Airports Security Systems’ and Passengers’ Satisfaction

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

After the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, the federal government responded through the enactment of legislations that were aimed at making airports secure and increasing air passenger safety. In this regard, President Bush signed into law the ATSA (Aviation and Transportation Security Act) under the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that aimed to consolidate security efforts, and it was mandated to deliver several changes in security procedures in the aviation sector. Changes that were initiated included enhanced customer and luggage screening at all commercial airports. All these were aimed at ensuring passenger safety and restoration of confidence in the United States aviation system, and the overall effect of the new regulations was to ensure passenger satisfaction in services provided by the aviation sector. The aim of this study was to investigate changes and developments associated with airport security systems after 9/11, and the impact of these new security systems on passengers’ satisfaction.

Background to the Project

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 have changed the way in which the American citizens viewed their safety forever. Insecurity rates sharply increased after the infamous attack, making people abandon air transportation for quite a while. Even nowadays, after the hysteria has subsided to a considerable extent, the fear for people’s lives still defines the measures used to ensure passengers’ safety. However, the increase in safety rates has also changed procedures that passengers undergo when checking in for their flights. Specifically, the time that the process of checking in and handing in the luggage typically takes has been extended for security reasons, which was bound to affect the satisfaction rates of the target audience. Although precaution measures used nowadays in airports are aimed only at increasing the passengers’ safety and promoting security, they also cause a gradual reduction in customer satisfaction rates because of the rise in the procedures’ duration and associated inconvenience (Hoffman & Reinares 2014).

Passenger satisfaction has been an integral element in the aviation industry because greater confidence in passenger safety will increase demand for services. However, aviation specialists have noted that more time and effort are necessary from passengers, but such requirements could lead to low utilization of air travel because of inconvenience associated with security procedures (Williams & Waltrip 2004).

Research Objectives

To examine the development of aviation security changes since 9/11 attacks
To identify different kinds of airport security
To analyse the success of implementing new security systems
To explore the improvements in the aviation safety
To analyse the airport security impacts on passenger travel satisfaction
To evaluate the future improvements of airport security and passenger safety

Overview of this Report

This is a lengthy report. This overview is intended to cover, section by section, the key areas of interest of the report. The research approach or methodology used was a deductive approach because it is based on pre-existing theory of aviation safety, which includes theory hypothesis, observations, and confirmation. In this research, a survey was used to collect data because passengers were the only ones who could answer whether or not they were satisfied with new security systems.

The literature review section covered literature that focuses on changes in airport security after the 9/11 attacks, outcomes associated with the security regulations, enhanced passenger data, and increased cost of flying. Additionally, the literature review also explores applicable theories and frameworks, such as the Theory of Perceived Attributes, the DMAIC principle, and the Just-in-Time (JIT) framework. This section also covers previous findings on the subject. Based on the developments and changes after the 9/11, it is imperative to understand how such new security systems have affected users.

In the primary data findings section, the outcomes of collected data are presented. Based on the respondents, the report covers issues related to passengers’ satisfaction since the introduction of the new laws and changes. The findings present any issues and experiences of passengers to reflect their levels of satisfaction with airport security systems after the 9/11. In this section, the research presents new findings after data analysis rather than past results from other studies.

The analysis and discussion section presents a critical view of the primary findings and relates them to past findings. The key points are presented and responsibilities for offering passenger safety against convenience are covered. The section also draws attention to any emerging security issues and passengers’ satisfaction with the current practices.

Finally, the conclusion section presents a summary of the study, findings, and future direction for airport security systems and passenger satisfaction with practical implications for all both security providers and passengers.

Research Approach/Methodology

A descriptive study type was used to determine airports security systems’ impact on passengers’ satisfaction (post 9/11). As such, this type of study revealed insights in time of customer attitudes toward airports security systems. The descriptive nature of passenger satisfaction was realised through this type of study.

