See Full Document Text
फा. सं. ऐरा/25012/पीईआरएफ-एसटीडीएस/2009/खंड-III
F. No. AERA/25012/PERF-STDS/2009/Vol-III
परामर्श पत्र संख् या 03/ 2025-26
CONSULTATION PAPER NO.: 03/2025-26
नागर विमानन मत्रं ालय भारतीय लवमािपत्ति आलथशक
लवलियामक प्रालिकरण
Ministry of Civil Aviation
Airports Economic Regulatory
Authority of India
प्रमुख हवाई अड्डों के लिए सेवा की गणु वत्ता, लिरंतरता और लवश्वसिीयता तथा
संबद्ध गलतलवलियों के संबंि में कायश-लिष्पादि मािक तैयार करिा।
Formulation of Performance Standards of Major Airports relating to
Quality, Continuity and Reliability of Service and Associated Activities
जारी करिे की तारीख: 18 अगस्त, 2025
Date of Issue: 18th August, 2025
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 1 of 164PREFACE AND STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION
PREFACE AND STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION
The Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) is responsible for formulation of national policies and
programmes for the development and regulation of the civil aviation sector in the country. MoCA is
responsible for the administration of the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act,
2008, Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 and various other legislations pertaining to the aviation
sector in the country.
The Parliament of India enacted the “Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008”
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the establishment of the Airports Economic Regulatory
Authority of India (AERA) to regulate tariff and other charges for the aeronautical services rendered
at airports and to monitor the set performance standards of airports and for matters connected therewith
or incidental thereto. Accordingly, AERA was formally established by the Government of India (GoI)
vide its Notification No. GSR 317(E) dated 12th May, 2009 with the primary objective of carrying out
the functions as stipulated in the Act. The provisions of the Act came into force w.e.f. 1st January, 2009
(except for Chapter III and Chapter IV which came into force w.e.f. 1st September, 2009). Chapter VII
of the AERA Act, 2008 titled “Miscellaneous” mentions the functions of the Central Government in
respect of performance standards of major airports as:
• “51 (1) Power to make rules. — (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act
• 51 (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may
provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: —
“51 (2) (f) the performance standards relating to the quality, continuity and
reliability of the service to be monitored under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
section 13;”
Chapter III of the AERA Act, 2008 titled “Powers and Functions of the Authority” further details
the functions of the AERA in respect of performance standards of major airports as:
• “13 (1) (a) (ii) to determine the tariff for the aeronautical services taking into consideration — the
service provided, its quality and other relevant factors;”
• “13 (1) (d) to monitor the set performance standards relating to quality, continuity and reliability
of service as may be specified by the Central Government or any authority authorized by it in this
behalf;”
• “14 (1) (a) Where the Authority considers it expedient so to do, it may by order in writing—call
upon any service provider at any time to furnish in writing such information or explanation relating
to its functions as the Authority may require to access the performance of the service provider;”
• “14 (4) The Authority shall have the power to issue such directions to monitor the performance of
the service providers as it may consider necessary for proper functioning by service providers.”
Thus, as per Section 51 of the AERA Act, 2008, the Central Government will make rules on
performance standards relating to the quality, continuity and reliability of the service which shall be
monitored by AERA and taken into consideration while determining tariffs for aeronautical services as
per Section 13 of the AERA Act, 2008.
It is noted that the aviation sector has evolved significantly over the past decade in terms of passenger
volumes, infrastructure capacity, use of technology and service expectations. Innovations such as Digi
Yatra, self-baggage drop, and e-gates, along with evolving policy protocols, have further transformed
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 2 of 164PREFACE AND STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION
the operating environment. This growth has been accompanied by investments in airport development
and operations, financed through user charges.
Concomitant with these investments has been an evolution in passenger expectations on quality,
continuity and reliability of services at the airport. As users of upgraded infrastructure funded through
tariffs, passengers expect service quality that is commensurate with the investments and the resultant
airport charges for the facilities provided. Where infrastructure is funded through regulated tariffs, it is
imperative that corresponding obligations be placed on airports to ensure delivery of commensurate
levels of service.
In view of the above, the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) has taken a decision to establish a uniform
set of performance standards at major airports in the country. MoCA entrusted Airports Economic
Regulatory Authority of India (AERA) to undertake an assessment and prepare a framework for
performance standards at airports. In compliance with this directive, AERA undertook a detailed study
encompassing multiple dimensions, including existing service quality requirements at Indian airports,
international service quality benchmarks, and global regulatory frameworks governing airport
performance. AERA has formulated framework for performance standards at major airports and duly
apprised the Ministry of Civil Aviation on it. Accordingly, a draft Consultation Paper has been
formulated for the aforesaid framework of performance standards.
Draft consultation paper for these uniform performance standards relating to quality, continuity and
reliability of services at major airports and their monitoring aims to improve transparency, reliability,
and accountability for ensuring that the service delivery keeps pace with the sector’s rapid
transformation and it continues to meet the needs of airport users effectively. In addition, these will be
linked to airport tariffs through a balanced framework that incorporates both rebates for non-compliance
and incentives for encouraging continuous service improvement for exceeding benchmarks while
ensuring compliances.
MoCA vide letter no. AV-24026/2/2015-AD dated 29 July 2025 directed AERA to release this
Consultation Paper and to carry out the public consultation process with the stakeholders. The written
comments on Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 dated 18 August 2025, are invited from the
stakeholders, preferably in electronic form, at the following address:
Director (P&S, Tariff)
Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (AERA)
3rd Floor, Udaan Bhawan,
Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi – 110003.
Email: director-ps@aera.gov.in, rajan.gupta1@aera.gov.in, inderpal.s@aera.gov.in, copy to
secretary@aera.gov.in
Stakeholders’ consultation meeting 09/09/2025
Last Date for submission of comments 24/09/2025
Comments will be posted on AERA’s website: www.aera.gov.in. In accordance with MoCA’s letter no.
AV-24026/2/2015-AD dated 29 July 2025, after completion of this consultation exercise by AERA on
behalf of MoCA and after its due finalization, MoCA shall notify Rules for Performance Standards at
major airports under section 51(2)(f) of the AERA Act, 2008.
For any clarification/ information, Director (P&S, Tariff) may be contacted at email:director-
ps@aera.gov.in / telephone: 011-24695043.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 3 of 164LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Expansion
AAI Airports Authority of India
A/C Aircraft
ACI Airports Council International
ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
AEDs Automated External Defibrillators
AERA Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India
Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 (as amended
AERA Act by Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (Amendment) Act,
2019 and 2021
ANA Aeroportos de Portugal
AOCC Airport Operations Control Centre
AOC Airline Operators Committee
AODB Airport Operational Database
ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting
ARR Aggregate Revenue Requirement
ASQ Airport Service Quality
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management
ATM Air Traffic Management
ATM Automated Teller Machine
ATRS Automated Tray Retrieval System
A320 Airbus A320
BCAS Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
BIAL Bangalore International Airport Limited
BoI Bureau of Immigration
B737 Boeing 737
CAA Civil Aviation Authority
CA Concession Agreement
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CCSIA Chaudhary Charan Singh International Airport
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
CIQ Checking time in queue
CISF Central Industrial Security Force
CNS Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance
COD Commercial Operations Date
CSMIA Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport
CTX Computed Tomography X-ray
DFMD Door Frame Metal Detector
DGCA Directorate General of Civil Aviation
DIAL Delhi International Airport Limited
DISCOMs Distribution Companies
ETD Estimated Time of Departure
FIDS Flight Information Display System
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 4 of 164LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Expansion
FRoR Fair Rate of Return
FTI Fast Track Immigration
GHAs Ground Handling Agencies
GoI Government of India
GSR General Statutory Rules
HHMD Hand-Held Metal Detector
HIAL Hyderabad International Airport Limited
IATA International Air Transport Association
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
ID Identity Document
IGIA Indira Gandhi International Airport
ILS Instrument Landing System
IRVR Instrument Runway Visual Range
JV Joint Venture
JVC Joint Venture Company
KIA Kempegowda International Airport
KLIA Kuala Lumpur International Airport
KPIs Key Performance Indicators
LGBIA Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport
MAVCOM Malaysian Aviation Commission
MCT Minimum Connect Time
MIAL Mumbai International Airport Limited
MIA Manohar International Airport
mins Minutes
MoCA Ministry of Civil Aviation
MoP Ministry of Power
mppa Million Passenger Per Annum
MYTO Multi-Year Tariff Order
MYTP Multi-Year Tariff Proposal
NAR Non-Aeronautical Revenue
NCAP National Civil Aviation Policy
NIA Noida International Airport
NMIA Navi Mumbai International Airport
NPT Normative Processing Time
NSCBIA Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport
O&M Operations & Maintenance
OMDA Operation, Management, and Development Agreement
OPEX Operational Expenditure
PBB Passenger Boarding Bridges
PPP Public-Private Partnerships
Pax Passenger(s)
PRM Persons with Reduced Mobility
QoS Quality of Service
RAB Regulatory Asset Base
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 5 of 164LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Expansion
RGIA Rajiv Gandhi International Airport
SBD Self-Bag Drop
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
secs Seconds
SHA Security Hold Area
SLAs Service Level Agreements
SMR Surface Movement Radar
STD Scheduled Time of Departure
SVPIA Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport
TRAI Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
TTP Trusted Travellers’ Programme
UDF User Development Fee
UK United Kingdom
Wi-Fi Wireless Fidelity
X-BIS X-ray Baggage Inspection System
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 6 of 164TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 12
1.1 LEGAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................ 12
1.2 EXISTING PERFORMANCE MONITORING MECHANISM ........................................... 13
1.3 NEED FOR THE NEW PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .................................................. 14
1.4 SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS: INDIAN PERSPECTIVE ................................. 15
1.5 APPLICATION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ACROSS AIRPORTS ................... 17
1.6 SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS: GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ............................... 17
1.7 SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENT: OTHER INDIAN REGULATORY BODIES ..... 20
1.8 INSIGHTS FROM AIRPORT VISITS .................................................................................. 21
1.9 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 22
1.10 PROPOSAL REGARDING PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ...................... 22
2 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................ 23
2.1 FRAMEWORK FOR FORMULATION OF REVISED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 23
2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE UNIFORM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ............................... 24
2.3 PROPOSAL REGARDING OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS ........................................................................................................................ 29
3 CATEGORIZATION OF THE SERVICE PARAMETERS..................................................... 30
3.1 OVERVIEW OF SERVICE PARAMETERS ....................................................................... 30
3.2 RATIONALIZATION AND RESTRUCTURING OF SERVICE PARAMETERS IN THE
REVISED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ........................................................................ 31
3.3 OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS (QUANTIFIABLE) .............................................................. 32
3.4 CATEGORIZATION OF OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS ..................................................... 32
3.5 SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS (QUALITATIVE) .............................................................. 34
3.6 CATEGORIZATION OF THE SUBJECTIVE PARAMETER: ........................................... 34
3.7 PROPOSAL REGARDING CATEGORIZATION OF THE SERVICE PARAMETERS ... 35
4 AIRPORT CATEGORIES FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ........................................ 36
4.1 PROPOSED AIRPORT CATEGORIES FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ............... 36
4.2 STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR SEGMENTED AIRPORT PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS ........................................................................................................................ 36
4.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PARAMETERS ACROSS AIRPORT CATEGORIES .. 37
4.4 UNIFORMITY OF SERVICE PARAMETERS ACROSS AIRPORT CATEGORIES ....... 38
4.5 PROPOSAL REGARDING AIRPORT CATEGORIES FOR PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS ........................................................................................................................ 38
5 OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT
FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................................................. 39
5.1 OVERVIEW OF MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK .......................................................... 39
5.2 AIRPORT CORE PROCESSES (WAIT TIME) ................................................................... 39
5.3 AIRPORT FACILITIES ........................................................................................................ 48
5.4 CUSTOMER SERVICE / GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL SYSTEM ...................................... 55
5.5 OTHER PARAMETERS (FOR INFORMATION GATHERING) ....................................... 58
5.6 RATIONALE FOR CHANGES TO OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS FROM THE EXISTING
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN AERA GUIDELINES ................................................ 67
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 7 of 164TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.7 COMPARISON TO OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS IN CONCESSION AGREEMENTS OF
DIFFERENT AIRPORTS ...................................................................................................... 69
5.8 PROPOSAL REGARDING THE OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS ......................................... 71
6 SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY
FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 72
6.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING SUBJECTIVE SERVICE
PARAMETERS ..................................................................................................................... 72
6.2 SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS FOR PASSENGER CONVENIENCE ............................... 74
6.3 SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS FOR PRM PASSENGERS ................................................. 79
6.4 RATIONALE FOR CHANGES TO SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS FROM THE
EXISTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN AERA GUIDELINES ............................ 80
6.5 RATIONALE FOR CHANGES TO SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS IN CONCESSION
AGREEMENTS OF DIFFERENT AIRPORTS .................................................................... 81
6.6 PROPOSAL REGARDING THE SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS:
ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...... 83
7 TARGETS ...................................................................................................................................... 84
7.1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AGAINST MONTHLY TARGETS ............................. 84
7.2 PROPOSAL REGARDING TARGETS ................................................................................ 85
8 REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM ............................................................................. 86
8.1 OVERVIEW OF REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM ........................................... 86
8.2 SERVICE QUALITY REBATE MECHANISM ................................................................... 86
8.3 SERVICE QUALITY INCENTIVE MECHANISM ............................................................. 91
8.4 ADJUSTED REBATE COMPUTATION AND CARRY-FORWARD INCENTIVE
COMPUTATION ................................................................................................................... 95
8.5 REVISION IN TARIFFS ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTED REBATE ................................ 98
8.6 TRUE-UP OF ARR ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTED REBATE ....................................... 100
8.7 PROPOSAL REGARDING THE REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM .............. 102
9 REPORTING AND ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK .............................................................. 103
9.1 MONTHLY ASSESSMENT REPORT ............................................................................... 103
9.2 BIANNUAL TARIFF ADJUSTMENT AND REBATE COMPLIANCE ORDER ............ 103
9.3 PROPOSAL REGARDING THE REPORTING AND ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK .. 104
10 MONITORING AND GOVERNANCE MECHANISM .......................................................... 105
10.1 MONITORING OF AIRPORT PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS THROUGH THIRD-
PARTY ASSESSOR ............................................................................................................ 105
10.2 REVISION IN THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR AIRPORTS ......................... 105
10.3 PROPOSAL REGARDING THE MONITORING AND GOVERNANCE MECHANISM
105
11 SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS PUT FORTH FOR STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 106
11.1 Chapter 1: BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 106
11.2 Chapter 2: OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ......... 106
11.3 Chapter 3: CATEGORIZATION OF THE SERVICE PARAMETERS ............................. 106
11.4 Chapter 4: AIRPORT CATEGORIES FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................. 107
11.5 Chapter 5: OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS
MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK .................................................................................... 107
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 8 of 164TABLE OF CONTENTS
11.6 Chapter 6: SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT
SURVEY FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .............................. 107
11.7 Chapter 7: TARGETS .......................................................................................................... 108
11.8 Chapter 8: REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM ................................................... 108
11.9 Chapter 9: REPORTING AND ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ....................................... 108
11.10 Chapter 10: MONITORING AND GOVERNANCE MECHANISM ................................. 109
12 STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION TIMELINE............................................................... 110
13 ANNEXURES ............................................................................................................................... 111
13.1 ANNEXURE – 1: OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS MEASURES AND REBATE ............... 111
13.2 ANNEXURE – 2: OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS MEASURES AND INCENTIVE ......... 118
13.3 ANNEXURE – 3: SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS MEASURES AND REBATE ............. 119
13.4 ANNEXURE – 4: SUBJECTIVE PARAMETER MEASURES AND INCENTIVE ......... 119
13.5 ANNEXURE – 5: NORMATIVE PROCESSING TIME COMPUTATION FOR FUTURE
IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTOMATED QUEUE TIME MEASUREMENT SYSTEM. 120
13.6 ANNEXURE – 6: SERVICE PARAMETERS AND BENCHMARKS IN THE EXISTING
AERA GUIDELINES .......................................................................................................... 123
13.7 ANNEXURE – 7: SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS OF IGIA, DELHI and CSMIA,
MUMBAI AS PER OMDA ................................................................................................. 126
13.8 ANNEXURE – 8: SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS OF KIA, BENGALURU AND
RGIA, HYDERABAD AS PER CONCESSION AGREEMENT ....................................... 129
13.9 ANNEXURE – 9: SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS OF SVPIA, AHMEDABAD,
CCSIA, LUCKNOW, JAIPUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, LGBIA, GUWAHATI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND MANGALURU
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AS PER CONCESSION AGREEMENT ......................... 130
13.10 ANNEXURE – 10: SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS OF NAVI MUMBAI
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AS PER CONCESSION AGREEMENT ......................... 137
13.11 ANNEXURE – 11: SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS OF NOIDA
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND MANOHAR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, MOPA
(GOA) AS PER THEIR RESPECTIVE CONCESSION AGREEMENT ........................... 141
13.12 ANNEXURE – 12: SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS OF HEATHROW AIRPORT,
LONDON AS ISSUED BY CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY, UK ................................. 144
13.13 ANNEXURE – 13: SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS FOR KUALA LUMPUR
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AS PER MALAYSIAN AVIATION COMMISSION ..... 150
13.14 ANNEXURE – 14: SKYTRAX WORLD AIRPORT AWARDS SURVEY TOPICS ....... 159
13.15 ANNEXURE – 15: PROCEDURE FOR PREPARING QUARTERLY QUALITY OF
SERVICE PERFORMANCE REPORT .............................................................................. 161
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 9 of 164LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Ratings of satisfaction for airports services and facilities 19
Table 2: Parameters Distribution Across Airport Categories 37
Table 3: Illustration of Queuing Time Measurement Mechanism for a Specific Queue 41
Table 4: Illustration of calculation of Performance Percentage for the proposed parameter 41
Table 5: Illustration of Deboarding Time calculation 47
Table 6: Illustration of calculation of Performance Percentage for the proposed parameter 48
Table 7: Illustration of percentage (%) uptime/ performance of a particular asset for the month 50
Table 8: Illustration of Travelling Time Measurement for a specific lane 60
Table 9: Illustration of calculation of Performance Percentage for the proposed parameter 60
Table 10: Survey Questionnaire for Subjective Parameters: Passenger Type, Measurement Criteria,
and Target Ratings 74
Table 11: Sample Performance Measures and Target Evaluation for a Given Month 84
Table 12: Proposed rebate for objective and subjective parameters 86
Table 13: Illustrative Calculation of Total Monthly Rebate (0.35%) across all Parameters 89
Table 14: Illustration of Total Rebate of 1.50% for the six-Month Review Period 90
Table 15: Illustration of Total Rebate for parameter p of 0.125% for the six-Month Review Period 91
Table 16: Proposed Incentive for Objective and Subjective Parameters 91
Table 17: Illustrative Calculation of Total Monthly Incentive (0.29%) across all Parameters 94
Table 18: Illustration of Total Incentive of 0.30% for the six-Month Review Period 95
Table 19: Illustration of Total Rebate Computation across different Default Periods 96
Table 20: Illustration of computation of rebate amount based on Adjusted Rebate and Projected ARR
98
Table 21: Illustration of the computation of the prospective tariff reduction rate based on the rebate
amount 99
Table 22: Illustration of Adjusted Rebated on UDF and Landing Charges 99
Table 23: Adjusted Rebate for Review Period conversion to Adjusted Rebate for accounting half-year
periods 100
Table 24: Sample true-up - reconciliation process of Adjusted Rebate over multiple half-year periods
101
Table 25: Timelines of the Monthly Assessment Report 103
Table 26: Illustration of the timeline of the Biannual Review Period 104
Table 27: Illustration of Normative Processing Time Calculation 121
Table 28: Illustration of Future Queue Measurement Mechanism 122
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 10 of 164LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Service quality within the framework of Regulatory Building Blocks of AERA 14
Figure 2: Performance standard formulation process flow diagram 23
Figure 3: Passenger Journey and touchpoints for performance assessment 26
Figure 4: Digi-Yatra gate 27
Figure 5: Immigration e-gates 28
Figure 6: Self-Bag Drop (SBD) System 28
Figure 7: Categorization of the Service Parameters 30
Figure 8: Traditional Security Check (Terminal Entry Gate) 39
Figure 9: Digi Yatra Security Check (Terminal Entry Gate) 40
Figure 10: Check-In (Self-Bag drop, Separate Business Class Counter) 43
Figure 11: Flight Information Display System 49
Figure 12: Wheelchairs 54
Figure 13: Help Desks 57
Figure 14: Revision of Rebate structure 88
Figure 15: Incentives for objective and subjective parameters 93
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 11 of 164BACKGROUND
1 BACKGROUND
Airport services are characterised by natural monopoly or limited competition, wherein users
have limited options on service providers. In such an environment, the role of the regulator
extends beyond tariff determination to ensuring that services are delivered efficiently,
transparently, and to a standard that meets both operational and user expectations.
While pricing frameworks have traditionally been a central focus of regulatory oversight, the
quality of service delivered is equally critical, as it directly influences user satisfaction and the
overall efficiency of airport operations. In environments where competitive alternatives are
limited, performance monitoring serves as a proactive mechanism to support continuous service
enhancement. Accordingly, there exists a compelling need to establish a structured, uniform,
enforceable framework of service quality standards across all major Airports in India –
comprising both objective metrics and user-centric indicators – that can be embedded within
tariff regulation through ongoing performance monitoring. Such standards are instrumental in
safeguarding passenger interests, enhancing accountability, and promoting continuous
improvement across airport operations.
In furtherance of this regulatory objective, the formulation and monitoring of service quality
standards form an indispensable adjunct to economic regulation.
1.1 LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1.1.1 The Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) is responsible for formulation of national policies and
programmes for the development and regulation of the Civil Aviation sector in the country.
MoCA is responsible for the administration of the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of
India Act, 2008, Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024 and various other legislations pertaining
to the aviation Sector in the country.
1.1.2 The Parliament of India enacted the “Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act,
2008” (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the establishment of the Airports Economic
Regulatory Authority of India (AERA) to regulate tariff and other charges for the aeronautical
services rendered at airports and to monitor the set performance standards of airports and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Accordingly, AERA was formally
established by the Government of India (GoI) vide its Notification No. GSR 317(E) dated 12th
May, 2009 with the primary objective of carrying out the functions as stipulated in the Act. The
provisions of the Act came into force w.e.f. 1st January, 2009 (except for Chapter III and
Chapter IV which came into force w.e.f. 1st September, 2009).
1.1.3 Chapter VII of the AERA Act, 2008 titled “Miscellaneous” mentions the functions of the
Central Government in respect of performance standards of major airports as:
• “51 (1) Power to make rules. — (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act
• 51 (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such
rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: —
“51 (2) (f) the performance standards relating to the quality, continuity
and reliability of the service to be monitored under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) of section 13;”
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 12 of 164BACKGROUND
1.1.4 Chapter III of the AERA Act, 2008 titled “Powers and Functions of the Authority” further
details the functions of the AERA in respect of performance standards of major airports as:
• “13 (1) (a) (ii) to determine the tariff for the aeronautical services taking into consideration
— the service provided, its quality and other relevant factors;”
• “13 (1) (d) to monitor the set performance standards relating to quality, continuity and
reliability of service as may be specified by the Central Government or any authority
authorized by it in this behalf;”
• “14 (1) (a) Where the Authority considers it expedient so to do, it may by order in writing—
call upon any service provider at any time to furnish in writing such information or
explanation relating to its functions as the Authority may require to access the performance
of the service provider;”
• “14 (4) The Authority shall have the power to issue such directions to monitor the
performance of the service providers as it may consider necessary for proper functioning
by service providers.”
1.1.5 Thus, as per Section 51 of the AERA Act, 2008, the Central Government will make rules on
performance standards relating to the quality, continuity and reliability of the service which
shall be monitored by AERA and taken into consideration while determining the tariffs for the
aeronautical services as per Section 13 of the AERA Act, 2008.
1.1.6 In view of the above, the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) has taken a decision to establish
a uniform set of performance standards at major airports in the country. MoCA entrusted
Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (AERA) to undertake an assessment and
prepare a framework for performance standards at airports. AERA had appointed an
independent consultant, i.e., M/s KPMG in India, to support in providing inputs for formulation
of the performance standards for major airports. Accordingly, the aforesaid consultant has
assisted in analyzing documents, international benchmarks and conducted 8 airport site visits
to gather inputs for the Authority.
1.1.7 In accordance with MoCA’s letter no. AV-24026/2/2015-AD dated 29 July 2025, AERA has
released this Consultation Paper to facilitate stakeholder consultation process. After completion
of this consultation exercise by AERA on behalf of MoCA and after its due finalization, MoCA
shall notify Rules for Performance Standards at major airports under section 51(2)(f) of the
AERA Act, 2008.
1.2 EXISTING PERFORMANCE MONITORING MECHANISM
1.2.1 AERA had released Direction No. 05/2010-11 dated 28.02.2011, “Terms and conditions for
Determination of Tariff for Airport Operators”, which stipulates the Objective and Subjective
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as given in Annexure 13.6, its measurement mechanism,
measurement frequency and also defines the service quality rebate term for adjustment in tariffs
in case of default in the KPIs.
1.2.2 As per clause 4.2 of the Direction No. 05/2010-11 dated 28.02.2011, “Terms and conditions
for Determination of Tariff for Airport Operators” and subsequent amendments through Order
No. 14/2016-17 dated 12 January 2017, the service quality is an integral part of the tariff
determination process as reproduced below:
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 13 of 164BACKGROUND
Figure 1: Service quality within the framework of Regulatory Building Blocks of AERA
1.3 NEED FOR THE NEW PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
While a performance monitoring mechanism is currently in place but the same is not effective
as the monitoring is being done by airport operator or a third-party contracted by the airport
operator. There is a need for an independent third-party assessor to undertake monitoring of
performance parameters. Further, the evolving landscape of Indian aviation, especially
technological advancements, has brought to light opportunities for enhancing the existing
framework to better reflect current operational realities and passenger expectations. Over the
years, valuable operational experience and stakeholder feedback have underscored the need for
refining service quality benchmarks to ensure they remain responsive and comprehensive.
Instances such as increased passenger volumes, dynamic queuing patterns, and occasional
service disruptions, even at airports deemed compliant, highlight the need for a more nuanced
and granular approach to performance assessment. Feedback from passengers and stakeholders
has been instrumental in identifying areas where service delivery could be further aligned with
expectations.
One area of focus is the existing reliance on aggregate satisfaction scores, which, while useful,
may not always capture specific service–level challenges. Introducing more detailed and
targeted indicators can enhance the ability to identify improvement areas, support timely
interventions, and foster a more responsive service environment.
Additionally, airport infrastructure and service delivery standards have undergone significant
evolution over the past decade driven by new concessions, enhanced passenger expectations,
increased traffic volumes, technological advancements and changes in regulatory and security
protocols. These include emergence of several airports concessioned out on JVC/ leased out/
private or PPP mode with their own Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) in concession agreements, advancements in technology such as Digi-Yatra,
self-check-in, self-baggage drop and emigration e-gates, as well as evolving customer
expectations. The performance standards at the airports thus need to evolve to align with the
changed operating environment.
In light of the above, there is a need to establish a uniform set of performance standards for
Indian airports. A Consultation Paper has accordingly been formulated on the aforesaid set of
performance standards relating to quality, continuity and reliability of services at major airports
and its monitoring. These uniform performance standards aim to improve transparency,
reliability, and accountability, ensuring that service delivery keeps pace with the sector’s rapid
transformation and continues to meet the needs of airport users effectively. In addition, these
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 14 of 164BACKGROUND
will be linked to airport tariffs through a balanced framework that incorporates both rebates for
non-compliance and incentives for exceeding benchmarks–ensuring compliance while
encouraging continuous service improvement.
1.4 SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS: INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
1.4.1 Service quality obligations in airport concession agreements have typically been included as
part of the concessionaire’s contractual obligations to ensure adequate levels of performance
across passenger experience and operational parameters. A review of the existing concession
agreements highlights some variations in formulation and enforcements of these standards.
1.4.2 Notwithstanding the differences arising from the structures of concession agreements or the
lack of concession agreements, there exists a compelling case for establishing a uniform
baseline of service quality standards applicable across all airports to be monitored by AERA in
accordance with the AERA Act. The fundamental obligation to ensure consistent, reliable, and
user-oriented service must remain a regulatory constant. The absence of a harmonised
framework not only impedes effective oversight but also results in an uneven passenger
experience and regulatory asymmetry. A uniform set of service quality parameters are required
to ensure consistent quality of user services, comparability in performance, and accountability
across the sector.
1.4.3 A detailed review has been undertaken of the existing service quality requirement for Indian
airports.
Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGIA), Delhi and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj
International Airport (CSMIA), Mumbai
1.4.4 The OMDA for IGIA, Delhi and CSMIA, Mumbai with the Concessioning Authority, Airports
Authority of India (AAI) outlines specific service standards. Key points include:
• Schedule 3 of the OMDA specifies 13 Performance Area covering 22 Objective
Performance Measures (As mentioned in Annexure 13.7.1).
• Schedule 4 of the OMDA includes 23 subjective parameters under 7 categories, which are
assessed through the AETRA, now ACI-ASQ survey, with a target rating of 3.75 or higher.
(As mentioned in Annexure 13.7.2).
• The airports submit their quarterly compliance reports to the concessioning authority, AAI.
Failure to meet these standards can result in liquidated damages of up to 4% of airport
revenue payable to AAI.
Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru (KIA) and Rajiv Gandhi International
Airport, Hyderabad (RGIA)
1.4.5 Clause 9.2 of the Concession Agreements for KIA, Bengaluru and RGIA, Hyderabad airports
outline the service standards. Passenger satisfaction is evaluated based on 18 elements (as
specified in Annexure 13.8) in the IATA Global Airport Monitor service standards, now
replaced by ACI ASQ survey, with the airports required to achieve a minimum score of 3.5 on
the elements they control. Persistent failure to meet these standards can lead to the imposition
of liquidated damages by the concessioning authority, Govt. of India.
1.4.6 In addition, the clause 9.2.9 of the Concession Agreement provides for the transition to a
regulatory framework established by AERA, once such standards and oversight mechanisms
are formally in place.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 15 of 164BACKGROUND
“Clause 9.2.9: From the date the IRA has power to review, monitor and set standards and
penalties and regulate any such related activities at the Airport, BIAL shall be required, instead
of the provisions of Articles 9.2.1 to 9.2.7, to comply with all such regulations framed by IRA.”
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport (SVPIA), Ahmedabad; Chaudhary
Charan Singh International Airport (CCSIA), Lucknow; Jaipur International Airport;
Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport (LGBIA), Guwahati;
Thiruvananthapuram International Airport; and Mangaluru International Airport
1.4.7 The Concession Agreements of these airports with the Concessioning Authority, Airports
Authority of India (AAI) outline specific service quality requirements (Key Performance
Indicators), as detailed in Schedule H and Article 23. Key points include:
• The Objective Quality of Service Parameters are 27 in number, and benchmarks are
specified. Section 1.2 of Schedule H of Concession Agreement outlines the Measurement
Mechanism of Objective Performance Parameters (As specified in Annexure 13.9.1)
• The Subjective Quality of Service Parameters are 34 in number (As specified in Annexure
13.9.2), and benchmarks are included, to be assessed through the ACI-ASQ survey. The
airports must achieve and maintain a rating of at least 4.5 out of 5 or shall appear within
the top 20 percentile of all airports in its category in the world within 5 years from the COD
and maintain the same throughout the rest of the concession period.
• As per the Concession Agreement, the Airport Operator submits a monthly report to the
Concessioning Authority, AAI on compliance with the Service Quality Requirements
within 15 days of the end of each calendar month. As per Clause 23.9 of the Concession
Agreement, any shortfall in average performance during a quarter will result in damages,
determined in consultation with AERA, and adjusted against the aeronautical charges.
Greenfield Airport – Navi Mumbai International Airport (NMIA)
1.4.8 The Concession Agreements for NMIA with Concessioning Authority, CIDCO outline specific
service quality requirements (Key Performance Indicators). Key points include:
• The Objective Service Parameters are 23 in number, and benchmarks are specified in
Section 1, Annex 1 of Schedule I of the Concession Agreement of NMIA (As specified in
Annexure 13.10.1).
• The Subjective Service Parameters are 14 in number, and benchmarks are included in
Section 2, Annex 1 of Schedule I of the Concession Agreement of NMIA (As specified in
Annexure 13.10.2).
• As per the Concession Agreement, the Airport Operator is required to submit a quarterly
report to the Concessioning Authority, CIDCO on compliance with the Service Quality
Requirements within 21 days of the end of each quarter. As per Clause 22.9 of the
Concession Agreement, any shortfall in average performance during a quarter will result in
damages, determined in consultation with AERA, and adjusted against the aeronautical
charges.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 16 of 164BACKGROUND
Greenfield Airports – Noida International Airport (NIA) and Manohar International
Airport (MIA), Mopa (Goa)
1.4.9 The Concession Agreements for these Greenfield airports outline specific service quality
requirements (Key Performance Indicators), as detailed in their respective Concession
Agreements. Key points include:
• The Objective Service Parameters are 20 in number, and benchmarks are specified in
Section 1, Annex 1 of Schedule L of the Concession Agreement of NIA and Mopa Goa
Airport (As specified in Annexure 13.11.1).
• The Subjective Service Parameters are 14 in number, and benchmarks are included in
Section 2, Annex 1 of Schedule L of the Concession Agreement of NIA and Mopa Goa
Airport (As specified in Annexure 13.11.2).
• As per the Concession Agreement, the Airport Operator submits a quarterly (NIA) /
monthly (MIA) report to their respective Concessioning Authority on compliance with the
Service Quality Requirements. As per Clause 26.9 of their respective Concession
Agreement, any shortfall in performance during a quarter will result in damages, as
determined by AERA, and adjusted against the aeronautical charges.
Airports Authority of India
1.4.10 Airports operated by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) are currently guided by the service
quality requirements outlined in the existing AERA guidelines, as well as the provisions of the
National Civil Aviation Policy, 2016 (NCAP). As per the NCAP, AAI airports handling more
than 1.5 million passengers per annum (mppa) are expected to achieve an Airport Service
Quality (ASQ) rating of 4.5 or higher, while those with lower traffic volumes are expected to
maintain a rating of at least 4.0. AAI, currently, undertakes the quarterly ACI ASQ survey for
its airports and submits to AERA the results.
