Upload
espen
View
54
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
SkyTeam Alliance. SKYTEAM ALLIANCE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY Results Report 2nd Semester 2008 April 2008 - September 2008. Contacts SKYTEAM :Contacts TNS Sofres : Charles HAGEMAN Malcolm BROWN + 31-20 64 95519 + 33 1 40 92 66 27 Sophie GRIS Emmanuelle DUPUIS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
SkyTeam Alliance
SKYTEAM ALLIANCECUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY Results Report 2nd Semester 2008
April 2008 - September 2008
Contacts SKYTEAM : Contacts TNS Sofres : Charles HAGEMAN Malcolm BROWN + 31-20 64 95519 + 33 1 40 92 66 27Sophie GRIS Emmanuelle DUPUIS + 33 1 41 56 75 52 + 33 1 40 92 66 28
2
Contents
IntroductionMethodologyInterpretation of the resultsExecutive Summary:
- Overall Findings with main indicators- Alliance awareness- Overall rating SkyTeam benefits- Detailed Elite / Elite Plus benefits- Detailed transfer items- Overall rating SkyTeam airline performances- Overall rating SkyTeam airline performances Booking/Reservation- Overall rating SkyTeam airline performances Airport- Overall rating SkyTeam airline performances In-flight
- Conclusions- Recommendations
Trends
Detailed Findings (Appendices):Booking / reservation detailsAirport experience detailsIn-flight experience detailsGap in customer satisfaction depending on the operating airline
3
• Changes since the previous semester• The main change to the barometer concerns the inclusion of 4 new Alliance members: China Southern, Air
Europa, Copa Airlines and Kenya Airways. This report presents the results for the summer semester 2008 for the 14 airlines. Results are compared with the summer semester 2007 but only on the questionnaire base of the same 10 airlines of each semester (excluding the questionnaires of the 4 new members).
• The questionnaire has been updated to include the 4 new airlines (version 5) and at the same time some minor word changes were made.
• Objectives Track satisfaction among SkyTeam passengers with respect to
• the general and Elite benefits offered by SkyTeam, • the service provided during their trip with a SkyTeam carrier (booking, airport, in-flight)
• Questionnaire Subjects• Flight and background information (date, flight number, travel class, travel reason, marketing and operating
airline, age, gender, FFP etc.).• Reservations (method used, rating on 5 phone reservation service aspects and 3 airline website aspects).• Airport services (check-in airport, check-in method, rating on 10 airport services aspects, lounge visit, rating on 6
lounge aspects, transfer airport and rating on 3 transfer aspects).• In-flight services (rating on 14 in-flight aspects)• Overall impression of all the ground and in-flight services• SkyTeam awareness• SkyTeam benefits (rating on 8 SkyTeam benefits)• SkyTeam Elite / Elite Plus benefits (rating on 5 Elite / Elite Plus benefits)
IntroductionThe survey’s objective is to track customer satisfaction in respect to the benefits offered by SkyTeam.
4
• Paper questionnaires, available in several languages, are distributed and collected by cabin crew to customers aboard SkyTeam flights. Only flights between SkyTeam hubs are sampled.
• Each airline is responsible for organizing their questionnaire distribution and collection.
• Measurement is continuous throughout the year.
• All collected questionnaires are processed centrally in France, leading to the preparation of the semester survey report. Semester results are normally available 6 to 7 weeks after the end of the previous Semester.
• The results are analyzed on the basis of the number of respondents to each question. Customers are invited to express their satisfaction using a 5 point response scale. The results are presented showing the percentage of customers for each satisfaction level, as well as in the form of a mean score out of 5.
• The raw data is weighted in order for the results to be representative of the seat capacity per airline between SkyTeam hubs. On the following page the table presents the non-weighted and weighted summer semester 2008 sample. Due to the very big differences in the proportion of questionnaires per airline compared to the seat capacity, we have fixed maximum and minimum limits of respectively 5.0 and 0.1 in the weighting calculation, in order to avoid a too great distortion of the sample structure.
• In order to compare the 2008 and 2007 results on a like to like basis, we have applied a second weighting to the 2008 results for the questionnaires from the 10 airlines common to both years. In the trends chapter the overall 2008 results are not identical to the results in the rest of the report due to the application of this specific weighting on a smaller sample size. However, the 2008 results are comparable to the 2007 results.
• All results in this report are based on weighted results.
MethodologyA self-completion customer satisfaction tracking survey, bi-annual results analysis
5
MethodologyThe weighting is based on seats capacity per airline between SkyTeam hubs
Non weighted base Percentage Weighted
base Percentage Applied Weight
Korean Air 4334 17% 2584 10% 0,60Air France 958 4% 4812 19% 5,02Northwest 2465 10% 2508 10% 1,02Continental 548 2% 2786 11% 5,08KLM 289 1% 1393 5% 4,82Delta 236 1% 1140 4% 4,83Alitalia 1091 4% 2710 11% 2,48Czech Airlines 2028 8% 2280 9% 1,12Aeroflot 1061 4% 1140 4% 1,07Aeromexico 1402 6% 253 1% 0,18China Southern 2918 12% 1064 4% 0,36Copa Airlines 307 1% 963 4% 3,14Air Europa 7285 29% 1393 5% 0,19Kenya Airways 433 2% 329 1% 0,76TOTAL 25355 100% 25355 93% 1,00
Non weighted base Percentage Weighted
base Percentage Applied Weight
Korean Air 4334 30% 1355 9% 0,31Air France 958 7% 3604 25% 3,76Northwest 2465 17% 1326 9% 0,54Continental 548 4% 2738 19% 5,00KLM 289 2% 1441 10% 4,99Delta 236 2% 749 5% 3,17Alitalia 1091 8% 1369 9% 1,25Czech Airlines 2028 14% 1211 8% 0,60Aeroflot 1061 7% 331 2% 0,31Aeromexico 1402 10% 288 2% 0,21TOTAL 14412 100% 14412 100% 1,00
Weighting based on 14 companies applied to the summer semester 2008 results
Weighting based on 10 companies applied to the summer semester 2008 results compared to 2007.
