AI-Powered Service Robots for Smart Airport Operations: Real-World Implementation and Performance Analysis in Passenger Flow Management
Highlights
- An integrated smart airport ecosystem combining privacy-compliant thermal imaging sensors and 5G-connected service robots was successfully validated in real-world trials at Athens International Airport.
- The system achieved ultra-low application latency of 42.9 ms and 100% service reliability, resulting in consistently positive user satisfaction scores across trust and operational efficiency metrics.
- Thermal sensor networks provide a highly effective, GDPR-compliant alternative to traditional RGB cameras for granular crowd analytics and anomaly detection in sensitive public spaces.
- While current 5G infrastructure supports individual service robots, scaling to comprehensive airport-wide multi-robot fleets will require advanced network slicing and edge computing capabilities to maintain critical performance.
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. System Architecture and Technical Implementation Details
2.1. Sensing
2.2. Connectivity
2.3. Processing
2.4. Presentation
3. Experimental Methodology and Evaluation Framework
3.1. Trial Design and Setup
- Geographic scope: Single terminal location (Entrance 1, Arrivals/Departures section) for the humanoid robot, Three different locations (Entrance 1—Arrivals/Departures section, Checkin area at Entrance 4—Arrivals/Departures section, Intra-Schengen Security control) for the passenger flow monitoring.
- Duration: Single intensive evaluation day (10 April 2025, 08:00–16:00 EET) for the humanoid robot, Extended evaluation period for the passenger flow monitoring system (December, 2023 till the time of writing of this paper).
- Extended monitoring: Operational monitoring from April–June 2025
- Hardware: One humanoid robot and eight thermal cameras in fixed configuration
- Participants: Ten professional evaluators (see Section 3.6)
- Concurrent users: Limited to trial location traffic (not airport-wide peak traffic)
- Single-robot deployment under an 8 h operational window, while under realistic conditions, is relatively short for long-term reliability assessment and thus cannot be directly generalized to airport-wide multi-robot deployments.
- The cameras deployment even though they cover three (3) different locations are disjoint and thus the passenger journey cannot be closely monitored.
- Peak-traffic stress testing was not explicitly conducted.
- Findings represent exploratory validation for the robot subsystem rather than full operational deployment effectiveness.
3.2. Sensor Network Deployment
3.3. System Architecture and Integration
- Real-time passenger information provision (flight status, gate assignments, wayfinding guidance).
- Congestion monitoring and passenger advisory (recommending alternative routes based on thermal camera analytics).
- Operational support for airport staff through wi.move dashboard integration.
3.4. Network Infrastructure and Connectivity
3.5. Performance Evaluation Framework
- KPI06: Uplink throughput per user (requirement: ≥30 Mbps).
- KPI08: Application round-trip latency (requirement: ≤800 ms).
- KPI15: Service reliability (requirement: ≥99.99%).
- KPI17: Service availability (requirement: ≥99.99%).
- Trust: Confidence in secure data handling, system transparency, and alert accuracy.
- User Experience: Interface intuitiveness, visual clarity, and interaction seamlessness.
- Acceptability: Ease of use, comfort during extended interaction, and practical alignment with user needs.
- Digital Inclusion: Accessibility across varying digital literacy levels and device capabilities.
- Resource Optimization: Efficiency in staff and robotic resource utilization and operational process streamlining.
- Operational Efficiency: Reduction in passenger wait times, service acceleration, and actionable insights provision.
3.6. Participant Selection and Trial Execution
- Six internal evaluators (Professional staff from WINGS (project team members) and Athens International Airport (airport operations personnel) with domain expertise and prior familiarity with system development).
- Four passenger evaluators (Airport passengers without prior system exposure who interacted with the robot during the trial period in realistic arrival scenarios).
- Terminal Operations Supervisors assessed robot capabilities for managing real-time passenger flows and reducing congestion risks.
- Passenger participants explored system features while robot provided personalized assistance, flight information, and navigation guidance.
- Airport security personnel tested wi.move dashboard functionality for monitoring passenger flow patterns and receiving real-time operational alerts.
- All interactions were directly observed and documented for qualitative feedback collection.
3.7. Data Collection and Analysis Procedures
- Average queue lengths at three checkpoint areas (Check-In, Security Gate 1, Gate 1).
- Passenger flow rates (persons per minute) at key junctures.
- Peak congestion periods and patterns.
- Passenger directional movement patterns.
4. Results and Analysis
4.1. Technical Performance Evaluation
- Network connectivity uptime (no connection loss events).
