ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2019 Q2 RESULTS Announcement · Other full service airlines 71.6 78.8 Singapore Airlines 74.8 Qantas 74.0 SilkAir 75.3 Cathay Pacific 76.4 Emirates 77.3 Garuda

INSTITUTE OF

SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2019 Q2 RESULTS Announcement

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG 2019 Q2 RESULTS

AIR TRANSPORT & LAND TRANSPORT

INSTITUTE OF


csisg methodology

!4

Customer Satisfaction

CSISG (Scale of 0-100)

1. Overall Satisfaction 2. Ability to Meet Expectations

3. Similarity to Ideal

How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? The CSISG Score

CSISG Structural Model

!5!5

Qn. Overall Satisfaction Qn. Ability to Meet Expectations Qn. Similarity to Ideal

Qn. Repurchase Intention Qn. Price Tolerance

#Qn. Positive Word-of-Mouth #Qn. Price Tolerance

Qn. Complaint Behaviour

Customer Expectations

(Predicted Quality Before Recent Experience)

Perceived Overall Quality

(After Recent Experience)

Perceived Value

Customer Satisfaction

(CSISG)

Customer Complaints

Customer Loyalty/

User Trust#

Qn. Price / Quality Qn. Quality / Price

Qn. Predicted Overall Quality Qn. Predicted Customisation Qn. Predicted Reliability

Qn. Perceived Overall Quality Qn. Perceived Customisation Qn. Perceived Reliability

→ Denotes positive relationship between the drivers → Denotes inverse relationship between the drivers

# Note: MRT Systems and Public Buses respondents are administered questions on User Trust instead of Customer Loyalty.

not here as well

General CSISG Fieldwork Methodology

!6

Singapore citizens and PRs are interviewed at their homes.

Homes are selected from a random address listing that matches the housing profile of Singapore resident population.

Departing tourists are interviewed at Changi Airport. (Applicable to all sub-sectors except Transport Booking Apps)

Typically 100-200 respondents per entity/ company would have answered the CSISG questionnaire.

Each respondent answers up to 21 CSISG questions and about 25 touchpoint questions about the entity/ company they had recent experiences with. Each respondent evaluates only 1 entity/ company.

Overview of Score Calculation

!7!7

Company Score

Sub-Sector Score

National ScoreSector Score

Incidence Study

• Identify companies with highest interactions with locals and tourists.

• Locals surveyed door-to-door. • Tourists surveyed at Changi Airport. • DOS population and STB Visitor

Arrival data used to further identify proportion of locals and tourist customers.

Local & Tourist Weights

Company Weights

Revenue / GDP Contribution Weights

• Identify revenue contribution of each sub-sector to its respective sector.

• Identify GDP contribution of each sector to the total GDP of sectors measured in the CSISG.

1 2 3 4

Revenue Share Study / DOS GDP Data

CSISG 2019 Q2 Sub-Sectors

!8

Land Transport Sector Air Transport Sector

• Mass Rapid Transit System

• Public Buses

• Taxi Services

• Transport Booking Apps

• Full Service Airlines

• Budget Airlines

• Changi Airport

!8

CSISG 2019 Q2 Quick Facts

!9!9

Sectors Covered Land Transport Air Transport

Survey Period Apr to Jul 2019

Total Questionnaires Completed 6,400

Locals 3,690

Tourists 2,710

Distinct entities measured 59

Entities with published scores 26

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG 2019 Q2 RESULTS

How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? CSISG 2019 Q2 Results Overview

!11

* Refers to companies/sub-sectors significantly above their sub-sector/sector scores

QUALIFIER FOR RESPONDENT (1) Recently interacted with company (Past 3 months for Land Transport, Past 6 months for Full Service

Airlines & Budget Airlines) (2) Each respondent evaluates satisfaction with 1 company within the Air Transport and Land Transport sector

!11

INSTITUTE OF


air transport sector results

Air Transport Sector CSISG Trends

!13

70

78

Air Transport Sector

55

75

95Airport

2007 2019

Budget Airlines

Full Service Airlines

!13

▲▼Statistically significant IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE between 2019 and 2018 scores at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant change between 2019 and 2018 scores at 90% confidence