The study method was quantitative in design. This design was chosen to allow the researchers to develop a comprehension of the ‘big picture’ passengers’ experiences at the airport during security checks based on the sampled populations.

Based on the typical processes in survey sampling, the issue of the study was clearly defined and the target population was identified as passengers at the airports. A sample of 50 respondents was randomly selected to ensure that all potential respondents had equally chances to participate in the survey. The design of the study ensured that samples were carefully drawn for the findings to be considered as representative of the passenger populations as a whole who are affected by new security safety measures. The sample was considered adequate to provide insights on passenger experiences.

An Internet-based survey was used for data collection. This technique offered the easiest way to collect data from passengers from any part of the globe because the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks has been felt throughout the world. The process was also rapid. The Internet-based survey was low-cost and offered the fastest means of collecting data from passengers. Additionally, data input and handling were automated. Responses were also stored online and could be easily retrieved. The Internet-based survey minimized errors associated with human handling of data. This approach also ensured that the response rate was high because of convenience offered to respondents in terms time, pace, and preferences. The design was also flexible to facilitate responses and the way in which participants answered questions. There were open-ended questions so the absence of the researcher did not hinder data collection, and no incentives were offered to respondents to avoid survey fraud where participation is driven by the incentive rather than the desire to contribute toward knowledge creation in the field.

Data were analysed using descriptive statistics involving percentages and frequencies. The results were then presented using tables and graphs. The descriptive statistics was used to present data in a meaningful way and facilitate the ease of understanding.

For ethical consideration, the research met all requirements for code of ethics, and informed consent was obtained from passenger participants before they proceeded with the study. Moreover, respondents of different calibres were involved in this study, and all data collected were classified and treated as confidential.

Literature Review

Airports Security Systems’ Impact on Passengers’ Satisfaction (Post 9/11)

As stressed above, the enhancement of the systems facilitating passenger security is what the post—9/11 social attitudes manifest themselves in. Though the fear of terrorism has subsided to a considerable extent, there is still a fear of an imminent threat that the exposure to the global environment implies. As a result, the check-in procedures may become overly complicated and time-consuming.

The delays that accompanied security and the long checks can be considered the main source of customer dissatisfaction at the airport (Perkins 2007). In addition, the routine checks that the passengers have to go through, as well as the baggage handling, could use a significant improvement. For instance, the time that it takes to check the luggage and allow the passengers to pick it after the flight is over needs to be reduced. For this purpose, the purchase of more efficient equipment and the rearrangement of the checking process must be considered.

The Theory of Perceived Attributes helps shed some light on the nature of the dissatisfaction as well. According to the principal postulates of the theory, people do not accept innovations instantly; instead, they need encouragement and support throughout the process of getting used to the novelties in the company’s design.

It should be noted, though, that the process of implementing change, in general, and altering the quality of the airport services, in particular, could become much easier once an efficient model for change is incorporated into the corporate framework. For example, the DMAIC principle suggested by Thomas Pyzdek (Pyzdek & Keller 2014) may be considered an essential addition to the firm’s change management strategy. When evaluating the suggested approach, one must give Pyzdek credit for creating the model that can be used to encourage an unceasing improvement of the services and a regular update of the quality standards. Thus, the premises for a regular update of the services can be created, which modern airport companies lack significantly.

As far as the time issue is concerned, there seems to be a lack of tools that can support a more efficient use of the personnel’s time in contemporary airport facilities. For example, the Just-in-Time (JIT) framework, which is aimed at minimizing the defects and maximizing the positive outcome, can be included in the range of tools used by the staff of modern airport companies (Lai & Cheng 2012). Furthermore, the management of the essential processes will be enhanced with the help of a redesign of the corporate values and the philosophy of leadership used in the target facilities currently.

