Air safety attitudes: preliminary insights post MH370

Air Safety: Preliminary Perceptions Post MH370Choice Seminar, University of Leeds, July 2014

DR. MATTHEW J. [email protected]

Co-Researchers

› Professor John Rose:

2

› Dr. Rico Merkert

Co-Researchers

3

Tourism and Economic Activity

4

5

Growth in International Travel

Air Disasters: A Lasting Impression

› 1985: Pan-Am Flight 103 (Lockerbie Bombing)

› 2000: Air France Flight 4590 (Concorde)

› 2001: American Airlines Flight 11 – One World Trade Center

United Airlines Flight 175 – Two World Trade Center

American Airlines Flight 77 – Pentagon

› 2009: Air France Flight 447 (Mid-Air Stall)

› 2009: US Airways Flight 154 (Hudson River)

6

Air Disasters: A Lasting Impression

7

Media Attention to MH370

8

Media Reports & Public Perceptions

› Technology deficiencies:

- You can track an iPhone anywhere in the world, but not a plane?

› Past performance is no guarantee of future safety:

- 2012 and 2013 two of the safest years in aviation history

› Airspace management:

- Is anyone tracking these planes in real time?

- Exactly who is watching who (NSA, Malaysia and Indonesia military radar)?

› Passport control, airport and airline security:

- 2 passengers travelling undetected on stolen passports

- Much speculation as to the mental state of the pilot of MH370

9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpZYIcTwTOA

Economic Impact of an Air Disaster: 911

› Global long-haul travel grew 40% from 2000 to 2010:

- Overseas travel to the United States during this same timeframe rose 2%

› Calculated Cost to US Economy:

- 68.3 million lost visitors

- 441,000 lost jobs

- $509 billion in lost spending

- $270 billion in lost trade surplus

- $32 billion in lost tax revenue

10

MH370 and the Malaysian Economy

› In 2012, tourism accounted for approximately:

- 16% of Malaysian GDP

- 14% of employment

› 12% of tourists were from China

› Passenger numbers were down 60% for Malaysian Airlines post-MH370:

- Value of shares down to 22.5 Malaysian Sen ($0.04 / ₤0.04)

› Public relations disaster for the Malaysian government:

- Lacking basic empathy

- Slow release of information (at times inaccurate and contradictory)

11

12

› Interesting thought experiment!

› International travel to and from Australia strictly dominated by air

› Are people willing to choose more invasive safety measures?

› Are people willing allocate more time to safety measures?

› Are perceptions of destination safety influenced by carrier incidents?

› Do these attitudes persist or subside as time from critical event increases?

Research Objectives

13

› One survey, four instruments:

One Survey: Four Instruments

Likert scale measurement of general attitudes

SP experiment to examine preferences for safety procedures

Best-worst scaling experiment to examine attitudes towards aviation

safety / security

Best-worst scaling experiment to examine perceptions of route safety

14

› Likert scale analysis to identify general attitudinal concerns:

- 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree

- I find that I have to spend too much time at airports waiting in lines

- So long as I don’t miss my fight, spending time in lines is not a problem for me

- If I am making a connecting flight and have already been screened I should not have to wait to be screened again

- Overall I feel safe when on-board an aircraft

- Mechanical issues are a threat to the safety of my flight

- Other passengers are a threat to the safety of my flight

- Airline staff (pilots/cabin crew/ground staff) are a threat to the safety of my flight

- I feel that airlines and authorities currently do enough to make air travel safe

- I feel that airlines and authorities do enough to minimise mechanical threats

- I feel that airlines and authorities do enough to minimise threats from passengers

- I feel that airlines and authorities do enough to minimise threats from staff (pilots/cabin crew/ground staff)

Survey Instrument: Attitudinal Scales

Results: Attitudinal Scales

15

Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Agree

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

0%

4%7%

13%

22%

40%

12%

Overall I feel safe on-board an aircraft


16

Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Agree

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

3%

12% 10%

25%22% 22%

4%

Airlines & authorities do enough to make air travel safe


17

Airline Staff Threats

Don't Mind Waiting

Too Much Time

Authorities - Staff

Authorities - Mechanical

Authorites - Passengers

Other Passenger Threats

Transfer Screening

Mechanical Threats

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5.2 (t = 5.30)

