Aircraft cabin design and passenger comfort: factors to consider in improving passengers’ experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving passenger experience remains a key business imperative not only for airports but also for airlines and aircraft manufacturers. In order to stay current in a competitive market, many organisations are looking for new ways to attract passengers to their business, by offering improved comfort and satisfaction, as well as a seamless travel experience - a tailored and personalised journey for each passenger. Scientific research has identified factors that need to be considered when promising such affordances to passengers. The sense of control, privacy, and safety belong amongst the most important factors for customer satisfaction. Cabin environmental conditions and access to technological features while traveling were also identified to support the passengers’ overall experience. Investigating the effectiveness of innovative technologies in a real aircraft environment presents many challenges. A new state–of-the-art facility at the author’s institution enables the simulation of the air travel experience from arrival at the airport, through security screening, departure lounge waiting, boarding, and travelling in a realistic aircraft cabin. Research in this facility draws on staff from across research centres with expertise in human factors, human physiology, aircraft engineering, and aviation. The facility enables the simulation in an ecologically valid environment where the passengers’ experience while traveling in an aircraft can be accurately investigated. Using various novel seat configurations and technologies within the cabin, we have examined how people interact with their seating environment and to what extent its features influence their comfort and satisfaction. Using advanced objective and subjective research methods enables informed decision-making processes that promise to improve the usability of novel technologies. The ability to investigate the interactions between people and their environment in realistic yet controlled experimental settings enables us to develop strategies and provide answers to emerging questions regarding a seamless travel experience that can be applied in real-world settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".