Changes in Airport Security

According to Caslione and Thomas (2002), air travelers experienced many changes in security procedures after the terrorist attack since most airlines informed their customers to report earlier than two hours prior to departure. Consequently, passengers were required to pass through security checks with some individuals randomly selected for additional screening (Caslione & Thomas 2002). Later, studies have discovered that following some security breaches in flights, security staff needed passengers to remove various items, such as shoes and belts, during screening procedures at checkpoints (Lyon 2003).

Lyon (2003) outlines that changes experienced were two folds and were aimed at ensuring security by enhancing passenger satisfaction. First, it was observed that the federal government took over security operations at the airport to improve passenger safety (Price & Forrest 2012). Moreover, more and more passengers are now seen as ‘suspicious or potential terrorists’, and security practices have become intricate and more integrated. Lyon (2003) points out that the security practices are now designed to advance racial profiling since individuals are categorized differently, and they get different treatment from security staff during screening. According to Lyon (2003), the promise made when such stringent security measures were introduced – preventing terrorism – remains hard to justify. Further, enhanced surveillance is more likely to have social impacts whose outcomes could be extensive – the dejection of social trust and of democratic engagement (Lyon 2003). These surveillance practices ultimately impact passenger satisfaction.

In order to ensure customer satisfaction, the agency increased the number of staff to help reduce wait time in security lines that could discourage passengers (Sweet 2004). Sweet (2004) notes that employees needed to be motivated in order to effectively handle passengers and this was achieved through increased compensation and wages by TSA. The screeners were also taken through training on how best to handle clients and perform background checks.

It has been outlined that all airlines had to revamp their security screening practices by matching luggage with their owners and further screening all baggage for any explosives (Sweet 2009). While passengers are significantly affected, Sweet (2009) also shows that cargo and passenger safety and security has become extremely critical for the aviation industry and must be considered in policies and business processes.

The Effects of Security Regulations

Terrorist attacks in the United States prompted security apparatus in airports to change security procedures drastically that to some extent inconvenienced domestic passengers who were now required to report early than usual (Sweet 2004). Subsequently, random hand-searches were adopted for passengers to identify any objects classified as non-risky, and the inclusive improved security screening all affected passenger convenience (Sweet 2009). Concerning satisfaction, a survey conducted discovered that most passengers were complaining that rigorous (strict) security measures made travelling less convenient (Zellan 2003; Johnstone 2006). In the same measure, airline firms argued that challenges associated with new security measures had negatively affected their revenues noted in lost ticket sales, as some customers travelers decided to stay home or use alternative modes (Zellan 2003). However, surveys also found out that after the attack some passengers were willing to accept additional inconvenienced through enhanced security checks so long as they would be secure (Zellan 2003). This was in the form of increased confidence in the aviation industry and some passengers derived satisfactions from the procedures.

Enhanced Passenger Data

Passenger information is always collected through tickets; the terrorist attack of 9/11 made security authorities to collect data and even performed background checks on certain individuals. Surveys conducted highlighted that additional useful information on passengers was important in assessing the impacts of security threats in airports (Thomas 2008). Most of these data were from screening and were useful in enhancing security in airports; data collected from screening were useful in providing precise indications of each airport and the likely threats (Miller 2002).

To some extent, most clients’ derived satisfaction from such events as most airports had begun screening and, thus, clients felt secure and comfortable in any commercial airport around the country.

Increased Flying Costs

The terrorist attack increased the cost of travelling through airlines because individuals had to pay additional fees to finance and support TSA staff operation and screening equipment. It has been established that airline firms introduced new ways to collect fees for checked luggage and bags, as well as fuel surcharges to increase their earnings (Thomas 2008).

Noteworthy, increased fee to travel reduced demand coupled with inconveniences, but passenger satisfaction increased significantly because rates of cancellation declined and cases of mishandled luggage were few relative to past periods before the introduction of new laws (Thomas 2008). Concerning this, Price and Forest (2012) reveal that most passengers were willing to forego other activities by arriving early for their flight just to ensure their security. Passengers, therefore, must understand that such interventions are necessary because the aviation security systems are complex and need sustained attention and concentration to predict potential attacks (Price & Forrest 2012).

