Latest Case Study

User-Centered
Flight Booking Experience

I led a comprehensive competitor analysis and user research initiative to understand how various airline platforms address usability challenges. By exploring the behaviors and needs of diverse user groups, I uncovered key pain points and opportunities in the flight booking journey.

My objective was to design an intuitive, user-friendly solution that reduces friction and enhances the overall experience—making booking a flight as smooth and stress-free as possible.

My Role: UX Research, Design, Testing
Timeline: 4 Months
Tools:  Figma, Miro, Google Slides, Google Forms, Zoom

Problem

As the demand for online travel services continues to grow, many users still face considerable challenges when booking flights online. Despite modern interfaces, flight booking systems often fall short in delivering a smooth, user-friendly experience. Key usability issues include:

  • Overly complex navigation menus that overwhelm or confuse users

  • Intrusive pop-ups that disrupt the booking flow and distract from the task at hand

  • Unclear or excessive optional extras and hidden fees, leading to decision fatigue and mistrust

  • Poor visibility of primary actions, such as “Next” or “Continue” buttons, making it difficult for users to progress

These pain points not only frustrate users but also lead to increased booking abandonment rates, reduced conversion, and a decline in user trust. Even well-designed platforms from a visual or technical standpoint can fall short if the user experience lacks clarity, consistency, and simplicity.

My Role & Contributions

In response to these challenges, I led an in-depth UX research and design initiative focused on creating a more intuitive and accessible flight booking experience.

Here’s what I contributed:

  • User Research & Competitor Analysis
    I conducted targeted research to understand how different airlines structure their booking flows and how diverse user demographics engage with these systems. This helped identify common pain points, UX patterns, and design gaps.

  • User Flows & Wireframes
    I mapped out streamlined user journeys aimed at reducing cognitive load, simplifying choices, and guiding users smoothly through each step. Wireframes focused on clarity, accessibility, and minimizing unnecessary steps or distractions.

  • Mid-Fidelity Prototyping
    To test the design hypotheses, I created a mid-fidelity prototype reflecting our proposed UX improvements. This prototype focused on clear CTAs, reduced clutter, and a more linear, intuitive user flow.

The UX Design Process

To ensure a thoughtful and user-centered outcome, I followed a streamlined UX design process that included five key phases: Research, Define, Design, Prototype, and Validate. This methodical approach allowed me to uncover core user needs, address usability challenges, and deliver a solution that met both user expectations and business goals.

1. Research

Competitor analysis

User interviews and surveys

Heuristic evaluation

2. Define

Crafting user personas

Developing problem statements and user journey maps

Establishing design goals to guide the design phase

3. Design

Sketches and wireframes

Interaction design

Mid-fidelity wireframes

4. Prototype

Clickable mid-fidelity prototype.

5. Validate

Usability testing sessions,

STAGE 1 | Research

Who are our future users and competitors?
How do they book flights—and what drives their choices?

To design effectively, we first need to understand who our users are, how they currently book flights, and the motivations behind their decisions. At the same time, analyzing competitors helps us uncover patterns, missed opportunities, and areas for innovation.

Competitive Analysis

Since this was a completely new product, I began by conducting a competitive analysis of three major airline websites—Aer Lingus, Google Flights, and Ryanair—along with one “wildcard” competitor, the flight aggregator Skyscanner. I included Skyscanner based on frequent mentions by participants in our online survey, indicating its strong user preference and influence.

Key Findings

  • Ease of Navigation: Google Flights and Ryanair offer more intuitive navigation.

  • Task Efficiency: Both platforms clearly guide users on what to do next, streamlining the booking process.

  • Error Prevention: Google Flights and Ryanair reduce the chance of user mistakes through better form design and guidance.

  • Mobile Responsiveness: Both Google Flights and the Ryanair app are well-optimized for mobile, ensuring smooth performance on smartphones and tablets.

  • Contextual Assistance: The Aer Lingus app lacks timely guidance and in-context support during booking.

  • Emotional Design:

    • Ryanair: Prioritizes speed over emotional engagement.

    • Aer Lingus: Attractive visuals and friendly UI foster a more human-centered experience.

    • Google Flights: Minimalist, functional design.

    • Skyscanner: Engaging visuals and interactive elements enhance emotional appeal.

  • Consistency & Standards:

    • Google Flights and Skyscanner maintain strong consistency and usability.

    • Ryanair and Aer Lingus occasionally lack uniformity in layout and interaction design.

Usability Test

Key Takeaways

  • Cluttered Homepage
    Important actions like “Book a Flight” were hard to find due to too much content and poor visual hierarchy.