6
Sample structure (Non-weighted base)City pairs sampled by airlines
Aeromexico Air France Alitalia Czech Airlines Delta Korean Air Continental KLM Northwest China Southern Kenya Airways Aeroflot Air Europa Copa Airlines ALLSHORT HAULJFK-MEX : 235 CDG-PRG : 21 AMS-FCO : 36 AMS-PRG : 113 MEX-JFK : 21 NRT-ICN : 242 IAH-PTY : 34 AMS-FCO : 52 NRT-ICN : 250 NRT-ICN : 2 AMS-SVO : 40 CDG-AGP : 1101 JFK-PTY : 21
MEX-JFK : 224 CDG-FCO : 62 CDG-FCO : 38 CDG-PRG : 181 ICN-NRT : 288 EWR-PTY : 10 AMS-SVO : 9 ICN-NRT : 213 NRT-CAN : 300 CDG-SVO : 88 CDG-MAD : 8 MEX-PTY : 32
MEX-LAX : 242 CDG-SVO : 44 PRG-FCO : 35 PRG-AMS : 133 NRT-GUM : 154 FCO-AMS : 21 DTW-MEX : 90 ICN-CAN : 153 PRG-SVO : 47 CDG-VLC : 298 LAX-PTY : 10
LAX-MEX : 208 PRG-CDG : 15 FCO-AMS : 26 PRG-CDG : 242 GUM-NRT : 171 MEX-DTW : 46 CAN-NRT : 385 FCO-SVO : 19 AGP-CDG : 1100 PTY-JFK : 25
FCO-CDG : 43 FCO-CDG : 124 PRG-FCO : 260 PTY-IAH : 24 MEX-LAX : 2 CAN-ICN : 230 SVO-AMS : 68 MAD-CDG : 7 PTY-MEX : 41
SVO-CDG : 27 FCO-PRG : 88 PRG-SVO : 230 PTY-EWR : 8 SVO-CDG : 126 MAD-ORY : 661 PTY-LAX : 26
AGP-CDG : 4 FCO-SVO : 121 FCO-PRG : 233 SVO-PRG : 151 VLC-CDG : 329
SVO-FCO : 79 SVO-PRG : 214 SVO-FCO : 112 ORY-MAD : 660
TOTAL SH 909 216 547 1606 21 530 401 82 601 1070 0 651 4114 307 11055LONG HAULCDG-MEX : 263 CDG-IAH : 121 EWR-FCO : 36 JFK-PRG : 198 CDG-JFK : 45 CDG-ICN : 295 AMS-IAH : 18 AMS-JFK : 15 AMS-MSP : 78 AMS-CAN : 438 AMS-NBO : 50 JFK-SVO : 20 MAD-CUN : 574
JFK-CDG : 1 CDG-ATL : 74 JFK-FCO : 79 PRG-JFK : 224 JFK-CDG : 36 ATL-ICN : 283 AMS-EWR : 19 AMS-NRT : 37 AMS-DTW : 74 CDG-CAN : 102 CDG-NBO : 309 NRT-SVO : 121 MAD-HAV : 535
MEX-CDG : 229 CDG-JFK : 27 FCO-EWR : 95 JFK-FCO : 17 JFK-ICN : 265 CDG-IAH : 10 AMS-ICN : 10 NRT-MSP : 200 LAX-CAN : 228 NBO-AMS : 54 SVO-JFK : 115 MAD-SDQ : 607
CDG-MEX : 55 FCO-JFK : 138 JFK-MXP : 51 PRG-ICN : 262 CDG-EWR : 14 AMS-MEX : 43 NRT-DTW : 224 CAN-AMS : 651 NBO-CDG : 20 SVO-NRT : 154 CUN-MAD : 477
IAH-CDG : 69 FCO-NRT : 68 FCO-ATL : 10 FCO-ICN : 187 IAH-CDG : 10 ATL-AMS : 12 NRT-LAX : 261 CAN-CDG : 160 HAV-MAD : 486
ATL-CDG : 245 NRT-FCO : 80 MXP-JFK : 41 NRT-LAX : 250 EWR-AMS : 11 NRT-AMS : 20 MSP-AMS : 23 CAN-LAX : 269 SDQ-MAD : 492
JFK-CDG : 79 NRT-MXP : 48 SVO-JFK : 15 ICN-CDG : 268 EWR-CDG : 23 MEX-AMS : 70 MSP-NRT : 84
MEX-CDG : 72 ICN-ATL : 297 MSP-ICN : 2
ICN-JFK : 284 DTW-AMS : 211
ICN-PRG : 325 DTW-CDG : 131
ICN-FCO : 243 DTW-NRT : 346
ICN-LAX : 295 LAX-NRT : 230
LAX-NRT : 291
LAX-ICN : 259
TOTAL LH 493 742 544 422 215 3804 147 207 1864 1848 433 410 3171 0 14300Total other - - - - - - 42 - - - - - - 152 194
TOTAL 1402 958 1091 2028 236 4334 548 289 2465 2918 433 1061 7285 307 25355
7
Guidelines in interpreting the results
A customer’s overall satisfaction at a given moment in time is influenced to a greater or lesser extent by SkyTeam’s performance on the detailed service attributes. It is this overall state of satisfaction that influences a customer’s loyalty and recommendation behaviour. By improving its performance on attributes that strongly influence customers’ overall satisfaction, SkyTeam will increase most efficiently loyalty and positive word of mouth communication.
In general, a dissatisfied customer expresses his dissatisfaction among 4 times more people than a satisfied customer expresses his satisfaction. A first objective of satisfaction surveys is to achieve a proportion of satisfied customers that is 4 times greater than the proportion of dissatisfied customers. In this way, the phenomena of word of mouth communication is controlled and negative communication does not exceed the reality.
The loyalty and recommendation behaviour is quite different between a customer who is totally satisfied and a customer who is only partially satisfied. In general, a customer who is totally satisfied is twice as likely to certainly use the service again and twice as likely to certainly recommend the service than a customer who is only partly satisfied.
Therefore, a double objective is required:
• Reduce customer dissatisfaction so as to reduce disloyalty and negative word of mouth.• Transform customers from a state of partial satisfaction to a state of total satisfaction.
8
Guidelines in interpreting the results
Partial and total dissatisfaction should be analyzed as a whole. A dissatisfied customer is likely to be disloyal and to promote disloyalty among others. Dissatisfaction that exceeds 15% of the customer base requires an improvement action.