In conclusion, the literature review above has outlined that the purpose of security enhancement in airports is to contribute and increase safety in flights and prevent illegal activities directed at most commercial airlines. The paper has discussed changes in airport security, the effects of security regulations, enhanced passenger data collection, and increased flying costs in relation to passenger satisfaction.

Primary Data Findings

Airport Security Systems (Post 9/11): “Passengers’ Satisfaction”

Background Information

Respondents who participated in the study were 50 consisting of 60.98% (25) female and 39.02% (16) male, but 9 respondents declined to specify their gender. Majorities of the respondents (46%) were in the age group of 18-24 years, followed by 18% in the age group of 25-34 years, 16% in the age group 35-44 years, 10% were in the age range of 45-54, and a similar percentage in the age group of 55-64 years. No respondents aged above 65 years to part in this survey.

Necessity of the Legislations Enacted After the 9/11 Attack

Participants were asked if they thought the enactment of legislations applied by the federal government after the terrorists’ attack of September 11, 2001 were necessary. Majorities of the respondents (88%) agreed that the enactment of such legislations were necessary following the 9/11 attack, but 12% did not share this view.

Consolidated Security Efforts

Researchers also wanted to find out if authorities had adequately consolidated security efforts on the aviation field. Most respondents (91.84%) answered ‘yes’, 8.1% did not agree, while one respondent skipped the question.

The Current Safety Regulations are Satisfactory

When asked whether the current safety regulations were satisfactory, only 20.41% strongly agreed, 71.43% agreed, 8.16% disagreed, and no single respondent strongly disagreed if the current safety regulations are satisfactory. One respondent did not respond to this question.

Confidence about Safety

Study participants were asked if they were confident about their safety in airports because of the measures that have been applied by the authorities. Majorities (56.00%) agreed that they were confident about their safety in airports, 32.00% strongly agreed, and 12% disagreed. All 50 participants responded to this question.

Willingness to Spend More Time in the Airport

According to the survey results, many passengers (74.00%) were willing to spend more time in the airports if it meant that security would be enhanced. On the contrary, other respondents (26%) did not want to spend more time in the airport for enhanced security.

Use Alternative Travelling Modes

Respondents were also asked if they would rather use alternative travelling modes than waste time in the numerous airport security checkpoints. Survey results showed that 20% of the respondent answered ‘yes’ while majorities did not prefer alternative traveling modes.

Random Security Screening

Respondents gave diverse views when asked about their belief on the effectiveness of random security screening in enhancing security in the airports. The results showed that 52% agreed, 20% strongly agreed, 24% disagreed, and 4% strongly disagreed.

Long Queues and Waiting Time

Additional security measures have brought about long queues and waiting time. Consequently, respondents were asked whether they were okay with the long queues and the waiting time required in the screening checkpoints. Interestingly, 54.00% of the respondents replied ‘yes’, while only 46% responded ‘no’, implying that passenger safety was of utmost important to majorities of the passengers.

Victim of Unfair Treatment at the Security Airport Checkpoints

The researchers also sought to determine if participants have ever been victims of unfair treatment by the employees at the security checkpoints in any airport. A significant percentage (42%) of the respondents had been victims while 58% had not been victims of unfair treatment.

Bags are Always Screened for Explosives at the Security Checkpoints

The results indicated that, in most instances, bags were always screened at the security checkpoints. Specifically, 38% of the respondents strongly agreed, 36% agreed, and 26% disagreed – this percentage perhaps reflected cases of security lapse at the airport during passenger and bag screening.

With or Against Random Hand Searches

Random hand searches are also frequently used. As such, 84% of the respondents supported random hand searches while only 16% opposed these random security practices.

More Time Spent at the Security Leads to Higher Confidence

Since the enactment of new security laws, passengers now have to spend more time at the security checkpoints. Consequently, respondents were asked if the more the time they spent at the security checkpoints leads to higher confidence to use an airline, and 55.10% totally agreed while 44.90% did not necessarily agree – implying that more or less time spent at the checkpoints could significantly influence passengers’ perception about their safety.