2007 2019

2007 2019

◼◼

◼

Air Transport Sub-Sectors Scores (Year-on-Year Movement in Satisfaction Drivers)

!14!14


(Predicted Quality Before Recent Experience)

Perceived Quality


Perceived Value CSISG

Full Service Airlines 75.4 77.4 76.5 75.3(+0.7%) (+0.3%) (-1.1%) (+1.1%)

Budget Airlines 72.9 74.8 74.9 72.4(+0.4%) (0.0%) (-0.7%) (-1.0%)

Changi Airport 74.9 79.9 ▲ 78.2 79.0(+1.2%) (+2.7%) (-0.7%) (+1.3%)

▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence


Perceived Quality


Complaints

Customer Loyalty

Improvement in Airport Perceived Quality Scores

!15!15

Perceived Product Quality

Perceived Service Quality

Perceived Quality

Changi Airport 79.0 ▲ 81.1 ▲ 79.9 ▲(+3.2%) (+2.5%) (+2.7%)

Service Quality

Product Quality

Perceived Quality

▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence

Automated Check-In Services At Changi Airport

!16!16

Links (1) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/automated-services-at-changi-airport-s-t4-improve-efficiency-but-10885590 (2) http://www.changiairport.com/en/airport-guide/departing/checking-in/fast-check-in.html

01 Nov 2018

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/automated-services-at-changi-airport-s-t4-improve-efficiency-but-10885590

http://www.changiairport.com/en/airport-guide/departing/checking-in/fast-check-in.html

Airport: Significant Increase In Usage of Automated Check-In Machine

!17

% C

hang

i Air

port

Res

pond

ents

(n

=5

50

)

0%

50%

100%

Used Auto Check-In Did Not Use Auto Check-In

47.7%52.3%

67.3%

32.8%

2018 2019

!17

No Statistically Significant Difference in Satisfaction (Airport: Use of Automated Check-In Machine)

!18

ScoresCSISG 79.0 78.8

Perceived Service Quality 80.8 81.2

Age Group

18 to 29 Years 31.9% 7.8%

30 to 49 Years 64.5% 57.4%

50 Years & Above 3.6% 34.9%

% C

hang

i Air

port

R

espo

nden

ts

(n=5

50

)

0%

50%

100%

Used Auto Check-In Did Not Use

47.7%52.3%

2019

!18

No significant

differences in scores

Singapore Airlines 78.1

Qantas 73.9 SilkAir 73.1

Cathay Pacific 74.7

Emirates 75.6

Garuda Indonesia 76.4

Other full service airlines 71.6

78.8 Singapore Airlines

74.8 Qantas 74.0 SilkAir

75.3 Cathay Pacific

76.4 Emirates

77.3 Garuda Indonesia

72.6 Other full service airlines

CSISG2018

CSISG2019

Marginal Movements Across Full Service Airlines (Full Service Airlines)

!19!19

200755

70

85

2019

Full Service Airlines75.3

2007

E.g. of Other full service airlines includes Korean Air, Philippine Airlines, Malaysia Airlines

Jetstar Asia 72.4

Airasia 72.2

Lion Air 69.9

Scoot 75.3

Other budget/nAirlines 70.5

73.1 Jetstar Asia 73.2 Airasia

70.3 Lion Air

72.3 Scoot

71.0 Other budget/nAirlines

CSISG

2018

CSISG

2019

!20

200755

70

85

2019

Budget Airlines

72.4

2007

E.g. of Other budget airlines includes Cebu Pacific, VietJet Air, Firefly

Marginal Decline in Sub-Sector Satisfaction Score (Budget Airlines)

Scoot Flight Delays

!21

Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/technical-issue-delays-second-scoot-flight-two-days-time-29-hours

Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/scoot-flight-taipei-singapore-delayed-over-10-hours

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/sorry-we-messed-upa

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/technical-issue-delays-second-scoot-flight-two-days-time-29-hours



https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/scoot-flight-taipei-singapore-delayed-over-10-hours



https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/sorry-we-messed-up



INSTITUTE OF


Budget vs. Full Service Airlines

Full Service Airlines vs Budget Airlines (Short & Medium Haul Flights)

