passengers from more than 100 different nationalities, using 41 KPIs relating to passenger
satisfaction with both their airport and on-board services.
These included all activities from check-in to boarding, airport facilities, cabin cleanliness,
on-board services, and the courtesy of staff (SKYTRAX, 2014a). At the March 2016
SKYTRAX conference, Singapore Changi Airport was selected as the World’s Best Airport
for the sixth time in ten years (SKYTRAX, 2016). The other airports that previously received
the World’s Best Airport Award are Hong Kong International Airport (eight times), Incheon
International Airport (twice), and Amsterdam Schiphol Airport (once).
2.3 Airport-related Determinants of Service Performance
This section reviews some important determinants relating to airport service performance.
Passenger satisfaction at airports is influenced not only by passenger characteristics, but also
by determinants such as airline-airport cooperation, security requirements, the implementation
of new technologies, the emergence of LCCs, and customer-oriented services.
2.3.1 Passenger Profile Characteristics
Chao et al. (2013) highlighted that passenger perceptions and expectations of airport service
are influenced by passenger profile characteristics; for example, by whether a passenger is a
frequent/non-frequent flyer, old or young, a high or low income earner, or travelling for
business or personal reasons. They also contended (2013) that passenger perceptions and
expectations are influenced by travelling factors (such as connecting flights, flight delays,
time of departure, and flight duration); the type of carrier (for example, regular or low-cost);
services and queuing time in various airport domains (check-in, security screening,
immigration, and boarding); and by airport facilities. Reducing queuing time, eliminating
operation bottlenecks, planning clear traffic flows and signs, increasing the variety of business
services and areas, and providing better public facilities provide more comfortable and
convenient services to passengers, and increase overall service quality (Chao et al., 2013).
According to the ACI World Report 2014, the total air traffic passengers from December 2012
to December 2013 increased by 4.2%. This represented a 5.6% increase for international
passengers, and a 3.0% increase for domestic passengers (Airports Council International,
2014a). Knowing that they are operating within alimited capacity with high volume of flights,
airports worldwide have acknowledged the need to examine passenger satisfaction and to
identify areas where they can enhance the airport experience (Bogicevic et al., 2013).
Other studies also found that different groups of passengers had different expectations of
airport services. These differences were related to various passenger characteristics, for
example, whether they were frequent flyers (Fodness & Murray, 2007; Liou et al., 2011),
elderly (Y. C. Chang & Chen, 2012b; Chao et al., 2013), or high-income passengers (Chao et
al., 2013). Other studies found that there was a significant difference in how some aspects of
airport service quality (i.e. airport function, interaction between members of airport staff and
passengers, and servicescape) affected overall passenger satisfaction. Again, this difference is
caused by differing demographic passenger profiles, such as (i) their travel purpose, (ii)
whether they are departing or transit passengers, and (iii) their travel frequency (Seyanont,
2011). Further research is recommended to analyse the different expectations of various
passenger groups and their relationship to socio-economic variables such as gender, age,
family income, purpose of trip, and frequency of trip (Correia & Wirasinghe, 2013).
2.3.2 Airport-Related Determinants
Taking into account that the aviation industry is highly involved in the development of
regional and state economies, Isaka (2012) highlighted the importance of cooperation between
airports and airlines. Indeed, a well-performing airport supports the economic growth of a
country. Although the relationship between airports and airlines is the most important
interface in the aviation industry, Goetsch and Albers (2007) previously suggested considering
other determinants – such as aviation regulations and the emergence of LCCs – to measure
service performance.
Goetsch and Albers (2007) found that if an airport operator and an airline form part of the
same group of companies, they can support each other to gain competitive advantage. To
illustrate this point, they presented a case study involving Munich Airport’s (MUC’s)
