The aviation industry is constantly making compromises when designing comfortable airplane cabins. Providing passengers with a pleasant acoustic environment without adding weight to the cabin structure is a field of tension that challenges cabin interior designers. The aim of this study was to investigate whether noise levels affect the comfort and physical discomfort experienced by airplane passengers, and whether control influences comfort perception. To this end, 30 participants experienced three conditions (silence, aircraft engine noise at 75 dB, and the same noise with the ability to use earplugs), and comfort and discomfort were measured using a questionnaire. It was concluded that aircraft engine noise negatively affected the airplane passengers’ comfort experiences. Having the ability to control this noisy environment with earplugs resulted in the lowest reported physical discomfort.@en

There are many factors influencing passengers’ comfort, such as expectations and environment. When experiencing comfort, the different human senses all play a role. According to Bubb (2008) [1], six factors determine discomfort: Smell, Light, Vibrations, Sound, Climate and Anthropometry. Bubb [1] presented these factors in a discomfort pyramid, with Smell as most important factor and Anthropometry as least important. The goal of this study is to investigate whether the expectations of aircraft passengers are comparable to the hierarchy of the human senses as proposed by Bubb’s discomfort pyramid [1]. A survey has been conducted among aircraft passengers (respondents with flight experience in the last year). In total 183 respondents between 19 and 64 years old (mean: 30.5, SD: 12.8) were asked to rank six different factors: Smell, Light, Vibrations, Sound, Climate and Anthropometry. These factors were presented to the respondents as 15 different pairs (e.g. Smell-Sound), and respondents were asked to indicate for each pair, which is most important according to them in order to experience comfort. The results of this study suggest that the expectations of aircraft passengers differ from the hierarchy of senses suggested by Bubb [1]. In this study, respondents indicated ‘anthropometry’ as most important, whereas this was the least important factor according to Bubb [1]. The other factors, in reducing order of importance according to the respondents of this study, were ‘noise, smell and climate’, ‘vibration’ and, lastly, ‘light’. However, according to the remarks made by the participants, some factors could be interpreted in different ways. For example, climate does not only refer to temperature, but also to humidity and atmospheric pressure. Therefore, these factors and their influence on comfort and discomfort experience should be studied in more detail.@en

To save fuel costs, lightweight designs and materials are preferred for aircraft interiors. One of the challenges for aircraft seats is to reduce weight without compromising passenger comfort, or perhaps even while increasing comfort. This case study describes three different projects on lightweight designs for aircraft seats, using three-dimensional (3D) scanning methods (Franz, Kamp, Durt, Kilincsoy, Bubb, & Vink, 2011) to determine the ideal seat contour following the human body. The first project on upright sitting in an economy aircraft seat (Hiemstra-van Mastrigt, 2015) set out to collect imprints of the human body in a vacuum mattress by using a handheld 3D scanner to scan the body imprints and obtain a 3D surface. Subsequently, the different scans were superimposed in such a way that differences between the scans were minimized. Based on this “ideal curvature,” an adjustable seat pan concept was developed (Kuday, 2018). A similar 3D scanning method was applied in two other projects: first, developing a prototype for passengers sleeping sideways in a premium economy class aircraft seat (Lam et al., 2014) and, second, a human contour-based business class seating concept (Smulders et al., 2016). This case study concludes with advantages and recommendations for applying 3D scanning in similar projects.@en

To save fuel costs, lightweight designs and materials are preferred for aircraft interiors. One of the challenges for aircraft seats is to reduce weight without compromising passenger comfort, or perhaps even while increasing comfort. This case study describes three different projects on lightweight designs for aircraft seats, using three-dimensional (3D) scanning methods (Franz, Kamp, Durt, Kilincsoy, Bubb, & Vink, 2011) to determine the ideal seat contour following the human body. The first project on upright sitting in an economy aircraft seat (Hiemstra-van Mastrigt, 2015) set out to collect imprints of the human body in a vacuum mattress by using a handheld 3D scanner to scan the body imprints and obtain a 3D surface. Subsequently, the different scans were superimposed in such a way that differences between the scans were minimized. Based on this “ideal curvature,” an adjustable seat pan concept was developed (Kuday, 2018). A similar 3D scanning method was applied in two other projects: first, developing a prototype for passengers sleeping sideways in a premium economy class aircraft seat (Lam et al., 2014) and, second, a human contour-based business class seating concept (Smulders et al., 2016). This case study concludes with advantages and recommendations for applying 3D scanning in similar projects.@en

