No abstract

In order to investigate differences in comfort and discomfort experiences amongst different regions of the world (America, Asia and Europe), a cross cultural study was performed. A questionnaire was sent to participants out in nine countries (Brazil, Canada, the USA, China, Indonesia, Thailand, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands). In total 795 participants completed the questionnaires. All countries score the comfort of a luxurious bed higher than a simple bed, first-class seats higher than economy class and all countries rate the comfort lower when the duration of sitting increases. The study suggests that in the USA and Canada softer beds, hammocks, more luxurious seats and softer pillows are scored as more comfortable compared with the other countries. There are indications that China and Germany prefer a harder mattress than in the other countries. For pillows, the differences between countries are large, which might show that much is influenced by habitude or hesitation to use something new. The Asian countries score the comfort of a brace neck pillow higher, which might be because these participants better realise the benefits better or feel less concerned to wear something that might give the appearance of an orthotic device. Further studies are needed to confirm these suggestions. The study shows that obvious differences are seen in all countries, which makes the construct of comfort internationally comparable.Practitioner summary: In designing and manufacturing globally, it is important to know how different parts of the world experience (dis)comfort. This study did not show large cultural differences amongst nine countries. Some differences emerge regarding pillows, perhaps as differences in sleeping habits play a role.

BACKGROUND: Cabin research is mostly based on passenger reports. However, it is also important to consider the perceptions of flight attendants as onboard service providers, since they can convey a complementary view shedding light on important aspects related to passenger experience. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to analyze flight-attendants’ perception regarding passengers’ inflight activities and experience. METHODS: Twenty-eight flight attendants were interviewed on more than twenty-three inflight activities that were extracted from a brainstorming session. A survey was designed based on these activities and was distributed to flight attendants. RESULTS: Overall, flight attendants perceived the activities ‘resting/relaxing’, ‘sleeping’ and ‘using the restroom’ for comfort as the most important activities to passengers, while activities ‘talking to neighbors’ and ‘thinking and observing’ were the least important ones. Interesting was the fact that flight attendants scored satisfaction of some activities higher then passengers. CONCLUSIONS: Flight attendants had a similar idea on importance of activities of passengers, but they valued some activities as more satisfactory.

Participatory design and co‐creation have recently been considered as an effective approach in fostering innovation. Traditionally, tools such as brainstorming, focus groups and discussion boards were dominant in guiding discussions around innovation and solutions. While each of these tools consider great advantages in fostering innovations, there are sometimes drawbacks in conducting them in an unbiased way. This paper aims to provide the results and learnings from a participatory session called Group Elicitation Method (GEM) to co‐create future of business jets in Embraer company. In general, this experiment finds GEM as a very effective tool for consensus seeking, in the contexts where participants have diverse backgrounds and power balance is not symmetrical. The project was conducted as part of the author's PhD research on passenger experience.

No abstract