Terminal 1 and Lufthansa (LH). When the former was over capacity, MUC and LH
established a joint venture company (40% owned by LH, and 60% by MUC) to build a second
and dedicated terminal for LH and its Star Alliance partners. After Terminal 2 started its
operations in June 2003, MUC experienced the largest traffic expansion in history, and LH
could offer 2,200 weekly flights to 83 destinations (more than LH’s primary hub in
Frankfurt).
When an airport actively works as a connector that supports regional and state activities, it is
well regarded; this regard, in turn, leads to its growth (Isaka, 2012).However, due to the
deregulation of the airline industry, and the emergence of LCCs, there is a lot of pressure on
airport operations to reduce costs and improve productivity (Bottasso, Conti, & Piga, 2012).
Joint collaboration between airports and airlines can achieve these goals by stimulating
demand in the aviation industry (Goetsch & Albers, 2007; Isaka, 2012). Air passengers also
consider an airline’s characteristics (image, airfares, and service quality) as significant
determinants in their choice of carrier (Boksberger, 2011).
Noting that there is a significant difference in the gap between the perceived level of service
quality and the actual level of service quality for regular airlines and LCCs, Wittman (2014)
recommended future research to determine whether factors such as lower customer
expectations of LCCs, their complaint procedures, or government airline data acquisition
systems were factors that could explain this difference.
Since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, a safety-related service
quality issue has increasingly affected passenger convenience. Related changes include
additional screening of restricted items (laptops, mobile phones, metal objects, and shoes) that
have to be removed/surrendered prior to passing through the security detectors. There are also
allowance limits on the amount of liquids, aerosols and gels (LAGs) to be carried in hand-
luggage (Kazda & Caves, 2007b).
Supported by airports, airlines, and government agencies alike, the implementation of new
technologies, including internet check-in, biometric passports, and automatic immigration
systems, has resulted in significant strides in simplifying passenger travel. The Simplifying
Passenger Travel (SPT) program has four main objectives: (i) to improve aviation security;
(ii) to increase the utilisation of terminal space; (iii) to enhance airport passenger experience;
and (iv) to reduce passenger processing and queuing times (Airports Council International,
2007). Since 2014, to increase service satisfaction through technological advancement, Qantas
and Virgin Australia have allowed passengers to use their smart phones or laptops (in flight
mode) during their flight (Yahoo Australia, 2014).
In the anticipation of growing competition from other airports in the region (such as Hong
Kong, Seoul, Dubai, and Bangkok) and the increase in air-traffic due to the emergence of low
cost carriers, Singapore Changi Airport has been continuously upgrading its facilities and
introducing innovative products and services to maintain its position as the World’s Best
Airport (Wong, Cha, & Ng, 2008).
Moreover, Wong et al. (2008) highlighted that CAAS executed its customer-focused values by
introducing a series of world-first, top-class services. For example, by promoting Changi as a
people-friendly international airport; offering assisted check-in services for disabled
passengers; offering a free two-hour city tour for transit passengers and free visits to their
lounge; and by installing a biometric-based automatic immigration system for Singapore
citizens and permanent residents to reduce queuing and processing time for immigration
clearance.
2.3.3 Creating More Value for Passenger Satisfaction
Lovelock (1991) discussed service performance as a set of activities that occur in two
categories: (i) core components, and (ii) supplementary components.
Acceptable performance on core components is required not only to meet customer
satisfaction, but also to maintain a minimum industry standard; performance on
supplementary components, on the other hand, is more related to competitive strategy
decisions (Lovelock, 1991).
It was highlighted in Section 2.1.2 that airport service quality can be measured from several
perspectives: (i) passengers, (ii) airlines, and (iii) airport operators. Most researchers also
consider that the scope of customer satisfaction and service quality is different. Furthermore,