The level of priority for the action will depend on the relative contribution of the attribute to overall satisfaction. It is almost impossible to totally eliminate dissatisfaction. If dissatisfaction concerns only a very small minority of the customer base (less than 5%), additional investment to further reduce this proportion is in most cases not justified.
Partial and total satisfaction should be analyzed separately. An often fixed objective is to dispose of more customers “totally satisfied” than “partially satisfied”.
The mean score represents the level of customer satisfaction using one value (on a scale from 1 to 5). The scores should be interpreted in the following way: 4.5 or more is a Very Good score, 4 to 4.5 is Good, 3.5 to 4 is Fair, 3.0 to 3.5 is Poor and less than 3.0 is Very Poor.
Differences between mean scores are statistically significant if they are of at least a 10th of a point and if they are calculated on a base of 500 answers or more. When the answer base is between 50 and 500, a gap of at least 0.2 between mean scores is required before it is considered significant. Mean scores are presented with two decimals so that significant differences between scores can be clearly seen. Results on smaller answer bases require a bigger difference in the mean score to be considered significantly different. Results are not presented if the number of observations is less than 50.
9
75%64% 60% 57% 56% 50% 48% 44% 44%
34% 33%
60%
52% Average awareness among SkyTeam Airline Nationals
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Czech French Mexican Korean Panamanian American Italian Dutch Spanish Russian Chinese JapaneseCustomer Nationality
Perc
enta
ge Y
es
99% 97% 97% 95% 95% 92% 91% 90% 84% 78% 77%69%
90% Average awareness among SkyTeam Airline Nationals
Elite/Elite+
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
French Czech Russian Mexican Italian Dutch Spanish American Korean Japanese Panamanian ChineseCustomer Nationality
Perc
enta
ge Y
es
Alliance Awareness by customer nationalityQ24 – Prior to this trip, were you aware of the SkyTeam alliance?
Tota
lEl
ite/E
lite+
52% of SkyTeam Airline nationals were aware of the SkyTeam alliance before boarding. Czech (75%) and French (64%) still have the highest awareness score whereas Chinese (34%) and Japanese (33%) have the lowest scores. Elite/ Elite+ passengers have clearly a higher awareness (90% on average), but Chinese Elite/ Elite+ passengers (69% awareness) are less likely than others to know the SkyTeam alliance.
Kenyan results are not displayed due to a base <50
Kenyan results are not displayed due to a base <50
10
Alliance Awareness by Airline Frequent Flyer ProgramQ24 – Prior to this trip, were you aware of the SkyTeam alliance?
77% 76% 70% 69% 68% 64% 63% 62% 60% 56% 55% 50% 49%42%
30%19%
93% 88%
35%
Mean: 53.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Air Fra
nce
Aeromexic
o
Czech A
irline
s
Kenya
Airw
ays
KLMAlita
lia
Northwes
t
Korean
Air
Contin
ental
Aeroflo
tDelt
a
Copa Airli
nes
Air Eur
opa
China S
outhern
Other
None
Elite P
lus EliteNon
e
Frequent Flyer Program
Perc
enta
ge Y
es
Awareness of the SkyTeam alliance among the total sample is 53,6%. Air France / KLM remains the leading FFP with an awareness score of 77%. China Southern obtains the lowest score (42%). Awareness is greater among Elite plus passengers than Elite passengers (93% Vs 88%).
11Not at all satisfied Not satisfied Neither satisfied,
nor dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied
Respondent base: Aware of SkyTeam before the trip
Overall rating SkyTeam benefitsQ25-8 Your overall satisfaction with SkyTeam alliance benefits?
19%
47%
48%
48%
30%
30%
29%
28%
19%
19%
20%
3%
2%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
48%
30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Overall rating of SkyTeam alliancebenefits
First / Business Class
Elite / Elite +
3 roundtrips and more
4.04
4.00
3.98
4.02
Mean
77% of the passengers are satisfied overall with the alliance benefits and only 4% are dissatisfied. Moreover, the overall satisfaction mean score passes the 4.0 threshold. There is no significant differences in overall satisfaction between the different passenger groups Elite/ Elite+, frequent travellers and First/Business.
12
Respondent base: Aware of SkyTeam before the trip
Not at all satisfied Not satisfied Neither satisfied,nor dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied
Overall rating SkyTeam benefitsQ25-8 Your overall satisfaction with SkyTeam alliance benefits: analyzed by Operating Airline
13%
17%
21%
21%
19%
17%
22%
16%
16%
22%
22%
23%
3%
4%
4%
4%
4%
6%
47%
46%
44%
47%
47%
47%
51%
43%
46%
54%
53%
48%
53%
48%
30%
51%
42%
38%
32%
30%
29%
27%
33%
29%
25%
25%
25%
21%
21%
13%
14%
19%
3%
5%
2%
3%
4%
1%
3%
3%
2%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
34%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total
Continental
Copa Airlines
Aeromexico
China Southern
Northwest
KLM
Czech Airlines
Delta
Korean Air
Kenya Airways
Air France
Aeroflot
Air Europa
Alitalia
4.02
4.34
4.29
4.12
4.07
4.03
4.02
4.01
4.00
4.00
3.97
3.96
3.90
3.88
3.79
Mean
There are significant differences between Airlines for the overall rating of SkyTeam benefits. Continental has the best mean score with 4.34. Five out of fourteen airlines have a score below 4.0. Aeroflot, Air Europa and Alitalia are somewhat detached from the others with the lowest mean scores (respectively 3.90, 3.88 and 3.79).
13
Respondent base: Aware of SkyTeam before the trip
Not at all satisfied Not satisfied Neither satisfied,nor dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied
Q27 - SkyTeam benefits
12%
18%
22%
21%
25%
5%
47%
37%
36%
42%
45%
40%
37%
30%
40%
46%
43%
34%
28%
32%
27%
19%
12%
16%
7%
3%
1%
3%
3%
4%
3%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
3%
46%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Overall rating of SkyTeam alliance benefits
Number of destinations served
Ability to check-in for entire trip at originating city
Ability to earn and redeem miles on any SkyTeam airline
Access to lounges worlwide
Coordination of flight schedules and convenience of connections
Ability of any employee of a SkyTeam airline to address your needs
Consistent service at the airport no matter which SkyTeam airline I fly with
4.02
4.23
4.22
4.14
4.03
3.95
3.96
3.79
Mean
For passengers, the most satisfying SkyTeam benefit is the number of destinations served (with 86% of passengers being satisfied), just ahead of the ability to check-in only once for the entire trip (83%) and the ability to earn and redeem miles on any SkyTeam airline (79%). Three other benefits are less satisfactory (with mean scores below 4.0), and the airport service consistency whatever the airline used is clearly the least appreciated.