1.5 APPLICATION OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ACROSS AIRPORTS
1.5.1 It is noted that the provisions of the performance measures, targets and measurement
mechanism differs among the various Concession Agreements and OMDA. A uniform set of
service quality parameters are required to ensure consistent quality of user services.
1.5.2 The performance standards and its monitoring mechanism outlined as part of this document
shall be applicable to all major airports regardless of any differing provisions contained in the
CA/ OMDA with respect to the performance standards and its monitoring mechanism. It is
clarified that the aforesaid will not in any manner release any concessionaire from its
obligations under their respective agreements.
1.6 SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS: GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
A comparative assessment of airport regulatory frameworks across worldwide indicate that
service quality oversight has increasingly become an integral component of economic
regulation. While approaches vary in structure and metrics, a number of common principles
emerge such as use of performance-based rebates and incentives, independent monitoring, and
evolution of standards with time.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 17 of 164BACKGROUND
Civil Aviation Authority, UK
1.6.1 In the UK, from the first review carried out for charges effective 1991, the CAA has
progressively intensified the attention it gives to service quality. It encouraged the development
of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) between airports and airlines. In 2003 it went further and
introduced penalties, payable to airlines.
In its revision of charges in 2024 for London Heathrow airport, CAA has imposed service
standards in up to 20 Financial parameters (As specified in Annexure 13.12.1) and 15
Reputational parameters (As specified in Annexure 13.12.2), depending on the terminal. Failure
to achieve these standards can lead to rebates. Overall, up to 7% of revenue could become
payable on account of failure to achieve standards. In addition, high performance in certain
standards could result in a bonus to the airport operator of up to 1.44% of revenue.
Malaysia
1.6.2 The Malaysian Aviation Commission (MAVCOM) announced the Airports QoS Framework in
October 2016 to guide airports in operating efficiently while providing convenience for
passengers, airlines, ground handling operators, and other airport users, with the following
objectives:
• Enhance passenger comfort at the airport.
• Ensure consumer service levels are prioritized.
• Facilitate improved airport user experience for passengers and other users such as airlines
and ground handlers.
This Framework sets standards and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Kaula Lumpur
International Airport Terminal 1 and Terminal 2. There are a total of 28 service quality elements
under four categories (As specified in Annexure 13.13):
1. Passenger comfort and facilities
2. Queuing times
3. Passenger and baggage flows
4. Operator and staff facilities
In case of non-achievement of the performance standards, the rebate is capped at 5% of the total
turnover of the airport operator. The rebate is payable on quarterly basis to the Malaysian
Aviation Commission (MAVCOM).
Australia
1.6.3 The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) monitors and evaluates the
quality of certain prescribed airport services and facilities at Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, and
Sydney airports.
1.6.4 The Airports Regulations require monitored airports to provide the ACCC with specific
records. Part 8 of the Quality of Service Monitoring lists 16 aspects of airport services and
facilities that the ACCC monitors, such as security inspection. Schedule 2 lists 53
corresponding matters about which airport operators must keep records, like the number of
security clearance systems in use. The focus on performance monitoring is on the airports’
supply of aeronautical, car parking and landside transport access services.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 18 of 164BACKGROUND
1.6.5 The ACCC evaluates each aspect against criteria set out in the Guideline for Quality of Service
Monitoring at Airports using objective and subjective data. This data produces a single quality
rating for each airport evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 as shown in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Ratings of satisfaction for airports services and facilities
Ratings 1-1.49 1.5-2.49 2.5-3.49 3.5-4.49 4.5-5
Description Very poor Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent
Source: ACCC 2014 guidelines, p6
1.6.6 The above ratings do not result in penalty or incentive to the airport operator but helps ACCC
identify if airports are exploiting limited competition, guiding the Australian Government on
potential regulatory needs to protect consumers and ensure efficiency. The monitoring is
limited in its ability to address behaviour that is detrimental to consumers. This transparency
aids airlines in negotiating prices and service standards with airports.
Portugal
1.6.7 The Airport Service Quality Regime outlined in ANA’s Concession Contract establishes two
main categories of performance indicators to ensure high standards in airport operations:
Availability of airport infrastructure and Passenger satisfaction levels.
1.6.8 Infrastructure Availability Indicators: This category includes 8 key indicators that measure
the technical availability/ uptime of critical airport infrastructure and equipment. Most
indicators are tracked automatically through ANA’s systems, ensuring continuous monitoring.
In some cases, such as queue wait times, manual monitoring is used based on predefined
sampling during operational hours.
1.6.9 Passenger Satisfaction Indicators: Passenger satisfaction is assessed through the Airport
Service Quality (ASQ) Survey conducted quarterly by Airports Council International (ACI).
The survey evaluates 34 parameters across various airport services and facilities, using a 1
(poor) to 5 (excellent) rating scale. These indicators are divided into two groups:
(a) Indicators with Penalties: If any of these indicators score below 2.5 in a quarter, a penalty
is applied to that quarter’s regulated revenue.
(b) Indicators Requiring Corrective Action: If these indicators fall below a score of 3 out of
5 for two consecutive quarters, ANA must submit a corrective action plan to INAC within
three months of the survey results.
Singapore
1.6.10 Changi Airport, Singapore is awarded the World’s Best Airport as per the Skytrax Rankings in
2025 and for the past several years. The Skytrax rating is derived from comprehensive customer
feedback, collected through surveys covering 44 distinct areas of passenger experience (As
Specified in Annexure 13.14)
1.6.11 Changi Airport has been at the forefront of the passenger experience through various
operational excellence initiatives. Some of these include the FAST Check-in, Baggage
Tracking system, etc.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 19 of 164BACKGROUND
1.7 SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENT: OTHER INDIAN REGULATORY
BODIES
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
1.7.1 TRAI released the revised Regulations namely “The Standards of Quality of Service of Access
(Wirelines and Wireless) and Broadband (Wireline and Wireless) Service Regulations, 2024
(06 of 2024)’ in August 2024 by merging the service quality standards for cellular telephone
service, broadband service and wireless data services. These regulations are applicable for
Access (Fixed and Mobile) and Broadband services. The salient features of the revised service
quality framework for telecom sector are given below.
1.7.2 Selection of QoS Parameters based on customer experience: QoS parameters have been
streamlined and prioritized based on their impact on consumer experience and alignment with
current global benchmarks, ensuring relevance and effectiveness in performance evaluation.
1.7.3 Monthly QoS Monitoring: TRAI has shifted from quarterly to monthly monitoring of Quality
of Service (QoS) performance for mobile services. This change is aimed at ensuring prompt
identification and resolution of network-related issues. A six-month transition period has been
provided to service providers for seamless adaptation.
1.7.4 Mandatory Disclosure of QoS Metrics on website: To foster transparency and empower
consumers, service providers are required to publish QoS performance data on their official
websites. This initiative ensures that consumers have access to reliable information regarding
service quality.
1.7.5 Granular Performance Monitoring at Cell Level: TRAI has mandated cell-level data
collection for critical parameters such as network availability, call drop rate, and voice packet
drop rates (uplink and downlink). This approach is to enable more precise and localized
performance assessment.
1.7.6 Mandated System Upgradation for Real-Time Automated Monitoring: Service providers
are directed to upgrade their systems to support online, real-time monitoring and automated
reporting of QoS metrics. The requirement is to enhance regulatory compliance and ensure
reliability.
1.7.7 Mandated Six Sigma Quality Management Practices: Recognizing that QoS is a continuous
improvement process, TRAI has instructed service providers to implement Six Sigma quality
management frameworks. This is intended to drive systematic and sustained improvements in
service delivery.
1.7.8 Graded Penalties for Repeated Violations: To ensure accountability and timely corrective
action, the TRAI has a graded penalty mechanism. Financial disincentives are imposed for non-
compliance with QoS standards, with increasing penalties for repeated violations.
Performance Assessment Practices for DISCOMs
1.7.9 Based on The Electricity (Rights of Consumer Rules), 2020, the Ministry of Power (MoP) has
launched Consumer Service Rating of DISCOMs (CSRD) in 2021 which releases an Annual
Report to develop a comprehensive strategy to enhance consumer satisfaction and promote
cross-disciplinary learning. The details of the CSRD are given below.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 20 of 164BACKGROUND
1.7.10 Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Framework: DISCOMs are evaluated through a
structured grading methodology that encompasses four key operational parameters, collectively
accounting for 100 marks. These parameters are:
• Operational Reliability – 45 marks
• Connections and Other Services – 10 marks
• Metering, Billing, and Collection – 35 marks
• Fault Rectification and Grievance Redressal – 10 marks
1.7.11 Granular Assessment Through Sub-Parameters: A total of 23 sub-parameters have been
defined under the four main categories. Each sub-parameter is assessed individually to ensure
a detailed and multidimensional evaluation of DISCOMs’ operational performance.
1.7.12 Circle-Wise Data Collection for Enhanced Granularity: To ensure data accuracy and
regional relevance, DISCOMs are required to submit circle-wise data for most parameters. This
approach enables a high-resolution view of performance across different geographic and
administrative zones.
1.7.13 Holistic Grading System to Encourage Performance Excellence: Based on the cumulative
scores derived from the evaluation of submitted data, DISCOMs are assigned one of the
following seven performance grades:
A+, A, B+, B, C+, C, and D.
This tiered grading structure is designed to foster healthy competition among DISCOMs and
incentivize continuous improvement in service delivery.
1.7.14 Focus on Operational Transparency and Accountability: The grading methodology
promotes transparency in operations and holds DISCOMs accountable for their performance
across critical service dimensions, thereby aligning with broader goals of consumer satisfaction
and infrastructure reliability.
1.8 INSIGHTS FROM AIRPORT VISITS
1.8.1 As part of the study, the Consultant had undertaken visit to 8 Indian Airports namely, IGIA,
Delhi; KIA, Bengaluru; RGIA, Hyderabad; SVPIA, Ahmedabad; NSCBIA, Kolkata;
Trivandrum International Airport; Jay Prakash Narayan International Airport, Patna; Jaipur
International Airport.
Activities Performed During Airport Visits
1.8.2 Understanding of passenger journey and various touchpoints: A detailed walkthroughs of
airport including terminal areas was undertaken to understand the various passenger
touchpoints at the airport and to gain understanding of the real-time passenger processing at
key touchpoints including check-in, immigration, and security. Special attention was given to
the deployment and operational effectiveness of advanced technologies such as Digi Yatra-
enabled processes, Automated E-gates for Immigration, Automated Tray Retrieval Systems
(ATRS), etc.
1.8.3 Infrastructure and Facility Inspection: A review of terminal infrastructure was carried out
covering the performance related aspects of cleanliness, passenger amenities including trolleys,
buggy services, wheelchairs, signage, and seating.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 21 of 164BACKGROUND
1.8.4 Passenger Feedback Survey: Structured surveys were administered to passengers at both
arrival and departure areas to gather insights into their experiences, expectations, and concerns.
1.8.5 Stakeholder Meetings: Meetings were held with key airport stakeholders including the Airport
Manager, Airlines, AOCC personnel, CISF, IT, Safety, and Terminal Operations teams. These
interactions facilitated a deeper understanding of operational challenges and ongoing
initiatives.
1.8.6 AOCC Visit: The Airport Operations Control Center (AOCC) was visited to review integrated
airport management processes and understand the possible data sources for the performance
monitoring. Further emphasis was placed on leveraging technology for real-time data collection
to enhance operational efficiency, such as through the implementation of the Airport Predictive
Operations Centre, which supports proactive performance monitoring and optimization.
1.9 SUMMARY
1.9.1 The preceding analysis underscores the critical need for a uniform, harmonized, forward-
looking framework of service quality standards that reflects the evolving dynamics of airport
operations in India and aligns with global best practices.
1.9.2 Drawing from operational insights during site visits and comparative benchmarks, a
comprehensive and uniform set of performance parameters has been developed. These
standards are designed to ensure consistency, transparency, and accountability across all major
airports, while also incentivizing continuous improvement.
1.9.3 The following sections outline these performance parameters, both objective and subjective,
along with their measurement mechanisms, targets, rebate and incentive mechanism, reporting
and monitoring framework.
1.10 PROPOSAL REGARDING PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Based on the material before it and its analysis, following is proposed:
1.10.1 The performance standards and its monitoring mechanism outlined as part of this document
shall be applicable to all major airports regardless of any differing provisions contained in the
CA/ OMDA with respect to the performance standards and its monitoring mechanism.
However, it is clarified that the aforesaid will not in any manner release any concessionaire
from its obligations under their respective agreements.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 22 of 164OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
2 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
2.1 FRAMEWORK FOR FORMULATION OF REVISED PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
2.1.1 ICAO framework of performance standards formulation process has been adopted as illustrated
in Figure 2 to formulate the performance standards relating to quality, continuity and reliability
of service and associated activities.
Figure 2: Performance standard formulation process flow diagram
2.1.2 Details of the steps are given below:
(a) Key Service Parameters: In identifying the service parameters, a structured review of
airport processes was undertaken to identify passenger touchpoints which significantly
impact service quality. Data collected from site visits to 8 Indian airports across the country
was analysed while framing the service parameters. Service parameters included as part of
various concession agreements, past guidelines and the approaches followed by other
regulatory authorities and airports worldwide were reviewed.
(b) Parameters’ Measures: For each service parameter, various measures were assessed
taking into account the nature of service parameter (Objective and Subjective). For
objective parameters, the potential measurement mechanism was assessed while selecting
parameter’s measures.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 23 of 164OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
(c) Parameters’ Targets: Specific targets have been assigned to each identified service
parameter to enable monitoring and enforcement. These targets have been established with
reference to a combination of factors such as operational context, existing obligations,
global benchmarks etc.
(d) Measurement Mechanism and Set Frequency: To support effective oversight, a
measurement mechanism has been proposed for each parameter, detailing the source,
method and frequency of data collection. Wherever feasible, parameters have been linked
to automated systems and verifiable records to minimise subjectivity and enhance
reliability.
While the long-term objective is for a fully automated, technology driven monitoring
system for service quality, it was noted that the current technological systems may yet not
offer complete reliability across all parameters and airport environments. Accordingly, a
hybrid approach has been adopted in the interim, combining technology-based data capture
with manual verification and oversight. This approach enables timely and accurate
measurement. The hybrid mechanism has been structured to progressively move towards
automation as systems mature.
(e) Performance Results: AERA will appoint a third party to support monitoring of service
quality at airports. The third party shall undertake measurement of performance against the
defined parameters and submit its analysis to the AERA including computation of rebates
and incentives.
(f) Performance Report: AERA shall issue periodic orders on service quality performance,
applicable rebates and incentives with revision in tariffs for individual airports.
This performance assessment shall be regularly monitored and governed to track performance,
ensure the process is achieving its objectives and targets, and update as necessary.
2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE UNIFORM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The service quality standards have been formulated with the objective of establishing a uniform,
comprehensive, future-ready, reliable and technologically enabled framework for the
monitoring and enhancement of airport service delivery resulting in noticeable improvements
in service quality for passengers. The standards aim to:
(i) Provide a clear and enforceable set of benchmarks uniformly applicable across all major
passenger touch points;
(ii) Ensure reliability in performance measurement through a combination of technology
systems and human assessment;
(iii) Embed flexibility to accommodate evolving technologies, operating models, and user
expectations;
(iv) Incorporate both objective data and passenger perception to provide a holistic view of
service quality; and
(v) Support continuous improvement through a balanced system of incentives and corrective
measures.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 24 of 164OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
2.2.1 Comprehensive
The new performance standards aim to encompass all aspects of passenger touchpoints at airports for all types of passengers - arriving, departing, and
connecting. The scope covers the entire passenger journey from arrival at the airport to departure, including but not limited to the key checkpoints such
as:
• Kerbside: The initial point of contact where passengers arrive at the airport.
• Vehicle Parking: The area where both arriving and departing passengers park their vehicles.
• Terminal Entry: The entrance to the terminal where passengers begin their airport experience.
• Check-in: The process of passengers checking in their flights and dropping off their baggage.
• Immigration/ Emigration: The checkpoint for international passengers to clear immigration/ emigration formalities.
• Security Check: The area where passengers undergo security screening.
• Security Hold Area (SHA): The waiting area after security check where passengers remain before boarding.
• Transfer Area: The zone for passengers transferring between flights.
• Departure Gates: The gates where passengers board their flights.
• Baggage Reclaim: The area where arriving passengers collect their checked baggage.
Additionally, the guidelines define parameters to collect information that will later be used to evaluate passenger needs and improve operational
efficiency at the airport
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 25 of 164OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The following journey map outlines key touchpoints that encompass the passenger journey, and which translate into specific performance standards.
Figure 3: Passenger Journey and touchpoints for performance assessment
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 26 of 164OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
2.2.2 Future Ready
The new performance standards have been designed to be future-ready incorporating
advancements in technology such as Digi-Yatra, immigration e-gates and self – baggage drops.
These technologies were not available when the earlier performance standard guidelines were
framed.
Furthermore, the framework includes specific future-ready service quality parameters for the
purposes of information gathering and collecting performance data. These parameters will be
utilized in the future for defining additional performance standards, ensuring a forward-looking
approach to service quality.
• Digi-Yatra and other digital initiatives: Digi Yatra is India’s flagship digital air travel
initiative. It enables seamless, paperless travel using facial recognition technology linked
to a Digi Yatra ID. As outlined in the official Digi Yatra Guidelines the system supports:
▪ Entry through e-gates at various touchpoints – terminal entry gate, security check
(terminal) and boarding gates
▪ Biometric-based clearance and processes
▪ Real-time validation of boarding passes
The initiative is already operational at several airports and is being expanded at all airports
in India.
Figure 4: Digi-Yatra gate
• Immigration E-gates: India has introduced Fast Track Immigration under the Trusted
Travellers’ Programme (FTI-TTP), which includes biometric-enabled e-gates at select
international terminals. As on May 2025, FTI-TTP is available at 8 airports, that is, IGIA,
Delhi, CSIA, Mumbai, KIA, Bengaluru, RGIA, Hyderabad, Cochin International Airport,
SVPIA, Ahmedabad, Chennai International Airport, NSCBIA, Kolkata. While still in
phased implementation, this system is expected to significantly reduce congestion and
manual checks at immigration counters.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 27 of 164OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Figure 5: Immigration e-gates
• Self-Bag Drop (SBD) System: A self-service technology used at airports that allows
passengers to check in their luggage. These automated systems streamline the check-in
process by enabling travelers to tag and deposit their luggage at designated kiosks, reducing
wait times and enhancing airport efficiency. Several airports in India have implemented
self-service/ assisted SBD to complement the traditional check-in counters, thereby
improving the efficiency of the terminal.
Figure 6: Self-Bag Drop (SBD) System
By integrating these technologies, the guidelines aim to streamline processes, enhance
passenger experience, and improve operational efficiency.
2.2.3 Reliable
The service quality standards have been framed to address past concerns regarding the
reliability and verifiability of performance assessments. Earlier frameworks often relied heavily
on manual reporting and airport-declared data, which rendered outcomes susceptible to human
error, inconsistency, and limited regulatory confidence. In contrast, the current standards
employ a hybrid approach which uses technology systems wherever feasible, significantly
reducing the scope for subjective interpretation or manual inaccuracies. Parameters have been
selected and defined in a manner that ensures the underlying data is verifiable and reliable. This
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 28 of 164OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
shift towards evidence-based, technology-enabled monitoring enhances the reliability of
assessments and strengthens the overall integrity of regulatory oversight.
2.2.4 Technology enabled
Technology has played a key role in enhancing service quality and performance assessment at
airports. Queue management systems, sensor-based monitoring, and digital reporting tools offer
significant potential to enable real-time visibility of service delivery at scale. However, it is
equally recognised that current deployments vary widely across airports and, in many cases,
suffer from inconsistencies in data accuracy and verifiability especially when deployed across
varied and dynamic airport environments. These limitations necessitate a cautious and
calibrated approach to the reliance placed on technology for regulatory purposes at this stage.
Accordingly, the immediate performance assessment approach adopts a hybrid model,
leveraging existing technological capabilities while supplementing them with manual
assessments to ensure robustness and verifiability. This approach ensures early adoption
without compromising the reliability of performance evaluation. Over the longer term, the
framework envisions a transition towards fully automated data capture and real-time
performance monitoring. As part of this evolution, AERA will also develop its own systems to
interface directly with airport infrastructure, enabling independent data acquisition and
enhancing the transparency, consistency, and timeliness of regulatory oversight.
2.3 PROPOSAL REGARDING OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Based on the material before it and its analysis, following is proposed regarding objectives of
the proposed performance standards:
2.3.1 A uniform, comprehensive, future-ready, reliable and technologically enabled performance
standards framework that enhances passenger experience across all airport touchpoints through
a technologically advanced and inclusive approach.
2.3.2 The integration of emerging technologies like Self-Bag Drop, Immigration E-gates, and Digi-
Yatra to create a seamless, efficient, and future-ready airport experience.
2.3.3 A robust and standardized data monitoring framework to ensure reliable, accurate, and
consistent performance measurement for enhanced transparency and operational excellence.
2.3.4 A phased technology adoption strategy to enhance service quality monitoring - starting with
immediate integration of available tools and progressing toward long-term deployment of
advanced innovations.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 29 of 164CATEGORIZATION OF THE SERVICE PARAMETERS
3 CATEGORIZATION OF THE SERVICE PARAMETERS
3.1 OVERVIEW OF SERVICE PARAMETERS
3.1.1 The service quality standards have been categorised into Objective and Subjective parameters to enable a comprehensive assessment framework.
Objective parameters are linked to quantifiable data and measurable indicators such as queue times, baggage delivery time, and availability of core
airport facilities. Subjective parameters will capture user perception and experience through structured passenger surveys. This dual structure recognises
that both operational efficiency and the perceived quality of service play an important role in determining overall passenger satisfaction.
Figure 7: Categorization of the Service Parameters
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 30 of 164CATEGORIZATION OF THE SERVICE PARAMETERS
The proposed parameters in the service quality standards are categorized into two types:
(a) Objective Parameters: These parameters are characterized by their basis in measurable,
observable, and verifiable data. These parameters are quantitative and provide a factual
basis for analysis and decision-making. Key features include:
• Quantitative Nature: They involve numerical data that can be measured and
compared, ensuring consistency and reliability in assessments.
• Standardization: These parameters are collected using standardized methods and
tools, reducing the potential for personal bias and ensuring uniformity.
• Verifiability: The data can be independently verified and validated, providing a solid
foundation for evidence-based decision-making.
• Reproducibility: Objective parameters can be consistently reproduced under similar
conditions, making them reliable for longitudinal studies and comparisons.
(b) Subjective Parameters: These parameters are characterized by their reliance on personal
opinions, interpretations, and perceptions. These parameters are inherently qualitative and
can vary significantly between different individuals or groups. Key features include:
• Qualitative Nature: They capture the nuanced and complex aspects of human
experiences and perceptions, which are not easily quantifiable.
• Personal and Contextual: These are influenced by individual backgrounds, contexts,
and personal experiences, making them unique to each respondent.
• Flexibility: They allow for a wide range of responses, providing rich, detailed insights
that can highlight diverse perspectives and experiences.
• Interpretative: The data collected through subjective parameters often require
interpretation and analysis to understand underlying themes and sentiments.
3.2 RATIONALIZATION AND RESTRUCTURING OF SERVICE PARAMETERS
IN THE REVISED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Formulation of Parameters
3.2.1 Following extensive deliberations and multiple rounds of consultation with key government
stakeholders and based on the feedback received, the Authority has finalized a structured
framework comprising 32 objective parameters. Among these, 17 parameters are dedicated to
information gathering, while the remaining 15 pertain to core airport operational processes. In
addition, 18 subjective parameters have been identified to enable qualitative assessment. This
comprehensive set of parameters reflects a balanced and methodical approach to performance
evaluation, integrating both data-driven insights and experiential feedback.
3.2.2 Expansion and Diversification of Objective Performance Parameters: The number of
objective parameters has been increased from 16 to 32 to better reflect the evolving operational
landscape of airports. Many service aspects that were previously assessed subjectively are
shifted to objective and can be measured more accurately through data-driven methods. This
shift enhances transparency, accountability, and consistency in performance evaluation.
3.2.3 Classification of Objective Parameters into Core and Informational: Out of the 32
objective parameters, 15 have been identified as core parameters that directly impact airport
operations and service delivery. The remaining 17 parameters are included primarily for
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 31 of 164CATEGORIZATION OF THE SERVICE PARAMETERS
information gathering, with the intent to support future improvements and strategic planning.
This classification ensures that immediate operational priorities are addressed while also
preparing for long-term enhancements.
3.2.4 Rationalization and Clubbing of Parameters: Some objective parameters, such as passenger
arrival, baggage delivery for domestic and international flights, have been clubbed to avoid
redundancy and streamline monitoring. This approach ensures clarity in reporting while
maintaining comprehensive coverage of key performance areas.
3.2.5 Streamlining Subjective Feedback for Enhanced Response Quality: The number of
subjective parameters has been reduced from 34 to 18 to improve the quality and reliability of
passenger feedback. Excessive questioning can lead to survey fatigue, resulting in random or
inconsistent responses. By focusing on fewer, more meaningful subjective parameters, the
revised standards aim to capture more accurate and actionable insights.
3.2.6 Reclassification of Subjective to Objective Parameters: Several parameters previously
categorized as subjective – such as waiting times, baggage delivery speed, and availability of
trolleys – have been moved to the objective section, as they are measurable through operational
data. This reclassification enhances the precision of performance tracking and reduces reliance
on perception-based assessments.
3.3 OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS (QUANTIFIABLE)
The below sections outline the specific objective parameters to evaluate the quality of service
provided at major airports. These parameters are quantifiable and measurable.
These parameters are to be assessed and reported against the targets specified in the proposed
measures and metrics detailed in Annexure 13.1. The performance of these parameters should
be calculated using the relevant formulas outlined in the proposed measurement mechanism
and against the specified frequency as described in Chapter 5. Additionally, the rebates and
incentives for the applicable parameters among these parameters are to be calculated through
the formulas specified in Chapter 8.
3.4 CATEGORIZATION OF OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS
For the purposes of this section, the objective parameters are grouped into the following
categories:
(1) Airport Core Processes (Wait time)
(2) Airport Facilities (including for PRM passengers)
(3) Customer Service / Grievance Redressal System
(4) Other Parameters (for Information gathering only)
3.4.1 Airport Core processes: The parameters outlined in this category are designed to calculate the
wait time or queue time for various processes at the airport.
Departure processes
(1) Security Check (Terminal Entry Gate)
i. Conventional / Traditional
ii. Digi-Yatra
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 32 of 164CATEGORIZATION OF THE SERVICE PARAMETERS
(2) Check-In
i. Economy class
ii. Business class
iii. Self-Bag Drop (SBDs)
(3) Immigration / Emigration
(4) Security Check (Terminal) – Departure Pre-embarkation
Arrival processes
(5) Baggage Delivery (Domestic and International)
i. First Bag
ii. Last Bag (Code C and Code E)
(6) Passenger Arrival (Domestic and International)
3.4.2 Airport Facilities: The parameters outlined in this section determine the availability and
uptime percentage of various airport facilities, including those specifically designed for Persons
with Reduced Mobility (PRM) passengers.
(1) Uptime of Flight Information Display System (FIDS)
(2) Uptime of Lifts, Escalators and Travellators
(3) Uptime of Automated Services (As per list in Schedule 5.3.3(a))
(4) Availability of Passenger Boarding Bridges (Domestic / International)
(5) Availability of Baggage Trolleys
(6) Seating Availability (at Boarding Gates)
(7) Facilities for PRM Passenger (As per Checklist in Schedule 5.3.7(a))
(8) Availability of Wheelchairs (Pre-booked)
3.4.3 Customer Service / Grievance Redressal System: The parameters outlined in this section
determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the provided Services at the airport.
(1) Help desks
i. Help Desk Counters located at Check-in, SHA and Arrival with necessary
infrastructure
ii. Availability of Personnel at all Helpdesks
iii. Percentage (%) of written complaints uploaded on Air-Sewa within specified time
3.4.4 Other parameters (for Information gathering only): This category includes parameters
intended for information gathering, which may contribute to future targets.
(1) Minimum Connect Time (MCT) – Transfer Process
i. Domestic to Domestic
ii. Domestic to International
iii. International to Domestic
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 33 of 164CATEGORIZATION OF THE SERVICE PARAMETERS
iv. International to International
(2) No. of Misconnect
i. Passenger
ii. Baggage
(3) Land Side access
(4) Passenger Boarding Bridges Utilization
(5) Availability of the Medical Facilities (As per Checklist 5.5.5(a))
(6) Availability of Digital Information Centers
(7) Availability of Cloak Room/ Extended Baggage Storage
(8) Lost and Found Services
i. Availability of Personnel at Lost and Found Service Counters
ii. Percentage (%) of Complaints Resolved
(9) Availability of Baby care rooms
(10) Availability of Sensory rooms
(11) Availability of Operational Charging Points
(12) Availability of Wheelchairs (Not Pre-booked)
(13) Uptime of Digi-Yatra and Immigration e-gates
(14) Cargo Services
(15) Operational Resilience
(16) Technology
(17) Sustainability
3.5 SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS (QUALITATIVE)
The importance of subjective parameters is also emphasized to assess the quality of services at
airports. These parameters capture the qualitative aspects of passenger experience, which are
often based on personal perceptions and experiences. These parameters are essential for
understanding the holistic experience of passengers, ensuring that the services provided not
only meet technical standards but also align with passenger expectations and comfort.
The performance of these parameters should be measured against the survey questionnaires and
target ratings specified in Section 6.2 and Section 6.3. Additionally, the rebates and incentives
for the applicable parameters among these parameters are to be calculated through the formulas
specified in Chapter 8.
3.6 CATEGORIZATION OF THE SUBJECTIVE PARAMETER:
For the purposes of this section, the subjective parameters are grouped into the following
categories:
3.6.1 Passenger Convenience
(1) Cleanliness of the overall Airport
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 34 of 164CATEGORIZATION OF THE SERVICE PARAMETERS
(2) Availability of Basic Facilities at the Airport (including Wi-fi)
(3) Courtesy and Helpfulness of the Airport Staff
(4) Ease of Wayfinding within the Airport
(5) Transportation between the Terminals
(6) Ambience of the Airport
(7) Transportation to / from the Airport
(8) Flight Information Display System (FIDS) Location throughout the Airport
(9) Walking Distance within the Terminal
(10) Availability of free Buggy Services at the Airport
(11) Availability of free Potable Water
(12) Value for Money
(13) Services of Udan Yatri Cafe
(14) Bank / ATM facilities or Money Changers
(15) Vehicle Parking at the Airport
(16) Overall Satisfaction with the Airport
3.6.2 For PRM Passengers
(1) Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRM): Airport Infrastructure
(2) Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRM): Overall Satisfaction with the Airport
3.7 PROPOSAL REGARDING CATEGORIZATION OF THE SERVICE
PARAMETERS
Based on the material before it and its analysis, the following is proposed regarding
categorization of the service parameters:
3.7.1 Categorization Summary: The service parameters are categorized into:
(1) Objective Parameters (Quantifiable): 32 parameters in total; and
(2) Subjective Parameters (Qualitative): 18 parameters in total.
3.7.2 The Objective Parameters include a total of 32 parameters covering:
• Airport Core Processes (Wait time): 6 parameters
• Airport Facilities (including for PRM passengers): 8 parameters
• Customer Service / Grievance Redressal System: 1 parameter
• Other parameters (for Information gathering only): 17 parameters
3.7.3 The Subjective Parameters include a total of 18 parameters covering
• Passenger Convenience: 16 parameters
• For PRM Passengers: 2 parameters
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 35 of 164AIRPORT CATEGORIES FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
4 AIRPORT CATEGORIES FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
4.1 PROPOSED AIRPORT CATEGORIES FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
4.1.1 To ensure a more tailored and effective application of the proposed service quality standards,
airports are categorized into two categories based on their annual passenger traffic:
1) Category A airports are those that handled 6 million or more passengers per annum (≥ 6
MPPA) during the financial year immediately preceding the performance assessment
period. This passenger count includes arriving, departing, and connecting passengers.
2) Category B airports are those that handled less than 6 million passengers per annum (< 6
MPPA) during the financial year immediately preceding the performance assessment
period. This passenger count includes arriving, departing, and connecting passengers.
4.1.2 This classification recognizes that the applicability and relevance of service parameters vary
significantly with airport scale and complexity. Smaller airports typically operate with limited
infrastructure and simpler layouts, necessitating a differentiated approach to regulation and
performance expectations.
4.2 STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR SEGMENTED AIRPORT
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
To ensure the effective and context-sensitive application of operational and infrastructural
standards, airports have been categorized into two distinct groups based on their scale of
operations and passenger traffic volumes.
4.2.1 Ease of Regulation and Performance Measurement: Airports with lower passenger volumes
typically operate with simpler layouts, lesser facilities, and few operational complexities.
Imposing the same level of regulatory rigor and performance measurement as required for high-
traffic airports may lead to inefficiencies and administrative burdens. By allowing for
differentiated targets, the framework ensures that compliance remains achievable and
meaningful.
4.2.2 Cost Optimization for Smaller Airports: For smaller airports, although passenger traffic is
relatively low, the capital expenditure (capex) and associated operational costs required can
lead to disproportionately high tariffs for passengers. It is recognized that the objective of
performance standards is to drive service quality while keeping airport costs reasonable. To
support this balance, certain targets are relaxed for smaller airports, enabling cost optimization
without compromising the intent of regulatory oversight.
4.2.3 Operational Complexity and Infrastructure Requirements: Larger airports typically
manage a broader range of operational challenges, including complex airside layouts, longer
walking distances to gates, hub-and-spoke connectivity, and significant cargo handling
volumes. These aspects necessitate more comprehensive planning and infrastructure. In
contrast, smaller airports generally have simpler airside layouts and operate point-to-point
services with limited cargo, rendering many of the related service parameters either irrelevant
or inapplicable.
4.2.4 Accordingly, parameters relating to aforementioned points are made optional or excluded for
Category B airports to reflect the differences in operations between Category A and Category
B airports. Parameters relating to technology, customer services and accessibility are uniformly
applied across both categories as provided below.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 36 of 164AIRPORT CATEGORIES FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
4.2.5 Uniformity in Technology–Driven Passenger Facilitation: Certain technology-related
parameters, such as Digi-Yatra, Self-Bag Drop (SBD) systems, and immigration e-gates,
enhance the passenger facilitation, reduce processing time, and improve overall efficiency of
the airport. These technologies offer standardized services across both large and small airports.