however, they believe that service quality is part of customer satisfaction because the level of
quality influences customer perception of satisfaction (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988;
Rust & Oliver, 1994; Walker & Baker, 2000). Airport management needs to know how to
identify improvement opportunities within the airport service area to meet or exceed
passenger satisfaction with their service performance.
As a result of deregulation, airports have changed their business model from one based on
airline-generated profit, to one based on passenger-generated profit (Harrison et al., 2012;
Isaka, 2012). Similarly, IATA has adopted the policy that airlines should pay airport charges
based on the number of passengers carried, rather than on take-off or landing weight
(Schuster, 2009). Taking into account,therefore, that the role of airline passengers will become
more significant in future airport performance, airports are expected to strive to offer
outstanding passenger satisfaction (Kramer et al., 2013).
Taking into account that customer satisfaction is not the focus of service quality in the
established guidelines of Airport Performance Measures (Airports Council International,
2012), future research is required to make customer satisfaction the focus of Performance
Indicators. Some individual measures – such as departure delay, security clearing time, check-
in service time, passengers per employee, ease of way finding, airport facilities, and terminal
cleanliness – could be linked to passenger-driven performance measures (Airports Council
International, 2012).
Noteboom and Zonneveld (1998) introduced the concept of “customer value strategy” that
aims to maximise the value for the company and the customer at the same time. They
recommended that companies wishing to differentiate themselves by success should start by
treating their customers differently. Therefore, creating value for customers goes well beyond
the routine delivery of products. In the process of creating maximum value for both the
company and customers, a company is required to use soft performance measures such as
customer retention
rate, the number of complaints, the frequency of repurchase, and customer satisfaction and
loyalty. The company’s ability to create value for customers is a critical indicator in
measuring its performance.
Knowing that some service measures could conflict with other measures, Humphreys et al.
(2002) provided the example of the punctuality of a departing flight (a service measure) and
maximisation of retail revenue (a business measure),where passengers could delay flights by
failing to board on time. To overcome these conflicts, Humphreys et al. (2002) suggested that
a balance scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1996) could be developed to solve conflicts among
business, service, and environmental goals. Airports are evolving in a dynamic regulatory,
ownership, and market environment, and in the context of rapid growth in demand and
technical innovation (Humphreys et al., 2002). It is essential to obtain a greater understanding
of their operations to identify their relevant performance measurements.
2.4 Summary
This Chapter has introduced the applications of various airport indicators at passenger
terminals. Considering that assessing service performance requires an understanding of
passenger experience, various domains of passenger activities were discussed. The overview
provided the necessary basis for investigating the airport service indicators used in the current
research in this field. It addressed the role of passenger experience in assessing service
performance at airports.
Chapter3 :
To lead and operate an Organization successfully, it is necessary to direct and control it in a
systematic and transparent manner. Success can result from implementing and maintaining a
Management System that is designed to Continually Improve performance while addressing
the needs of all interested parties. Managing an organization encompasses quality
management amongst other management disciplines.
3.1 ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 – In brief
ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 are among the most popular ISO standards ever. The ISO 9000 and
ISO 14000 standards are implemented by about 760 900 companies in 154 countries. ISO
9000 has become an international reference for quality management requirements in business
transactions between companies, and ISO 14000 is on track to achieve as much as possible, if
not more, enabling enterprises to meet environmental challenges.

