FUNDAÇÃO GETULIO VARGAS ESCOLA BRASILEIRA DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO PÚBLICA E DE EMP RESAS MESTRADO EXECUTIVO EM GESTÃO EMPRESARIAL

MODIFIED VALUE STREAM MAPPING OF AIRPORT CHECK-IN PROCEDURES

DISSERTAÇÃO APRESENTADA À ESCOLA BRASILEIRA DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO PÚBLICA

E DE EMPRESAS PARA OBTENÇÃO DO GRAU DE MESTRE

BRIAN E. O’CONNOR

Rio de Janeiro - 2014

Ficha catalográfica elaborada pela Biblioteca Mario Henrique Simonsen/FGV

O’Connor, Brian Edward Modified value stream mapping of airport check-in procedures / Brian Edward O’Connor. – 2014.

81 f.

Dissertação (mestrado) - Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas, Centro de Formação Acadêmica e Pesquisa.

Inclui bibliografia.

1. Aeroportos – Administração 2. Aeroportos – Planejamento. I. Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas. Centro de Formação Acadêmica e Pesquisa. II. Título. CDD – 658.91387736

MODIFIED VALUE STREAM MAPPING OF AIRPORT CHECK-IN PROCEDURES

ABSTRACT

In June 2014 Brazil hosted the FIFA World Cup and in August 2016 Rio de Janeiro hosts the Summer Olympics. These two seminal sporting events will draw tens of thousands of air travelers through Brazil’s airports, airports that are currently in the midst of a national modernization program to address years of infrastructure neglect and insufficient capacity. Raising Brazil’s major airports up to the standards air travelers experience at major airports elsewhere in the world is more than just a case of building or remodeling facilities, processes must also be examined and reworked to enhance traveler experience and satisfaction. This research paper examines the key interface between airports and airline passengers—airport check-in procedures—according to how much value and waste there is associated with them. In particular, the paper makes use of a value stream mapping construct for services proposed by Martins, Cantanhede, and Jardim (2010). The uniqueness of this construct is that it attributes each activity with a certain percentage and magnitude of value or waste which can then be ordered and prioritized for improvement. Working against a fairly commonly expressed notion in Brazil that Brazil’s airports are inferior to the airports of economically advanced countries, the paper examines Rio’s two major airports, Galeão International and Santos Dumont in comparison to Washington D.C.’s Washington National and Dulles International airports. The paper seeks to accomplish three goals:

- Determine whether there are differences in airport passenger check-in procedures between U.S. and Brazilian airports in terms of passenger value

- Present options for Brazilian government or private sector authorities to consider adopting or implementing at Brazilian airports to maximize passenger value

- Validate the Martins et al. construct for use in evaluating the airport check-in procedures

Observations and analysis proved surprising in that all airports and service providers follow essentially the same check-in processes but execute them differently yet still result in similar overall performance in terms of value and waste. Although only a few activities are categorized as completely wasteful (and therefore removed in the revised value stream map of check-in activities), the weighting and categorization of individual activities according to their value (or waste) presents decision-makers a means to prioritize possible corrective actions. Various overall recommendations are presented based on this analysis. Most importantly, this paper demonstrates the viability of using the construct developed by Martins et al to examine airport operations, as well as its applicability to the study of other service industry processes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... 1

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... 2

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3

1.1. Problem Description and Objective ...................................................................................... 3

1.2. Background Information – Brazilian Infrastructure .............................................................. 4

1.2.1. General Information. .................................................................................................. 4 1.2.2. Airports. ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.3. Growth Acceleration Programs. ................................................................................. 6 1.2.4. Airport Privatization. .................................................................................................. 6 1.2.5. Airport Infrastructure – Current PAC and Privatization Status. ................................ 7

1.3. Focus and Objectives of Thesis ............................................................................................. 8

1.4. Thesis Structure ................................................................................................................... 14

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 15

2.1. Possible Research Streams .................................................................................................. 15

2.1.1. Lean. ......................................................................................................................... 15 2.1.2. Six Sigma. ................................................................................................................ 18 2.1.3. Lean Six Sigma. ....................................................................................................... 18

2.2. Literature and Study Review ............................................................................................... 19

2.2.1. A Note on Lean, Six Sigma, and Lean Six Sigma Literature. .................................. 19

2.2.2. Entities Concerned with Airport Passenger Operations. .......................................... 20

2.2.3. Airport Passenger Check-In Studies. ....................................................................... 21 3. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 22

3.1. Research Design .................................................................................................................. 23

3.1.1. Value Stream Mapping (VSM). ............................................................................... 24 3.1.2. Enhanced VSM. ....................................................................................................... 24

3.2. Sources of Evidence ............................................................................................................ 25

3.3. Data Collection Process ...................................................................................................... 25

3.4. Evaluation Process .............................................................................................................. 27

3.5. Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 28

4. ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 29

4.1. Notes on Data and Process. ................................................................................................. 29

4.2. Apportionment of Value and Waste for American Airports ............................................... 34

4.3. Qualitative Analysis of Value and Waste. .......................................................................... 37

4.3.1. Passenger Perspective. ............................................................................................. 37 4.3.2. Provider Perspective. ................................................................................................ 40

4.4. Quantitative Analysis .......................................................................................................... 42

4.4.1. Passenger Perspective. ............................................................................................. 42 4.4.2. Service Provider Perspective. ................................................................................... 44

4.5. Future Process Considerations. ........................................................................................... 45

4.5.1. New Process Map. .................................................................................................... 45 4.5.2. Data and Comparison Considerations. ..................................................................... 47

5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION ................................................................ 49

5.1. Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 49

5.2. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 52

6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 54

6.1. Endnotes .............................................................................................................................. 55

APPENDIX ……………………………………………………………………………………...58 GLOSSARY ……………………………………………………………………………………..76

1

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Percentage of perceived value ........................................................................................ 27 Table 2: Classification standards for waste ................................................................................... 28 Table 3: Passenger observations ................................................................................................... 30 Table 4: Value and Waste Apportionment of Passenger Check-In Activities - Galeão International Airport – TAM Airlines ............................................................................................ 36

Table 5: Value and Waste Apportionment of Service Provider Check-In Activities - Galeão International Airport – TAM Airlines ............................................................................................ 36

Table 6: Consolidated Waste Percentages – Passenger Perspective ............................................. 37

Table 7: Consolidated Waste Percentages – Service Provider Perspective .................................. 37

Table 8: Classification of Value and Waste - All Activities - Passenger Perspective .................. 38

Table 9: Classification of Waste - Galeão Airport - TAM Airlines (Passenger Perspective) ...... 39

Table 10: Classification of Waste – All Airports – Provider Perspective .................................... 41

Table 11: Pareto – Galeão/TAM ................................................................................................... 43 Table 12: Consolidated Time of Waste – Service Provider Perspective ...................................... 45

Table 13: Value and Waste – Proposed Future State Versus Current State ................................. 47

Table 14: Top 4 Waste-Generating Activities .............................................................................. 47

2

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Typical sponsor and study team roles (assuming an airport is the sponsor) ................... 9 Figure 2: Typical Passenger Flow for U.S Domestic and International Departures ..................... 10 Figure 3: Typical Passenger Flow for U.S Domestic Arrivals ..................................................... 11 Figure 4: Typical Passenger Flow for U.S International Arrivals ................................................ 12 Figure 5: Check-In Activities – Reagan National Airport ............................................................ 32 Figure 6: Check-In Activities – Dulles, Galeão, and Santos Dumont .......................................... 33 Figure 7: Cumulative Waste: Galeão Airport – TAM Airlines ................................................... 44 Figure 8: Revised Check In Activities – All airports.................................................................... 46

3

1. INTRODUCTION The chapter presents a broad overview of the thesis and consists of four parts. First, there

is a brief description thesis problem and its objectives. Next, is a discussion on the state of

infrastructure in Brazil, with an emphasis on airports and the efforts of the government and

private sector to improve infrastructure. This background information provides context to the

utility of examining airport passenger handling in Brazil and establishes that timing may be

conducive to pursuing opportunities to improve passenger operations. The chapter next delves

into the focus and objectives of the paper, airport passenger processing and whether there are

opportunities for improvement in comparison with passenger handling at airports in the United

States. Finally, the structure of the thesis is laid out.

1.1. Problem Description and Objective Traveling by air into and out of Brazil is an experience frequent Brazilian travelers do not

hold in high regard and one that often surprises foreign travelers who accustomed to transiting

more modern and seemingly more efficient terminals. The widespread critiques of facilities and

services by local and foreign travelers alike are well-founded because Brazil’s airport

infrastructure is aging, suffers from a lack of capacity, and has not kept pace with the growth of

Brazil’s economy over the past 25 years. Within the last seven years, Brazil’s government has

undertaken ambitious plans to modernize and improve airports throughout the country.

Modernizing and increasing the size and capacity of terminals addresses physical elements of

airport shortfalls, however travelers would affirm that processes, especially passenger check-in

process, need to be revamped as well, and not just in terms of efficiency but also in terms of the

quality or value they experience while during the check-in process.

This topic of quality, hereafter labelled as “value”, versus efficiency is the subject of this

paper. As will be discussed in the coming pages and sections, this paper asserts that value is a

vital element that should and can be evaluated and factored into the modernization of Brazilian

airports and the improvement of airport passenger check-in operations; efficiencies alone do not

make a valuable or quality traveling experience. This paper examines value from both the

passenger’s (customer’s) and the service provider’s perspectives, with primacy emphasized on

passenger value. This thesis addresses three objectives:

4

1. Determine whether there are differences in airport passenger check-in procedures

between U.S. and Brazilian airports in terms of passenger value.

2. Present options for Brazilian government or private sector authorities to consider

adopting or implementing at Brazilian airports to maximize passenger value.

3. Utilize and validate a construct for evaluating the customer (passenger) and provider

(airline) value of airport check-in procedures.

1.2. Background Information – Brazilian Infrastructure

1.2.1. General Information.

In 2007, when Brazil bid for and eventually won the right to host the 2014 Football

World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics, the two largest sporting events in the world, it

forced itself into a dizzying pace of modernization to ready itself for the influx of tens-of-

thousands of sports fans and tourists. Momentum had already been building for infrastructure

improvements since the turn of the millennium, courtesy of improved economic conditions and

widespread dissatisfaction with Brazil’s infrastructure, which are generally aged and well

overdue for either repair, replacement, or modernization. After decades of military rule which

ended in 1985, exploitation of oil resources paved the way for Brazil to expand its economy to

beyond that of a developing country but political and economic instability made the transition

difficult. Successive presidential administrations in the 1980’s and 1990’s set about addressing

key economic issues such as price controls, hyperinflation, trade liberalization, deregulation,

privatization, and the introduction of new currencies all of which slowly stabilized the economy

and set the stage for economic improvement.1

Unfortunately, while the economic situation of Brazil has vastly improved, the national

and local governments have either failed to act or insufficiently addressed highway, rail, seaport,

airport, energy, and urban infrastructure. Each of these sectors now suffer from issues of

inadequate capability (age, deterioration, disrepair, etc.) and insufficient capacity (they can’t

meet the ever-increasing demands of Brazil’s growing middle class). These sector shortcomings

are evidenced by the two following facts. First, in terms of infrastructure quality, Brazil ranks

104 out of 148 surveyed countries, according to the World Economic Forum.2 Second,

according to the World Bank, Brazil spends just 1.5% of its GDP on infrastructure as opposed to

5

the global average of 3.8%.3 Given that the latter statistic represents the high point of the

government’s attention to infrastructure over the past several decades, it is understandable that

dissatisfaction with the current state of Brazilian infrastructure has risen over recent years. A

2012 Gallup poll revealed that Brazilian dissatisfaction with roads and highways has risen from

47% to 56% since 2010 and dissatisfaction with public transportation increased from 48% to

56%.4

1.2.2. Airports.

Brazilian airports, which are the primary subject of this thesis, are themselves

representative of the infrastructure issues affecting Brazil, both in terms of inadequate capability

and insufficient capacity. With the explosive dual growth of Brazil’s economy (now the sixth

largest in the world in terms of GDP5) and its middle class, the demand for air travel has

exploded as well. More Brazilians can and do fly domestically and internationally, and more

tourists, business people, and international employees travel to Brazil. In February, 2013,

Brazil’s Ministry of Finance reported that the total number of passengers processed by national

airports increased from an average of 34.8 million between 2000 and 2003 to 105 million in

2012.6 The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates the total to rise to 195 million passengers

in 20207 and Price, Waterhouse, Cooper asserts that by 2030 the number of passengers serviced

will reach 312 million.8

The current state of Brazilian airport infrastructure—deteriorating capabilities and

insufficient capacity—struggles to meet the current demand of Brazilians and foreigners alike,

and this situation certainly would not bode well at all for the upcoming World Cup and Olympic

Games without the current injection of billions of Reis in modernization programs (to be

discussed shortly). Attendance estimates for the World Cup and Olympics range between

500,000 and 600,000 people.9 Although traditional tourism numbers may decline somewhat, as

happened during the London Olympics in 2012 out of fear of an Olympic rush of attendees,

overall airport passenger counts are expected to be much higher than normal. Such levels of air

traffic will air traffic will tax an already over-utilized set of airports. The Brazilian National

Development Bank (Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social - BNDES)

6

reported that, as of 2012, 11 of the country’s top 20 airports had reached “saturated” status in

terms of parking apron or terminal capacities.10

Aside from the increased strain on handling passengers, airports supporting World Cup

venues are forecasted to experience overwhelming numbers of business aircraft flying in

attendees. United Aviation Services estimates upwards of 3,000 business aircraft will fly in for

the World cup, a number which those airfields cannot accommodate.11 As a result, the

government plans to make Brazilian Air Force installations available to park and house overflow

business aircraft.

1.2.3. Growth Acceleration Programs.

By 2007, the country’s economy had grown sufficiently enough for the President of

Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (“Lula”), his cabinet, and the National Congress to take

decisive action on Brazil’s pervasive infrastructure woes. They devised, obtained approval for,

and implemented the first of a two-phase stimulus program entitled, “Programa de Aceleração

de Crescimento,” the “Brazilian Growth Acceleration Program” (commonly called “PAC”).

During Phase 1 (PAC 1), which lasted from 2007 to 2010, $349B (USD)12 was allocated to three

general areas: logistics, energy, and social/urban. In PAC 2, which runs from 2011 to 2014,

$526B (USD) have been allocated for 6 areas: urban infrastructure, housing, safety and social

inclusion, sanitation, and access to energy, electricity, and transportation.13 A further $364B

(USD) is planned for energy and transportation projects after 2014.14 Airport projects

account for approximately $19B (USD)15 of PAC monies, which is being spread across 270

airports. These infrastructure projects range from minor improvements to large scale

construction activities which add new or replacing outdated facilities.

1.2.4. Airport Privatization.

Airport privatization, in the form of concessions, is the second major way in which the

government is handling the country’s airport infrastructure issues. From the early 1970s to 2006,

a government corporation, Empresa Brasileria de Infraestrutura Aeroportuaria (INFRAERO),

managed Brazil’s main airports. Like many government corporations found in other countries,

INFRAERO was not designed or managed properly to operate airports effectively and with an

7

emphasis on profitability. INFRAERO acknowledged its own short-comings in 1999 when it

authorized certain non-major airports to operate on a commercial basis.16 In 2006, the Lula

Administration created the Agency for Civil Aviation (Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil –

ANAC) to regulate and oversee the safety of civil aviation. In creating ANAC, the government

further signaled its openness to allowing private companies to manage airports so as to obtain

profitable operations and to encourage domestic and international investment to engender airport

modernization and new efficiencies.17

In February 2012, major airport privatization came to fruition when the government held

an auction to grant concessions to operate Guarulhos International Airport in São Paulo (20-year

term), Kubitschek International Airport in Brasilia (25-year term), and Campinas International

Airport in Viracopos (30-year term). The winning bids totaled $10.19B (USD) and were four

times the required minimum bid.18 The bids thrilled many in President Rousseff’s government

however critics countered that airport privatization has its drawbacks including the possibility of

increased airport fees, decrease in wages due to loss of government control over wages, and

environmental impacts. Furthermore, as the International Air Transport Association (IATA)

noted in a public statement, the auction winners were determined exclusively on how much they

bid and not on which bidder(s) planned to create the best efficiencies.19 Despite later difficulties

in obtaining minority partners, the government went ahead with a second auction in November

2013. Brazilian corporation Odebrecht and Singapore’s Changi Airport Group successfully bid

$9B (USD) to operate Galeão International Airport in Rio (25-year term) and Confins

International Airport in Belo Horizonte (30-year term); both are host cities for the World Cup.20

1.2.5. Airport Infrastructure – Current PAC and Privatization Status.

As of the writing of this paper (May 2014), progress on revamping Brazil’s airports is on-

going but not executing as quickly as stakeholders desire. PAC airport programs, as is the case

for other PAC infrastructure sectors, are generally behind schedule in terms of the expenditure of

funds and the execution (construction, remodeling, etc.) of activities. As related by Business

Monitor International in January 2014, the government’s last report on PAC progress (dated May

of 2013) declares that 56.3% of PAC II monies have been executed over half-way into the

program’s timeframe.21 BMI and other sources present a less rosy picture, indicating those

8

monies have been slow to translate to actual work on the ground. For instance, Infraero reported

in September, 2013, that work on seven of the airports supporting World Cup matches is behind

schedule, with work on Rio’s Galeao Airport being the furthest ahead at 35% completion while

work has yet to start on three other airports.22

Airport privatization is also not materializing benefits as quickly as President Roussef

and proponents had hoped for but some of that disappointment is justified while some is not. It

is true that private sector interest in privatization efforts for airports and other sectors has waned,

which is proving to be very disconcerting given the premium bidders paid during the two airport

concession auctions.23 As a result, in early December 2013, the government halted further

airport concessions for an unspecified period of time.24 On the other hand, criticism of the pace

of privatization appears excessive given that only five major airports have gone through the

auction process and those auctions were in the recent past, February and November of 2013, so

the winning bidders have had little or no time to affect improvements and efficiencies.