!23

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

65

70

75

80


Overall Perceived Quality

Perceived Value

Customer Loyalty


Overall Perceived Quality

Perceived Value Customer Loyalty

71.3

75.675.5

73.5

69.7

74.474.4

72.5 72.5

77.377.5

76.0

71.8

75.0

76.6

73.9

Short-Haul (Flight Time of 3 Hours & Below)

!23

GREEN/RED scores indicates Full Service Airlines performed BETTER/WORSE than Budget Airlines respondents with statistical significance

◼Full Service Airlines

◼Budget Airlines

CSISG 74.3 72.1


◼Budget Airlines

CSISG 75.8 72.7

76.6

71.8

76.0

Medium-Haul (Flight Time of Between 3 Hours to 6 Hours)

Full Service Airlines vs Budget Airlines (Short & Medium Haul Flights)

!24

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

60

70

80



Perceived Value



Perceived Value

75.675.5

73.574.474.4

72.5

77.377.576.0

75.0

76.6

73.9

Short-Haul (Flight Time of 3 Hours & Below)

!24

GREEN/RED scores indicates Full Service Airlines performed BETTER/WORSE than Budget Airlines respondents with statistical significance


◼Budget Airlines

CSISG 74.3 72.1


◼Budget Airlines

CSISG 75.8 72.7

76.676.0

Medium-Haul (Flight Time of Between 3 Hours to 6 Hours)

Top 5 Attributes with Impact On Perceived Quality Score

Short-Haul Flights (3 Hours & Below) Medium-Haul Flights (Between 3 to 6 hours)

Full Service Airlines Budget Airlines Full Service Airlines Budget Airlines

Cabin crew is friendly and attentive in meeting my

needs

Airline is able to accommodate to your

needs


needs

Brand image complements your lifestyle

Airline staff has your best interest at heart



Professionalism of the cabin crew

Range of in-flight entertainment options

Brand image complements your lifestyle Condition of the cabin

Professionalism of the ground staff

Ease of getting information Comfort of the journeyAirline has a good

reputation Ease of getting information

Quality of food and beverage


needs


Efficiency with the overall check-in process

Increasing Impact

On Quality Score

!25

Differentiators for Long & Short Haul Flights (Top 5 Quality Drivers for Short & Medium Haul Flights)

Note: ‘Food and beverage options’ & ‘Range of in-flight entertainment options’ were not included in impact analysis for Short-Haul Budget Airlines & ‘Range of in-flight entertainment options’ for Medium-Haul Budget Airlines due to a large

proportion of respondents who did not rate the question





needs


needs


needs













needs



!26

Service Staff Attributes Remains Key Differentiator (Differentiators for Long & Short Haul Flights)



Increasing Impact

On Quality Score





needs


needs


needs













needs



!27

Branding Also Important Especially for Medium Haul Flights for Full Service Airlines (Differentiators for Long & Short Haul Flights)



Increasing Impact

On Quality Score

INSTITUTE OF


land transport sector results

Land Transport Sector CSISG Trends

!29

70

78

Land Transport Sector

55

70

85Taxi Services

2007 2019

Mass Rapid Transit SystemPublic Buses

Transport Booking Apps

◼

!29

▲▼Statistically significant IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE between 2019 and 2018 scores at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant change between 2019 and 2018 scores at 90% confidence

2007 2019

2007 20192007 2019

◼

◼◼

Land Transport Scores (Year-on-Year Movement in Satisfaction Drivers)

!30

Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality

Before Recent Experience)

Perceived Quality



User Trust/ Customer Loyalty

Mass Rapid Transit System 69.3 68.0 ▲ 68.7 ▲ 64.9 63.7

(+1.2%) (+3.2%) (+3.0%) (+2.0%) (-5.4%)

Public Buses 69.5 70.6 ▲ 70.8 66.7 67.9(+1.7%) (+3.9%) (+2.6%) (+1.8%) (-1.3%)

Taxi Services 74.5 75.7 76.1 73.3 71.0(+1.0%) (+0.4%) (+0.8%) (+1.2%) (-0.8%)