14
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
Respondent base: SkyTeam Elite or Elite Plus members
Detailed Elite (Plus) benefitsQ23 Please rate the following special services you received as a SkyTeam Elite/Elite Plus member?
17%
15%
19%6%
30%
27%
31%
28%
29%
50%
45%
45%
42%
45%
40%
12%
17%
18%
4%
6%
6%
5%
6%
5%
4%
5%
6%
6%
7%
28%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Priority check-in at dedicatedcounters
Special recognition from cabincrew on board when traveling in
First/Business class
Preferred seating on this trip
Priority baggage handling
Priority boarding for this trip
Priority baggage handling: Elite+passengers only
4.18
4.04
4.00
3.99
3.98
3.90
Mean
The priority check-in is still the most satisfactory Elite/Elite+ special service (4.18 mean score) but Elite/Elite+ passengers are less satisfied about Priority boarding. Thanks to the combination of a relatively high proportion of passengers “very satisfied” and a slight rate of “not at all satisfied”, the mean scores of “special recognition from cabin crew” and “preferred seating on this trip” reach the 4.0 threshold.
15
Q21 Services when making a connection with another SkyTeam Airline
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
Respondent base: Passengers who made a connection with another SkyTeam airline
Satisfaction mean scores in terms of services offered for interconnecting passengers remain below 4.0, with significant proportions of dissatisfied passengers. The time between connecting flights is significantly less satisfactory than the ease of transfer between connecting flights and the Airline staff assistance during transfer.
17%
35%
32%
34%
36%
33%
16%
20%
10%
7%
6%
8%
7%
5%
34%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Airline staff assistance duringtransfer
Ease of transfer betweenconnecting flights
Time between connecting flight
3.87
3.85
3.71
Mean
16
4.07 4.01 3.98 3.854.164.214.214.274.304.314.414.494.50
Mean: 4.23
2
3
4
5
Korean Air ChinaSouthern
CzechAirlines
KLM Air France Aeromexico Continental Air Europa KenyaAirways
Northwest Aeroflot Delta Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
Overall rating SkyTeam airline performance by Operating AirlineQ26 Overall satisfaction with all ground and in-flight services offered for today’s flight.
LONG HAUL - First Business Class
LONG HAUL - Economy Class
During long haul flights, satisfaction of First/Business Class passengers is higher than for those flying in Economy Class for all airlines except China Southern and KLM. Korean Air and Continental are the best scoring airlines among First/Business class passengers, Korean Air also among Economy class, while Alitalia and Delta Airlines obtain the lowest mean scores for both classes.
4.10 4.084.174.194.234.324.354.384.384.414.534.62
Mean: 4.37
2
3
4
5
Korean Air Continental Northwest ChinaSouthern
CzechAirlines
Air France Air Europa Aeroflot KenyaAirways
KLM Alitalia Delta
Mea
n sc
ore
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires, AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
17
Overall rating SkyTeam airline performance by Operating AirlineQ26 Overall satisfaction with all ground and in-flight services offered for today’s flight.
SHORT HAUL – First Business Class
SHORT HAUL – Economy Class
4.54 4.54 4.50 4.37 4.35 4.28 4.08 4.06 3.82 3.71
Mean: 4.32
2
3
4
5
Continental Copa Airlines KLM Northwest Aeroflot Czech Airlines Air Europa ChinaSouthern
Air France Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
4.17 4.08 3.90 3.804.184.184.244.254.254.274.284.444.58
Mean: 4.19
2
3
4
5
CopaAirlines
Korean Air Continental Aeroflot CzechAirlines
KLM ChinaSouthern
Northwest Aeromexico Air France Delta Alitalia Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
On Short Haul flights the overall scores are good. First/Business Class passengers are more satisfied than Economy Class passengers except for China Southern, Air France and Alitalia where it is the opposite. Continental and Copa Airlines have the best mean scores among First/Business Class whereas Alitalia has the lowest. Copa Airlines also performs best among Economy Class whereas Air Europa has the lowest score.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. Korean Air, AeroMexico and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
18
Respondent base: Passengers who used the phone reservation service
Q11-1 Overall satisfaction with the airline telephone reservation service
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
On the whole, passengers are very satisfied with the airline telephone reservation service. The satisfaction scores are above 4.05 for all airlines, and passenger dissatisfaction is quite low.Copa Airlines and Continental are above the others with mean scores respectively of 4.57 and 4.53.
9%
10%
7%
7%
6%
10%
13%
3%
12%
2%
6%
7%
32%
26%
34%
31%
31%
23%
35%
43%
31%
36%
31%
45%
40%
56%
73%
67%
59%
60%
59%
62%
56%
49%
58%
51%
53%
44%
40%
8%
10%
6%
6%
3%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
4%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
4%
1%
2%
1%
2%
2%
1%
3%
2%
16%
30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Overall satisfaction with thephone reservation service
Copa Airlines
Continental
Korean Air
Air Europa
Czech Airlines
Northwest
Aeromexico
China Southern
Delta
Air France
Aeroflot
KLM
Alitalia
4,38
4,57
4,53
4,49
4,46
4,45
4,41
4,41
4,39
4,38
4,33
4,32
4,22
4,07
Mean
Kenya Airways is not displayed due to a base <50.