Therefore, uniform metrics are proposed for Technology–Driven Passenger Facilitation.
4.2.6 Consistency in Customer Services and Accessibility: Passenger-facing services, such as help
desks, PRM (Persons with Reduced Mobility) assistance, and other essential amenities are
fundamental to ensuring accessibility, inclusivity, and a positive travel experience. These
parameters are uniformly applied across all airport categories, as they represent the minimum
acceptable standard of service that every passenger, regardless of airport size or location, should
expect.
4.3 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PARAMETERS ACROSS AIRPORT
CATEGORIES
4.3.1 All parameters proposed in Chapter 3 are fully applicable to Category A airports.
4.3.2 For Category B airports, the applicability of parameters is as follows:
• Unchanged Parameters: Certain parameters remain unchanged and are applied to
Category B as in Category A.
• Modified targets: Some parameters have modified proposed targets, offering slightly less
stringent targets
• Optional Parameters: Certain parameters are designated as optional, allowing for
discretionary implementation based on specific airport conditions.
• Not applicable: Certain parameters are deemed not applicable, due to the limited
infrastructure or operational scope of these airports.
4.3.3 Detailed information on the parameters and their respective targets applicable for Category A
and Category B airports is provided in Annexure 13.1, Section 6.2 and Section 6.3 while a brief
summary is presented in the table below:
Table 2: Parameters Distribution Across Airport Categories
Category B Airports
Category
Category of Parameters
A Airports Modified
Unchanged Optional Not Applicable
targets
Objective Parameters
Airport Core processes 6 4 2
Airport Facilities (including
8 1 7
for PRM passengers)
Customer Service /
1 1
Grievance Redressal System
Other Parameters (for
17 9 4 4
Information gathering only)
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 37 of 164AIRPORT CATEGORIES FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Category B Airports
Category
Category of Parameters
A Airports Modified
Unchanged Optional Not Applicable
targets
Subjective Parameters
Passenger Convenience 16 14 2
For PRM Passengers 2 2
Total no. of Parameters 50 5 35 4 6
4.4 UNIFORMITY OF SERVICE PARAMETERS ACROSS AIRPORT
CATEGORIES
4.4.1 To ensure consistency in performance evaluation and service delivery, the service parameters
defined under the performance standards for Category A airports are uniform across all airports
within this category. Similarly, the service parameters applicable to Category B airports are
standardized and remain consistent across all airports classified under Category B. This
uniformity enables equitable benchmarking, facilitates regulatory oversight, and promotes a
consistent passenger experience across airports of similar scale and operational complexity.
4.5 PROPOSAL REGARDING AIRPORT CATEGORIES FOR PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
Based on the material before it and its analysis, the following is proposed regarding Airport
Categories for Performance Standards:
4.5.1 To ensure practical and proportionate service quality standards, the airports are classified into
Category A (≥6 million passengers annually) and Category B (<6 million). This allows for
tailored implementation, with higher standards for larger, more complex airports and flexible,
context-sensitive parameters for smaller ones.
4.5.2 A segmented framework for airport performance standards, tailoring regulatory, operational,
and infrastructural requirements based on airport size and complexity, while maintaining
uniformity in technology, customer service, and accessibility
4.5.3 Detailed information on the parameters and their respective targets applicable for Category A
and Category B airports is provided in Annexure 13.1, Section 6.2 and Section 6.3.
4.5.4 The adoption of uniform service parameters under performance standards across all airports
within each respective category to ensure consistency in evaluation and passenger experience.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 38 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
5 OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS
MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
5.1 OVERVIEW OF MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
5.1.1 This chapter gives the details of the various Objective Parameters under each category with a
brief explanation of the parameter, its measurement mechanism, computation of performance
score and measurement frequency with the data sources. AERA will be responsible for
monitoring the set performance standards. It is noted that AERA will be appointing a third-
party assessor to assist it with the monitoring mechanism.
5.1.2 While this chapter has given the measurement mechanism for each parameter, it is clarified that
the third-party assessor may apply the methodology with suitable modification to address
practical implementation issues specific to each airport. Any such modifications must be clearly
documented and communicated to AERA by the third-party assessor.
5.1.3 The third-party assessor will conduct the assessment for all objective parameters that are linked
to rebates and incentives every month.
5.1.4 For objective parameters under information gathering where rebates or incentives do not apply,
the third-party assessor will conduct the assessment once a year to begin with. During this
interim period, airport operators will be responsible for conducting monthly assessments of
these parameters and submit the results to the third-party assessor. As the system evolves and
matures, the third-party assessor will eventually take over the responsibility of conducting the
assessment every month for all objective parameters, regardless of their linkage to rebates or
incentives.
5.2 AIRPORT CORE PROCESSES (WAIT TIME)
Departure processes:
5.2.1 Security Check (Terminal Entry Gate)
(a) Parameter Explanation: The process of Security Check at Terminal Entry Gate involves
verifying passengers' ID proof and flight information at the terminal entry gate during their
departure journey.
The security check at the terminal entry gate is conducted through the following methods:
i. Traditional – Process undertaken by CISF staff (As shown in Figure 8)
ii. Technology – Process undertaken through Digi-Yatra system (As shown in Figure 9)
Figure 8: Traditional Security Check (Terminal Entry Gate)
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 39 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
Figure 9: Digi Yatra Security Check (Terminal Entry Gate)
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
The measurement shall be done for the selected queue on the basis of the following
methodology:
During the “sample hour” of the selected day, queuing time shall be measured every 10-
minutes beginning hh:mm (hh is the hour and mm are the minutes), hh:mm+10, hh:mm+20,
hh:mm+30, hh:mm+40, hh:mm+50 where mm lies between 0 and 9, resulting in six
readings per hour for the persons joining the selected queue. The queuing time will be
measured for 80% of the total queues at the start of the Sample Hour for that particular
process.
For each measurement, the queuing time will be calculated as:
𝑄 = 𝐵−𝐴
Where:
• A is the time a passenger joins the respective security queue after the measurement
period has begun;
For instance, if the measurement starts at 00:20 and the passenger joins the queue at
00:26, then "A" will be recorded as 00:26.
• B is the time that passenger shows the boarding pass/ identification document to the
security personnel or stands in front of the Digi-Yatra gate for biometric scanning;
For instance, if the passenger presents their passenger boarding pass/ identification
document to the security personnel or stands in front of the Digi-Yatra gate for
biometric scanning at 00:32, then "B" will be recorded as 00:32.
• Q is the Queuing Time;
For example, in the scenario above, Q will be 6 minutes, calculated as 00:32 (B) - 00:26
(A) for the measurement starting at 00:20.
It is clarified that the queuing time measurement excludes the processing time at the
security check, as processing time varies from passenger to passenger.
For instance, if the sample hour is 14:00 to 15:00 hours, measurement is taken at 14:00,
14:10, 14:20, 14:30, 14:40, 14:50 for measuring the queuing time as given below.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 40 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
Table 3: Illustration of Queuing Time Measurement Mechanism for a Specific Queue
Sample Hour 14:00 – 15:00 hours
Measuring time 14:00 14:10 14:20 14:30 14:40 14:50
Passenger joins the
14:02 14:10 14:26 14:35 14:40 14:58
respective queue (A)
Passenger shows the
boarding pass/
Identification 14:09 14:19 14:32 14:39 14:56 15:02
document to the
security personnel (B)
Queuing Time (Q) 7 minutes 9 minutes 6 minutes 4 minutes 16 minutes 4 minutes
The performance percentage (%) figures for the proposed parameter will be calculated as
follows:
i. Identify the number of passengers measured during the measurement mechanism
process which were processed within the target queuing time.
ii. Then, divide this number by the total number of passengers measured during the
measurement mechanism process and express the result as a percentage (%).
The performance percentage (%) figures for the proposed parameter will be calculated on
a monthly basis for each terminal as well as the airport as a whole. For the purpose of
determining any applicable rebate, the airport-wide performance percentage (%) will be
considered.
For instance, in case an airport has three terminals, then the performance percentage will
be computed as shown below on a monthly basis for each terminal and the airport as a
whole.
Table 4: Illustration of calculation of Performance Percentage for the proposed parameter
Total Airport-
Particulars Terminal 1 Terminal 2 Terminal 3
wide
No. of sampled
passengers processed
within Target A 48 97 74 219
Queuing Time during
the month
Total no. of sampled
passengers measured
B 50 100 80 230
during the process
during the month
Performance
48 97 74 219
Percentage for the C = ×100 ×100 ×100 ×100
50 100 80 230
proposed parameter A/B*100
= 96% = 97% = 92.5% = 95.2%
for the month
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 41 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
Automated queue time measurement – Future implementation with Normative
Processing Time
Pending the future implementation of the Automated Queue Time Measurement System, the
measurement of queuing time shall continue to be conducted in accordance with the existing
procedures outlined above. In the future, automated queue time measurement mechanism for
queue-related parameters will be assessed once the necessary technology is implemented by the
airport operator and achieves satisfactory accuracy. This technology may include CCTV with
image recognition capabilities among other developing technologies. The computation
methodology for Normative Processing Time is detailed in Annexure 13.5 .
(c) Measurement Frequency:
This measurement will happen during the 'sample hours' on 7 selected days of the month.
AERA may decide to prescribe these days to include significant events, festivals, and peak
travel days.
"Sample hours" will be identified for each terminal as the specific hour that falls one to
two hours prior to the busiest hour of the selected day. This determination will be made
based on the flight schedule specific to each terminal by the third-party assessor depending
upon the observed passenger reporting pattern. It is noted that there may be multiple busy
hours during the day for a given terminal, in such case the “Sample hours” shall be
identified by third party with an intimation to the airport operator. Consequently, each
queue will have a total of 42 readings per month (6 readings/hour at every 10 minutes
interval * 7 days) during the Sample Hour.
Measurement will be undertaken for all the queues and data will be collated terminal-wise
(in case of multiple terminals) as well as airport-wise.
Additionally, AERA would reserve the right to conduct random assessment of the airports
through third party assessors as deemed necessary. The data obtained from these random
assessments will also be incorporated into the performance determination.
(d) Data Source: Traditionally, queuing time and other performance parameters have been
measured through manual observation and reporting. This method can result in disputes
between stakeholders and requires safeguards to be built to avoid potential errors. Ideally,
such assessments ought to be driven by automated systems that provide objective,
continuous and verifiable data streams. However, at present, the reliability and integration
of these systems remain inadequate to support regulatory intervention.
Consequently, as a short-term approach, the analysis of CCTV footage covering relevant
operational areas and queues to assess performance is proposed. This measurement shall
be conducted by a third-party assessor through manual review of the recorded CCTV
footage of the respective area for the identified Sample Hours. In case the recorded CCTV
footage is not yet available, manual measures may be provisionally used with the
understanding that such reliance shall diminish progressively as CCTV feeds become
available.
In recognition of the considerations associated with use of CCTV footage, discussions with
DGCA, BCAS and other govt. stakeholders were undertaken to address data privacy
requirements, safety or operational considerations. Following this consultation, the
approach on the proposed use of CCTV footage has in-principle been agreed upon.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 42 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
5.2.2 Check-In
(a) Parameter Explanation: The check-in process at the airport involves passengers
presenting their identification and flight details at the check-in counter or kiosk to receive
their boarding pass and check in their luggage. The proposed parameter includes separate
timings for Economy Class, Business Class and Self-Bag drop.
Figure 10: Check-In (Self-Bag drop, Separate Business Class Counter)
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
The measurement shall be done for the selected queues on the basis of the following
methodology:
During the “sample hour” of the selected day, queuing time shall be measured every 10-
minutes beginning hh:mm, hh:mm+10, hh:mm+20, hh:mm+30, hh:mm+40, hh:mm+50
where mm lies between 0 and 9, resulting in six readings per hour for the person joining
each queue. The queuing time will be measured for 80% of the total queues at the start of
the Sample Hour for that particular process.
For each measurement, the queuing time will be calculated as:
𝑄 = 𝐵−𝐴
Where:
• Q is the Queuing Time
• A is the time a passenger joins the respective check-in or SBD queue after the
measurement period has begun
• B is the time the passenger presents to the check-in staff for check-in process or at the
SBD system
It is clarified that the queuing time measurement excludes the processing time at the check-
in counters or SBD system, as processing time varies from passenger to passenger.
The performance percentage (%) figures will be computed as given in Section 5.2.1(b).
Example: Example for the above computation can be referred in Section 5.2.1(b).
Normative Processing Time will be computed as given in Annexure 13.5.
(c) Measurement Frequency: The measurement frequency will be as given in Section
5.2.1(c)
(d) Data Source: As given in Section 5.2.1(d).
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 43 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
5.2.3 Immigration / Emigration
(a) Parameter Explanation: The immigration process at the airport involves passengers
presenting their travel documents, such as passports and visas, to immigration officers for
verification of identity and purpose of visit. The emigration process is similar, where
passengers' documents are checked to ensure they are authorized to leave the country.
The time measured spans from when a passenger joins the queue until they present
themselves at the immigration counter. This measurement does not include the processing
time at the immigration counter, as this processing time varies from passenger to passenger.
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
The measurement shall be done for selected queues on the basis of the following
methodology:
During the “sample hour” of the selected day, queuing time shall be measured every 10-
minutes beginning hh:mm, hh:mm+10, hh:mm+20, hh:mm+30, hh:mm+40, hh:mm+50
where mm lies between 0 and 9, resulting in six readings per hour for the person joining
each queue. The queuing time will be measured for 80% of the total queues at the start of
the Sample Hour for that particular process.
For each measurement, the queuing time will be calculated as:
𝑄 = 𝐵−𝐴
Where:
• Q is the Queuing Time;
• A is the time a passenger enters the defined entry point to immigration queue; the start
point of the queue shall include any uni-queue or maze system (structured queueing
arrangements designed to streamline passenger flow) prior to the entry into the
immigration area; the entry point into the security area may be defined by AERA to
include passenger holding area prior to entry into the immigration area, if required;
• B is the time the passenger presents to the immigration officer.
It is clarified that the queuing time measurement excludes the processing time at the
immigration counters.
The performance percentage (%) figures will be computed as given in Section 5.2.1(b).
Normative Processing Time will be computed as given in Annexure 13.5.
Example: As specified in Section 5.2.1(b).
(c) Measurement Frequency: The measurement frequency will be as given in Section
5.2.1(c).
(d) Data Source: As given in Section 5.2.1(d).
5.2.4 Security Check (Terminal) – Departure Pre-embarkation
(a) Parameter Explanation: The Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) security process at
Indian airport terminals involves passengers undergoing a screening where their hand
baggage is scanned through X-ray machines (XBIS/ATRS/CTX), and they pass through a
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 44 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
metal detector (DFMD), full-body scanner (where available), followed by manual frisking
with a hand-held metal detector (HHMD).
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
The measurement shall be done for selected queues on the basis of the following
methodology:
During the “sample hour” of the selected day, queuing time shall be measured every 10-
minutes beginning hh:mm, hh:mm+10, hh:mm+20, hh:mm+30, hh:mm+40, hh:mm+50
where mm lies between 0 and 9, resulting in six readings per hour for the person joining
each queue. The queuing time will be measured for 80% of the total queues at the start of
the Sample Hour for that particular process.
For each measurement, the queuing time will be calculated as:
𝑄 = 𝐵−𝐴
Where:
• Q is the Queuing Time;
• A is the time a passenger enters the defined entry point to security queue; the start point
of the queue shall include any uni-queue or maze system (structured queueing
arrangements designed to streamline passenger flow) prior to the entry into the security
check area; the entry point into the security area may be defined by AERA to include
passenger holding area prior to entry into the security check area, if required;
• B is the time the passenger presents to the security personnel for their physical
screening.
It is clarified that the measurement time does not include the processing time taken by the
CISF for manual frisking of the passenger, as this processing time varies from passenger to
passenger.
The performance percentage (%) figures will be computed as given in Section 5.2.1(b).
Normative Processing Time will be computed separately for ATRS and X-BIS separately
as given in Annexure 13.5.
Example: As specified in Section 5.2.1(b).
(c) Measurement Frequency: The measurement frequency will be as given in Section
5.2.1(c).
(d) Data Source: As given in Section 5.2.1(d).
Arrival processes
5.2.5 Baggage Delivery (Domestic and International)
(a) Parameter Explanation: This process measures the time taken for baggage to be
transported from the aircraft's arrival to the baggage belt. It is measured separately for
domestic and international flights. This parameter is crucial for assessing the efficiency of
baggage handling operations and ensuring a satisfactory passenger experience.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 45 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
(b) Measurement Mechanism and Data Source: To measure the time taken for the first and
last bags to reach the baggage belt, the following procedures will be implemented:
i. First Bag Measurement: Measure the time from the aircraft's on-block time until the
first bag appears on the baggage belt.
ii. Last Bag Measurement: Measure the time from the aircraft's on-block time until the
last bag appears on the baggage belt.
iii. On-blocks Time Data: Data for the on-blocks time will be obtained from the Airport
Operations Control Center (AOCC) for each flight.
To measure the first bag and last bag time, following methodology of data collection are
proposed for measuring performance:
i. Data Collection by airport operators: For both first and last bag timings, a barcode
reader will be made available at each baggage belt which shall be used to scan the
baggage tags of the first and last bag when they are loaded on the belt. Additionally, a
mechanism will be set up to collect the information in the AOCC for the flight when
the first and last bags are reported. The consolidated data shall be shared with the Third-
Party Assessor and shall be used to assess any significant variations from manual
assessment mentioned below.
ii. Data Collection by third-party assessor: A manual assessment of the first and last
bag timings will be conducted for all the flights during the busiest hour for each
terminal, separately for domestic and international flights.
The performance percentage (%) figures for the proposed parameter will be calculated as
follows:
i. Identify the number of flights whose bags were processed within the target time in the
sample hour;
ii. Then, divide this number by the total number of flights in the sample hour and express
the result as a percentage (%).
These performance percentage (%) figures will be calculated on a monthly basis for each
method, separately for the first bag and last bag timings, and differentiated between
domestic and international flights.
(c) Measurement Frequency:
i. Data collection by Airport Operator: Data will be collected for all flights from
AOCC.
ii. Data Collection by Third-Party assessor: The measurement will happen during the
'sample hours' on 7 selected days of the month. AERA may decide to prescribe these
days to include significant events, festivals, and peak travel days.
"Sample hours" will be identified for each terminal as the busiest hour of the selected day.
This determination will be made based on the domestic and international flight schedule
for the airport.
Additionally, AERA shall have the right to conduct random assessment of the airports as
deemed necessary. The data obtained from these random assessments will also be
incorporated into the performance determination.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 46 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
(d) Additional Conditions:
• The airport operator should install a CCTV camera for each baggage belt whose footage
should be made available to the Third-Party assessor, if required.
• The airport operator should ensure that a prominent display is installed at each baggage
belt in the terminal, showing the expected first bag and last bag times for each flight as
per these guidelines to the passengers, along with the aircraft's actual time of arrival.
• The airport operator should install feedback kiosks at every baggage carousel belt.
These kiosks should allow passengers to record the time they received their baggage
by first scanning their boarding pass to indicate whether they received their baggage
within the stipulated time. The stipulated time should be clearly specified on this
feedback kiosk.
It is noted that as per some industry practices the arrival time of the first bag is measured
from the moment the first passenger reaches the baggage belt, rather than from the aircraft’s
on-blocks time. This approach is being considered to be adopted in the future and feedback
from stakeholders on this approach is sought as well.
5.2.6 Passenger Arrival (Domestic and International)
(a) Parameter Explanation: This process measures the time taken for passengers to reach the
terminal building entry gate from the aircraft's arrival.
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
The measurement shall be done on the basis of following methodology:
The deboarding time for each flight in the ‘sample hour’ shall be calculated as:
𝐷 = 𝐵−𝐴
Where:
• D is the Deboarding Time;
• A is the aircraft arrival time (on-block time) as per AOCC;
• B is the time at which the first arriving passenger enters the terminal building (through
first bus or aerobridge).
Table 5: Illustration of Deboarding Time calculation
Sample Hour 17:00 – 18:00 hours
Aircraft Arrival Time as per AOCC (A) 17:35
Time at which the first arriving passenger
17: 46
enters the terminal building (B)
Deboarding time (D) 11 minutes
The performance percentage (%) figures for the set standard will be calculated by:
i. Identifying the number of flights in the sample hour for which passenger arrives within
the target time;
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 47 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
ii. This number will then be divided by the total number of flights in the sample hour and
expressed as a percentage (%).
These performance percentage (%) figures will be calculated on a monthly basis
separately for domestic and international flights.
Table 6: Illustration of calculation of Performance Percentage for the proposed parameter
Proposed Target Arrival Time 15 Minutes
No. of flights for which pax arrived within the Target Time 72
Total no. of Flights measured during the process 75
72
Performance Percentage ×100%= 96%
75
(c) Measurement Frequency:
The measurement will happen during the 'sample hours' on 7 selected days of the month.
AERA may decide to prescribe these days to include significant events, festivals, and peak
travel days.
"Sample hours" will be identified for each terminal as the busiest hour of the selected day.
This determination will be made based on the domestic and international flight schedule
for the airport.
Additionally, AERA reserves the right to conduct random assessment of the airports as
deemed necessary. The data obtained from these random assessments will also be
incorporated into the performance determination.
(d) Data Source: Aircraft arrival time (on-block time) will be obtained from the AOCC. The
time at which the first arriving passenger enters the terminal building (through first bus or
aerobridge) will be obtained by third-party assessor through manual review of the recorded
CCTV footage of the respective area for the identified Sample Hours.
5.3 AIRPORT FACILITIES
5.3.1 Uptime of Flight Information Display System (FIDS)
(a) Parameter Explanation:
Flight Information Display System (FIDS) provide essential flight information for
passenger convenience. This service ensures reliable access to real-time flight information,
including scheduled and estimated departure times (ETD and STD), gate assignments, and
flight status updates, helping passengers stay informed throughout their journey.
The uptime of these assets refers to the percentage (%) of time these assets are operational
and available for use by passengers.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 48 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
Figure 11: Flight Information Display System
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
The uptime for the asset, Flight Information Display Systems, shall be measured as per
following steps:
The available time for a specific asset is the actual operational hours excluding the planned
maintenance time. Planned maintenance shall be as per the OEM manual/ maintenance plan
of the airport and as communicated by airport operator in advance. After computing the
available time for each specific asset, sum total of the available time for all assets is
computed. ln symbolic terms, this is expressed as:
𝑛
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 = ∑ 𝑇
𝑗 𝑘,𝑗
𝑘=1
Where:
• Total Available Time is the sum total of the available time for all assets in month j;
j
• n is the total number of assets included in the parameter;
• k denotes a specific asset included in the parameter such that k=1,2,...,n;
• T is the available time for asset k in month j (i.e. actual operational hours excluding
k,j
the planned maintenance time);
The downtime for a specific asset is defined as the period it is unavailable for use, excluding
planned maintenance and non-operational hours. The total downtime for all assets included
in the parameter is then summed. In symbolic terms, this is expressed as:
𝑛
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 = ∑ 𝑈
𝑗 𝑘,𝑗
𝑘=1
Where:
• Total downtime is the total downtime for all the assets in month j;
j
• n is the total number of assets included in the parameter;
• k denotes a specific asset included in the parameter such that k=1,2,...,n;
• U is the downtime for asset k in month j;
k,j
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 49 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
Calculate availability for parameter i in month j as:
∑𝑛 𝑈
𝑘=1 𝑘,𝑗
𝑈𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 =100 × (1− )
𝑖,𝑗 𝑖,𝑗 ∑𝑛 𝑇
𝑘=1 𝑘,𝑗
Where:
• Uptime or Performance is the percentage (%) uptime of the parameter in month j;
i,j i,j
• n is the total number of assets included in the parameter;
• k denotes a specific asset included in the parameter such that k=1,2,...,n;
• U is the downtime for asset k in month j;
k,j
• T is the available time for asset k in month j (i.e. actual operational hours excluding
k,j
the planned maintenance time);
In the below example, wherein the parameter has three assets, the uptime/ performance
percentage for the particular month is 98.7%.
Table 7: Illustration of percentage (%) uptime/ performance of a particular asset for the
month
Particulars Asset 1 Asset 2 Asset 3 Total
Operational hours A 540 hours 540 hours 540 hours 1620 hours
Planned
B 20 hours 15 hours 5 hours 40 hours
Maintenance time
Total Available time C = A – B 520 hours 525 hours 535 hours 1580 hours
Total Downtime D 5 hours 7 hours 8 hours 20 hours
Uptime (in %age)/
20
Performance score 100% × (1− )= 𝟗𝟖.𝟕%
1580
for the month
(c) Measurement Frequency: The performance score shall be calculated for every month.
Measurements will be taken during the airport's operational hours of the airport.
“Airport Operational Hours” refer to the officially designated time period during which
an airport is open and available for aircraft operations, passenger processing, and associated
services. These hours encompass the functioning of all critical airport systems and
facilities, including airside and terminal operations, security screening, baggage handling,
and passenger facilitation services. Operational hours are determined based on scheduled
flight activity, regulatory requirements, and stakeholder coordination, and may vary across
airports depending on their scale, category, and traffic patterns.
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted by the Third-Party assessor using
SCADA System, IT logs, Maintenance logs (if SCADA not available) as provided by the
airport.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 50 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
5.3.2 Uptime of Lifts, Escalators and Travellators
(a) Parameter Explanation:
Lifts, Escalators, and Travellators ensure seamless vertical and horizontal transportation
for passengers, providing quick and efficient access to different floors and long distances
within the airport.
The uptime of these assets refers to the percentage (%) of time these assets are operational
and available for use by passengers.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The uptime/ performance percentage for the parameter shall
be measured as in section 5.3.1(b).
Example: As specified in section 5.3.1(b).
(c) Measurement Frequency: As in section 5.3.1(c).
(d) Data Source: As in section 5.3.1(d).
5.3.3 Uptime of Automated Services
(a) Parameter Explanation:
Automated Services include the inbound baggage system, outbound baggage system, X-
ray machines, and public announcement system.
The uptime of these assets refers to the percentage (%) of time these assets are operational
and available for use by passengers.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The uptime/ performance percentage for the parameter shall
be measured as in section 5.3.1(b).
(c) Measurement Frequency: As in section 5.3.1(c).
(d) Data Source: As in section 5.3.1(d).
5.3.4 Availability of Passenger Boarding Bridges (Domestic / International)
(a) Parameter Explanation: This metric evaluates the efficiency and reliability of the airport
in meeting the Passenger Boarding Bridge (aerobridge) requirements requested by
airlines. Meeting aerobridge requirements contributes to a smoother and more comfortable
experience for passengers, as they can board and deboard aircraft directly through the
aerobridge without the need for buses or other transportation methods.
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
• Determine the total number of aircraft movements for which airlines requested the use
of an aerobridge.
• Identify the number of aircraft movements for which the aerobridge requirement was
successfully met.
• The performance percentage (%) is calculated by dividing the number of aircraft
movements for which the aerobridge requirement was met by the total number of
aircraft movements for which aerobridge requests were made, and then expressing this
figure as a percentage (%).
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 51 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
• Airlines or the Airport Operations Control (AOC) can voluntarily submit to the AERA
or the Third-Party Assessor the requests for boarding bridges that were not met by the
airports. This submission is intended to verify the data provided collected from the
airport operator.
(c) Measurement Frequency: The performance score shall be calculated for every month.
Measurements will be taken during the airport's operational hours of the airport.
(d) Data Source: The data will be collected by the Third-Party Assessor from Airport
Operational Database (AODB), Stand & Gate Management System of the airport.
5.3.5 Availability of Baggage Trolleys:
(a) Parameter Explanation: Baggage trolleys must be available at designated locations
(Terminal entrances and exits, Arrival and departure halls, Baggage claim areas, Parking
zones and drop-off points, Public transport access points (e.g., metro stations, bus bays),
Check-in counters and airline service desks) within the airport for a specified percentage
of time (As specified in Annexure 13.1).
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
• The designated locations of the baggage trolleys for each airport will be determined by
the Third-Party assessor in consultation with the airport operator and guidance from
AERA. Manual checks of baggage trolleys will be conducted at designated locations.
• The number of baggage trolleys available at designated locations (Departure Entry
Gates, Baggage Reclaim Belt, Car Park) at any given point in time, even after meeting
the requirement of that particular location, should not fall below a minimum of 50
trolleys for Category A airports and minimum of 25 trolleys for Category B airports. It
is clarified that the number of baggage trolleys required to achieve satisfactory service
quality can be significantly higher. The aforementioned target is the minimum number
that should remain available at any given point in time.
(c) Measurement Frequency:
This measurement will happen during the 'sample hours' on 7 selected days of the month.
AERA may decide to prescribe these days to include significant events, festivals, and peak
travel days.
"Sample hours" will be identified for each terminal as the specific hour that falls one to
two hours prior to the busiest hour of the selected day. This determination will be made
based on the flight schedule specific to each terminal by the third-party assessor depending
upon the observed passenger reporting pattern.
Additionally, AERA reserves the right to conduct random assessment of the airports as
deemed necessary. The data obtained from these random assessments will also be
incorporated into the performance determination.
(d) Data Source:
i. Manual method through physical site visit: This measurement shall be conducted by
a third-party assessor manually during the sample hours through physical site visit. The
performance score will be based on the availability of the minimum baggage trolleys
as described above during the site visit.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 52 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
ii. Manual method using recorded CCTV footage: The airport operators are mandated
to install a CCTV camera for each of the designated areas for trolleys within 1 year of
the notification of these guidelines. Once the cameras are installed, this measurement
shall be conducted by a third-party assessor through manual review of the recorded
CCTV footage of the respective area for the identified Sample Hours. The performance
score for this parameter is defined as the percentage of sample hours during which
the minimum required number of baggage trolleys are available at each designated
location within the airport.
5.3.6 Seating Availability (at Boarding Gates):
(a) Parameter Explanation: The seats provided at the boarding gates of the terminal should
be above a specific percentage (%) of the designated peak hour passengers capacity (As
specified in Annexure 13.1) of the terminal. This ensures comfort and convenience for
passengers, especially during busy times. Adequate seating availability is crucial for
maintaining passenger satisfaction and reducing congestion in waiting areas.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The total number of seats at the boarding gates in the Security
Hold Area (SHA), will be counted manually for each terminal separately. The designated
peak hour passengers capacity of each terminal will be provided by the airport operator.
The performance percentage (%) is calculated by dividing the total number of seats at the
boarding gates of each terminal with the designated peak hour passengers capacity of the
respective terminal, and then expressing this figure as a percentage (%). The performance
percentage (%) for this parameter will be computed terminal-wise as well as airport as a
whole. However, for the purpose of determining any applicable rebate, only the airport-
wide performance percentage (%) will be considered.
(c) Measurement Frequency: The performance score shall be calculated for every month.
Measurements will be taken once every month.
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted by a third-party auditor manually
during their site visit.
5.3.7 Facilities for Person with Reduced Mobility (PRM) Passengers:
(a) Parameter Explanation: Essential facilities as per PRM Passenger facility Checklist must
be available for all Passengers with Reduced Mobility (PRM) 100% of the time. This
ensures accessibility and convenience for PRM passengers throughout their airport
experience.
PRM Checklist for adherence as per Accessibility Standards and Guidelines for Civil
Aviation, 2022:
• Manned dedicated pick-up and drop-off zone for PRM passengers along the city-side
kerb;
• Accessible airport approach, terminal entry, and interior areas via ramps / Lifts;
• Demarkation of Priority Space for PRM passengers at Terminal Entry, Security and
Baggage Delivery areas;
• Designated seating for PRM passengers at check-in area, and SHA near the boarding
gates;
• Dedicated sections for PRM passengers adjacent to Help desks;
• Accessible Washrooms for PRM passengers;
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 53 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
• PRM signage across airport;
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The third-party assessor will undertake a manual survey of the
airport to ensure the airport is in adherence to the above checklist. The performance score
will be based on the availability of the PRM infrastructure outlined above during the site
visit.
(c) Measurement Frequency: The performance score shall be calculated for every month.
Measurements will be taken once every month.
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted by a third-party assessor manually
during their site visit.
5.3.8 Availability of Wheelchairs (Pre-booked):
(a) Parameter Explanation: Pre-booked wheelchair availability refers to the assurance that
wheelchairs reserved in advance by PRM passengers are available 100% of the time within
the specified timeframe upon their arrival at the terminal. To support this, a dedicated
counter or area must be available at the terminal entry gate, providing immediate
wheelchair assistance and facilitating a smooth and timely experience for PRM passengers
throughout their journey.
It is noted that the primary responsibility for providing pre-booked wheelchairs lies with
the airlines. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is developing guidelines to
ensure airlines take suitable actions to meet this requirement. If airlines are unable to
provide the pre-booked wheelchairs within the set standard time, the airport operator will
supply the necessary wheelchairs free of charge from their stock. Airports may seek
reimbursement for the cost of providing these wheelchairs if the airline fails to do so within
the specified time.
Figure 12: Wheelchairs
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
• The airport operator will gather from the airlines flight-specific details of the number
of pre-booked wheelchair assistance requests made by passengers. This information
will enable the airport operators to effectively plan and meet the wheelchair
requirements at the airport.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 54 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
• The Airport Operator shall implement a system at the airport to monitor and track
wheelchair assistance requests made by passengers.
The general requirements for this system are as follows:
1. Passenger Request: Passengers should be able to raise the request for wheelchair
through multiple channels at the airport including:
i. Entry point to the terminal building near the drop-off spot for the PRM
passengers
ii. Help Desk: At the airport's PRM (Person with Reduced Mobility) help desk.
iii. Kiosks: Self-service kiosks, if available located at various points in the
airport.
Passengers shall receive their wheelchairs from the designated help desk or kiosks
located at the point where the request was raised.
2. Centralized Database for Request Logging: All wheelchair requests will be
logged into a centralized database managed by the airport's service team. Each
request will include details such as: Passenger name and contact information,
Flight details (airline, flight number, arrival/departure time), Request time and date
and whether the request is pre-booked at the time of flight booking or it is not pre-
booked.
3. Service Request / Ticket Issuance, Monitoring and Fulfillment: Upon receiving
a request, a service request or ticket will be generated. Passengers will receive a
notification message on their phone as confirmation. The time the service request
is raised, it will be the start time for the request. The system will track the status of
each request in real-time. PRM service staff will update the status as they fulfill the
requests (e.g., "In Progress," "Completed"). Once the wheelchair is provided to the
passenger, the service request will be closed, and that time will be noted. The time
taken from the moment a request is made to the time it is fulfilled will be recorded.