Always Willingness to Provide Personal Information

As observed, one outcome of the new laws relates to data collection about passengers, particularly personal information. Most passengers (74%) were always willing to provide the security staff at the checkpoint with personal information if required, but 26% were not.

Security Staff Always Handles Bags with Care

A small percentage (2%) strongly disagreed that security staff always handled bags with care, 44% disagreed, 48% agreed, and 6% strongly agreed.

Passenger Screening

Respondents were also asked if they lost confidence in an airline if it did not spend more time screening the passengers in front at the security check queues. Interestingly, 70% of the respondents said ‘no’ while only 30% replied ‘yes’ to the question.

Some Recommended Changes

Only a small percentage (8.16%) of the respondents recommends that some changes are necessary in the current status of the security checks at the airport. On the contrary, majorities of the respondent want to maintain the status quo (91.84%).

Passenger Satisfaction with the Services at the Airport (Generally)

Participants rated their satisfaction levels on a scale of 1-5. Six percent rated 1, another six percent rated 2, 38% rated 3, 28% rated 4, and 22% rated 5. The weighted average was 3.54, implying that passenger satisfaction rating with the services at the airport was generally above average.

The Degree of Inconvenience (where 1 is less convenient and 5 is more convenient)

For the ‘removal of particular attires e.g., belts’, 10% rated 1, 4% rated 2, 36% rated 3, 20% rated 4, and 30% rated 5. The weighted average for the removal of particular attires was 3.56. Participants were also asked about the ‘restriction of liquids’, and 14% rated 1, 18% rated 2, 28% rated 3, 10% rated 4, and 30% rated 5, all with the weighted average of 3.42. For ‘rigorous searching of bags’, 16% rated 1, 20% rated 2, 28% rated 3, 14% rated 4, and 22% rated 5, all with the weighted average of 3.06. Finally, respondents were also asked about convenience associated with ‘testing of electrical items’, and they rated as follow: 6.12% rated 1, 22.45% rated 2, 18.37% rated 3, 24.49% rated 4, and 28.57% rated 5.

Overall, the ‘removal of particular attires e.g. belts’ has the highest weighted average of 3.56 relative to ‘rigorous searching of bags’ with weighted average of 3.06. As such, these practices were generally convenient for majorities of passengers.

Analysis and Discussion

The aim of this research was to investigate changes and developments associated with airport security systems after 9/11, and the impact of these new security systems on passengers’ satisfaction. The specific question that determined the passenger satisfaction with the services at the airports determined that passenger satisfaction rating with the services at the airport was generally above average.

Since the 9/11 attack, airport screening procedures and processes in the US and in other areas globally have changed over time. However, some other aspects of airport practices and outcomes have been significantly affected. Passenger satisfaction and customer service, for instance, have become areas of key concerns for all stakeholders. Long queues and waiting times have been major sources of concerns where passenger satisfaction is involved. The finding of this study showed that majorities of the passengers did not have any issues with long queues and waiting times during passenger screening, implying that passenger safety was of utmost important to many passengers. This finding reflects previous results by other studies. For instance, a study by Gkritza, Niemeier and Mannering (2006), showed that passengers were willing to tolerate the wait for airport security screening, particularly if interruptions were regular among airports and at various periods of day. The increased rate in passenger delay has attracted attention of all stakeholders. The TSA, for instance, launched a program to facilitate changes in airline passenger screening particularly targeted at reducing screening time at the airport security checkpoints. The program involved the use of registered passengers and biometrics to facilitate screening processes. Certainly, the appreciation of the fact that passengers require swift processes for enhanced customer services by lessening security screening associated delays is now increasingly a critical issue in the aviation industry as commercial airlines struggle with additional costs related to operations (Gkritza, Niemeier & Mannering 2006). Further, Price and Forest (2012) reveals that most passengers were willing to forego other activities by arriving early for their flight just to ensure their security.

