Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Singapore's Aviation Industry
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Singapore’s
Aviation Industry
Easwaramoorthy Rangaswamy
Amity Global Institute
Winston Hoo Kian Hoe
Bombardier Aerospace Services Singapore pvt ltd
Nishad Nawaz ( n.navaz@ku.edu.bh )
Kingdom University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4781-7993
Research
Keywords: COVID-19, Airline industry, Aviation industry, travel attitude, mitigation measures, air travel
recovery
Posted Date: April 1st, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1505332/v1
License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License
Page 1/25Abstract
COVID-19, a global pandemic, is proving a significant threat to various sectors globally, including the
aviation industry. There has been limited research on the Singapore aviation industry, their responses and
preparedness and the impact of COVID-19 during and post-pandemic. With such a gap in the literature,
this study aims at understanding the impact that the pandemic has specifically on Singapore’s aviation
industry both current and in the future while focusing on the existing mitigation measures. A survey
questionnaire was used to collect quantifiable data from airport and non-airport workers to analyse
various attributes, such as the perception of mitigation and air travel demand. The results concluded that
attitudes towards pandemic and mitigation measures significantly led to better expectations of air travel
recovery. It is to be noted that beyond domestic and global attitudes, rebound of international travel
essentially relies on borders to be opened and multiple countries’ collaboration and coordination.
1. Introduction
Singapore's aviation sector stands as a key pillar for its economic growth, with Changi airport being the
hub of major worldwide airlines. The sector has been experiencing a positive performance; for example, in
2018, 18.5 million visitors came to Singapore, about 300% of the Singaporean population. In the same
year, a total of 36.1 million passengers were carried through this sector, an illustration of significant
contribution to the economy. With its significant contribution both directly and indirectly, the sector
supported more than 375,000 jobs in 2019 with a gross domestic product contribution of US$36.6 billion,
where $22.1 billion contributed directly and $14.5 billion from tourism spending supported by aviation
(Enterprise Singapore 2020). Despite such a positive performance illustration, the sector has been facing
several challenges, with the recent one being the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Corona virus, also termed COVID-19, is an infectious viral disease caused by Corona virus, SARS-CoV-2
(Hui et al., 2020). The disease was first appeared in December 2019 in Wuhan, China and has since then
spread globally. Early hypotheses by health officials link the disease to a seafood market operating in
Wuhan city. The virus spreads via contact with droplets released by an infected person when coughing or
sneezing. After exposure to the virus, the symptoms are manifested within 14 days; and these symptoms
include cough, fever, headache, difficulty breathing/shortness of breath, loss of taste or smell, amongst
others. With the combination of other underlying health problems and old age, the virus is likely to kill
quickly, considering the minimal guarantee of vaccines introduced in the market. Therefore, as (Ibn-
Mohammed et al., 2021) described, the virus is greatly causing immense disruption on various sectors
with great negative influences.
The pandemic's disrupting forces resulted mainly from the fear of the unknown with this new virus
spread and the mitigation measures established to curb the spread, such as lockdowns and travel
restrictions. As the numbers of infections increased, it prompted more restrictions that further escalated
the global and national scale impacts.
Page 2/252. Literature Review
The literature review attempted reports the impact of the pandemic on the economy and aviation sector
from past pandemic epidemiology research on people attitude, mitigation policies, and post-pandemic
recovery plans. The foundational understanding of past significant consequences from pandemic
fallouts would be relevant for this research paper as it seeks to find similarities or differences in the
outcomes. The literature could provide inspirations for the measurements and analysis to derive results
from the quantitative research. Moreover, gaps or conflicts could be from the literature that would
increase the research's weight in reporting the pandemic effects on the aviation sector, particularly for
trade-dependent countries such as Singapore.
COVID-19 as a Pandemic
COVID-19 is proving to be a greatly destructive pandemic compared to previous global or regional
pandemics recorded in history.(Qiu et al., 2018) describe on SARS 2003, which was another strain of
corona virus though with limited impacts on a global scale. Despite this pandemic, limited mitigation
measures were established on various sectors, including the aviation industry. COVID-19 cannot be
compared to SARS 2003 in the same scale because the infection and death rate far superseded and
prolonged for at least a year. This had hit Singapore's economy significantly as well. Hence, with such a
more persistent pandemic that has infected and killed millions, it is critical to evaluate the severity of the
pandemic's impact on the most susceptible sector of the economy, the airline industry.
In a comprehensive scoping review of 65 research articles by (Adhikari et al., 2020), coronavirus was
identified as a disease within the virus category, which lead to several symptoms, including difficulty in
breathing, fever, lung infection and pneumonia. As a reference, this literature confirmed that it was
common globally in animals, and only a few cases have been pointed to affect human beings. In
December 2019, it was reported that there was a coronavirus disease outbreak in Wuhan, China, which
was linked to a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus2 referred to as SARS-CoV-2. The World
Health Organisation (WHO) declared the disease name as COVID-19 (Harapan et al., 2020). By the end of
January 2020, WHO declared the diseases as a global pandemic.
This situation differed greatly from a similar pandemic that arose from China in 2003, known as SARS.
