key: cord-0822913-r27d5tjz
authors: Tuchen, Stefan; Arora, Mohit; Blessing, Lucienne
title: Airport user experience unpacked: Conceptualizing its potential in the face of COVID-19
date: 2020-08-27
journal: J Air Transp Manag
DOI: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101919
sha: 14da3dade7248881ec524ade7d497a0f51d4777f
doc_id: 822913
cord_uid: r27d5tjz

Given the unprecedented challenges imposed on the aviation industry by the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper proposes a new perspective on airport user experience as a field of study to unlock its potential as a basis for strategic roadmapping. Through an integrative literature review, this study points out a dominant focus, in practice and research, on customer experience and service quality, as opposed to user experience, to help airports gain a competitive edge in an increasingly commoditized industry. The review highlights several issues with this understanding of experience, as users other than passengers, such as employees, working for the airport and its myriad stakeholders, as well as visitors, are largely omitted from study. Given the complexity of the system, operationally, passengers are generally reduced to smooth flows of a passive mass, which this study argues is both a missed opportunity and a vulnerability exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Major events apart from COVID-19 are used to show the negative effects this simplification of user experience has had. Based on solutions and models proposed in previous studies, a conceptual model has been developed to illustrate the postulated potential of a deeper and more holistic study of airport user experience to make airport systems generally more agile, flexible and future-proof. As such, the paper advocates to utilize the user experience as a basis for strategic planning to equip airports with the know-how to manage not just daily operations more effectively but also the aftermath of and recovery from major events like the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, with the user experience at the center of the strategic roadmap, airports can plan ahead to mitigate the impact of future scenarios. The importance of future research and the use of existing research are discussed.

We propose to view airports as experience providers and to use the experience of all airport users 50 as a key factor for not just survival but mapping the way through the recovery and beyond. User 51

Experience makes a great deal of items palpable: from inconvenient departure/arrival times due to 52 slot allocation, to inadequate security planning, to poorly laid out terminals, to a stressful work 53 environment for employees, etc. As such, the user experience connects most, if not all, elements 54

of the system (build environment, technologies, operations, and services) and would thus be the 55 perfect resource to tap into in order to understand the airport system and form a basis for 56 strategic planning involving all stakeholders. 57 58

While the scale of this crisis for air travel is unprecedented, the elements of VUCA (Volatility, 59

Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity) have always been looming over the industry; the air 60 transportation landscape has consistently proven itself to be a dynamic one; change has been a 61

constant. Despite strong long-term growth, even record-breaking increases in passenger numbers 62

in recent years (ICAO 2018), the forecasting thereof has been noted to be rather unreliable (Odoni 63 and Competition between airports as transfer points, as well as between airlines -along with 66

consolidation, climate change, rising oil prices -have caused further uncertainty for future 67 developments and rendered the market more volatile (de Neufville 1995, Rothkopf and Wald 68 2011). Add to that terrorism -it took almost three years for demand to bounce back to its peak 69 prior to 9/11 (see Ito improve airport user experience in general, manage the recovery from, and prepare for major 73 events beyond COVID-19.

To advocate for a paradigm shift utilizing the full potential of user experience and a holistic 76 understanding thereof as a tool for strategic planning, this study is based on an integrative 77 literature review with three goals: to analyze the current understanding of experience in an airport 78 context, to identify the underlying problems with regard to the issues the industry is facing, and to 79 develop a conceptual model leading towards solutions to these problems in light of the current 80 aviation crisis caused by COVID-19. 81 82 2. Experience in the Airport Context 83 84

Experience in an airport context is generally understood to mean passenger experience. This focus 86

is by no means surprising; satisfied passengers give the airport a competitive advantage (see 87 Fodness and Murray 2007, Tsai, Hsu et al. 2011) . In an industry that nowadays could very well be 88 considered commoditized (see Rothkopf and Wald 2011, Pine and Gilmore 2013), the experience 89 is a measure to set one airport apart from competitors in their "catchment area" or from 90 "alternative transfer hubs" (de Neufville 1995, Jimenez, Claro et al. 2014 ). Airport managers too 91

have pointed out the importance of passenger satisfaction for their business; satisfied passengers 92 could be return customers and help attract more passengers -and through this more airline 93

customers for airports (see Lehmann 2019) .

