ts 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 FlyAway 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? 308 Part 4 Measurement Concepts CASE 13.1 FlyAway Airways A Consumer Survey Approach In his mach, Shacker covered a recent sady conducted to identify verse sidioes of frequent fes This mady is typical of the FlyA-survey-band infequent bully only anally), subjective efforts Wesley Shocker, research analyst for Fly Away Airways, was asked by the director of research make recommendations reganding the best appeach for monitoring the quality of service provided by the airline way Airways is a national air carrier that has a comprehensive route structure conining of long-haul, coast-to-cout routes and d notop routes between shon-hail metropolitan areas Cut competiton include Midway and Aleika Airlines FlyAway Airlines is poised to surpass the billion-dollar revenue level required to be designed a major airline. This change in status bring a new st of competiton. To prepare for this move up in competitive stato Shocker was asked to review the options available for mone ing the quality of Fly Away Airways service and the service of in competiton Soch monitoring would involve better understanding the nature of service quality and the ways in which quality can be tracked for airlinn conducted to a line quality. A New York fim, Revanch & Forcan, lec, puded muls of a commer urvey of frequent fen that wed several criteria to rate domenic and intemational aidion Crees included comfort, service, liability, food quality, cost, delays, routes served, uny, and frequent-fier plans. The ques was 25,000 from in The 4,462 people who reponded were characterised as pre- dominandy male 59 percent) profesional manage (66 percent whose average age was 45 and who traded an enge of at least sighe a year for both business and pleasure. This group indi card d etait factors in choosing an airline wen (1) srce (46 pond, 20 price (42 perc), 0) reliability (41 percent). ( service (33 peen), (5) afery 33 percent) foque-Ber plane (33 percent), and (7) food (12 percent). When Aber some investigation, Shocker discovered two basic approaches to measuring quality of airline service that can product nok ing results. He report mat oudine the important aspects to considered on 20 &fest aides, spondents provided the ranking in measuring quality as well as the critical points of difference and similarity between the two approaches to mesiringquity 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 cutomen. One of the best ways to do this is by offering quality service to consumen. Perception of service quality vary from penon to penon, but an enduring element of service puality in the content achievement of catac tion. For comers to perceive an aidine as offering quality servic they must be stel, and that usually means receiving a service eutcome that is equal to or greater than what they expected As adine consumer usually is concerned most with in of schedule, destitution, and price when choosing in sine. Given that most airlines have competition in each of the ar, other faction that late to quality become important to the comer when mak ings choice between airlines. Both subjective of quality is, food, plaunt employers, and so forth) and objective spects that -time performance, safety, lot baggage, and so forth have meaning to conmen. These secondary acton may st be as cri cal as schedule, desinin, and prior, but they de aflent quality jalg man of the customer and in Car Ex 133-1 CASE DONT 13.5-1 Ranking of Major Airlines Consumer Survey Approach 1. American 2. United 3. Deta 4. TWA 5. Swisty Singapore 7. British Airways Continental 5 Air France 10. PanAm 11. Lufthansa 12. USA 12 KLM 14 America West 15. JAL 16. Alaska 17. Qantas 13. Southwest 20 SAS A Weighted Average Approach Shacket de doceved a newer, more objective appach to m maly reccndy hed by the National for Aviation Runch at the Wichita State Univenity in Wits, Kam The Aine Quality Rating AQRO a weigh age of in that have mlevance when judging the quality of There are many poble combinations of subject ve aspects that could infernce a customer's pene of quality didnt times Fortunely since 1988, comen of an ar have had acco to objective information f the Department of Traportion pding service performance in some baic capen jee Cae Elbe 133-2) The AQR a bend on data nes Usomnly the avengerly of orded in these data on performance, al comenaly pond experience and subjective opinion to joder quley service Periodic surveys of subjection comer opinion gunding wine service experience able dough us These for all as being comp pulled our for each or siline ping in the Used Son Replay poblet des con Anal proceed the Deparment of Tr portion, the National Toportion Saliny Band Moody's Bond Recond, indoory tale plate Continued) Case 13.1 CASE EXHIBIT 13.1-2 Factors Included in the Airline Quality Rating (AQR) Factor Weight 1. Average age of fleet 25.85 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 AQR formula and recent data, rankings for the 10 major U.S. airlines shown in Case Exhibit 13.1-3. 2. Number of aircraft 14.54 CASE EXHIBIT 13.1-3 Airline Rankings 3. On-time performance 18.63 4. Load factor 26.98 Rank Airline AQR Score 5. Pilot deviations 28.03 American 10.328 6. Number of accidents 28.38 Southwest 10.254 7. Frequent-flier awards 27.35 3 Delta 10.209 8. Flight problems 28.05 United 10.119 9. Denied boardings 28.03 USAir 10.054 10. Mishandled baggage 27.92 Pan Am 10.003 11. Fares 27.60 Northwest 20.063 12. Customer service 27.20 Continental 20.346 13. Refunds 27.32 9 America West 20.377 14. Ticketing/boarding -7.08 10 TWA 20.439 15. Advertising -6.82 16. Credit 25.94 17. Other 18. Financial stability 19. Average seat-mile cost w,F, w,F,+w,F, -w.f AQR- 27.34 26.52 24.49 a The 19-tem rating has a elability coefficient (Conbach's Alpha) of Outa for these lacton came from onsumer complaints registered with the Depa Transportation To establish the 19 weighted factors, an opinion survey was con- ducted 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, academic researchers, airline manufacturing and support firm, and individual 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 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 Fly Away Airways as it moves into a more com petitive environment. What coune of action should he recommend? Questions 1. How comparable are the two ddferent methods? In what ways are they similar? In what ways are they different? What are the positive and negative aspects of each approach that Shocker should consider before recommending a course of action for FlyAway Airways? 3. What aspects of service quality does sach 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