1.3. Focus and Objectives of Thesis The previous section highlights that Brazil’s airports are in a state of transition; years of

institutional neglect are giving way to government and private sector improvements. The

general focus of this thesis is to examine whether there may be opportunities to improve

Brazilian airport terminal passenger operations perhaps even beyond that which may currently be

envisioned for airports in the process of or scheduled for modernization.

Given that passenger operations is a broad term that encompasses a series of distinct

processes and events for passengers depending on whether they are departing an airport on a

flight or arriving at a terminal following a flight, it is necessary to either analyze all of the

individual processes or focus on one or more key processes. Although this author is a career

pilot with over 26 years flying large aircraft and is intrigued by examining the whole process,

such an endeavor is beyond the capability of one person to undertake. In fact, the U.S.

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies recommends in Airport Cooperative

Research Program (ACRP) Report 23, “Airport Passenger-Related Processing Rates Guidebook”

that a team approach warranted to adequately research and collect passenger information.25 On

page 15 of Report 23, there a typical airport research team is diagramed, which is Figure 1

below.

9

Figure 1: Typical sponsor and study team roles (assuming an airport is the sponsor)26

Therefore, in order to produce a useful and actionable thesis, it is necessary to narrow

down the focus to a more manageable aspect of passenger operations. To do that, it is necessary

to diagram the collective processes or steps that comprise passenger operations during departure

and arrival processing. That undertaking is not just a case of outlining one set of sequential steps

for departing flights and another set for arriving flights. For example, Figure 2 below provides a

general depiction of the flow for domestic U.S. departures. As can be seen, there are multiple

paths by which passengers will end up at the departure gate. Some passengers may elect to use

curb-side baggage check in; some may not have bags and may proceed to the check-in counter or

utilize self-service kiosks to obtain their boarding passes; some may utilize the counter because

they have need to check in, obtain their boarding passes, and may have bags; and so forth. This

diagram and the others that follow do not include non-essential possible stops or activities such

as restroom utilization or concession visits.

10

Figure 2: Typical Passenger Flow for U.S Domestic and International Departures

The flow for international departures from U.S. airports is essentially the same for

passengers however it is fairly common to proceed to a separate international terminal building

which sometimes also requires additional security screening depending on the passenger’s

destination.

11

Figure 3 depicts the process for U.S. domestic flight arrivals. The process is straight

forward; upon landing the passenger either proceeds to baggage claim or departs the airport

directly. Figure 4 below depicts the typical process that international passengers follow when

arriving in the U.S. The primary difference with this process is the necessity to pass through

customs and border protection screening.

Figure 3: Typical Passenger Flow for U.S Domestic Arrivals

12

Figure 4: Typical Passenger Flow for U.S International Arrivals

The processes outlined in Figures 2, 3, and 4 encompass various sub-processes that often

vary within airports and between airports, which thus affords multiple opportunities to compare

the handling of passengers at major airports in Brazil with that of mainstream modern airports in

other countries. It is natural, or at least usual, to narrow down these opportunities for

comparison even further by focusing on the attribute that has captured the attention of much of

the operations management world over the past thirty years—efficiency, which in this case would

be the efficiency of passenger operations. While efficiency is certainly desirable by service

providers and customers alike, they can, and often do, regard the need for efficient operations

13

differently. Businesses strive for efficiency to speed production, reduce the expenditure of

resources, reduce costs, and so forth. Customers, look for efficient operations to reduce or

preclude unnecessary effort or the expenditure of time to obtain or utilize a product or service,

and to reduce the cost of a product or service. Efficiency, however, does not necessarily go

hand-in-hand with what customers often truly desire—namely, quality.

It is increasingly routine for customers to be disappointed or dissatisfied with a product or

service because measures taken for the sake of efficiency have degraded the product or

experience in one or more ways. Most of us can relate to experiences in the service sector,

where efficiencies gained by the provider seemed to come at the expense of the customer.

Austerity measures and cost and resource reductions made under the guise of actual or assumed

efficiencies have forced providers to “do more with less” which has adversely impacted the

customer. Too often, more responsibility has been placed on customer to realize efficiencies for

the provider, which has actually lead to longer customer lead times and increased customer

dissatisfaction. Telephoning a company to obtain information for a product or service, for

example, routinely consists of listening to numerous “computer” options and making various

selections until we ultimately reach (we hope) a human to speak with. In terms of passenger

airport operations, airline passengers now are encouraged or required to access their flight

information for pre-check-in ahead of time on-line, must check-in themselves at self-service

kiosks, and declare their baggage requirements before ever reaching the check-in counter. While

these measures can save an airline money, many people chaff at having to bear the personal

burden of executing a portion of what they believe they are paying the airline to do.

Returning to the topic of narrowing the focus of this thesis to a manageable undertaking,

and postponing further discussion on quality to follow-on sections, it is advisable to select a sub-

process for study that potentially may emphasize the variability between airports and allows for

possible positive impact on Brazilian passenger operations. The sub-process which best fits that

combination is the passenger check-in process. The narrowed focus of this thesis, therefore, is to

examine and compare the check-in processes for Brazilian airports with that of mainstream

American airports.

Based on first-hand quantitative and qualitative analysis, this thesis addresses the

following objectives:

14

1. Determine whether there are differences in airport passenger check-in procedures

between U.S. and Brazilian airports in terms of passenger value.

2. Present options for Brazilian government or private sector authorities to consider

adopting or implementing at Brazilian airports to maximize passenger value.

3. Utilize and validate a construct for evaluating the customer (passenger) and provider

(airline) value of airport check-in procedures.

1.4. Thesis Structure This thesis is composed of five chapters and starts with this chapter, which introduces the

subject of airport infrastructure in Brazil, specifies the focus and objectives of the thesis, and lays

out the structure.

Chapter 2 – “Theoretical Background” begins with a discussion on types of research

streams appropriate for the thesis focus, which includes value stream mapping (VSM), Lean, Six

Sigma, and Lean Six Sigma, and includes a review of literature on these tools. A review of

studies on airport passenger procedures follows, emphasizing material covered and any gaps that

may exist. The chapter concludes with a way ahead for the subsequent analysis.

Chapter 3 – “Methodology” is broken into several sections. First, the research design is

laid out, which is the utilization of value stream mapping and the application of a methodology

proposed by Martins, et al. (2010) that focuses on value. Second, sources of evidence are

described. Third, the data collection process is elaborated on in detail. Fourth, the evaluation

process and how data will be compared to each other is covered. Finally, methodology

limitations are discussed.

Chapter 4 – “Analysis” presents an overview of collected data and how it relates to

airports within Brazil and between airports in Brazil and select U.S. airports.

Chapter 5 – “Recommendations and Conclusion” closes out the thesis with

considerations and general recommendations for Brazilian government and private sector

involved in airport operations.

15

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The purpose of this chapter is to examine theoretical considerations for this paper, which

fall within the realms of operations management. The chapter begins with an accounting of

various operations management approaches by which terminal passenger operations might be

examined. There is a brief discussion on literature pertaining to these approaches followed by a

review of studies on airport passenger check-in procedures. This theoretical discussion paves the

way in the next chapter for determining and commenting on the research methodology utilized.

2.1. Possible Research Streams The overarching intent of examining passenger check-in procedures is to determine

whether or not there are inefficiencies that can be addressed in some fashion by Brazilian airport

authorities as they modernize and privatize Brazilian airports. The operations management

processes of lean production, value stream mapping (VSM), Six Sigma, and Lean Six Sigma are

now discussed as possible means by which inefficiencies and efficiencies can be discerned for

passenger check-in procedures. While these processes do not represent an exhaustive accounting

of operations management processes, they do constitute major methodologies airport authorities

can employ to improve processes to enhance customer value and satisfaction.

2.1.1. Lean.

Lean is a generalized term for lean manufacturing or production and lean thinking. There

are also a number of tools and methods that collectively have taken on the “lean” moniker. As

the Lean Enterprise Institute puts it, “the core idea [of lean] is to maximize customer value while

minimizing waste.”27 The concept that anything which doesn’t contribute to customer value

constitutes waste has its genesis with the Toyota Production System (TPS), which Sakichi

Yoyoda, the founder of Toyota, developed with several of his key engineers and son, over the

course of three decades while at the helm of Toyota.

The Toyota Production System seeks to eliminate unreasonableness, overburden,

excessiveness (muri in Japanese), inconsistency (mura), and waste (muda). The ideal way to

eliminate muri and mura are to design them out of production processes which leads to

smoother, more efficient operations, which are freer of waste. Muri concentrates on the

16

precursor activities of planning and preparation while mura concentrates on how design plans

and characteristics are implemented affect more consistent operations. These activities go far to

eliminate waste/muda but waste can be ever-present so TPS categorizes waste into seven types

that must be constantly monitored and addressed. These seven categories are:28

1. Waste of Defects

2. Waste of Over-Production

3. Waste of Waiting

4. Waste of Transportation

5. Waste of Over-Processing

6. Waste of Inventory

7. Waste of Movement

Various individuals and organizations have added new classifications of waste over recent years

including waste of skills, waste of space, waste caused by poor metrics, waste from improper use

of computers, and so on. Whatever the category, the aim for supervisors and managers is to

collectively and continuously manage processes and procedures to bring about what is

commonly referred to as “continuous improvement”.

Three Japanese-inspired principles are at the heart of lean: to have a long-term vision,

embrace the mantra that continuous improvement is always necessary because good is never

enough (kaizen), and for individuals to obtain first-hand knowledge of production activities in

order to effectively accomplish goals (Genchi Genbutsu). These core concepts have been refined

over time in practice and in theory to the point that lean is now regarded in four general fashions:

lean as a philosophy, a set of tools, a process of continuous improvement, and a goal. The

common element of whichever approach an organization or supervisor embraces is the set of

tools, which there are many of. Numbering in the dozens, some are individual or single-focus

processes while others encompass a wide range of activities. It is typical for multiple tools to be

used simultaneously. In terms of lean tools, many of those identified for production activities

can be utilized for service operations; there are also tools specific to service operations.

Discussion on which tools are applicable to this research question is saved for the

“Methodology” section to come.

While lean concepts originated for application to manufacturing processes, lean

practitioners advocated its applicability service industry functions as well. James Womack and

17

Daniel Jones, two foremost lean management analysts, authors of the seminal work, Lean

Thinking, and founders of the Lean Enterprise Institute (LEI), formulated five principles for

implementing lean which guide lean efforts in any type of industry. Taken directly from LEI’s

website, they are:29

1. Specify value from the standpoint of the end customer by product family.

2. Identify all the steps in the value stream for each product family, eliminating whenever

possible those steps that do not create value.

3. Make the value-creating steps occur in tight sequence so the product will flow smoothly

toward the customer.

4. As flow is introduced, let customers pull value from the next upstream activity.

5. As value is specified, value streams are identified, wasted steps are removed, and flow

and pull are introduced, begin the process again and continue it until a state of perfection

is reached in which perfect value is created with no waste.

While perhaps intuitively obvious that lean thinking and procedures are viable for service

operations, the preceding overarching principles are quite general. Bicheno and Holweg (2009)

recognized this fact and therefore created a modified version of the Toyota’s classic seven wastes

for use with service operations; taken directly from their study they are:30

1. Delay – Delays imposed on customers (e.g. waiting in line, waiting for responses) 2. Duplication – Re-entering data, repeating data on forms 3. Unnecessary Movement – Multiple queuing; lack of one-stop capability, poor counter

ergonomics 4. Unclear Communication – Confusion over instructions, having to seek clarification,

excessive time finding a location 5. Incorrect Inventory – Out-of-stock, incorrect items, substitute services 6. Opportunity Lost – Failing to win or retain customers, poor customer interaction,

ignoring customers 7. Errors – Errors occurring during a service transaction, defects with service bundles, lost

or damaged goods.

Given these service-oriented wastes, it now becomes evident that taking a lean approach

may be appropriate for examining airport passenger operations. There are however, other

operations management approaches to consider, the next of which is Six Sigma.

18

2.1.2. Six Sigma.

Six Sigma is a set of tools and techniques, rooted in statistical analysis, which is used to

obtain process improvements. The focus of Six Sigma is to improve quality by eliminating

production or service defects and to minimize variability in production or service processes. The

benefits championed of Six Sigma include reducing waste, increasing customer satisfaction, and

improving financial results.31 Developed by Motorola in 1980s and famously embraced by Jack

Welch of General Electric, Six Sigma is a structured approach based on the assertion that

processes can be measured, analyzed, and controlled in a quantifiable fashion and that stable,

non-variable processes are essential to business and service processes. Defining and capturing

key metrics and analyzing them statistically are at the core of Six Sigma applications. Six Sigma

practitioners employ one of two structured methodologies: DMAIC (define, measure, analyze,

improve, and control) or DMADV (define, measure, analyze, design, verify). Given the

structured and analytical nature of Six Sigma, a formal training and certification process has

evolved by which practitioners are qualified (ex: green belts, black belts, champions).

Eliminating variance to improve quality is not just for the producer’s or provider’s

benefit but also to the customer’s benefit. This emphasis on quality and quality control underlie

other benefits: the importance of the customer, result-oriented methodologies, disciplined

application methodologies, definable measures of success, the enabling of quick project

completion, and defined roles for practitioners and leadership.32 As alluring as the characteristics

are, they create or mask short-comings that users should be aware of. In general, Six Sigma can

be expensive for an organization to train and certify its personnel in. Atmaca and Girenes (2011)

note that Six Sigma’s focus on quality can come at the expense of speed and inventory

(inventory amount are usually ignored); and realizing financial gains may take time due to the

structural requirements and complexity of the data involved.33

2.1.3. Lean Six Sigma.

As mentioned in the preceding sections, Lean and Six Sigma have different focuses; Lean seeks

to eliminate waste and improve the efficiency or speed of product or process delivery, while Six

Sigma seeks quality improvement which may occur at the expense of speed. It wasn’t long after

the introduction of Six Sigma—the late 1990s—that proponents and detractors recognized that

19

neither approach could be the answer for all situations; some situations demanded one or the

other, while others were conducive to utilizing both approaches. As a result, Lean and Six

Sigma underwent a loose integration process during the 2000s which produced the concept of

Lean Six Sigma (LSS).

In a similar fashion to how Six Sigma utilized on its own can produce less than optimal

results in terms of speed or inventory (see above), Atmaca and Girenes (2011) highlight that

relying solely on Lean, “processes are not under statistical control”, importance is not attached to

variation, and process improvements can be realized which are not linked to mathematical tools

to discover flaws once the waste has been eliminated.34 Judging from the number of studies and

articles on the subject, the evolution of LSS over the past decade has kept many a pen and

keyboard busy. It is not germane to the intent of this paper to delve into the intricacies of this

evolution but it is worthwhile to note that there is general agreement both approaches are

valuable and can be quite complimentary if used in parallel.

2.2. Literature and Study Review

2.2.1. A Note on Lean, Six Sigma, and Lean Six Sigma Literature.

Over the past 20-plus years, Lean, Six Sigma, and Lean Six Sigma have generated their

own industry of practitioners, advocates, consultants, and so forth. There is consequently a great

deal of literature on each of these subjects, plus others such as TPS and Total Quality

Management. Excellent resources for understanding Lean and the Toyota Production System

include: “The Machine that Changed the World” (Womack and Jones), “The Triumph of the

Lean Production System” (Krafcik), “Lean Thinking” and “Lean Solutions” (Womack and

Jones), “Learning to See” (Rother, Shook, Womack, and Jones), and “Managing to Learn”

(Shook). Six Sigma material differs from Lean literature in that it is very specific and process-

oriented, normally comprising a description of tools and methodologies, with less of an emphasis

on philosophy. Informative Six Sigma reads include “The Six Sigma Handbook” (Keller and

Pyzdek), “Six Sigma De-Mystified” (Keller), and “What is Six Sigma” (Pande and Holpp). Lean

Six Sigma literature encompasses works on both Lean and Six Sigma, to include the works

mentioned above. Several worthwhile LSS-specific works are: “The Lean Six Sigma Toolbook”

(George, Maxey, Rowlands, Upton) and “Lean Six Sigma” (George). Assarlind, Gremyr,

20

Bäckman (2013)35 and Atmaca, Girenes (2011)36 provide a good review of literature on the

evolution of LSS in their respective works. These and other authors advocate for structuring and

standardizing LSS and its application.