Transport Booking Apps 70.5 71.6 73.4 ▲ 68.3 67.9

(-0.2%) (+2.6%) (+4.1%) (+0.5%) (-3.6%)

!30

▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence


Perceived Quality


Complaints

Customer Loyalty

Improvements in Public Transport

!31Source: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/rail-reliability-improved-in-2018-on-course-to-meet-target-khaw-10890026

Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/smrt-taps-predictive-technology-prioritise-maintenance

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/mrt-network-sets-new-high-in-reliability

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/smrt-improves-app-stations-in-effort-to-help-commuters

Source: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/5-year-s-1-1b-bus-service-enhancement-programmme-complete-9484638

Rise in Perceived Quality Driven Largely by Locals (Mass Rapid Transit System & Public Buses)

!32

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

60

66

72

78

84

Expectations Quality Value Expectations Quality Value

!32

◼Locals ◼Tourists

CSISG 62.0 76.3

◼Locals ◼Tourists

CSISG 66.4 75.2

GREEN/RED scores indicates Local performed BETTER/WORSE than Tourist respondents with statistical significance

▲

▲ ▲

Mass Rapid Transit System Public Buses

▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence Year-on-year movements are not statistically significant

Trains: Gap Between Predicted Quality and Actual Perceived Quality Narrowing for Locals (Trains: Locals Only)

!33

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

60

65

70

2017 2018 2019

65.3

63.363.9

68.067.3

68.9

Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality) Perceived Quality

▲

▼

▼

▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE from the year before at 90% confidence Year-on-year movements are not statistically significant

Gap of 5.0-pts

Gap of 4.0-pts

Gap of 2.7-pts

Buses: Actual Perceived Quality Marginally Higher Than Predicted Quality In 2019 (Locals Only)

!34

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

65

68

71

2017 2018 2019

70.2

67.6

65.6

69.2

68.1

66.2

Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality) Perceived Quality

▲

▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence

Change colour for the gap if it’s

not sig

Trust Related Metrics for Public Transport Improvement Among Locals

!35

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

50

65

80

User Trust Confidence Best Interest User Trust Confidence Best Interest

Mass Rapid Transit System Public Buses

!35

GREEN/RED scores indicates Local performed BETTER/WORSE than Tourist respondents with statistical significance

▲

▲ ▲

▲

◼Locals ◼TouristsCSISG 62.0 76.3

◼Locals ◼TouristsCSISG 66.4 75.2

▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence Year-on-year movements are not statistically significant

Note: Confidence measures respondents’ confidence that the operator will continue to do a good job in the future. Best Interest measures respondents’ belief that the operator is working in their best interest.

Not

mea

sure

d fo

r To

uris

ts

Not

mea

sure

d fo

r To

uris

ts

INSTITUTE OF


Mass Rapid Transit System

SMRT Trains 63.4 SBS Transit Trains 63.9

65.0 SMRT Trains 64.7 SBS Transit Trains

CSISG2018

CSISG2019

SMRT Trains Marginally Higher Than SBS Trains (MRT System)

!37

2007

!37

55

70

85

2019

Mass Rapid Transit System

64.9

2007

Upticks in Scores Across All Lines But Not Statistically Significant (CSISG Scores by Train Lines)

!38

!38

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

56

64

722018 2019

▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence

Line NSL (Red)

Circle Line (Orange)

NEL (Purple)

EWL (Green)

Downtown Line

(Blue)

Punggol LRT

Sengkang LRT

Bukit Panjang

LRT

Operator SMRT SMRT SBS SMRT SBS SBS SBS SMRT

LRT*MRTOverall MRT CSISG: 64.9 Overall LRT CSISG: 63.8

*For LRT, only locals were measured

Satisfaction for Older Lines Lower Among Locals (CSISG Scores by Train Lines)

!39

!39

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

56

64

72

64.064.165.165.165.762.863.1

64.562.6

64.1

2018 2019

Line NSL (Red)

Circle Line (Orange)

NEL (Purple)

EWL (Green)

Downtown Line (Blue)

Operator SMRT SMRT SBS SMRT SBS

MRTS

core

(0

to

10

0)