Contrary to popular belief, long queues and waiting times associated with screening did not contribute to dissatisfaction among many passengers. In fact, about 30% of the passengers notably lose confidence in an airline if it does not spend more time screening the passengers in front of them at the security check queues, according to findings by this study. Additionally, some passengers showed that spending more time at security checkpoints did not necessarily translate to higher confidence among passengers. While passengers value their time and it was extremely important, the study showed that it was not the only critical element that influenced how effectively airline passengers endure airport securing screening processes (Gkritza, Niemeier & Mannering 2006). Many other factors, such as how baggage, searches are conducted and professionalism of staff among others, affect customer satisfaction (Oflac & Yumurtaci 2014). As process screening changes, customer satisfaction is most likely to change, demonstrating that determinants of passenger satisfaction also change to reflect new realities. This finding demonstrates that further improvements in airport screening processes should focus on major factors that influence passenger satisfaction, and how such factors may change across time, rather concentrating exclusively on reducing long queues and waiting time. Still, changes in airport screening process must be set with regards to developing traveler tastes and desires, and the probability that they will be pleased with screening techniques. Comprehending the dynamics of traveler satisfaction is basic since a definitive achievement of new screening methods (based on customer service point of view) and the fiscal sustainability of the aviation business will be influenced (Gkritza, Niemeier & Mannering 2006).

According to Alards-Tomalin et al. (2014), airport security interventions are classified into two groups, including “standardized screening techniques, which all passengers must undergo (e.g., baggage X-rays, metal detecting scans); and elevated-risk screening (including pat-downs and strip searches) for which only a sub-set of passengers are selected” (p. 60). This study sought to determine if any passengers have been victims of unfair treatment at the security airport checkpoints, and 42% claimed that they had been victims. The discourse over privacy issue, which is a constituent of security measures, involving body scans and pat-downs have persisted. It is observed body scanners are less invasive relative to pat downs or X-ray scanner, but they still reveal intimate details about passengers and airport security staff can observe them. While this study did not specifically ask about forms victimization experienced by passengers, it appears that such invasive techniques could contribute to them. Passengers consider pat down as more intrusive and humiliating. As such, it is most likely to reduce passenger satisfaction with airport service providers and ultimately determine enplanement intentions. In this regard, Alards-Tomalin et al. (2014) point out that security professionalism at the airport is extremely critical, particularly when passengers are subjected humiliating experiences through screening measures. Previous studies show disrespectful treatment toward customers (Alards-Tomalin et al. 2014). However, if passengers perceive the process as justifiable, then they tend to perceive the procedure as fair. For instance, when passengers are randomly picked for further security screening, which is seen as unfavorable process, the outcome may be perceived as fair if passengers perceive interpersonal treatment as satisfactory (Alards-Tomalin et al. 2014). Thus, perceived safety is important for passenger and leads to satisfaction, but the procedures should be fair. However, high rates of feelings of violation of privacy, humiliation, and any degradation of dignity need further improvements because this study determined that some aspects of security screening require changes at the airport security checkpoints. Higher rates of humiliation that passengers experienced negatively affected perceived safety of at the airports.

Conclusion

Following the 9/11 attacks, airport security screening has experienced multiple changes to protect passengers, airplanes, and other installations. Consequently, TSA and other authorities were instituted to enhance passenger screening standards. While such passenger security screening procedures have resulted in longer queues, waiting time, and other forms of inconvenience, this study determined that passenger satisfaction was beyond average. They were pleased with security measures, new laws, practices, and other forms of screening. However, they were also victims of some of these procedures at the airports. Passenger security was much more important than factors that simply lead to inconvenience. Moreover, passenger security, itself, enhances passenger satisfaction and determines enplanement intentions. When various forms of passenger security screening are studied, it is shown that many other factors are responsible for passenger satisfaction. Hence, security screening procedures, whether elevated or standard, are equally important in improving passenger satisfaction. In this regard, many passengers support current security screening procedures at the airports. This implies that most passengers cannot dismiss personal safety when travelling, and safety is an important factor for consideration when choosing commercial air carriers. Bad experiences, such as being a victim of humiliation, also negatively reduce customer satisfaction. This implies that passenger satisfaction is dynamic and changes based on prevailing practices and staff professionalism.