3.2 ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 concern

 The ISO 9000 family is primarily concerned with quality management. This means
what the organization does to fulfil:
The customer's quality requirements, and applicable regulatory requirements,while
aiming to enhance customer satisfaction, and achieve continual improvement of its
performance in pursuit of these objectives.
 The ISO 14000 family is primarily concerned with environmental management. This
means what the organization does:
Reduce the adverse effects on the environment of their activities and achieve
continuous improvement of their environmental performance.
The vast majority of ISO standards are very specific to a particular product, material or
process. However, the standards that have gained the ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 families a
global reputation are known as Genetic management system standards.
3.3 genetic means
Generic means that the same standards can be applied:
to any organization, large or small, whatever its product including whether its "product" is
actually a service, in any sector of activity, and whether it is a business enterprise, a public
administration, or a government department.
3.4 Management system
In this context management system refers to the organization's structure for managing its
processes - or activities - that transform inputs of resources into a product or service which
meet the organization's objectives, such as satisfying the customer's quality requirements,
complying to regulations, or meeting environmental objectives.

Part 2: Practical part

Chapter 1: introduction
This study aims to investigate passengers’ expected and perceived service and quality
satisfaction of the Fez Saiss Airport (FSA) as the overall quality perceived would affect the
number of future travelers to FEZ. After determining a list of known factors affecting airport
service quality, passengers’ satisfaction survey was carried out at the main entrances and exits
of the FSA . Based on the collected data, a passenger satisfaction rating was compiled
reflecting the users’ perceived level of satisfaction of the FSA. Apart from identifying the
most important factors on airport service quality, it was also shown that there was significant
difference in rating importance by different demographic factor.
1.1 Aims of Study
In Fez , there is no or little academic survey done on the airport quality in the past though
benchmarking and industry practice for measuring airport passenger satisfaction was not
uncommon. However, the lists of those attributes do not represent service quality as per usual
concept adopted by marketing research and literature (Fodness & Murray, 2007). Hence, a
study in Fes Saiss International Airport was planned to collect those information. The aim of
this study was to (1) identify those dimensions of service quality and satisfaction; (2) carry
out a passenger satisfaction survey to collect users’ expected and perceived quality of the
airport; (3) compile a satisfaction rating reflecting the users; perceived satisfaction; and (4)
identify factors having significant impacts on airport service quality.
2.2 Objectives of Study
To achieve these aims, this study would collect data on airport service quality and users’
satisfaction in order to analyze the relationship between quality factors and passengers’
satisfaction. In particular, following objectives would be targeted:
a. Evaluate and monitor the performance of airport services based on the data
obtained from Satisfaction Survey.
b. Investigate users’ perceived service quality and satisfaction of the airport and the
relationship between them.
c. Determine known quality factors affecting airport services.
3.3 USER SATISFACTION SURVEY
The aims of the survey were to study passenger’s perceived satisfaction and quality of the
airport. Hence, interview survey was designed and carried out at the airport main entrances
and exits. Respondents were randomly chosen from the passengers getting in and coming out
from the airports. Questionnaire consists of three sections: (A) Demographic characteristics
(B) Perceived importance and (C) satisfaction.
The interviewees were asked to score the importance of each factor from 1 (least satisfied) to
7 (most satisfied) as well to rate the satisfaction of each factor from Poor (1) to Excellent (5).

Chapter 2 : Description of the Data Sample

A total of 198 questionnaires were completed and details as per below Table 2.
No . of passenges Percentage to
Total
Sex Male 91 45.96%
Female 107 54.04%
Age 18-24 143 72.22%
25-45 32 16.16%
46 or above 23 11.62%
Purpose of Travel Leisure 179 90.40%
Business 10 5.05%
Both 9 4.55%
Travelling with Group tour 83 41.92%
With friends 78 39.39%
Own 37 18.69%
No. of Travels made over last 1 to 4 174 87.88%
12 months 5 to 8 18 9.09%
9 or above 6 3.03%
No. of airports visited over last 1 to 4 173 87.37%
12 months 5 to 10 22 11.11%
11 or above 3 1.52%
Table. 2: Demographic and travel profile of respondents
The numbers of male and female passengers were (46% and 54% respectively) more or less
the same but the age of respondents was mainly between 18 and 24 (72%). Over 90% of
respondents were leisure travel and around 42% are travelling with group tour. Most
respondents travel within 4 trips (88%) over the last 12 months and 87% of respondents
visited no more than 4 airports during the said period.
2.1 Level of Satisfaction
The weighted Satisfaction Index, which is derived by Summation of the products of
individual satisfaction with importance ratings divided by Summation of individual important
of each quality factor, was used to provide reference (Tong & Leung, 2013)

∑SiIi
Weighted Satisfaction Index = ______________
∑Ii
where Si and Ii are the satisfaction and importance ratings of each quality factor for individual
respondent
The overall weighted satisfaction respondents gave their ratings greater than or equal to 3
while 15 respondents rated less than 3. That is to say, the users generally rated the satisfaction
of the airport services better than average. Regarding the interesting to note that the different
gender gives the same ratings 3.697 (fig 1)

Fig. 1 : Weighted Satisfaction Index by SEX

On the other hand, the satisfaction index was found to be decreased from 3.76 (age group 18-
24) to 3.48 (age group 46 or above) (fig.2).