56

64

72

60.461.262.763.2

64.6

59.760.562.562.062.0

Overall

Locals

Line Circle Line (Orange)

Downtown Line (Blue)

NEL (Purple)

NSL (Red)

EWL (Green)

Operator SMRT SBS SBS SMRT SMRT

Locals MRT CSISG: 62.2

Overall MRT CSISG: 64.9

Improvement Across Most Attributes for Locals (Train Attributes: Locals Only)

Accuracy of information provided throughout the station

Cleanliness of station amenities

Cleanliness of trains

Ease of clearing fare gate

Maintenance of station amenities

Safety and security considerations

Sufficiency of train arrival informationAssistance and information for passengers with special needs

Accuracy of train information during the train ride

Helpfulness of staff

Ease of moving within station

Travel time to reach destination

Reliability of trains

Handling of disruptions

Comfort of ride

Train frequency

Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)

6.0 7.0 8.0

20192018

!40▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

Improvement Among Key Drivers (Train Attributes Drivers: Locals Only)

Comfort of ride



Handling of disruptions



Assistance and information for passengers with special needs

Accuracy of train information during the train ride

Train frequency

Cleanliness of trains

Helpfulness of staff


6.0 7.0 8.0

!41

Significant Impact

on Perceived

Quality Score

2019 Avg Rating

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

Largest Increase


Shift in Importance of Key Drivers (Train Attributes Drivers: Locals Only)

!42!42

Top 5 Attributes with Significant Impact on Perceived Overall Quality

2019 2018

Comfort of ride Reliability of trains

Travel time to reach destination Handling of disruptions

Reliability of trains Assistance and information for passengers with special needs

Handling of disruptions Travel time to reach destination

Maintenance of station amenities Comfort of ride

Incr

easi

ng P

osit

ive

Impa

ct

Shift in Importance of Key Drivers (Train Attributes Drivers: Locals Only)

!43!43

Top 5 Attributes with Significant Impact on Perceived Overall Quality

2019 2018

Comfort of ride Reliability of trains

Travel time to reach destination Handling of disruptions

Reliability of trains Assistance and information for passengers with special needs

Handling of disruptions Travel time to reach destination

Maintenance of station amenities Comfort of ride

Incr

easi

ng P

osit

ive

Impa

ct

‘Comfort Of Ride’ Top Driver But Rated Below Average (Top 5 Quality Drivers for Trains: Locals Only)

Comfort of ride






6.5 7.3 8.0

!44

Top 5 Attributes with

Significant Impact

on Perceived Quality Score

2019 Avg Rating


▲

▲

▲

▲

Selected Verbatim Among Dissatisfied Local Respondents (CSISG <50)

The size of the train is too small and can only fit very limited number of commuters, so sometimes morning have to wait quite long to board the train

Train is crowded during rush hours, cabin is hot and squeezy

Train was very packed and I felt suffocated from the overcrowding

Train is too cramped during rush hours, feel very uncomfortable

Very packed train and I felt very stuffy

INSTITUTE OF


Public Buses

Marginal Improvements in Public Buses Scores (Public Buses)

!46

SMRT Buses 67.3

SBS Transit Buses 65.2

Other Bus Operators 63.4

68.2 SMRT Buses

67.0 SBS Transit Buses

64.3 Other Bus Operators

CSISG2018

CSISG2019

!46

200755

70

85

2019

Public Buses

66.7

2007

Other bus operators includes Go-Ahead and Tower Transit

Improvement Across Most Attributes for Locals (Bus Attributes: Locals Only)

!47

Availability of bus route information

Safety of the ride

Accuracy of bus arrival information

Clarity of bus route information

Helpfulness of bus captain

Ease of boarding buses

Comfort of the ride

Condition of the buses

Bus frequency


Smoothness of the bus journey

Ease of moving within the bus

Politeness of the bus captain


6.0 7.0 8.0

20192018

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence

Top 3 Drivers Remain Similar for Buses (Bus Attributes Drivers: Locals Only)