- Application response time remaining below 100 milliseconds for critical functions.
- Absence of camera feed dropout events.
- Robot navigation system without restart requirement.
- Single humanoid robot and limited concurrent user load (not airport-wide peak traffic scenario).
- Controlled operational window with technical staff monitoring.
- Moderate passenger traffic (not peak capacity testing).
- Stable environmental conditions.
- No explicit peak-traffic stress testing conducted.
- 8 thermal cameras and medium concurrent user load.
- Extended operational window with technical staff monitoring.
- Different levels of passenger traffic (Low, Medium, High).
- Stable environmental conditions.
4.2. User Experience Assessment
4.3. Real-World Operational Impact
- Real-time video processing without disk storage.
- Only aggregated statistical outputs retained (passenger counts, flow rates).
- No storage of individual trajectory data.
- Time-limited data retention policies.
- Restricted access controls.
4.4. System Integration and Scalability
5. Discussion
5.1. Performance Analysis and Implications
5.2. Network Requirements and 6G Evolution
5.3. Scalability Challenges and Solutions
5.4. Privacy and Security Considerations
5.5. Human–Robot Interaction Optimization
5.6. Future 6G Requirements for Smart Airports
5.7. Operational and Business Model Implications
5.8. Limitations and Future Research Directions
5.9. Comparative Performance Analysis
5.10. User Experience Evaluation Limitations and Generalizability Constraints
- Ten participants is appropriate for exploratory pilot evaluation but insufficient for population-level conclusions regarding passenger acceptance.
- Six of ten participants were airport and project staff with domain expertise and prior system familiarity. This composition may have resulted in higher satisfaction ratings compared to the general public unfamiliar with emerging technologies.
- The four passenger evaluators were a convenience sample at a specific trial location during a specific time period. This does not represent international airport passenger diversity in terms of age, language, digital literacy, cultural background, or travel frequency.
- Participants evaluated the system in isolation rather than comparing against a baseline of traditional airport information channels.
5.11. Multilingual Support and International Passenger Accessibility
- The system architecture supports multilingual extension through API integration with cloud-based translation and text-to-speech services. Language detection can occur through voice recognition or manual touchscreen selection. Implementing multilingual support is technically feasible and should be prioritized for commercial deployments.
5.12. Robot as Information Intermediary: Comparative Value Analysis
- The humanoid robot’s role in the system requires nuanced understanding relative to alternative information delivery mechanisms. While information provision alone (flight status, gate assignments, wayfinding) could be delivered through alternative channels including dedicated mobile applications, airport Wi-Fi portals, or SMS notifications, the robot provides several distinctive advantages.
- Passengers without smartphones, airport network connectivity, or prior travel experience can access information through human–robot interaction.
- Dynamic question-answering and contextual assistance beyond pre-programmed information.
- Physical robot presence provides wayfinding guidance and passenger direction capabilities unavailable through digital channels.
- Real-time alerts based on thermal camera analytics enable dynamic routing recommendations.
- A well-designed mobile application could provide comparable informational content and potentially greater personalization for tech-savvy passengers connected to airport networks. However, such an application would not address passengers without smartphones, non-English/Greek speakers without access to airport-specific apps, or passengers preferring in-person interaction. The robot serves a complementary role within a multi-channel information strategy rather than functioning as the exclusive information delivery mechanism.
- Quantifying passenger throughput improvement attributable specifically to the humanoid robot is methodologically challenging without controlled experimental design comparing robot-assisted vs. non-assisted passenger flows. We recommend future research including:
- A/B testing scenarios with robot availability/unavailability.
- Measurement of corresponding passenger flow metrics (queue length, transit time, route selection).
- Comparative user experience between robot interface and alternative channels.
- Passenger preference studies across demographic groups.