• The performance percentage (%) figures will be calculated on a monthly basis as a
percentage (%) of pre-booked wheelchair requests that are fulfilled within the set
standard time frame out of the total number of pre-booked wheelchair requests.
(c) Measurement Frequency: The performance score shall be calculated for every month.
Measurements will be taken during the airport's operational hours of the airport.
(d) Data Source: This measurement will be conducted by a third-party assessor who will
obtain and review the database of wheelchair requests as described above.
5.4 CUSTOMER SERVICE / GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL SYSTEM
5.4.1 Help Desks:
5.4.1.1 Help Desk Counters located at Check-in, SHA and Arrivals with necessary
infrastructure
(a) Parameter Explanation: An airport help desk, serves as a central point of contact for
passengers seeking assistance, guidance, and information within the airport. These desks
provide a variety of services including flight information, gate locations, airline inquiries,
handling lost and found services, and other general airport information. The primary
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 55 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
motive of airport help desks is to ensure passengers have access to the necessary
information and support to make their travel experience smooth and stress-free.
The help desk service at each terminal of the airport should be strategically positioned in
easily accessible locations. Specifically, there should be at least one help desk in each of
the following areas: Check-In area, the Arrival Hall, and the Security Hold Area (SHA).
At each of the helpdesk, following necessary infrastructure include:
• All help desks should be interconnected to facilitate efficient communication and
coordination.
• The customer helpline number of that airport should be clearly displayed at each help
desk for general inquiries and assistance. Additionally, the airport should ensure that
the customer helpline numbers are prominently displayed on various System and at
various locations throughout the airport to maximize visibility.
• There must be a prominently displayed helpline number for lost and found services,
allowing passengers to easily report lost items.
• Information about the various passenger facilities available at the airport should be
prominently displayed at each help desk.
• Dedicated sections for Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRM) passengers should be
located adjacent to the help desks to provide specialized assistance. The PRM help
desk should prominently display the set standard time as per these guidelines for
obtaining the pre-booked wheelchair.
• Separate sections equipped with digital means (e.g., tablets) for submitting
complaints should be available next to the help desks, ensuring passengers can easily
register their grievances. This section should prominently display information about
the Air Sewa portal, enabling passengers to easily register any complaints.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The Third-Party assessor will undertake the assessment of
the necessary infrastructure available at the airport during the physical site visit. The
performance score will be based on the availability of the necessary infrastructure
outlined above at the helpdesks during the site visit.
(c) Measurement Frequency: The performance score shall be calculated for every month.
Measurements will be taken once every month.
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted by a third-party assessor through a
manually review of the available infrastructure at all the helpdesks at all the terminals of
the airport.
5.4.1.2 Availability of Personnel at all Helpdesks
(a) Parameter Explanation: All help desks at the airports must be staffed by knowledgeable
and well-trained personnel at all times. These personnel should be capable of providing
accurate information and assistance to passengers.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 56 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
Figure 13: Help Desks
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The performance score for this parameter is defined as the
percentage of sample hours during which the personnel is available at all the helpdesks.
(c) Measurement Frequency: The measurement frequency will be as given in Section
5.3.5(c).
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted by a third-party assessor through
manual review of the recorded CCTV footage of the respective area for the identified
Sample Hours.
5.4.1.3 Percentage (%) of written complaints uploaded on Air-Sewa within specified time
(a) Parameter Explanation: The airport shall upload all written complaints registered
through various channels to the Air Sewa portal on behalf of the passengers.
These channels include:
• Airport Website
• Airport Mobile Application (if available)
• Complaint Registers (digital tabs or physical registers)
• Email to official airport email address
Each airport should have a dedicated section for grievance redressal/ registering
complaints on its website and on its mobile application (if available). This section should
be easily accessible from the home page and prominently displayed within the website's
design.
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
The third-party assessor will check the airport records for the time each written complaint
is received and the time it is uploaded to the Air-Sewa portal.
The performance percentage (%) figures for the proposed parameter will be calculated as
follows:
i. Identify the number of written complaints uploaded within the specified time frames
ii. Then, divide this number by the total number of written complaints received and
express the result as a percentage (%).
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 57 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
(c) Measurement Frequency: The performance score shall be calculated for every month.
Measurements will be taken once every month.
(d) Data Source: The third-party assessor will obtain the written complaints from the airport
operator received through its airport website, airport mobile applicable (if available),
complaint registers (digital tabs/ physical) and email to official mail id of airport.
5.5 OTHER PARAMETERS (FOR INFORMATION GATHERING)
5.5.1 Minimum Connect Time (MCT) - Transfer Process
(a) Parameter Explanation: The Minimum Connect Time (MCT) parameter defines the
minimum amount of time required for passengers and their baggage to transfer from one
flight to another within an airport. This process encompasses several key stages.
• Disembarkation: Passengers must first disembark from their arriving flight. This
involves exiting the aircraft and entering the terminal building.
• Terminal Navigation: Once inside the terminal, passengers need to navigate through
the airport to reach their connecting flight's departure gate. This may include passing
through security checks, immigration, and customs, especially for international
transfers.
• Boarding the Connecting Flight: Passengers must arrive at the departure gate in time
to board their connecting flight.
• Baggage Transfer: Simultaneously, the checked baggage must be transferred from the
arriving aircraft to the connecting flight. This involves unloading the baggage,
transporting it through the airport's baggage handling system, and loading it onto the
connecting flight.
The MCT parameter is defined for different types of transfers:
• Domestic to Domestic
• Domestic to International
• International to Domestic
• International to International
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
• Minimum Connect Times (MCT): The minimum connecting time will be defined and
measured as per IATA Resolution 765, which specifies “the shortest time interval
required to transfer a passenger and their luggage from one flight to a connecting flight,
in a specific location.”
• The MCT will be established based on the information provided by the Airline
Operators Committee (AOC), Airport Operator, or Airline to IATA / airline users.
(c) Measurement Frequency: The data will be obtained from the Airport Operator or AOC
as per the frequency given in section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: The data will be collected by the Third-Party Assessor from Airport
Operator/ AOC/ Airlines.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 58 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
5.5.2 No. of Misconnect Passengers and No. of Misconnect Baggage
(a) Parameter Explanation:
i. “No. of Misconnect Passengers” at an airport refers to a traveler who misses their
connecting flight due to various reasons such as delays, cancellations, or other
disruptions during their journey. The parameter measures the number of Misconnect
Passengers during the month.
ii. "No. of Misconnect Baggage" at an airport refers to luggage that fails to arrive at its
final destination due to issues with connecting flights. Alternatively, even if a passenger
successfully makes their connection, the baggage might not be transferred to the next
flight in time, also leading to a misconnection. The parameter measures the number of
Misconnect Baggage during the month.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The Airport Operator must maintain monthly records of
misconnect passengers and misconnect baggage in collaboration with the airlines. For
misconnect passengers, typical data sources will include flight manifests, passenger check-
in records, and gate departure logs. The performance score for the parameter Misconnect
Passengers and Misconnect Baggage measures the number of misconnect passengers and
number of misconnect baggage respectively during the month.
(c) Measurement Frequency: The data will be obtained from the Airport Operator as per the
frequency given in section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: The data will be collected by the Third-Party Assessor from Airport
Operator.
5.5.3 Land Side Access
(a) Parameter Explanation: Land side access refers to the travel time on the terminal frontage
road, which is the duration it takes for vehicles to traverse the road directly in front of the
terminal, used for passenger drop-off and pick-up. This is measured by the standard that
95% of vehicles should take less than 10 minutes to travel from the entry to the exit barrier
of the terminal frontage road. The specific entry and exit boundaries for each airport will
be determined by the third-party assessor, to ensure consistency and contextual relevance
in measurement across different airport layouts.
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
The measurement shall be done on the basis of following methodology:
During the “sample hour” of the selected day, travel time shall be measured every 10-
minutes time interval beginning hh:mm, hh:mm+10, hh:mm+20, hh:mm+30, hh:mm+40,
hh:mm+50 where mm lies between 0 and 9, resulting in six readings per hour for the vehicle
entering each lane.
For each measurement, the travelling time shall be calculated as:
𝑄 = 𝐵−𝐴
Where:
• Q is the Vehicle travel Time on the terminal frontage road for a particular vehicle;
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 59 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
• A is the time of the particular vehicle to enter the respective lane after the measurement
period has begun;
• B is the time of the particular vehicle to exit that respective lane.
Table 8: Illustration of Travelling Time Measurement for a specific lane
Sample Hour 14:00 – 15:00 hours
Measuring time 14:00 14:10 14:20 14:30 14:40 14:50
Entering Time of the
14:02 14:10 14:26 14:35 14:40 14:58
Particular vehicle (A)
Exit Time of the
14:09 14:19 14:32 14:39 14:56 15:02
Particular vehicle (B)
Queuing Time (Q) 7 minutes 9 minutes 6 minutes 4 minutes 16 minutes 4 minutes
The performance percentage (%) figures for set standard shall be calculated by:
i. Identify the number of vehicles measured during the measurement mechanism process
which were processed within the set standard time.
ii. Then, divide this number by the total number of vehicles measured during the
measurement mechanism process and express the result as a percentage (%).
The performance percentage (%) figures for the proposed parameter will be calculated on
a monthly basis for each terminal and the airport as a whole.
Table 9: Illustration of calculation of Performance Percentage for the proposed parameter
Proposed Target Vehicle travel Time on the terminal
8 Minutes
frontage road
No. of vehicles processed within Target Queuing Time 4
Total no. of vehicles measured during the process 5
4
Performance Percentage ×100% = 80%
5
(c) Measurement Frequency: The measurement frequency will be as given in Section
5.2.1(c) and as per section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: As given in Section 5.2.1(d).
5.5.4 Passenger Boarding Bridges Utilization
(a) Parameter Explanation: This metric assesses the utilization of passenger boarding
bridges relative to the total number of eligible flights.
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
• Determine the total number of aircraft movements for which passenger boarding bridge
was utilized.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 60 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
• Identify the total number of aircraft movements eligible for aerobridge use. Eligible
aircraft movements are those involving aircraft that are compatible with the use of the
aerobridge facility.
• The performance percentage (%) is calculated by dividing the total number of aircraft
movements for which passenger boarding bridge was utilized by the total number of
aircraft movements eligible for aerobridge use, and then expressing this figure as a
percentage (%).
(c) Measurement Frequency: Measurements will be taken as per the frequency given in
section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: The data will be collected by the Third-Party Assessor from Airport
Operational Database (AODB), Stand & Gate Management System of the airport.
5.5.5 Availability of Medical facilities
(a) Parameter Explanation: In accordance with SARPs of Annex 9 - Facilitation, Chapter 6,
section C of ICAO each airport is required to maintain adequate medical facilities,
including first-aid services and establish expeditious referral arrangements for more
serious/ emergency cases.
Checklist of key Medical facilities include:
• First Aid: Availability of first aid stations at strategic locations (Help desks, Security
Checkpoints, Immigration and Customs Areas etc.) throughout the airport equipped
with essential medical supplies.
• Medical Room: Availability of a dedicated medical room equipped with necessary
medical equipment to handle emergencies and provide immediate care.
• Pharmacy: Availability of a pharmacy shop that is 100% operational during the
airport's operational hours.
• Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs): Automated External Defibrillators
(AEDs) placed at strategic locations throughout the terminal to provide immediate
assistance in case of cardiac emergencies. They should be available at accessible
locations such as terminal gates, security checkpoints, security hold area, etc. to ensure
response to emergencies can be initiated within 3 minutes from anywhere within the
terminal.
• Ambulift: Availability of specialized vehicles to assist passengers with medical
conditions in boarding and deboarding
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The third-party assessor will undertake a manual survey of the
airport to ensure the airport is in adherence to the above checklist. The performance score
will be based on the availability of the medical facilities as outlined above during the site
visit.
(c) Measurement Frequency: The performance score shall be calculated for every month.
Measurements will be taken as per the frequency given in section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted manually during site visit as per
section 5.1.3.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 61 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
5.5.6 Availability of Digital Information Centers
(a) Parameter Explanation: Digital Information Centers are centralized digital device, such
as tablets, strategically located (Check-in, SHA, and Arrival) throughout the airport
terminal for easy access by passengers. These centres are connected to the central customer
care team or help desks to provide comprehensive assistance to passengers.
Key Features:
• Audio or Video Call Assistance: Enables passengers to seek help through audio or
video calls from customer care team or help desks.
• Prominent Helpline Numbers: Clearly displays helpline numbers for lost and found,
customer support, etc.
• Complaint Section: Allows passengers to lodge complaints easily.
• Feedback Section: Provides a platform for passengers to share their feedback.
• Terminal Layout: Offers detailed terminal maps to assist with navigation.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The third-party assessor will undertake a manual survey of the
airport to ensure the Digital Information Centers are operational and all functionalities are
available.
(c) Measurement Frequency: Measurements will be taken as per the frequency given in
section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted manually during site visit.
5.5.7 Availability of Cloak Room/ Extended Baggage Storage
(a) Parameter Explanation: This parameter refers to the availability of designated facilities
within airports where passengers can securely store their luggage for short or extended
periods.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The third-party assessor will undertake a manual survey of the
airport to ensure the Clock Room/ Extended Baggage Storage are operational.
(c) Measurement Frequency: Measurements will be taken as per the frequency given in
section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted manually during site visit.
5.5.8 Lost and Found Services
(a) Parameter Explanation: The Lost and Found Services are a critical component of
passenger support operations at the airport, aimed at efficiently managing and resolving
issues related to misplaced or recovered items. This service encompasses the availability
of trained personnel at the Lost and Found counter and the effectiveness of complaint
resolution processes.
To ensure optimal service delivery:
(i) Availability of Personnel at Lost and Found Service Counters: The Lost and Found
counter must be staffed at all times during airport operating hours. Personnel should be
qualified to handle passenger inquiries with professionalism, empathy, and efficiency.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 62 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
Their presence ensures timely assistance and enhances passenger confidence in the
airport’s support services.
(ii) Percentage (%) of Complaints Resolved: A key performance indicator for this
service is the percentage (%) of complaints resolved within a defined timeframe (As
specified in Annexure 13.1). The service must maintain a comprehensive and up-to-
date log of all reported and recovered items, enabling swift tracking and return. High
resolution rates reflect the effectiveness of the system and contribute to overall
passenger satisfaction.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The performance score for this parameter is defined as the
percentage of sample hours during which the personnel is available at all the helpdesks.
The third-party assessor will check airport records for the time each complaint is registered.
The performance percentage (%) figures for the proposed parameter will be calculated as
follows:
i. Identify the number of complaints resolved within the specified time frames.
ii. Then, divide this number by the total number of complaints registered and express the
result as a percentage.
(c) Measurement Frequency: Measurements will be taken as per the frequency given in
section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted manually during site visit.
5.5.9 Availability of Baby Care Rooms
(a) Parameter Explanation: This parameter relates to the availability of designated areas
within airports equipped to support the needs of parents traveling with their infants. These
rooms should be strategically located in accessible areas such as SHA, Arrivals and near
restrooms. They provide facilities for breastfeeding, diaper changing, and other infant care
activities, ensuring privacy and comfort. Baby care rooms typically include amenities like
changing tables, feeding chairs and wash basins.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The third-party assessor will undertake a manual survey of the
airport to ensure the Baby Care Rooms are operational.
(c) Measurement Frequency: Measurements will be taken as per the frequency given in
section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted manually during site visit.
5.5.10 Availability of Sensory Rooms
(a) Parameter Explanation: This parameter relates to the availability of designated areas
within airports equipped to support the needs of neurodivergent passengers. These rooms
should be strategically located in accessible areas such as SHA and Arrivals. They are
designed to provide facilities that cater to the sensory needs of passengers, offering a
calming environment to help manage sensory overload and enhance their travel experience.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The third-party assessor will undertake a manual survey of the
airport of the Sensory Rooms.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 63 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
(c) Measurement Frequency: Measurements will be taken as per the frequency given in
section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted manually during site visit.
5.5.11 Availability of Operational Charging Points
(a) Parameter explanation: This parameter relates to the availability of sufficient number of
operational charging points where passengers can conveniently charge their electronic
devices. These points are located in accessible areas such as waiting lounges, and near
boarding gates to ensure convenience for travelers. They provide a mix of USB ports and
power outlets to accommodate various devices.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The total number of charging points available for passenger
usage shall be noted and percentage (%) of charging points which are operational shall be
assessed. The measurement shall be based on a randomly selected 5% sample of the
charging points available across terminal including waiting areas, boarding gates, arrivals,
departures etc for passenger usage.
(c) Measurement Frequency: Measurements will be taken as per the frequency given in
section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: As in section 5.3.1(d).
5.5.12 Availability of Wheelchairs (Not Prebooked)
(a) Parameter Explanation: This parameter covers Passengers with Reduced Mobility
(PRM) who have not pre-booked wheelchairs receive one within a specified time frame.
While airlines hold the primary responsibility for providing wheelchairs, the airport
operator will step in to supply additional wheelchairs free of charge from their stock if the
airlines are unable to do so.
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
• Measurement mechanism will be as per section 5.3.8(b).
• The performance percentage (%) figures will be calculated on a monthly basis as a
percentage (%) of Not Pre-booked wheelchair requests that are fulfilled within the set
standard time frame out of the total number of Not Pre-booked wheelchair requests.
(c) Measurement Frequency: The performance score shall be calculated as per the frequency
given in section 5.1.3. Measurements will be taken during the airport's operational hours of
the airport.
(d) Data Source: This measurement will be conducted by obtaining and reviewing the
database of wheelchair requests as described above.
5.5.13 Uptime of Digi-Yatra and Immigration e-gates
(a) Parameter Explanation:
Digi-Yatra System is designed to provide a seamless and paperless travel experience for
domestic passengers. It uses facial recognition technology to authenticate passengers at
various touchpoints, including entry gates, security checks, and boarding gates.
Immigration E-gates are automated systems used to expedite the immigration process for
international passengers. These gates use biometric data, such as facial recognition or
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 64 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
fingerprint / document scanning, to verify the identity of passengers and allow them to pass
through immigration quickly.
The uptime of these assets refers to the percentage (%) of time these gates are operational
and available for use by passengers.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: Measurement mechanism will be as per section 5.3.1(b).
(c) Measurement Frequency: Measurement frequency will be as per section 5.3.1(c) and
section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: Data Source will be as per section 5.3.1(d).
5.5.14 Cargo Services
(a) Parameter Explanation: Cargo services at airports encompass the comprehensive
management of goods and freight, including efficient handling and temporary storage,
customs clearance to ensure regulatory compliance, and security screening to maintain
safety. These services also involve coordination with airlines and logistics providers to
streamline transportation, along with managing documentation and real-time tracking to
ensure transparency and accountability.
The processing time (dwell time) of export and import cargo services includes the time for
unloading, customs clearance, security screening, storing, and loading, step by step
respectively.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The measurement of the export and import cargo dwell time
will be done as per standard industry practices.
(c) Measurement Frequency: The performance score shall be calculated as per the frequency
given in section 5.1.3. Measurements will be taken during the airport's operational hours of
the airport.
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted using cargo database as provided by
the cargo terminal operators.
5.5.15 Operational Resilience
(a) Parameter Explanation: Operational Resilience refers to an airport's ability to maintain
and quickly recover operations during significant disruptions.
Key parameters include:
i. Material Events: Events that impact operations such as:
• Staff shortages or industrial actions.
• Closure of runways, taxiways, or manoeuvring areas.
• Failures in runway/taxiway lighting or other critical equipment.
• Unavailability of bad weather equipment during adverse conditions
• Accident of any kind
ii. Relevant Bad Weather Equipment: Includes System and equipment for low visibility
procedures (e.g., ILS, IRVR, SMR).
iii. Material Operational Impact:
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 65 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
• Arrivals: Flow rate restrictions and reduced actual movements compared to
reference movements.
• Departures: Reduced actual movements compared to reference movements during
disruptions.
(b) Measurement Mechanism: The Airport Operator will submit to the Third-Party Assessor
and AERA, the Operational Resilience Plan prepared in collaboration with the airport
stakeholders.
In the event of a significant operational disruption lasting more than four consecutive hours
within a 24-hour period which results in congestion and/ or inconvenience to passengers or
airport services and where such disruption is attributable to the airport operator, AERA may
impose a monthly rebate for each service quality parameter that was adversely impacted during
the affected period. This penalty shall apply irrespective of whether the airport operator
achieves the overall monthly target for those parameters.
5.5.16 Technology
(a) Parameter Explanation: This parameter measures the adoption of passenger processing
technologies implemented at the airport and the green airport accreditation as per MoCA
guidelines (as available). The measures include:
• Percentage (%) of passengers using Digi-Yatra
• Percentage (%) of passengers using SBDs
• Percentage (%) of international passengers using Immigration E-gates
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
The performance percentage (%) figures for the proposed parameter will be calculated as
follows:
i. Identify the number of passengers using the particular passenger processing technology
(Digi-Yatra, SBDs, Immigration).
ii. Then, divide this number by the total number of passengers and express the result as a
percentage (%).
The performance percentage (%) figures for the proposed parameter will be calculated for
the airport as a whole.
(c) Measurement Frequency: The performance score shall be calculated as per the frequency
given in section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted by the Third-Party assessor using the
data shared by the airport operator
5.5.17 Sustainability
(a) Parameter Explanation: This parameter measures the adoption of the green airport
accreditation as per MoCA guidelines (as available).
(b) Measurement Mechanism:
The Green Accreditation of Airport will be published once Ministry of Civil Aviation
(MoCA) issues the relevant guidelines.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 66 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
(c) Measurement Frequency: The performance score shall be calculated as per the frequency
given in section 5.1.3.
(d) Data Source: This measurement shall be conducted by the Third-Party assessor using the
data shared by the airport operator.
5.6 RATIONALE FOR CHANGES TO OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS FROM THE
EXISTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN AERA GUIDELINES
Addition of new parameters in the revised performance standards
5.6.1 Security Check – Terminal Entry Gate (Traditional and Digi Yatra): This parameter has
been introduced in the performance standards to address a critical touchpoint in the passenger
journey that significantly influences overall service quality. Serving as the first major interface
between the passenger and airport operations, the entry gate security check often experiences
queue formation and congestion, directly impacting passenger perception and satisfaction. This
strategic addition supports the objective of comprehensiveness as detailed in the Section 2.2.1
above to deliver reasonable passenger experience across all stages of airport processes.
5.6.2 Check-In: Self-Baggage Drop: This parameter has been added to the performance standards
to reflect its growing importance in modern airport operations. As more airports adopt self-
service/ assisted baggage drop systems to improve efficiency and passenger convenience, this
step has become essential for reducing wait times and speeding up the check-in process.
Including it in the standards ensures that performance tracking keeps up with the shift toward
automation and supports a smoother, more technology-driven passenger experience. Further, it
was noted that this parameter is already included in the objective performance parameters of
Navi Mumbai International Airport.
5.6.3 Seating Availability (Boarding Gates): This parameter has been added to the performance
standards to address a critical aspect of passenger comfort and experience during the final stage
of the pre-boarding process. Given that passengers often arrive well in advance and tend to
complete all formalities before proceeding to the boarding gates, the availability of adequate
and accessible seating becomes essential in managing their wait time and reducing travel-
related anxiety. Further, it was noted that this parameter is already included in the objective
performance parameters of 6 AAI PPP airports.
5.6.4 Availability of Wheelchairs: This parameter has been added to the performance standards to
provide focused attention to one of the most essential services for Persons with Reduced
Mobility (PRM). While the existing guidelines included a general parameter titled 'Facilities
for Disabled Passengers', it did not specify the requirement of wheelchairs separately. By
introducing this parameter separately, the revised standards ensure that airports are specifically
assessed on their ability to provide timely and adequate wheelchair support, thereby enhancing
accessibility and comfort for PRM passengers. This targeted inclusion reflects a commitment
to inclusivity and aligns with global best practices in accessible airport infrastructure.
5.6.5 Help Desks: This parameter has been introduced in the revised performance standards as the
singular and comprehensive metric under the Customer Services / Grievance Redressal System,
replacing the existing parameters 'Handling of Complaints' and 'Response to Phone Calls'. This
strategic consolidation reflects the evolving nature of passenger engagement, where the help
desk serves as the most immediate and accessible point of contact for addressing a wide range
of passenger concerns. The parameter has been structured into three sub-components – its
locations at Arrival, Departure, and SHA; the availability of personnel; and the integration with
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 67 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
the ‘Air Sewa’ portal for real-time complaint registration, ensuring a holistic approach to
service delivery and grievance management. The help desk also caters to Persons with Reduced
Mobility (PRM) through dedicated support areas and prominently displays essential contact
information such as Lost and Found services. Given its central role in facilitating direct,
accountable, and inclusive passenger support, the 'Help Desks' parameter sufficiently
encapsulates all critical aspects of customer service and grievance redressal.
Revision of parameters from the existing performance standards
5.6.6 Immigration / Emigration: The timing for this parameter has been revised from 10 minutes
to 12 minutes in the updated performance standards to better reflect operational realities while
maintaining a reasonable service expectation. This adjustment is based on empirical
observations conducted during airport visits, where it was noted that the average processing
time per passenger during peak hours exceeded the previously defined threshold. The revised
timing offers a more practical and achievable benchmark, ensuring that performance
assessments remain grounded in actual passenger flow dynamics while still upholding service
quality standards
5.6.7 Security Check (Terminal) – Departure Pre-embarkation: The timing for this parameter
has been revised from 5 minutes to 10 minutes in the performance standards to reflect a more
realistic and operationally feasible benchmark while still ensuring a reasonable experience for
passengers. This adjustment is based on empirical observations made during airport visits,
where the average time taken per passenger during peak hours was found to exceed the
previously defined threshold.
5.6.8 Baggage Delivery – Last Bag: The timing for this parameter has been updated in the revised
performance standards to introduce a more structured and aircraft-specific approach, with
separate benchmarks for Code C and Code E aircraft operations. The revised timings – First
Bag: 15 minutes for international flights, Last Bag: 30 minutes for Code C and 35 minutes for
Code E for domestic flights, and 40 minutes for Code C and 45 minutes for Code E for
international flights – are based on operational insights and reflect the varying handling
complexities associated with different aircraft types and flight categories. This categorization
ensures a more realistic and equitable assessment of baggage delivery performance, aligning
service expectations with actual ground handling capabilities while still prioritizing timely
baggage return and passenger satisfaction.
5.6.9 Passenger Arrival: This parameter has been revised to adopt a more practical and operator-
relevant measurement approach. Previously measured from 'arrival to kerbside', the updated
criterion now captures the time from ‘on-block to entry into the terminal building for the first
passenger'. This change reflects a more accurate and controllable segment of the passenger
journey, as activities beyond terminal entry – such as personal delays or discretionary stops –
fall outside the airport operator’s scope of influence. Correspondingly, the timing has been
rationalized from 35 minutes (domestic) and 45 minutes (international) to a uniform 15 minutes
for both, as the revised metric focuses solely on the initial disembarkation and terminal entry
process. This adjustment ensures a more meaningful, measurable, and fair evaluation of airport
performance.
5.6.10 In the revised performance standards, all asset-related parameters under the 'Airport Facilities'
category have been updated from measuring mere ‘Availability’ to tracking actual ‘Uptime’.
This shift reflects a more meaningful and performance-oriented approach, recognizing that
while essential facilities are present across all airports, their operational status and reliability
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 68 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
are what truly impact passenger experience. By focusing on uptime, the revised standards
ensure that the functionality and continuous serviceability of critical infrastructure such as
escalators, elevators, FIDS, and other assets are consistently monitored and maintained, thereby
promoting higher service quality and operational accountability.
Deletion of parameters from the existing performance standards
5.6.11 Parking Bays: This parameter has been excluded from the existing performance standards as
it no longer serves as a differentiating metric in evaluating airport infrastructure. In the current
aviation landscape, the provision of aircraft parking bays as per the Air Traffic Flow
Management – Collaborative Decision Making (C-ATFM) has become a fundamental and
universally adopted requirement across airports. The parameter however would continue to be
monitored through various other medium while assessing operational capacity of the airports.
5.6.12 Handling of Complaints and Response to Phone Calls: These parameters have been removed
from the existing performance standards to align with the centralized grievance redressal
mechanism established by the MoCA through the ‘Air Sewa’ portal. Under this parameter, ‘Air
Sewa’ will serve as the unified platform for passengers to lodge and track complaints across all
airports. The revised standards introduce a more relevant parameter that mandates airports to
facilitate the integration of complaints into the ‘Air Sewa’ system and ensure the availability of
infrastructure - such as Help desks (kiosks or digital interfaces, if applicable) that enables
passengers to easily register their concerns through the designated platform.
5.7 COMPARISON TO OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS IN CONCESSION
AGREEMENTS OF DIFFERENT AIRPORTS
IGIA, Delhi and CSMIA, Mumbai as per OMDA
5.7.1 The key differences include:
• 2 parameters, namely “Transfer Passengers – Minimum Connect Times” and “Cargo
Services”, are included in Information Gathering section with modified targets.
• 2 parameters, “Cleanliness” and “Car Parking”, are classified under Subjective
Parameters due to their qualitative nature.
• Certain parameters have been merged to eliminate redundancy, including Availability of
Wheelchairs with Assistance for the Disabled and Check-in with Queue Waiting Time
during Check-in
• 5 parameters have been removed/ regrouped based on relevance / monitoring through other
medium, namely “Handling of Complaints”, “Response to Phone Calls”, “Repair
Completion Time”, “Runway Systems” and “Availability of Taxis”
• The remaining parameters are similar for the objective category, with some maintaining
their original targets and others revised to reflect updated performance benchmarks.
SVPIA, Ahmedabad, CCSIA, Lucknow, Jaipur International Airport, LGBIA,
Guwahati, Thiruvananthapuram International Airport and Mangaluru International
Airport
5.7.2 The key differences include:
• 3 parameters, “Car Parking”, “Cleanliness” and “Buggy Services” have been classified
under Subjective Parameters due to their qualitative nature.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 69 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
• 1 parameter, namely “Transit / Transfer Passengers – Minimum Connect Times” in
included in Information Gathering section with modified targets.
• Certain parameters with multiple performance measures like “Baggage delivery” and
“Passenger boarding bridges” have been combined to eliminate redundancy
• 6 parameters, namely “Handling of Complaints”, “Ambient conditions in the Passenger
terminals”, “Repair Completion Time”, “Runway Operational Safety”, “Availability of
Taxi”, “ARFF” have been removed/ regrouped based on relevance and monitoring through
other medium.
• The remaining parameters are similar under the objective category, with some maintaining
their original targets and others revised to reflect updated performance benchmarks.
Navi Mumbai International Airport
5.7.3 The key differences include:
• 2 parameters, namely "Transfer Passengers - Minimum Connect Times" and "Land Side
access", are included in the Information Gathering section with modified targets.
• 6 parameters, namely “Handling of Complaints”, “Response to phone calls”, “Repair
Completion Time”, “Runway Systems”, “Taxis” and “Parking Bays” have been removed/
regrouped based on relevance and monitoring through other medium :
• 2 parameters, "Cleanliness" and "Vehicle Parking", have been classified under Subjective
Parameters due to their qualitative nature.
• The remaining parameters are similar under the objective category, with some maintaining
their original targets and others revised to reflect updated performance benchmarks.
Noida International Airport and Manohar International Airport, MOPA (GOA)
5.7.4 The key differences include:
• 2 parameters, namely "Transfer Passengers - Minimum Connect Times" and "Land Side
access", have been included in the Information Gathering section with modified targets.
• 5 parameters “Handling of Complaints”, “Response to phone calls”, “Repair Completion
Time”, “Taxis” and “Parking Bays” have been removed/ regrouped based on relevance
and monitoring through other medium.
• 1 parameter, "Vehicle Parking", have been classified under Subjective Parameters due to
their qualitative nature.
• The remaining parameters are similar under the objective category, with some maintaining
their original targets and others revised to reflect updated performance benchmarks.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 70 of 164OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
5.8 PROPOSAL REGARDING THE OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS
Based on the material before it and its analysis, the following is proposed regarding the
Objective Service Quality Parameters and its Measurement Framework:
5.8.1 The brief explanation of each parameter, its measurement mechanism, computation of
performance score and measurement frequency with the data sources for Airport Core
Processes (Wait Time), Airport Facilities, Customer Service / Grievance Redressal System and
Other Parameters (For Information Gathering) is given in Section 5.2, Section 5.3, Section 5.4
and Section 5.5 respectively.
5.8.2 For the parameter Operational Resilience under the category of Information Gathering, the
rebate is applicable in case of default as per Section 5.5.15.
5.8.3 While this chapter has given the measurement mechanism for each parameter, it is clarified that
the third-party assessor may apply the methodology with suitable modification to address
practical implementation issues specific to each airport. Any such modifications must be clearly
documented and communicated to AERA by the third-party assessor.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 71 of 164SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK
AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
6 SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY
FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
6.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING SUBJECTIVE SERVICE
PARAMETERS
6.1.1 The Subjective Parameters will be measured through a survey-based approach as given in this
chapter.
6.1.2 The survey shall be conducted using the following approach:
(a) The survey questionnaire will be conducted using a rating scale of 1 to 5 wherein:
i. Rating 1 represents extremely poor
ii. Rating 2 represents poor
iii. Rating 3 represents average
iv. Rating 4 represents good
v. Rating 5 represents excellent
(b) The implementation of the survey-based assessment of subjective parameters shall be based
on the category of airports as outlined in Section 6.2. Accordingly, certain subjective
parameters along with its survey questionnaires and associated performance evaluations
may not be applicable to Category B Airports, considering the differences in operational
scale, infrastructure and passenger traffic characteristics specific to such airports.
(c) The survey shall be conducted through interviews with a minimum of 400 interviews every
month (including departing, arriving, and transfer passengers combined), ensuring
representation of both domestic and international passengers at each airport as per section
6.1.3. The number of interviews to be conducted in the current year will be determined
based on the annual traffic of the airport from the previous year and will be evenly
distributed across 12 months.
(d) The survey questionnaires should be provided in English, Hindi, and local languages based
on the specific locations to ensure accessibility.
(e) The interviews will be conducted in specific locations; for departing passengers, the
interviews will be conducted at the gate or gate area before boarding the aircraft and for
arriving passengers at the arrivals hall before they leave the terminal.