  • Confusing Navigation
    Users struggled to find key booking info (e.g. baggage policy, connecting flights) due to unclear labels and layout.

  • Lack of Guidance
    The booking process didn’t support users in making informed decisions—details were assumed, not explained.

  • Missing Empathy
    Designs lacked user understanding. Not all users have the same level of attention to detail or booking experience.

  • Consistent Issues
    Both participants experienced the same pain points, pointing to broader UX problems across platforms.

  • Improvement Opportunities

    • Prioritize key actions with better layout and hierarchy

    • Make essential booking info easily accessible early on

    • Design with different user needs and experience levels in mind

STAGE 2 | Define

Translating research into action by organizing key insights, mapping the customer journey, and defining the primary user persona.

After the research phase, I collaborated with UX Researcher Angelica Di Clemente to create an Affinity Diagram, organizing key insights and themes. Using this, I developed a Customer Journey Map to highlight user pain points and opportunities. These insights helped define our average user persona, ensuring the design process stayed grounded in real user needs.

Affinity Diagram – Key Findings

  • Confusing Flight Options & Pricing
    Users struggle to understand pricing breakdowns and what’s included in each ticket plan (e.g., baggage, seating).
    “I wasn’t sure what ‘From £4 Save your price’ even means.”

  • Pressure Through Urgency Tactics
    Limited-time offers and warnings create unnecessary pressure, leading to rushed decisions.
    “They’re trying to do the whole fear thing—only 2 seats left at this price.”

  • Navigation & Usability Issues
    Users have trouble finding key actions like “Confirm Booking” due to unclear layout.
    “I couldn’t find the confirm button to move forward.”

  • Unclear Flight Details
    Flight times and itinerary info are not clearly communicated, causing confusion.
    “I thought that was the departure time, not the arrival.”

  • Intrusive Pop-Ups & Ads
    Excessive pop-ups disrupt the flow and create a negative first impression.
    “It made me expect a bad experience from the start.”

Link to the Affinity Diagram

Creating the Customer Journey Map

Using insights from the research phase and affinity diagram, I developed a Customer Journey Map to visualize the full flight booking experience from a user’s perspective.

This map uncovered key pain points such as:

  • Confusing ticket pricing and unclear flight info

  • Navigation difficulties

  • Overwhelming content and poor CTA visibility

  • Pressure from urgency tactics

It also captured the user’s emotional journey—from optimism to confusion, helplessness, and frustration.

By mapping these stages, I identified clear opportunities to:

  • Simplify pricing structures

  • Improve layout and navigation

  • Clarify key actions and booking details

  • Design a more supportive and user-friendly flow

This map served as a foundation for informed design decisions focused on creating a smoother, more intuitive booking experience.

Link to the Customer Journey Map

STAGE 3 | Design

Designing the Experience: Flow Diagram & Low-Fidelity Prototyping

I created a Flow Diagram to map the user journey, highlight key decision points, and streamline the booking process. Then, I developed a Low-Fidelity Paper Prototype to quickly explore layout and interaction ideas.

This fast, iterative method helped test and refine concepts early—saving time and setting the stage for a clean, user-friendly experience.

Flow Diagram

The Flow Diagram helped me visually map each step and interaction a user takes during the airline booking process. It revealed the most efficient paths for completing tasks while highlighting potential bottlenecks and friction points.

By outlining the full journey, I was able to prioritize key features and make informed design decisions aligned with user needs. When paired with the Customer Journey Map, the flow diagram became essential in shaping the overall product structure and refining the user flow—before moving into the medium-fidelity design stage.

Link to the Flow Diagram

Low Fidelity Paper Prototype

The affinity diagram, customer journey map, and flow diagram provided deep insights into the user’s mental model. These informed the creation of low-fidelity paper sketches focused on improving navigation, making key information easily accessible, and reducing ambiguity throughout the booking process.

By focusing on core structure and functionality—without visual distractions—I was able to quickly test and refine ideas, laying a strong foundation before moving to higher-fidelity designs.

STAGE 4 | Prototype

The mid-fidelity prototype builds on low-fidelity sketches.

The mid-fidelity prototype focused on layout, structure, and functionality—without final visual design elements. Special emphasis was placed on making call-to-action buttons more prominent, using contrasting colors based on user feedback from usability testing, where participants expected clearer, more visible CTAs.

This level of fidelity allowed for more accurate user testing, providing valuable feedback on interaction, flow, and usability. By simulating key user actions and refining core features, the prototype helped validate design decisions and highlight areas for further improvement.

Link to the mid-fidelity prototype