!48!48

Top 5 Attributes with Significant Impact on Perceived Quality

2019 2018

Safety of the ride Comfort of the ride

Comfort of the ride Safety of the ride

Bus frequency Bus frequency

Condition of the buses Politeness of the bus captain

Smoothness of the bus journey Availability of bus route information

Incr

easi

ng P

osit

ive

Impa

ct

Efforts in Improving Ride Safety for Buses

!49

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/sbs-buses-go-high-tech-to-look-out-for-road-users

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/how-singapore-could-further-improve-road-safety

INSTITUTE OF


Taxis & Transport Booking Apps Sub-Sectors

Marginal Upticks Across All Taxi Companies (Taxis)

!51

ComfortDelGro 72.3 SMRT 72.1

Prime 70.0

Premier 73.8 Transcab 74.0

72.9 ComfortDelGro 72.9 SMRT

71.0 Prime

74.3 Premier

75.6 Transcab

CSISG2018

CSISG2019

!51

200755

70

85

2019

Taxi Services

73.3

2007

Taxis Attributes: Y-O-Y MovementsCourtesy of taxi driver

Smoothness of the ride

Taxi drivers’ road knowledge

Clarity of fare structure

Condition of the taxi

Cleanliness of the taxi

Interaction with taxi driver

Availability of feedback channels

Fares charged

Safety of the ride

Payment process

Payment options available

Comfort of the ride

Helpfulness of taxi driver


6.5 7.3 8.0

20192018

!52

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲


Marginal Upticks For ComfortDelGro & Grab (Transport Booking Apps)

!53

Grab 67.5

ComfortDelGro 68.8

68.1 Grab

69.1 ComfortDelGro

68.2 Gojek

CSISG2018

CSISG2019

!53

200755

70

85

2019


68.3

2007

Note: Gojek is a newly measured company in CSISG 2019

Transport Booking App Attributes: Y-O-Y Movements (Locals Only)

Driver’s road knowledge

Safety of the ride

Ease of getting a ride

Clarity of fare structure

Ease of using app

Helpfulness of driver

Cleanliness of the vehicleSecurity measures to safeguard

personal detailsComfort of the ride

Payment process

Courtesy of driver

Accuracy of waiting time estimation

Range of service types

Ease of providing feedback

Fares chargedAttractiveness of app

promotions and discounts


6.0 7.0 8.0

20192018

!54

▲

▲

▲


Sorted in descending

order of 2018

attributes ratings

Initially Fewer Grab Promos Following Uber Exit in 2018

!55

Source: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/grab-promo-codes-fewer-10189526

May 2018

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/grab-promo-codes-fewer-10189526

GrabRewards Revaluation in July 2018

!56Source: https://blog.seedly.sg/grabrewards-revaluation-better-worse/

Devaluation in Multiplier for GrabRewards Point System

Standardised Points for Grab Vouchers Redemption

Revamped GrabRewards Membership Tiers Requirement

Membership Tiers

Pay with Grab Pay Pay with Cash

OLD NEW OLD NEW

Members

x16

x3

x8

x1

Silver x3 x1

Gold x4.5 x1.5

Platinum x6 x2

Membership Tiers

$5 Grab Voucher $10 Grab Voucher

OLD NEW OLD NEW

Members 2,200 points

2,200 points

4,200 points

4,200 points

Silver 2,100 points 4,000 points

Gold 2,000 points 3,800 points

Platinum 1,900 points 3,600 points

Membership Tiers OLD NEW

Members 0 point 0 point

Silver 3,000 points 300 points

Gold 9,000 points 1,200 points

Platinum 19,000 points 4,500 points

1 2

31.Drop in Earn-Rates: Reduction

in reward points earn rate 2.Poorer Burn Rates: Increase in

cost of vouchers 3.Revision in Membership Tiers:

Reduced requirements to achieve become a Platinum member

https://blog.seedly.sg/grabrewards-revaluation-better-worse/

Return of Competition: Entry Of Gojek & ComfortDelGro’s Fixed Fares & Dynamic Pricing

!57

Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/expect-competitive-prices-spore-gojek-woos-customers-says-ride-hailing-firm

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/comfortdelgro-to-trial-dynamic-fares-from-may-15