(f) Passengers will be selected randomly and without bias, ensuring no demographic bias in
the selection process for the interview.
6.1.3 During the initial phase, the third-party assessor will conduct monthly surveys for all subjective
parameters that are linked to rebates and incentives. For subjective parameters not associated
with rebates or incentives, the third-party assessor will conduct the survey annually. For
parameters where rebates and incentives do not apply, the airport operator will carry out
monthly survey assessments and submit the survey results to the third-party assessor. As the
system evolves and matures, the third-party assessor will eventually take over the responsibility
of conducting monthly surveys for all subjective parameters, regardless of their linkage to
rebates or incentives.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 72 of 164SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK
AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
6.1.4 The interviews will be conducted during the peak hours in each terminal for both domestic and
international flights, as determined by their respective flight schedule, for at least seven days a
month.
6.1.5 The performance percentage (%) score for subjective parameters used in rebate computation
shall be calculated as the percentage of passengers who rate the parameters as 4 or 5 on the
rating scale, out of the total number of passengers surveyed.
6.1.6 The performance percentage (%) score for subjective parameters used in incentive computation
shall be calculated as the percentage of passengers who rate the parameters as 5 on the rating
scale, out of the total number of passengers surveyed.
6.1.7 The surveys will be administered by a third-party assessor, who will authenticate passengers
by scanning their boarding passes before they participate in the survey. Additionally, the
surveys will be completed directly by the passengers themselves.
6.1.8 The list of subjective parameters on which rebate is applicable and the proposed rebate is given
in Annexure 13.3.
6.1.9 The list of subjective parameters on which incentive is applicable and the proposed incentive
is given in Annexure 13.4.
6.1.10 The Table 10 below outlines the survey questionnaire for the subjective parameters, specifying
the types of passengers to whom the questions will be directed, the measurement criteria, and
the target ratings.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 73 of 164SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Table 10: Survey Questionnaire for Subjective Parameters: Passenger Type, Measurement Criteria, and Target Ratings
Proposed Proposed
S. Subjective Types of Target Target
Questions Asked Measures
No. Parameters Passengers (For Category (For Category
A Airports) B Airports)
6.2 SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS FOR PASSENGER CONVENIENCE
How satisfied are you with the
Arriving, Departing % of passengers
Cleanliness of the cleanliness of the overall airport
S1 and Connecting rating the 90% 90%
overall Airport including the terminal, toilets /
passengers parameter as 4 or 5
washrooms, etc.?
How would you rate the availability of
Availability of
basic facilities at the airport, such as
Basic Facilities at Arriving, Departing % of passengers
adequate number of washrooms, baby
S2 the Airport and Connecting rating the 90% 90%
care rooms, Wi-Fi, signage to helpdesks,
(including passengers parameter as 4 or 5
overall seating, and operational charging
Wi-fi)
points?
Have you sought assistance from any
Arriving, Departing
airport staff during your time at the Information
and Connecting Yes / No Yes / No
airport (e.g., staff at the customer Gathering
Courtesy and passengers
helpdesk, or other service points)?
S3 Helpfulness of
Airport Staff
If yes, how would you rate the courtesy Arriving, Departing % of passengers
and helpfulness of that particular airport and Connecting rating the 90% 90%
staff? passengers parameter as 4 or 5
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 74 of 164SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Proposed Proposed
S. Subjective Types of Target Target
Questions Asked Measures
No. Parameters Passengers (For Category (For Category
A Airports) B Airports)
How would you rate the ease of finding Arriving, Departing % of passengers
Ease of Wayfinding
S4 your way within the overall airport and Connecting rating the 90% 90%
within the Airport
premises? passengers parameter as 4 or 5
If you have travelled between different Connecting
Transportation terminals today, how would you rate the passengers % of passengers
S5 between the availability and wait times of shuttle (applicable to rating the 90% 90%
Terminals services or other transportation options airports with parameter as 4 or 5
between the terminals? multiple terminals)
How would you rate the overall
ambience of the airport, considering Arriving, Departing % of passengers
Ambience of the
S6 factors such as comfort, temperature, and Connecting rating the 90% 90%
Airport
congestion, noise levels, and the passengers parameter as 4 or 5
aesthetics of the exterior?
How satisfied are you with the available
Arriving and % of passengers
Transportation to / transportation options, considering the
S7 Departing rating the 90% 90%
from the Airport number of choices, their availability, and
passengers parameter as 4 or 5
wait times?
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 75 of 164SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Proposed Proposed
S. Subjective Types of Target Target
Questions Asked Measures
No. Parameters Passengers (For Category (For Category
A Airports) B Airports)
Are Flight Information Display Service
(FIDS) System available at various
Arriving, Departing
locations throughout the airport, such as Information
and Connecting Yes / No Yes / No
the check-in area, boarding gates, Gathering
passengers
baggage claim areas, food courts,
Flight Information
lounges, and arrival halls?
Display System
S8 (FIDS) Location
If they are not, where do you think FIDS Arriving, Departing
throughout the Information Passenger to fill Passenger to fill
System should be added to better serve and Connecting
Airport Gathering the response the response
passengers? passengers
Arriving, Departing % of passengers
If they are, how satisfied are you with
and Connecting rating the 90% 90%
FIDS availability and placement?
passengers parameter as 4 or 5
Arriving, Departing % of passengers
Walking distance How satisfied are you with the walking
S9 and Connecting rating the 90% Not Applicable
within the Terminal distances within the terminal?
passengers parameter as 4 or 5
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 76 of 164SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Proposed Proposed
S. Subjective Types of Target Target
Questions Asked Measures
No. Parameters Passengers (For Category (For Category
A Airports) B Airports)
Arriving, Departing
If you have availed the buggy service at and Connecting
the airport, how would you rate the passengers % of passengers
Availability of free
S10 waiting time and ease of access to (applicable to rating the 90% Not Applicable
Buggy Services
buggies at specific buggy points within airports where parameter as 4 or 5
the terminal? buggy service is
available)
How satisfied are you with the
availability and accessibility of free
Arriving, Departing % of passengers
Availability of free potable water at various locations
S11 and Connecting rating the 90% 90%
Potable Water throughout the airport – such as check-in
passengers parameter as 4 or 5
areas, boarding gates, baggage claim
zones, and food courts?
How would you rate the value for
Arriving, Departing % of passengers
money of the services such as food and
S12 Value for Money and Connecting rating the 90% 90%
beverage, retail, duty free, lounge, car
passengers parameter as 4 or 5
park and taxi services at the airport?
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 77 of 164SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Proposed Proposed
S. Subjective Types of Target Target
Questions Asked Measures
No. Parameters Passengers (For Category (For Category
A Airports) B Airports)
Arriving, Departing
and Connecting
If you have availed food services at the
passengers % of passengers
Services of Udan Udan Yatri Cafe, how would you rate
S13 (applicable to rating the 90% 90%
Yatri Cafe your experience in terms of food quality
airports where Udan parameter as 4 or 5
and service?
Yatri Cafe is
available)
If you have availed any facilities such as
Bank / ATM Arriving, Departing % of passengers
bank services, ATMs, or money
S14 facilities or Money and Connecting rating the 90% 90%
changers during your visit to the airport,
Changers passengers parameter as 4 or 5
how would you rate the facility?
Have you used the parking facilities at
the airport? If yes, how satisfied are you Arriving and % of passengers
Vehicle Parking at
S15 with the parking facilities and the time Departing rating the 90% 90%
the Airport
required to find a parking spot at the passengers parameter as 4 or 5
airport?
How would you rate your overall
experience at the airport today, taking Arriving, Departing % of passengers
Overall Satisfaction
S16 into account the ease of check-in, and Connecting rating the 90% 90%
with the Airport
immigration / emigration, security passengers parameter as 4 or 5
check, and transfer process?
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 78 of 164SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Proposed Proposed
S. Subjective Target Target
Questions Asked Types of Passengers Measures
No. Parameters (For Category (For Category
A Airports) B Airports)
6.3 SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS FOR PRM PASSENGERS
Did you take PRM/ / wheelchair services
Person with
at the airport? If yes, thinking about the
reduced Arriving, Departing % of passengers
lifts, PRM toilets, PRM signage, dedicated
S17 mobility and Connecting rating the parameter 90% 90%
PRM lanes, how would you rate the
(PRM): Airport passengers as 4 or 5
accessibility of the airport infrastructure
Infrastructure
for PRM or those requiring wheelchairs?
PRM
Passenger:
How would you rate the assistance Arriving, Departing % of passengers
Overall
S18 provided for PRM or those requiring and Connecting rating the parameter 90% 90%
Satisfaction
wheelchairs? passengers as 4 or 5
with the
Airport
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 79 of 164SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK
AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
6.4 RATIONALE FOR CHANGES TO SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS FROM THE
EXISTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN AERA GUIDELINES
Addition of new parameters in the revised performance standards
6.4.1 Availability of Buggy Services: This parameter has been incorporated into the revised
performance standards to enhance mobility support for passengers who may face challenges
navigating large terminal spaces, particularly elderly individuals. As airports continue to
expand in scale and complexity, the provision of efficient and accessible intra-terminal
transport becomes increasingly vital to ensuring a seamless and inclusive passenger experience.
6.4.2 Availability of Free Potable Water: Access to clean and safe drinking water is a fundamental
necessity, particularly in high-traffic environments such as airports where passengers may
spend extended periods. Its inclusion reinforces the airport’s responsibility to provide essential
amenities that contribute to a comfortable and dignified travel experience for all passengers.
6.4.3 Transportation Between the Terminals: This parameter has been added to the revised
performance standards to ensure efficient and accessible inter-terminal connectivity,
particularly for transit passengers whose connecting flights depart from a different terminal.
This parameter is applicable to airports with multiple terminals or where domestic and
international operations are handled separately. In such cases, the availability of a reliable mode
of transport between terminals is essential to facilitate smooth passenger transfers, reduce
transit time, and enhance the overall travel experience. Its inclusion reflects a commitment to
operational efficiency and passenger-centric service design, especially in increasingly complex
airport infrastructures.
6.4.4 Services of Udan Yatri Cafe: This parameter has been added to the revised performance
standards as it reflects a strategic enhancement of passenger-centric services, specifically food
and beverage services, within airport infrastructure. The UDAN Yatri Cafe serves as a vital
touchpoint offering hygienic, highly affordable, and accessible food options, directly
contributing to passenger satisfaction and overall service quality. Its inclusion aligns with
government initiatives to promote inclusive and equitable infrastructure under the UDAN
scheme, ensuring that airports uphold consistent standards in delivering essential amenities to
travelers across all regions.
Revision of parameters from the existing performance standards
6.4.5 Value for Money: The parameters Value for Money of Parking Facilities, Restaurant/Eating
Facilities, and Shopping Facilities have been consolidated into a single parameter - “Value for
Money” – to streamline feedback collection and reduce redundancy. This unified parameter
captures the overall passenger perception of pricing fairness across key commercial services,
offering an efficient measure of perceived value without diluting the quality of insights.
6.4.6 Courtesy and Helpfulness of Airport Staff: The parameters related to staff behavior –
Courtesy and Helpfulness of Check-in Staff, Inspection Staff, Security Staff, and General
Airport Staff – have been reclassified into one parameter: “Courtesy and Helpfulness of Airport
Staff”. This change simplifies the evaluation process as it captures only passenger experience
with airport personnel.
Deletion of parameters from the existing performance standards
6.4.7 Feeling of Being Safe and Secure: This parameter has been removed as safety and security
are fundamental regulatory obligations governed by aviation authorities. Since passengers may
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 80 of 164SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK
AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
not be fully aware of the extensive security protocols in place, subjective assessment of this
aspect does not yield meaningful or actionable insights.
6.4.8 Ease of Making Connections with Other Flights: This parameter has been removed due to
its dependency on airline operations, terminal configurations, and individual itineraries, factors
largely beyond the control of airport operators. Its subjective nature limits its effectiveness as
a standardized performance metric.
6.4.9 Restaurant/Eating Facilities: This parameter has been removed as food and beverage
services, while important, are already addressed through infrastructure planning and
commercial agreements. Subjective feedback in this area varies widely based on personal taste
and does not consistently reflect airport service quality.
6.4.10 Shopping Facilities: This parameter has been removed because shopping offerings differ
significantly across airports based on size, passenger demographics, and vendor presence.
Subjective evaluation of shopping experiences does not provide a reliable measure of airport
performance.
6.4.11 Business/Executive Lounges: This parameter has been removed as lounge access is typically
limited to specific passenger segments and managed by airlines or third-party providers.
Including it in airport-wide performance standards would not offer a representative view of the
overall passenger experience.
6.4.12 Customs Inspection: This parameter has been removed as customs procedures, including the
operation of green and red channels, fall under the jurisdiction of customs authorities and are
not managed by airport operators. Since the airport has limited or no control over the inspection
process, including it in performance evaluation would not provide a fair or actionable measure
of airport service quality
6.4.13 Parameters such as Availability of Baggage Carts/Trolleys, Waiting Time in Check-in
Queue/Line, Waiting Time at Passport/ID Inspection, Comfort of Waiting/Gate Areas, and
Speed of Baggage Delivery Service have been removed from the subjective section as they are
already addressed through objective performance metrics in the revised standards. This avoids
duplication, enhances clarity, and ensures that subjective feedback focuses on areas not already
covered by measurable operational data.
6.5 RATIONALE FOR CHANGES TO SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS IN
CONCESSION AGREEMENTS OF DIFFERENT AIRPORTS
IGIA, Delhi and CSMIA, Mumbai as per OMDA
6.5.1 The key differences include:
• Certain parameters such as 'Ease of making connections' is being measured through
subjective parameters of ‘Transportation between the Terminals’ and objective parameters
such as ‘No. of Misconnect Passengers’ and ‘No. of Misconnect Baggage’.
• Certain parameters such as 'Comfortable waiting/gate areas,' 'Speed of baggage delivery
service,' 'Waiting time at check-in' and 'Efficiency of check-in' are included as part of
Objective Parameters due to their quantitative nature.
• Additionally, parameters related to non-aeronautical services, including 'Restaurant/eating
facilities,' 'Shopping facilities,' and 'Business facilities,' and “'Business / Executive
lounges” have been removed.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 81 of 164SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK
AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
• Some parameters have been regrouped under a broader category, such as 'Value for Money,'
to streamline the assessment.
• The remaining parameters are similar for the subjective category in their original form or
rephrased for clarity and consistency.
KIA, Bengaluru and RGIA, Hyderabad
6.5.2 The key differences include:
• Certain parameters such as ‘Availability of connections to the same and different continent,
’sense of security’ and ‘Custom Inspections’ is being measured through subjective
parameter of ‘Overall Satisfaction with the Airport’.
• Certain parameters such as 'Ease of making connections with other flights,' is being
measured through subjective parameters such as ‘Transportation between the Terminals’
and objective parameters such as ‘No. of Misconnect Passengers’ and ‘No. of Misconnect
Baggage’.
• Additionally, parameters related to non-aeronautical services, including 'Restaurant and
eating facilities,' and 'Shopping facilities,' have been removed.
• Furthermore, select parameters like ‘Passport Inspection' and 'Baggage delivery service'
are included in objective performance metrics.
• The remaining parameters are similar for the subjective category in their original form or
rephrased for clarity and consistency.
SVPIA, Ahmedabad, CCSIA, Lucknow, Jaipur International Airport, LGBIA,
Guwahati, Thiruvananthapuram International Airport and Mangaluru International
Airport
6.5.3 The subjective parameters for SVPIA, Ahmedabad, CCSIA, Lucknow, Jaipur International
Airport, LGBIA, Guwahati, Thiruvananthapuram International Airport and Mangaluru
International Airport are same as those in the existing AERA guidelines. Therefore, the
comparison of the proposed subjective parameters with existing AERA guidelines is applicable
to these airports as well which can be referred in section 6.4.
Navi Mumbai International Airport, Noida International Airport and Manohar
International Airport, MOPA (GOA)
6.5.4 The key differences include:
• Certain parameters such as 'Ease of making connections with other flights' is being
measured through subjective parameters of ‘Transportation between the Terminals’ and
objective parameters such as ‘No. of Misconnect Passengers’ and ‘No. of Misconnect
Baggage’.
• Additionally, parameters related to non-aeronautical services, including 'Restaurant/eating
facilities,' 'Shopping facilities,' and 'Business facilities,' have been removed.
• Some parameters have been regrouped under a broader category, such as 'Value for Money,'
to streamline the assessment.
• Furthermore, select parameters like ’Availability of Baggage carts' is included in objective
performance metrics.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 82 of 164SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK
AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
• The remaining parameters are similar for the subjective category in their original form or
rephrased for clarity and consistency.
6.6 PROPOSAL REGARDING THE SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY
PARAMETERS: ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK AND
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Based on the material before it and its analysis, the following is proposed regarding the
Subjective Service Quality Parameters: Assessment Survey Framework and Evaluation
Methodology:
6.6.1 The Subjective Parameters will be measured through a survey-based approach based on a
predefined questionnaire outlined in the section 6.2 for Passenger Convenience and section 6.3
PRM Passengers.
6.6.2 A standardized survey using a 1 to 5 rating scale will be conducted to assess passenger
satisfaction as per the approach given in section 6.1.2.
6.6.3 The performance percentage (%) score for subjective parameters used in rebate computation
shall be calculated as per Section 6.1.5 and the performance percentage (%) score for subjective
parameters used in incentive computation shall be calculated as per Section 6.1.6.
6.6.4 Surveys will be administered by a third-party assessor during peak hours at designated terminal
locations. Passengers will be randomly selected and authenticated via boarding pass scans.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 83 of 164TARGETS
7 TARGETS
7.1 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AGAINST MONTHLY TARGETS
7.1.1 The airport operator will meet the target for the measures if following is true:
Performance ≥ Target
i,j i,j
Where:
• Performance is the monthly recorded performance of measure i in month j; and
i,j
• Target is the relevant target of measure i in month j.
i,j
7.1.2 For each measure i, Performance is defined in the relevant paragraphs of Section 5 for Objective Parameters and Section 6 for Subjective Parameters.
i,j
The targets for each parameter are set out in Annexure 13.1 for Objective Parameters and Section 6 for Subjective Parameters.
7.1.3 The table below provides an illustrative example of how performance measures are evaluated against their respective targets. In this example, the targets
are met for O1(a), O1(b), O2(b), and O3, while the target is not met for O2(a).
Table 11: Sample Performance Measures and Target Evaluation for a Given Month
Target met for the
month?
Proposed Target for Performance score
S. No. Performance Parameter Measures (MPS is 0 if target
i
Category A Airports for the month
met (Yes) and 1 if
target not met (No))
Airport Core Process
Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
Security Check (Terminal
O1(a) (from entry in queue to presenting 95% < 10 mins 99% < 10 mins Yes
Entry Gate) - Traditional
to CISF Staff)
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 84 of 164TARGETS
Target met for the
month?
Proposed Target for Performance score
S. No. Performance Parameter Measures (MPS is 0 if target
i
Category A Airports for the month
met (Yes) and 1 if
target not met (No))
Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
Security Check (Terminal
O1(b) (from entry in queue to presenting 95% < 5 mins 99% < 5 mins Yes
Entry Gate) – Digi-Yatra
at Digi-Yatra gate)
Economy: 94% < 20
Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
Economy: 95% < 20 mins mins
O2(a) Check-In (from entry to presenting to staff No
Business: 95% < 5 mins Business: 93% < 5
for check-in)
mins
Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
Check-In
O2(b) (from entry to presenting to SBD SBDs: 95% < 5 mins SBDs: 99% < 5 mins Yes
(Self-Baggage Drop)
counters)
Maximum waiting time (from
Security Check (Terminal) -
O3 entry in queue to presenting to 95% < 10 min 99% < 10 min Yes
Departure Pre-embarkation
security staff for frisking)
7.2 PROPOSAL REGARDING TARGETS
Based on the material before it and its analysis, the following is proposed regarding targets:
7.2.1 The airport operator will meet the target for measures if the performance of the parameter exceeds the specified target value as given in Section 7.1.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 85 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
8 REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
8.1 OVERVIEW OF REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
8.1.1 To promote accountability and continuous enhancement of airport services, this chapter
introduces a structured Rebate and Incentive Mechanism.
8.1.2 Under this mechanism, rebates shall be applied in cases of non-compliance with established
performance standards. Conversely, incentives will be granted to operators who exceed defined
benchmarks of performance parameters.
8.1.3 By aligning financial outcomes with performance parameters, this approach not only enforces
compliance but also fosters a culture of continuous improvement across all major airports.
8.2 SERVICE QUALITY REBATE MECHANISM
8.2.1 The Service Quality Rebate mechanism is an adjustment to the airport tariffs in the event that
the Airport Operator(s) does not achieve certain targets of the service quality standards
specified in this document.
8.2.2 The Objective and Subjective parameters shall be monitored monthly. In the event that the
Airport Operator(s) performance does not meet the Target as specified in Section 7.1 in any
month, a percentage (%) rebate shall be applicable for each default parameter as given in
Annexure 13.1 and Annexure 13.3 for Objective and Subjective parameters respectively
(details are also given in the table below). A total maximum rebate of 5% is applicable across
all parameters, with 4% rebate on objective parameters and 1% rebate on subjective parameters.
Table 12: Proposed rebate for objective and subjective parameters
S. No. Parameters Rebate
Objective Parameters - Airport Core Process Rebate Sub-total 1.80%
O1(a) Security Check (Terminal Entry Gate) - Traditional
0.25%
O1(b) Security Check (Terminal Entry Gate) – Digi-Yatra
O2(a) Check-In – Economy class
O2(a) Check-In – Business class 0.25%
O2(b) Check-In (Self-Baggage Drop)
O3 Immigration / Emigration 0.25%
O4 Security Check (Terminal) - Departure Pre-embarkation 0.25%
O5(a) Baggage Delivery (Domestic) 0.25%
O5(b) Baggage Delivery (International) 0.25%
O6(a) Passenger Arrival (Domestic) 0.15%
O6(b) Passenger Arrival (International) 0.15%
Objective Parameters - Airport Facilities Rebate Sub-total 1.40%
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 86 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
S. No. Parameters Rebate
O7 Uptime of Flight Information Display System (FIDS) 0.25%
O8 Uptime of Lifts, Escalators and Travellators 0.25%
O9 Uptime of Automated Services 0.25%
Availability of Passenger Boarding Bridges (Domestic /
O10 0.15%
International)
O11 Availability of Baggage Trolleys 0.25%
O12 Seating Availability (at Boarding gates) 0.25%
Objective Parameters - Airport Facilities for PRM Passenger
0.50%
Rebate Sub-total
O13 Facilities for PRM Passenger (As per Checklist) 0.25%
O14 Availability of Wheelchairs (Pre-booked) 0.25%
Objective Parameters - Customer Service/ Grievance redressal
0.30%
system Rebate Sub-total
O15(a) Help desks (Counters located at check-in, SHA and arrivals) 0.10%
O15(b) Help Desks (Availability of Personnel at all helpdesks) 0.10%
Help Desks (Percentage (%) of written complaints uploaded on
O15(c) 0.10%
Air-Sewa)
Total Objective Parameters Rebate 4.00%
Subjective Parameters - Passenger Convenience Rebate Sub-
1.00%
total
S1 Cleanliness 0.25%
Availability of basic necessary facilities
S2 0.25%
(including Wi-fi availability)
S3 Courtesy and Helpfulness of Airport Staff 0.15%
S16 Overall Satisfaction with the Airport 0.35%
Total Subjective Parameters Rebate 1.00%
Total Overall Rebate 5.00%
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 87 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
Justification for revision in Rebate structure
8.2.3 In the revised framework, the rebate structure has been recalibrated to better align with the
strategic objectives of ensuring transparency and reliability.
Figure 14: Revision of Rebate structure
Maximum Objective Parameters Maximum Subjective Parameters
Rebate Rebate
4% 2.5%
1.5% 1%
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
8.2.4 The proposed increase in the maximum rebate for Objective Parameters from 1.5% to 4% is a
strategic step to encourage measurable performance. Objective parameters are directly tied to
operational outcomes and can be consistently tracked and compared. This enhancement aims
to strengthen accountability through data-based performance tracking.
8.2.5 Conversely, the proposed reduction in the maximum rebate for Subjective Parameters to 1%
(from the existing 2.5%) is based on the inherent variability and interpretive nature of these
metrics. Subjective parameters, while valuable, are influenced by individual expectations,
cultural differences, and situational factors, making them less consistent and more difficult to
standardize. The revised rebate structure acknowledges that:
• Subjective feedback is inherently diverse and may not reflect uniform service quality
• Over-incentivizing subjective metrics could lead to disproportionate focus on perception
management rather than substantive improvements through objective analysis
• A balanced approach is necessary to ensure that subjective assessments complement, rather
than overshadow, objective performance indicators
By moderating the rebate for subjective parameters, the framework ensures that while user
feedback remains an important input, it does not disproportionately influence the overall
performance evaluation.
Reason for Lower Rebate in certain Parameters
8.2.6 The rebate for parameters like Passenger Arrival (Domestic) and Passenger Arrival
(International) has been deliberately set at a lower rate of 0.15% in the revised performance
standards. This decision reflects the complex and shared nature of these parameters, which are
influenced not only by the airport operator’s performance but also by the actions
of airlines and ground handling agencies. Therefore, assigning a lower rebate ensures a more
equitable and realistic performance evaluation framework.
8.2.7 The rebate for the Availability of Passenger Boarding Bridges parameter has been set at a
lower rate of 0.15%. There is variability in the airline requests for PBB which is largely driven
by airline operational preferences and not entirely within the control of the airport, therefore, a
lower rebate ensures a more balanced and realistic assessment of performance.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 88 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
8.2.8 The rebate for Courtesy and Helpfulness of Airport Staff has been set at 0.05% as this
parameter only assesses the performance of airport staff among other multiple entities at the
airport such as airline, ground handling, etc. Further, this parameter is also evaluated in the
subjective parameter of ‘Overall Satisfaction with the Airport’.
Reason for Higher Rebate in certain Parameters
8.2.9 The rebate for the Help Desks parameter has been set at a higher value in the revised
performance standards due to its critical role. This parameter encompasses three key sub-
categories – strategic location of help desks at SHA, Arrival, and Departure areas; availability
of adequately personnel; and responsiveness to uploading complaints registered on Air Sewa
– all of which directly impact passenger satisfaction and service perception. Given the help
desk's function as the primary touchpoint for addressing passenger queries, grievances, and
real-time assistance needs, its consistent performance is essential. The higher rebate reflects the
parameter’s high operational relevance and its direct correlation with service quality and
passenger-centric outcomes.
8.2.10 The rebate for the Overall Satisfaction with the Airport parameter has been set at a higher value
in the revised performance standards, recognizing its comprehensive reflection of the passenger
experience across all service touchpoints. This parameter serves as a key indicator of the
cumulative effectiveness of airport operations. As it directly captures passenger perceptions
and expectations, it holds significant weight in evaluating service quality.
Calculation of monthly rebate
8.2.11 The rebate Percentage (%) for all the objective and subjective parameters, where rebate is
applicable, will be calculated on a monthly basis.
8.2.12 The monthly rebate applicable for month i for all parameters shall be calculated as per the
formula mentioned below:
𝑀𝑅 = ∑ 𝑃 ×𝑀𝑃𝑆
𝑖 𝐴𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝 𝑝 𝑝,𝑖
Where:
(a) MR is the Monthly Rebate on all parameters for month i;
i
(b) P is the rebate for parameter p as specified in Annexure 13.1 and Annexure 13.3;
p
(c) MPS = 0 if the target for parameter p in month i is achieved;
p,i
MPS = 1 otherwise.
p,i
For instance, in the below example (in Table 13), the total Monthly Rebate on all
parameters is 0.35%.
Table 13: Illustrative Calculation of Total Monthly Rebate (0.35%) across all Parameters
Parameters Rebate (%) Target achieved (MPS) Monthly rebate (P * MPS )
i p p,i
Parameter 1 0.25% 0 0
Parameter 2 0.25% 1 0.25%
Parameter 3 0.10% 1 0.10%
Total Monthly Rebate on
0.35%
all parameters (MR)
i
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 89 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
Total Rebate for the Review Period
8.2.13 The Total Rebate for all parameters applicable for the six-month Review Period r shall be
calculated as per the formula mentioned below:
∑𝑖=6𝑀𝑅
𝑖=1 𝑖
𝑀 =
𝑟 6
Where:
(a) M is the Total Rebate for the six-month Review Period r;
r
(b) MR is the Monthly Rebate for month i in the six-month Review Period r, calculated as
i
described in Section 8.2.12;
For instance, in the below example (in Table 14), the Total Rebate for the six-month
Review Period is 1.50%.
Table 14: Illustration of Total Rebate of 1.50% for the six-Month Review Period
Month Monthly Rebate (MR) (%)
i
Month 1 2.00%
Month 2 3.00%
Month 3 1.00%
Month 4 0.00%
Month 5 2.00%
Month 6 1.00%
Total 9.00%
Total Rebate for Review Period r (M ) 1.50% (9.00%/6)
r
8.2.14 The Total Rebate for a particular parameter p applicable for the six-month Review Period r
shall be calculated as per the formula mentioned below:
∑𝑖=6𝑃 ×𝑀𝑃𝑆
𝑖=1 𝑝 𝑝,𝑖
𝐾 =
𝑟,𝑝 6
Where:
(a) K is the Total Rebate for parameter p in the six-month Review Period r;
r,p
(b) P is the rebate for parameter p as specified in Annexure 13.1 and Annexure 13.3 for
p
Objective and Subjective parameters respectively;
(c) MPS = 0 if the target for parameter p in month i is achieved;
p,i
MPS = 1 otherwise.
p,i
For instance, in the below example (in Table 15), the Total Rebate for parameter p for the six-
month Review Period is 0.125%.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 90 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
Table 15: Illustration of Total Rebate for parameter p of 0.125% for the six-Month Review
Period
Rebate Target achieved Monthly rebate
Month
(%) (MPS) (P * MPS )
i p p,i
Month 1 0 0%
Month 2 0 0%
Month 3 1 0.25%
0.25%
Month 4 1 0.25%
Month 5 0 0%
Month 6 1 0.25%
Total 0.75%
Total Rebate for parameter p for
0.125% (0.75%/6)
the six-month Review Period (K )
r,p
8.3 SERVICE QUALITY INCENTIVE MECHANISM
8.3.1 An incentive mechanism is a strategic approach designed to motivate and reward airport
operators for achieving specific performance targets. The incentives have been proposed on
parameters that are technology-oriented, aimed at improving airport efficiency, reducing
congestion through effective liaison with other reserved services, and requiring continuous
efforts for improvement by the airport.
8.3.2 The proposed incentive mechanism is a credit system that allows earned incentives to be used
to offset applicable rebates at the airport.
8.3.3 In the event that the Airport Operator(s) performance exceeds the lower performance level as
defined in Annexure 13.2 and Annexure 13.4 for Objective and Subjective parameters
respectively, for the particular parameter in any month, a percentage (%) incentive shall be
applicable for that parameter (details are also given in the table below). A total maximum
incentive of 1.25% is applicable across all parameters, with a cap of 0.60% on objective
parameters and 0.65% on subjective parameters.
Table 16: Proposed Incentive for Objective and Subjective Parameters
S. No. Parameters Rebate
Objective Parameters - Airport Core Process Incentive
0.60%
Sub-Total
O1(a) Security Check (Terminal Entry Gate) - Traditional
0.15%
O1(b) Security Check (Terminal Entry Gate) – Digi-Yatra
O2(a) Check-In – Economy class
0.15%
O2(a) Check-In – Business class
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 91 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
S. No. Parameters Rebate
O2(b) Check-In (Self-Baggage Drop)
O3 Immigration / Emigration 0.15%
O4 Security Check (Terminal) - Departure Pre-embarkation 0.15%
Total Objective Parameters Incentive 0.60%
Subjective Parameters – Passenger Convenience Incentive
0.65%
Sub-Total
S1 Cleanliness 0.15%
Availability of basic necessary facilities
S2 0.15%
(including Wi-fi availability)
S3 Courtesy and Helpfulness of Airport staff 0.10%
S13 Services of Udan Yatri Cafe 0.05%
S16 Overall Satisfaction with the Airport 0.20%
Total Subjective Parameters Incentive 0.65%
Total Overall Incentive 1.25%
8.3.4 The performance-based incentives have been introduced for objective parameters that rely on
services managed by reserved services or airlines such as Security Check (Terminal Entry
Gate), Immigration / Emigration, Security Check (Terminal) - Departure Pre-embarkation and
Check-In. These services are critical to the overall passenger experience and operational
efficiency, yet their performance depends on effective coordination by airport operator with
third-party stakeholders. By linking incentives to these parameters, the framework encourages
airport operators to proactively engage and collaborate with the respective service providers.
The goal is to foster a shared commitment to exceeding service benchmarks.
Justification for Higher Incentive on Overall Satisfaction Parameter
8.3.5 The Overall Satisfaction with the Airport parameter has been assigned a higher incentive in
the revised performance standards to actively promote a culture of excellence in passenger
service delivery. By linking higher incentives to this parameter, the framework encourages
airport operators to go beyond minimum standards and consistently strive for superior service
quality that enhances passenger trust and satisfaction.
Justification for Lower Incentive in certain Parameters
8.3.6 The incentive for Courtesy and Helpfulness of the Airport Staff has been set at a lower rate
in the revised performance standards due to the inherently subjective nature of interpersonal
behavior. While courteous and helpful staff contribute positively to the passenger experience,
individual conduct is influenced by personal disposition, cultural context, and situational
dynamics, making it difficult to uniformly measure and incentivize across airports.
8.3.7 The incentive for Services of Udan Yatri Cafe has been set at a lower rate in the revised
performance standards as its operational relevance is secondary to core airport functions such
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 92 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
as safety, security, and passenger processing. While the cafe enhances the overall passenger
experience by providing accessible and affordable dining options, its performance does not
directly influence the airport’s essential service delivery metrics. Given its standardized service
model and limited variability in operational impact, the parameter is treated as a value-added
amenity rather than a critical performance driver, thereby warranting a lower incentive
weightage.
Justification for Incentive Structure
8.3.8 In the proposed incentive framework, the total incentive allocated to subjective parameters
stands at 0.65%, which is slightly higher than the 0.60% allocated to objective parameters. This
difference is primarily due to the higher weight assigned to the parameter measuring Overall
Satisfaction with the Airport.