Over the decade, the virus mutated. Nonetheless, comparing COVID-19 with SARS highlighted the
immense scale of damage the current pandemic has. Wilder-Smith, Chiew, and (Lee et al., 2020)
emphasized that it took a mere 8 months to contain SARS and was largely contained within Asian
countries such as Hong Kong, whereas the COVID-19 infections rate far exceeded that of SARS with more
than 82,000 cases within a matter of 2 months since the beginning of 2020.
Impact on Economy and Aviation Industry
In a recent assessment of COVID-19 impact on air transport, (Suau-Sanchez et al., 2020) established that
the aviation industry was being affected much more than other industries due to the pandemic. The
Page 3/25report indicated that 98% of worldwide passenger revenues as of End-March 2020 were lost. The global
airline industry suffered a heavy shock as most countries went on lockdown and travel restrictions both
domestically and internationally until July 2020.
Given the severity of COVID-19 to be much more potent than SARS 2003, a literature review of the
economic impact from SARS would provide much foresight into similar or worse outcomes for COVID-19.
In 2003 when there was SARS epidemic breakout, all economic contributors were affected. In the findings
of a study by (Wilder-Smith, 2006), it is argued that the SARS significantly impacted travelling and
tourism. Many governments were ill-prepared for the disease back then, and cosmopolitan cities such as
Hong Kong were among the hardest hits.
(Suau-Sanchez et al., 2020) reported a similar comparison of COVID-19 and SARS with variations of
impacts. This literature indicated similarities in impacts that include grounding aeroplanes, job losses,
reduced profits, and operational losses. A close focus indicates that as of May 2003, SARS had affected
Asia-Pacific monthly revenue passenger kilometres by 35% lower than the number before the crisis. In this
study, COVID-19 is indicated to have affected up to 98% of the former operations.
A comparative analysis of COVID-19 with other pandemics and global crises such as climate change by
(Gössling et al., 2020) indicated the trend of impact, as shown in the pandemic curve illustrated in
Fig. 3.1. From this illustration, the literature study indicated the possibility of further impacts post-
pandemic that could also be significant. This information would clarify the post-COVID nature of impacts
that are likely to face the aviation industry. Tourism especially was vulnerable to COVID-19 due to social
distancing, and aviation will almost cease, just like during the World War period. This comparison could
be exaggerated and hence, justify the need to evaluate the pandemic's impact on the resumption of air
travel in Singapore more accurately.
Mitigation Measures
When studying the pandemic of such levels, (Wilder-Smith, 2006) concluded that the investments should
focus on infection control and screen capacities at the healthcare system entry points. The findings are
also supported by (Anderson et al., 2020) that China's success case containing the virus despite being the
earliest to be affected. China's strict and broad application of social distancing rules, isolation of infected
people, and full lockdown of cities collectively helped to prevent uncontrollable transmission of COVID-19
amongst the populace. After the virus got contained, China was able to open almost all the domestic
travel.
Singapore has employed similar tactics in theory to contain the virus. (Ng et al., 2020) with the Centres
for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States reported the list of swift and decisive actions that
Singapore has utilised, which included surveillance, early detection and isolation with a reduction in the 7-
day moving average from onset to isolation in hospital, air travel restrictions and public education in the
bid to bring community cases down. However, the effects were dismal, especially for the virus's early
onset as clusters were forming (Lee et al., 2020).
Page 4/25Noteworthy in comparison to China, Singapore's measures were similar in theory but less restrictive in
their implementation. Moreover, in extension to (de Bruin et al., 2020) findings that other than just simply
timely first response, having high citizenship awareness, knowledge, and acceptance of roles and
responsibilities for social distancing measures were critical to the imposed measures' success. Could the
attitudes towards the mitigation measures be different in China and Singapore? Could the people expect
the different intensity of mitigation measures? These questions would have to be studied to understand
the people's attitudes in Singapore towards COVID-19 and mitigation measures. Furthermore, these
attitudes would impact the expectations of air travel (Gössling et al., 2020). Therefore, this study's
research question matters, and the people's attitude matters as the efficiency and success of health
policies depend on the people able to protect themselves, follow experts' advice, and obey rules (Lee et al.,
2020).
Attitude during the pandemic
The importance of attitudes towards mitigating the pandemic is further supported by research by (Yap et
al., 2010), who focused on understanding how best to manage influenza pandemic in Singapore through
modifying behavioural changes following an outbreak in 2009. The study determined the variability in
practices, attitudes and knowledge among various groups concerning the pandemic. It further
recommended that the general public be educated to improve their practices of managing future
pandemics. It also studied influenza perceptions in the context of healthcare workers and general
personnel, distinguishing between airport staffers and non-aviation workers. However, this study's results
were contradicted by another study by (Honarvar et al., 2020), who assessed the risk perceptions,
attitudes, and practices of Iran adults towards the COVID-19 pandemic and surprisingly concluded that
practices, perceptions and knowledge about COVID-19 amongst the Iranian adults are not related. Even if
people were informed of the danger of sending sick patients to the hospital at the risk of infections,
people still did so without many protective measures taken. The conflicting pieces of evidence justify an
investigation into the context of Singapore's pandemic on how knowledge and attitudes could influence
people's behaviours and especially air travel behaviours.