As such, a focus on airport experience and airports as service providers fits in with general 96 developments in the services sector. In 1982, in an emerging service industry, G. Lynn Shostack 97 highlighted the differences between products and services and first proposed blueprinting 98 services. One of the examples given was for a shoe-shining service, in which the blueprint outlined 99 the elements of service, failure points etc. (Shostack 1982) . This outlined the mechanics and 100 strategic planning of a service; however, in a changing business landscape, the experience of the 101 service gained importance. In 1999, Joseph Pine and James Gilmore expanded the shoe-shining 102 service example in light of what they coined the "experience economy." They wrote about 103 "sensory stimulants that accompany an experience" and argued for the importance of catering to 104 all senses -"scents and sounds that don't make the shoes any shinier but do make the experience 105 more engaging" (Pine and Gilmore 1999) . Airports are part of this "experience economy;" they can 106 no longer just render services; they must focus on experience. Many airport-related studies, 107

regardless of their individual specific points of focus, therefore choose to include 'experience' in 108 their title (e.g. Sykes Passenger experience is closely related to the (perceived) quality of services provided and 113 therefore most frequently studied through the domain of service quality -which was also found 114

to be linked to service productivity (see also Parasuraman 2010 , Lehmann 2019 While the research related to SERVQUAL takes a broader look at multiple factors, others have 145 studied singular phenomena inside airport terminals that influence the satisfaction, service 146 quality, and thus experience in greater detail. These include, among others, biometric security 147 J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f technology (Sasse 2002) , the security screening process as a whole (Gkritza, Niemeier et al. 2006 found themselves in roles not related to their usual jobs, and how Australian Quarantine and 189

Inspection Service (AQIS) staff with almost no experience with health issues of this scale needed to 190 grapple with their own fear and learn to gain the confidence necessary to manage the situation 191 (Smollen, Gallard et al. 2003) . Heightened anxiety caused a series of over-reactions whenever 192

travelers sneezed or coughed, leading ultimately to scared passengers (Smollen, Gallard et al. 193 2003) . Similarly, in the context of COVID-19, a frontline employee is exposed to many more people 194

than an individual passenger, increasing their likelihood to be infected as well as the chance that 195 they will infect others. This affects the behavior and experiences of both. In a more severe 196 J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f example, albeit one related to airlines not airports, following 9/11, a lack of understanding of the 197 employee experience alienated deeply affected and vulnerable airline employees who felt their 198 employer had not taken care of their emotional needs (North, Pollio et al. 2013 Employees are largely seen as "cogs" in the complex airport system (Kirschenbaum 2015) . 207

Notwithstanding the more prominent role the passenger experience -or at least satisfaction -208

plays, passengers too appear to be seen as "passive cogs" from an operational perspective, owing 209

to the process-oriented nature of airports as complex engineering and logistics systems (see 210

Horonjeff 2010, Kirschenbaum 2015) . Much of the focus is directed towards the notion of a 211 smooth flow. In some cases, this "smooth flow" was found to be directly linked with "positive 212 passenger experiences" (see Popovic and Kraal 2015) . A guide to terminal architecture and 213

planning offers the following view: "The needs of passengers should be paramount in the design 214 of terminal facilities. Passenger and baggage flows should be as smooth, well marked and flexible 215

as possible" (Edwards 2005) . While proper planning no doubt ideally results in a smooth flow that 216

can make users happy, the link is not as simple and straightforward. In fact, the implied cog-like 217 nature of passengers as inanimate objects in relating passenger flow to baggage flow can be 218 rather problematic. Findings from British airports, e.g., show that passengers frequently felt 219

"processed" and found their needs to come after those of the airport and airlines (Sykes and Desai 220 2009). The operational reduction of passengers to a passive mass inevitably disregards important 221