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/expect-competitive-prices-spore-gojek-woos-customers-says-ride-hailing-firm



https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/comfortdelgro-to-trial-dynamic-fares-from-may-15



INSTITUTE OF


Taxi vs. Private Hire Cars

Taxis Vs. Private Hire Cars (PHC) 2019 (Locals Only)

!59

(Statistically Different)

(Statistically Different)

Taxis Vs. Private Hire Cars (PHC) Y-o-Y (Locals Only)

!60

Preferred Mode Of Getting A Ride (Locals Only)

!61

Flag down or taxi stands


Hotline or calling for a cab

Taxi Services Respondents Private Hire Car Respondents

% Respondents

100% 50% 0

4.1%

35.7%

60.2%

% Respondents

0% 50% 100%

0.0%

79.9%

20.1%

Preferred Mode Of Getting A Ride

Older Taxi Customers Prefer to Flag (Taxis Sub-sector: Locals Only)

!62

Private Hire Car Respondents




% Respondents

100% 50% 0

4.1%

35.7%

60.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

18-29 30-49 50-69 >69

0%1%

53%46%

1%

35%

52%

12%

Flag Down or Taxi Stands Transport Booking Apps

Preferred Mode Of Getting A RideTaxi Services Respondents

Age Group

% Respondents

0% 50% 100%

0.0%

79.9%

20.1%

Preference for Flagging Primarily Due to Availability & Waiting Time (Taxis Sub-sector: Locals Only)

!63

Private Hire Car Respondents




% Respondents

100% 50% 0

4.1%

35.7%

60.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Availability Waiting Time Price Vehicle Options Rewards Ability to Set Pick Up Location

26%

4%

15%18%19%19%

0%0%0%

15%

33%

52%


Preferred Mode Of Getting A RideTaxi Services Respondents

Reasons for Preference

% Respondents

0% 50% 100%

0.0%

79.9%

20.1%

Some App Users Still Prefer to Flag (Private Hire Cars: Locals Only)

!64



% Respondents

100% 50% 0

4.0%

35.7%

60.3%

0%

23%

47%

70%

18-29 30-49 50-69 >69

0%

20%

61%

19%

0%

26%

47%

27%


Taxi Services Private Hire Car Respondents

Age Group

% Respondents

0% 50% 100%

79.9%

20.1%


Similarly Due to Availability & Waiting Time (Private Hire Cars: Locals Only)

!65



% Respondents

100% 50% 0

4.0%

35.7%

60.3%

Taxi Services Private Hire Car Respondents

Reasons for Preference

0%

20%

40%

60%

Waiting Time Availability Price Vehicle Options Rewards Ability to Set Pick Up Location

10%6%8%

30%24%22%

0%0%0%

21%

37%42%


% Respondents

0% 50% 100%

79.9%

20.1%


More Disruption in Land Transport? Zipster: A “Meta App"

!66

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/zip-around-with-new-all-in-one-transit-app

Key Highlights

!67

Overall Customer Satisfaction scores remained statistically unchanged for both Air and Land Transport sub-sectors.

Air Transport

• Airport: Perceived Quality up driven by improvements in Perceived Service and Product quality. Increase usage of Automated Check-in had no adverse impact on satisfaction.

• Airlines: Consider focusing on service staff. Staff-related attributes are key drivers of perceived quality regardless of Airline type (Full Service or Budget), and length of flight (short or medium haul).

Key Highlights

!68

Land Transport

• Public Transport: Overall satisfaction unchanged, but Perceived Quality higher, driven largely by locals. For locals, gap between customer expectations and perceived quality narrowing. For Trains comfort of ride and travel time are now top drivers.

• Taxi & Transport Booking Apps: Apps saw recovery in ratings on fares and promos. Taxis tend to outperform PHCs in terms of driver-related attributes. With a substantial proportion of commuters still preferring to flag down for rides, companies might want to leverage on this in future innovations.

Documents

ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2019 Q2 RESULTS Announcement · Other full service airlines 71.6 78.8 Singapore Airlines 74.8 Qantas 74.0 SilkAir 75.3 Cathay Pacific 76.4 Emirates 77.3 Garuda