Post Pandemic Recovery
The literature has established shreds of evidence that there is an expected lasting impact on the economy
and aviation sector. The severity of the impacts depends on the mitigation measures and receptivity
towards these measures as well. More reviews of literature that studied post-pandemic periods found that
countries who could return to normality or drivers of life pre-pandemic faster saw a corresponding faster
rebound in tourist arrivals such as Hong Kong and United States (Mao et al., 2010). A deeper study into
China’s domestic airline demand and industry for COVID-19 suggested similar predictions found that
airlines in open economies would be severely disrupted from normality and would likely require capital
injection such as bailouts to survive (Czerny et al. 2020).
(Mao et al., 2010). applied the cusp catastrophe model as a theoretical foundation to learn about the
mechanics of post-pandemic recovery in tourism in Japan, Hong Kong and the United States. The results
Page 5/25highlighted that the cusp catastrophe model explained that fear and perceived risk about the pandemic
mitigation measures would slow down the recovery pace, whereas more confident populations recover
faster.
The literature provided extensive foundational theories and methodologies that are significantly relevant
to this paper’s objectives. Starting from the cusp catastrophe model, the prospects of returning to
normality in the context of pandemics, as researched by (Mao et al., 2010) can be influenced by the
attitudes towards the pandemic and mitigation measures. Concurrently, the mitigation measures'
effectiveness depends on the attitudes towards these measures as explored by (Yap et al., 2010).
Referencing to this model is relevant to pandemic studies and also the quantitative questionnaire
methodology by (Yap et al., 2010) on Singapore's SARS period, the current study investigates the context
of the COVID-19 on the aviation sector to answer the research question of how attitudes and mitigation
measures could influence expected air travel.
Problem Statement
The study's background illustrates a direct connection between the COVID-19 cases and the effect on
flight frequency, which translates to the effect on the performance of the industry during the pandemic.
Since the first case was reported, there has been no guarantee on the complete ending of this pandemic
and so the possibility of resultant effects continuing on the aviation industry. Considering that the
aviation industry depends on global performance, it is thus influenced greatly by global changes, market
dynamics and shifts across the world, which continue affecting the industry. Singapore's aviation
industry is not isolated, which attracts the interest of understanding the possible impact of the pandemic.
Further, it raises concerns about the industry's performance after the pandemic through the response
actions undertaken within the industry.
Despite this worrying trend on the global and national (Singapore) aviation industry, there has been no
research focused on understanding the Singapore aviation industry, their responses and preparedness
and the impact of COVID-19 during and post-pandemic. Being the main airport in Singapore and an
international airport hub, Changi airport could help understand the Singapore aviation industry with the
pandemic's influence. The results could potentially serve to improve the preparedness and decisive
actions to be taken to protect the aviation sector should another pandemic happens in the future.
3. Research Methodology
The study was developed to understand the impact of the pandemic on the aviation industry, the
following research questions based on the perception and actions of passengers are used as the focus of
the study:
What is the knowledge level and attitude of Singaporeans towards the COVID-19 pandemic?
What are the impacts of the COVID-19 on Singaporeans' travel pattern and trend using air means of
transport?
Page 6/25What are the Singapore aviation industry's mitigation measures and their impacts on both current
and future performance?
Research Aim and Objectives
This research aims at investigating the impact of COVID-19 on the Singapore aviation industry. In this
context, the present study was conducted with the following research objectives,
To uncover attitudes such as knowledge and fear of COVID-19 more accurately from the ground
situation.
To assess the impact of COVID-19 on travelling patterns currently and towards the future
To evaluate whether the mitigation measures adopted by the country and the airline sector especially
has impacted the expectations of current and future expected travel demands
Research Hypothesis
This research tests the hypothesis with the focus on each objective as follows,
There is no significant difference between people working and those not working in the aviation
sector regarding their attitudes towards the measures to mitigate COVID-19.
There is no significant difference between people working and those not working in the aviation
sector regarding the expected impacts of COVID-19.
The adequacy of mitigation measures on COVID-19 has no significant impact on making air travel
resume to normal.
Conceptual Framework
Integrating (Mao et al., 2010) and (Yap et al., 2010) frameworks, the following model has been used in
this study to understand how have Singaporeans felt about the pandemic, effectiveness of the mitigation
measures, and these attitudes on the expectation of air travel recovery.
Research Gap
Literature related to pandemics, including SARS, was comprehensively reviewed. Past confidence in the
effectiveness of mitigation measures such as early lockdowns on good post-pandemic recovery for
certain countries provides optimism and forward-looking expectations to Singapore for COVID-19.
However, the concentration of literature in the European airports for COVID-19 presents a gap in
understanding the current situation on COVID-19, especially on the attitudes and travelling demand
amongst Singaporeans in the aviation drought brought about by the yearlong pandemic. Given the
conflicting evidence from different literature on the association of attitudes towards post-pandemic
recovery, could (Yap et al., 2010) 's results be consistent with the COVID-19 period? Moreover, given the
importance of the aviation sector to Singapore's economy, it is paramount to investigate the potential and
possibility of recovery in travelling demand shortly. Therefore, this research would extend further on
Page 7/25existing literature foundational theories and methodologies for past pandemic and examine the current
reception of the people's mitigation measures and the expectations that people have on the aviation
outlook quantitatively.
