at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Air Transport Management 31 (2013) 27e31

Contents lists available

Journal of Air Transport Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ ja ir t raman

Note

Brazilian passengers’ perceptions of air travel: Evidences from a survey

Marina F. Greghi*, Talita N. Rossi, Jerusa B.G. de Souza, Nilton L. MenegonFederal University of São Carlos, Industrial Engineering Department, Simucad Ergo&Ação Group, Washington Luis, km 235, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

Keywords:Air transportAirport convenienceAirline passenger comfort

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ55 1635119500.E-mail address: marinagreghi@dep.ufscar.br (M.F.

1 Hinninghofen and Enck (2006) found that seat pitcback width, legroom, armrest quality, and seat recdetermining in-flight comfort.

0969-6997/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2012.11.008

a b s t r a c t

This paper investigates the difficulties and discomforts that Brazilian passengers experienced at airportsand during their flights. A survey conducted between November 2009 and February 2010 at 36 largeBrazilian airports elicited information about passenger and travel characterization, and air travel expe-riences at airports, and in aircraft cabins. The analysis shows that the main sources of difficulty, andconsequently discomforts at the airport were delay and cancellations, loss of luggage, and overbooking. Italso finds that major discomforts during air travel are related to seat and cabin space.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

According to International Air Transport Association (IATA)(2010), Brazil has the world’s fastest growth in aviation traffic,with data presented in the Statistical Yearbook of Air Transport(Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil, 2011) showing that number ofpassengers boarded in the country increased by 58% between 2005and 2010. In terms of domestic traffic, passengers have doubledover period, from 35 to 70 million. In addition, data released byANAC emphasize the relevance of domestic traffic in the country. In2010, passenger traffic in Brazil reached a total of 93.5 millionpassengers. Of which, 70 million refer to the volume of domesticflights, which accounts for 75% of total traffic.

Following global trends, the Brazilian airline industry hasbecome less concentrated with the arrival of low cost airlines andas consequence ticket prices have fallen. With this has come morepassenger traffic, and especially leisure travelers with theirparticular needs (Dresner, 2006). As reported by International AirTransport Association (2010), in addition to the increased compe-tition in this sector, first class cabin capacity has been shrinking insome largest airlines in the world, including British Airways andQantas. The resultant increase in economy class seating has alsooften been accompanied by tighter leg-room and fewer meals.1

Here we identify passengers’ perceptions of difficulties theyencounter at airports and the way that they see aircraft cabinfeatures and facilities.

Greghi).h (space between seats), seatline angle are important in

All rights reserved.

2. Passenger survey

The study is based on a survey of Brazilian air travelers’perceptions regarding their experiences in airports and in aircraftcabins. The survey of major Brazilian airports was conducted usingface-to-face questionnaires. The sampling of respondents at 36airports is based on data provided by the Brazilian Airport Infra-structure Company, INFRAERO (2008), and is representative of thepassenger traffic distribution in 2008. Thirty-six airports across thecountry were selected.

The sample size, n, was initially based on a simple randomdistribution on the grounds that the main population parameters tobe estimated are proportions p related to the qualitative variablesmeasuring satisfaction and preferences of Brazilian air travelers.The maximum error in this estimate was about 6% e reducing thiswould substantially increase the necessary sample size ewith a 5%confidence interval.

Given the fair socioeconomic status of the population studied,a conservative procedurewas adopted (i.e. a procedure that providesthe largest sample size possible within the conditions of time,resources, and information available) initially assuming theproportion of satisfied (or dissatisfied) users the value p0 ¼ 0.5 (andtherefore (1 � p0) ¼ 0.5). Accordingly, the size n0 of the randomsampleof userswasdeterminedbyPessoaandSilva (1998) (Table1):

n0 ¼ z2�p0ð1� p0Þ

E2

�¼ ð2Þ2

"ð0:5Þ$ð0:5Þð0:06Þ2

#¼ 278y280 (1)

Correcting the value n0 for the population size N ¼ 110,661,762users we have:

n ¼ n0$Nn0 þ N

¼ ð280Þð110;661;763Þ280þ 110;661;763

¼ 265y265 (2)

Table 1Passenger sample: region/airport.