"softer factors which cannot easily be measured by typical performance indicators" and partially 222 removes the important "feeling of personal control" (ibid.). The notion of the passive traveler is 223 also prevalent in the planning of the built environment, which is often formulaic and has little 224 regard for the reality of human behavior; spaces are often not adequately sized because planners 225 simply assume that users will "disperse like a gas" to use the entire floor area equally, instead of 226 congregating around points of interest, as they naturally do (see Odoni and de Neufville 1992 

The simplification of employees to "cogs," passengers to flows, narrowing the experience to 250 service quality, and, ultimately, absence of holistic studies involving all airport users, are 251 understandable given the convolution of airports systems. Airport companies themselves are 252 complex organizations (see Knox As the user experience is connected to the entire airport environment, it offers the opportunity to 274 exert influence on the individual components of the airport system, rather than be influenced by 275

them. Fortunately, some non-airport-related studies already present approaches for solutions that 276 use user experience holistically instead of providing "piecemeal approaches." At the same time, sake, it is crucial to link strategic planning to the experience sought to be provided. "In a VUCA 284

world, it will become increasingly critical for companies to anchor strategic planning in the 285 customer experiences it seeks to create (Kim, Beckman et al. 2018) ." Even before COVID-19, it has 286 been argued that "integrated approaches" need to be taken to put the customer and his/her 287 experience at the center of the business development and management (Millar, Groth et al. 2018) . 288

As such, the experience has the potential to influence and contribute to every aspect of a 289

business. It is our firm belief, however, that the latter requires extending this concept to include 290 all users and not only customers. One aspect of the airport system that the experience as well as the VUCA elements touch upon 294 besides services, operations, and technology is the built environment -flexibility naturally extends 295

to terminals, other physical infrastructure, and the planning thereof. Here too, a variety of 296 scenarios should be considered to be prepared and actively deal with new situations as they arise, 297 resulting in flexibly planned systems (De Neufville and Scholtes 2011). In uncertain times, where 298 airports could either face growth without having space to grow, face growth and expand their 299

infrastructure, or, as is the case right now, face a decline in passenger numbers, their 300 masterplanning has been explored and assessed to offer flexibility (Magalhães, Reis et al. 2018 ).

Designs could therefore be planned to be modular to react to these conditions and, for example, 302

enable the airport to close off certain areas (De Neufville and Scholtes 2011), as Changi Airport did 303

when they announced the closure of Terminal 2 in April 2020 (Toh 2020) , and Terminal 4 in May 304 (Eber 2020). As mentioned, multiple scenarios need to be accounted for when planning airports 305 (Odoni and de Neufville 1992). On a smaller scale, flexibility within the built environment of the 306 airport terminal can also allow for screening rooms or other isolation areas to deal with disease 307 outbreaks, even though existing ones at Sydney, for example, have not been planned optimally 308 (see Smollen, Gallard et al. 2003 ). In addition, mobility of technology, the possibility to easily move 309 technology where it is needed, can greatly increase flexibility in these cases.

The most promising way to anticipate a wide variety of situations is to plan from the perspective 312

of the user -with the experience and expectations of all users as a guiding principle. The 313

psychology

operations and should inform the design rather than the assumption of a passive mass of 315 customers (see Odoni and de Neufville 1992). As autonomous actors, travelers are naturally not 316

products of an endless supply, thus focusing on them would incorporate an element of volatility, 317 uncertainty, and ambiguity into the basis of planning. The volatility of the development of 318 passenger numbers (see de Neufville 1995), to name one example, would therefore need to be 319 addressed. Rather than from intuition, the terminal design should be designed from a thorough 320 understanding of its users. Based on this notion, albeit focusing on passengers as the users, 321