Sample Design
The research methodological design considered different milestone deliverables for the study, which
included: awareness/sensitisation program, data collection/gathering relevant information, data
comparison and valuation, analysis and recommendations. The study adopted an explanatory research
approach to understand people attitudes to the pandemic, mitigation measures and expectations for
travelling. The descriptive cross-sectional research design and quantitative study method were chosen
given that other researches are using secondary public data sources, so this study aims to obtain primary
data from ground respondents to more accurately assess the attitudes and knowledge level of the
Singaporeans about COVID-19. Survey method has been used to collect data. The research instrument
used was a structured online questionnaire. Questionnaires are good research methods as they could
generate a genuine perception towards COVID 19 with the participant’s privacy, they are easy to conduct
and broad coverage (Wright, 2005). The questionnaire quantified the attitudes, expectations and
behaviours of the respondents. This field research method was faster and captured a more widely
distributed population at a lower cost with the ability to prove or disprove assumptions. However, the
questionnaire could generate dishonest feedback due to self-promotion bias or any privacy concerns.
The study engaged both female and male aviation staff and normal workers in Singapore as the study
population. The population age range that responded were between 18 and 65 years, who would likely
have travelled at least 3 times in 2019/2020. The respondents' diversity ensured robust research and
analysis into the connection between travelling impact and COVID-19 influence of the aviation sector. The
respondents were selected via convenience sampling technique, chosen through the first point of contact,
word-of-mouth and referrals in lieu that random sampling and other sampling methods would be much
costlier in terms of time and resources. This sampling was preferred because it was simple to use with
quick ability to identify any possible errors arising. Using a 95% confidence level, 5% margin of errors, and
2,631,300 as the population size, this study's ideal sample size would be 385. The total respondents were
425, which exceed the target.
Data collection process
Data collection was undertaken through a questionnaire, which is shared online via SurveyMonkey
software platform. Though the approach might not be considered serious by other participants, or some
might not easily access the shared online links (Wright, 2005), it still helped collect data without face-to-
face interaction, which would be an issue COVID-19 situation. This study's focus was on Singapore and
Changi airport, where staff and the public are randomly sampled conveniently over a month. The duration
sufficed for obtaining the required targeted sample size for robustness in the results. The questionnaire
comprised of multiple-choice questions. The questions included Dichotomous, Nominal, Ordinal
questions. Scaling, rating and ranking questions were asked as well.
Page 8/25Measurements
The questionnaire had closed-end and open-end questions, which was classified as follows,
1. Demographic information
a. Standard demographic variables such as age were asked to better group the respondents for
analysis
b. Asked about the travelling pattern for the year 2020 to provide an inductive understanding of the
current travelling demand and travelling profile of the respondents
2. Attitudes towards pandemic measures
a. Captured the attitudes towards the pandemic
3. Demand attitudes
a. Captured the expectations to resume travelling shortly
b. Evaluated if the participants felt that their air travel demand and livelihood has been affected
significantly by the pandemic
4. Attitudes towards mitigation measures
a. Measure the attitudes towards the level of preparation by the aviation sector against the
pandemic
Validity and Reliability
The questionnaire interviewed 5 healthcare and aviation management professionals who are the subject
matter experts on the questionnaire design and questions. The construct validity was reviewed with
statisticians to ensure that the questions were designed appropriately. Internal validity is also fulfilled
because this study followed the scientific method's standard steps and logically collected responses from
participating individuals. The sample size was statistically robust, with 425 respondents and hence
achieved external validity that it can be generalized across a larger population.
A pilot study was done, and reliability analysis was conducted through Cronbach's alpha measure for
each section of the research instrument to understand each section's reliability. Table 1 showed that all
scores are greater than 0.73, which is the minimum score for the questions to be considered as reliable
(Bryman, 2016). However, given that convenience sampling was employed, there remained a risk for
sample bias. Moreover, given that the questionnaire prompted the respondents to perceive fear and
knowledge, the respondents could have self-promotion bias on the results.
Page 9/25Table 1
Reliability Analysis
Questions Cronbach’s Alpha on Standardised Items N of items
Attitudes towards the pandemic 0.75 4
Attitudes towards the mitigation measures 0.80 2
Impacts and effects of the pandemic 0.78 4
Expectation of the travelling pattern 0.83 2
Reliability Score for all items together 0.85 12
4. Results
This research has arrived at the significant findings obtained from the research using correlational
analysis, t-test, chi-square test and regression analysis. In total 425 respondents have participated in the
questionnaire and returned a well-distributed result. Hypothesis testing was conducted to validate and
answers the research objectives and overarching research questions.
Demographic Profile of the participants
The age groups of the participants are from 18 to 50 years old and above. The majority of the
participants' age groups are above 50 age range as seen from Table 2 which were reported by the media
and healthcare professionals as the more vulnerable groups against COVID-19. The distribution is left-
skewed for the age. The people who worked in the aviation sector, henceforth known as airport staff that
the questionnaire has surveyed is about 50% more than those who do not work in the aviation industry.
Some respondents still flew more than 3 times in 2020, which is about 169 of the entire sample as shown
in Table 3.