6. Conclusions
6.1. Key Findings and Contributions
6.2. Technical Achievements and System Performance
6.3. Implications for Smart Airport Development
6.4. Future Research Directions and 6G Requirements
6.5. Limitations and Considerations
6.6. Final Remarks
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| 5G | Fifth-Generation Wireless Networks |
| 6G | Sixth-Generation Wireless Networks |
| A/B | Comparison Testing (Variant A vs. Variant B) |
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| AIaaS | Artificial Intelligence as a Service |
| AIA | Athens International Airport |
| API | Application Programming Interface |
| B5G | Beyond Fifth-Generation Wireless Networks |
| CCTV | Closed-Circuit Television |
| DPA | Data Protection Authority |
| EDPB | European Data Protection Board |
| EET | Eastern European Time |
| Fps | Frames Per Second |
| GDPR | General Data Protection Regulation |
| HRLLC | Hyper-Reliable Low-Latency Communication |
| HTTP | Hypertext Transfer Protocol |
| IoT | Internet of Things |
| IoU | Intersection over Union |
| KMh | Kilometers Per Hour |
| KPI | Key Performance Indicator |
| KVI | Key Value Indicator |
| LIDAR | Light Detection and Ranging |
| LWIR | Long-Wave Infrared |
| M | Meter |
| mAP | Mean Average Precision |
| MHz | Megahertz |
| mK | Millikelvin |
| Mbps | Megabits Per Second |
| MQTT | Message Queuing Telemetry Transport |
| Ms | Millisecond |
| Μm | Micrometer |
| PII | Personally Identifiable Information |
| QMR | Quarterly Management Review |
| REST | Representational State Transfer |
| RGB | Red-Green-Blue (Color Space) |
| ROS 2 | Robot Operating System 2 |
| RTAB-Map | Real-Time Appearance-Based Mapping |
| SLAM | Simultaneous Localization and Mapping |
| TCP | Transmission Control Protocol |
| TLS | Transport Layer Security |
| TOS | Terminal Operations Supervisor |
| UC11 | Use Case 11: Service Robots for Enhanced Passenger Experience |
| URLLC | Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication |
| WebRTC | Web Real-Time Communication |
| wi.move | Integrated Smart Airport Management Platform (Project-specific system) |
| ZMQ | ZeroMQ (Message Queue Protocol) |
Appendix A
- I am confident that the system securely handles passenger data and flight information
- I trust that system alerts about congestion are accurate and helpful
- 3.
- The robot’s touchscreen interface is intuitive and easy to navigate
- 4.
- The visual display of flight information and congestion maps is clear and understandable
- 5.
- The system is easy to use even during peak passenger traffic periods
- 6.
- I feel comfortable interacting with the robot for extended periods during high-traffic scenarios
- 7.
- The system is accessible to passengers with varying levels of digital literacy and device capabilities
- 8.
- The system efficiently utilizes staff and robotic resources to streamline airport operations
- 9.
- The system reduces idle time for both robotic and human airport personnel
- 10.
- The system effectively reduces passenger wait times and accelerates airport operations
- Trust: 4.5 ± 0.5
- User Experience: 4.3 ± 0.7
- Acceptability: 4.3 ± 0.6
- Digital Inclusion: 4.1 ± 0.8
- Resource Optimization: 4.4 ± 0.5
- Operational Efficiency: 4.4 ± 0.6
Appendix B
References
- Alomar, I.; Nikita, D. Managing Operational Efficiency and Reducing Aircraft Downtime by Optimization of Aircraft On-Ground (AOG) Processes for Air Operator. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 5129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IATA Forecast Predicts 8.2 Billion Air Travelers in 2037. Available online: https://barcelonalinks.org/es/news/iata-forecast-predicts-8-2-billion-air-travelers-in-2037-_es/ (accessed on 23 September 2025).
- Anagnostopoulou, A.; Tolikas, D.; Spyrou, E.; Akac, A.; Kappatos, V. The Analysis and AI Simulation of Passenger Flows in an Airport Terminal: A Decision-Making Tool. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misaros, M.; Stan, O.-P.; Donca, I.-C.; Miclea, L.-C. Autonomous Robots for Services—State of the Art, Challenges, and Research Areas. Sensors 2023, 23, 4962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Choi, S.; Moon, C.; Lee, K.; Su, X.; Hwang, J.; Kim, I. Exploring Smart Airports’ Information Service Technology for Sustainability: Integration of the Delphi and Kano Approaches. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Martínez, E.A.; Flores-Fuentes, W.; Achakir, F.; Sergiyenko, O.; Murrieta-Rico, F.N. Vision-Based Navigation and Perception for Autonomous Robots: Sensors, SLAM, Control Strategies, and Cross-Domain Applications—A Review. Eng 2025, 6, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saki, S.; Soori, M. Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Deep Learning in Advanced Transportation Systems, A Review. Multimodal Transp. 2025, 5, 100242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharif, M.H.; Jiao, L.; Omlin, C.W. Deep crowd anomaly detection: State-of-the-art, challenges, and future research directions. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2025, 58, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zreikat, A.I.; AlArnaout, Z.; Abadleh, A.; Elbasi, E.; Mostafa, N. The Integration of the Internet of Things (IoT) Applications into 5G Networks: A Review and Analysis. Computers 2025, 14, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siddiqi, M.A.; Yu, H.; Joung, J. 5G Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication Implementation Challenges and Operational Issues with IoT Devices. Electronics 2019, 8, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eswaran, S.; Honnavalli, P. Private 5G networks: A survey on enabling technologies, deployment models, use cases and research directions. Telecommun. Syst. 2023, 82, 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rastoceanu, F.; Grozea, C.; Enache, M.; Nelega, R.; Kovacs, G.; Puschita, E. Mission-Critical Services in 4G/5G and Beyond: Standardization, Key Challenges, and Future Perspectives. Sensors 2025, 25, 5156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kabashkin, I. Unified Aviation Maintenance Ecosystem on the Basis of 6G Technology. Electronics 2024, 13, 3824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Shiwakoti, N.; Tay, R. Passengers’ Perception of Satisfaction and Its Relationship with Travel Experience Attributes: Results from an Australian Survey. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, P.; Fan, J.; Wu, J. Exploring the key technologies and applications of 6G wireless communication network. iScience 2025, 28, 112281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ghasemi, A.; Keshavarzi, A.; Abdelmoniem, A.M.; Nejati, O.R.; Derikvand, T. Edge Intelligence for Intelligent Transport Systems: Approaches, challenges, and future directions. Expert Syst. Appl. 2025, 280, 127273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saeed, M.M.; Saeed, R.A.; Hasan, M.K.; Ali, E.S.; Mazha, T.; Shahzad, T.; Khan, S.; Hamam, H. A comprehensive survey on 6G-security: Physical connection and service layers. Discov. Internet Things 2025, 5, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Othman, W.M.; Ateya, A.A.; Nasr, M.E.; Muthanna, A.; ElAffendi, M.; Koucheryavy, A.; Hamdi, A.A. Key Enabling Technologies for 6G: The Role of UAVs, Terahertz Communication, and Intelligent Reconfigurable Surfaces in Shaping the Future of Wireless Networks. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2025, 14, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, C.-C.; Wu, H.-Y.; Chen, P.-H.; Chao, C.-E.; Lim, E.H. 6G Technology for Indoor Localization by Deep Learning with Attention Mechanism. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 10395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabashkin, I. Digital Twin Framework for Aircraft Lifecycle Management Based on Data-Driven Models. Mathematics 2024, 12, 2979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]





| Metric | Type | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operational Efficiency KVI Rating | Subjective (Likert) | 4.4/5.0 | Survey (n = 10) |
| Underlying Questions | Subjective | (1) System reduces wait times; (2) System provides actionable insights | Survey |
| Average Queue Length (Check-In) | Objective | 8.2 persons (trial period) | Thermal cameras |
| Average Queue Length (Security) | Objective | 6.4 persons (trial period) | Thermal cameras |
| Average Queue Length (Gate 1) | Objective | 3.1 persons (trial period) | Thermal cameras |
| Passenger Flow Rate (average) | Objective | 2.3 persons/min (trial location) | Thermal cameras |
| Peak Flow Rate | Objective | 4.1 persons/min (mid-trial) | Thermal cameras |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Giannopoulou, E.; Demestichas, P.; Katrakazas, P.; Saliverou, S.; Papagiannopoulos, N. AI-Powered Service Robots for Smart Airport Operations: Real-World Implementation and Performance Analysis in Passenger Flow Management. Sensors 2026, 26, 806. https://doi.org/10.3390/s26030806
Giannopoulou E, Demestichas P, Katrakazas P, Saliverou S, Papagiannopoulos N. AI-Powered Service Robots for Smart Airport Operations: Real-World Implementation and Performance Analysis in Passenger Flow Management. Sensors. 2026; 26(3):806. https://doi.org/10.3390/s26030806
Chicago/Turabian StyleGiannopoulou, Eleni, Panagiotis Demestichas, Panagiotis Katrakazas, Sophia Saliverou, and Nikos Papagiannopoulos. 2026. "AI-Powered Service Robots for Smart Airport Operations: Real-World Implementation and Performance Analysis in Passenger Flow Management" Sensors 26, no. 3: 806. https://doi.org/10.3390/s26030806
APA StyleGiannopoulou, E., Demestichas, P., Katrakazas, P., Saliverou, S., & Papagiannopoulos, N. (2026). AI-Powered Service Robots for Smart Airport Operations: Real-World Implementation and Performance Analysis in Passenger Flow Management. Sensors, 26(3), 806. https://doi.org/10.3390/s26030806