There is certainly room for economy-class travelers to make their trips more pleasant. A travel pillow might improve comfort. In this study, the comfort expectations and experience of travel pillows were examined. Comparing these 2 aspects indicated that it is not always possible to predict the comfort experience associated with a product based on a picture, and that there is a discrepancy between expected and experienced comfort. Experienced comfort is highest for travel pillows that restrict head movements in all directions in order to maintain a neutral posture. The results of this study also support earlier studies that suggested that discomfort experience can be predicted by observing the number of participants’ in-seat movements; more movements result in higher experienced discomfort@en

BACKGROUND: Knowing the high and low peaks in comfort during a flight could be useful in prioritizing aircraft interior improvements. OBJECTIVE: The first objective of this study was to identify whether there are differences in comfort experiences during different phases of a flight. The second objective of this study was to identify similarities between recalled and real time reported comfort experiences. METHODS: 149 participants were asked to rate the comfort in the different phases of their last flight on a scale from 1-10. Additionally, a combination of a self-reporting design probe and generative interview was used to investigate the appraisal patterns of emotions in nine passengers. RESULTS: The 149 subjects reported the highest comfort after take-off and arriving at the destination, the lowest while stowing the luggage and during the cruise flight. The qualitative long haul inflight study showed after take-off and while arriving at the destination the most positive emotions and during the cruise flight there is a negative experience phase. CONCLUSIONS: Suggestions are given to improve the cruise flight phase, by for example stimulation of movement or better service.@en

Sitting still for extended periods of time can lead to physical discomfort and even serious health risks. Due to safety regulations, reducing passenger’ sitting time in aircrafts is not feasible. This paper presents the results of a laboratory study, in where an interactive airplane seat was compared with a current economy class seat. Participants used both seats for 3.5 h, and performed significantly more in-seat movements when using the interactive seating system. Furthermore, this interactive seat predominantly lead to significantly better comfort experiences and reduced discomfort experiences, however no significant differences have been found in self-reported localized musculoskeletal discomfort. Passengers indicated that they would prefer this interactive seat over a standard aircraft seat.@en

Sitting still for extended periods of time can lead to physical discomfort and even serious health risks. Due to safety regulations, reducing passenger’ sitting time in aircrafts is not feasible. This paper presents the results of a laboratory study, in where an interactive airplane seat was compared with a current economy class seat. Participants used both seats for 3.5 h, and performed significantly more in-seat movements when using the interactive seating system. Furthermore, this interactive seat predominantly lead to significantly better comfort experiences and reduced discomfort experiences, however no significant differences have been found in self-reported localized musculoskeletal discomfort. Passengers indicated that they would prefer this interactive seat over a standard aircraft seat.@en

The aim of this thesis is to investigate how to provide airplane passengers with a comfortable flight experience by designing airplane cabin elements that meet their individual needs. The number of passengers travelling by airplane is increasing, and it can be assumed that all of these passengers are seeking a comfortable experience when travelling by airplane. Nevertheless, there are many factors that influence the preferred environment for comfort. These factors could be divided into intrinsic (personal) and extrinsic (environmental) components. Environmental components consist of the themes smell, light, vibrations, noise, climate, and physical ergonomics. Personal factors, on the other hand, consist of, among others, activity, behavior, and cognitive functioning. It seems that a comfortable airplane cabin depends on the design of the physical environment, but also on individual preference, on the performed activity, and on the expectations of the passenger. However, more knowledge is needed to quantify these factors, therefore, this thesis studies (1) the relation between comfort and the context (journey, nationality, and environment) of the passengers, and (2) the effect of passenger control, expectations and behavior on comfort perception. @en

Bubb, Bengler, Grünen, and Vollrath (2015) identified six environmental comfort factors and ordered them from most important to least important (smell, light, vibrations, sound, climate and anthropometry). This paper attempts to verify whether this suggested order of comfort-related factors also applies to the expectations of aircraft passengers. For this purpose, two studies were carried out. First, a survey was conducted among 183 aircraft passengers between 19 and 64 years old. In this survey, respondents were asked to rank six comfort factors by selecting the most important factor from 15 pairs of factors (e.g. light versus smell). The respondents indicated anthropometry as the most important factor, followed by noise, smell and climate. These were followed by the vibration factor and the light factor, which was considered the least important. However, respondents stated after the survey ,that the context of the factors was unclear, since the importance of each factor might depend on the in-flight activity performed. Moreover, the factors were insufficiently explained (e.g. it is not clear if climate refers to warm or cold air). Based on this, a second survey was conducted among 167 aircraft passengers who were between 19 and 61 years old. In this survey, the comfort factors were clarified and two activities were predefined. The results illustrate that different orders of comfort factors can be identified for different activities, however, according to respondents, the comfort of the seat is the most important factor for all activities. The indicated order of comfort factors could help aircraft interior manufacturers prioritize design efforts aimed at improved passenger comfort for intended in-flight activities.@en