8.3.9 By offering a greater incentive for these perception-driven metrics, the airport operators are
encouraged to prioritize initiatives that improve the overall ambiance, responsiveness, and user-
friendliness of the airport environment.
Figure 15: Incentives for objective and subjective parameters
Incentive
0.65%
0.60%
Objective Subjective
Parameters Parameters
Calculation of incentives:
8.3.10 The incentive percentage (%) for all the objective and subjective parameters, where incentive
is applicable will be calculated on a monthly basis.
8.3.11 The monthly incentive applicable for month i for all parameters shall be calculated as per the
formula mentioned below:
𝑀𝑎𝑥[0,𝑀𝑖𝑛 (𝑈𝑇 ,𝑀𝑃 )−𝐿𝑇 ]
𝑝 𝑝 𝑝
𝑀𝐼𝑇 = ∑ 𝑀𝐼 × ( )
𝑖 𝑝 𝑈𝑇 − 𝐿𝑇
𝑝 𝑝
𝐴𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑝
Where:
(a) MIT is the total monthly incentive on all parameters p for month i;
i
(b) MI is the monthly maximum incentive on parameter p;
p
(c) UT is upper threshold limit for the parameter p, as specified in Annexure 13.2 and
p
Annexure 13.4;
(d) LT is lower threshold limit for the parameter p, as specified in Annexure 13.2 and
p
Annexure 13.4;
(e) MP is the monthly performance for the parameter p;
p
For instance, in the below example (in Table 17), the Monthly Incentive for all parameters is
0.29%.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 93 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
Table 17: Illustrative Calculation of Total Monthly Incentive (0.29%) across all
Parameters
Max Upper Lower Monthly Monthly Incentive
Parameter Incentive Threshold Threshold Performance
(𝑴𝑰 ×
(𝑴𝒂𝒙[𝟎,𝑴𝒊𝒏 (𝑼𝑻𝒑,𝑴𝑷𝒑)−𝑳𝑻𝒑]
)
(MI p) (UT p) (LT p) (MP p) 𝒑
𝑼𝑻𝒑− 𝑳𝑻𝒑
Parameter 1 0.15% 99% 97% 96% 0%
Parameter 2 0.15% 95% 90% 93% 0.09%
Parameter 3 0.20% 95% 90% 96% 0.20%
Total (MIT) 0.29%
i
• Parameter 1 has a maximum incentive of 0.15%, an upper threshold of 99%, a lower threshold
of 97%, and a monthly performance of 96%. The monthly incentive for Parameter 1 is
calculated as:
𝑀𝑎𝑥[0,𝑀𝑖𝑛 (99%,96%)−97%]
0.15%× ( )= 0.00%
99%−97%
• Parameter 2 has a maximum incentive of 0.15%, an upper threshold of 95%, a lower threshold
of 90%, and a monthly performance of 93%. The monthly incentive for Parameter 2 is
calculated as:
𝑀𝑎𝑥[0,𝑀𝑖𝑛 (95%,93%)−90%] 3%
0.15%× ( )= 0.15%× ( )= 0.09%
95%−90% 5%
• Parameter 3 has a maximum incentive of 0.20%, an upper threshold of 95%, a lower threshold
of 90%, and a monthly performance of 96%. The monthly incentive for Parameter 3 is
calculated as:
𝑀𝑎𝑥[0,𝑀𝑖𝑛 (95%,96%)−90%] 5%
0.20%× ( )= 0.20%× ( )= 0.20%
95%−90% 5%
Total Incentive for the 6-month Review Period
8.3.12 The Total Incentive applicable for the six-month Review Period r shall be calculated as per the
formula mentioned below:
∑𝑖=6𝑀𝐼𝑇
𝑖=1 𝑖
𝑁 =
𝑟 6
Where:
(a) N is the Total Incentive for the six-month Review Period r;
r
(b) MIT is the Total Monthly Incentive for month i in the six-month Review Period r,
i
calculated as described in Section 8.3.11;
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 94 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
For instance, in the below example (in Table 18), the Total Incentive for the six-month Review
Period is 0.30%.
Table 18: Illustration of Total Incentive of 0.30% for the six-Month Review Period
Month Monthly Incentive (MIT) (%)
i
Month 1 0.45%
Month 2 0.60%
Month 3 0.15%
Month 4 0.00%
Month 5 0.30%
Month 6 0.30%
Total 1.80%
Total Incentive for Review Period r (N) 0.30% (1.80%/6)
r
8.4 ADJUSTED REBATE COMPUTATION AND CARRY-FORWARD
INCENTIVE COMPUTATION
8.4.1 The incentives earned by the airport operator will be adjusted against the rebate applicable to
compute the Adjusted Rebate while in case of remaining incentives, it will be carried forward
to the next Review Period.
8.4.2 The Total Rebate for all parameters applicable for the six-month Review Period r where the
default period in the Review Period r is equal to or more than 3 months shall be calculated as
per the formula mentioned below:
𝑀𝑅𝐽 = ∑ 𝐾 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 ≥ 3 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠
𝑟 𝑟,𝑝
𝐴𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝
Where:
(a) MRJ is the total rebate for all parameters where default period is equal to or more than 3
r
months;
(b) K is the Total Rebate for parameter p in the six-month Review Period r.
r,p
8.4.3 The Total Rebate for all parameters applicable for the six-month Review Period r where the
default period in the Review Period r is less than 3 months shall be calculated as per the formula
mentioned below:
𝑀𝑅𝐼 = ∑ 𝐾 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 < 3 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠
𝑟 𝑟,𝑝
𝐴𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝
Where:
(a) MRI is the total rebate for all parameters where default period is less than 3 months;
r
(b) K is the Total Rebate for parameter p in the six-month Review Period r.
r,p
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 95 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
For instance, in the below example, the total rebate for all parameters where default period is
less than 3 months is 0.55% and total rebate for all parameters where default period is equal to
or more than 3 months is 0.10% for Review Period r.
Table 19: Illustration of Total Rebate Computation across different Default Periods
Total Whether Rebate for all Rebate for all
rebate for Default default period parameters where parameters where
Parameter the review Period equal to or default period is default period is
period r (months) more than 3 equal to or more than less than 3 months
(K ) months 3 months (MRJ ) (MRI )
r,p r r
Parameter 1 0.25% 3 Yes 0.25% 0.00%
Parameter 2 0.30% 4 Yes 0.30% 0.00%
Parameter 3 0.10% 2 No 0.00% 0.10%
Total 0.55% 0.10%
8.4.4 The Adjusted Rebate for all parameters applicable for the six-month Review Period r shall be
calculated as per the formula mentioned below:
𝐴𝑅 = 𝑀𝑅𝐽 + 𝑀𝑎𝑥 (0,(𝑀𝑅𝐼 − 𝑁 − 𝐶𝐹𝐼 ))
𝑟 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟
Where:
(a) MRJ is the total rebate for all parameters where default period is equal to or more than 3
r
months;
(b) MRI is the total rebate for all parameters where default period is less than 3 months;
r
(c) N is the Total Incentive for the six-month Review Period r;
r
(d) CFI is the carry-forwarded incentive from the previous period applicable for Review
r
Period r;
(e) AR is the Adjusted Rebate for all parameters applicable for the six-month Review Period
r
r.
For instance,
• MRJ is the total rebate for all parameters where the default period is equal to or more than
r
3 months, which is 2.00%.
• MRI is the total rebate for all parameters where the default period is less than 3 months,
r
which is 0.50%.
• N is the total incentive for the six-month review period, which is 0.60%.
r
• CFI is the carry-forwarded incentive from the previous period applicable for the review
r
period, which is 0.20%.
• AR is the Adjusted Rebate for all parameters applicable for the six-month Review Period
r
is 2.0% as follows:
𝐴𝑅 = 2.00%+ 𝑀𝑎𝑥 (0,(0.50% − 0.60%− 0.20%))= 2.00%
𝑟
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 96 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
8.4.5 The Incentive Utilized in the Review Period r in year t shall be calculated as per the formula
mentioned below:
𝐼𝑈 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛(𝑀𝑅𝐼 ,𝑁 +𝐶𝐹𝐼 )
𝑟 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟
Where:
(a) IU is the Incentive Utilized in the six-month Review Period r;
r
(b) MRI is the total rebate for all parameters where default period is less than 3 months;
r
(c) N is the Total Incentive for the six-month Review Period r;
r
(d) CFI is the carry-forwarded incentive from the previous period applicable for Review
r
Period r.
For instance,
• MRI is the total rebate for all parameters where the default period is less than 3 months,
r
which is 0.50%.
• N is the total incentive for the six-month review period, which is 0.60%.
r
• CFI is the carry-forwarded incentive from the previous period applicable for the review
r
period, which is 0.20%
𝐼𝑈 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛(0.50%,0.60%+0.20%)= 0.50%
𝑟
8.4.6 If the earned incentive amount surpasses the rebate amount owed, the surplus incentive can be
carried forward to the next evaluation period. This carry-forward incentive remains valid only
for the next Review Period, that is, six months period. After this six-month period, any unused
carry-forward incentive will expire and become obsolete. This ensures that incentives are
utilized within a specified timeframe, promoting timely performance improvements and
accountability. The Carry-forwarded Incentive to the next Review Period shall be calculated as
per the formula mentioned below:
𝐶𝐹𝐼 = 𝑁 + 𝐶𝐹𝐼 −𝐼𝑈 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐶𝐹𝐼 < 𝐼𝑈
𝑟+1 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟
𝐶𝐹𝐼 = 𝑁 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐶𝐹𝐼 > 𝐼𝑈
𝑟+1 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟
Where:
(a) CFI is the Carry-forwarded Incentive to the next Review Period;
r+1
(b) N is the Total Incentive for the six-month Review Period r;
r
(c) CFI is the carry-forwarded incentive from the previous period applicable for Review
r
Period r;
(d) IU is the Incentive Utilized in the six-month Review Period r.
r
For instance,
• N is the total incentive for the six-month review period, which is 0.60%.
r
• CFI is the carry-forwarded incentive from the previous period applicable for the review
r
period, which is 0.20%.
• IU is the incentive utilized in the six-month review period, which is 0.50%.
r
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 97 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
Since, CFI < IU
r r
𝐶𝐹𝐼 = 𝑁 + 𝐶𝐹𝐼 −𝐼𝑈 = 0.60%+0.20%−0.50%= 0.30%
𝑟+1 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟
Therefore, the carry-forwarded incentive to the next review period is 0.30%.
8.4.7 In light of the proposal that any incentives granted to airports will ultimately be offset, AERA
seeks stakeholder consultation to determine the mechanism for administering successive
incentives earned by airports with no applicable rebate for a control period.
8.5 REVISION IN TARIFFS ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTED REBATE
8.5.1 The rebates and incentives will be computed for each month for all parameters. However, the
aeronautical tariff revisions will be conducted for an aggregate six-month Review Period, based
on the Adjusted Rebate. A Compliance Report will be published for this six-month Review
Period, detailing the parameter-wise monthly rebates for all months, the aggregate Adjusted
Rebate amount, and the revised tariffs for the airport operator.
8.5.2 The Adjusted Rebate as computed in section 8.4.4 for the Review Period r will be applied on
the Projected Aggregate Revenue Requirement as per the Multi-Year Tariff Order (MYTO) for
the corresponding period of the airport operator to compute the rebate amount. If the MYTO is
not available for the said period, AERA will consider the ARR based on the previously
available accounting half-year period.
8.5.3 It is clarified that the Projected Aggregate Revenue Requirement as per the Multi-Year Tariff
Order (MYTO) of the airport operator will be based on the building blocks of that particular
period without the adjustment of the over-recovery or under-recovery of previous control
periods.
8.5.4 The illustration for the computation of the rebate amount for the review period is given below:
Table 20: Illustration of computation of rebate amount based on Adjusted Rebate and
Projected ARR
Particulars Units Feb ’26 – Jul ‘26
Projected ARR based on the building blocks of that
particular period without the adjustment of the over- INR cr. A 180
recovery or under-recovery of previous control periods
Adjusted Rebate for review period for adjustment in
% B 2%
tariffs (%)
Rebate amount INR cr. 𝐂 = 𝐀×𝐁 3.6
8.5.5 The computed rebate amount will be adjusted in the tariffs prospectively in the subsequent
accounting half-year period. That is, the rebate amount of Feb ’26 to Jul ’26 will be adjusted
from the revenues/ tariffs of Oct ’26 to Mar ‘27. The percentage reduction in the tariffs (tariff
reduction rate) on account of the rebate amount will be based on the projected revenues amount.
The illustration for the computation of the tariff reduction rate is given below:
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 98 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
Table 21: Illustration of the computation of the prospective tariff reduction rate based on
the rebate amount
Particulars Units Oct ’26 – Mar ‘27
Projected total aeronautical revenues INR cr. A 225
Rebate amount for Feb ’26 to Jul ’26
INR cr. B 3.6
adjusted in next accounting half-year
𝐁
Tariff reduction rate % 𝐂 = 1.6%
𝐀
8.5.6 The revision in aeronautical tariffs will be based on the following scenarios:
(a) Scenario 1: If the User Development Fee (UDF) is applicable on Domestic and
International passengers, then the UDF charges will be reduced.
(b) Scenario 2: If UDF is not applicable for Domestic Passengers, then landing charges will
be reduced.
8.5.7 The reduction in the UDF and landing charges will be prospective and pro-rated based on the
proportion of UDF and Landing revenues in the total projected aeronautical revenues of the
respective accounting half-year period as per the Multi-Year Tariff Order (MYTO). If the
MYTO is not available for the said period, AERA will consider the revenues based on the
previously available accounting half-year period.
8.5.8 For example (shown in Table 22), if UDF and Landing charges comprise 50% and 40%
respectively of the total aeronautical revenues for a particular year.
8.5.9 Under scenario 1, the Tariff Reduction Rate is applied on UDF on pro-rated basis. Under
scenario 2, the Tariff Reduction Rate is applied on landing charges on pro-rated basis.
Table 22: Illustration of Adjusted Rebated on UDF and Landing Charges
Scenario 1 – UDF applicable Scenario 2 – UDF not applicable
Adjusted
Rebate Rebate
Aeronautical Rebate
applicable applicable
charge applicable Revised Revised
on aero Charge Charge on only
on only UDF charges charge
revenues landing
charges
charges
Landing 1.6%
400 0% 400 400 =4% 384
Charge 40%
UDF – 1.6%
1.6% 500 =3.2% 484
Domestic 50%
UDF – 1.6%
1000 =3.2% 968
International 50%
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 99 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
8.6 TRUE-UP OF ARR ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTED REBATE
8.6.1 To reconcile any differences between the sum of rebates applied during the control period
through tariff revisions and the total rebates the airport operator is required to pay according to
the actual Aggregate Revenue Requirement as per the audited financial statements, a true-up
exercise will be conducted along with the MYTP evaluation for the specific airport.
8.6.2 The Adjusted Rebate is calculated for the six-month review periods from February 1 to July 31
and August 1 to January 31. Meanwhile, the Actual Aggregate Revenue Requirement (ARR)
and audited aeronautical revenues are determined for the accounting half-year periods from
April 1 to September 30 and October 1 to March 31, respectively.
8.6.3 Therefore, the Adjusted Rebate for the review periods must be converted to Adjusted Rebate
for the accounting half-year periods. The Adjusted Rebate for each accounting half-year period
is then used to compute the rebate based on the respective Actual Aggregate Revenue
Requirement (ARR) during true-up exercise.
8.6.4 The example below illustrates how the adjustment is made:
Table 23: Adjusted Rebate for Review Period conversion to Adjusted Rebate for
accounting half-year periods
Feb ‘26 - Jul ‘26 Aug ‘26 - Jan ‘27 Feb ‘27 - July ‘27
Sample Review Period
A B C
Adjusted Rebate for review
2.00% 3.00% 2.50%
period (%)
Accounting half-year
Apr ’26 – Sept ‘26 Oct ’26 – Mar ‘27
periods
(A×4+B×2) (B×4+C×2)
D = D =
6 6
Adjusted Rebate for
accounting half-year
2.33% 2.83%
period for true-up based
on actual ARR (%)
8.6.5 The true-up process includes the reduction of the rebate from the Actual ARR from building
blocks for the respective period without addition of the over-recovery or under-recovery of
previous periods, resulting in a reduced ARR. This reduced ARR is then compared to the total
audited aeronautical revenues to determine under-recovery or over-recovery for each half-year
period.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 100 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
8.6.6 The Table 24 below provides an example of a sample true-up exercise, illustrating the reconciliation process over multiple half-year periods
Table 24: Sample true-up - reconciliation process of Adjusted Rebate over multiple half-year periods
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5
Particulars Total
H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H2
Actual ARR from building
blocks for the respective
period without addition of the A 160.0 160.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 1720.0
over-recovery or under-
recovery of previous periods
Adjusted Rebate for accounting
half-year periods for true-up B 2.33% 2.83% 2.67% 2.67% 2.33% 2.67% 2.33% 2.67% 2.33% 3.00%
based on actual ARR (%)
Rebate amount for adjustment
C = A * B 3.7 4.5 4.7 4.7 4.1 4.7 4.1 4.7 4.1 5.3 44.4
in ARR (INR cr.)
ARR after reduction in rebate D 156.3 155.5 170.3 170.3 170.9 170.3 170.9 170.3 170.9 169.8 1675.6
Total audited aero revenues
E 130.0 135.0 139.0 143.0 147.0 151.0 155.0 159.0 163.0 167.0 1489.0
(INR cr.)
Under-recovery (+) /
F = D – E 26.3 20.5 31.3 27.3 23.9 19.3 15.9 11.3 7.9 2.8 186.6
Over-recovery (-) after rebate
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 101 of 164REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
8.7 PROPOSAL REGARDING THE REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
Based on the material before it and its analysis, the following is proposed regarding the Rebate
and Incentive Mechanism:
8.7.1 Rebates and incentives for the parameters as given in section 8.2 and section 8.3 respectively
will apply.
8.7.2 Adjusted Rebate for all parameters applicable for the six-month Review Period r shall be
calculated as per section 8.4.4
8.7.3 Carry-forwarded Incentive to the next Review Period shall be calculated as per section 8.4.6
8.7.4 The Adjusted Rebate as computed in section 8.4.4 for the Review Period r will be applied on
the Projected Aggregate Revenue Requirement for the corresponding period of the airport
operator to compute the rebate amount.
8.7.5 The computed rebate amount will be adjusted in the tariffs prospectively in the subsequent
accounting half-year period as given in section 8.5. The revision in aeronautical tariffs will be
based on the following scenarios: Scenario 1: If the User Development Fee (UDF) is applicable
on Domestic and International passengers, then the UDF charges will be reduced, Scenario 2:
If UDF is not applicable for Domestic Passengers, then landing charges will be reduced.
8.7.6 To reconcile any differences between the sum of rebates applied during the control period
through tariff revisions and the total rebates the airport operator is required to pay according to
the actual Aggregate Revenue Requirement as per the audited financial statements, a true-up
exercise will be conducted along with the MYTP evaluation for the specific airport as per
section 8.6.
8.7.7 A calibrated rebate and incentive structure aligns with the operational significance and
passenger-centric impact of each parameter. Parameters with limited controllability or lower
influence on core service delivery have been assigned lower rebates, ensuring fairness in
performance evaluation.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 102 of 164REPORTING AND ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
9 REPORTING AND ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
9.1 MONTHLY ASSESSMENT REPORT
9.1.1 Based on the performance monitoring mechanism detailed out in the Chapter 5 and Chapter 6,
a Monthly Assessment Report will be prepared for a particular month. This report will include
comprehensive information on parameter-wise rebates and incentives applicable for that period.
It will also include the calculation of these rebates and incentives, along with detailed
measurements and an analysis comparing actual performance against defined targets.
9.1.2 The Monthly Assessment Report for a particular month will be finalized by the end of the
following month. The report will be made available to the airport operators.
Table 25: Timelines of the Monthly Assessment Report
S. No. Activity For the Month Timelines
For Review Period 1 – February 1 to
July 31
1 February By March 31st
2 March By April 30th
3 AERA to finalize the Monthly April By May 31st
4 Assessment report May By June 30th
5 June By July 31st
6 July By August 31st
For Review Period 2 – August 1 to
January 31
7 August By September 30th
8 September By October 31st
9 AERA to finalize the Monthly October By November 30th
10 Assessment report November By December 31st
11 December By January 31st
12 January By February 28th
9.2 BIANNUAL TARIFF ADJUSTMENT AND REBATE COMPLIANCE ORDER
9.2.1 The aeronautical tariff revisions will be conducted for an aggregate six-month Review Period,
based on the Adjusted Rebate. A Biannual Tariff Adjustment and Rebate Compliance Order
will be published for this six-month Review Period, detailing the following:
(a) Compilation of all Monthly Assessment Reports within the six-month Review Period along
with the total Adjusted Rebate amount for the six-month Review Period
(b) Revised aeronautical tariffs for all airports
9.2.2 The Biannual Tariff Adjustment and Rebate Compliance Order will be published on the AERA
website and will be accessible to all relevant stakeholders, ensuring transparency and clarity.
The Biannual Tariff Adjustment and Rebate Compliance Order will be published within 45
days of the end of the 6-month Review Period. The revised aeronautical tariffs will become
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 103 of 164REPORTING AND ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
applicable within 15 days of the issuance of the Biannual Tariff Adjustment and Rebate
Compliance Order.
9.2.3 The Review Period is defined as a six-month period, with the first half-year period running
from February 1 to July 31, and the second half-year period running from August 1 to January
31. The Biannual Tariff Adjustment and Rebate Compliance Order for the first half-year
Review Period will be released on September 15, and for the second half-year Review Period
on March 15. The revised aeronautical tariffs will become applicable from October 1 for the
first half-year Review Period and from April 1 for the second half-year Review Period. The
revised aeronautical tariffs will remain applicable till March 31 for the first half-year Review
Period and till September 30 for the second half-year Review Period. The first Review Period
may be shorter than six months to ensure that subsequent Review Periods align with the defined
schedule.
Table 26: Illustration of the timeline of the Biannual Review Period
Review Period (6 months)
Review Period 1 February 1 to July 31
Tariff Adjustment and Rebate Compliance Order release September 15
Revision in Aeronautical Tariffs From October 1 onwards till March 31
Review Period 2 August 1 to January 31
Tariff Adjustment and Rebate Compliance Order release March 15
Revision in Aeronautical Tariffs From April 1 onwards till September 30
9.3 PROPOSAL REGARDING THE REPORTING AND ASSESSMENT
FRAMEWORK
Based on the material before it and its analysis, the following is proposed regarding the
Reporting and Assessment Framework:
9.3.1 Based on the performance monitoring mechanism detailed out in the Chapter 5 and Chapter 6,
a Monthly Assessment Report will be prepared for a particular month covering comprehensive
information on parameter-wise rebates and incentives applicable for that period along with
detailed measurements and an analysis comparing actual performance against defined targets.
9.3.2 The Monthly Assessment Report for a particular month will be finalized by the end of the
following month. The report will be made available to the airport operators.
9.3.3 The Review Period for performance assessment is defined as a six-month period, with the first
half-year period running from February 1 to July 31, and the second half-year period running
from August 1 to January 31.
9.3.4 The aeronautical tariff revisions will be undertaken for each Review Period as per the timeline
given in Table 26 through the issue of a Biannual Tariff Adjustment and Rebate Compliance
Order. This order will be published on the AERA website within 45 days after the review period
and will be accessible to stakeholders, with revised tariffs becoming applicable 15 days post-
publication.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 104 of 164MONITORING AND GOVERNANCE MECHANISM
10 MONITORING AND GOVERNANCE MECHANISM
10.1 MONITORING OF AIRPORT PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS THROUGH
THIRD-PARTY ASSESSOR
10.1.1 AERA will appoint a Third-Party assessor to ensure independent, transparent and unbiased
monitoring of the airport performance parameters. This helps in eliminating any potential
conflicts of interest that might arise if the airport operators were to self-assess their
performance.
10.1.2 Third-party assessor will be responsible for developing a performance measurement plan for
each airport based on the guidance provided in this document on measurement mechanisms and
data sources. They will collect and analyse data related to various performance indicators. This
includes reviewing recorded CCTV footage for queue and wait times, undertaking passenger
surveys, assessing the availability and infrastructure of helpdesks, conduct manual
measurements of various parameters to complement system-generated data and verifying the
functionality of PRM (Persons with Reduced Mobility) checklists, among other requirements.
10.1.3 Third-party assessor will compile the collected data to determine the applicability of rebates
and incentives. They will prepare and submit to AERA the draft Monthly Assessment Report
and draft Biannual Tariff Adjustment and Rebate Compliance Order. AERA will then review
and issue the final Monthly Assessment Report and Biannual Tariff Adjustment and Rebate
Compliance Order.
10.1.4 The payment for the services provided by these third-party assessors would be made by the
government.
10.2 REVISION IN THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR AIRPORTS
10.2.1 The performance mechanism will undergo a review and revision from time to time. This will
ensure that the mechanism remains up-to-date and continues to meet the evolving needs of
airport operations and service standards.
10.2.2 The revision will be based on a comprehensive review of existing performance targets and
measurement mechanisms. Stakeholder interaction and feedback will be integral to the revision
process to ensure the performance mechanism remains relevant and effective.
10.2.3 A gradual transition of the necessary information-gathering parameters to rebate-holding
parameters can be considered during the upcoming comprehensive review of the performance
standards.
10.3 PROPOSAL REGARDING THE MONITORING AND GOVERNANCE
MECHANISM
Based on the material before it and its analysis, the following is proposed regarding the
Monitoring and Governance Mechanism:
10.3.1 To appoint independent Third-Party Assessors to monitor airport performance parameters in a
transparent and unbiased manner. Third-Party Assessors will also be responsible for preparation
and submission for AERA’s approval the draft Monthly Assessment Report and draft Biannual
Tariff Adjustment and Rebate Compliance Order.
10.3.2 To review and revise the airport performance mechanism from time to time to ensure it remains
aligned with evolving operational needs and service standards.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 105 of 164SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS PUT FORTH FOR STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
11 SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS PUT FORTH FOR STAKEHOLDER
CONSULTATION
11.1 Chapter 1: BACKGROUND
11.1.1 The performance standards and its monitoring mechanism outlined as part of this document
shall be applicable to all major airports regardless of any differing provisions contained in the
CA/ OMDA with respect to the performance standards and its monitoring mechanism.
However, it is clarified that the aforesaid will not in any manner release any concessionaire
from its obligations under their respective agreements. (refer to 1.10.1)
11.2 Chapter 2: OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
11.2.1 A uniform, comprehensive, future-ready, reliable and technologically enabled performance
standards framework that enhances passenger experience across all airport touchpoints through
a technologically advanced and inclusive approach. (refer to 2.3.1)
11.2.2 The integration of emerging technologies like Self-Bag Drop, Immigration E-gates, and Digi-
Yatra to create a seamless, efficient, and future-ready airport experience. (refer to 2.3.2)
11.2.3 A robust and standardized data monitoring framework to ensure reliable, accurate, and
consistent performance measurement for enhanced transparency and operational excellence.
(refer to 2.3.3)
11.2.4 A phased technology adoption strategy to enhance service quality monitoring starting with
immediate integration of available tools and progressing toward long-term deployment of
advanced innovations. (refer to 2.3.4)
11.3 Chapter 3: CATEGORIZATION OF THE SERVICE PARAMETERS
11.3.1 Categorization Summary: The service parameters are categorized into:
1) Objective Parameters (Quantifiable): 32 parameters in total; and
2) Subjective Parameters (Qualitative): 18 parameters in total.
(refer to 3.7.1)
11.3.2 The Objective Parameters include a total of 32 parameters covering:
• Airport Core Processes (Wait time): 6 parameters
• Airport Facilities (including for PRM passengers): 8 parameters
• Customer Service / Grievance Redressal System: 1 parameter
• Other parameters (for Information gathering only): 17 parameters
(refer to 3.7.2)
11.3.3 The Subjective Parameters include a total of 18 parameters covering
• Passenger Convenience: 16 parameters
• For PRM Passengers: 2 parameters
(refer to 3.7.3)
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 106 of 164SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS PUT FORTH FOR STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
11.4 Chapter 4: AIRPORT CATEGORIES FOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
11.4.1 To ensure practical and proportionate service quality standards, the airports are classified into
Category A (≥6 million passengers annually) and Category B (<6 million). This allows for
tailored implementation, with higher standards for larger, more complex airports and flexible,
context-sensitive parameters for smaller ones. (refer to 4.5.1)
11.4.2 A segmented framework for airport performance standards, tailoring regulatory, operational,
and infrastructural requirements based on airport size and complexity, while maintaining
uniformity in technology, customer service, and accessibility. (refer to 4.5.2)
11.4.3 Detailed information on the parameters and their respective targets applicable for Category A
and Category B airports is provided in Annexure 13.1, Section 6.2 and Section 6.3. (refer to
4.5.3)
11.4.4 The adoption of uniform service parameters under performance standards across all airports
within each respective category to ensure consistency in evaluation and passenger experience.
(refer to (refer to 4.5.4)
11.5 Chapter 5: OBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS AND ITS
MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK
11.5.1 The brief explanation of each parameter, its measurement mechanism, computation of
performance score and measurement frequency with the data sources for Airport Core
Processes (Wait Time), Airport Facilities, Customer Service / Grievance Redressal System and
Other Parameters (For Information Gathering) is given in Section 5.2, Section 5.3, Section 5.4
and Section 5.5 respectively. (refer to 5.8.1)
11.5.2 For the parameter Operational Resilience under the category of Information Gathering, the
rebate is applicable in case of default as per Section 5.5.15. (refer to 5.8.2)
11.5.3 While this chapter has given the measurement mechanism for each parameter, it is clarified that
the third-party assessor may apply the methodology with suitable modification to address
practical implementation issues specific to each airport. Any such modifications must be clearly
documented and communicated to AERA by the third-party assessor. (refer to5.8.3)
11.6 Chapter 6: SUBJECTIVE SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS:
ASSESSMENT SURVEY FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION
METHODOLOGY
11.6.1 The Subjective Parameters will be measured through a survey-based approach based on a
predefined questionnaire outlined in the section 6.2 for Passenger Convenience and section 6.3
PRM Passengers. (refer to 6.6.1)
11.6.2 A standardized survey using a 1 to 5 rating scale will be conducted to assess passenger
satisfaction as per the approach given in section 6.1.2. (refer to 6.6.2)
11.6.3 The performance percentage (%) score for subjective parameters used in rebate computation
shall be calculated as per Section 6.1.5 and the performance percentage (%) score for subjective
parameters used in incentive computation shall be calculated as per Section 6.1.6. (refer to
6.6.3)
11.6.4 Surveys will be administered by a third-party assessor during peak hours at designated terminal
locations. Passengers will be randomly selected and authenticated via boarding pass scans.
(refer to 6.6.4)
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 107 of 164SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS PUT FORTH FOR STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
11.7 Chapter 7: TARGETS
11.7.1 The airport operator will meet the target for measures if the performance of the parameter
exceeds the specified target value as given in Section 7.1. (refer to 7.2.1)
11.8 Chapter 8: REBATE AND INCENTIVE MECHANISM
11.8.1 Rebates and incentives for the parameters as given in section 8.2 and section 8.3 respectively
will apply. (refer to 8.7.1)
11.8.2 Adjusted Rebate for all parameters applicable for the six-month Review Period r shall be
calculated as per section 8.4.4 (refer to 8.7.2)
11.8.3 Carry-forwarded Incentive to the next Review Period shall be calculated as per section 8.4.6
(refer to 8.7.3)
11.8.4 The Adjusted Rebate as computed in section 8.4.4 for the Review Period r will be applied on
the Projected Aggregate Revenue Requirement for the corresponding period of the airport
operator to compute the rebate amount. (refer to 8.7.4)
11.8.5 The computed rebate amount will be adjusted in the tariffs prospectively in the subsequent
accounting half-year period as given in section 8.5. The revision in aeronautical tariffs will be
based on the following scenarios: Scenario 1: If the User Development Fee (UDF) is applicable
on Domestic and International passengers, then the UDF charges will be reduced, Scenario 2:
If UDF is not applicable for Domestic Passengers, then landing charges will be reduced. (refer
to 8.7.5)
11.8.6 To reconcile any differences between the sum of rebates applied during the control period
through tariff revisions and the total rebates the airport operator is required to pay according to
the actual Aggregate Revenue Requirement as per the audited financial statements, a true-up
exercise will be conducted along with the MYTP evaluation for the specific airport as per
section 8.6. (refer to 8.7.6)
11.8.7 A calibrated rebate and incentive structure aligns with the operational significance and
passenger-centric impact of each parameter. Parameters with limited controllability or lower
influence on core service delivery have been assigned lower rebates, ensuring fairness in
performance evaluation. (refer to 8.7.7)
11.9 Chapter 9: REPORTING AND ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
11.9.1 Based on the performance monitoring mechanism detailed out in the Chapter 5 and Chapter 6,
a Monthly Assessment Report will be prepared for a particular month covering comprehensive
information on parameter-wise rebates and incentives applicable for that period along with
detailed measurements and an analysis comparing actual performance against defined targets.
(refer to 9.3.1)
11.9.2 The Monthly Assessment Report for a particular month will be finalized by the end of the
following month. The report will be made available to the airport operators. (refer to 9.3.2)
11.9.3 The Review Period for performance assessment is defined as a six-month period, with the first
half-year period running from February 1 to July 31, and the second half-year period running
from August 1 to January 31. (refer to 9.3.3)
11.9.4 The aeronautical tariff revisions will be undertaken for each Review Period as per the timeline
given in Table 26 through the issue of a Biannual Tariff Adjustment and Rebate Compliance
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 108 of 164SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS PUT FORTH FOR STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
Order. This order will be published on the AERA website within 45 days after the review period
and will be accessible to stakeholders, with revised tariffs becoming applicable 15 days post-
publication. (refer to 9.3.4)
11.10 Chapter 10: MONITORING AND GOVERNANCE MECHANISM
11.10.1 To appoint independent Third-Party Assessors to monitor airport performance parameters in a
transparent and unbiased manner. Third-Party Assessors will also be responsible for preparation
and submission for AERA’s approval the draft Monthly Assessment Report and draft Biannual
Tariff Adjustment and Rebate Compliance Order. (refer to 10.3.1)
11.10.2 To review and revise the airport performance mechanism from time to time to ensure it remains
aligned with evolving operational needs and service standards. (refer to 10.3.2)
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 109 of 164STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION TIMELINE
12 STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION TIMELINE
12.1.1 MoCA vide letter no. AV-24026/2/2015-AD dated 29 July 2025 directed AERA to release this
Consultation Paper and to carry out the public consultation process with all the stakeholders.