Harrison et al. have proposed a conceptual model for terminal planning that has the experience at 322

its core (Harrison, Popovic et al. 2012 ). Owing to the complexity of the system, they take to 323 different perspectives and their influence on the experience: the airport as the company that 324 "stages" the experience (see also Pine and Gilmore 1999), the passenger who expects and 325

perceives it, and the public that aggregates several experiences into one. Approaching airport 326

terminal design via such a conceptual model would take it beyond the cookie-cutter approach of 327 architecturally dressing up a predefined system (see de Neufville 1995), towards acknowledging 328 passengers as intelligent actors that can have a say in the design of the system they use. However, 329

as mentioned, employees (and others) also need to be considered as users; the built environment 330 in all its facets has major implications on how they are able to do their job, even without 331 extraordinary events taking place (see Bitner 1992) . 332 333

Putting the passengers -or better yet, all users -at the center of such models for planning, 335

perforce, likens the airport system to a product service system (PSS) (see Müller to user-centric design and product-service system design could make valuable contributions to 338 airport systems design, especially given the inherent flexibility of product-service systems (Müller 339 and Blessing 2007). The previously mentioned study by Wales et al., used to illustrate the 340 problems within the airport context, is an early example of a promising interdisciplinary approach. 341

It already offers a solution to mitigate them by looking at human-centered computing; they 342 J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f proposed to shift from the "production line" model to a "customer-as-participant perspective." 343

Using a "human-centered level of analysis," the passenger is seen as an intelligent actor within the 344 system as opposed to an object on a metaphorical conveyor belt. "Importantly, customers can 345 affect the airline system immediately as they move through it, adapt to changes in situ, and 346

negotiate new terms as changes occur, unlike in a marketing perspective, where customer 347 requirements are predefined and static in a particular work system design at any point in time 348 (Wales, O'Neill et al. 2002) ." While the research objective here was primarily to determine ways to 349 manage regular delays and improve operational reliability, the suggestions for solutions are quite 350 pertinent, provided they are extended to all users. Outside the narrower airport context, there a re many approaches that can offer valuable insights.

An experience-based model from outside the aviation realm, "ContinUE", for example, goes 358

beyond the expected and perceived experience and suggested a full temporal range of 359 experiences (see fig. 1 ): anticipated, use/ experience, reflective experience, repetitive experience, 360

and retrospective experience (Pohlmeyer, Hecht et al. 2009 context. Two perspectives are the simplest representation of who experiences, the users, 381

and who "stages" (Pine and Gilmore 2013) that experience, the organization. This does not 382

imply a homogeneous mass but rather the need for a holistic approach. Data sharing, 383 cooperation, and the alignment of strategic goals, as mentioned before, are key in the 384 organization's tier, while the user tier must include all users for the strategic planning to 385 be effective. As shown earlier, leaving out the knowledge that can be gained from the 386 employee experience would not create a holistic understanding and in turn does not 387

inform the strategic planning appropriately. into both strategic planning for long-term adjustments, as well as into daily operations for 402 immediate adjustments. The knowledge about today's COVID-19 experience, e.g., could be 403 used to react immediately, as well as to plan ahead for the next pandemic via the strategic 404 roadmap. 405 Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity cannot be effectively managed with our current 410 understanding of the airport experience and our productivity-oriented operations mindset. A 411

conceptual model like the one proposed here, building on existing ones, suggests a new approach 412 towards user experience. In addressing the shortcomings in our current understanding of airport 413 user experience, it also capitalizes on the potential the experience offers. By developing a holistic 414

understanding of the experience of all the airport users and putting this at the base of strategic 415 roadmapping, along with the application of a combination of existing design concepts and 416

methodologies, e.g. modularization, product-service systems, user-centered design, experiential 417 design, etc., airport systems can be transformed into more flexible entities to counter the VUCA 418 environment with inherent resilience. As the 'Whether Man' in Norton Juster's classic The 419

Phantom Tollbooth put it: "Expect everything, I always say, and the unexpected never happens 420 (Juster and Feiffer 1961) ." The current pandemic illustrates the need for this paradigm shift, which 421

can be achieved by fully capitalizing on the user experience's inherent potential.