19
Respondent base: Passengers who used the airline website
Q14-1 Overall satisfaction with the airline website experience
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
8%
9%
11%
10%
11%
9%
13%
12%
16%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
2%
44%
31%
37%
48%
46%
40%
51%
52%
53%
53%
55%
55%
47%
45%
56%
61%
52%
44%
45%
47%
37%
37%
36%
35%
32%
30%
33%
6%
9%
2%
9%
7%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
43%
30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Overall satisfaction withwebsite experience
Copa Airlines
Continental
Northwest
Czech Airlines
Korean Air
Delta
Aeromexico
Air France
Aeroflot
KLM
China Southern
Air Europa
Alitalia
4.31
4.54
4.51
4.37
4.35
4.35
4.32
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.18
4.17
4.09
4.08
Mean
Generally high levels of satisfaction about the airlines website experience, but with significant differences between the airlines. Copa Airlines has the highest mean score again, followed by Continental. All but two of the other airlines have scores that are quite close together, between 4.37 and 4.17. Air Europa and Alitalia are the only airlines with a mean score below 4.10.
Kenya Airways is not displayed due to a base <50.
20
Q18 Your overall airport experience by check-in airport (1/2)
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
Respondent base: All passengers
Satisfaction levels with the overall airport experience vary significantly between check-in airports. Houston, Panama City and Seoul are in the lead, with mean scores exceeding 4.40. For half of the airports customer dissatisfaction remains very marginal (less than 5%) and the proportion of customers very satisfied varies from one third almost up to two thirds.
Nairobi is not displayed due to a base <50
8%
11%
10%
11%
7%
9%
21%
9%
18%
14%
3%
3%
3%
40%
36%
39%
33%
38%
41%
40%
45%
44%
30%
56%
41%
48%
38%
62%
55%
52%
54%
49%
46%
47%
44%
42%
46%
31%
38%
34%
12%
7%
12%
15%
2%
4%
2%
3%
1%
4%
1%
2%1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
25%
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Your overall experience
Houston
Panama City
Seoul
Detroit
Atlanta
Prague
Minneapolis
Amsterdam
Beijing
Guam
New York Newark
Tokyo
Canton
4.07
4.50
4.44
4.42
4.39
4.32
4.30
4.30
4.28
4.22
4.17
4.15
4.14
4.11
Mean
21
Q18 Your overall airport experience by check-in airport (2/2)
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
Respondent base: All passengers
18%
21%
17%
20%
23%
14%
22%
28%
22%
29%
6%
6%
17%
40%
45%
35%
40%
39%
54%
47%
42%
45%
46%
38%
50%
30%
38%
34%
33%
41%
35%
33%
22%
27%
29%
30%
25%
25%
17%
15%
17%
16%
14%
15%
10%
6%
4%
5%
5%
6%
3%
3%
4%
5%
5%
3%
3%
1%
2%
2%
5%
2%
3%
2%
10%
3%
1%
2%
2%
48%
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Your overall experience
Milan
Cancun
Los Angeles
New York JFK
Mexico
Valencia
Madrid
Santo Domingo
Paris
Malaga
Rome
Barcelona
Moscow
4.07
4.07
4.06
4.05
3.98
3.93
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.89
3.86
3.75
3.70
3.23
Mean
Approximately one third of check-in airports obtain a mean score below the 4.0 threshold. Rome, Barcelona and especially Moscow are rather detached from the other airports, with mean satisfaction scores less than 3.8.
22
Q18 Detailed customer satisfaction in respect to the airport experience
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
Respondent base: All passengers
12%
13%
15%
14%
20%
15%
20%
40%
33%
34%
36%
38%
33%
34%
28%
30%
38%
52%
50%
46%
43%
40%
42%
37%
41%
30%
15%
12%
12%
6%
6%
4%
4%
3%
5%
5%
5%
9%
10%10%
2%
2%
2%
4%
3%
2%
5%
3%
8%
31%
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Your overall airport experience
Friendliness of check-in staff
Language skills of check-in staff
Efficiency of check-in process
Efficiency of boarding process
Signs directing you to check-in area
Wait time for check-in
Signs directing you to the lounge
On time departure
If flight was delayed, information about the delay from airline gate staff
4.07
4.27
4.26
4.13
4.11
4.10
4.01
3.95
3.85
3.59
Mean
In comparison with the same semester last year, very similar results are observed: passengers are most satisfied with the check-in staff (friendliness & language skills). They are less satisfied with the information provided by airline gate staff in case of a delay and with the on-time departure. These two items, and “signs directing you to the lounge” obtain mean scores below the 4.0 threshold.
23
Q20 Services for the lounge you visited
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
Respondent base: Passengers who visited an airport lounge before boarding the flight
The overall level of services offered within the airport lounge is not entirely satisfactory. The mean score is below 4.0. Elite+ passengers have lower satisfaction, which may be caused by having higher expectations. In more detail, the condition & cleanliness of the lounge and its staff friendliness obtain more satisfactory results. There is significant passenger dissatisfaction with services: Internet facilities and the selection of newspapers/ magazines.
17%
18%
20%
24%
8%
9%
11%
37%
36%
35%
32%
25%
29%
36%
31%
41%
40%
39%
37%
29%
17%
20%
19%
6%
4%
5%
5%
8%
8%
3%
4%
2%
4%
3%
41%
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Your overall airportlounge experience
Your overall airport lounge experience: Elite+ passengers only
Friendliness of lounge staff
Condition and cleanliness of the lounge
Comfort and spaciousness
Internet facilities
Selection of newspapers/magazines
3.97
3.89
4.10
4.04
3.95
3.73
3.65
Mean
24
4.254.354.69 4.65 4.56 4.52 4.52 4.51 4.48 4.46 4.44 4.43
Mean: 4.52
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Korean Air Continental ChinaSouthern
Northwest Air France Aeroflot Air Europa CzechAirlines
Delta KLM KenyaAirw ays
Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
First/Business Class passengers tend to be more satisfied than Economy Class passengers with the Long haul in-flight experience. However, satisfaction levels differ significantly between airlines: among both classes, Korean Air obtains the highest scores whereas Alitalia and Kenya Airways are rather detached from the other airlines for Business Class and Alitalia also for Economy Class.
Q21-1 Overall satisfaction with the Long Haul in-flight experience: analyzed by Operating Airline and Class.
