GETTY IMAGES/ PHOTO GREEN Case 13.1 FlyAway Airways Wesley Shocker, research analyst for Fly Away Airways, was asked by the director of research to make recommendations regarding the best approach for monitoring the quality of service provided by the airline. Fly Away Airways is a national air carrier that has a comprehensive route structure consisting of long-haul, coast-to-coast routes and direct, non- stop routes between short-haul metropolitan areas. Current competi- tors include Midway and Alaska Airlines. FlyAway Airlines is poised to surpass the billion-dollar revenue level required to be designated as a major airline. This change in status brings a new set of competitors. To prepare for this move up in competitive status, Shocker was asked to review the options available for monitoring the quality of FlyAway Airways service and the service of its competitors. Such monitoring would involve better understanding the nature of service quality and the ways in which quality can be tracked for airlines. After some investigation, Shocker discovered two basic approaches to measuring quality of airline service that can produce similar ranking results. His report must outline the important aspects to consider in measuring quality as well as the critical points of differ ence and similarity between the two approaches to measuring quality. Some Background on Quality In today's competitive airline industry, it's crucial that an airline do all it can do to attract and retain customers. One of the best ways to do this is by offering quality service to consumers. Perceptions of service quality vary from person to person, but an enduring element of service quality is the consistent achievement of customer satisfac- tion. For customers to perceive an airline as offering quality service, they must be satisfied, and that usually means receiving a service outcome that is equal to or greater than what they expected. An airline consumer usually is concerned most with issues of schedule, destination, and price when choosing an airline. Given that most airlines have competition in each of these areas, other fac- tors that relate to quality become important to the customer when making a choice between airlines. Both subjective aspects of qual- ity (that is, food, pleasant employees, and so forth) and objective aspects (that is, on-time performance, safety, lost baggage, and so forth) have real meaning to consumers. These secondary factors may not be as critical as schedule, destination, and price, but they do affect quality judgments of the customer. There are many possible combinations of subjective and objec- tive aspects that could influence a customer's perception of quality at different times. Fortunately, since 1988, consumers of airline ser- vices have had access to objective information from the Department of Transportation regarding service performance in some basic categories. Unfortunately, the average consumer is most likely unaware of or uninterested in these data on performance; instead, consumers rely on personal experience and subjective opinion to judge quality of service. Periodic surveys of subjective consumer opinion regarding airline service experience are available through several sources. These efforts rely on contact with a sample of con- sumers who may or may not have informed opinions regarding the quality of airline service for all airlines being compared. A Consumer Survey Approach In his research, Shocker discovered a recent study conducted to identify favorite airlines of frequent fliers. This study is typical of the survey-based, infrequent (usually only annually), subjec- tive efforts conducted to assess airline quality. A New York firm, Research & Forecasts, Inc.. published results of a consumer survey of frequent fliers that used several criteria to rate domes- tic and international airlines. Criteria included comfort, service, reliability, food quality, cost, delays, routes served, safety, and frequent-flier plans. The questionnaire was sent to 25,000 fre- quent fliers. The 4,462 people who responded were characterized as pre- dominantly male (59 percent) professional managers (66 percent) whose average age was 45 and who traveled an average of at least 43 nights a year for both business and pleasure. This group indi- cated that the most important factors in choosing an airline were 1) route structure (46 percent), 2) price (42 percent), 3) reliability (41 percent), 4) service (33 percent), 5) safety (33 percent). 6) frequent-flier plans (33 percent), and 7) food (12 percent). When asked to rate twenty different airlines, respondents provided the rankings in Case Exhibit 13.1-1. CASE EXHIRT 13.1-1 Ranking of Major Airlines: Consumer Survey Approach 1. American 2. United 3. Delta 4. TWA 5. SwissAir 6. Singapore 7. British Airways 8. Continental 9. Air France 10. Pan Am 11. Lufthansa 12. USAir 13. KLM 14. America West 15. JAL 16. Alaska 17. Qantas 18. Midway 19. Southwest 20. SAS Chapter 13: Measurement and Scaling Concepts A Weighted Average Approach Shocker also discovered a newer, more objective approach to mea- suring airline quality in a study recently published by the National Institute for Aviation Research at the Wichita State University in Wichita, Kansas. The Airline Quality Rating (AQR) is a weighted average of 19 factors that have relevance when judging the quality of airline services (see Case Exhibit 13.2-2). The AQR is based on data that are readily obtainable (most of the data are updated monthly) from published sources for each major airline operating in the United States. Regularly published data on such factors as consumer com- plaints, on-time performance, accidents, number of aircraft, and finan- cial performance are available from the Department of Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board, Moody's Bond Record. industry trade publications, and annual reports of individual airlines. CASE EXHIBIT 13.1-2 Factors Included in the Airline Quality Rating (AQR)* Factor 1. Average age of fleet 2. Number of aircraft 3. On-time performance 4. Load factor 5. Pilot deviations 6. Number of accidents 7. Frequent-flier awards 8. Flight problems 9. Denied boardings 10. Mishandled baggage 11. Fares 12. Customer service 13. Refunds 14. Ticketing/boarding 15. Advertising 16. Credit 17. Other 18. Financial stability 19. Average seat-mile cost AQR-F, -w.F,+w,F w+w, +W w F +W, Weight 25.85 14.54 18.63 26.98 28.03 28.38 27.35 28.05 28.03 27.92 27.60 27.20 27.32 -7.08 -6.82 25.94 27.34 26.52 24.49 a. The 19-item rating has a reliability coefficient (Cronbach's Alpha) of 0.87. b. Data for these factors come from consumer complaints registered with the Department of Transportation. To establish the 19 weighted factors, an opinion survey was conducted with a group of 65 experts in the aviation field. These experts included representatives of most major airlines, air travel experts, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) representatives, aca- demic researchers, airline manufacturing and support firms, and indi- vidual consumers. Each expert was asked to rate the importance that each individual factor might have to a consumer of airline services using a scale of 0 (no importance) to 10 (great importance). The average importance ratings for each of the 19 factors were then used as the weights for those factors in the AQR. Case Exhibit 13.1-2 shows the factors included in the Airline Quality Rating, the weight associated with each factor, and whether the factor has a positive or negative impact on quality from the consumer's perspective. Using the Airline Quality Rating formula and recent data, produce AQR scores and rankings for the 10 major U.S. airlines shown in Case Exhibit 13.1-3. CASE EXHIBIT 13.1-3 Airline Rankings Rank 1 2 56789SAWN 4 10 Airline American Southwest Delta United USAir Pan Am Northwest Continental America West TWA 313 AQR Score 10.328 10.254 10.209 10.119 10.054 10.003 20.063 20.346 20.377 20.439 What Course to Chart? Shocker has discovered what appear to be two different approaches to measuring quality of airlines. One relies on direct consumer opinion and is mostly subjective in its approach to quality and the elements considered. The other relies on performance data that are available through public sources and appear to be more objective. Both approaches incorporate pertinent elements that could be used by consumers to judge the quality of an airline. Shocker's recom- mendation must consider the comprehensiveness and usefulness of these approaches for FlyAway Airways as it moves into a more com- petitive environment. What course of action should he recommend? Questions 1. How comparable are the two different methods? In what ways are they similar? In what ways are they different? 2. What are the positive and negative aspects of each approach that Shocker should consider before recommending a course of action for Fly Away Airways? 3. What aspects of service quality does each approach address well and not so well? 4. Considering the two methods outlined, what types of validity would you consider to be demonstrated by the two approaches to measuring quality? Defend your position. 5. Which of the methods should Shocker recommend? Why?