Table 2
Age-wise classification of the participants
Age Number of Respondents Percentage (%)
18–25 years 22 5.2
26–33 years 69 16.2
34–41 years 76 17.9
42–49 years 121 28.5
50 and above 137 32.2
Total 425 100%
Page 10/25Table 3
Aviation Workers vs Non-Aviation Workers
Type of Occupation of the Respondents Number of Respondents Percentage (%)
Non-Aviation Workers 169 39.8
Aviation Workers 256 60.2
Total 425 100%
Pandemic Attitudes
Regarding information awareness about the pandemic, it can be seen as in Table 4 that a small 0.5% of
respondents self-assessed themselves to be not informed about the COVID-19 pandemic. A higher
proportion of respondents of 12.9% are not aware of the healthcare facility to seek treatment for COVID-
19 infections, as evident from Table 5. Despite a high awareness and knowledge of treatment
accessibility, the worry for being infected by COVID-19 is also high, with 50% of respondents believing
they are likely to obtain COVID-19. Those who think that they are highly likely to be infected with COVID-
10 is double that of those who otherwise feel highly unlikely.
Table 4
Respondents’ Knowledge on COVID-19
Age Number of Respondents Percentage (%)
Highly Informed 341 80.2
Not informed at all 2 0.5
Somehow informed 81 19.1
Total 425 100%
Table 5
Respondents’ Knowledge on COVID-19 Treatment
Knowledge of healthcare facility or isolation centre to seek medical Number of Percentage
services if infected with COVID-19 Respondents (%)
No 55 12.9
Yes 368 86.6
Total 425 100%
However, knowledge is not equivalent to security. Most respondents are worried that they could be
infected. In Table 6, around 84% of the respondents expressed some level of fear over infections.
Although perfect information could mitigate misinformation and people are well-educated on the virus,
they remain fearful of their health given the ease of infections. Even if COVID-19 does not present a
serious health concern, the potential economy and livelihood consequences weigh heavily on people’s
Page 11/25mind with at least a quarter of respondents are very much worried of the impacts from COVID-19 from
Table 7.
Table 6
Respondents’ Infection Fears on COVID-19 Infection Possibility
COVID-19 Infection Possibility Number of Respondents Percentage (%)
Highly Likely 44 10.4
Highly Unlikely 20 4.7
Likely 202 47.5
Unlikely 156 36.7
Total 425 100%
Table 7
Extent of Respondents’ Worry over COVID-19 Impact
Worry over COVID-19 Impact Number of Respondents Percentage (%)
Extremely Worried 69 16.2
Not at all worried 7 1.6
Not so worried 61 14.4
Somewhat worried 165 38.8
Very much worried 123 28.9
Total 425 100%
Expectation of Travelling
From the respondents, 82.8% of the respondents have not flown more than three times in 2020 (Table 11),
which is a drastic fall, given that 84.2% travelled on average 0.5 times per month (Table 10). The recovery
of the airline industry would likely not happen in the near term. Over 93% of people are uncertain when
they would fly again (Table 8), and 43.1% is confident that they would not be travelling anytime soon.
Travelling has been resumed only 7.1% of sample.
Page 12/25Table 8
Air Travel Resumptions Expectations of the Respondents
Resumption of Air Travel Number of Respondents Percentage (%)
Already resumed 30 7.1
Not likely to resume soon 183 43.1
Uncertain 86 20.2
Yet to resume 126 29.6
Total 425 100%
The expectation of not flying does not owe to fear of infections, though. At least 88.9% felt that the safety
measures to prevent airline travel infections are at least adequate. This high confidence and trust in the
health and safety measures suggest that airline travel remains depressed due to a more significant lack
of demand for business and leisure travel. However, the result offers a glimpse of hope. 73.2% of
respondents shared that their air travel plans have been at least moderately affected by Covid-19
(Table 9). The inconvenience and temporary obstacle to flying would likely observe a quick surge in
demand once conditions improve for air travel globally.
Table 9
Air Travel Fallout from COVID-19
Degree of impact in travel via air transport due to COVID- Number of Percentage
19 Respondents (%)
Minimum 114 26.8
Moderately 115 27.1
Very much 196 46.1
Total 425 100%
Table 10
Air Travel Number of Respondents Pre COVID-19
Air travel in a month Number of Respondents Percentage (%)
(0–1) 358 84.2
(2–4) 55 12.9
(5–10) 10 2.4
Daily 2 0.5
Total 425 100%
Page 13/25Table 11
Air Travel Number of Respondents During COVID-19
Air travel in a month has been more than 3 times Number of Respondents Percentage (%)
No 352 82.8
Yes 72 16.9
Total 425 100%
Table 12
Air Travel Perceptions by Airport Staff
Travelling trend from the start of the 1st quarter to the end of Number of Percentage
the 2nd quarter Respondents (%)
Constant all through 14 3.3
Decreasing all through 118 27.8
Decreasing all constant 40 9.4
Decreasing then increasing 33 7.8
Increasing all through 3 0.7
Increasing then constant 12 2.8
Increasing then decreasing 36 8.5
Unable to comment 168 39.7
Total 425 100%
Those working in the airline industry experienced first hard to hard-hit to business and their job. 45.9% of
those airport staff surveyed observed that the travel demand has decreased from January to July 2020
(Table 12). This suggests that more than half of the airport staff does not see a consistent worsening of
the situation (Table 13). The demand could remain still and pick up gradually.