2.2.2. Entities Concerned with Airport Passenger Operations.

There is a wealth of guidance and literature on airport passenger operations. In terms of

guidance, various national and international governing authorities which are responsible for or

concerned with airport operations offer regulatory or recommended guidance. At the

international level, there is the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is a UN-

chartered body that governs the development and execution of Standards and Recommended

Practices (SARPs) for civil aviation throughout its 191-member countries.37 The IACO has

published a wide range of material on passenger operations via regulatory documents,

independent studies, and various trade and technical journals and periodicals.

At the national level, many countries have regulatory and government-associated

advisory organizations associated with airport operations. In terms of the former, the Federal

Aviation Agency (FAA) immediately comes to mind. The limits of regulatory agencies such as

the FAA or Brazil’s Infraero vary from country to country, organization to organization. The

Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) of the Transportation Research Board of the

National Academies, is an example of the latter category. The ACRP is an interesting example

because it is actually sponsored by the FAA. The ACRP has produced dozens of reports on

various aspects of airport operations. ACRP Report 23 – Airport Passenger-Related Processing

Rates Guidebook, ACRP Report 25 – Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, and

ACRP Report 41 – Guide to the Decision-Making Tool for Evaluating Passenger Self-Tagging

relate directly to airport passenger operations and are thus of consequence to consider for this

thesis.

There are professional international and national for-profit and not-for-profit

organizations which also weigh in on passengers operations. The International Air Transport

Association (IATA) consists of 240+ airlines representing 84% of the world’s air traffic.38 The

IATA is actively engaged on many fronts to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, cost-

effectiveness, and profitability of airline operations for both the benefit of the airlines and

21

passengers. IATA utilizes the World Airports Group and Regional Airports Steering Group

forums (consisting of dozens of individual groups) to address select issues such as passenger

operations. One such IATA enterprise is the Fast Travel Program. IATA’s Fast Travel

Program is a long-term program to provide passengers more choice, convenience, and control

when they travel through by way of enhanced self-service capabilities.39 Proposed elements of

the program will enable 80% of air travelers by 2020 capabilities for self-service check-in, self-

tagging personal bags, scanning personal identification documents, rebooking cancelled or

delayed flights, self-boarding, and self-reporting of missing bags.40 The Fast Travel and other

IATA initiatives are rooted in various studies which the Association posts on its website.

The Airports Council International – North America (ACI-NA), which labels itself as

“the voice of airports” and whose members encompass 95% of all air travel in North America, is

a private, not-for-profit entity that offers reports in over 40 categories to

“strengthen the ability of commercial airports to serve their passengers, customers and

communities.”41 SITA is an example of a for-profit international company which specializes in

information technologies (IT) related to air transportation. Its 2013 Passenger IT Trends study

provides current data on topics such as passenger trends, desires, and concerns for using

technologies to make traveling easier and passenger priorities for mobile and self-service

applications.42 This report, and several others like it, provide elements to consider in examining

current airport processes in terms of current and potential airport passenger (customer) value.

2.2.3. Airport Passenger Check-In Studies.

A review of academic literature on check-in procedures reveals that most studies were conducted

during the years since 2000. These bulk of these studies have concentrated on check-in counter

utilization or optimization utilizing either mathematical models or simulation, while a few

studies have examined other facets of passenger operations. Yan, Tang, and Chen (2004 and

2005) present two studies which focus on algorithms for determining common-use counter

assignments (counters which multiple airlines rent for periods of time). Van Dijk and van der

Sluis (2006) examine the number of counters required and proposed that a combination of

simulation and mathematical modeling is the best approach to optimize counter use. Appelt,

Batta, Lin, and Drury (2007) briefly present a case for simulation based on data collection at the

22

Buffalo Niagara International Airport (USA) which they contend demonstrates the utility of

simulation to other aspects of airport operations. Palar and Sharafali (2008) make a case for

dynamic stochastic programming (i.e. mathematical modeling) of check-in counter operations

and waiting. Guizzi, Murino, and Romano (2009) detail a simulation model they developed and

utilized to examine check-in and security passenger flows at Naples International Airport. Tang

(2010) presents a case for a network model to determine the number of counter assignments

while Bruno and Genovese (2010) present a mathematical model for doing the same. Hsu, Chao,

and Shih (2012) present a synopsis of a modeling exercise they utilized to execute the dynamic

allocation of check-in counters. Parlar, Rodriques, and Sharafali (2012) examine “exclusive-

use” counters (counters designated for a specific amount of time to specific flights) in terms of

whether the number of counters should be fixed or dynamic; with dynamic meaning the number

of counters vary based on mathematical or simulated derivations.

There are a few studies whose focus is on something other than mathematical modeling

or simulation. Correia and Wirasinghe (2006) demonstrate the viability of developing levels of

service standards based upon quantitative manipulation of qualitative survey data for check-in

counter experiences and assert such level of service analysis can be utilized for other aspects of

airport operations. Abdelaziz, Hegazy, and Elabbassy (2010) use analytics to prove the

advantage of using modern common use self-service technology, as is in use with most western,

first-world airports, over that of common user terminal equipment, which at the time of their

writing was still the standard for Egypt’s airports. Finally, Ren Xinhui (2011) purports the

benefits of utilizing a Six Sigma approach to determining and routing out deviations in check-in

counter operations.

3. METHODOLOGY This chapter specifies the selected methodology for examining passenger check-in

procedures at select Brazilian and U.S. airports. The chapter begins with a discussion of the

operations management approaches covered in Chapter 2 and the rationale for why the selected

methodology was chosen. In succession, sources of evidence, the data collection process,

evaluation process, and methodology limitations are covered.

23

3.1. Research Design The previous chapter illustrates there is more than one operations management approach

suitable for examining passenger airport operations; the choice of which to utilize—Lean, Six

Sigma, and Leans Six Sigma—rests with which approach best addresses the research focus area

of passenger value. Recounting the discussion on Lean, maximizing customer value and

minimizing waste are at the core of Lean, but those attributes aren’t enough on their own to

automatically choose it over the other two approaches, after all, cases could certainly be made

that through proper application of the right tools, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma can be utilized

to eliminate variance and deficiencies to produce more customer value. The decision, therefore,

prompts repeating my earlier assertion that efficiencies do not necessarily equate to value.

Creating a check-in process that is efficient and fast from the perspective of an airline by way of

eliminating process (service) inhibitors but the places more responsibility on the shoulders of the

passenger may not be palatable to the customer and could induce customer dissatisfaction.

The choice for a methodology also accounts for the fact that airport check-in procedures

constitutes more than just check-in counter activities, yet as the review of studies reflects, most

of the studies concentrated almost exclusively on check-in counter procedures. Perhaps it is

partly due to a case of semantics or simply a lack of a handy phrase like “checking in” or “check-

in” but the process of readying or setting one’s self up to fly once at the terminal (ignoring the

activities of getting to the terminal’s “curb” such as transportation and parking) encompasses

some or all of the activities portrayed in Figure 2—from curbside arrival to arriving at the

departure gate.

ASSUMPTION: For the purpose of ease of reference in this paper, the “check-in”

process is hereby defined as all the activities between curbside arrival and arrival at the

departure gate.

The methodology and whichever applications or tools are used must also account for the

inherently subjective nature of customer value. It is this key element of subjectivity, and

however it is captured, that degrades the utility of employing solely a Six Sigma approach. The

choice then becomes whether there is purely a Lean way of examining the research question or

24

whether Lean Six Sigma provides complimentary applications. There is, in fact, a Lean tool

which can capture check-in activities, whether they be actual events such as obtaining boarding

passes or checking bags, or the activities of “transiting” and/or “waiting” in between individual

activities—value stream mapping.

3.1.1. Value Stream Mapping (VSM).

Value stream mapping is a tool by which individuals can depict and analyze process flows.

Although often regarded as a tool for visualizing manufacturing processes, VSM is equally

applicable to the service sector. There are numerous benefits to VSM:43

- VSM can portray a process from beginning to end - It is easy to learn - Can identify bottlenecks - Presents a means to depict current and desired future states - Inexpensive; can be done by hand though software programs are available - Easy to critique

The complexity of VSM drawings are proportional to the complexity of the process(es) under

scrutiny and the amount of data a user elects to annotate with each depicted event or step.

3.1.2. Enhanced VSM.

Carrying out VSM for the airport check-in process is a fairly straight forward but accounting for

and utilizing the amorphous nature of value requires additional measures beyond traditional

VSM. A typical passenger does not regard the accomplishment (or non- or slow

accomplishment) of individual components of the check-in process equally; each passenger

weights them differently in his or her own mind. This indeterminate or dynamic facet of

analyzing the check-in process poses a serious dilemma to the researcher. Martins, Cantahede,

and Jardim (2010) cleverly address this dilemma in their analysis of their experience buying

lunch at food truck/trailer located on their university’s campus in São Paulo, Brazil. It is their

unique approach to analyzing a process and accounting for customer value that is utilized to

analyze passenger check-in operations in this paper.

The methodology which Martins et al. employed will be more apparent as this paper

subsequently unfolds, however a brief highlight of key elements are as follows:44

25

- To capture the element of value to a customer, they created a scale in which a percentage of value to the customer for any activity was defined on a quartile basis (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%). For example, an apportionment of 75% meant that an activity closely related to the primary process.

- The scale and categories of perceived value can be defined as necessary to fit the analytical situation.

- The process is repeated for the service provider.

- The activities of the customer and the provider are sequentially mapped and coupled to show the interaction of both parties.

- Types of waste are qualitatively depicted by defining categories of waste.

- Quantitative data (such as time recordings) and qualitative data (the apportionment of value, the qualification of waste) are tabularized to facilitate analysis.

- Pareto diagrams are created to depict the activities that are wasteful in order of wastefulness.

3.2. Sources of Evidence Examining airport check-in processes is readily conducive to first-hand observation.

Although the activities of individual passengers vary depending on whether they checked in

online prior to arriving at the airport, have bags to check, and so forth, the overall check-in

process is discrete and defined. First-hand observation also permits visual understanding of how

the check-in process actually occurs. A printed diagram of the process can depict the steps but it

can’t capture layout, distances travelled, or impediments. Since this paper seeks to compare the

processes of Brazilian and U.S. airports to each other, it follows that first-hand observations

should be made at airports of those countries.

The aspect of passenger satisfaction and value—which is largely based on time—is

appropriately studied with first-hand observation. Interviews and/or participant observation are

appropriate given that the planned methodology includes devising numeric-based qualitative

scales to apportion the quality of perceived value and categorizing a percentage of waste for

activities. Determining categories of value and waste should not be carried out by one

individual but through the joint input of multiple individuals.

3.3. Data Collection Process First-hand observations were planned for the following airports:

26

U.S.

1. Washington Dulles International Airport (Dulles, Virginia)

2. Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (Arlington, Virginia)

Brazil

1. Galeão International Airport (Rio de Janeiro)

2. Santos Dumont Airport (Rio de Janeiro)

3. Optional: Guarulhos International Airport (São Paulo)

4. Optional: Congonhas Airport (São Paulo)

The actual number of airports at which first-hand observations were to be made is not large but

that should not pose a problem to for two primary reasons. First, the actual steps involved in

passenger check-in is essentially the same at most large airports, regardless of the country; what

differs are the peculiarities characteristic of individual airports such as size, congestion, and

capacity. Second, the data collected at any one airport will at least be usable to craft results for

consideration by appropriate parties at that airport.

The number of observations to conduct at an airport (i.e. the number of people to

observe) for timing trials can be variable as well. At the extreme, one person observed from start

to finish can provide the basis for evaluating check-in procedures (which is what Martins et al.

did), however there are obvious benefits to larger sampling. What is important is to observe the

different permutations of utilizing the self-service kiosk or not, going to the counter or not,

checking in bags or not, etc. The timing of observations also matters; the flow of passengers

checking in depends on numerous variables such as the time of day, whether the flight is

international or domestic, the timing between other flights, when the check-in window is, and the

capacity of the aircraft (which determines how many passengers), and so on. Here again,

however, whatever data is collected and analyzed for an airport can be useful to that airport or

airline if the data and results are properly categorized, attributed, and caveated. The goal was to

observe at least 25 people complete the check-in process from curbside to departure arrival at the

personal security screening venue. (It is not feasible to follow passengers to their gates because

that would require special permission from airport authorities to transit back and forth between

the security screening zones).

Developing the qualitative elements of percentage of value perception and percentage of

waste will benefit from using the inputs of multiple people but both are a subjective exercise so

27

whatever number of people are queried for inputs, the resulting scale will be subjective and

relative. Properly describing the rationale for categorizations will preserve their utility and

understanding with the recipients of the information. Five seasoned travelers were consulted to

obtain their opinions and for developing and determining the categorizations.

3.4. Evaluation Process

Timing, value, and waste data will be tabularized for each airport. The timing of

activities and the percentage of perceived value or waste will be used (multiplied) to determine

numeric values for time-value and waste. The percentage of value perceived will be based upon

Table 1 and waste will be categorized Table 2.

% Value Type of Activity Example (Passenger’s Point of View)

0% Activity does not relate to the goal of Traveling to bag screening location the primary process 25% Activity somewhat relates to the Queuing for check-in kiosk primary process 50% Activity moderately relates to the Gathering personal items following primary process personal screening 75% Activity closely relates to the primary Checking in electronically but do not process receive a boarding pass 100% Activity totally relates to the primary Obtaining a boarding pass Process Table 1: Percentage of perceived value

Green - Value-adding - Activities related to the primary purpose of the process; the passenger is willing to accept the process in its entirety. - Example: checking bags

Red - Non-value adding - Eliminate immediately. - Example: having to walk and take bags to baggage screening/drop-off

Yellow - Necessary but partially wasteful within passenger expectation - This waste occurs in the execution of the process and is within a passenger’s expectations. - Example: walking to personal screening

Purple - Necessary but partially wasteful in excess of passenger expectation - This waste occurs in the execution of the process but is in excess of a

passenger’s

28

expectations; it is sufficient enough to cause the passenger to not want to return or reutilize the company or service.

- Example: waiting for an airline’s self-service check-in kiosk Table 2: Classification standards for waste

The numeric determination of time of value and time of waste, the categorization of waste, and

the value stream mapping of the current check-in process enables the analysis of individual

airports or airline(s) according to passenger value, wants, or expectations. Pairing the passenger

and provider value stream maps can provide a ready reference for what activities are of no value

and should be eliminated as soon as possible, or of little value and should be altered to improve

value. This same analysis can be carried out by examining and comparing the results for airports

within a country or between countries. Obvious benefits of this construct, therefore, are that it

can be useful at the individual and group levels, and it can reveal opportunities for improvement

or prove processes are executing well.

3.5. Limitations

There are several types of limitations to this study. First, although the basic process for

airport check-in is fairly standardized among most airports, the execution of these procedures

varies widely. Every airport is unique in terms of its terminal layout, airport capacity, the

number of airlines it serves and whether those airlines have their own areas, kiosks, and so forth.

Even modern airports regarded as well-organized and efficient may have drawbacks just given

their size and layout. It can be difficult, therefore, to readily compare certain airports to each

other the results of this study’s construct.

Second, airport check-in procedures continue to evolve as new technologies (such as

mobile technologies) are developed and put into use which makes the execution of this study a

snapshot in time for a particular airport. That isn’t to say the data and results aren’t valid, rather

adopters of this construct should re-run it as new technologies and sub-processes come into

effect.

Three, airport check-in experiences fluctuate greatly depending on the season, day of the

week, and time of day, warranting multiple time periods of observation which is not practical or

executable by a sole researcher, even for just one airport let alone multiple airports. As

referenced earlier in this study, Airport Cooperative Research Program Report No. 23, Airport

29

Passenger-Related Processing Rates Guidebook, recommends a dedicated team of researchers

with distinct responsibilities for studying passenger operations.

Four, the subjectivity of the qualification scaled for value and waste can skew the results

or at least qualify them as relative. Care should be exercised by both the researcher and any

reader or consumer of the study. This author needs to ensure the scales are sufficiently thought

out and rationalized through the inclusion of other people’s opinion and readers need to keep in

mind there is subjectivity to the scales and resultant data.

Five, observations are focused on the passenger experience and less so on the service

providers. This is both intentional and a factor of not being able to obtain sufficient permissions

to be present “on the other side of the counter” or screening stations to make observations. There

is a chance certain insights may be missed that are germane to the provider’s perspective.

Once again, it bears repeating that the a key goal of this paper is to provide, as Martins et

al. did in their original study (the progenitor for this effort), a construct for examining the value

of check-in procedures, which should be realizable in spite of the limitations outlined above.

4. ANALYSIS This chapter of analysis begins with a description of the check-in procedures,

apportionment of value and waste, and a value stream map for the non-Brazilian airports studied

and is followed with those of Brazil’s Galeão and Santos Dumont airports. Qualitative and

quantitative analysis and comparisons are next covered followed by revised value stream maps

that account for recommended changes to increase passenger value and decrease waste in the

respective check-in processes.