Passenger traffic(2008)

Airport traffic/traffic (WE)

Sample Samplesize

SoutheastesouthRAO e Ribeirão Preto (SP) 428,153 0.0039 1.083327 1SBUL e Uberlândia (MG) 500,652 0.0045 1.266766 1SBCF e Confins International Airport (MG) 5,189,528 0.0469 13.130713 13SBGR e Guarulhos International Airport (SP) 20,400,304 0.1843 51.617515 52SBPA e Porto Alegre International Airport (RS) 4,931,464 0.0446 12.477751 12SBLO e Londrina International Airport (PR) 507,876 0.0045 1.285044 1SBCT e Curitiba International Airport (PR) 4,281,354 0.0387 10.832822 11SBFI e Foz do Iguaçu International Airport (PR) 766,444 0.0069 1.939282 2SBGL e Galeão International Airport (RJ) 10,754,689 0.0972 27.211865 27SBVT e Vitória Airport (ES) 1,988,447 0.0180 5.031233 5SBRJ e Santos Dummont Airport (RJ) 3,628,766 0.0328 9.181622 9SBSP e Congonhas Airport (SP) 13,672,301 0.1235 34.594102 35SBKP e Campinas International Airport (SP) 1,083,878 0.0098 2.742463 3SBFL e Florianópolis International Airport (SC) 2,080,342 0.0188 5.263749 5NorthemidwestSBEG e Manaus International Airport (AM) 2,021,668 0.0183 5.115290 5SBPV e Porto Velho International Airport (RO) 426,470 0.0039 1.079068 1SBBE e Belém International Airport (PA) 2,153,508 0.0195 5.448876 5SBBR e Brasília International Airport (DF) 11,119,872 0.1005 28.135863 28SBCY e Cuiabá International Airport(MT) 1,254,825 0.0113 3.174999 3SBGO e Goiânia Airport (GO) 1,554,000 0.0140 3.931981 4SBPJ e Palmas Airport (TO) 259,362 0.0023 0.656246 1SBCG e Campo Grande International Airport(MS) 755,407 0.0069 1.911355 2SBRB e Rio Branco International Airport (AC) 302,551 0.0027 0.765524 1SBMQ e Macapá International Airport (AP) 493,999 0.0045 1.249932 1SBBV e Boa Vista International Airport (RR) e Not visited 205,180 0.0019 0.519153 1NortheastSBIZ e Imperatriz Airport (MA) 170,206 0.0015 0.430661 1SBSL e São Luís Airport (MA) 870,784 0.0079 2.203286 2SBTE e Teresina Airport (PI) 466,034 0.0042 1.179174 1SBFZ e Fortaleza International Airport (CE) 3,465,791 0.0314 8.769257 9SBNT e Natal International Airporta 1,578,165 0.0143 3.993125 4SBRF e Recife International Airport (PE) 4,679,457 0.042286 11.840115 12SBSV e Salvador International Airport (BA) 6,042,307 0.0546 15.288442 15SBMO e Macéio International Airport (AL) 957,744 0.0086 2.423315 2SBAR e Aracajú Airport (SE) 669,777 0.0060 1.694692 2SBPL e Petrolina Airport (PE) 157,578 0.0014 0.398709 1SBIL e Ilhéus Airport (BA) 394,435 0.0036 0.998012 1SBJP e João Pessoa International Airport 448,444 0.0040 1.134668 1Total: 110,661,762 1.0000 280 280

a Traffic data from 2007. Source: http://www.infraero.gov.br.

M.F. Greghi et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 31 (2013) 27e3128

assuming approximately 15% of non-responses, are added to thesample calculated and the final sample of nf ¼ 305 users is roundedto 320. The sample size was defined statistically in terms of thenumber of passengers that would be necessary to ensure a repre-sentative sample. The selection of respondents was focused ona diverse sample of passengers in terms of body size, gender, profile(leisure, business), socio-demographic class, etc.

Over three months, 377 questionnaires were distributed at 36airports (Table 1). The survey focused on Brazilian passengers; 98%of which reside in the country. The sample included 42.1% femalerespondents, and overall ages were 21e30 years, 31.4%; 31-4, 29.9%and 41e50, 21.2%. There was a predominance respondents who hadnot complete their higher education (14.5%), college education(29.3%), or graduate education (32.5%). Given the nationalminimumwage of $283, 22.5% of respondents received three to fivetime this, 28.9%, five to ten time, and 17.8% from 10 to 25 theminimum.2

When asked about the main reasons for traveling,3 48.9% wereon business trips, 45.1% traveling for, leisure, 25.3% to see friends

2 These findings are in line with a study by the Data Popular Institute (2010),which found an increased use of air transport by classes C and D.

3 More than one reason could be given.

and relatives, 11.5% to participate in events and conventions, and8.7% to study. In terms of previous flights in the year, including theircurrent one, 26.3% of business passengers travel at least oncea month, while only 1.9% of leisure travelers travel as frequently. Interms of journey purpose, gender was a differentiating factor of thebusiness category with 85.8% of respondents in this category beingmale. The percentages of business travelers with an income over 20times the minimum wages (37.4%) and with a graduate education(40.3%) were also markedly different from of other categories.