In pursuance of the same and in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(4) of the AERA
Act 2008, the proposal contained in the Summary of Proposals (Chapter 11 above) read with
the relevant discussion in the other chapters of the Paper is hereby put forth for Stakeholders’
Consultation. However, it is clarified that the contents of this Consultation Paper may not be
construed as any direction or decision or order of this Authority.
12.1.2 The Authority welcomes written evidence-based feedback, comments and suggestions from
stakeholders on the proposal outlined in Chapter 11 (preferably in electronic form (editable
“Microsoft Word” file)) latest by 24/09/2025.
12.1.3 In accordance with MoCA’s letter no. AV-24026/2/2015-AD dated 29 July 2025, after
completion of this consultation exercise by AERA on behalf of MoCA and after its due
finalization, MoCA shall notify Rules for Performance Standards at major airports under
section 51(2)(f) of the AERA Act, 2008.
Secretary
Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (AERA),
3rd Floor, Udaan Bhawan,
Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi – 110003.
Email: director-ps@aera.gov.in, rajan.gupta1@aera.gov.in, inderpal.s@aera.gov.in, copy to
secretary@aera.gov.in
(Chairperson)
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 110 of 164ANNEXURES
13 ANNEXURES
13.1 ANNEXURE – 1: OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS MEASURES AND REBATE
Performance Proposed Target Proposed Target Maximum
S. No. Measures
Parameter (For Category A Airports) (For Category B Airports) Rebate
Airport Core Process
Security Check Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
O1(a) (Terminal Entry Gate) - (from entry in queue to 95% < 10 mins 90% < 10 mins
Traditional presenting to CISF Staff)
0.25%
Security Check Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
O1(b) (Terminal Entry Gate) – (from entry in queue to 95% < 5 mins 90% < 5 mins
Digi-Yatra presenting at Digi-Yatra gate)
Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
Economy: 95% < 20 mins Economy: 90% < 20 mins
O2(a) Check-In (from entry to presenting to
Business: 95% < 5 mins Business: 90% < 5 mins
staff for check-in)
0.25%
Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
Check-In
O2(b) (from entry to presenting to SBDs: 95% < 5 mins SBDs: 90% < 5 mins
(Self-Bag Drop)
SBD counters)
Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
Immigration / (from entry in queue to
O3 95% < 12 mins 90% < 12 mins 0.25%
Emigration presenting to immigration
officer)
Security Check Maximum waiting time (from
O4 (Terminal) - Departure entry in queue to presenting to 95% < 10 mins 90% < 10 mins 0.25%
Pre-embarkation security staff for frisking)
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 111 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance Proposed Target Proposed Target Maximum
S. No. Measures
Parameter (For Category A Airports) (For Category B Airports) Rebate
First Bag: 15 mins First Bag: 15 mins
Time for bag delivery from
Baggage Delivery
O5(a) aircraft arrival (on blocks time) Last Bag: 35 mins (For Code C) Last Bag: 30 mins (For Code C) 0.25%
(Domestic)
for 95% of domestic flights Last Bag: 45 mins (For Code E) Last Bag: 45 mins (For Code E)
First Bag: 15 mins First Bag: 15 mins
Time for bag delivery from
Baggage Delivery
O5(b) aircraft arrival (on blocks time) Last Bag: 45 mins (For Code C) Last Bag: 40mins (For Code C) 0.25%
(International)
for 95% of international flights Last Bag: 50 mins (For Code E) Last Bag: 45 mins (For Code E)
Time taken from on-block to
Passenger Arrival First Passenger: 95% < 15
O6(a) entry in the terminal building First Passenger: 95% < 15 mins 0.15%
(Domestic) mins
for 95% of domestic flights
Time taken from on-block to
Passenger Arrival First Passenger: 95% < 15
O6(b) entry in the terminal building First Passenger: 95% < 15 mins 0.15%
(International) mins
for 95% of international flights
Airport Facilities
Uptime of Flight
O7 Information Display % of time operational 98% 98% 0.25%
System (FIDS)
Uptime of Lifts,
O8 Escalators and % of time operational 98% 98% 0.25%
Travellators
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 112 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance Proposed Target Proposed Target Maximum
S. No. Measures
Parameter (For Category A Airports) (For Category B Airports) Rebate
Uptime of Automated
Services
O9 % of time operational 98% 98% 0.25%
(As per list in Schedule
5.3.3(a))
Availability of
Passenger Boarding % of aircraft movements served
O10 90% 90% 0.15%
Bridges (Domestic / to meet airline request
International)
Availability of Baggage
O11 % of time available 100% 100% 0.25%
Trolleys
Seating Availability % of departure Peak Hour
O12 70% 50% 0.25%
(at Boarding gates) Passengers
Airport Facilities for Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRM) Passengers
Facilities for PRM
Passenger % time availability of
O13 100% 100% 0.25%
(As per Checklist assistance for PRM
5.3.7(a))
Availability of
% time availability of
O14 Wheelchairs 100% within 20 mins 100% within 20 mins 0.25%
assistance for PRM
(Pre-booked)
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 113 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance Proposed Target Proposed Target Maximum
S. No. Measures
Parameter (For Category A Airports) (For Category B Airports) Rebate
Customer Service / Grievance Redressal System
Help desks (Help Desk
% time availability at Check-in,
Counters located at
Security Hold Area (SHA), and
O15(a) check-in, SHA and 100% 100% 0.10%
Arrivals, equipped with the
arrivals with necessary
necessary infrastructure
infrastructure)
Help Desks (Availability
O15(b) of Personnel at all % time availability of Personnel 100% 100% 0.10%
Helpdesks)
Help Desks (Percentage
(%) of written % of written complaints
O15(c) complaints uploaded on uploaded on Air-Sewa within 100% within 24 hours 100% within 24 hours 0.10%
Air-Sewa within specified time
specified time)
Other Parameters (for Information gathering only)
Domestic to Domestic: 60 mins
Minimum Connect Time Domestic to International: 75
O16 (MCT) - Transfer Minimum Connect times (mins) mins Optional NA
Process
International to Domestic: 75
mins
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 114 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance Proposed Target Proposed Target Maximum
S. No. Measures
Parameter (For Category A Airports) (For Category B Airports) Rebate
International to International:
60 mins
No. of Misconnect - No. of misconnect passengers
O17(a) 10 Optional NA
Passengers per 1000 passengers
No. of Misconnect - No. of misconnect baggage per
O17(b) 20 Optional NA
Baggage 1000 baggage
Travel time on terminal
O18 Land side access 95% of vehicles < 10 mins Not Applicable NA
frontage road (mins)
% of aircraft movements using
Passenger Boarding
O19 boarding bridges out of total 90% Not Applicable NA
Bridges Utilization
eligible flights
Availability of Medical
% time availability of
O20 Facilities (As per 100 % 100 % NA
assistance for patients
Checklist 5.5.5(a))
Availability of Digital
O21 % of time operational 100% 100% NA
Information Centers
Availability of Cloak
O22 Room / Extended % of time available 100% Not Applicable NA
Baggage Storage
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 115 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance Proposed Target Proposed Target Maximum
S. No. Measures
Parameter (For Category A Airports) (For Category B Airports) Rebate
% time availability of
O23(a) Lost and Found Services Personnel at Lost and Found 100% 100% NA
Services Counter
O23(b) Lost and Found Services % of complaints resolved 100% within 7 Days 100% within 7 Days NA
Availability of Baby
O24 % of time available 100% Optional NA
care rooms
Availability of Sensory
O25 % of time available 100% Optional NA
rooms
Availability of % of operational charging
O26 Operational Charging points relative to the no. of 20% 20% NA
Points peak-hour departing passengers
Availability of
% time availability of
O27 Wheelchairs 100% within 30 mins 100% within 30 mins NA
assistance for PRM
(Not Pre-booked)
Uptime of Digi-Yatra
O28 % of time operational 99% 99% NA
and Immigration e-gates
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 116 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance Proposed Target Proposed Target Maximum
S. No. Measures
Parameter (For Category A Airports) (For Category B Airports) Rebate
For imports, maximum
processing time of 24 hours as
per NCAP, 2016
O29 Cargo Services Average dwell time Not Applicable NA
For exports, maximum
processing time of 8 hours as
per NCAP, 2016
Applied if
disruption
Submission of Operational Submission of Operational
O30 Operational Resilience - attributable
Resilience Plan Resilience Plan
to airport
operator
Percentage (%) of passengers
O31(a) Technology Information gathering Information gathering NA
using Digi-Yatra
Percentage (%) of passengers
O31(b) Technology Information gathering Information gathering NA
using SBDs
Percentage (%) of international
O31(c) Technology passengers using Immigration Information gathering Information gathering NA
E-gates
Green Accreditation of Airport
O32 Sustainability as per MoCA guidelines (once Information gathering Information gathering NA
notified)
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 117 of 164ANNEXURES
13.2 ANNEXURE – 2: OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS MEASURES AND INCENTIVE
Maximum
S. No. Performance Parameter Measures Lower threshold Upper threshold
Incentive
Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
Security Check (Terminal
O1(a) (from entry in queue to presenting 96% < 10 mins 99% < 10 mins
Entry Gate) - Traditional
to CISF Staff)
0.15%
Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
Security Check (Terminal
O1(b) (from entry in queue to presenting 96% < 5 mins 99% < 5 mins
Entry Gate) – Digi-Yatra
at Digi-Yatra gate)
Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
Economy: 96% < 20 mins Economy: 99% < 20 mins
O2(a) Check-In (from entry to presenting to staff
Business: 96% < 5 mins Business: 99% < 5 mins
for check-in)
0.15%
Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
Check-In
O2(b) (from entry to presenting to SBD SBDs: 96% < 5 mins SBDs: 99% < 5 mins
(Self-Baggage Drop)
counters)
Waiting Time (mins) in Queue
O3 Immigration / Emigration (from entry in queue to presenting 96% < 12 mins 99% < 12 mins 0.15%
to immigration officer)
Maximum waiting time (from
Security Check (Terminal) -
O4 entry in queue to presenting to 96% < 10 min 99% < 10 min 0.15%
Departure Pre-embarkation
security staff for frisking)
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 118 of 164ANNEXURES
13.3 ANNEXURE – 3: SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS MEASURES AND REBATE
Proposed Maximum
S. No. Topics Measures
Target Rebate
S1 Cleanliness % of passengers rating the parameter as 4 or 5 90% 0.25%
Availability of Basic necessary facilities
S2 % of passengers rating the parameter as 4 or 5 90% 0.25%
(including Wi-Fi Availability)
S3 Courtesy and Helpfulness of the Airport Staff % of passengers rating the parameter as 4 or 5 90% 0.15%
S16 Overall Satisfaction with the Airport % of passengers rating the parameter as 4 or 5 90% 0.35%
13.4 ANNEXURE – 4: SUBJECTIVE PARAMETER MEASURES AND INCENTIVE
Lower Upper Maximum
S. No. Topics Measure
threshold threshold Incentive
S1 Cleanliness % of passengers rating the parameter as 5 90% 95% 0.15%
Availability of Basic necessary facilities
S2 % of passengers rating the parameter as 5 90% 95% 0.15%
(including Wi-Fi Availability)
S3 Courtesy and Helpfulness of the Airport Staff % of passengers rating the parameter as 5 90% 95% 0.10%
S13 Services of Udan Yatri Cafe % of passengers rating the parameter as 5 90% 95% 0.05%
S16 Overall Satisfaction with the Airport % of passengers rating the parameter as 5 90% 95% 0.20%
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 119 of 164ANNEXURES
13.5 ANNEXURE – 5: NORMATIVE PROCESSING TIME COMPUTATION FOR
FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTOMATED QUEUE TIME
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
Computation of Normative Processing Time
The third-party assessor will use the data collected during the manual measurement to compute
the Normative Processing Time. This data will be utilized when implementing an automated
queue time measurement system in the future. The following formula will be applied to
determine the Normative Processing Time:
a. Compute Queuing Time as per below:
𝑄 = 𝐵 −𝐴
𝑡,𝑖 𝑡,𝑖 𝑡,𝑖
Where:
• P is the no. of passengers in queue i at measurement period t
t,i
• Q is the Queuing time of the queue i at measurement period t
t,i
• A is the time a passenger joins the respective queue i after the observation period has
t,i
begun at measurement period t
• B is the time that passenger presents themselves to the operator for the queue i at
t,i
measurement period t
b. Compute the Normative Processing Time as per below:
∑𝑡 ∑𝑛 𝑄 × 𝑁
𝑡=1 𝑖=1 𝑡,𝑖 𝑡,𝑖
𝑁𝑃𝑇 =
∑𝑡 ∑𝑛 𝑃
𝑡=1 𝑖=1 𝑡,𝑖
Where:
• P is the no. of passengers in queue i at measurement period t
t,i
• Q is the Queuing time of the queue i at measurement period t
t,i
• N is the number of counters/ processors handling the queue i at measurement period t
t,i
• i is the total number of queues
• t is the total number of measurement period
• NPT is the Normative processing time
For instance, if there are 3 queues and six measurement period starts at 00:20 and the passenger
joins the queue at 00:26, then "A" will be recorded as 00:26.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 120 of 164ANNEXURES
Table 27: Illustration of Normative Processing Time Calculation
Queue
t t +10 t +20 t +30 t +40 t +50
no.
1 A 14:02 14:10 14:26 14:35 14:40 14:58
t,i
B 14:09 14:20 14:32 14:39 14:56 15:02
t,i
Q 7 minutes 10 minutes 6 minutes 5 minutes 16 minutes 4 minutes
t,i
N 2 1 3 2 1 1
t,i
P 5 4 8 10 2 10
t,i
2 A 14:00 14:10 14:26 14:32 14:45 14:58
t,i
B 14:09 14:15 14:30 14:39 14:53 15:00
t,i
Q 9 minutes 5 minutes 4 minutes 5 minutes 8 minutes 2 minutes
t,i
N 3 2 1 1 6 2
t,i
P 6 4 8 8 5 10
t,i
3 A 14:03 14:12 14:20 14:35 14:44 14:58
t,i
B 14:04 14:22 14:32 14:38 14:52 15:02
t,i
Q 1 minute 10 minutes 12 minutes 3 minutes 8 minutes 4 minutes
t,i
N 1 2 3 1 4 1
t,i
P 10 8 4 10 5 4
t,i
(7×2)+(10×1)+(6×3)+⋯+(3×1)+(8×4)+(4×1) 266
𝑁𝑃𝑇 = = =2.2 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠
(5+4+8+⋯+10+5+4) 121
Queue measurement mechanism proposed for future
13.5.1 In the future, automated queue time measurement mechanism for queue-related parameters will
be assessed once the necessary technology is implemented by the airport operator and achieves
satisfactory accuracy. This technology may include CCTV with image recognition capabilities
among other developing technologies.
13.5.2 After the technology is in place, the computation of the performance percentage (%) figure will
be indicatively revised as follows:
𝑃 × 𝑁𝑃𝑇
𝑖
𝑄 =
𝑁
𝑁 ×𝑄𝑢𝑒𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡
𝑀𝑄𝐿 =
𝑁𝑃𝑇
𝑃𝐵𝐿 = 𝑀𝑎𝑥 (𝑃 −𝑀𝑄𝐿,0)
𝑖
Where:
• Q is the queue time;
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 121 of 164ANNEXURES
• P is the number of passengers in queue i;
i
• NPT is the Normative Processing Time as computed in Section 5.2.1(b);
• N is the number of operators handling the particular queue; for example, for check-in, no.
of operational check-in counters handling the respective queue will be the N;
• MQL is the maximum queue length;
• Queue Target is the target queue time for that particular parameter;
• PBL is the number of passengers beyond queue length.
The performance percentage (%) figure will be calculated as the number of passengers within
the queue length:
𝑃𝐵𝐿
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = (1 - ) ×100
𝑀𝑄𝐿
Table 28: Illustration of Future Queue Measurement Mechanism
NPT (Normative Processing Time) 0.8 minutes 2 minutes
No. of Passengers in a specific
8 8
Queue (P)
i
No. of Operators handling the
1 1
specific Queue (N)
8×0.8 8×2
Queue Time (Q) ( )= 6.4 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 ( )= 16 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠
1 1
Queue Target 10 minutes 10 minutes
1×10 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 1×10 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠
Maximum Queue Length (MQL) = 12.5 = 5
0.8 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 2 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠
No. of Passengers beyond queue
Max (8 - 12.5, 0) = 0 Max (8 - 5, 0) = 3
length (PBL)
Percentage of Pax within the queue 0 3
(1− )×100=100% (1− )×100=40%
length 12.5 5
13.5.3 AERA seeks stakeholder feedback on the proposed queue measurement mechanism to be
implemented in future.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 122 of 164ANNEXURES
13.6 ANNEXURE – 6: SERVICE PARAMETERS AND BENCHMARKS IN THE
EXISTING AERA GUIDELINES
13.6.1 Annexure – 6.1: Objective Quality of Service Parameters
Monthly
Service Parameters Measures Benchmarks
Percentage Rebate
Airport Core Processes
Security Check Waiting time in queue 95% < 5 mins 0.25
Checking time in queue for
Immigration 95% < 10 mins 0.25
immigration
Economy: 20 mins
Check-In Maximum queuing time 0.25
Business: 05 mins
Baggage Delivery Time taken for bag First bag: 10 mins
0.25
(Domestic) delivery from aircraft arrival Last Bag: 30 mins
Baggage Delivery Time taken for bag First bag: 15 mins
0.25
(International) delivery from aircraft arrival Last Bag: 40 mins
Passenger Arrival Time taken from aircraft
95% < 45 mins 0.25
(International) arrival to kerbside
Passenger Arrival Time taken from aircraft
95% < 35 mins 0.25
(Domestic) arrival to kerbside
Airport Facilities
Parking Bays % time available 99% 0.25
Passenger Boarding % of aircraft movements
90% 0.25
Bridges served to meet airline request
Availability of Flight
% time available 98% 0.25
Information
Escalators, Lifts &
% time available 98% 0.25
Travelators
Automated Services % time available 98% 0.25
Baggage Trolleys % time available 100% 0.25
Facilities for Disabled % time availability of
100% within 5 mins 0.25
Passenger assistance for disabled
Customer Service
Handling of % of complaints responded 100% within 2
0.25
Complaints within specified time working days
Response to Phone % of calls answered within
90 % within 60 secs 0.25
Calls specified time
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 123 of 164ANNEXURES
13.6.2 Annexure – 6.2: Subjective Quality of Service Parameters
The subjective quality of service is assessed under the parameter "Overall satisfaction with the
airport" as part of the ACI ASQ (Airport Service Quality) survey, which is conducted on a
quarterly basis. The benchmark score for this parameter is either 3.5 or 3.75, as applicable. The
rebate percentage is calculated on a quarterly basis in accordance with the achieved score.
Additionally, the Airport Operator provides performance data for all measured parameters of
the ACI ASQ survey, as provided below:
1) Overall satisfaction with the airport
2) Ground transportation to/from airport
3) Availability of parking facilities
4) Value for money of parking facilities
5) Availability of baggage carts/trolleys
6) Waiting time in check-in queue/line
7) Efficiency of check-in staff
8) Courtesy and helpfulness of check-in staff
9) Waiting time at passport/personal ID inspection
10) Courtesy and helpfulness of inspection staff
11) Courtesy and helpfulness of security staff
12) Thoroughness of security inspection
13) Waiting time at security inspection
14) Feeling of being safe and secure
15) Ease of finding your way through airport
16) Flight Information screens
17) Walking distance inside the terminal
18) Ease of making connections with other flights
19) Courtesy and helpfulness of airport staff (excluding check-in, passport control and security)
20) Restaurant/Eating facilities
21) Value for money of restaurant/eating facilities
22) Availability of bank/ATM facilities/money changers
23) Shopping facilities
24) Value for money of shopping facilities
25) Internet access/ Wi-fi
26) Business/Executive lounges
27) Availability of washrooms/toilets
28) Cleanliness of washrooms/toilets
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 124 of 164ANNEXURES
29) Comfort of waiting/gate areas
30) Cleanliness of airport terminal
31) Ambience of the airport
32) Passport/Personal ID Inspection
33) Speed of baggage delivery service
34) Customs inspection
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 125 of 164ANNEXURES
13.7 ANNEXURE – 7: SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS OF IGIA, DELHI and CSMIA, MUMBAI AS PER OMDA
13.7.1 Objective Service Quality Parameters
The airport operator is required to assess, on a quarterly basis, compliance with the Objective Service Quality Requirements as per Schedule 3 of
OMDA as reproduced hereunder and submit compliance reports to AAI.
Performance Area Performance Measure Target
Domestic/International: 60 minutes
Transfer Process Minimum connect times
International/ International: 45 minutes
Terminal Services
Handling of complaints 100% of complaints responded to within 2 working days
Response to phone calls 5% of calls answered within 20 seconds
Availability of Flight Information 98% available
Automated services 98% available
Lifts, escalators etc. 98% available
95% of high priority complaints within 4 hours,
Repair completion time
95% of others within 24 hours
Baggage trolleys 100% availability
Cleanliness Achieve a satisfactory cleanliness rating for 95% of all inspections
Availability of wheelchairs 100% of time within 5 minutes
Assistance for the disabled 100% of time within 5 minutes
5 minutes for business class
Check in Maximum queuing time
20 minutes for economy
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 126 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance Area Performance Measure Target
Security check Waiting time in queue 95% of passengers wait less than 10 minutes
95% of passengers wait less than 20 minutes
CIQ Checking time in queue
95% of passengers wait less than 10 minutes
Time for bag delivery from aircraft Domestic- First bag 10 minutes, last bag 30 minutes from on blocks time
Baggage delivery
arrival International-First bag 15 minutes, last bag 40 minutes from on blocks time.
Passenger arrival process Time taken from aircraft arrival to
95% of passengers take less than 45 minutes
(International) kerbside
International - 90 % of annual passengers
% passengers served by boarding
Passenger boarding bridges Domestic - 90 % of annual passengers
bridges
travelling on A/C B737/A320 or larger unless not required by Airlines
Average annual delay per aircraft: 4 minutes or better based on provision of
Runway system Delays to arriving / departing aircraft International Standard ATC procedures and equipment as per CNS/ATM
agreement
Average time taken to find parking
95% of drivers take less than 5 minutes
space
Car parking
Average time to depart airport from
95% of drivers take less than 5 minutes
parking space
95% of passengers wait less than 5 minutes
Taxis Maximum waiting time
95% of passengers wait less than 3 minutes
Gate Lounges Seating availability Seats for 80% of gate lounge population
For imports, maximum processing time of 24 hours
Cargo Services Average dwell time
For exports, maximum processing time of 24 hours
Source: OMDA, Delhi, Mumbai
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 127 of 164ANNEXURES
13.7.2 Subjective Service Quality Parameters
The airport operator is required to assess the subjective parameters as per Schedule 3 of OMDA
as reproduced hereunder. As per Section 9.1.3 (a) (iii) of OMDA, these parameters are utilized
to compute the Target Rating of 3.75. The rating of the Airport as per IATA/ ACI AETRA
Passenger survey for the purposes of the Subjective Service Quality Requirements shall be a
number between one (1) to five (5) arrived at on the basis of the below parameters.
1. Navigational Items 4. Value for money
− Ease of finding way through the − Restaurant / eating facilities
airport / Sign posting
− Shopping facilities
− Flight Information Screens
− Parking facilities
− Walking distances
5. Service Delivery
2. Connectivity Items
− Courtesy, helpfulness of airport
− Ease of making connections with
staff
other flights
− Comfortable waiting / gate areas
− Ground transportation to / from
airports. − Speed of baggage delivery service
3. Service Facilities 6. Environmental factors
− Availability of baggage carts
− Cleanliness of terminal
− Restaurant / eating facilities
− Ambience of the airport
− Shopping facilities
7. Airline factors
− Business facilities
− Waiting time at check-in
− Washrooms
− Efficiency of check-in
− Parking facilities
− Courtesy, helpfulness of check-in
staff
− Business / Executive lounges
Source: OMDA, Delhi, Mumbai
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 128 of 164ANNEXURES
13.8 ANNEXURE – 8: SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS OF KIA,
BENGALURU AND RGIA, HYDERABAD AS PER CONCESSION
AGREEMENT
Schedule 9 of the Concession Agreement outlines the subjective service quality requirements,
specifying that the following elements/criteria are to be evaluated annually using the IATA
Global Airport Monitor scoring system (ranging from one to five, where one indicates 'very
poor' and five denotes 'excellent'):
1) Ease of finding your way;
2) Flight information screen;
3) Availability of connections to the same continent;
4) Availability of connections to another continent;
5) Ease of making connections;
6) Availability of baggage carts;
7) Courtesy of airport staff;
8) Restaurant and eating facilities;
9) Shopping facilities;
10) Washrooms;
11) Passport inspection;
12) Customs inspection;
13) Waiting areas/lounges;
14) Baggage delivery service;
15) Ground transportation to/from city;
16) Parking facilities;
17) Sense of security; and
18) Ambience of airport.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 129 of 164ANNEXURES
13.9 ANNEXURE – 9: SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS OF SVPIA, AHMEDABAD, CCSIA, LUCKNOW, JAIPUR
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, LGBIA, GUWAHATI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND
MANGALURU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AS PER CONCESSION AGREEMENT
13.9.1 Objective Service Quality Parameters
The airport operator has to ensure that the service provided in airport conform to the Key Performance Indicators as specified in Section 1.1 in Annex-
I of Schedule H of the concession agreement as reproduced hereunder.
Performance Critical
Sl. No. Performance Measure Minimum Performance Standard
Indicator (Yes / No)
a) Average time taken to find parking space
including the time taken for payment of
parking fee or collection of ticket a) 95% of the drivers take less than 5 minutes
1. Car Parking No
b) Average time from parking slot to the exit b) 95% of the drivers take less than 5 minutes
gate including the time for payment of
parking fee
95% of the peak hour passengers wait less than 5
2. Security Check Waiting time in queue Yes
minutes
a) 95% of the business class passengers wait less than
5 minutes
3. Check-in Waiting time in queue Yes
b) 95% of the economy class passengers wait less than
20 minutes
4. Immigration Waiting time in queue a) 95% of the passengers wait less than 10 minutes Yes
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 130 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance Critical
Sl. No. Performance Measure Minimum Performance Standard
Indicator (Yes / No)
a) First bag will arrive on baggage belt within 10
minutes of aircraft on-blocks time, and
Baggage delivery Time for baggage delivery from aircraft
5. b) Last Baggage will arrive on baggage belt within 30 Yes
domestic arrival
minutes for Code C aircraft and 45 minutes for
Code E of aircraft on-blocks time
Baggage delivery Each baggage belt should be available at least 95% of
6. % time available Yes
domestic the time
a) First bag will arrive on baggage belt within 15
minutes of aircraft on-blocks time, and
Baggage delivery Time for baggage delivery from aircraft
7. b) Last Baggage will arrive on baggage belt within 40 Yes
international arrival
minutes for Code C aircraft 45 minutes for Code E
of aircraft on-blocks time
Baggage delivery Each baggage belt should be available at least 95% of
8. % time available Yes
international the time
a) International – 95% of passengers take less than 45
Passenger arrival minutes
9. Time from aircraft arrival to kerbside Yes
process b) Domestic – 95% of passengers take less than 35
minutes
Passenger boarding a) Each passenger boarding bridge should be available
10. Percentage time available Yes
bridges at least 95% of the time
b) The passenger boarding bridges should be available
Availability for % of aircraft movements to to 90% of the international passengers and to 90%
Yes
meet airline request of the domestic passengers travelling on aircrafts
B737/A320 or larger unless not required by airlines
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 131 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance Critical
Sl. No. Performance Measure Minimum Performance Standard
Indicator (Yes / No)
Each parking bay stand should be available at least 99%
11. Parking bays Percentage time available Yes
of the time
Availability of Flight
12. Information Display Percentage time available Each FIDS should be available at least 98% of the time No
Systems (FIDS)
Availability of
13. Percentage time available Baggage trolleys should be available 100% of the time No
Baggage trolleys
Passengers requiring 100 % of the departing passengers, needing a
14. Waiting time for provision of assistance No
wheelchairs wheelchair, should not wait longer than 5 minutes
a) Minimum connect time to be not more than 60
minutes for 80% of the Domestic / Domestic
Minimum connect time for transit/transfer Passengers
Passengers:
b) Minimum connect time to be not more than 75
Transit / Transfer
15. i. Domestic / Domestic minutes for 80% of the Domestic / International No
Passengers
ii. Domestic / International Passengers
iii. International / International c) Minimum connect time to be not more than 60
minutes for 80% of the International / International
Passengers
Escalators, elevators & Escalators, elevators & travellators should be available
16. Percentage time availability No
travellators at least 98% of the time
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 132 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance Critical
Sl. No. Performance Measure Minimum Performance Standard
Indicator (Yes / No)
Automated services should be available at least 98% of
the time
17. Automated services Percentage time availability Automated services shall include but not limited to No
inbound baggage system, outbound baggage system, X-
Ray machines and public announcement systems.
Information / Availability of personnel at Information / Information / Complaint desks should be manned 100%
18. No
Complaint desks Complaint desks of the time
Temperature range in a Passenger Terminal to be 21 –
Ambient Conditions in 25 degree Celsius during operational hours in the
Maintenance of ambient conditions in the
19. the Passenger Passenger areas, and No
passenger terminals
Terminals Relative Humidity levels – correlated relative humidity
to specified temperature range
Runway operational Recording, investigating and minimizing runway
20. Number of runway incursions Yes
safety incursions
a) As specified by ICAO, achieve a response time of
not exceeding 3 minutes to any point of each
operational Runway, and to any other part of the
movement area in optimum visibility and surface
conditions
21. ARFF Response time to incident Yes
b) Any other vehicles required to deliver the amounts
of extinguishing agents should arrive no more than
1 minute after he first responding vehicle(s) (i.e. no
more than 4 minutes after the first call) so as to
provide continuous agent application
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 133 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance Critical
Sl. No. Performance Measure Minimum Performance Standard
Indicator (Yes / No)
Queuing time for taxis will not be more than 5 minutes
22. Availability of taxi Waiting time in queue No
for 95% of the passengers
Percentage of complaints responded within 100% of the complaints responded within 2 working
23. Handling of complaints No
specified time days
a) 95% of the high priority repair works should be
Repair Completion Percentage of repairs done within specified addressed within 4 hours
24. No
Time time b) 95% of the others should be addressed within 4
hours
Achieve a satisfactory cleanliness rating for 95% of all
25. Cleanliness Ratings during cleanliness surveys No
inspections
26. Gate Lounges Seating Availability As per IATA optimum level of service No
Buggy services should be available at least 98% of the
27. Buggy Service Availability of buggies No
time
Source: Concession Agreement, AAI PPP Airports
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 134 of 164ANNEXURES
13.9.2 Subjective Service Quality Parameters
For the measurement of the Subjective Performance Parameters, a passenger survey has to be
conducted by the airport operator either through the ACI-ASQ Survey or through the
independent expert agency. The parameters to be covered by the specified passenger survey
will include all the measured parameters as per ACI-ASQ as specified in Section 1.3 in Annex-
I of Schedule H of the concession agreement reproduced hereunder:
1) Overall satisfaction with the airport
2) Ground transportation to/from airport
3) Availability of parking facilities
4) Value for money of parking facilities
5) Availability of baggage carts/trolleys
6) Waiting time in check-in queue/line
7) Efficiency of check-in staff
8) Courtesy and helpfulness of check-in staff
9) Waiting time at passport/personal ID inspection
10) Courtesy and helpfulness of inspection staff
11) Courtesy and helpfulness of security staff
12) Thoroughness of security inspection
13) Waiting time at security inspection
14) Feeling of being safe and secure
15) Ease of finding your way through airport
16) Flight Information screens
17) Walking distance inside the terminal
18) Ease of making connections with other flights
19) Courtesy and helpfulness of airport staff (excluding check-in, passport control and
security)
20) Restaurant/Eating facilities
21) Value for money of restaurant/eating facilities
22) Availability of bank/ATM facilities/money changers
23) Shopping facilities
24) Value for money of shopping facilities
25) Internet access/ Wi-fi
26) Business/Executive lounges
27) Availability of washrooms/toilets
28) Cleanliness of washrooms/toilets
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 135 of 164ANNEXURES
29) Comfort of waiting/gate areas
30) Cleanliness of airport terminal
31) Ambience of the airport
32) Passport/Personal ID Inspection
33) Speed of baggage delivery service
34) Customs inspection
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 136 of 164ANNEXURES
13.10 ANNEXURE – 10: SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS OF NAVI
MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AS PER CONCESSION
AGREEMENT
13.10.1 Objective Service Quality Parameters
The airport operator has to ensure that the service provided in airport conform to the Key
Performance Indicators as specified in Section 1 in Annex I of Schedule I of the concession
agreement as reproduced hereunder.
Performance Critical
Performance Measure Minimum Performance Standard
Indicator (Yes/ No)
Domestic/International: upto 75
minutes
Minimum connect times for
Transfer
80% of the transfer International/International: upto 60 No
Process
passengers minutes
Domestic/Domestic: upto 60 minutes
Terminal
100% of complaints responded to
Handling of complaints No
Services
within 2 working days
90% of calls answered within 60
Response to phone calls No
seconds
Availability of Flight
98% availability No
Information
Automated services 98% availability No
Lifts, escalators and
98% availability No
travellators etc.