Page 14/25Table 13
Air Travel Fallout Perceptions by Airport Staff
Effects of COVID-19 on the aviation industry Number of Respondents Percentage (%)
Devastating 152 35.8
Mild 3 0.7
Moderate 21 4.9
Normal 1 0.2
Severe 79 18.6
Total 425 100%
Attitudes towards Mitigation Measure
From Table 14, it could observe that only 37.6% of respondents are very supportive of the measures
enforced in aviation to protect consumers from aviation. This relates to the low expectations of
resumption air travelling, given that safety is a critical consideration for those travelling. Similarly, about a
third of respondents (32.5%) felt that the industry is sufficiently prepared to manage COVID-19 from
Table 15.
Table 14
Attitudes on Mitigation Measures Adequacy
Adequacy of measures enforced in the aviation industry to Number of Percentage
guarantee safety from COVID-19 infections Respondents (%)
Minimum 42 9.9
Moderate 218 51.3
None 3 0.7
Very much 160 37.6
Total 425 100%
Page 15/25Table 15
Attitudes on Aviation Sector Preparedness
Preparedness of the aviation industry in managing cases of Number of Percentage
COVID-19 Respondents (%)
Highly prepared 138 32.5
Least prepared 51 12.0
Moderately prepared 228 53.6
Not prepared at all 8 1.9
Total 425 100%
Hypotheses Testing
Attitudes between Airport and Non-Airport Workers
Comparative analysis between the airport and non-airport staff would provide insights to suggest that
airport staff has been affected significantly different from that of non-airport staff.
H 0 : There is no significant difference across people working and those not working in the aviation sector
in terms of their attitudes towards the measures to mitigate COVID-19.
H 1 : There is a significant difference across people working and those not working in the aviation sector
in terms of their attitudes towards the measures to mitigate COVID-19.
A chi-square test found insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis as there was no significance at
the 10% confidence level that airport staff differed from non-airport staff in terms of their attitudes
towards the mitigation measures and preparedness against COVID-19 for the aviation industry from
Tables 16 and 17. Airport staff were neither more confident, nor dismal compared to non-airport staff in
reacting to the response of the aviation sector. There was a consensus in the population that the airline
industry was moderately prepared for COVID-19 and adopted moderate measures to manage the crisis.
Next, is to investigate the impacts of the COVID-19 on airport versus non-airport staff.
Page 16/25Table 16
Adequacy Attitudes between Airport and Non-Airport Workers
Adequacy of measures enforced in the aviation industry to guarantee safety from Airport
COVID-19 infections Staff
No Yes
Minimum 14 28
Moderate 92 126
None 2 1
Very much 60 100
Pearson Chi-square 2.602^
Likelihood Ratio 2.592
N of Valid Cases 425
^ 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .80.
Table 17
Preparedness Attitudes between Airport and Non-Airport Workers
Preparedness of the aviation industry in managing cases of COVID-19 Airport Staff
No Yes
Highly prepared 52 86
Least prepared 19 32
Moderately prepared 95 133
Not prepared at all 3 5
Pearson Chi-square 0.746^
Likelihood Ratio 0.747
N of Valid Cases 425
^ 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.18.
COVID-19 Impacts Fear between Airport and Non-Airport Workers
H 0 : There is no significant difference across people working and those not working in the aviation sector
in terms of the expected impacts from COVID-19.
H 1 : There is a significant difference across people working and those not working in the aviation sector
in terms of the expected impacts from COVID-19.
Page 17/25Table 18 result showed that there was a significant difference between an airport and non-airport
employees in the anxiety expected from COVID-19 on themselves. Notably, airport staff had less
proportion of those who are only somewhat worried about more being very or extremely worried. Those
the other two higher categories did not differ significantly from non-airport staff, the lower count for
somewhat worried was statistically significant at a 5% confidence level. Airport staffs generally were
more worried.
Table 18
COVID-19 Impacts Fear between Airport and Non-Airport Workers
Worry over COVID-19 Impact Airport Staff
No Yes
Extremely Worried 22 47
Not at all worried 1 6
Not so worried 27 34
Somewhat worried 78 87**
Very worried 41 82
Pearson Chi-square 10.209**
Likelihood Ratio 10.522
N of Valid Cases 425
*** Significant at 0.01 level, ** Significant at 0.05 level, * Significant at 0.1 level
^ 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.78.
Regression Analysis on Travelling Expectations
An analysis of the relationship between variables is being conducted using regression methods.
\varvecH 0 : The adequacy of mitigation measures on COVID-19 has no significant impact on making air
travel resume to normal.
\varvecH 1 : The adequacy of mitigation measures on COVID-19 has significant impacts on making air
travel resume to normal.
Page 18/25Table 19
Regression Output on Travelling Expectations
Dependent Variable: Travelling Ordinal Standardized Coefficients
Infections Fear Ordinal 0.249***
Impact Worry Ordinal -0.135**
Mitigation Adequacy Ordinal 0.214***
Preparedness Ordinal -0.076
Travelling Patterns Effects Ordinal -0.084
Knowledge Ordinal -0.017
R Square 0.090
Adjusted R Square 0.068
*** Significant at 0.01 level, ** Significant at 0.05 level, * Significant at 0.1 level
From Table 19 result, it could see that aviation adequacy significantly predicted the future travelling
expectations at 1% confidence level. Respondents having a higher adequacy attitude towards aviation
measures registered 0.214 units increase in the expectation to resume travelling. Hence, the null
hypothesis is rejected with sufficient evidence.