As for the travel class chosen by the passengers, it was foundthat most domestic flight passengers choose economy class. About88.5% of passengers traveling on business and 89.54% of leisurepassengers choose this class. These data shows the Brazilian airlineindustry reality since business and first classes are almost non-existent in most domestic flights, a trend also observed in theaviation worldwide (International Air Transport Association, 2010).Concerning the airlines chosen by the passengers, there wasa predominance of companies TAM and Gol, as seen in Table.4 Theaircraft used are seen in Table 2.

4 This is in line with a July 2011 ANAC report indicating a concentration of use onthese two Brazilian airlines; TAM (42.2%) and GOL/VRG (37.9%).

Table 2Airlines the aircraft they use.

Airlines Passengers (%) Aircraft models

TAM 38.7 A320, A319Gol 34.8 B737-800, B737-700Trip 0.3 ATR-42, ATR-72Webjet 5.4 B737-300OceanAir 1.5 MK-28Azul 0.6 E-190-195Passaredo 1.8 ERJ-145

M.F. Greghi et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 31 (2013) 27e31 29

3. Results

Table 3(a) shows general air travel aspects that present thehighest average scores associated to discomfort: delay and cancel-lations, loss of luggage, andoverbooking. As canbe seen, 82.5% of the

Table 3Discomfort related to (a) general travel factors, (b) cabin experiences: seat and space (c) ca

(a)

Variables N Standarddeviation

Delay and flight cancellations 349 2.4Loss of luggage 354 2.8Overbooking 345 2.8Airport wait time 349 2.8Turbulences 349 3.1Check-in wait time 348 3.2Aircraft safety 347 3.8Physical discomfort or health issues 345 3.7Airport or flight safety 345 3.7Jet lag 351 3.4Carry-on baggage weight restrictions 355 3.4Easiness of self-printing boarding passes 350 3.6

(b)

Variables N Standarddeviation

(%di

Cabin and seating space aspectsPersonal space 346 3.16 14Overhead bin size 340 3.3 29Legroom 342 2.8 11Seat width 345 3.1 17Footrest 344 3.1 14Personal armrest 345 3.0 13Neck and headrest 344 3.3 18Lumbar support 342 3.2 17Seat reclining angle 346 3.1 15Seat cushion material and texture 342 3.1 25Location of passenger control unit 340 3.3 35Seat in-/egress 339 3.0 14

(c)

Variables N Standarddeviation

(%) Ldisco

Cabin environment aspectsCabin general illumination 348 3.2 49.4Individual seat illumination 345 3.3 42.6Illumination color changes 341 3.1 52.2Noise 342 3.1 23.1Temperature 343 3.2 31.2Vibration 344 3.2 25.5

(d)

Variables N Mean Standarddeviation

Operational aspectsCrew service 341 3.71 3.3Toilet hygiene 340 4.30 3.5Toilet space 336 5.61 3.4Toilet control accessibility 336 4.65 3.4

respondents gave the highest degree of discomfort score to delaysand cancellation, followed by loss of luggage, and overbooking.

It is also seen that all items degree of discomfort scores of overfive, which indicates that according to the respondents all of themhave a medium to high degree of discomfort. The multiple corre-spondence analysis between the question items shows that theindividuals who rated the first item with a high degree ofdiscomfort also did it for the other items. This fact seems to pointout that if a passenger feels a high degree of discomfort related topre-flight experiences, he or she will also evaluate the remainingitems negatively.

According to the data presented in Table 3(b), it was found thatthe highest levels of discomfort were mostly related to features ofthe seat and the space available in the aircraft cabin. The variablelegroomwas given the highest degree of discomfort score, followedby the seat reclining angle, personal space, personal armrest, and

bin experiences: physical environment (d) cabin experiences: operational variables.

(%) Low degree ofdiscomfort

(%) Medium degree ofdiscomfort

(%) High degree ofdiscomfort

6.3 11.17 82.539.32 5.93 84.759.57 6.09 84.35

11.46 26.93 61.616.05 29.51 54.4418.68 29.6 51.7226.8 19.6 53.624.06 28.12 47.8326.09 22.61 51.322.51 28.12 47.8327.12 37.85 35.0336.57 28.29 35.15

) Low degree ofscomfort

(%) Medium degree ofdiscomfort

(%) High degree ofdiscomfort

.74 26.88 58.38

.41 37.35 33.24

.11 20.76 68.13

.97 31.3 50.72

.83 30.52 54.65

.62 29.57 56.81

.9 30.23 50.87

.84 31.87 50.29

.9 24.28 59.83

.73 40.06 34.2138.24 26.76

.45 37.17 48.38

ow degree ofmfort

(%) Medium degree ofdiscomfort

(%) High degree ofdiscomfort

3 33.62 16.951 35.36 22.03

32.26 15.5436.84 40.0638.48 30.32

8 38.95 35.47

(%) Low degree ofdiscomfort

(%) Medium degree ofdiscomfort o

(%) High degree ofdiscomfort

51.46 28.95 19.5946.18 29.41 24.4128.27 34.23 37.539.29 33.04 27.68

Fig. 1. Multiple correspondence analysis: question related to travel aspects.