4.1. Notes on Data and Process.

The data collected for analysis corresponds to the general check-in process depicted in

Figure 2 of Chapter 1. Repeated timings of each process step was carried out over multiple days

for multiple passengers checking in for flights at the counters and airports depicted in Table 3

below. To compensate for the inability of a sole researcher to capture all permutations of the

check-in process and to facilitate comparisons, emphasis was placed on observing flights similar

in nature to each other; namely morning departures of domestic flights. As expected, the airlines

30

generally abided by the process outlined in Figure 2 but they varied in the execution in certain

ways such as how many kiosks and counters they had and utilized, or whether or not they had

one or more representatives in front of the counter to assists passengers with issues. The layout,

spaces, and distances involved also varied between airports and airlines but such geographic

differences were minimized within an airport by selecting airlines whose counters were close to

each other in location and function.

Table 3. Passenger Observations

Airport Airline Observed

Number of Passengers Observed

Reagan National Delta 50 United 50 Dulles International Delta 50 American 50 Galeão International TAM 100 Santos Dumont TAM 100

Table 3: Passenger observations

As mentioned previously, Martins et al’s construct includes mapping the activities of the

customer (passenger) to those of the provider (airline, screening authority). Figure 5 below

illustrates the procedures for Delta and United airlines at Washington National Airport. Figure 6

displays those for Dulles, Galeão, and Santos Dumont airports. The two figures differ in that for

Delta and United domestic flights at Washington National, the passengers must take their bags

from the check-in counter and drop them off at separate processing points for baggage screening.

The color coding of each activity box corresponds to the categories specified Table 2 (Section

3.4). The dearth of activity boxes on the “provider’s” side is a consequence of several factors.

First, most process steps are carried out by passengers. Second, I was not able to physically

position myself to discern the exact time when a counter employee transitioned from checking in

a passenger—to issuing the boarding pass—to initiating the baggage check. For a number of

passengers, I had to estimate when the transition occurred based on visual clues. Overall, I

believe the counter timings are fairly accurate and the calculated averages benefit from the

number of timings I did accomplish.

Another point to make is that the “provider’s” actions are carried out by more than one

actor. The airline executes all steps prior to the screening procedures which are carried out by a

different party—the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at U.S. airports and airport

31

security personnel at the Brazilian airports. Since the emphasis of this analysis and paper is

passenger value, the activities of the airlines and security entities are not differentiated; instead

they are treated as a singular entity—the “service provider”. This grouping is more for ease of

presentation and does not preclude making observations about or recommendations for either

entity.

32

Figure 5: Check-In Activities – Reagan National Airport

33

Figure 6: Check-In Activities – Dulles, Galeão, and Santos Dumont

34

4.2. Apportionment of Value and Waste for American Airports Utilizing the activities detailed in Figures 5 and 6, Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9A and B

detail the apportionment of value percentages which were then multiplied by the time of the

activity to determine the time—or amount—of value for check-in procedures from the passenger

and service provider perspective. Waste constitutes that which doesn’t provide value so the

time/amount of waste was calculated in a similar fashion using the percentage adjudged to be

waste. The total time of value and the total time of waste were then compared to the total time of

all activities and percentages of each are provided. Using Activity #3 as an example (queuing

for kiosk), the nine seconds of average queuing time is multiplied by .25 (subjectively

determined value of that activity) to obtain a time of value of 2.25 seconds. That same nine

seconds is then multiplied by .75 to obtain the time of waste, which is 6.75 seconds.

Note: For ease of readability, only Tables 8A and 8B (Galeão International) are shown

below. All the test case tables (4A thru 9A and 4B thru 9B) are presented in Appendix A.

Each of the passenger value/waste tables lists each possible activity and their associated

values however passengers do not undertake all these activities; the activities they undertake

depends on whether they utilized the kiosks, checked bags, and so forth. At the bottom of each

table, therefore, are the values for 5 options which a passenger may take. These options are:

Option A - counter → check in/receive BPs/check bags → bag screen → personal screen

Option B - counter → check in/receive BPs/no bags → personal screen

Option C - counter → check bags → bag screen → personal screen

Option D - kiosk → check in/get BPs → counter → check bags → bag screen → personal screen

Option E - kiosk → personal screen

35

The service provider likewise annotate various options however there are only three for actions from their perspective.

Option A - counter → check in/issue BPs/check bags → ID & BP screen → personal screen

Option B - counter → check in/issue BPs → ID & BP screen → personal screen

Option C - counter → check bags → ID & BP screen → personal screen Presenting data for each of the options allows concerned parties to compare activities on a more

individual basis and to discern whether certain options for passenger check-in are noticeably

more value/waste-oriented than others. Each of the tables also includes a total of times and value

percentages for all activities. Even though any given passenger does not accomplish all the

activities for a specific flight, totaling the individual activities does still present a viable means of

comparing the airports and service providers.

36

Table 4 (text reference – table 8A): Value and Waste Apportionment of Passenger Check-In Activities - Galeão International Airport – TAM Airlines

Table 5 (text reference table 8b): Value and Waste Apportionment of Service Provider Check-In Activities - Galeão International Airport – TAM Airlines

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage

of Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage

of Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Travel curb to counter 36 0% 0 100% 36

2. Travel curb to kiosk 31 0% 0 100% 31

3. Queue for kiosk 12 25% 3 75% 9

4. Check in and receive boarding pass at kiosk 98 100% 98 0% 0

5. Queue for counter 420 25% 105 75% 315

6. Check in, receive boarding pass, check bags at counter 153 100% 153 0% 0

7. Check in, receive boarding pass, no bags at counter 31 100% 31 0% 0

8. Check bags at counter 122 100% 122 0% 0

9. Travel to baggage screen (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

10. Queue for baggage screen (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

11. Drop off bags at baggage screening (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

12. Travel to personal screen 48 0% 0 100% 48

13. Queue for boarding pass & ID screen 168 25% 42 75% 126

14. Boarding pass & ID screen 17 100% 17 0% 0

15. Queue for personal security screen 45 25% 11.25 75% 33.75

16. Carry-on & personal security screen 30 100% 30 0% 0

17. Gather personal belongings 10 50% 5 50% 5

Total: Option A (1,5,6,9-17) 927 39.2% 363.25 60.8% 563.75

Total: Option B (1,5,7,12-17) 805 30.0% 241.25 70.0% 563.75

Total: Option C (1,5,8-17) 896 37.1% 332.25 62.9% 563.75

Total: Option D (2,3,4,5,8-17) 1001 43.3% 433.25 56.7% 567.75

Total: Option E (2,3,4, 12-17) 459 44.9% 206.25 55.1% 252.75

TOTAL: All Individual Activities 1221 50.6% 617.25 49.4% 603.75

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage

of Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage

of Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass, & check

bags at counter153 75.0% 114.75 25.0% 38.25

2. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass at counter

(no bags)31 50.0% 15.50 50.0% 15.50

3. Check passenger bags 122 100.0% 122.00 0.0% 0.00

4. Screen passenger ID & boarding passes 17 100.0% 17.00 0.0% 0.00

5. Screen passenger and carry-on 30 100.0% 30.00 0.0% 0.00

Total: Option A (1,4,5) 200 80.9% 161.75 19.1% 38.25

Total: Option B (2,4,5) 78 80.1% 62.50 19.9% 15.50

Total: Option C (3,4,5) 169 100.0% 169.00 0.0% 0.00

TOTAL: All Individual Activities 353 84.8% 299.25 15.2% 53.75

37

Table 10A presents the waste totals for the five passenger options and all activities for

each airport and airline from a passenger perspective. Table 10B does the same from the

provider’s perspective.

Options

&

Total

Airport and Provider Waste Percentages

National Dulles Galeão S. Dumont

Delta United Delta American TAM TAM

A 52.4% 52.2% 54.0% 53.9% 60.8% 49.5%

B 63.3% 63.1% 66.3% 72.9% 70.0% 59.8%

C 57.1% 56.4% 58.5% 53.9% 62.9% 56.4%

D 49.4% 49.0% 51.6% 48.3% 56.7% 45.4%

E 54.5% 54.2% 59.3% 59.0% 55.1% 48.3%

Total

(All Activities) 38.7% 38.8% 40.4% 40.5% 49.4% 34.4%

Table 6 (text reference table 10A): Consolidated Waste Percentages – Passenger Perspective

Options

&

Total

Airport and Provider Waste Percentages

National Dulles Galeão S. Dumont

Delta United Delta American TAM TAM

A 19.5% 19.2% 20.2% 20.3% 19.1% 19.5%

B 25.8% 24.1% 27.7% 0.0% 19.9% 25.8%

C 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total

(All Activities) 17.6% 16.9% 17.7% 11.2% 15.2% 17.6%

Table 7 (text reference table 10B): Consolidated Waste Percentages – Service Provider Perspective

4.3. Qualitative Analysis of Value and Waste.

4.3.1. Passenger Perspective.

Utilizing the data captured in Tables 4-9A/B, it is now possible to segregate value and

waste data based on the classifications of Table 2. The first table, Table 11, captures all

activities for the 6 test cases. Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 annotate waste classifications

from a passenger perspective according to the five options previously covered. Differentiating

waste in this manner will facilitate subsequent quantitative analysis and recommendations.

Note: For ease of readability, only Tables 16A and 16B (Galeão International) are

shown below. All the test case tables (12 thru 17) are presented in Appendix A

38

Activity

National Dulles Galeão S. Dumont

Delta United Delta American TAM TAM

Time

(sec)

% Time

(sec)

% Time

(sec)

% Time

(sec)

% Time

(sec)

% Time

(sec)

%

Value-added steps for the passenger

3. Queue for kiosk 2.25 0.2 3.5 0.4 6.75 0.6 8 0.8 3 0.3 3.75 0.4

4. Check in, receive BPs at

kiosk 110 11.4 106 11.6 116 10.7 116 11.2 98 8.9 162 16.2

5. Queue for counter 31.5 3.3 28 3.1 35.5 3.3 39.25 3.8 105 9.6 33.75 3.4

6. Check in, receive BPs,

check bags at counter 206 21.4 193 21.1 225 20.7 226 21.9 153 13.9 210 21.0

7. Check in, receive BPs, no

bags at counter 62 6.4 54 5.9 66 6.1 0 0.0 31 2.8 87 8.7

8. Check bags at counter 144 15.0 139 15.2 159 14.6 226 21.9 122 11.1 123 12.3

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 29.75 3.1 29.75 3.2 46.75 4.3 46.75 4.5 42 3.8 45 4.5

14. BP & ID screen 15 1.6 15 1.6 15 1.4 15 1.5 17 1.5 15 1.5

15. Queue for personal

screen 15.75 1.6 15.75 1.7 18.5 1.7 18.5 1.8 11.25 1.0 20 2.0

16. Undergo personal screen 43 4.5 43 4.7 11 1.0 28 2.7 30 2.7 30 3.0

17. Gather personal

belongings 18.5 1.9 18.5 2.0 16.5 1.5 16.5 1.6 5 0.5 7.5 0.7

TOTAL 677.75 70.5 645.5 70.5 716 65.9 740 71.6 617.25 56.2 737 73.6

Necessary but wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Travel to counter 28 9.3 27 9.3 22 5.8 20 5.4 36 12.9 21 7.7

2. Travel to kiosk 25 8.3 25 8.6 19 5.0 18 4.9 31 11.1 21 7.7

12. Travel to personal screen 94 31.1 83 28.6 123 32.7 118 32.0 48 17.2 30 10.9

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 89.25 29.6 89.25 30.8 140.25 37.3 140.25 38.1 126 45.0 135 49.2

15. Queue for personal

screen 47.25 15.6 47.25 16.3 55.5 14.8 55.5 15.1 33.75 12.1 60 21.9

17. Gather personal

belongings 18.5 6.1 18.5 6.4 16.5 4.4 16.5 4.5 5 1.8 7.5 2.7

TOTAL 302 31.4 290 31.7 376.25 34.6 368.25 35.6 279.75 25.4 274.5 27.4

Necessary but wasteful steps that EXCEED passenger expectations

3. Queue for kiosk 6.75 6.67 10.50 11.11 20.25 15.98 24.00 16.93 9.00 2.78 11.25 10.00

5. Queue for counter 94.50 93.33 84.00 88.89 106.50 84.02 117.75 83.07 315.00 97.22 101.25 90.00

TOTAL 101.25 10.52 94.50 10.32 126.75 11.66 141.75 13.71 324.00 29.48 112.50 11.24

Non-value-added steps for the passenger that should be ELMINATED

9. Travel to baggage screen 15.00 60.00 15.00 60.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10. Queue for baggage

screen 5.00 20.00 5.00 20.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11. Drop bags for baggage

screen 5.00 20.00 5.00 20.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TOTAL 25.00 2.60 25.00 2.73

Table 8 (text reference table 11): Classification of Value and Waste - All Activities - Passenger Perspective

39

Note: the gray-colored boxes in Tables 12-17 are steps which are not executed as part of that particular option. Zeroes are used instead of N/A (not applicable) to facilitate the linking of cells with formulas.

Activities

Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E

Time

(sec)

% Time

(sec)

% Time

(sec)

% Time

(sec)

% Time

(sec)

%

Value-added steps for the passenger

3. Queue for kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.3 3 0.3

4. Check in, receive BPs at kiosk 98 8.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 98 8.9 98 8.9

5. Queue for counter 105 9.6 105 9.6 105 9.6 105 9.6 0 0.0

6. Check in, receive BPs, check bags

at counter 153 13.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

7. Check in, receive BPs, no bags at

counter 0 0.0 31 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

8. Check bags at counter 0 0.0 0 0.0 122 11.1 122 11.1 0 0.0

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 42 3.8 42 3.8 42 3.8 42 3.8 42 3.8

14. BP & ID screen 17 1.5 17 1.5 17 1.5 17 1.5 17 1.5

15. Queue for personal screen 11.25 1.0 11.25 1.0 11.25 1.0 11.25 1.0 11.25 1.0

16. Undergo personal screen 30 2.7 30 2.7 30 2.7 30 2.7 30 2.7

17. Gather personal belongings 5 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5

TOTAL 461.25 45.0 241.25 30.0 332.25 37.1 433.25 43.3 206.25 44.9

Necessary but wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Travel to counter 36 12.9 36 12.9 36 12.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

2. Travel to kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 31 11.1 31 11.1

12. Travel to personal screen 48 17.2 48 17.2 48 17.2 48 17.2 48 17.2

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 126 45.0 126 45.0 126 45.0 126 45.0 126 45.0

15. Queue for personal screen 33.75 12.1 33.75 12.1 33.75 12.1 33.75 12.1 33.75 12.1

17. Gather personal belongings 5 1.8 5 1.8 5 1.8 5 1.8 5 1.8

TOTAL 248.75 24.3 248.75 30.9 248.75 27.8 243.75 24.4 243.75 53.1

Necessary but wasteful steps that EXCEED passenger expectations

3. Queue for kiosk 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 9.00 2.8 9.00 2.8

5. Queue for counter 315.00 97.2 315.00 97.2 315.00 97.2 315.00 97.2 0.00 0.0

TOTAL 315.00 30.7 315.00 39.1 315.00 35.2 324.00 323.7 9.00 2.0

Non-value-added steps for the passenger that should be ELMINATED

9. Travel to baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10. Queue for baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11. Drop bags for baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TOTAL

TOTAL ALL CATEGORIES 1025.00 805.00 896.00 1001.00 459.00

Table 9 (text reference table 16): Classification of Waste - Galeão Airport - TAM Airlines (Passenger Perspective)

40

4.3.2. Provider Perspective.

Table 18 classifies waste from all providers in one table. As reflected in Figures 5 and 6,

there are no activities classified as “non-value added (should be eliminated)” and “necessary but

wasteful steps that exceed passenger expectations).”