5. Discussion
Surprisingly, there was no sufficient evidence found that airport staff and non-airport staff differed in their
attitudes towards the mitigation measures and the aviation sector’s preparedness against pandemics.
Yet, the airport staff were more worried at a 5% confidence significance level than the economic and job
loss fallout from COVID-19. The resolution of this perceived gap in attitudes could be that both groups
register high similar positivism, registered at 88.9% from Table 14, on the nation's mitigation measures.
Hence, research objective 1 was achieved given that the knowledge and fear of COVID-19 were measured
and was found to be significantly higher for airport staff. The findings from this study affirmed previous
literature, cusp catastrophe model, that positive attitudes towards mitigation measures correspond to
faster recovery albeit, in this study, the expectation of faster recovery was tested. The aviation adequacy
significantly predicted better future travelling expectations at 1% confidence level from Table 19.
Research objectives 2 and 3 were also attained from the regression analysis with better attitudes towards
mitigation measures is associated with forward-looking hopes that travel resumption will happen soon.
Therefore, the overarching research question has been thoroughly investigated through this research and
insights have been derived descriptively on Singaporeans’ knowledge and attitudes towards the
pandemic and mitigation measures’ effectiveness and their expectations of air travel recovery. The
correlational impacts have been tested statistically and aligned with previous literature from SARS 2003
and similar cities like Hong Kong and Japan.
Page 19/25The results found that airport staff were more worried than non-aviation workers, and this informs the
policymakers to mitigate this worry with more economic and health support for these workers that are
also at the frontline battling with COVID-19. Policymakers have uncovered the attitudes of COVID-19 more
accurately across two segments (airport and non-airport staff), addressing Research Objective 1. Next, it
is to manage the expectations and assure the public that effective management can aid the aviation
sector's recovery. Better attitudes towards mitigation measures were associated with the expectation of
travel resumption. This encourages more decisive and in-time measures to cope with a future pandemic
such that the national health policies can draft a standard just-in-time protocol. Further research on the
standard protocol could be conducted to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed
measures. Research objectives 2 and 3 are answered from the regression results on the factors that
impact future travelling demand expectations. This would inform the necessary professionals to prioritize
the critical factors in managing attitudes and outcomes.
Research Implications
The results suggested a close similarity to other literature in other parts of the world and comparable to
the findings from SARS 2003. Regardless of the scale of the pandemic, positive receptions to the
mitigation measures would encourage a more positive outlook on recovery. This research would
contribute to the academic understanding of the relationship between attitudes towards mitigation
measures and the association with expectations of air travel recovery. The airport staff significantly
higher worry of the fallout was reasonably expected and in line with other research on the fear and
dangers of frontline personnel albeit the aviation sector was more of the victim of the mitigation
measures’ reduction in mobility. The results further contribute to policymaking by informing policymakers
on keeping the people informed and knowledgeable about policies, treatment options and COVID-19
facts. These are drivers that encourage the positive attitudes towards measures implemented by the
national leaders handling the virus. Moreover, the positive outlook would encourage policymakers to
place more confidence in the aviation sector recovery and attract investments to be prepared for a post-
COVID-19 recovery when the time comes.
Future Research Directions
The research could be potentially expanded in multiple ways. One direction is to expand the scope of the
investigation beyond the aviation sector. Other sectors were reported by the media to be affected and
could potentially be worse than tourism such as the nightlife businesses. Furthermore, the investigation
into the attitudes of the respondent in this current study was conducted from a self-reporting
questionnaire that could be affected by self-promotional bias. Other methodological approaches could be
tested such as blind study or include reverse-coded questions. Further comparative studies with other
cities such as China top tier cities, Hong Kong or Japan could be investigated to identify similarities
across attitudes, mitigation measures and air travel resumption. Domestic and international travel
recovery would differ and hence the investigation of other neighbourhood countries’ international travel
recovery would be critically related to Singapore’s international recovery. The research survey, given that it
Page 20/25is applying convenience sampling, has the largest proportion of respondents in the age 50 years old
group range. Future research with more time, resources and even incentives could explore more extensive
and robust sampling strategies such as random or stratified sampling. The statistical evidence would
likely be more generalizable.
Conclusions
News and reports suggested that aviation, tourism would only be expected to recover beyond 2021 or
even later. Singapore Airlines announced a massive retrenchment exercise after more than 80% of their
capacity grounded. This study was conducted amid the COVID-19 pandemic, where lockdown and travel
restrictions were issued globally for the entire year of 2020. The domestic COVID-19 cases skyrocketed in
the early half of 2020. However, the government has provided an enormous stimulus to the aviation
sector. Moreover, the mitigation measures by the government have intensified after community cases
rose. How effective are the mitigation measures and could attitude towards these measures influence the
effectiveness and thereby expectations of air travel to resume earlier is debatable. These questions are a
subset of the overarching research question interested in how Singaporeans felt towards the pandemic,
effectiveness of the mitigation measures, and expected air travel to recover. The research question
focused on the aviation sector given the severe impacts felt from the pandemic as established from past
researches in other airports such as Croatia. This research has been guided by literature that established
the cusp catastrophe model theoretical foundation and methodological approach adopted by (Yap et al.,
2010) team. Literature related to SARS 2003 was comprehensively reviewed and past confidence in the
effectiveness of mitigation measures such as early lockdowns on good post-pandemic recovery for
certain countries provide the optimism and forward-looking expectations to Singapore for COVID-19.