Conceptual models, however, are only starting points, not silver bullets. What is represented here 424

is an illustration of potential and a way of thinking about the subject. This is initial conceptual 425 model is merely a first step, an overarching concept, to inform the creation of more detailed ones; 426

there is a need to combine the amassed knowledge into comprehensive, truly interdisciplinary 427 models. Fortunately, plenty of research that has already been completed can be used to develop 428 these. The passenger side already has a solid foundation in previous research, e.g. the work by 429

Wiredja et al. However, these models also show just how complex even one part of the experience 430

is. If we were to metaphorically zoom into the graphic, each field would reveal a net of numerous, 431

potentially conflicting nodes -different and changing user needs, company goals, regulations, and 432

contexts (technologies, built environment, procedures, services etc.). Ultimately, a lot more work 433 needs to be done to capitalize on the potential -more research needs to go into the holistic 434 modeling, the companies involved need to work together more closely, etc. Each field in the 435 model represents a well of knowledge that needs to be attained to craft less conceptual and more 436 detailed models that can be used to directly inform strategic planning.

It is important to note, that more research needs to be conducted, particularly with regard to the 439 concrete implementation of these strategies. While there are many commonalities between the 440 thousands of airports worldwide and their respective organizational ecosystems, the actual 441 makeup of stakeholders, which aspects of the user experience they are directly and indirectly 442 connected to, and the contracts outlining the responsibilities between them can be vastly 443 different. Therefore, the parties involved in authoring the strategic roadmap for an airport, and 444 thus incorporating the user experience into the process, may vary depending on how and by 445 whom an airport is run. In the case of US airports, for example, where airlines play a considerable 446 role in the running of terminals, the different types of contracts between airports and airlines and 447 their impacts on the system have been researched (see Fuhr and Beckers 2009, Hihara 2012 ). 448

Involving more stakeholders than just airport companies and airlines, the decision-making process 449

in this complex environment has also been studied (e.g. Zografos and Madas 2006) . Along those 450 lines, the strategic roadmapping from an experience point of view must be studied more makeup of airport companies, customer service departments are closest to dealing with user 456 experience as we understand it. However, given that the current understanding and simple focus 457 on "mere" passenger satisfaction has been deemed insufficient in this paper, their hierarchical 458 positioning will likely not enable them to exact meaningful changes in the system (see Coutu  459 2013). Whether an airport is fully government-owned or run by a private company, it may benefit 460 from creating a managerial position to oversee user experience, as well as its translation into 461 strategic planning and the resulting necessary coordination with corporate (and governmental) 462

stakeholders. Overall, realizing the proposed model will require structural and strategic changes 463

within the airport ecosystem to revamp the way experience has been delivered thus far.

For a truly holistic picture, further research also needs to aim towards uncovering the experience 466 of hitherto ignored user groups. While publications concerning the system's vulnerabilities and 467

previous adequately studied as such before. Not necessarily influencing other users' experiences, non-flying 477

visitors also form a varied user group and are part of the larger airport context -which may 478 include a business hub or a residential area. With developments such as Squaire in Frankfurt or 479

Jewel at Changi Airport in Singapore, the non-passengers, become an important part of the airport 480 ecosystem and, while they are not tied to operational vulnerabilities, they are essentially linked to 481 an airport's economic performance. Despite the lack of mentions in literature, it is logical to 482 assume that failure to understand these users' needs in times of a pandemic, such as the current 483 one, can cost an airport valuable non-aviation revenue. A thorough understanding thereof may 484

help maintain a local revenue stream, despite drastically reduced flight numbers.