5.2 (t = 5.63)

5.2 (t = 0.81)

4.8 (t = 5.40)

4.8 (t = 5.01)

4.7 (t = 4.00)

4.7 (t = 3.97)

3.8 (t = -1.14)

3.5 (t = -2.13)

Survey Instrument: Route Safety

› Best-worst scaling experiment; 6 choice sets; 4 routes per choice:

› 26 routes/destination for comparison:

18

MOST Secure LEAST Secure

q France qq China qq Malaysia qq Canada q

Abu Dhabi Germany New Zealand Thailand

Bali Hong Kong Pakistan Turkey

Canada India Russia United Kingdom

China Italy Saudi Arabia United States

Dubai Japan Singapore Vietnam

Egypt Malaysia South Africa

France Mexico South Korea

Results: Route Safety (MNL)

› MNL Results:

- Best/Worst jointly estimated – preliminary results

19

Observations 408

Initial log-likelihood -1081.31

Final log-likelihood -633.22

0.414

Variable Value Robust S.E. Robust t

Scale (Worst) 0.898 0.134 -0.81

Alt 1 (ASC) 0.147 0.343 0.43

Alt 2 (ASC) 0.034 0.185 0.19

Alt 3 (ASC) -0.165 0.229 -0.72


Variable Value Robust S.E. Robust tAbu Dhabi -0.146 0.418 -0.35

Bali -1.520 0.490 -3.10

Canada 2.330 0.677 3.44

China 0.763 0.622 1.23

Dubai 1.170 0.507 2.30

Egypt -2.860 0.605 -4.73

France 1.800 0.510 3.52

Germany 1.340 0.509 2.63

Hong Kong 0.924 0.543 1.70

India -1.830 0.797 -2.29

Italy 1.410 0.450 3.12

Japan 1.740 0.590 2.95

Malaysia -1.860 0.608 -3.06

Mexico -1.260 0.820 -1.53

New Zealand 2.960 0.756 3.92

Pakistan -3.640 0.667 -5.46

Russia -1.350 0.481 -2.80

Saudi Arabia -1.450 0.553 -2.63

Singapore 2.580 0.572 4.52

South Africa -1.060 0.477 -2.22

Thailand -0.859 0.733 -1.17

Turkey -1.040 0.415 -2.51

United Kingdom 2.260 0.594 3.81

United States -0.116 0.536 -0.22

Vietnam -1.270 0.633 -2.00

20


21

PakistanEgypt

MalaysiaIndia

BaliSaudi Arabia

RussiaMexico

VietnamSouth Africa

TurkeyThailand

Abu DhabiUnited States

South KoreaChina

Hong KongDubai

GermanyItaly

JapanFrance

United KingdomCanada

SignaporeNew Zealand

-35% -25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25% 35%

Results: Route Safety (LCM)

› Latent Class Model Results:


22

Observations 408



0.410


Class 1 -0.557 0.852 -0.65

Gender (F) 1.98 0.751 2.63

Class 1 – Scale (Worst) 1.132 0.261 0.47

Class 2 – Scale (Worst) 0.975 0.275 -0.09


23

CLASS 1Route

CLASS 2Value Robust S.E. Robust t Value Robust S.E. Robust t0.887 0.894 0.99 Abu Dhabi 0.140 0.890 0.16-0.886 0.909 -0.97 Bali -0.577 1.040 -0.562.900 0.870 3.34 Canada 2.120 0.609 3.480.384 0.931 0.41 China 4.360 1.610 2.722.610 0.946 2.76 Dubai 0.142 1.450 0.10-1.590 1.070 -1.49 Egypt -2.240 1.000 -2.233.390 0.848 4.00 France 0.643 1.040 0.622.440 0.902 2.70 Germany 0.688 0.725 0.952.130 0.936 2.28 Hong Kong 0.218 0.549 0.40-0.574 1.080 -0.53 India -2.060 1.020 -2.012.200 0.895 2.46 Italy 1.360 0.799 1.712.130 0.910 2.34 Japan 2.170 0.547 3.96-1.020 0.976 -1.04 Malaysia -1.690 1.180 -1.43-0.570 1.050 -0.54 Mexico -1.880 1.190 -1.584.200 0.992 4.23 New Zealand 2.060 1.240 1.65-2.860 1.040 -2.75 Pakistan -2.870 0.662 -4.34-0.635 0.905 -0.70 Russia -0.733 1.150 -0.64-0.811 0.893 -0.91 Saudi Arabia -0.975 1.130 -0.863.550 0.938 3.78 Singapore 2.940 1.520 1.93-0.325 0.915 -0.35 South Africa -0.986 1.030 -0.96-1.480 0.934 -1.59 Thailand 1.360 1.200 1.14-0.113 0.827 -0.14 Turkey -0.884 0.692 -1.283.850 0.964 4.00 United Kingdom 1.360 1.110 1.231.520 0.916 1.66 United States -1.110 1.290 -0.86-0.903 0.963 -0.94 Vietnam -0.298 0.712 -0.42