However, the concentration of literature in the European airports for COVID-19 presents a gap in
understanding the current situation on COVID-19 especially on the attitudes and travelling demand
amongst Singaporeans in the aviation drought brought about by the yearlong pandemic. Therefore, this
paper has contributed to the pandemic impact analysis on the Aviation industry and have addressed the
research question and objectives. The knowledge and fear of COVID-19 were measured and tested to be
significantly higher for airport staff, thereby fulfilling research objective 1 and contributing to the research
question's attitude perceptions. The reported results also further affirmed previous literature that positive
attitudes towards mitigation measures correspond to faster recovery, albeit, in this study, the expectation
of faster recovery was tested addressing research objectives 2 and 3. The overarching research question
has been thoroughly examined through this research paper on Singaporeans’ knowledge and perceptions
towards the pandemic and mitigation measures’ effectiveness and their expectations of air travel
recovery.
Declarations
Ethical approval
Page 21/25The procedures used in this study adhere to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was
conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and is approved by the Ethics
Committee of authors’ affiliating institution.
Informed consent
All study participants provided informed consent.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Funding:
This research received no external funding.
Author Contributions:
All of the authors contributed to conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, and
writing and editing of the original draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Acknowledgements
None
Availability of data and materials
The authors confirm that all data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published
article.
References
1. Adhikari, S. P., Meng, S., Wu, Y. J., Mao, Y. P., Ye, R. X., Wang, Q. Z. … Raat, H. (2020). Epidemiology,
causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, prevention and control of coronavirus disease (COVID-
19) during the early outbreak period: a scoping review. Infectious Diseases of Poverty, 9(1), 1–12
2. Anderson, R. M., Heesterbeek, H., Klinkenberg, D., & Hollingsworth, T. D. (2020). How will country-
based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? The Lancet, 395(10228),
931–934
3. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford university press
4. de Bruin, Y. B., Lequarre, A. S., McCourt, J., Clevestig, P., Pigazzani, F., Jeddi, M. Z. … Goulart, M.
(2020). Initial impacts of global risk mitigation measures taken during the combatting of the COVID-
19 pandemic. Safety Science, 128, 104773
Page 22/255. Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid
assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1), 1–20
6. Harapan, H., Itoh, N., Yufika, A., Winardi, W., Keam, S., Te, H. … Mudatsir, M. (2020). Coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19): A literature review. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 13(5), 667–673
7. Honarvar, B., Lankarani, K. B., Kharmandar, A., Shaygani, F., Zahedroozgar, M., Rahmanian Haghighi,
M. R. … Salavati, Z. (2020). Knowledge, attitudes, risk perceptions, and practices of adults toward
COVID-19: a population and field-based study from Iran. International Journal of Public Health, 65(6),
731–739
8. Hui, D. S., Azhar, E. I., Madani, T. A., Ntoumi, F., Kock, R., Dar, O. … Drosten, C. (2020). The continuing
2019-nCoV epidemic threat of novel coronaviruses to global health—The latest 2019 novel
coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 91, 264–266
9. Ibn-Mohammed, T., Mustapha, K. B., Godsell, J., Adamu, Z., Babatunde, K. A., Akintade, D. D. …
Yamoah, F. A. (2021). A critical analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and
ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 164, 105169
10. Lee, V. J., Chiew, C. J., & Khong, W. X. (2020). Interrupting transmission of COVID-19: lessons from
containment efforts in Singapore. Journal of Travel Medicine, 27(3), taaa039
11. Mao, C. K., Ding, C. G., & Lee, H. Y. (2010). Post-SARS tourist arrival recovery patterns: An analysis
based on a catastrophe theory. Tourism Management, 31(6), 855–861
12. Ng, Y., Li, Z., Chua, Y. X., Chaw, W. L., Zhao, Z., Er, B. … Heng, D. (2020). Evaluation of the effectiveness
of surveillance and containment measures for the first 100 patients with COVID-19 in Singapore—
January 2–February 29, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(11), 307
13. Qiu, W., Chu, C., Mao, A., & Wu, J. (2018). The impacts on health, society, and economy of SARS and
H7N9 outbreaks in China: a case comparison study. Journal of Environmental and Public Health,
2018
14. Suau-Sanchez, P., Voltes-Dorta, A., & Cugueró-Escofet, N. (2020). An early assessment of the impact
of COVID-19 on air transport: Just another crisis or the end of aviation as we know it? Journal of
Transport Geography, 86, 102749
15. Wilder-Smith, A. (2006). The severe acute respiratory syndrome: impact on travel and tourism. Travel
Medicine and Infectious Disease, 4(2), 53–60
16. Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of
online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), JCMC1034
17. Yap, J., Lee, V. J., Yau, T. Y., Ng, T. P., & Tor, P. C. (2010). Knowledge, attitudes and practices towards
pandemic influenza among cases, close contacts, and healthcare workers in tropical Singapore: a
cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 1–8
Figures
Page 23/25Figure 1
Pandemic Curve
Figure 2
Conceptual Framework to study the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Singapore’s Aviation Industry
Supplementary Files
Page 24/25This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
renamedf93cc.docx
Page 25/25You can also read