The experience weaves through the airport ecosystem and its stakeholders and users, connecting 487 dots that traditionally may not have been seen as connected. The cleaning personnel, the ramp 488 agent, the architect, the customs officer, the taxi driver, the meter-greeter, among other users 489 may not interact directly, but they all experience the same airport system through its built 490 environment, technologies, services, and procedures. All of them can therefore be connected to 491 each other's experience (see fig. 3 for an example of the connections to an arriving passenger's 492 user journey). The same plethora of factors that makes the experience difficult to grasp and hard 493

to study therefore makes it rewarding to do so. As such, a shift in approaching the subject can also 494 help to connect existing and emerging research in new ways and lead to interdisciplinary 495

solutions. While the study of technological, built environment and procedural solutions, as those 496 mentioned earlier, are largely intended to improve passenger satisfaction, optimize the passenger 497 flow in the airport, etc. they too offer the potential of connecting more dots in a holistic picture. 498

Some of the previously proposed technologies could, for example, be used in times like these to 499 relay information about queue times not to decrease waiting and increase spending, but to 500 prevent the potential spread of a disease while queuing. 501 502 Given the complexity of the airport system and the number of players involved, effectively using 505 all knowledge, whether it has been acquired already or not, will not be an easy task. Nevertheless, 506 the first step, as argued here, is changing the point of view from a top-down approach (from 507 planning to airport user experience) to a bottom-up approach that shapes planning from a well-508

informed, holistic experience perspective. 509 510 511

6. Conclusion 512

The current COVID-19 pandemic has had unprecedented effects on the aviation sector. At the 513 heart of it, the experience inside the airports has changed drastically. A closer look at our 514 understanding of airport experience has shown that it is traditionally linked to passenger 515 satisfaction and service quality to boost airport's competitiveness. Apart from several 516 psychological studies, the employee or other users' perspectives are largely absent. While the 517 majority of passengers may benefit from airports vying for their business through better amenities 518 and the like, on an individual level, a significant proportion of them are, no doubt, also left out. 519

Furthermore, narrowing down the experience to a smooth flow of satisfied passengers in 520

operations and planning is a missed opportunity. In an industry that, depending on when you look 521

at it, has to cope with massive growth, or can be turned upside down by terrorism, natural 522 disasters, pandemics, and/or global recessions any time, a largely productivity-centered mindset 523 means ignoring valuable insights that could help with prevention and mitigation of effects. The 524

conceptual models discussed and the one proposed in this study show that there is great potential 525

in the deeper and more holistic study of airport user experience. Airport systems can be made 526 more agile, flexible, and resilient by embedding an understanding of what has happened, is 527

happening, and what might happen in the day-to-day reality into strategic decisions for the future. 528

While a holistic understanding of airport user experience is no deus ex machina to swoop in and 529

magically save the world's airports in the face of major events -it will be hard work -it can, 530 through proper planning, lead to resilient roadmaps to weather the VUCA elements. 531 532

Appendix 1: Previous studies related to airport user experience and their main user focus 533 534 

What Shape Would the Travel Industry Recovery Look Like? Skift

A parameterized consideration set model for airport choice: An 549 application to the San Francisco Bay Area

Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and 552 Employees

Determinants of airport choice in a multi-554 airport region

An exploratory examination of additional ground access trips generated by 556 airport 'meeter-greeters'

Check-in services and passenger 558 behaviour: Self service technologies in airport systems

Do airline self-service check-in kiosks meet the needs of 562 passengers?

Meeting the needs of disabled air passengers: Factors that 564 facilitate help from airlines and airports

Benchmarking and quality improvement: A quality benchmarking deployment 566 approach

COVID-19: Leveraging airport employee experience in period of health crisis

Let us advocate a more meaningful, customer-centric approach

The importance of impulse purchasing behaviour in the international airport 572 environment

Coronavirus: Airlines 574 brace for severe turbulence

Modelling airport choice behaviour for direct flights, connecting flights and 576 different travel plans

Designing airport passenger buildings for the 21 St century

Low-cost airports for low-cost airlines: Flexible design to manage the 580 risks

Flexibility in engineering design

Framework of product experience

Adapting 586 customer experience in the time of coronavirus

Changi Airport's T4 to be closed from May 16, second terminal shut in a month

The modern airport terminal : new approaches to airport architecture. London

Passengers' expectations of airport service quality

Contract design, financing arrangements and public ownership-an 593 assessment of the US airport governance model

Determining Priority Service 595 of Yogyakarta Adisutjipto Airport Using Servqual Method and Kano Model