Fig.2 : Weighted Satisfaction Index by AGE

Regarding the nature of travel, the leisure travelers were generally more satisfied than the
business traveler while those passengers with both leisure and business purposes were least
satisfied with rating at about 3.47 (fig.3) . On the other hand, tour group travelers were in
general more satisfied than individual passengers but those passengers travelling with friends
(not with group tour) were least satisfied (fig.4)
 Fig.3 Weighted Satisfaction Index by Travel Purpose

Fig.4 : Weighted Satisfaction Index by Travel Type

In particular, the satisfaction rating was decreasing when no. of travelling during last twelve
months was increased (fig.5) . Similarly, the rating was also lowered when the users visited
more and more airports during the last twelve months (fig.6) . This reflects that the
satisfaction
indices were reduced when the users make more travel and visit more other airports.

Fig. 5 Weighted Satisfaction Index by Travel Frequency

 Fig.6 : Weighted Satisfaction Index by No. of Airports Visited

3.3 Service Quality

In particularly, the importance and satisfaction ratings for each quality factors are provided in the
Table. 3.

Importance Coeff. of Satisfactio

Coeff. Of
(Mean) Variation n (Mean)variation
Security 6.01 18% 3.96 21%
Cleanliness 5.97 17% 4.04 23%
Flight Information Display 5.90 19% 3.97 23%
Ground Transport connection 5.82 20% 3.97 19%
Rest room 5.80 18% 3.88 24%
Ease of Finding ways 5.78 20% 3.98 20%
Speed of Baggage delivery 5.69 19% 3.45 28%
Process time at counter 5.59 20% 3.74 19%
Internet/WIFI 5.53 25% 3.49 38%
Baggage Carts condition 5.01 24% 3.83 23%
Restaurant Facilitates 4.99 25% 3.49 31%
Shopping Facilitates 4.64 31% 3.75 26%
Children Play Area 3.39 49% 2.29 67%
Table 3: Satisfaction figures for each factor with mean and coefficient of variation.
Based on the 198 respondents, it was shown that the importance of almost all factors, were rated at
greater than 4. It suggested all factors were perceived to be important in terms of airport service
quality except art display and children play area (3.48 and 3.39 respectively). In particular, security
was found to be the most importance factor, which was 6.01 with a standard deviation of 1.088 and
coefficient of variations of 18%. On the other hand, the mean of overall satisfaction level is 3.83 out
of 5, with a standard deviation of .627 and coefficient of variations of 16%. Generally, all participants
indicated the satisfaction of the airport was better than average. In general, almost all factors were
rated higher than 3 with the cleanliness of airport obtained the best score (4.04). However, the mean
scores of art display and children play area were below average, which were only 2.59 and 2.29
respectively. Regarding the perceived satisfaction of these factors, cleanliness, security, flight
information display, ground transport and ease of finding ways were most satisfied by users with a
rating of about 4. It further revealed that those five most satisfied factors were also important to
overall airport service quality. On the other hand, the satisfaction of art display and children play area
was least satisfied with rating below 3 but they were also the two least importance factors indicated.
3.4 Trip characteristics and Perceived Service Quality To further understand the relationship between
each quality factor and trip characteristics, correlations were carried out. It was shown that there was
significant different (.000) between male and female in evaluating the importance of two factors,
namely, children play area and art display. In particular, female users gave a higher importance to
children play area (3.93) and art display (3.82) compared to male. It is suggested that female travelers
were more concerned about the importance of children play area and art display in terms of airport
service quality. 4. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the users’ satisfactory survey of this Study,
the overall level of satisfaction was 3.697 out of 5. Over 92.4% respondents were at least satisfied
with the services while there was only 15 dissatisfied users (7.6%) gave a rating of lower than 3. The
overall impression of satisfaction level was appeared to be related to the factors including cleanliness,
security, flight information display, ground transport and ease of finding ways. The users also
indicated that cleanliness, security, flight information and ground transport were the most concerned
factors regarding airport service quality. Moreover, the two least satisfied factors were art display and
children play area but their importance were also the lowest in considering the airport service quality.
However, it was also noted that male and female were significantly difference in rating the
importance of Art display and Children play area in airport service quality.