Activities

Option A Option B Option C

Time

(sec)

% Time

(sec)

% Time

(sec)

%

National Airport - Delta Airlines

Value-added steps for the passenger

3. Check passenger bags 144 48.4%

4. Screen passenger IDs and BPs 15 4.2% 15 7.0% 15 5.0%

5. Conduct carry-on & personal screen 43 12.0% 43 20.0% 43 14.5%

TOTAL 58 22.0% 58 48.3% 202 100.0%

Necessary but partially wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Check in passenger, issue BP, check bags at counter 206 74.4%

2. Check in passenger, issue BP (no bags) 62 22.4%

TOTAL 206 78.0% 62 51.7% 0 0.0%

National Airport - United Airlines

Value-added steps for the passenger

3. Check passenger bags 139 48.1%

4. Screen passenger IDs and BPs 15 4.4% 15 7.4% 15 5.2%

5. Conduct carry-on & personal screen 43 12.5% 43 21.1% 43 14.9%

TOTAL 58 23.1% 58 51.8% 197 100.0%

Necessary but partially wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Check in passenger, issue BP, check bags at counter 193 72.8%

2. Check in passenger, issue BP (no bags) 54 20.4%

TOTAL 193 76.9% 54 48.2% 0 0.0%

Dulles Airport - Delta Airlines

Value-added steps for the passenger

3. Check passenger bags 159 48.3%

4. Screen passenger IDs and BPs 15 3.8% 15 6.3% 15 4.6%

5. Conduct carry-on & personal screen 38 9.6% 38 16.1% 38 11.5%

TOTAL 53 19.1% 53 44.5% 212 100.0%

Necessary but partially wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Check in passenger, issue BP, check bags at counter 225 63.0%

2. Check in passenger, issue BP (no bags) 66 18.5%

TOTAL 225 80.9% 66 55.5% 0 0.0%

Continues on the next pages

41

Dulles Airport - American Airlines

Value-added steps for the passenger

3. Check passenger bags 226 56.5%

4. Screen passenger IDs and BPs 15 3.8% 15 8.6% 15 3.8%

5. Conduct carry-on & personal screen 38 9.5% 38 21.8% 38 9.5%

TOTAL 53 19.0% 53 100.0% 279 100.0%

Necessary but partially wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Check in passenger, issue BP, check bags at counter 226 64.5%

2. Check in passenger, issue BP (no bags) 0 0.0%

TOTAL 226 81.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Galeão Airport - TAM Airlines

Value-added steps for the airline

3. Check passenger bags 122 36.7%

4. Screen passenger IDs and BPs 17 4.7% 17 7.0% 17 5.1%

5. Conduct carry-on & personal screen 30 8.3% 30 12.4% 30 9.0%

TOTAL 47 23.5% 47 26.4% 169 100.0%

Necessary but partially wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Check in passenger, issue BP, check bags at counter 153 61.5%

2. Check in passenger, issue BP (no bags) 131 52.7%

TOTAL 153 76.5% 131 73.6% 0 0.0%

Santos Dumont Airport - TAM Airlines

Value-added steps for the passenger

3. Check passenger bags 123 44.8%

4. Screen passenger IDs and BPs 15 4.2% 15 6.3% 15 5.5%

5. Conduct carry-on & personal screen 43 11.9% 43 18.0% 43 15.7%

TOTAL 58 21.6% 58 40.0% 181 100.0%

Necessary but partially wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Check in passenger, issue BP, check bags at counter 210 82.8%

2. Check in passenger, issue BP (no bags) 87 34.3%

TOTAL 210 78.4% 87 60.0% 0 0.0%

Necessary but partially wasteful steps that EXCEED passenger expectations

None

Non-value-added steps for the passenger that should be ELMINATED

None

Table 10 (text reference table 18): Classification of Waste – All Airports – Provider Perspective

42

4.4. Quantitative Analysis The preceding tables and figures all serve to categorize and shape the raw data into

usable form for quantitative analysis. Martins et al. utilize Pareto charts to quantify, display, and

make recommendations on their data according to which activities consist of the most waste.

Pareto charts are a worthwhile tool because they present a visually impactful way to present the

magnitude of waste individual activities have. Organizing and depicting waste according to

which activities produce or incur more waste provides decision makers a ready basis for which

activities to address. It must be said, though, that the magnitude of waste may not translate

directly into which activities are addressed first; issues of cost, length of time to fix, and so forth

will influence what actions are undertaken. A further consideration is that Pareto charts are

worthwhile if there are sufficient enough activities to differentiate from each other. In our case

of service provider activities, there aren’t enough activities to merit using Pareto charts. Section

4.4.2. to follow amplifies this discussion.

As Martins et al relate, Pareto charts are relatively straight forward to produce. First,

activities are listed in decreasing order of the waste they incur. Second, the percentage of waste

in relation to the total amount of waste is calculated. Third, the cumulative amount of waste is

calculated for each activity.45

4.4.1. Passenger Perspective.

Tables 19-24 and Charts 1-6 display this data for the six passenger test cases. The data

utilized is for all activities, not for the five options a passenger has; it would be too cumbersome

to provide tables and charts for each option. Also, it is important to note that the numbers on the

horizontal axis of the charts (1 thru 17) do not represent the specific numbered activities

discussed throughout the paper; they are numeric markers for the specific steps enumerated in

the first column of Tables 19-24. As an example, the data point corresponding to “1” on the

horizontal axis of Chart 5 is not activity #1 but activity #5 (queuing for the counter), the activity

producing the most waste.

43

Note: For ease of readability, only Table 23 and its corresponding chart, Chart 5,

(Galeão International) are shown below. All the test case Pareto tables (19 thru 24) and

charts (1 thru 6) are presented in Appendix A.

Activity Time of

Waste (sec)

Cumulative

Time (sec)

Percentage

of Time

Cumulative

Percentage

5 315 315 52.2% 52.2%

13 126 441 20.9% 73.0%

12 48 489 8.0% 81.0%

1 36 525 6.0% 87.0%

15 33.75 558.75 5.6% 92.5%

2 31 589.75 5.1% 97.7%

3 9 598.75 1.5% 99.2%

17 5 603.75 0.8% 100.0%

4 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0%

7 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0%

8 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0%

9 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0%

11 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0%

14 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0%

16 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0%

603.75

Table 11 (reference in text table 23): Pareto – Galeão/TAM

44

Figure 7 (reference in text Chart 5): Cumulative Waste: Galeão Airport – TAM Airlines

4.4.2. Service Provider Perspective.

As mentioned above, there aren’t enough service provider activities to warrant Pareto tables and

charts for this study. This assertion is borne out by Table 25 below, which is a compilation of

the “time of waste” columns (column #5) from Tables 4-9B. As can be seen, there are only five

activities and each option entails only three of them, with only two having any waste, and

Activity #1 comprises the most waste. Creating Pareto charts, for the providers, would therefore

be of no real value, the table below is sufficient to portray the magnitude of check-in counter

waste.

52,2%

73,0%

81,0%

87,0%

92,5%

97,7% 99,2% 100,0%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Time of Waste

(sec)

Cumulative %

45

Activities National Dulles Galeão S. Dumont

Delta United Delta American TAM TAM

1. Check in passenger, issue boarding

pass, & check bags at counter 51.5 48.25 56.25 56.5 38.25 52.5

2. Check in passenger, issue boarding

pass at counter (no bags) 31 27 33 0 15.5 43.5

3. Check passenger bags 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Screen passenger ID & boarding

passes 0 0 0 0 0 0

5. Screen passenger and carry-on 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 12 (reference in text table 25): Consolidated Time of Waste – Service Provider Perspective

4.5. Future Process Considerations.

4.5.1. New Process Map.

The final step in Martins et al.’s process is to produce a new value stream map in which the non-

value added steps (those identified in the “red” category) are eliminated. Value and waste

calculations are then re-accomplished and the results are compared to the original values

revealing improved customer value and reduced waste. The savings and improvements induced

by eliminating the completely non-value added steps are readily apparent, the opportunities for

improvements elsewhere are a function of examining the individual activities with waste and

then addressing those as able or appropriate. The proverbial ball is then in the court of the

process owners to follow through with the proposed changes.

For this examination of passenger check-in procedures, Figure 7 below depicts the

revised passenger-focused process flow based on elimination of non-value added activities.

Table 26 captures the resulting value and waste figures for those service providers who had steps

eliminated. It is perhaps anti-climactic at first glance because the eliminated steps are those that

only applied to baggage screening activities at Washington National Airport, activities the other

airports do not impose on passengers to facilitate. In fact, Figure 7 is actually Figure 6, just

renamed to apply to all airports. In addition, the eliminated steps amount to only 25 seconds,

which translates to roughly only a 1.5% decrease in waste.

46

Figure 8: Revised Check In Activities – All airports

47

Airport Provider Range of Timing Span Time

(sec)

Percent of

Value

(sec)

Time of

Value

Percent

of Waste

(sec)

Time

of Waste

(sec)

Passenger Perspective

National

Delta All Activities Before 1106 61.3% 677.75 38.7% 428.25

All Activities Minus 9, 10, 11 After 1081 62.7% 677.75 37.3% 403.25

United All Activities Before 1055 61.2% 645.50 38.8% 409.50

All Activities Minus 9, 10, 11 After 1030 62.7% 645.50 37.3% 384.50

Dulles Delta

All Activities Before

& After

1246 59.6% 743.00 40.4% 503.00

American 1260 59.5% 750.00 40.5% 510.00

Galeão TAM 1221 50.6% 617.25 49.4% 603.75

S. Dumont TAM 1124 65.6% 737.00 34.4% 387.00

Service Provider Perspective

National Delta

All Activities Before

& After

470 82.4% 387.50 17.6% 82.50

United 444 83.1% 368.75 16.9% 75.25

Dulles Delta 503 82.3% 413.75 17.7% 89.25

American 505 88.8% 448.50 11.2% 56.50

Galeão TAM 353 84.8% 299.25 15.2% 53.75

S. Dumont TAM 478 79.9% 382.00 20.1% 96.00

Table 13 (reference in text table 26): Value and Waste – Proposed Future State Versus Current State

4.5.2. Data and Comparison Considerations.

With just such a small amount of waste identified for only two of the six studied airports and

providers, the utility of examining waste therefore shifts to the other categories of waste (waste

within passenger expectations and waste in excess of passenger expectations). With the

exception of the fourth most waste-incurring activity for Galeão (the time from curb to counter),

all six test cases have the same top four waste-incurring activities, albeit in varying order:

Magnitude of Waste

National Dulles Galeão S. Dumont

Delta United Delta American TAM TAM 1st 5 13 13 13 5 13 2nd 12 5 12 12 13 5 3rd 13 12 5 5 12 15 4th 15 15 15 15 1 12

Table 14 (reference in text table 27): Top 4 Waste-Generating Activities

1: Travel curb to counter 5: Queue for counter 12: Travel to personal screen

48

13: Queue to boarding pass and ID screen 15: Queue for personal security screen

These top four categories of waste account for at least 74% of the waste for each test case.

These “top four”, plus the detailed breakdown of waste and value data in Tables 11-17,

reveal there aren’t significant differences in waste when comparing the four airports internally

(i.e. between the two test cases of National and Dulles) or between each other. Procedurally

speaking, all four airports and the studied service providers execute their procedures very

similarly, which reflects the generic nature of check-in procedures. Queuing and traveling are

naturally big generators of wasted time. Queuing is the primary target of decision-makers and

process owners who strive for greater efficiencies, while traveling frequently receives lesser

consideration by virtue of the restrictions of terminal geography and space—there just isn’t much

officials can do to reduce distances within a terminal, its concourses, and the gates.

While conducting my airport observations, I noticed a great variation in the number of

counters and kiosks and how many were open for use. In some instances, all kiosks were

available for use while at other times less than 50% were. The same variation in utilization was

true for counters. Why kiosks and counters were in use or not was not something I was able to

delve into; in Brazil the Portuguese language and a lack of English speakers were a barrier while

lack of access to the right people in-the-know was a barrier for the U.S. airports. Reasons could

range from conscious decisions based on utilizing algorithms (like those alluded in some of the

studies on airport counter operations) or workforce restrictions, and so on.

Activities associated with screening are inherently laden with wasted time, which the data

reflects. Each of the observed screening processes involve chokepoints of queues funneling

people into machines or people that can only handle one person at time or one bag at a time (via

a conveyor belt). It is also important to note that the screening travelers are now familiar with is

largely a product of post-9/11 process enhancements; screening existed before 9/11 but not to the

degree it does now. The addition of or tightening of these processes has been imposed on

existing terminal infrastructure that often times isn’t well situated or laid out to accommodate

them—the locations are makeshift and certainly weren’t designed into the terminals when they

were constructed. Dulles and National reflect this makeshift nature more so than Galeão and

Santos Dumont but that is partly attributable to the tighter scrutiny Dulles and National employ.

49

(Note: This is not to say that Galeão and Santos Dumont are lax but as a career pilot I do

consider National and Dulles more stringent in their application of security screening).

5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION This final chapter provides recommendations on passenger operations for airport service

providers and decision makers. Emphasis is placed on employing standard methodology and the

methodology used in this research paper. Finally, concluding thoughts on Brazilian airport

modernization efforts are presented in light of the findings of this study.

5.1. Recommendations This research paper sought to address three topics: whether there are differences in

passenger check-in procedures between Brazilian and modern U.S. airports, to discern and make

recommendations on passenger check-in procedures for airport service providers and decision

makers, and to comment on the viability of an analytical construct with which concerned parties

can evaluate passenger check-in procedures. The primary underlying premise for focusing this

research paper on Brazilian airports is that many Brazilian airports are regarded by Brazilian

citizens, industry experts, and foreign travelers as inefficient and in need of substantial

infrastructure improvements. Comparing Galeão and Santos Dumont airports to Washington

National and Dulles airports, therefore, was done with the assumption these U.S. airports were

examples of efficiency and superlative processes that the Brazilian airports could benefit from.

As the research unfolded and the data reveals, the airports and service providers studied

follow roughly the same procedures and the amount of waste inherent to their processes do not

differ significantly between them. Somewhat unexpectedly, the American airports did not

overtly outperform the Brazilian airports nor did one airport or service provider in Brazil or the

U.S. outperform their studied counterpart at the other airport or within the same airport. In fact,

the only set of activities that qualified as completely wasteful and deserving of immediate

elimination was that of the baggage screening requirements at Washington National Airport,

which requires passengers to take their bags to a screening drop-off point rather than passing the

bags off to counter personnel as is done at the other three airports. This observation readily

generates the first recommendation:

50

Recommendation #1: Airports which require air travelers to take their bags to a separate location for security screening should eliminate such procedures as soon as economically or otherwise possible.

As detailed in Table 22, the majority of waste for passengers resides in four activities

associated with either waiting on a process or traveling to a process. These are matters of

efficiencies…or inefficiencies depending on one’s viewpoint. At the outset of the paper it was

noted that the quest for efficiencies on the part of service-providers can be a double-edged

sword; efficiencies gained for the provider or even the passenger may come with additional

burdens on passengers which, in terms of the more important consideration of value, may not be

of greater value to passengers. Therefore, as concessionaires, INFAERO, and airline decision

makers continue modernization efforts at Brazilian airports, they should be mindful of passenger

value at all times.

Recommendation #2: Airport officials and service providers should consciously factor passenger value into modernization decisions and actions involving passenger operations. Recommendation #3: Airport officials and service providers should employ a standard methodology for determining passenger and service provider value. The methodology should differentiate and categorize value and waste so as to facilitate the prioritization of modernization activities.

Physical, fiscal, and other constraints will shape and limit modernization efforts (e.g.

installing kiosks and counter, locating counters and kiosks to reduce travel times, etc.) so it

understandable that tradeoffs between efficiency and passenger value will be necessary.

Emphasis, however, should be given to those activities which involve necessary but wasteful

activities that exceed passenger expectations. As the average air traveler knows, large, modern

airports do not necessarily guarantee efficiencies in all areas; their sheer size can impose

undesirable waste due to traveling from one location or procedural site to the next. However, a

lack of available or open kiosks and counters can have deleterious effects on passenger

satisfaction and loyalty if passengers regard the resultant waiting as unnecessary and excessive.

These activities cannot be long ignored. This paper does not put forth a recommendation for

smart design and terminal layout because it is assumed that planners and decision makers will

undertake this to the best of their ability within the constraints they must work with.

The body of studies referenced earlier in the paper concerning counter activities is

indicative of the fact there are scientific approaches to determining how many counters are

51

required to support passenger check-in under varying circumstances and demand. Although my

observations were hindered due to access and language barriers, it did appear that kiosk and

counter availability and operations were not necessarily, or at least not always, governed by

defined criteria. Conversations with local personnel and on-duty supervisors at each of the U.S.

and Brazilian airports revealed that the decision on how many counters and kiosks were open for

a given flight or window of time was based less on modeling for optimal numbers than it was on

more practical constraints such as employee availability and cost-measures. The optimal use of

counters and kiosks was not a focus point for this study however the following recommendation

bears mentioning.

Recommendation #4: Airlines should maximize the use of airport modeling or simulation tools to determine the optimal use of check-in counters and kiosks.

Recommendations #2, #3, and #4 relate to analyzing airport passenger operations in a

reasoned, methodical fashion so that data can be obtained that is meaningful and standardized.

While the data obtained in this manner can serve multiple purposes, this paper argues that

passenger value is paramount. Martins et al. utilized one such approach to measure the value and

waste involved in a single patron ordering food at a street-side university restaurant. Their

approach was adopted and utilized in this study with several goals in mind: to prove it was a

construct that had applicability to airport passenger operations and to obtain specific qualitative

and quantitative data on the operations of select airports and service providers as a basis for

improving their operations in terms of customer value. While no great revelation was discovered

among the airports and service providers studied, I was able to validate the applicability of

Martins et al’s approach with respect to airport operations. Given the success of this construct a

further recommendation is:

Recommendation #5: Airport service providers and decision makers should, or at least can, utilize the approach employed in this study to determine magnitudes of value and waste within their operating processes. Furthermore, this construct can and should be utilized on a recurring basis and can be carried out at operational and enterprise levels.

52

5.2. Conclusion Brazil’s burgeoning middle class is taking to the air in ever-increasing numbers which is

stressing long-standing airport weaknesses and exposing new ones. The modernization and

privatization of Brazilian airports presents opportunities to address these infrastructure and

process shortcomings. While facility improvements are relatively straight forward to diagnose

and develop a fix for, process improvements can be trickier to identify and address because they

often involve more variables and are influenced by whose perspective is emphasized—the

passenger’s or the service provider’s. When subjective criteria is added to the mix, the task

becomes more difficult, necessitating the use of a valid and repeatable methodology, which is

what was attempted with this study. Pairing value stream mapping with a construct for assigning

magnitudes of value and waste enables decision makers to prioritize activities, even those that

are subjective in nature. The application in this study of Martins et al.’s construct in a much

more dynamic environment (multiple players and multiple options versus the one restaurant

process [and the data obtained from only one person]) gives validity to this method of subjective

examination.