Airport security screening and changing 598 passenger satisfaction: An exploratory assessment

Bringing Quality Back To Commercial Air Travel

Product/Service-System Origins and 603 Trajectories: A Systematic Literature Review of PSS Definitions and their Characteristics

Challenges in passenger 606 terminal design : A conceptual model of passenger experience

An analysis of an airport-airline relationship under a risk sharing contract

Planning and design of 611 airports

Changing airport employee travel behaviour: The role of airport 613 surface access strategies

Continued passenger traffic growth and robust air cargo demand in 2017

Airport Service Quality (ASQ)

Managing passengers' experience through mobile moments

UK airport employee car parking: The role of a 621 charge?

Assessing the impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks on U.S. 623 airline demand

An assessment of passenger experience at Melbourne Airport

The Airport Business in a Competitive 627 Environment

The phantom tollbooth

Design roadmapping in an uncertain world: 631 Implementing a customer-experience-focused strategy

The social foundations of airport security

Enacting airports: Space, 636 movement and modes of ordering

Exploring service productivity: Studies in the German airport industry

Passengers' shopping motivations and commercial activities at 640 airports -The moderating effects of time pressure and impulse buying tendency

A new methodological framework for evaluating 643 flexible options at airport passenger terminals

Management innovation in a VUCA world: 645 Challenges and recommendations

Development of product-service-systems -Comparison of 647 product and service development process models

PSS layer method -Application to 650 microenergy systems

Experience of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks by Airline Flight 653 Staff

Airline Travel Since 9/11

Reconstructing Organization: The Loungification of Society

Passenger terminal design

Estimating the impact of recent terrorist attacks in Western Europe Chart 2-A 660 longer-term perspective Icelandic

Service productivity, quality and innovation: Implications for service-662 design practice and research

A Conceptual Model of Service Quality 664 and Its Implications for Future Research

The experience economy : work is theatre & every business a 666 stage

The experience economy: Past, present and future

User Experience Lifecycle Model ContinUE 670

QUT Digital Repository : This is the submitted version of this 672 conference paper : Popovic

Developing a quality index for US airports

How to drive passenger airport experience: A decision 677 support system based on user profile

Innovation in commoditized services: A study in the passenger 679 airline industry

Red-Eye Blink, Bendy Shuffle, and the Yuck Factor

How to design a service

Safeguarding our lives and our livelihoods: The imperative of our time

Airline Demand During the Coronavirus Outbreak Looks a Lot Like It Did After 686 the 9/11 Attacks. Here's Why. Barron's

Severe Acute Respiratory 688

Syndrome (SARS) and boarder protection: A report of the Sydney airport experience

Understanding Airport Passenger Experience

Coronavirus impact on airlines 'has a 9/11 feel,' analyst says

Operations at Changi Airport T2 to be suspended for 18 months from May. 692 Straits Times

There are no winners in all this, only survivors, say investors. PhocusWire

A gap analysis model for improving airport service 695 quality

Don't Count on Airlines to Fully Recover for 3 Years: Delta CEO

Creating value by measuring collaboration 698 alignment of strategic business processes

Ethnography, Customers, and Negotiated 701 Interactions at the Airport

ICoRD'15 -Research into Design Across 703 Boundaries Volume

An Airport Experience Framework 706 from a Tourism Perspective

Airport Competition: Reality or Myth?

A passenger-centred model in assessing airport 710 service performance

Eyjafjallajökull and 9/11: The Impact of Large-Scale Disasters on Worldwide Mobility

Passengers' Expectations of Airport Service Quality: 715 A Case Study of Jeju International Airport

Evaluating passenger services of Asia-Pacific international 717 airports

Development and demonstration of an integrated 719 decision support system for airport performance analysis

This research was supported by the SUTD Growth Plan Grant for Aviation, Ministry of Education, Singapore. Authors would like to thank the reviewer(s) for constructive suggestions to improve the manuscript and SUTD undergraduate student Jesslyn Woo for help in improving the graphics.