24

PakistanEgypt

ThailandMalaysiaVietnam

BaliSaudi Arabia

RussiaIndia

MexicoSouth Africa

TurkeySouth Korea

ChinaAbu Dhabi

United StatesHong Kong

JapanItaly

GermanyDubai

CanadaFrance

SingaporeUnited Kingdom

New Zealand

-55% -45% -35% -25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%

PakistanEgypt

ThailandMalaysiaVietnam

BaliSaudi Arabia

RussiaIndia

MexicoSouth Africa

TurkeySouth Korea

ChinaAbu Dhabi

United StatesHong Kong

JapanItaly

GermanyDubai

CanadaFrance

SingaporeUnited Kingdom

New Zealand

-55% -45% -35% -25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%

Class 1 ~ Female Class 2 ~ Male

Survey Instrument: Safety Attitudes

› Best-worst scaling experiment; 6 choice sets; 9 statements per choice:

25

Agree with MOST Agree with Least

q Airport security will never eliminate all threats to flights q

q I am willing to spend any amount of time in security if it will improve safety q

q People should be targeted for security screening by authorities q

qPat down and luggage x-ray are sufficient security

Measures for me to feel secure q

qThe collection of genetic material is not needed as

Part of security procedures q

q My privacy and dignity should be respected during the security process q

q Current allowances for liquids are acceptable q

qPilots / cabin crew / ground staff should have the same

security measures as passengers q

q CCTV should be installed at all airports q


› Attitudes broken into 9 broad classes (29 statements in total):- Stop Threats: How able airport security is to stop threats to flights

- Time Spent: How willing passengers are to spend more time on security

- Scan Passengers: How people should be selected for security screening

- Scan Invasive: How invasive passengers are prepared to let security be

- Biometrics: What level of biometric data people will be prepared to allow

- Privacy: The importance of privacy and dignity in security screening

- Liquids: How much liquids passengers are allowed to take on flights

- Scan Staff: How rigorous security screening is for airline/airport staff

- Images: How images should be used/kept for security screening

› Within each class there are 3 to 4 differing levels of statements:

- Each level is “higher” than the previous

26


27

Category Level Description

Stop Threats

1 Airport security is able to stop all threats to flights

2 Airport security significantly reduces the level of threats to flights

0 Airport security will never eliminate all threats to flights

Time Spent

1 Airport security should not be increased if it leads to delays regardless of safety/security

2 I am willing to spend a little more time in security than I currently do if it will improve safety

0 I am willing to spend any amount of time in security if it will improve safety

Scan Passengers

1 People should be randomly selected for security screening

2 People should be targeted for security screening by authorities

0 All people should be selected for security screening


28


ScanInvasive

1 Pat down and luggage x-ray are sufficient security measures for me to feel secure

2 Whole of body scans and luggage x-ray are required security measures for me to feel secure

0 I would allow any level security no matter how invasive in order to feel secure

Biometrics

1 The collection of genetic material is not needed as part of security procedures

2 I would permit authorities to collect finger prints as part of security procedures

3 I would permit authorities to take retinal scans as part of security procedures

0 I would permit authorities to collect any material needed for a DNA sample as part of security procedures

Privacy

1 My privacy and dignity should be respected during the security process

2 I would allow increased security if my privacy and dignity was respected

0 Privacy and dignity is irrelevant compared to guaranteeing airport security


29


Liquids

1 Passengers should be able to take more liquids onto flights

2 Current allowances for liquids are acceptable

0 All liquids should be confiscated no matter the amount

Scan Staff

1 Pilots / cabin crew / ground staff are adequately screened

2 Pilots / cabin crew / ground staff should have the same security measures as passengers

3 Pilots / cabin crew / ground staff should have increased security measures compared to passengers

0 Pilots / cabin crew / ground staff should have their mental state assessed before every flight

Images

1 There is no need for CCTV at airports

2 CCTV should be installed at all airports

0 CCTV should be installed at all airports and images of passengers boarding should be saved

Results: Security Attitudes (MNL)

› MNL Results:


30

Observations 408



0.179


Scale (Worst) 0.769 0.148 -1.77


Variable Value Robust S.E. Robust tStop Threats 0.179 0.375 0.48

Stop1 -3.520 0.573 -6.15Stop2 -0.027 0.391 -0.07

Time Spent -1.790 0.461 -3.89Time1 -0.131 0.589 -0.22Time2 1.950 0.487 4.01

Scan Pass. -0.591 0.431 -1.37ScanP1 -0.697 0.519 -1.34ScanP2 -0.376 0.410 -0.92

Scan Invasive -2.250 0.526 -4.29ScanInv1 1.110 0.534 2.08ScanInv2 1.640 0.607 2.7

31

Variable Value Robust S.E. Robust tBiometrics -1.860 0.510 -3.64

Bio1 0.885 0.636 1.39Bio2 2.490 0.481 5.17Bio3 1.220 0.542 2.24

Privacy -2.490 0.501 -4.96Priv1 2.670 0.576 4.63Priv2 3.220 0.576 5.59

Liquids -3.230 0.467 -6.92Liq1 1.460 0.599 2.44Liq2 1.910 0.441 4.34

Scan Staff -0.652 0.341 -1.91ScanS1 -0.794 0.463 -1.72ScanS2 0.442 0.358 1.23ScanS3 0.007 0.362 0.02Image1 -4.110 0.608 -6.76Image2 0.299 0.292 1.02


32

Image1Stop1

LiquidsPrivacy

Scan InvasiveBiometrics

Bio1Time Spent

Time1Liq1Liq2

ScanInv1ScanStaff

ScanS1ScanS2ScanS3

Bio3ScanInv2

Stop ThreatsStop2

ScanPassScanP1ScanP2Image2

ImageTime2Priv1Bio2

Priv2

-25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%


› 5 statements agreed with most:- I would allow increased security if my privacy and dignity was respected

- I would permit authorities to collect finger prints as part of security procedures

- My privacy and dignity should be respected during the security process

- I am willing to spend a little more time in security than I currently do if it will improve safety

- CCTV should be installed at all airports and images of passengers boarding should be saved

› 5 statements agreed with least:- There is no need for CCTV at airports

- Airport security is able to stop all threats to flights

- All liquids should be confiscated no matter the amount

- Privacy and dignity is irrelevant compared to guaranteeing airport security

- I would allow any level security no matter how invasive in order to feel secure

- (I would permit authorities to collect any material needed for a DNA sample as part of security procedures)

33

Results: Security Attitudes (LCM)

› MNL Results:


34

Observations 408



0.221


Class 1 0.824 1.21 0.68

Gender (F) -1.59 0.738 -2.16


35

Stop1Privacy

Image1Image2Liquids

Scan InvasiveTime Spent

Time1Biometrics

Liq2ScanInv2

Liq1ScanInv1

Time2Stop Threats

Stop2ScanPass

ScanP1ScanP2

ScanStaffScanS1ScanS2ScanS3Image

Bio1Bio3Priv1Bio2Priv2

-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Image1Liquids

Liq1Time1

ScanP1Liq2

ScanP2ScanStaff

ScanS1ScanS2ScanS3

Scan InvasiveScanInv1ScanInv2

Stop ThreatsStop1Stop2

Time SpentScanPass

BiometricsBio1Bio2Bio3

PrivacyPriv1Priv2

Image2ImageTime2

-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Class 1 ~ Male Class 2 ~ Female


› Prominent Male Attitudes:

- My privacy and dignity should be respected during the security process

- Airport security is able to stop all threats to flights

- I would permit authorities to collect finger prints as part of security procedures

- I would allow increased security if my privacy and dignity was respected

› Prominent Female Attitudes:

- There is no need for CCTV at airports

- I am willing to spend a little more time in security than I currently do if it will improve safety

- All liquids should be confiscated no matter the amount

- Passengers should be able to take more liquids onto flights

36

Survey Instrument: Stated Preference

› Two alternatives security procedures describe by five attributes:

37

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Level of Physical Interaction

Partial pat-down (current practice)

Thorough pat-down for targeted passengers only

Thorough pat-down forall passengers

Level of Luggage Screening

X-Ray with luggage opened for targeted cases only

(current practice)

X-Ray with luggage opened randomly

X-Ray with all luggage opened

Level of Physical Screening

Metal detector for all passengers

(current practice)

Whole of body scan for targeted passengers only

Whole of body scan forrandom passengers

Whole of body scan for all passengers

Identification Requirement

Passport(current practice)

Passport with finger printand/or retinal scan

Passport with DNA verification (e.g. hair or

saliva sample)

Waiting Time 10 minutes in security line 20 minutes in security line 40 minutes in security line 60 minutes in security line

Survey Instrument: Stated Preference

SECURITY PROCESS A SECURITY PROCESS B

The level of physical interactionpassengers have with security staff

Partial pat-down (Current Practice)

Thorough personal search of all passengers

The level of security screening for all luggage

X-Ray with luggage openedfor targeted cases only

(Current Practice)

X-Ray with some luggage opened randomly

The level of security screeningpassengers are required to complete

Whole of body scan for all passengers

Whole of body scan forrandom passengers

The level of identity verification required

Passport with finger print and/or retinal scan

Passport(Current Practice)

The average amount of time required to complete security checks only

10 minutes to complete security (including waiting)

20 minutes to complete security (including waiting)

Which of these two security procedures do you PREFER MOST?

(please choose ONE) q q

38


- Willing to give up 8.3 minutes for more scanning than metal detectors

- Will accept only passport only as identification if it saves 18.4 minutes

39

Sample Size 402



0.166

Variable Value S.E. t

Metal detector for all passengers -0.340 0.166 -2.05

Passport 0.757 0.142 5.33

Waiting Time -0.041 0.006 -6.91


› Note that “Overall Safety” was dummy coded (6 or 7 = 1 vs 5 or less = 0)

- Class 1 Average Probability: 54.1%

- Class 2 Average Probability: 45.9%

40

Sample Size 402



0.288

Variable Value S.E. t

Class 1 -0.340 0.166 -2.05

Overall Feel Safe 0.757 0.142 5.33


Class 1 (Feel Safe) Class 2 (Less Safe)

Variable Value S.E. t Value S.E. t

Thorough pat-down for targeted passengers only

-1.478 0.664 -2.22 0.463 0.256 1.81

X-Ray with luggage opened for targeted cases only

-0.394 0.299 -1.32 -0.379 0.212 -1.79

Metal detector for all passengers -2.172 0.722 -3.01 0.090 0.273 0.33

Passport 0.714 0.392 1.89 1.507 0.288 5.24

Passport with finger print and/or retinal scan

0.784 0.392 2.00 -0.355 0.276 -1.29

Waiting Time -0.151 0.037 -4.09 0.015 0.012 1.25

41


› Class 1 (Feel Safe):

- Time sensitive

- Will give up 9.6 minutes to avoid physical pat-downs for targeted passengers

- Will give up 14 minutes to avoid only scanning via metal detectors only

- Will accept only passport as identification if it saves them 4.7 minutes

- Will accept passport and retinal scan / finger printing if it saves 5.2 minutes

› Class 2 (Less Safe):

- Time insensitive

- Strong preference for passport only for ID purposes (avoid invasive data collection?)

- Weaker preference for thorough pat-downs for targeted passengers (not them?)

- Weaker preference for a more thorough luggage checks

42

Date post:	24-Dec-2014
Category:	Education
Upload:	institute-for-transport-studies-its
View:	171 times
Download:	0 times

Air safety attitudes: preliminary insights post MH370

Education