As concessionaires and government entities revamp processes under their control, they

can better ascertain what activities require attention and what priority they should be given by

utilizing this framework, or a derivative thereof. Personal experience and anecdotal stories from

acquaintances, which were factors in pursuing this research project, suggest that Brazil’s airport

check-in procedures are inferior to those of U.S. airports, however the analysis carried out in this

study calls those characterizations into question. The data suggests that the check-in experience

at Galeão and Santos Dumont airports is similar to that of Washington National and Dulles

airports. Why there is a common perception of substantive differences in the check-in

experience between these two sets of airports may merit its own study but plausible factors could

include the differences in the layout, paths of travel, and locations of process activities between

the two sets of airports. Even though the terminals of U.S. pair are larger and require greater

traveling to complete the check-in process, their efficient layout engender a more positive

impression than the smaller, yet less efficiently laid out Brazilian counterparts do.

Whether the preceding possible explanation of the difference in perceived experience is

valid is less important than illustrating that need to derive data from the application of a rigorous

method of analysis. There is no doubt that Brazilian airports need to be modernized to improve

53

capacity and replace aged infrastructure but processes must not be neglected because they are

tied directly to passenger value. Examining check-in and other processes using value stream

mapping and a means of ascribing categories of value and waste allows decision makers to

examine all activities of a process thereby highlighting singular items for significant

improvement or multiple activities for smaller possible gains. Discovering one or more obvious

activities to recommend to Brazilian decision-makers as readily conducive for improvement was

an initial goal of this study, but outside of eliminating baggage screening requirements for

passengers, no other activities jumped out as easy targets for improvement. Instead, the real

benefit of this study is proving the necessity to execute a methodical approach to examining

processes and activities for value, which the Martins et al. construct does.

As of this writing, the first World Cup game takes place in one month. The travel

experience of World Cup attendees will be a bellwether for attendees of the 2016 Olympics just

two years later. Improving Brazil’s airport travel experience for these events and long-term

routine travel is a multi-faceted undertaking that extends beyond the physical modernization of

airports and terminals. Advances in mobile and other technologies are also transforming air

travel. This research project illustrates that passenger perception of waste and value are

important considerations that can and should be factored into deciding what facility, technical,

and procedural aspects are acted upon. The enhanced value stream mapping process utilized in

this study is a straight forward, easy-to-apply construct that airport officials and service

providers, as well as decision-makers in other service sectors can utilize to examine their

operations for opportunities of improvement.

54

6. REFERENCES The following documents are referenced in the paper but note cited directly or referenced by an endnote. Abdelaziz, S., Hegazy, A., & Elabbassy, A. (2010). Study of airport self-service technology within experimental research of check-in techniques. Case study and concept. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Vol. 7, Issue 3. pp. 17-26.

Appelt, S., Batta, R., Lin, L, & Drury, C. (2007). Simulation of passenger check-in at a medium-sized US airport. In Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press. pp. 1252-1260.

Bruno, G. and Genovese, A. (2010, August). A mathematical model for the optimization of the airport check-in service problem. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, Vol. 36. pp. 703-710.

Correia, A., and Wirasinghe, S.C. (2006). Development of level of service standards for airport facilities: application to São Paolo International Airport. Journal of Air Transport Management.

George, M. (2002). Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma Quality with Lean Production Speed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Guizzi, G., Murino, T. & Romano, E. (2009). A discrete event simulation to model passenger flow in the airport terminal. In Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Mathematical Methods and Computational Techniques in Electrical Engineering. pp. 427-434.

Hsu, C.-I., Chao, C.-C. & Shih, K.-Y. (2012). Dynamic allocation of check-in facilities and dynamic assignment of passengers at air terminals. Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol 63. pp. 410-417.

Keller, P. and Pyzdek, T., (2009). The Six Sigma Handbook, Third Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Keller, P. (2010). Six Sigma Demystified, Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Krafcik, John. (1988). Triumph of the Lean Production System. Sloan Management Review (30, no. 1, 41-52.

Maxey, J., George, M., Rowlands, D., and Price, M. (2004). The Lean Six Sigma Pocket Tookbook: A Quick Reference Guide to 100 Tools for Improving Quality and Speed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pande, P. and Holpp, L. (2001). What is Six Sigma? New York: McGraw-Hill.

Parlar, M., Rodriques, B., & Sharafali, M. (2013, July). On the allocation of exclusive-use counters for airport check-in queues: static vs. dynamic policies. OPSRESEARCH, Vol 50, Issue 3, pp. 433-453.

Parlar, M. and Sharafali, M. (2008). Dynamic allocation of airline check-in counters: a queuing optimization approach. Management Science, Vol. 54, Issue 8. pp. 1410-1424.

Ren, X. (2011, June). The application of Six Sigma methodology for check-in service in airport. In Eight International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management. pp. 1-5.

55

Rother, M. and Shook, J., (1998). Learning to See: Value Steam Mapping to Add Value and Eliminate Muda. Brookline, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.

Shook, J. and Womack, J., (2008). Managing to Learn: Using the A3 Management Process to Solve Problems, Gain Agreement, Mentor and Lead. Brookline, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.

Tang, C. (2010). A network model for airport common use check-in counter assignments. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 61, Issue 11. pp. 1607-1618.

van Dijk, N., and van der Sluis, E. (2006). Check-in computation and optimization by simulation and IP in combination. European Journal of Operational Research. Vol 171. pp. 1152-1168.

Womack, J., and Jones, D. (2007). The Machine That Changed the World. New York: Free Press.

Womack, J., and Jones, D. (2003). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation, 2nd Edition. New York: Free Press.

Womack, J., and Jones, D. (2005). Lean Solutions: How Companies and Customers Can Create Value and Wealth Together. New York: Free Press.

Yan, S., Tang, C-H., & Chen, M. (2004, February). A model and a solution algorithm for airport common-use check-in counter assignments. Transportation Research Part A. Policy and Practice, Vol. 38, Issue 2. pp. 101-125.

Yan, S., Chang, K-C., & Tang, C-H. (2005). Minimizing Inconsistencies in Airport Common-Use Check-In Counter Assignments with a Variable Number of Counters. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol 11. pp. 107-116.

6.1. Endnotes: 1 Moraes, T. (2010). Brazil Infrastructure. Independent research white paper conducted for George Washington University (Washington, D.C.). Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/~clai/working_papers/Moraes_Thais_11-10.pdf. 2 Crunch Time for Brazilian Infrastructure. (2013, Spring). Price, Waterhouse, Cooper. Gridlines. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/capital-projects-infrastructure/pdf/brazil-article.pdf. p.4. 3 Brazil’s Future: Has Brazil Blown It? (September 23, 2013). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21586833-stagnant-economy-bloated-state-and-mass-protests-mean-dilma-rousseff-must-change-course-has 4 Sonnenschein, J. (June 26, 2013). Opinion Briefing: Brazilians' Growing Discontent. Gallup World. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/163229/opinion-briefing-brazilians-growing-discontent.aspx. 5 The 40 Biggest Economies in the World. (2013, June 15). Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/largest-economies-world-gdp-2013-6. 6 Brazil Ministry of Finance. Infrastructure in Brazil: Projects, Financing Instruments, Opportunities. (2013, February). p. 34.

56

7 Burity. G. (2013, June). U.S. Department of Commerce. Brazilian Airport Privatization – Second Round Concessions. Retrieved from http://export.gov/brazil/build/groups/public/@eg_br/documents/webcontent/eg_br_063331.pdf. p.1. 8 Crunch Time for Brazilian Infrastructure. p. 6. 9 World Cup 2014 Exposes Brazil’s Lack of Non-Commercial Aircraft Infrastructure. (2013, August 16). MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency. Retrieved from http://en.mercopress.com/2013/08/16/world-cup-2014-exposes-brazil-s-lack-of-non-commercial-aircraft-infrastructure. 10 Brazilian Airport Concessions: Lessons Learned and Challenges. (2012). O Banco Nacional do Desenvolvimento (BNDES). Retrieved from: http://www.theigc.org/sites/default/files/Session%206%20-%20Henrique%20Pinto.pdf. Presentation; slide #9. 11 World Cup 2014 Exposes Brazil’s .….. 12 Loudiyi, I. (2010, March 30). Brazil Announces Phase Two of the Growth Acceleration Program. World Bank. Retrieved from http://blogs.worldbank.org/growth/brazil-announces-phase-two-growth-acceleration-program. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Trevisani, P. (2013, August 6). Brazil Tests Airport Privatizations. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323420604578650414040461392.html. 16 International Civil Aviation Organization. (2013, August 28). Case Study on Commercialization, Privatization and Economic Oversight of Airports and Air Navigation Services Providers – Brazil. Retrieved from http://www.icao.int/sustainability/CaseStudies/Brazil.pdf. 17 Trevisani. 18 Goy, L. and Vilas Boas, R. (2013, November 23). Brazil Awards $9B of Airport Deals, Prepping for Rio for Olympics. Reuters.com. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/23/us-brazil-airports-idUSBRE9AL0QG20131123. 19 Privatization of Brazilian Airports Continues Apace. (2013, April 24). International Law Office. Retrieved from http://www.internationallawoffice.com 20 Ibid. 21 Brazil infrastructure Report - Q1 2014. (2014). London: Business Monitor International. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1450087191?accountid=11091. p. 20. 22 Biller, D. (2013, September 22). Brazil’s Infraero Delayed on World Cup Airports, Globo Reports. Business Week.com. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-22/brazil-s-infraero-delayed-on-world-cup-airports-globo-reports. 23 Goy and Vilas Boas 24 Brazil Rules Out Further Airport Privatizations. (2013, December 6). Latino Fox News. Retrieved from http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/12/06/brazil-rules-out-further-airport-privatizations/. 25 Airport Cooperative Research Program. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. (2009). Airport Passenger-Related Processing Rates Guidebook. (ACRP Report 23). Washington, DC: National Academies. p. 14.

57

26 Ibid, p. 15. 27 What is Lean. (2014). The Lean Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from http://www.lean.org/whatslean/. 28 Toyota Production System Handbook. Art of Lean, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.artoflean.com/files/Basic_TPS_Handbook_v1.pdf 29 Principles of Lean. (2014). The Lean Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from http://www.lean.org/whatslean/principles.cfm. 30 Bicheno, J., and Holweg, M. (2009). The Lean Toolbox. Buckingam, England. PICSIE Books. pp. 26-27. 31 Näslund, D. (2008). Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Sigma: Fads or Real Process Improvement Methods? Business Process Management Journal. Vol 14, No. 3. p. 271. 32 Ibid. pg. 272. 33 Atmaca, E. and Girenes, S.S., (2011). Lean Six Sigma Methodology and Application. Quality & Quantity, Vol 47, Issue 4, p. 2108. 34 Ibid. p. 2108. 35 Assarlind, M., Gremyr, I., and Bäckman, K. (2013) "Multi-faceted views on a Lean Six Sigma Application", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 30, Issue 4, pp.387 – 402. 36 Atmaca and Girenes. pp. 2108-2112. 37 About ICAO. (2014). International Civil Aviation Authority. Retrieved from http://www.icao.int/about-icao/Pages/default.aspx. 38 International Air Transport Association (IATA). (2013). IATA. About Us. Retrieved from http://www.iata.org/about/Pages/index.aspx . 39 Fast Track Travel Program Fact Sheet (2014). International Air Transport Association (IATA). Retrieved from http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/stb/fast-travel/Documents/fast_travel_2013.pdf. 40 Ibid. 41 About ACI-NA. (2014). Airports Council International – North America (ACI-NA). Retrieved from http://www.aci-na.org/content/mission-vision. 42 2013 Passenger IT Trends Survey Overview. (2013). SITA. Retrieved from http://www.sita.aero/surveys-reports/industry-surveys-reports/passenger-it-trends-survey-2013. 43 Howell, V. W. (2013). Value Stream Mapping. Ceramic Industry, 163(8), 24-26. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1425863062?accountid=11091 44 Da Corte Martins, N., Labanca Cantanhede, I.L., Moura Jardim, E.G. (2010). Value Stream Mapping In Services: Proposed Codes, Symbols, and Criteria. XXX International Conference on Industrial Engineering. São Carlos, SP, Brazil, October 12-15, 2010. 45 Ibid.

58

APPENDIX Table 4A. Value and Waste Apportionment of Passenger Check-In Activities - Washington National Airport – Delta Airlines

Table 4B. Value and Waste Apportionment of Service Provider Check-In Activities Washington National Airport – Delta Airlines

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage of

Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage of

Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Travel curb to counter 28 0% 0 100% 28

2. Travel curb to kiosk 25 0% 0 100% 25

3. Queue for kiosk 9 25% 2.25 75% 6.75

4. Check in and receive boarding pass at kiosk 110 100% 110 0% 0

5. Queue for counter 126 25% 31.5 75% 94.5

6. Check in, receive boarding pass, check bags at counter 206 100% 206 0% 0

7. Check in, receive boarding pass, no bags at counter 62 100% 62 0% 0

8. Check bags at counter 144 100% 144 0% 0

9. Travel to baggage screen 15 0% 0 100% 15

10. Queue for baggage screen 5 0% 0 100% 5

11. Drop off bags at baggage screening 5 0% 0 100% 5

12. Travel to personal screen 94 0% 0 100% 94

13. Queue for boarding pass & ID screen 119 25% 29.75 75% 89.25

14. Boarding pass & ID screen 15 100% 15 0% 0

15. Queue for personal security screen 63 25% 15.75 75% 47.25

16. Carry-on & personal security screen 43 100% 43 0% 0

17. Gather personal belongings 37 50% 18.5 50% 18.5

Total: Option A (1,5,6,9-17) 756 47.6% 359.5 52.4% 396.5

Total: Option B (1,5,7,12-17) 587 36.7% 215.5 63.3% 371.5

Total: Option C (1,5,8-17) 694 42.9% 297.5 57.1% 396.5

Total: Option D (2,3,4,5,8-17) 810 50.6% 409.75 49.4% 400.25

Total: Option E (2,3,4, 12-17) 515 45.5% 234.25 54.5% 280.75

TOTAL: All Individual Activities 1106 61.3% 677.75 38.7% 428.25

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage of

Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage of

Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass, & check

bags at counter206 75.0% 154.50 25.0% 51.50

2. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass at

counter (no bags)62 50.0% 31.00 50.0% 31.00

3. Check passenger bags 144 100.0% 144.00 0.0% 0.00

4. Screen passenger ID & boarding passes 15 100.0% 15.00 0.0% 0.00

5. Screen passenger and carry-on 43 100.0% 43.00 0.0% 0.00

Total: Option A (1,4,5) 264 80.5% 212.50 19.5% 51.50

Total: Option B (2,4,5) 120 74.2% 89.00 25.8% 31.00

Total: Option C (3,4,5) 202 100.0% 202.00 0.0% 0.00

TOTAL: All Individual Activities 470 82.4% 387.50 17.6% 82.50

59

Table 5A. Value and Waste Apportionment of Passenger Check-In Activities - Washington National Airport – United Airlines

Table 5B. Value and Waste Apportionment of Service Provider Check-In Activities - Washington National Airport – United Airlines

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage

of Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage

of Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Travel curb to counter 27 0% 0 100% 27

2. Travel curb to kiosk 25 0% 0 100% 25

3. Queue for kiosk 14 25% 3.5 75% 10.5

4. Check in and receive boarding pass at kiosk 106 100% 106 0% 0

5. Queue for counter 112 25% 28 75% 84

6. Check in, receive boarding pass, check bags at counter 193 100% 193 0% 0

7. Check in, receive boarding pass, no bags at counter 54 100% 54 0% 0

8. Check bags at counter 139 100% 139 0% 0

9. Travel to baggage screen 15 0% 0 100% 15

10. Queue for baggage screen 5 0% 0 100% 5

11. Drop off bags at baggage screening 5 0% 0 100% 5

12. Travel to personal screen 83 0% 0 100% 83

13. Queue for boarding pass & ID screen 119 25% 29.75 75% 89.25

14. Boarding pass & ID screen 15 100% 15 0% 0

15. Queue for personal security screen 63 25% 15.75 75% 47.25

16. Carry-on & personal security screen 43 100% 43 0% 0

17. Gather personal belongings 37 50% 18.5 50% 18.5

Total: Option A (1,5,6,9-17) 717 47.8% 343 52.2% 374

Total: Option B (1,5,7,12-17) 553 36.9% 204 63.1% 349

Total: Option C (1,5,8-17) 663 43.6% 289 56.4% 374

Total: Option D (2,3,4,5,8-17) 781 51.0% 398.5 49.0% 382.5

Total: Option E (2,3,4, 12-17) 505 45.8% 231.5 54.2% 273.5

TOTAL: All Individual Activities 1055 61.2% 645.5 38.8% 409.5

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage of

Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage of

Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass, & check

bags at counter193 75.0% 144.75 25.0% 48.25

2. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass at counter

(no bags)54 50.0% 27.00 50.0% 27.00

3. Check passenger bags 139 100.0% 139.00 0.0% 0.00

4. Screen passenger ID & boarding passes 15 100.0% 15.00 0.0% 0.00

5. Screen passenger and carry-on 43 100.0% 43.00 0.0% 0.00

Total: Option A (1,4,5) 251 80.8% 202.75 19.2% 48.25

Total: Option B (2,4,5) 112 75.9% 85.00 24.1% 27.00

Total: Option C (3,4,5) 197 100.0% 197.00 0.0% 0.00

TOTAL: All Individual Activities 444 83.1% 368.75 16.9% 75.25

60

Table 6A. Value and Waste Apportionment of Passenger Check-In Activities - Dulles International Airport – Delta Airlines