LONG HAUL - First Business Class
LONG HAUL – Economy ClassCopa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
25
4.69 4.64 4.64 4.55 4.47 4.43 4.40 4.32 4.31 3.98
Mean: 4.51
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Continental Copa Airlines Aeroflot CzechAirlines
Northwest KLM Air France Air Europa ChinaSouthern
Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
Continental obtains the highest scores among F/B Class, closely followed by Copa and Aeroflot. Alitalia is detached by more than 0.3 points from the other airlines. In Economy class, Copa Airlines and Korean Air have the best scores, whereas Air Europa and Alitalia stand out with the lowest ones.
Q21-1 Overall satisfaction with the Short Haul in-flight experience: analyzed by Operating Airline and Class.
SHORT HAUL - First Business Class
SHORT HAUL – Economy Class
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. Korean Air, AeroMexico and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
26
Almost half of all passengers are extremely likely to recommend the operating airline to a friend or colleague. Copa Airlines stands out with the highest level of recommendation. The majority of airlines obtain an “extremely likely” score of more than 50%. Alitalia is somewhat detached from the other airlines with a mean score less than 4.0.
Q27 Recommendation of the airline to a friend or colleague(by operating airline)
6%
10%
10%
9%
11%
12%
12%
15%
15%
16%
19%
3%
3%
3%
6%
3%
36%
20%
36%
36%
37%
35%
34%
31%
38%
31%
35%
38%
39%
33%
49%
74%
57%
55%
51%
51%
52%
54%
47%
51%
46%
41%
40%
37%
12%
4%
6%
3%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
2%
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
5%
30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Recommendation of the airline
Copa Airlines
Korean Air
Czech Airlines
KLM
Air France
Aeromexico
China Southern
Kenya Airways
Aeroflot
Delta
Air Europa
Northwest
Alitalia
4.27
4.68
4.48
4.43
4.36
4.33
4.31
4.35
4.28
4.25
4.21
4.13
4.13
3.93
Mean
Not at all likely Fairly unlikely Neither likely, nor unlikely Fairly likely Extremely likely
Continental is not displayed due to a base < 50
27
The recommendation intention for the SkyTeam alliance is slightly lower overall than it is for the airline. This overall trend is repeated for each airline except for AeroMexico, Air Europa and Alitalia that show a slightly higher mean score for the alliance. The recommendation results of the alliance by operating airline are nevertheless very similar to the recommendation of the airline.
Q28 Recommendation of the Skyteam alliance to a friend or colleague (by operating airline)
Continental is not displayed due to a base < 50
10%
12%
13%
14%
15%
15%
17%
17%
18%
20%
22%
2%
3%
3%
4%
38%
26%
39%
36%
39%
39%
37%
34%
41%
35%
35%
38%
39%
36%
44%
68%
49%
50%
47%
45%
46%
48%
41%
46%
45%
39%
37%
35%
15%
6%
10%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
2%
1%1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
1%
3%
30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Recommendation of the Skyteam alliance
Copa Airlines
Czech Airlines
Aeromexico
Korean Air
Kenya Airways
Air France
China Southern
Air Europa
KLM
Aeroflot
Delta
Northwest
Alitalia
4.22
4.61
4.34
4.32
4.31
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.17
4.24
4.19
4.09
4.08
3.96
Mean
Not at all likely Fairly unlikely Neither likely, nor unlikely Fairly likely Extremely likely
28
Main Conclusions
• SkyTeam Alliance Awareness• When comparing S2 2008 to S2 2007, the overall Alliance awareness among all SkyTeam passengers has decreased
from 54% to 52%. Two significant evolutions concern a decrease in awareness among French and Dutch passengers. • Czech passengers are still the most aware of SkyTeam (3 quarters being aware of the Alliance). On the other hand,
less than half of Dutch and Russian passengers, and only a third of Japanese passengers knew about SkyTeam before the flight.
• SkyTeam Alliance benefits• No significant evolution is to be reported in both the overall and the detailed satisfaction with the SkyTeam Alliance
benefits. However, mean scores are higher on all benefits, showing a trend towards improved passenger satisfaction. Differences in satisfaction still appear between the different Airlines: Passengers of Continental and Copa Airlines are the most satisfied overall with the benefits, while those flying with Aeroflot, Air Europa and Alitalia are the least satisfied.
• Among the different benefits provided, the number of destinations served, the ability to check-in the entire trip at the originating city, the ability to earn/redeem miles on flights within the alliance and the access to lounges worldwide are the most satisfactory, with mean scores between 4.23 and 4.03.
• With a mean score of only 3.79, the service consistency at the airport no matter which airline is used remains the least satisfactory benefit.
• The ability of any employee from SkyTeam to address customer needs and the coordination of flight schedules and convenience of connections, still obtain scores slightly lower than 4.0.
• Elite / Elite + special services• A significant positive evolution is observed this Semester on all Elite / Elite + aspects in comparison with S2 2007.
Three of these benefits now reach a mean score of 4.0. Only the benefits priority boarding and priority baggage handling are slightly below the 4.0 threshold.
• Recommendation• About half of the customers extremely likely to recommend operating airline (49%) and SkyTeam Alliance (44%).
29
• Reservations • The telephone reservation service remains satisfactory this Semester: all airlines obtain results above 4.0
(mean score 4.38 out of 5), without significant evolutions. Users of the telephone reservation services of Copa Airlines, Continental and Korean Air show the highest levels of satisfaction.
• Regarding the Airline web site, the experience also remains at a good level (overall mean score of 4.31), users of Copa Airlines and Continental Airlines being the most satisfied.
• Airport services• Overall, the airport experience remains at the same level as last year: the overall satisfaction is at a good
level (4.07 vs 4.04 in S2 2007). Big differences exist depending on the check-in airport considered, which probably explains the dissatisfactions about the service consistency. Houston, Panama City and Seoul have the best scores, Houston and Milan have improved significantly, whereas no airports have decreased significantly.
• During the same period, there has been a small increase in the satisfaction scores on all the services offered at the check-in airports. The language skills and the friendliness of the check-in staff remain the most satisfying aspects, while the information provided in case of a delay and the on-time departure being the less satisfactory aspects.
• Satisfaction with the lounge visited remains slightly below the 4.0 threshold. The scores overall and for each lounge service are almost the same when compared to S2 2007. Improvements are nonetheless expected on the Internet facilities and the selection of newspapers in particular.
• Finally, there have been significant increases in the mean scores for all three services offered for interconnecting passengers compared to S2 2007, with the biggest increase for the ease of transfer between connecting flights (+0.23).