M.F. Greghi et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 31 (2013) 27e3130

footrest. Internal cabin factors such as vibration, temperature, andnoise are intermediate factors affecting passenger wellbeing, fol-lowed by individual seat lights, general cabin lighting, and changesin the level of lighting (Table 3c). Table 3d shows the responsesregarding the operational aspects that can vary between airlinesand illustrates the importance of perceptions regarding the qualitysuch things as toilet hygiene and crew service; aspects also found inother studies including Chen (2008) and Vink and Brauer (2011).

Multiple correspondence analysis is used to represent graphi-cally the multidimensional structure of the correlations betweenobservations; the use of two variables is simple correspondenceanalysis, and more than two is factorial multiple correspondenceanalysis. The analysis shows that passengers’ general discomfortscores for thefirst aspects related to the travel are also reflected all ofthe specific elements of the overall question (Fig. 1a). Further,passengers who score highly regarding seat width and personalspace also do so for some cabin features, such as legroom, footrest,personal armrest, neck and headrest, lumbar support, and the anglea seat reclines (Fig.1b). Responses regarding general aspects of traveland the cabin showless correspondence (Fig.1c), i.e. individualswhogave a medium priority for travel aspects, did not so often do so foraircraft cabin features. In terms of traveler types, people who travelmore frequently, especially those on business, complain of a greaterinconvenience regarding carry-on baggage weight restrictions,easiness of self-printing boarding passes, and overhead bin size;such passengers often make short trips returning on the same daythus seeking practicality, comfort, and quality of service.

4. Conclusions

Looking air travel in Brazil, our survey indicates that challengesemerge in terms of airport facilities and delay and cancellations offlights, loss of luggage, and overbooking. On aircraft legroom andpersonal space are often passenger concerns, as are, albeit toa lesser degree, the operational aspects of a flight, such as flight andcrew services and cabin lighting, levels noise, temperature, andvibration. These effects often emerge, though the application ofmultiple correspondence analysis, to be interactive in terms of theirimpacts on passengers. What we cannot, of course, say is whetherpassengers would be willing to pay for improvements in airportand airline services, although the growth in low cost, no-frillairlines suggest that they would not.

Acknowledgments

This study is part of the “Comfort and Design of Aircraft Cabins”project and was carried out in partnership with Embraer and theSão Paulo Research Foundation and in collaboration of theUniversity of São Paulo, the Federal University of São Carlos, and theFederal University of Santa Catarina. The National Civil AviationAgency contributed in offering logistics support that enableddata collection. The authors are also grateful the passengers whoparticipated in the study.

References

Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil, ANAC, 2011. Relatórios Semestrais do TransporteAéreoBrasília.Online at: http://www2.anac.gov.br/estatistica/MinisteriodoTurismo(accessed 15.12.11.).

Chen, C.F., 2008. Investigating structural relationships between servicequality, perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions forair passengers: evidence from Taiwan. Transportation Research A 42, 709e717.

Dresner, M., 2006. Leisure versus business passengers: similarities, differences, andimplications. Journal of Air Transport Management 12, 28e32.

Hinninghofen, H., Enck, P., 2006. Passenger well-being in airplanes. AutonomicNeuroscience: Basic and Clinical 129, 80e85.

M.F. Greghi et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 31 (2013) 27e31 31

INFRAERO, 2008. Turismo de negócios e eventos: orientações básicas, Brasília.Online at: http://www.turismo.gov.br (accessed 15.11.11.).

Instituto Data Popular, 2010. Usuários de Transporte Aéreo Brasileiro. Online at:http://www.datapopular.com.br (accessed 15.11.11.).

International Air Transport Association, 2010. Annual Report-2009, Montreal, IATA.Pessoa, D.G.C., Silva, P.L.N., 1998. Análise de dados amostrais complexos. São Paulo:

Associação, Brasileira de Estatística.Vink, P., Brauer, K., 2011. Aircraft Interior Comfort and Design. CRC Press, Miami.