Delft University of Technology Designing a floor plan using aircraft seat comfort knowledge by aircraft interior experts Anjani, Shabila; Song, Yu; Vink, Peter DOI 10.3233/WOR-208001 Publication date 2021 Document Version Final published version Published in Work Citation (APA) Anjani, S., Song, Y., & Vink, P. (2021). Designing a floor plan using aircraft seat comfort knowledge by aircraft interior experts. Work, 68(s1), S7-S18. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-208001 Important note To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable). Please check the document version above. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons. Takedown policy Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights. We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to a maximum of 10. Work 68 (2021) S7–S18 S7 DOI:10.3233/WOR-208001 Designing a floor plan using aircraft seat comfort knowledge by aircraft interior experts Shabila Anjani∗, Yu Song and Peter Vink Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands Abstract. BACKGROUND: Recent research indicated that an 18×30 aircraft seat resulted in nearly the same level of comfort as a 17×34 seat. However, it took less space in the floor plan. OBJECTIVES: This study explores seat layouts preferred by experts regarding different criteria. Those results of the experts are later compared to layouts produced by computational algorithms to evaluate the advantages of each method. METHODS: Eighty-eight experts in the field of aircraft interior were invited to make a floor plan of a part of a Boeing 777 aircraft where comfort was one of the main goals. Participants worked in groups of 3 and are given the freedom to design a section of the cabin between economy and first-class (5.87 m wide and 3.7 m long), where besides these two types of seats, an old business-class size seat of 20×36 was introduced as well for more flexibilities in design. Computational algorithms were also applied with the same inputs and constraints to generate layouts as a comparison. RESULTS: In total, 29 floor-plans were made, and these plans were analysed to compare against the complexity of the operations, the number of passengers on board, the revenue of the airline, and the width of the aisle. Results showed that 14 groups opted for the economy seats, while the rest utilized a hybrid setup where the business class seats were used in the configuration. These results are compared to the 126 computerized layouts generated. CONCLUSIONS: Among all layouts designed by experts, a combination of 28 18×30 seats and 20 17×34 seats had the highest potential revenue of US$21,984. This floor plan fits the regulations with an aisle width of 0.93 m. The computerized layout had a better outcome in maximizing profit of US$22,416 with 32 18×30 seats and 16 20×36 seats. However, the comfort of such results was to be explored as some seats were rotated 90 degrees. Keywords: Aircraft seat, pitch, width, comfort, layout 1. Introduction service feature, most airlines opt to the latter option, especially the low-cost carriers (LCCs) as 1) the fares The airline industry is a competitive market where are low regardless of their service quality; and 2) by passengers demand comfort at a low price. Airlines adding additional features, LCCs can get a revenue are adding different comfort features in order to be stream of 8–13% from service features [1]. Further- chosen by customers, but they also need to maintain more, this upgrade feature is also recommended for a certain level of revenues for a sustainable business. full-service carriers (FSCs), as it will affect passen- Therefore, between choices of offering maximum ger choice by giving an option to increase comfort comfort to all passengers and making this an upgrade for passengers who are willing to pay more [2]. Additional seat space is one of the highlighted ∗Address for correspondence: Shabila Anjani, Faculty of Ind- ustrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Land- upgrade features that is offered by airlines. Some bergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands. E-mail: s.anjani@ airlines choose to provide longer seat pitches through- tudelft.nl. out their economy class, while others have a special 1051-9815/21/$35.00 © 2021 – The authors. Published by IOS Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC BY-NC 4.0). S8 S. Anjani et al. / Designing a floor plan using aircraft seat comfort knowledge class between business and economy, usually called Experts in the field usually will make the deci- premium economy. This class is placed in-between sion to choose between layouts. The knowledge and business class and economy with various labels e.g. experience of these people is a worthwhile input for Premium Economy, Elite Class, Economy Comfort, the management team’s decision. Besides the scien- Economy Comfort, Club Economy, or Premium [3]. tific discoveries mentioned, experts who design the Airlines also have various dimensions for their seat floor plan should also consider the complexity of the space in this class. Lee and Luengo-Prado [4] found operations, the number of passengers on boards, the that having a larger seat space only for this in- revenue of the airline, and aviation regulations (e.g. between class more profitable for the airline. This is aisle width). All of these contribute to the complexity because not all customers were willing to pay more of designing the floor plan and selecting the types of for upgraded legroom, as the price was the first selec- seats for the premium economy class. On the other tion criteria for most aeroplane passengers [5]. Such hand, advanced computational algorithms could opti- premium economy concept was also seen as an addi- mize this layout which might be a better option. This tional revenue stream for long-haul LCCs since 4–6% leads to the research questions of this paper: 1) Which of passengers were willing to upgrade their standard seat layout is more preferred by experts for the econ- seat to a seat with extra space e.g. seats located at omy class in their view? 2) Which choice is more exit doors or at bulkheads for D 25–30 [1], which beneficial? And 3) How are the results of the seat is a primary factor for passengers to opt for pre- layout by experts compared to the layout produced mium economy [6]. Espino et al. [7] also found that by the computational algorithms? passengers flying for 2.5–3 hours were even willing to pay D 38 for this extra seat space. This willing- ness to upgrade to economy plus class increased for 2. Literature review medium-haul flights and was even higher for long- haul flights [6]. Moreover, researchers also identified For airlines, it is important to differentiate from that the demands for the premium economy class had other airlines also within the cabin [13]. One way grown quickly, causing several airlines expanding the of differentiating is adding premium economy or size of this cabin [8]. just a good economy class. In the assignment, the Anjani et al. [9] found that comfort increases when good economy class is described and, in this litera- increasing seat pitch. This study was later compared ture, review the focus is on premium economy class. to increased comfort when extending seat width of Premium economy class was introduced to prevent 1 inch [10]. Comparison of the results indicated that business passengers from downgrading too much and increasing the width by 1 inch increases comfort more giving an option to high-income leisure passengers than increasing the pitch by 2 inches, though both to upgrade [8]. It provides a choice as an answer to require the same additional space in the floor plan. most passenger dissatisfaction, which is seat com- And for reaching the same level of the comfort score fort and legroom, luggage/flight disruptions and staff of this additional 1 inch in width, 4-inch-increase behaviours which occur in both LCCs and FSCs [14]. in pitch direction is needed. Meanwhile, passengers Moreover, Kim and Lee [15] found that intention were willing to pay an additional D 22 for 1.5 extra to repurchase of premium economy passengers will inches of seat pitch and D 29 for 3 to 6 extra inches of increase when they think premium economy service seat width from the basic 17-inch-wide 28-inch-pitch is well worth experiencing, where perceived service seat for a 4.5–5.5 hour flight, though these addi- quality (e.g. in-flight service, wide and comfortable tions correlated negatively meaning that they were seats, and overall service quality) has the highest not willing to pay for both additions simultaneously impact. The demand for the premium economy class [11]. Joen and Lee [12] also did a willingness-to-pay in 2019 has increased from 2014 for all international study for premium economy passengers travelling markets, where an airline could charge at least 80% from Korea and found that passengers are willing to more of the cost of economy, and even four times pay US$15.5, US$48.1 and US$114.0 for increased higher for several routes [16].