• In-flight Services• First/Business class passengers tend to be more satisfied with overall in-flight services than those flying in Economy
class. In terms of significant evolutions on long haul, Air France has increased for its Economy class passengers and Delta has decreased for F/B class. On short haul, Continental has increased for both classes and Air France has also increased for F/B class.
Main Conclusions
SkyTeam Alliance
TrendsA comparison between Summer 2008 and Summer 2007 on
the basis of the 10 airlines included in the barometer in 2007.
Interpreting the trends results
This trends chapter provides an analysis of how the barometer results have evolved from one year to the next.
The 2008 results have been recalculated using a weighting that allows a comparison with the 2007 results on the basis of an identical sample structure (10 airlines).
Due to this re-calculation, the 2008 results presented in this trends chapter are not necessarily identical to the 2008 results in the rest of this report. This is normal due to the specific weighting applied to the 2008 results used in the trends chapter.
Only results for the total operating airline (the variable on which the weighting is based) are identical in this trends chapter and the rest of this report.
The true 2008 results, corresponding to the actual 14 member Alliance, are presented in the executive summary chapter and in the appendix of this report.
The 2008 scores in this trends chapter should not be interpreted as the 2008 results. The trends chapter has the sole objective of evaluating results evolutions on a like to like sample structure.
32
Alliance Awareness by nationalityQ24 – Prior to this trip, were you aware of the SkyTeam alliance?
73%
77%
53%
56%54%
63%60%60%
43% 36%
45%
60%
52%
56%
46%
60%
76%
63%
32%
52%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
Total Czech French Korean Mexican American Italian Dutch Russian JapaneseNationality
Aw
aren
ess
2S072S08
In comparison with the same semester the previous year, overall awareness has decreased by 2 percentage points: 52% of all passengers knew about the Alliance before the trip. Among different nationalities, it is worth noting the significant decrease in awareness among French and Dutch nationals (respectively -10 & - 17 points).
33
Respondent base: Aware of SkyTeam before the trip
No significant changes in comparison with S2 2007 on the satisfaction with SkyTeam benefits overall, however a trend towards an increase with the mean score passing the 4.0 threshold. When analyzing the results by operating airline, Continental and Aeroflot passengers show an increase in satisfaction.
Overall rating SkyTeam benefitsQ25-8 Your overall satisfaction with SkyTeam alliance benefits: analyzed by Operating Airline
3,72
3,90
3,78
3,973,913,95 3,974,00
4,13 4,13
3,924,02 3,79
4,124,05
4,00 3,964,03 4,00 4,024,01
4,34
3
4
5
Total Continental AeroMexico Northwest Delta CzechAirlines
KLM Korean Air Air France Aeroflot Alitalia
2S072S08
34
Respondent base: Aware of SkyTeam before the trip
Q27 - SkyTeam benefits
Mean scores are slightly higher in 2008 than in 2007 on all of the benefits, showing a clear trend towards improved passenger satisfaction, but it follows the same ranking.
35
Respondent base: SkyTeam Elite or Elite Plus members
As for other benefits, there is a significant positive evolution of the satisfaction on all of the dedicated services for Elite/Elite+ passengers. For each benefit, the mean scores increase by at least 0.10 points.
Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits
Means of 2S07 Evolutions Means of 2S08
n Priority check-in at dedicated counters 4.09 4.23
n Priority boarding for this trip 3.96 4.08
n Preferred seating on this trip 3.94 4.07
n Priority baggage handling 3.94 4.06
n Special recognition from cabin crew on board when traveling in First/Business class
3.94 4.09
36
Means of 2S07 Evolutions Means of
2S08
n Airline staff assistance during transfer 3.79 3.91
n Ease of transfer between connecting flights 3.66 3.89
n Time between connecting flight 3.61 3.71
Q21 Services when making a connection with another SkyTeam AirlineThe evolution in customer satisfaction between S1-2007 and S1-2008 in terms of connection services is positive. The satisfaction mean score for “ease of transfer between connecting flights” increases by more than 0.2 points. For the “airline staff assistance during transfer” and “time between connecting flights” the increase is less important but nevertheless significant (0.1 point).
Respondent base: Passengers who made a connection with another SkyTeam airline
37
First/Business Class Long Haul
4,39
4,04
4,28 4,35
3,97
4,364,34
4,57
4,57
4,384,54
4,41
4,08
4,354,37
4,10
4,62
4,16
3
4
5
Total Korean Air Continental Northwest Czech Airlines Air France KLM Alitalia Delta
2S072S08
Overall satisfaction with all ground and in-flight services offered to First/Business class passengers shows a slight increase overall. For long haul, satisfaction increased significantly among Air France passengers (+0.31) but it decreased among Delta passengers (-0.27). For short haul, it also increased significantly among Continental (+0.21) and KLM passengers (+0.38).
Overall rating SkyTeam airline performance by Operating Airline (1)Q26 Overall satisfaction with all ground and in-flight services offered for today’s flight.
Respondent base: Total
First Business Class Short Haul
3.754.254.314.334.23 3.91
4.10
4.374.48
3.713.78
4.284.364.54
3
4
5
Total Continental KLM Northwest Czech Airlines Air France Alitalia
AeroMexico and Aeroflot are not displayed due to a base <50.
Delta, Korean Air, AeroMexico and Aeroflot are not displayed due to a base <50.
38
Economy class passengers show a small increase in satisfaction on long and short haul flights (+0.10). On short haul flights, Continental and Air France passengers satisfaction have both increased significantly (+0.26). On long haul flights, Air France and AeroMexico passengers show increased satisfaction (respectively +0.40 & +0.21) compared to the same semester last year.
Overall rating SkyTeam airline performance by Operating Airline (2)Q26 Overall satisfaction with all ground and in-flight services offered for today’s flight.
Respondent base: Total
Economy Class Short Haul
3.86
4.104.17
3.94
4.184.174.37
4.114.21
4.02
4.17
3.91
4.284.21
4.44
4.204.25 4.254.26 4.25
3
4
5
Total Korean Air Continental Aeroflot Czech Airlines AeroMexico KLM Air France Northwest Alitalia
Economy Class Long Haul
4.03
4.09
3.783.90
4.244.07
4.074.21
4.12
4.40 4.41
4.24
3.99
3.84
4.50
4.23
4.03
4.304.41
4.21
4.314.07
3
4
5
Total Korean Air CzechAirlines
KLM Air France AeroMexico Continental Northwest Aeroflot Delta Alitalia
2S072S08
Delta is not displayed due to a base <50.