95% of high priority complaints
Repair completion time within 4 hours, 95% of others within No
24 hours
Baggage trolleys 100% availability No
Achieve a satisfactory rating for 95%
Cleanliness Yes
of all inspections
Availability of wheelchairs 100% of time within 5 minutes No
Facilities for Disabled
100% of time within 5 minutes No
Passenger
Check-in Maximum queuing time
Service Class Parameter
Traditional Business
5 minutes Yes
(Standard) Class
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 137 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance Critical
Performance Measure Minimum Performance Standard
Indicator (Yes/ No)
boarding
Economy 20
Yes
pass
Class minutes
Business
Self –
3 minutes No
Class
serving
Boarding
Economy
5 minutes No
pass
Class
Self-service
Business
baggage 2 minutes No
Class
drop
(As and
Economy
when 2 minutes No
Class
operational)
95% of Peak Hours passengers wait
Security less than 5 minutes with an average
Waiting time in queue Yes
check dwell time at the security check point
of 45 seconds per passenger
95% of passengers wait less than 10
minutes with an average dwell time at
Immigration Waiting time in queue Yes
the immigration counter of 120
seconds per passenger
Domestic – First bag 10 minutes, last
bag 30 minutes from on blocks time
Baggage Time for bag delivery from
International – First bag 15 minutes, Yes
delivery aircraft arrival
last bag 40 minutes from on blocks
time
International – 95% of passengers take
Passenger
Time taken from aircraft less than 45 minutes
arrival Yes
arrival to kerbside Domestic – 95% of passengers take
process
less than 35 minutes
International – 90% of annual
Passenger % of aircraft movements passengers
boarding served to meet airline Domestic – 90% of annual passengers Yes
bridges request travelling on A/C B737/A320 or larger
unless not required by Airlines
Parking Bays % time available 99% Yes
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 138 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance Critical
Performance Measure Minimum Performance Standard
Indicator (Yes/ No)
Average annual delay per aircraft: 4
Delays to arriving/departing minutes or better based on provision
Runway
aircraft of International Standard ATC Yes
system
procedures and equipment as per
CNS/ATM Agreement
Average time taken to find
parking space including the
Vehicle 95% of drivers take less than 5
time taken for payment of No
Parking minutes
parking fee or collection of
ticket
Average time from parking
slot to the exit gate 95% of drivers take less than 5
No
including the time for minutes
payment of parking fee
95% of passengers wait less than 5
Taxis Maximum waiting time No
minutes
Gate
Seating availability 80% of aircraft capacity No
Lounges
95% of vehicles to have travel time
less than 8 (eight) minutes for the
distance between the entry barrier and
the exit barrier of the terminal frontage
road up to 1,000 (one thousand)
meters. If such distance of the terminal
Land side Travel time on terminal
frontage road length exceeds 1,000 Yes
access frontage road
(one thousand) meters, then the 8
(eight) minutes should be increased by
1 (one) second for every 4 meter
increase in the distance of 1,000 (one
thousand) meters rounded up to the
nearest minute
Source: Concession Agreement, NMIA
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 139 of 164ANNEXURES
13.10.2 Subjective Service Quality Parameters
The subjective quality of service shall be measured for the airport operator on the parameter of
“Overall satisfaction with the Airport” on the ACI ASQ survey to be conducted every quarter.
The benchmark score for the parameter “Overall satisfaction with the airport” shall be at least
equivalent to such score that the Airport is identified within top 20 (twenty) percentile of all
airports in its category in the world.
The following items, as specified in Section 1 in Annex I of Schedule I of the concession
agreement as reproduced hereunder, will be used to compute the rating.
(a) Navigational Items
(i) Ease of finding way through the Airport/ sign posting
(ii) Flight Information Screens
(iii) Walking distances
(b) Connectivity Items
(i) Ease of making connections with other flights
(ii) Ground transportation to / from airports
(c) Service Facilities
(i) Availability of baggage carts
(ii) Restaurant / eating facilities
(iii) Shopping facilities
(iv) Business facilities
(v) Washrooms
(vi) Parking facilities
(d) Value for money
(i) Restaurant/ eating facilities
(ii) Shopping facilities
(iii) Parking facilities
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 140 of 164ANNEXURES
13.11 ANNEXURE – 11: SERVICE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS OF NOIDA
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND MANOHAR INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT, MOPA (GOA) AS PER THEIR RESPECTIVE CONCESSION
AGREEMENT
13.11.1 Objective Service Quality Parameters
The airport operator has to ensure that the service provided in airport conform to the Key
Performance Indicators as specified in Annex I of Schedule L of the concession agreement as
reproduced hereunder.
Performance
Performance Measure Minimum Performance Standard
Indicator
Domestic/International: 60 minutes
Transfer Minimum connect times for 80%
International/International: 45 minutes
Process of the transfer passengers
Domestic/Domestic: 45 minutes
Terminal
100% of complaints responded to within 2
Handling of complaints
Services
working days
Response to phone calls 90% of calls answered within 60 seconds
Availability of Flight
98% availability
Information
Automated services 98% availability
Lifts, escalators etc. 98% availability
95% of high priority complaints within 4
Repair completion time hours,
95% of others within 24 hours
Baggage Trolleys 100% availability
Assistance for the differently
100% of time within 5 minutes
abled
5 mins for business class
Check-in Maximum queuing time
20 mins for economy
Such that 95% of passengers wait less than 5
Number of security check lanes minutes with an average dwell time at the
Security check
and associated equipment security check point of 45 seconds per
passenger
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 141 of 164ANNEXURES
Performance
Performance Measure Minimum Performance Standard
Indicator
Such that 95% of passengers wait less than 10
Checking time in queue for minutes with an average dwell time at the
Immigration
Immigration immigration counter of 120 seconds per
passenger
Domestic – First bag 10 minutes, last bag 30
Baggage Time for bag delivery from minutes from on blocks time
delivery aircraft arrival International – First bag 15 minutes, last bag
40 minutes from on blocks time
International – 95% of passengers take less
than 45 minutes
Passenger Time taken from aircraft arrival
arrival process to kerbside Domestic – 95% of passengers take less than
35 minutes
Parking Bays % time available 99%
International – 90%
Passenger Domestic – 90% of requests for B737 / A320
% airline requests for boarding
boarding or larger aircrafts
bridges met
bridges
(Capped at the number of boarding bridges as
per Schedule B)
Average time taken to find
parking space including the time
Car Parking 95% of drivers take less than 5 minutes
taken for payment of parking fee
or collection of ticket
Average time from parking slot
to the exit gate including the 95% of drivers take less than 5 minutes
time for payment of parking fee
Taxis Maximum waiting time 95% of passengers wait less than 5 minutes
Gate Lounges Seating availability Seats for 80% of aircraft capacity
Land side 95% of the vehicles to have delay less than 5
Delay on terminal frontage road
access minutes
Source: Concession Agreement, Mopa(Goa) Airport
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 142 of 164ANNEXURES
13.11.2 Subjective Service Quality Parameters
The subjective quality of service shall be measured for the airport operator on the parameter of
“Overall satisfaction with the Airport” on the ACI ASQ survey to be conducted every quarter.
The benchmark score for the parameter “Overall satisfaction with the airport” shall be at least
equivalent to such score that the Airport is identified within top 20 (twenty) percentile of all
airports in its category in the world.
The following items, as specified in Annex I of Schedule L of the concession agreement as
reproduced hereunder, will be used to compute the rating.
(a) Navigational Items
(i) Ease of finding way through the Airport/ sign posting
(ii) Flight Information Screens
(iii) Walking distances
(b) Connectivity Items
(i) Ease of making connections with other flights
(ii) Ground transportation to / from airports
(c) Service Facilities
(i) Availability of baggage carts
(ii) Restaurant / eating facilities
(iii) Shopping facilities
(iv) Business facilities
(v) Washrooms
(vi) Parking facilities
(d) Value for money
(i) Restaurant/ eating facilities
(ii) Shopping facilities
(iii) Parking facilities
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 143 of 164ANNEXURES
13.12 ANNEXURE – 12: SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS OF HEATHROW AIRPORT, LONDON AS ISSUED BY CIVIL
AVIATION AUTHORITY, UK
13.12.1 Financial Measures of Terminal along with its Metrics, Targets, Annual Rebates and Monthly Rebates
R RY (%) =
i,j
Time of day to
Financial ANNMAX i (%) ANNMAX i (%) ÷
i Metrics measure Target
measures i,j,a 6
performance
T2 – T4 T5 T2 – T4 T5
Moving annual average QSM scores weighted
F1 Cleanliness Unrestricted 4.15 0.40 0.40 0.0667 0.0667
by monthly passenger numbers
Moving annual average QSM scores weighted
F2 Wayfinding Unrestricted 4.20 0.40 0.40 0.0667 0.0667
by monthly passenger numbers
Helpfulness /
Moving annual average QSM scores weighted
F3 attitude of Unrestricted 4.10 0.20 0.20 0.0333 0.0333
by monthly passenger numbers
security staff
Wi-Fi Moving annual average QSM scores weighted
F4 Unrestricted 4.05 0.20 0.20 0.0333 0.0333
performance by monthly passenger numbers
Percentage of queue times measured once
F5a 05:00 to 22:30 95%
Security queue
every 15 minutes that are less than 5 minutes
time – Central 1.00 1.00 0.1667 0.1667
Percentage of queue times measured once
search
F5b 05:00 to 22:30 99%
every 15 minutes that are less than 10 minutes
Security queue
Percentage of queue times measured once
F6 time – Transfer 05:00 to 22:30 95% 0.50 0.50 0.0833 0.0833
every 15 minutes that are less than 10 minutes
search
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 144 of 164ANNEXURES
R RY (%) =
i,j
Time of day to
Financial ANNMAX i (%) ANNMAX i (%) ÷
i Metrics measure Target
measures i,j,a 6
performance
T2 – T4 T5 T2 – T4 T5
Security queue Agreed locally
Percentage of queue times measured once
F7 time – Staff between the 95% 0.40 0.40 0.0667 0.0667
every 15 minutes that are less than 10 minutes
search Licensee and AOC
Availability of Agreed locally
Percentage of time serviceable and available
F9 lifts, escalators between the 99% 0.70 0.70 0.1167 0.1167
for use, independent of any other measure
and travelators Licensee and AOC
Percentage of time that (a) Self Service Bag
Drop hardware and software and (b) Common
Availability of Agreed locally
Use Self-Service (CUSS) hardware, where
F10 check-in between the 98% 0.50 0.50 0.0833 0.0833
any of these are provided by the Licensee, are
infrastructure Licensee and AOC
serviceable and available for use, independent
of any other measures.
Availability of Agreed locally
Percentage of time serviceable and available
F11 arrivals baggage between the 99% 0.35 0.35 0.0583 0.0583
for use, independent of any other measure
carousels Licensee and AOC
Percentage of one train serviceable and
F12a available for use, independent of any other 99%
Availability of Agreed locally
measure
Terminal 5 track between the - 0.30 - 0.0500
Percentage of two trains serviceable and
transit system Licensee and AOC
F12b available for use, independent of any other 97%
measure
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 145 of 164ANNEXURES
R RY (%) =
i,j
Time of day to
Financial ANNMAX i (%) ANNMAX i (%) ÷
i Metrics measure Target
measures i,j,a 6
performance
T2 – T4 T5 T2 – T4 T5
Agreed locally
Availability of Percentage of time serviceable and available
F13 between the 99% 0.20 0.20 0.0333 0.0333
stands for use, independent of any other measure
Licensee and AOC
Agreed locally
Availability of Percentage of time serviceable and available
F14 between the 99% 0.20 0.20 0.0333 0.0333
jetties for use
Licensee and AOC
Availability of Agreed locally
Percentage of time serviceable and available
F15 fixed electrical between the 99% 0.15 0.15 0.0250 0.0250
for use
ground power Licensee and AOC
Availability of Agreed locally
Percentage of time serviceable and available
F16 stand entry between the 99% 0.20 0.20 0.0333 0.0333
for use
guidance Licensee and AOC
Availability of Agreed locally
Percentage of time serviceable and available
F17 pre-conditioned between the 98% 0.20 0.20 0.0333 0.0333
for use (Terminals 2, 3 and 5 only)
air Licensee and AOC
Moving annual average percentage of
Pier-served
F18 passengers accessing a pier served stand (last Unrestricted 95% 0.30 - 0.0500 -
stand usage
12 months)
Percentage of Amber ATP test results
F20a Unrestricted 100%
resolved within 12 hours each month
Hygiene safety
0.20 0.20 0.0333 0.0333
testing
Percentage of Red ATP test results resolved
20b Unrestricted 100%
within 2 hours each month
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 146 of 164ANNEXURES
Time of day to R RY (%) =
CP,j
Financial
i Metrics measure Target ANNMAX (%) ANNMAX (%)
i, CP CP
measures
performance ÷ 6
Percentage of vehicles at each control post
Control post group, measured as the average queue time
vehicle queuing for all vehicles in each 15-minute period,
time which have a waiting time of less than 15
minutes
Period agreed
CTA CTA: CP5, CP8 locally between the
F8 95% 0.40 0.0667
Licensee and the
Cargo Cargo: CP10, CP10a, CP25a
AOC
Eastside Eastside: CP12, CP16
Southside Southside: CP24, CP24a
Terminal 5 Terminal 5: CP18, CP19, CP20
Maximum
cumulative 0
Financial Target MaxRebate 4 to 6 to 8 to 10 to 12 to 14 to 16 to 18 to 20 or
i Metrics ROI movements to
measures (%) 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 more
i, deferred 3
each day
+
VARRd
Maximum
v
DEPd
Runway cumulative
F19 operational movements zero 0.50% - 14.10 22.84 32.71 45.26 60.48 78.25 98.84 121.96 141.00
(£'000 in
resilience deferred
2020
each day
prices)
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 147 of 164ANNEXURES
13.12.2 Reputational Measures of Terminal along with its Metrics and Targets
Time of day to
i Reputational measures Metric measure Target
𝐢,𝐣,𝐚
performance
R1 Overall satisfaction Moving annual average QSM scores weighted by monthly passenger numbers Unrestricted 4.26
Moving annual average percentage of passengers rating the journey was easy
R2 Customer effort (ease) Unrestricted 91%
or very easy weighted by monthly passenger numbers
Moving annual average percentage of passengers rating the journey was
R3 Enjoy my time at the airport Unrestricted 80.5%
enjoyable or very enjoyable weighted by monthly passenger numbers
Moving annual average percentage of passengers agreeing with statement
R4 Airport that meets my needs Unrestricted No target
weighted by monthly passenger numbers
Moving annual average percentage of passengers agreeing with statement
R5 Feel safe and secure Unrestricted 96%
weighted by monthly passenger numbers
Moving annual average of scores among passengers arriving at the Airport by
R6 Ease of access to the airport Unrestricted 4.44
surface access each quarter
Helpfulness/attitude of
R7 Moving annual average QSM scores weighted by monthly passenger numbers Unrestricted 4.36
airport staff
Passengers with reduced
Moving annual average of SpA QSM scores collected amongst users of the
R8 mobility (PRM) – overall Unrestricted 4.00
Special Assistance Service at the Airport
satisfaction
Percentage of bags delivered from the baggage system to the baggage make up
Timely delivery from
R9 area (or facility) not less than 30 minutes before the scheduled time of Unrestricted 98%
departures baggage system
departure of their intended flight.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 148 of 164ANNEXURES
Time of day to
i Reputational measures Metric measure Target
𝐢,𝐣,𝐚
performance
Average of the number of bags per 1000 passengers, which miss their
R10 Baggage misconnect rate Unrestricted No target
originally intended departing passenger flight.
Average proportion of scheduled passenger flights taking off within 15
R11 Departures flight punctuality Unrestricted 80.5%
minutes of the scheduled departure time
Airport departures Average time taken (across all departing passenger flights) between the Actual
R12 Unrestricted No target
management Start Request Time and the Actual Take-Off Time of an aircraft
Average time taken (across all arriving passenger flights) between the wheels
of aircraft touching down on a runway and roll-retarding chocks being placed
R13 Airport arrivals management Unrestricted No target
against the aircraft wheels, after the aircraft’s brakes have been applied on
stands
Percentage of UK population
within 3 hours (and one Percentage of UK population who live within 3 hours (and one interchange) of
R14 Unrestricted No target
interchange) of Heathrow by the Airport by public transport based on current public transport routes
public transport
Moving annual average number of passengers that are injured while travelling
R15 Passenger injuries through the Airport each month, per one million passengers (excluding ill Unrestricted No target
health)
Percentage of queuing times measured once every 15 minutes for non-EEA
R16a 05:00 – 22:30 95%
passengers using staffed immigration desks that are less than 45 minutes
Immigration queue times
Percentage of queuing times measured once every 15 minutes for EEA
R16b 05:00 – 22:30 95%
passengers using staffed immigration desks that are less than 25 minutes
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 149 of 164ANNEXURES
13.13 ANNEXURE – 13: SERVICE QUALITY PARAMETERS FOR KUALA LUMPUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AS PER
MALAYSIAN AVIATION COMMISSION
Service Quality Measurement Mechanism Revenue at
No. Service Quality Element Target
Category Monthly Risk (%)
Results are for
Passenger Comfort Overall satisfaction with Survey responses from a Compliance of at least 98% of the
1 notification
and Facilities the airport representative sample of passengers size of the survey
purposes only
Overall satisfaction with Survey responses from a Compliance of at least 93% of the
0.30
the washrooms representative sample of passengers size of the survey
Survey responses from a Compliance of at least 98% of the
Cleanliness of the terminal 0.46
representative sample of passengers size of the survey
(i) Compliance of at least 90% of
Independent inspection based on 20
Cleanliness of the the 20 items per washroom; and
items (as specified in Annexure 0.30
washrooms (ii) Compliance of at least 90% of
13.13.1)
the total washrooms inspected
Flight information Survey responses from a Compliance of at least 96% of the
0.11
displays representative sample of passengers size of the survey
Survey responses from a Compliance of at least 91% of the
Availability of Wi-fi 0.28
representative sample of passengers size of the survey
Survey responses from a Compliance of at least 97% of the
Ambience of the terminal 0.11
representative sample of passengers size of the survey
Survey responses from a Compliance of at least 94% of the
Wayfinding 0.28
representative sample of passengers size of the survey
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 150 of 164ANNEXURES
Service Quality Measurement Mechanism Revenue at
No. Service Quality Element Target
Category Monthly Risk (%)
Results are for
Survey responses from a Compliance of at least 96% of the
Kerbside congestion notification
representative sample of passengers size of the survey
purposes only
Facilities for The Equipment Service Availability
2 operator, airlines Availability of aerobridge based on reports submitted by the 99.5% 0.21
and staff Aerodrome Operator
The percentage of arrival flights
where aerobridge operator was
available 10 minutes before on-
95% of arrivals 0.10
chock time based on the reports
submitted by the Aerodrome
Availability of aerobridge Operator
operator
The percentage of arrival flights
where aerobridge operator was
available 5 minutes before on-chock 95% of arrivals 0.10
time based on the reports submitted
by the Aerodrome Operator
The Equipment Service Availability
Availability of VDGS based on reports submitted by the 99.5% 0.10
Aerodrome Operator
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 151 of 164ANNEXURES
Service Quality Measurement Mechanism Revenue at
No. Service Quality Element Target
Category Monthly Risk (%)
(i) The availability of ramp wi-fi
service of at least 99.7%
Independent inspection consisting of
(ii) Signal Strength indication of
service availability, weekly on-site
Availability of ramp Wi-fi “Good” which is -50 to -60
random checking of hot-spots and 0.13
service dBm or more than -50 dBm
weekly device connectivity testing
for baggage Reconciliation System (iii) Successful authentication of
Baggage Reconciliation System
device
(i) Compliance of at least 80% of
Independent inspection based on 19
Cleanliness of the staff the 20 items per washroom; and
items (as specified in Annexure 0.22
washrooms (ii) Compliance of at least 80% of
13.13.2)
the total washrooms inspected
Passenger security search Automated queue monitoring 90% - passenger queues not more For KLIA T1 –
3 Queuing times
– Gate screening system installed at KLIA T1 than 15 minutes 0.30
For KLIA T2 -
Automated queue monitoring
Passenger security search 95% - passenger queues not more 0.52
system installed at KLIA T1 and
– Centralized screening than 10 minutes For KLIA T1 –
KLIA T2
0.22
Results are for
Automated queue monitoring
Transfer immigration 90% - passenger queues not more notification and
system installed at KLIA T1 and
queuing (manned counter) than 10 minutes publication
KLIA T2
purposes only
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 152 of 164ANNEXURES
Service Quality Measurement Mechanism Revenue at
No. Service Quality Element Target
Category Monthly Risk (%)
Results are for
Automated queue monitoring
Transfer immigration 95% - passenger queues not more notification and
system installed at KLIA T1 and
queuing (automatic gate) than 5 minutes publication
KLIA T2
purposes only
Results are for
Automated queue monitoring
Outbound immigration 85% - passenger queues not more notification and
system installed at KLIA T1 and
(manned counter) than 20 minutes publication
KLIA T2
purposes only
Results are for
Automated queue monitoring
Outbound immigration 95% - passenger queues not more notification and
system installed at KLIA T1 and
(automatic gate) than 5 minutes publication
KLIA T2
purposes only
Results are for
Automated queue monitoring
95% - passenger queues not more notification and
Outbound customs system installed at KLIA T1 and
than 10 minutes publication
KLIA T2
purposes only
Results are for
Automated queue monitoring
Inbound immigration 85% - passenger queues not more notification and
system installed at KLIA T1 and
(manned counter) than 25 minutes publication
KLIA T2
purposes only
Results are for
Automated queue monitoring
Inbound immigration 95% - passenger queues not more notification and
system installed at KLIA T1 and
(automatic gate) than 5 minutes publication
KLIA T2
purposes only
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 153 of 164ANNEXURES
Service Quality Measurement Mechanism Revenue at
No. Service Quality Element Target
Category Monthly Risk (%)
Results are for
Automated queue monitoring
95% - passenger queues not more notification and
Inbound customs system installed at KLIA T1 and
than 10 minutes publication
KLIA T2
purposes only
Results are for
Automated queue monitoring
95% - passenger queues not more notification and
Check-in system installed at KLIA T1 and
than 15 minutes publication
KLIA T2
purposes only
The Equipment Service Availability Availability of 2 trains for at least
Passenger and Availability of 2 Aerotrain
4 based on reports submitted by the 98% of the duration of time the train 0.25
baggage flows TTS (KLIA only)
Aerodrome Operator is in service
The Equipment Service Availability Availability of 2 trains for at least
Availability of 1 Aerotrain
based on reports submitted by the 99.5% of the duration of time the 0.25
TTS (KLIA only)
Aerodrome Operator train is in service
Bussing services GPS-enabled tracking system on
99% - availability of bus 0.25
availability (KLIA only) busses
Bussing services GPS-enabled tracking system on 99% - punctuality of bus based on a
0.25
punctuality (KLIA only) busses 4-minute interval
Availability of lifts, escalators and
The Equipment Service Availability
Availability of lifts, walkalators for at least 99.5% of the
based on reports submitted by the 0.26
escalators and walkalators duration of time the lifts, escalators
Aerodrome Operator
and walkalators is in service
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 154 of 164ANNEXURES
Service Quality Measurement Mechanism Revenue at
No. Service Quality Element Target
Category Monthly Risk (%)
Availability of BHS equipment for
The Equipment Service Availability
Availability of BHS at least 99.5% of the duration of
based on reports submitted by the 0.26
equipment time the BHS equipment is in
Aerodrome Operator
service
(i) Compliance of at least 9,996
baggage for every 10,000
Reports submitted by the outbound baggage for KLIA;
Outbound Baggage Aerodrome Operator on short and 0.26
shipment for all outbound baggage (ii) Compliance of at least 9,999
baggage for every 10,000
outbound baggage for KLIA 2;
(i) Compliance of at least 85%
inbound passenger flights
receiving the last baggage no
later than 20 minutes for main
Reports submitted by the
terminal building and 30
Baggage retrieval – time Aerodrome Operator on the arrival
minutes for satellite building at 0.25
to first bag of the first baggage from on-chock
KLIA; and
to reclaim area
(ii) Compliance of at least 85%
inbound passenger flights
receiving the last baggage no
later than 25 minutes at KLIA2
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 155 of 164ANNEXURES
Service Quality Measurement Mechanism Revenue at
No. Service Quality Element Target
Category Monthly Risk (%)
(i) Compliance of at least 85%
inbound passenger flights
receiving the last baggage no
later than 40 minutes for main
Reports submitted by the
terminal building and 50
Baggage retrieval – time Aerodrome Operator on the arrival
minutes for satellite building at 0.25
to last bag of the last baggage from on-chock to
KLIA; and
reclaim area
(ii) Compliance of at least 85%
inbound passenger flights
receiving the last baggage no
later than 40 minutes at KLIA2
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 156 of 164ANNEXURES
13.13.1 Inspection Checklist for Washrooms at Kuala Lumpur International Airport
Washroom overall
1. There is a working ventilation system
2. The toilet is free from unpleasant smells
3. There is sufficient lighting
4. Floors are dry and free from slipping hazards
5. Floors are free from cracks, damage, rubbish, or excess dirt or staining
6. Walls are free from cracks, damage, or excess dirt or staining
7. Waste and sanitary bins have spare capacity
Cubicles and urinals
8. All inspected cubicles and urinals have a working flush system
9. All inspected toilet bowls are free from cracks, damage, or excess dirt or staining
10. All inspected cubicles have toilet tissue available
All inspected cubicles have a working door with a latch or lock, and free from excess
11.
dirt
12. All inspected cubicles have a coat hook
13. All inspected bidets are fully functional
Hand washing area
14. Clean water is available
15. Washing basins are free from cracks or damage, watermarks or excessive dirt
16. Taps are in working order
17. Soap is available
18. One or more hand dryers are available and in working order
19. Mirrors are free from excess dirt or fingerprints
20. Mirrors are free from crack or damage
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 157 of 164ANNEXURE
13.13.2 Inspection Checklist for Staff Washrooms at Kuala Lumpur International Airport
Washroom overall
1. There is a working ventilation system
2. The toilet is free from unpleasant smells
3. There is sufficient lighting
4. Floors are dry and free from slipping hazards
5. Floors are free from cracks, damage, rubbish, or excess dirt or staining
6. Walls are free from cracks, damage, or excess dirt or staining
7. Waste and sanitary bins have spare capacity
Cubicles and urinals
8. All inspected cubicles and urinals have a working flush system
9. All inspected toilet bowls are free from cracks, damage, or excess dirt or staining
10. All inspected cubicles have toilet tissue available
All inspected cubicles have a working door with a latch or lock, and free from excess
11.
dirt
12. All inspected cubicles have a coat hook
13. All inspected bidets are fully functional
Hand washing area
14. Clean water is available
15. Washing basins are free from cracks or damage, watermarks or excessive dirt
16. Taps are in working order
17. Soap is available
18. Mirrors are free from excess dirt or fingerprints
19. Mirrors are free from crack or damage
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 158 of 164ANNEXURE
13.14 ANNEXURE – 14: SKYTRAX WORLD AIRPORT AWARDS SURVEY
TOPICS
The survey evaluates traveller experiences across different airport service and product key
performance indicators - from check-in, arrivals, transfers, shopping, security and immigration
through to departure at the gate.
1) Standard of Airport website
2) Standard of Airport APP
3) Getting to and from the Airport / Ease of Access
4) Public transport options / efficiency and prices
5) Taxi / Rideshare availability / prices
6) Availability of luggage trolleys (airside & landside)
7) Terminal comfort, ambience and design
8) Terminal cleanliness, floors, seating and public areas
9) Seating facilities throughout terminals
10) Immigration - queuing times / system / efficiency
11) Immigration - staff attitude
12) Security screening - queuing times / system / efficiency
13) Family security screening options
14) Courtesy and Attitude of Security staff
15) Check-In facilities, queuing systems / seating
16) Wayfinding and Terminal signage
17) Clarity of Boarding Calls / Airport PA's
18) Flight Info Screens - clarity / quality of information
19) Friendliness of Airport Staff
20) Language skills for Airport Staff
21) Ease of Transit through Airport
22) Location of Airline Lounges
23) Washroom / Shower facilities
24) Cleanliness of Washrooms
25) Nursery / baby care facilities
26) Hygiene standards
27) TV and Entertainment facilities
28) Quiet areas, Day rooms, Hotel facility, rest areas
29) Children's play area and facilities
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 159 of 164ANNEXURE
30) Choice of Family friendly options
31) Choice of Shopping - tax free and other outlets
32) Choice of bars, cafes and restaurants
33) Prices in bars, cafes and restaurants
34) WiFi service - access / time provision
35) Power charging facilities
36) WiFi service - speed of service
37) Bureau de change facilities
38) ATM facilities
39) Smoking policy / Smoking lounges
40) Standards of PRM access and facilities
41) Baggage Delivery times
42) Priority Baggage Delivery efficiency
43) Lost luggage services
44) Perception of security and safety standards
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 160 of 164ANNEXURE
13.15 ANNEXURE – 15: PROCEDURE FOR PREPARING QUARTERLY QUALITY OF SERVICE PERFORMANCE REPORT
The third-party assessor shall submit to AERA, semi-annually, a performance report on quality-of-service parameters. The performance report shall
provide details on every objective and subjective parameter the benchmark achieved in every month, measured as per the approved performance
measurement plan in the Multi Year Tariff Order.
For each quality-of-service parameter (objective and subjective) measured every month, the third-party assessor shall provide explanation including the
following:
• Airport infrastructure or facilities included in measurement
• Data collection sources and process;
• Periodicity of measurement done every month;
• Calculation mechanism for achieved benchmark;
• Deviation from the performance measurement plan, if any;
• Reasons for underperformance, if any.
The achieved performance shall be summarized in the semi-annually quality of service performance reports in the specified Form F2 (a) and F2 (b).
The rebate, as applicable, shall be summarized in the semi-annually quality of service performance reports in the specified Form F3 (a) and F3 (b).
The incentive, as applicable, shall be summarized in the semi-annually quality of service performance reports in the specified Form F4 (a) and F4 (b).
Form F1 (a) – Information on Objective performance monitoring
S. no. Objective Measure Number & type of infra or facility to be Data Data collection Time period of
Parameter monitored through each parameter sources process / methodology monitoring every month
Notes
1. The number and type of infrastructure of facility shall identify relevant individual items to be monitored through the parameter e.g. number of
parking bays and number of Flight Information Display System.
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 161 of 164ANNEXURE
2. Data collection source & methodology shall identify in detail the process through which the data will be collected, manual or electronically, and
the time period over which the monitoring will be done every month. For example, the monitoring of baggage delivery times shall specify the
process through which the start and end times of the activity will be captured.
Form F1 (b) – Information on Subjective performance monitoring
Particulars
Sample size of passengers to be surveyed and rationale for the selected sample size
Details on the periodicity of conducting surveys and rationale for such periodicity
Details of agency administering the survey and supporting evidence of competitive procurement
Notes
1. Third-party assessor will have duty of care and AERA will have the right to interact with the agency on aspects related to inspection and verification
under the section 13 (4) of AERA Act
2. The third-party assessor shall specify the survey methodology to be used, even if the standard ACI ASQ methodology is to be used.
Form F2 (a) – Format to provide quarterly quality of service performance report on Objective Parameters
Quality of Target Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark
Service Benchmark (Month 1) (Month 2) (Month 3) (Month 4) (Month 5) (Month 6)
Parameters
Objective Parameters
Parameter 1
Parameter 2
…
Total *To be calculated as *To be calculated as *To be calculated as
per the guideline and per the guideline and per the guideline and
formulae provided in formulae provided in formulae provided in
the tariff order the tariff order the tariff order
Form F2 (b) – Format to provide semi-annually quality of service performance report on Subjective Parameters
Quality of Target Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark
Service Benchmark (Month 1) (Month 2) (Month 3) (Month 4) (Month 5) (Month 6)
Parameters
Subjective Parameters
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 162 of 164ANNEXURE
Quality of Target Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark Achieved Benchmark
Service Benchmark (Month 1) (Month 2) (Month 3) (Month 4) (Month 5) (Month 6)
Parameters
Parameter 1
Parameter 2
…
Total *To be calculated as *To be calculated as *To be calculated as
per the guideline and per the guideline and per the guideline and
formulae provided in formulae provided in formulae provided in
the tariff order the tariff order the tariff order
Form F3 (a) – Format to summarize rebate incidences on objective parameters in semi-annually quality of service performance report
Quality of Rebate incidence Calculated rebate Calculated rebate Calculated rebate Calculated rebate Calculated rebate Calculated rebate
Service per half-year on incidence (Month 1) incidence (Month 2) incidence (Month 3) incidence (Month 4) incidence (Month 5) incidence (Month 6)
Parameters under-performance
Objective Parameters
Parameter 1
Parameter 2
…
Total *To be calculated *To be calculated *To be calculated
as per the guideline as per the guideline as per the guideline
and formulae and formulae and formulae
provided in the provided in the provided in the
tariff order tariff order tariff order
Form F3 (b) – Format to summarize rebate incidences on subjective parameters in semi-annually quality of service performance report
Quality of Rebate incidence Calculated rebate Calculated rebate Calculated rebate Calculated rebate Calculated rebate Calculated rebate
Service per half-year on - incidence (Month 1) incidence (Month 2) incidence (Month 3) incidence (Month 4) incidence (Month 5) incidence (Month 6)
Parameters under-performance
Subjective Parameters
Parameter 1
Parameter 2
…
Total *To be calculated *To be calculated *To be calculated
as per the guideline as per the guideline as per the guideline
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 163 of 164ANNEXURE
Quality of Rebate incidence Calculated rebate Calculated rebate Calculated rebate Calculated rebate Calculated rebate Calculated rebate
Service per half-year on - incidence (Month 1) incidence (Month 2) incidence (Month 3) incidence (Month 4) incidence (Month 5) incidence (Month 6)
Parameters under-performance
and formulae and formulae and formulae
provided in the provided in the provided in the
tariff order tariff order tariff order
Form F4 (a) – Format to summarize incentive incidences on objective parameters in semi-annually quality of service performance report
Quality of Incentive incidence Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated
Service per half-year on Incentive incidence Incentive incidence Incentive incidence Incentive incidence Incentive incidence Incentive incidence
Parameters over-performance (Month 1) (Month 2) (Month 3) (Month 4) (Month 5) (Month 6)
Objective Parameters
Parameter 1
Parameter 2
…
Total *To be calculated *To be calculated *To be calculated
as per the guideline as per the guideline as per the guideline
and formulae and formulae and formulae
provided in the provided in the provided in the
tariff order tariff order tariff order
Form F4 (b) – Format to summarize incentive incidences on subjective parameters in semi-annually quality of service performance report
Quality of Incentive incidence Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated
Service per half-year on Incentive incidence Incentive incidence Incentive incidence Incentive incidence Incentive incidence Incentive incidence
Parameters over-performance (Month 1) (Month 2) (Month 3) (Month 4) (Month 5) (Month 6)
Subjective Parameters
Parameter 1
Parameter 2
…
Total *To be calculated *To be calculated *To be calculated
as per the guideline as per the guideline as per the guideline
and formulae and formulae and formulae
provided in the provided in the provided in the
tariff order tariff order tariff order
Consultation Paper No. 03/2025-26 Page 164 of 164