Research shows: impact of terrorism short-lived on air travel

Citation

(2003), "Research shows: impact of terrorism short-lived on air travel", Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 75 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/aeat.2003.12775caf.003

Research shows: impact of terrorism short-lived on air travel

International Airline Passengers Association

Two recent surveys carried out by International Airline Passengers Association (IAPA) amongst its significant world-wide membership of frequent flyers have thrown up some surprising results about passengers' attitudes to flying in general. The first survey was carried out prior to 9/11 and the second subsequent to that event. The two sets of data were collated from over 3,000 respondents and the data was analysed from the same respondents in both surveys.

Pragmatic approach to threat of terrorism

Obviously the impact of the events that day was immediate but in the long-term the effect has not been as comprehensive as everyone initially imagined it would be. As plane hijacking has been a very real threat for the past 30 years, unsurprisingly, the single most expressed concern when flying was a terrorist attack, with 61 per cent being very concerned, as opposed to 57 per cent in 2001. People, however, are much more pragmatic than the nanny state gives them credit for and within a short time normalcy returned. Indeed, there was no discernible difference between people's perceptions before or after 9/11.

"People are actually quite philosophical and realise that statistically a person has to be very unlucky to be a passenger on a plane that is a terrorist target", explains Rob Laurens, Marketing Director of IAPA. "They are aware that there are risks involved with most things in life and this is borne out by the research that shows people still think the plane is the safest form of transport, even amongst frequent flyers."

National carriers still popular

The surveys revealed that 77 per cent of the respondents usually have an influence on their choice of airline for both business and leisure travel. And the good news for national carriers is that just over 40 per cent of the sample group usually choose to fly them. Following the events of 9/11, there was a fear that most would go to the wall as did Swiss Air and Sabena. But far from being dinosaurs, national carriers have emerged as still possessing a remarkably strong base. IAPA believes that this is because of the general perception that national carriers offer a quality service and have more sociably timed flying slots, as opposed to budget airlines.

Passengers more circumspect in choice of airline

Individuals also clearly pointed out that following safety related concerns or experiences they avoid specific airlines. In 2001, for example, less than 2 per cent would have avoided American Airlines, as opposed to 6 per cent a year later. A number of other airlines also experienced a shift in how travellers viewed them. In 2001, 5.9 per cent chose not to fly with Aeroflot, compared with 9.5 per cent the following year. In 2001, 3.2 per cent of respondents were swayed by a previous experience or concern to choose an alternative airline to Air Garuda, increasing to 3.5 per cent in 2002. And United, which did not even figure in the initial survey, was named by 2 per cent of respondents as an airline they would avoid after 9/11. Conversely, concern about China Airlines had persuaded 8.1 per cent in 2001 to avoid it but by 2002, it was rated as a safer airline to fly and this figure had dropped to 5.9 per cent.

Media at heart of aviation safety issues

There was a shift in opinion as to whether the media tend to exaggerate or sensationalise aviation safety issues. In 2001, 25 per cent believed that the medium of television is guilty of this on many occasions, increasing to 31 per cent the following year. Likewise, in 2001, 21 per cent believed the Internet did so and by 2002, this figure had risen to 28 per cent. Aviation journals, on the other hand, were regarded as conveying a more responsible message. Interestingly, though, when asked if any previous safety related experience or concern caused them to avoid certain aircraft, the figure of 26 per cent remained the same both years, which leads IAPA to believe that the media does indeed bring aviation safety issues to people's attention but that people's personal experiences have not changed.

Passengers prepared to pay 10 per cent more for ticket for additional safety

Respondents were asked how much more they would be prepared to pay for their ticket in order to reduce the number of fatal accidents by half. In 2001, just over 30 per cent were prepared to pay 10 per cent but this figure had increased to nearly 38 per cent in 2002.

Low fare operators dispel myth of being unsafe

When asked whether low fare operators are less safe, 32 per cent of people disagreed with this statement, compared with 22 per cent that agreed. The remainder of the sample was ambivalent. After 9/11, more people neither agreed nor disagreed, so both agreement and disagreement dropped, with a slight bias towards people disagreeing. The view that low fare operators are less safe does not appear to hold much water with passengers.

Jets still safest mode of transport

All jets are considered by 52 per cent of respondents, an increase from 50 per cent, to be much safer than all other forms of transport, with a minor exception that the train is considered to be safer than small and single aisle jets.

In terms of travel safety, the results suggested that individuals feel that only helicopters are less safe than cars. Other forms of transport were also ranked as safer ahead of helicopters and cars, with buses ranked as the safest, followed by boats, then trains, especially after 9/11.

The events of 11 September, however, did not have a negative impact on the overall perceptions of those surveyed with regards to jets. The general feeling is that the larger the jet, the safer the flight and that the safest jet is the twin aisle with 450 seats. However, there is concern about the future jets that are designed to have more than 500 seats, which are considered to be less safe than the twin aisles but safer than single aisles.

"This would appear to be explained by the fear of the unknown", continues Rob Laurens of IAPA. "When trains were first introduced, that same fear manifested itself in the general public's belief at the time that the human body would be unable to withstand travelling at such revolutionary speeds."

Air travel becoming safer

The single most expressed concern when flying was a terrorist attack, with 61 per cent being very concerned, as opposed to 57 per cent in 2001. And the percentage of those fearing an airline accident rose from 53 per cent to 55 per cent in the same period. Other causes for concern, though, were down in terms of percentage rating but were ranked as follows: loss of cabin pressure down 5 per cent from 30 per cent to 25 per cent, air rage down 3 per cent from 22 per cent to 19 per cent, engine shut down a 1 per cent drop from 33 per cent to 32 per cent, aborted landing down 3 per cent from 16 per cent to 13 per cent, in-flight turn back down 1 per cent from 13 per cent to 12 per cent, turbulence or bad weather down 2 per cent from 12 per cent to 10 per cent, aborted take-off down 1 per cent from 16 per cent to 15 per cent and a lightning strike down 3 per cent from 15 per cent to 12 per cent.

Despite the fact that some people do suffer from a very real, deep-seated fear of flying, the reality seems to be more a case of worrying about actually boarding the plane, as 55 per cent of those interviewed agreed that they always feel relaxed once they are on board, only a 1 per cent reduction from the previous year. There was also an increase from 50 per cent to 54 per cent in the perception that larger aircraft give a smoother ride, with a growing bias in 2002 towards agreeing that people feel safer when flying long distances and a small increase from 50 per cent to 51 per cent that new aircraft are considered safer than the ones they replace.

Air accidents come to mind

Respondents did remember aircraft accidents, the location, airline and aircraft (in that order) very precisely, not only more recent accidents but also major events still come to mind such as Lockerbie or Tenerife that occurred more than 20 years ago. Nearly three times more people recalled the American Airlines Boeing 767, followed by Air France Concorde and American Airlines Airbus A300.

And the impact of accidents during the introduction of an aircraft to commercial service should not be underestimated either, as illustrated by the negative reputation of the DC-10, an aircraft that is studiously avoided by more than 5 per cent of the sample group.

Details available from: International Airline Passengers Association (IAPA). Tel: +44 (00 20 8681 6555; Fax: +44 (0) 20 8681 0234; E-mail: info@iapa.co.uk

Established over 40 years in the USA, IAPA is an international independent business travellers' membership association that is not aligned to any specific airline. Its members based in over 200 countries around the world are collectively responsible for 8 million flights every year. IAPA has recently produced a research document based on consumers' attitudes to air travel safety.