The results of this study could be applied in improving security procedures and offering methods to improve customers, especially where passengers have been victims during security screening procedures. These new developments are associated with additional cost burden to the airline industry, and most carriers now struggle to realize profits. Low passenger satisfaction may make a section of passengers to opt for alternative modes of transport, thereby denying the airline industry an opportunity for more revenues. As the industry strives to ensure safety of their passengers, they should also invest in processes and procedures that reduce longer queues and waiting times to improve passenger satisfaction. The practices should also be consistent to meet expectations of customers. Airports can facilitate security screening procedures for passengers who have pre-registered, but customer preference is equally important when initiating such projects. For effective improvements, airports should base their efforts on recent data because passenger satisfaction changes based on various experiences, expectations, and expectations are vital in influencing customer satisfaction. For instance, when passengers spend more time on longer queues than their expectations, then they are most likely to be less satisfied.

Future Work

Future works should explore this topic to determine changes in passenger satisfaction using both qualitative and quantitative research methodology. Additionally, further studies should also focus on any new laws and procedures to reduce victimization and their subsequent impacts on passenger satisfaction because satisfaction is based on expectations and experiences.

Reference List

Alards-Tomalin, D, Ansons, LT, Reich, TC, Sakamoto, Y, Davie, R, Leboe-McGowan, JP & Leboe-McGowan, LC 2014, ‘Airport security measures and their influence on enplanement intentions: responses from leisure travelers attending a Canadian University’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 37, pp. 60–68.

Caslione, JA & Thomas, AR 2002, Global manifest destiny: growing your business in a borderless economy, Dearborn Trading Publishing, Chicago.

Gkritza, K, Niemeier, D & Mannering, FL 2006, ‘Airport security screening and changing passenger satisfaction: an exploratory assessment’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 213-219.

Hoffman, B & Reinares, F 2014, The evolution of the global terrorist threat: from 9/11 to Osama bin Laden’s death, Columbia University Press, New York.

Johnstone, RW 2006, 9/11 and the future of transportation security, Praeger Security International, Westport.

Lai, K-H & Cheng, T 2012, Just-in-time logistics, Gower Publishing, Burlington.

Lyon, D 2003, Surveillance after September 11, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Miller, D 2002, Terrorism: are we ready?, Nova Science, Huntington.

Oflac, BS & Yumurtaci, IO 2014, ‘Improving passenger satisfaction at airports: an analysis for shortening baggage access time’, Journal of Management, Marketing and Logistics, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 339-347.

Perkins, RA 2007, ‘Using Rogersʼ Theory of Perceived Attributes as a framework for understanding the challenges of adoption of open educational resources’, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 1, no. 18, pp. 59-66.

Price, J & Forrest, J 2012, Practical aviation security: predicting and preventing future threats, 3rd edn, Elsevier Science, Burlington.

Pyzdek, T & Keller, PA 2014, The Six Sigma handbook, 4th edn, McGraw Hill, New York.

Sweet, KM 2004, Aviation and airport security: terrorism and safety concerns, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.

Sweet, KM 2009, Aviation and airport security: terrorism and safety concerns, 2nd edn, Auerbach, Boca Raton.

Thomas, AR 2008, Aviation security management, Praeger Security International, Westport.

Williams, C & Waltrip, S 2004, Aircrew security: a practical guide, Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington.

Zellan, J 2003, Aviation security: current issues and developments, Nova Science, Hauppauge.

Click Here To Order Now!