Table 6B. Value and Waste Apportionment of Service Provider Check-In Activities - Dulles International Airport – Delta Airlines

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage

of Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage

of Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Travel curb to counter 22 0% 0 100% 22

2. Travel curb to kiosk 19 0% 0 100% 19

3. Queue for kiosk 27 25% 6.75 75% 20.25

4. Check in and receive boarding pass at kiosk 116 100% 116 0% 0

5. Queue for counter 142 25% 35.5 75% 106.5

6. Check in, receive boarding pass, check bags at counter 225 100% 225 0% 0

7. Check in, receive boarding pass, no bags at counter 66 100% 66 0% 0

8. Check bags at counter 159 100% 159 0% 0

9. Travel to baggage screen (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

10. Queue for baggage screen (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

11. Drop off bags at baggage screening (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

12. Travel to personal screen 123 0% 0 100% 123

13. Queue for boarding pass & ID screen 187 25% 46.75 75% 140.25

14. Boarding pass & ID screen 15 100% 15 0% 0

15. Queue for personal security screen 74 25% 18.5 75% 55.5

16. Carry-on & personal security screen 38 100% 38 0% 0

17. Gather personal belongings 33 50% 16.5 50% 16.5

Total: Option A (1,5,6,9-17) 859 46.0% 395.25 54.0% 463.75

Total: Option B (1,5,7,12-17) 700 33.8% 236.25 66.3% 463.75

Total: Option C (1,5,8-17) 793 41.5% 329.25 58.5% 463.75

Total: Option D (2,3,4,5,8-17) 933 48.4% 452 51.6% 481

Total: Option E (2,3,4, 12-17) 632 40.7% 257.5 59.3% 374.5

1246 59.6% 743 40.4% 503

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage

of Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage

of Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass, & check

bags at counter225 75.0% 168.75 25.0% 56.25

2. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass at counter

(no bags)66 50.0% 33.00 50.0% 33.00

3. Check passenger bags 159 100.0% 159.00 0.0% 0.00

4. Screen passenger ID & boarding passes 15 100.0% 15.00 0.0% 0.00

5. Screen passenger and carry-on 38 100.0% 38.00 0.0% 0.00

Total: Option A (1,4,5) 278 79.8% 221.75 20.2% 56.25

Total: Option B (2,4,5) 119 72.3% 86.00 27.7% 33.00

Total: Option C (3,4,5) 212 100.0% 212.00 0.0% 0.00

503 82.3% 413.75 17.7% 89.25

61

Table 7A. Value and Waste Apportionment of Passenger Check-In Activities - Dulles International Airport – American Airlines

Table 7B. Value and Waste Apportionment of Service Provider Check-In Activities - Dulles International Airport – American Airlines

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage

of Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage

of Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Travel curb to counter 20 0% 0 100% 20

2. Travel curb to kiosk 18 0% 0 100% 18

3. Queue for kiosk 32 25% 8 75% 24

4. Check in and receive boarding pass at kiosk 116 100% 116 0% 0

5. Queue for counter 157 25% 39.25 75% 117.75

6. Check in, receive boarding pass, check bags at counter 226 100% 226 0% 0

7. Check in, receive boarding pass, no bags at counter (N/A, all had bags) 0 100% 0 0% 0

8. Check bags at counter 226 100% 226 0% 0

9. Travel to baggage screen (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

10. Queue for baggage screen (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

11. Drop off bags at baggage screening (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

12. Travel to personal screen 118 0% 0 100% 118

13. Queue for boarding pass & ID screen 187 25% 46.75 75% 140.25

14. Boarding pass & ID screen 15 100% 15 0% 0

15. Queue for personal security screen 74 25% 18.5 75% 55.5

16. Carry-on & personal security screen 38 100% 38 0% 0

17. Gather personal belongings 33 50% 16.5 50% 16.5

Total: Option A (1,5,6,9-17) 868 46.1% 400 53.9% 468

Total: Option B (1,5,7,12-17) 642 27.1% 174 72.9% 468

Total: Option C (1,5,8-17) 868 46.1% 400 53.9% 468

Total: Option D (2,3,4,5,8-17) 1014 51.7% 524 48.3% 490

Total: Option E (2,3,4, 12-17) 631 41.0% 258.75 59.0% 372.25

TOTAL: All Individual Activities 1260 59.5% 750 40.5% 510

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage

of Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage

of Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass, & check bags

at counter226 75.0% 169.50 25.0% 56.50

2. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass at counter (no

bags)0 50.0% 0.00 50.0% 0.00

3. Check passenger bags 226 100.0% 226.00 0.0% 0.00

4. Screen passenger ID & boarding passes 15 100.0% 15.00 0.0% 0.00

5. Screen passenger and carry-on 38 100.0% 38.00 0.0% 0.00

Total: Option A (1,4,5) 279 79.7% 222.50 20.3% 56.50

Total: Option B (2,4,5) 53 100.0% 53.00 0.0% 0.00

Total: Option C (3,4,5) 279 100.0% 279.00 0.0% 0.00

TOTAL: All Individual Activities 505 88.8% 448.50 11.2% 56.50

62

Table 8A. Value and Waste Apportionment of Passenger Check-In Activities - Galeão International Airport – TAM Airlines

Table 8B. Value and Waste Apportionment of Service Provider Check-In Activities - Galeão International Airport – TAM Airlines

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage

of Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage

of Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Travel curb to counter 36 0% 0 100% 36

2. Travel curb to kiosk 31 0% 0 100% 31

3. Queue for kiosk 12 25% 3 75% 9

4. Check in and receive boarding pass at kiosk 98 100% 98 0% 0

5. Queue for counter 420 25% 105 75% 315

6. Check in, receive boarding pass, check bags at counter 153 100% 153 0% 0

7. Check in, receive boarding pass, no bags at counter 31 100% 31 0% 0

8. Check bags at counter 122 100% 122 0% 0

9. Travel to baggage screen (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

10. Queue for baggage screen (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

11. Drop off bags at baggage screening (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

12. Travel to personal screen 48 0% 0 100% 48

13. Queue for boarding pass & ID screen 168 25% 42 75% 126

14. Boarding pass & ID screen 17 100% 17 0% 0

15. Queue for personal security screen 45 25% 11.25 75% 33.75

16. Carry-on & personal security screen 30 100% 30 0% 0

17. Gather personal belongings 10 50% 5 50% 5

Total: Option A (1,5,6,9-17) 927 39.2% 363.25 60.8% 563.75

Total: Option B (1,5,7,12-17) 805 30.0% 241.25 70.0% 563.75

Total: Option C (1,5,8-17) 896 37.1% 332.25 62.9% 563.75

Total: Option D (2,3,4,5,8-17) 1001 43.3% 433.25 56.7% 567.75

Total: Option E (2,3,4, 12-17) 459 44.9% 206.25 55.1% 252.75

TOTAL: All Individual Activities 1221 50.6% 617.25 49.4% 603.75

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage

of Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage

of Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass, & check

bags at counter153 75.0% 114.75 25.0% 38.25

2. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass at counter

(no bags)31 50.0% 15.50 50.0% 15.50

3. Check passenger bags 122 100.0% 122.00 0.0% 0.00

4. Screen passenger ID & boarding passes 17 100.0% 17.00 0.0% 0.00

5. Screen passenger and carry-on 30 100.0% 30.00 0.0% 0.00

Total: Option A (1,4,5) 200 80.9% 161.75 19.1% 38.25

Total: Option B (2,4,5) 78 80.1% 62.50 19.9% 15.50

Total: Option C (3,4,5) 169 100.0% 169.00 0.0% 0.00

TOTAL: All Individual Activities 353 84.8% 299.25 15.2% 53.75

63

Table 9A. Value and Waste Apportionment of Passenger Check-In Activities - Santos Dumont Airport – TAM Airlines

Table 9B. Value and Waste Apportionment of Service Provider Check-In Activities - Santos Dumont Airport – TAM Airlines

For Tables 9A and B above it must be noted that I was limited in making personal observations on the screening activities due to a lack of authorized access to points beyond the counter. The data collected was courtesy of a TAM employee who was doing his own timing of passengers going through the check-in process. (I observed such timings on each of my Brazil airport visits.)

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage

of Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage

of Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Travel curb to counter 21 0% 0 100% 21

2. Travel curb to kiosk 21 0% 0 100% 21

3. Queue for kiosk 15 25% 3.75 75% 11.25

4. Check in and receive boarding pass at kiosk 162 100% 162 0% 0

5. Queue for counter 135 25% 33.75 75% 101.25

6. Check in, receive boarding pass, check bags at counter 210 100% 210 0% 0

7. Check in, receive boarding pass, no bags at counter 87 100% 87 0% 0

8. Check bags at counter 123 100% 123 0% 0

9. Travel to baggage screen (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

10. Queue for baggage screen (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

11. Drop off bags at baggage screening (N/A) 0 0% 0 100% 0

12. Travel to personal screen 30 0% 0 100% 30

13. Queue for boarding pass & ID screen 180 25% 45 75% 135

14. Boarding pass & ID screen 15 100% 15 0% 0

15. Queue for personal security screen 80 25% 20 75% 60

16. Carry-on & personal security screen 30 100% 30 0% 0

17. Gather personal belongings 15 50% 7.5 50% 7.5

Total: Option A (1,5,6,9-17) 716 50.5% 361.25 49.5% 354.75

Total: Option B (1,5,7,12-17) 593 40.2% 238.25 59.8% 354.75

Total: Option C (1,5,8-17) 629 43.6% 274.25 56.4% 354.75

Total: Option D (2,3,4,5,8-17) 806 54.6% 440 45.4% 366

Total: Option E (2,3,4, 12-17) 548 51.7% 283.25 48.3% 264.75

TOTAL: All Individual Activities 1124 65.6% 737 34.4% 387

ActivityTime

(sec)

Percentage

of Value

Time of

Value

(sec)

Percentage

of Waste

Time of

Waste

(sec)

1. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass, &

check bags at counter206 75.0% 154.50 25.0% 51.50

2. Check in passenger, issue boarding pass at

counter (no bags)62 50.0% 31.00 50.0% 31.00

3. Check passenger bags 144 100.0% 144.00 0.0% 0.00

4. Screen passenger ID & boarding passes 15 100.0% 15.00 0.0% 0.00

5. Screen passenger and carry-on 43 100.0% 43.00 0.0% 0.00

Total: Option A (1,4,5) 264 80.5% 212.50 19.5% 51.50

Total: Option B (2,4,5) 120 74.2% 89.00 25.8% 31.00

Total: Option C (3,4,5) 202 100.0% 202.00 0.0% 0.00

TOTAL: All Individual Activities 470 82.4% 387.50 17.6% 82.50

64

Table 12. Classification of Waste – National Airport – Delta Airlines (Passenger Perspective)

Activity

Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E

Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) %

Value-added steps for the passenger

3. Queue for kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2.25 0.2 2.25 0.2

4. Check in, receive BPs at kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 110 11.4 110 11.4

5. Queue for counter 31.5 3.3 31.5 3.3 31.5 3.3 31.5 3.3 0 0.0

6. Check in, receive BPs, check bags

at counter 206 21.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

7. Check in, receive BPs, no bags at

counter 0 0.0 62 6.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

8. Check bags at counter 0 0.0 0 0.0 144 15.0 144 15.0 0 0.0

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 29.75 3.1 29.75 3.1 29.75 3.1 29.75 3.1 29.75 3.1

14. BP & ID screen 15 1.6 15 1.6 15 1.6 15 1.6 15 1.6

15. Queue for personal screen 15.75 1.6 15.75 1.6 15.75 1.6 15.75 1.6 15.75 1.6

16. Undergo personal screen 43 4.5 43 4.5 43 4.5 43 4.5 43 4.5

17. Gather personal belongings 18.5 1.9 18.5 1.9 18.5 1.9 18.5 1.9 18.5 1.9

TOTAL 359.5 47.6 215.5 36.7 297.5 42.9 409.75 50.6 234.25 45.5

Necessary but wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Travel to counter 28 9.3 28 9.3 28 9.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

2. Travel to kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 8.3 25 8.3

12. Travel to personal screen 94 31.1 94 31.1 94 31.1 94 31.1 94 31.1

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 89.25 29.6 89.25 29.6 89.25 29.6 89.25 29.6 89.25 29.6

15. Queue for personal screen 47.25 15.6 47.25 15.6 47.25 15.6 47.25 15.6 47.25 15.6

17. Gather personal belongings 18.5 6.1 18.5 6.1 18.5 6.1 18.5 6.1 18.5 6.1

TOTAL 277 36.6 277 47.2 277 39.9 274 33.8 274 53.2

Necessary but wasteful steps that EXCEED passenger expectations

3. Queue for kiosk 0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 6.75 6.7 6.75 6.7

5. Queue for counter 94.50 93.3 94.50 93.3 94.50 93.3 94.50 93.3 0.00 0.0

TOTAL 94.50 12.5 94.50 16.1 94.50 13.6 101.25 12.5 6.75 1.3

Non-value-added steps for the passenger that should be ELMINATED

9. Travel to baggage screen 15.00 60.0 0.00 0.0 15.00 60.0 15.00 60.0 0.00 0.0

10. Queue for baggage screen 5.00 20.0 0.00 0.0 5.00 20.0 5.00 20.0 0.00 0.0

11. Drop bags for baggage screen 5.00 20.0 0.00 0.0 5.00 20.0 5.00 20.0 0.00 0.0

TOTAL 25.00 3.3 0.00 0.0 25.00 3.6 25.00 3.1 0.00 0.0

TOTAL ALL CATEGORIES 756.00 587.00 694.00 810.00 515.00

65

Table 13. Classification of Waste – National Airport – United Airlines (Passenger Perspective)

Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E

Activity Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) %

Value-added steps for the passenger

3. Queue for kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3.5 0.4 3.5 0.4

4. Check in, receive BPs at kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 106 11.6 106 11.6

5. Queue for counter 28 3.1 28 3.1 28 3.1 28 3.1 0 0.0

6. Check in, receive BPs, check

bags at counter 193 21.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

7. Check in, receive BPs, no bags

at counter 0 0.0 54 5.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

8. Check bags at counter 0 0.0 0 0.0 139 15.2 139 15.2 0 0.0

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 29.75 3.2 29.75 3.2 29.75 3.2 29.75 3.2 29.75 3.2

14. BP & ID screen 15 1.6 15 1.6 15 1.6 15 1.6 15 1.6

15. Queue for personal screen 15.75 1.7 15.75 1.7 15.75 1.7 15.75 1.7 15.75 1.7

16. Undergo personal screen 43 4.7 43 4.7 43 4.7 43 4.7 43 4.7

17. Gather personal belongings 18.5 2.0 18.5 2.0 18.5 2.0 18.5 2.0 18.5 2.0

TOTAL 343 47.8 204 36.9 289 43.6 398.5 51.0 231.5 45.8

Necessary but wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Travel to counter 27 9.3 27 9.3 27 9.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

2. Travel to kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 8.6 25 8.6

12. Travel to personal screen 83 28.6 83 28.6 83 28.6 83 28.6 83 28.6

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 89.25 30.8 89.25 30.8 89.25 30.8 89.25 30.8 89.25 30.8

15. Queue for personal screen 47.25 16.3 47.25 16.3 47.25 16.3 47.25 16.3 47.25 16.3

17. Gather personal belongings 18.5 6.4 18.5 6.4 18.5 6.4 18.5 6.4 18.5 6.4

TOTAL 265 37.0 265 47.9 265 40.0 263 33.7 263 52.1

Necessary but wasteful steps that EXCEED passenger expectations

3. Queue for kiosk 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 10.50 11.1 10.50 11.1

5. Queue for counter 84.00 88.9 84.00 88.9 84.00 88.9 84.00 88.9 0.00 0.0

TOTAL 84.00 11.7 84.00 15.2 84.00 12.7 94.50 12.1 10.50 2.1

Non-value-added steps for the passenger that should be ELMINATED

9. Travel to baggage screen 15.00 60.0 0.00 0.0 15.00 60.0 15.00 60.0 0.00 0.0

10. Queue for baggage screen 5.00 20.0 0.00 0.0 5.00 20.0 5.00 20.0 0.00 0.0

11. Drop bags for baggage screen 5.00 20.0 0.00 0.0 5.00 20.0 5.00 20.0 0.00 0.0

TOTAL 25.00 3.5 0.00 0.0 25.00 3.8 25.00 3.2 0.00 0.0

TOTA ALL CATEGORIES 717 553.00 663.00 781.00 505.00

66

Table 14. Classification of Waste – Dulles Airport – Delta Airlines (Passenger Perspective)

Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E

Activity Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) %

Value-added steps for the passenger

3. Queue for kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6.75 0.6 6.75 0.6

4. Check in, receive BPs at kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 116 10.7 116 10.7

5. Queue for counter 35.5 3.3 35.5 3.3 35.5 3.3 35.5 3.3 0 0.0

6. Check in, receive BPs, check bags

at counter 225 20.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

7. Check in, receive BPs, no bags at

counter 0 0.0 66 6.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

8. Check bags at counter 0 0.0 0 0.0 159 14.6 159 14.6 0 0.0

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 46.75 4.3 46.75 4.3 46.75 4.3 46.75 4.3 46.75 4.3

14. BP & ID screen 15 1.4 15 1.4 15 1.4 15 1.4 15 1.4

15. Queue for personal screen 18.5 1.7 18.5 1.7 18.5 1.7 18.5 1.7 18.5 1.7

16. Undergo personal screen 11 1.0 11 1.0 11 1.0 11 1.0 11 1.0

17. Gather personal belongings 16.5 1.5 16.5 1.5 16.5 1.5 16.5 1.5 16.5 1.5

TOTAL 368.25 44.3 209.25 31.1 302.25 39.5 425 46.9 230.5 38.1

Necessary but wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Travel to counter 22 5.8 22 5.8 22 5.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

2. Travel to kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 19 5.0 19 5.0

12. Travel to personal screen 123 32.7 123 32.7 123 32.7 123 32.7 123 32.7

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 140.25 37.3 140.25 37.3 140.25 37.3 140.25 37.3 140.25 37.3

15. Queue for personal screen 55.5 14.8 55.5 14.8 55.5 14.8 55.5 14.8 55.5 14.8

17. Gather personal belongings 16.5 4.4 16.5 4.4 16.5 4.4 16.5 4.4 16.5 4.4

TOTAL 357.25 42.9 357.25 53.1 357.25 46.6 354.25 39.1 354.25 58.6

Necessary but wasteful steps that EXCEED passenger expectations

3. Queue for kiosk 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 20.25 16.0 20.25 16.0

5. Queue for counter 106.50 84.0 106.50 84.0 106.50 84.0 106.50 84.0 0.00 0.0

TOTAL 106.50 12.8 106.50 15.8 106.50 13.9 126.75 14.0 20.25 3.3

Non-value-added steps for the passenger that should be ELMINATED

9. Travel to baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10. Queue for baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11. Drop bags for baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TOTAL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TOTAL All CATEGORIES 832.00 673.00 766.00 906.00 605.00

67

Table 15. Classification of Waste – Dulles Airport – American Airlines (Passenger Perspective)

Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E

Activities Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) %

Value-added steps for the passenger

3. Queue for kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 0.8 8 0.8

4. Check in, receive BPs at kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 116 11.2 116 11.2

5. Queue for counter 39.25 3.8 39.25 3.8 39.25 3.8 39.25 3.8 0 0.0

6. Check in, receive BPs, check bags

at counter 226 21.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

7. Check in, receive BPs, no bags at

counter 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

8. Check bags at counter 0 0.0 0 0.0 226 21.9 226 21.9 0 0.0

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 46.75 4.5 46.75 4.5 46.75 4.5 46.75 4.5 46.75 4.5

14. BP & ID screen 15 1.5 15 1.5 15 1.5 15 1.5 15 1.5

15. Queue for personal screen 18.5 1.8 18.5 1.8 18.5 1.8 18.5 1.8 18.5 1.8

16. Undergo personal screen 28 2.7 28 2.7 28 2.7 28 2.7 28 2.7

17. Gather personal belongings 16.5 1.6 16.5 1.6 16.5 1.6 16.5 1.6 16.5 1.6

TOTAL 390 45.5 164 25.9 390 45.5 514 51.2 248.75 40.1

Necessary but wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Travel to counter 20 5.4 20 5.4 20 5.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

2. Travel to kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 4.9 18 4.9

12. Travel to personal screen 118 32.0 118 32.0 118 32.0 118 32.0 118 32.0

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 140.25 38.1 140.25 38.1 140.25 38.1 140.25 38.1 140.25 38.1

15. Queue for personal screen 55.5 15.1 55.5 15.1 55.5 15.1 55.5 15.1 55.5 15.1

17. Gather personal belongings 16.5 4.5 16.5 4.5 16.5 4.5 16.5 4.5 16.5 4.5

TOTAL 350.25 40.8 350.25 55.4 350.25 40.8 348.25 34.7 348.25 56.1

Necessary but wasteful steps that EXCEED passenger expectations

3. Queue for kiosk 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 24.00 16.9 24.00 16.9

5. Queue for counter 117.75 83.1 117.75 83.1 117.75 83.1 117.75 83.1 0.00 0.0

TOTAL 117.75 13.7 117.75 18.6 117.75 13.7 141.75 14.1 24.00 3.9

Non-value-added steps for the passenger that should be ELMINATED

9. Travel to baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10. Queue for baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11. Drop bags for baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TOTAL

TOTAL ALL CATEGORIES 858.00 632.00 858.00 1004.00 621.00

68

Table 16. Classification of Waste - Galeão Airport - TAM Airlines (Passenger Perspective)

Activities

Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E

Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) %

Value-added steps for the passenger

3. Queue for kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.3 3 0.3

4. Check in, receive BPs at kiosk 98 8.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 98 8.9 98 8.9

5. Queue for counter 105 9.6 105 9.6 105 9.6 105 9.6 0 0.0

6. Check in, receive BPs, check bags

at counter 153 13.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

7. Check in, receive BPs, no bags at

counter 0 0.0 31 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

8. Check bags at counter 0 0.0 0 0.0 122 11.1 122 11.1 0 0.0

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 42 3.8 42 3.8 42 3.8 42 3.8 42 3.8

14. BP & ID screen 17 1.5 17 1.5 17 1.5 17 1.5 17 1.5

15. Queue for personal screen 11.25 1.0 11.25 1.0 11.25 1.0 11.25 1.0 11.25 1.0

16. Undergo personal screen 30 2.7 30 2.7 30 2.7 30 2.7 30 2.7

17. Gather personal belongings 5 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5

TOTAL 461.25 45.0 241.25 30.0 332.25 37.1 433.25 43.3 206.25 44.9

Necessary but wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Travel to counter 36 12.9 36 12.9 36 12.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

2. Travel to kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 31 11.1 31 11.1

12. Travel to personal screen 48 17.2 48 17.2 48 17.2 48 17.2 48 17.2

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 126 45.0 126 45.0 126 45.0 126 45.0 126 45.0

15. Queue for personal screen 33.75 12.1 33.75 12.1 33.75 12.1 33.75 12.1 33.75 12.1

17. Gather personal belongings 5 1.8 5 1.8 5 1.8 5 1.8 5 1.8

TOTAL 248.75 24.3 248.75 30.9 248.75 27.8 243.75 24.4 243.75 53.1

Necessary but wasteful steps that EXCEED passenger expectations

3. Queue for kiosk 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 9.00 2.8 9.00 2.8

5. Queue for counter 315.00 97.2 315.00 97.2 315.00 97.2 315.00 97.2 0.00 0.0

TOTAL 315.00 30.7 315.00 39.1 315.00 35.2 324.00 323.7 9.00 2.0

Non-value-added steps for the passenger that should be ELMINATED

9. Travel to baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10. Queue for baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11. Drop bags for baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TOTAL

TOTAL ALL CATEGORIES 1025.00 805.00 896.00 1001.00 459.00

69

Table 17. Classification of Waste – S. Dumont Airport - TAM Airlines (Passenger Perspective)

Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E

Activities Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) % Time

(sec) %

Value-added steps for the passenger

3. Queue for kiosk 0 0.0 3.75 0.4 3.75 0.4 3.75 0.4 3.75 0.4

4. Check in, receive BPs at kiosk 0 0.0 162 16.2 162 16.2 162 16.2 162 16.2

5. Queue for counter 33.75 3.4 33.75 3.4 33.75 3.4 33.75 3.4 0 0.0

6. Check in, receive BPs, check bags

at counter 210 21.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

7. Check in, receive BPs, no bags at

counter 0 0.0 87 8.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

8. Check bags at counter 0 0.0 0 0.0 123 12.3 123 12.3 0 0.0

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 45 4.5 45 4.5 45 4.5 45 4.5 45 4.5

14. BP & ID screen 15 1.5 15 1.5 15 1.5 15 1.5 15 1.5

15. Queue for personal screen 20 2.0 20 2.0 20 2.0 20 2.0 20 2.0

16. Undergo personal screen 30 3.0 30 3.0 30 3.0 30 3.0 30 3.0

17. Gather personal belongings 7.5 0.7 7.5 0.7 7.5 0.7 7.5 0.7 7.5 0.7

TOTAL 361.25 50.5 404 53.2 440 55.4 440 54.6 283.25 51.7

Necessary but wasteful steps that are WITHIN passenger expectations

1. Travel to counter 21 7.7 21 7.7 21 7.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

2. Travel to kiosk 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 7.7 21 7.7

12. Travel to personal screen 30 10.9 30 10.9 30 10.9 30 10.9 30 10.9

13. Queue for BP & ID screen 135 49.2 135 49.2 135 49.2 135 49.2 135 49.2

15. Queue for personal screen 60 21.9 60 21.9 60 21.9 60 21.9 60 21.9

17. Gather personal belongings 7.5 2.7 7.5 2.7 7.5 2.7 7.5 2.7 7.5 2.7

TOTAL 253.5 35.4 253.5 33.4 253.5 31.9 253.5 31.5 253.5 46.3

Necessary but wasteful steps that EXCEED passenger expectations

3. Queue for kiosk 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 11.25 10.0 11.25 10.0

5. Queue for counter 101.25 90.0 101.25 90.0 101.25 90.0 101.25 90.0 0.00 0.0

TOTAL 101.25 14.1 101.25 13.3 101.25 12.7 112.50 14.0 11.25 2.1

Non-value-added steps for the passenger that should be ELMINATED

9. Travel to baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10. Queue for baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

11. Drop bags for baggage screen NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TOTAL

TOTAL ALL CATEGORIES 716.00 758.75 794.75 806.00 548.00

70

Table 19. Pareto Data: National - Delta Table 20. Pareto Data: National - United

Activity Time of

Waste (sec)

Cumulative

Time (sec)

Percentage

of Time

Cumulative

Percentage Activity

Time of

Waste (sec)

Cumulative

Time (sec)

Percentage

of Time

Cumulative

Percentage

5 94.5 94.5 22.1% 22.1% 13 89.25 89.25 21.8% 21.8%

12 94 188.5 21.9% 44.0% 5 84 173.25 20.5% 42.3%

13 89.25 277.75 20.8% 64.9% 12 83 256.25 20.3% 62.6%

15 47.25 325 11.0% 75.9% 15 47.25 303.5 11.5% 74.1%

1 28 353 6.5% 82.4% 1 27 330.5 6.6% 80.7%

2 25 378 5.8% 88.3% 2 25 355.5 6.1% 86.8%

17 18.5 396.5 4.3% 92.6% 17 18.5 374 4.5% 91.3%

9 15 411.5 3.5% 96.1% 9 15 389 3.7% 95.0%

3 6.75 418.25 1.6% 97.7% 3 10.5 399.5 2.6% 97.6%

10 5 423.25 1.2% 98.8% 10 5 404.5 1.2% 98.8%

11 5 428.25 1.2% 100.0% 11 5 409.5 1.2% 100.0%

4 0 428.25 0.0% 100.0% 4 0 409.5 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 428.25 0.0% 100.0% 6 0 409.5 0.0% 100.0%

7 0 428.25 0.0% 100.0% 7 0 409.5 0.0% 100.0%

8 0 428.25 0.0% 100.0% 8 0 409.5 0.0% 100.0%

14 0 428.25 0.0% 100.0% 14 0 409.5 0.0% 100.0%

16 0 428.25 0.0% 100.0% 16 0 409.5 0.0% 100.0%

428.25 409.5

71

Table 21. Pareto Data: Dulles - Delta Table 22. Pareto Data: Dulles - American

Activity Time of

Waste (sec)

Cumulative

Time (sec)

Percentage

of Time

Cumulative

Percentage Activity

Time of

Waste (sec)

Cumulative

Time (sec)

Percentage

of Time

Cumulative

Percentage

13 140.25 140.25 27.9% 27.9% 13 140.25 140.25 27.5% 27.5%

12 123 263.25 24.5% 52.3% 12 118 258.25 23.1% 50.6%

5 106.5 369.75 21.2% 73.5% 5 117.75 376 23.1% 73.7%

15 55.5 425.25 11.0% 84.5% 15 55.5 431.5 10.9% 84.6%

1 22 447.25 4.4% 88.9% 3 24 455.5 4.7% 89.3%

3 20.25 467.5 4.0% 92.9% 1 20 475.5 3.9% 93.2%

2 19 486.5 3.8% 96.7% 2 18 493.5 3.5% 96.8%

17 16.5 503 3.3% 100.0% 17 16.5 510 3.2% 100.0%

4 0 503 0.0% 100.0% 4 0 510 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 503 0.0% 100.0% 6 0 510 0.0% 100.0%

7 0 503 0.0% 100.0% 7 0 510 0.0% 100.0%

8 0 503 0.0% 100.0% 8 0 510 0.0% 100.0%

9 0 503 0.0% 100.0% 9 0 510 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 503 0.0% 100.0% 10 0 510 0.0% 100.0%

11 0 503 0.0% 100.0% 11 0 510 0.0% 100.0%

14 0 503 0.0% 100.0% 14 0 510 0.0% 100.0%

16 0 503 0.0% 100.0% 16 0 510 0.0% 100.0%

503 510

72

Table 23. Pareto Data: Galeão - TAM Table 24. Pareto Data: S. Dumont - TAM

Activity Time of

Waste (sec)

Cumulative

Time (sec)

Percentage

of Time

Cumulative

Percentage Activity

Time of

Waste (sec)

Cumulative

Time (sec)

Percentage

of Time

Cumulative

Percentage

5 315 315 52.2% 52.2% 13 135 135 34.9% 34.9%

13 126 441 20.9% 73.0% 5 101.25 236.25 26.2% 61.0%

12 48 489 8.0% 81.0% 15 60 296.25 15.5% 76.6%

1 36 525 6.0% 87.0% 12 30 326.25 7.8% 84.3%

15 33.75 558.75 5.6% 92.5% 1 21 347.25 5.4% 89.7%

2 31 589.75 5.1% 97.7% 2 21 368.25 5.4% 95.2%

3 9 598.75 1.5% 99.2% 3 11.25 379.5 2.9% 98.1%

17 5 603.75 0.8% 100.0% 17 7.5 387 1.9% 100.0%

4 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0% 4 0 387 0.0% 100.0%

6 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0% 6 0 387 0.0% 100.0%

7 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0% 7 0 387 0.0% 100.0%

8 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0% 8 0 387 0.0% 100.0%

9 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0% 9 0 387 0.0% 100.0%

10 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0% 10 0 387 0.0% 100.0%

11 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0% 11 0 387 0.0% 100.0%

14 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0% 14 0 387 0.0% 100.0%

16 0 603.75 0.0% 100.0% 16 0 387 0.0% 100.0%

603.75 387

73

Chart 1. Cumulative Waste: National Airport – Delta Airlines

Chart 2. Cumulative Waste: National Airport – United Airlines

22,1%

44,0%

64,9%

75,9%

82,4%

88,3%

92,6%96,1% 97,7% 98,8% 100,0%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Time of Waste

(sec)

Cumulative %

21,8%

42,3%

62,6%

74,1%

80,7%

86,8%91,3%

95,0% 97,6%98,8% 100,0%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Time of Waste

(sec)

Cumulative %

74

Chart 3. Cumulative Waste: Dulles Airport – Delta Airlines

Chart 4. Cumulative Waste: Dulles Airport – American Airlines

27,9%

52,3%

73,5%

84,5%88,9%

92,9%96,7%

100,0%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Time of Waste

(sec)

Cumulative %

27,5%

50,6%

73,7%

84,6%

89,3%93,2%

96,8%100,0%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Time of Waste

(sec)

Cumulative %

75

Chart 5. Cumulative Waste: Galeão Airport – TAM Airlines

Chart 6. Cumulative Waste: Santos Dumont Airport – TAM Airlines

52,2%

73,0%

81,0%

87,0%

92,5%

97,7% 99,2% 100,0%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Time of Waste

(sec)

Cumulative %

34,9%

61,0%

76,6%

84,3%

89,7%

95,2%98,1%100,0%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Time of Waste

(sec)

Cumulative %

76

GLOSSARY ACI Airports Council International ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ANAC Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (Agency for Civil Aviation) BMI Business Monitor International DMADV Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, Verify DMAIC Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control FAA Federal Aviation Agency GDP Gross Domestic Product IATA International Air Transport Association ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization INFRAERO Empresa Brasileria de Infraestrutura Aeroportuaria LEI Lean Enterprise Institute LSS Lean Six Sigma PAC Programa de Aceleração de Crescimento (Growth Acceleration Program) Pax Passenger SARPS Standards and Recommended Practices TPS Toyota Production System TSA Transportation Security Agency USD United States Dollar VSM Value Stream Mapping