39
Respondent base: Passengers who used the phone reservation service
There is a small change (+0.07) in overall satisfaction with the telephone reservation service on the total sample. Furthermore, each airline shows a higher satisfaction score than the previous year, most notably for AeroMexico (+0.22) and KLM (+0.20), except Alitalia which has a decrease of 0.12 points.
Q11-1 Overall satisfaction with the airline telephone reservation service
4,164,444,37
4,444,33
4,274,32
4,16 4,20
4,45
4,144,04
4,39
4,54 4,49 4,46 4,444,38 4,38 4,35 4,35 4,34
3
4
5
Total Continental Korean Air CzechAirlines
Northwest Delta AeroMexico Air France Aeroflot KLM Alitalia
2S072S08
40
4,10
4,08
4,35
4,39
4,314,44
4,42
4,234,31 4,31
4,24 4,244,33
4,52
4,38 4,37 4,35
4,32
4,26
4,244,18 4,17
3
4
5
Total Continental Northwest Korean Air CzechAirlines
Delta Air France AeroMexico KLM Aeroflot Alitalia
2S072S08
Respondent base: Passengers who used the airline website
Q14-1 Overall satisfaction with the airline website experienceOverall, satisfaction with the airline websites remains at the same good level as for Q2 2007. Each airline shows a good satisfaction level (above 4.0) and the scores are very similar to the previous year. The most notable change is a decrease for AeroMexico (-0.18).
41
3.333.71
4.164.314.29 4.00
3.78
4.22
4.374.04
3.803.93
4.124.04
4.37
4.214.30
4.41
3.22
4.17
4.344.404.42
4.09
3.73
3.913.94
3.914.02
4.14
4.314.33
4.09
4.30
4.54
4.16
3
4
5
Total
HoustonSeo
ul
Detroit
Minneapolis
Atlanta
Prague
Amsterd
amGuam
Tokyo
New York
NewarkMila
n
Los Angele
s
New York
JFK
Paris
Mexico
Rome
Moscow
2S072S08
Q18 Your overall airport experience by check-in airportSatisfaction with the overall airport experience has slightly increased compared to S2 2007, but this is not significant. There are significant differences depending on the check-in airport. Satisfaction has significantly increased at Milan and Paris, whereas the most notable decreases are at Mexico and Moscow airports. Moscow still stands out with a much lower satisfaction score (3.22, and lower than the year before).
Respondent base: All passengers
42
Q18 Detailed customer satisfaction in respect to the airport experienceOn every airport experience aspect, the 2008 mean score is higher than that in S2 2007: the increasing trend in customer satisfaction with the airport experience is clear to see, even though individual evolutions are not statistically significant.
Respondent base: All passengers
Means of 2S07 Evolutions Means of
2S08
n Your overall airport experience 4.04 4.09
n Language skills of check-in staff 4.26 4.28
n Friendliness of check-in staff 4.22 4.29
n Efficiency of check-in process 4.11 4.15
n Efficiency of boarding process 4.07 4.13
n Signs directing you to ckeck-in area 4.07 4.11
n Wait time for check-in 3.97 4.03
n Signs directing you to the lounge 3.90 3.97
n On time departure 3.75 3.84
n If flight was delayed, information about the delay from airline gate staff
3.56 3.60
43
Q20 Services for the lounge you visited
Respondent base: Passengers who visited an airport lounge before boarding the flight
Concerning the overall airport lounge experience, the 2008 mean score is equal to that of S2 2007. On the detailed services there are no significant changes. The services with the lowest scores are “Internet facilities” and “selection of newspapers/magazines”.
Means of 2S07 Evolutions Means of
2S08
n Your overall airport lounge experience 3.99 3.99
n Friendliness of lounge staff 4.07 4.10
n Condition and cleanliness of the lounge 4.07 4.04
n Comfort and spaciousness 3.95 3.97
n Selection of newspapers/magazines 3.69 3.78
n Internet facilities 3.72 3.70
44
No change overall in the long haul in-flight experience for First/business Class passengers and the only significant change at airline level is a decrease for Delta (-0.23). Other trends are an increase for Air France (+0.19) and a decrease for Czech Airlines (-0.15). For Economy Class passengers, there are no major evolutions at an airline level except for Air France (+0.28). Alitalia remains the only airline with a satisfaction level under 4.0.
Q21-1 Overall satisfaction with the Long Haul in-flight experience: analyzed by Class and Operating Airline.
4,48
4,51
4,66
4,20
4,54
4,68
4,32
4,614,74
4,254,434,434,46
4,514,52
4,65
4,69
4,53
3
4
5
Total Korean Air Continental Northwest Air France Czech Airlines KLM Delta Alitalia
2S07
2S08
Long Haul Flights First/Business Class
Long Haul Flights Economy Class
4.17
3.94
4.39
4.20
4.25
4.204.32
4.524.35
4.40
4.62
4.304.16
3.97
4.484.57
4.244.37
4.404.384.55 4.22
3
4
5
Total Korean Air CzechAirlines
Air France KLM Continental Delta AeroMexico Aeroflot Northwest Alitalia
AeroMexico and Aeroflot are not displayed due to a base <50.
45
A small satisfaction increase on short Haul flights for First / Business Class from S2 2007 to S2 2008 (+0.1): The only two significant evolutions are increases for Continental and Air France (both + 0.21). For Economy Class passengers, the only significant evolutions is an increase for Continental (+0.30).
Q21-1 Overall satisfaction with the Short Haul in-flight experience: analyzed by Class and Operating Airline.
Short Haul Flights Economy Class
Short Haul Flights First/Business Class
4.19
4.50
4.45 4.47
4.64
4.33
3.94
4.404.55
4.55 4.47
4.40
4.68
3.98
3
4
5
Total Continental Alitalia Air France Czech Airlines KLM Northwest
2S07
2S08
4.474.26
4.324.50
4.45
4.374.46
4.07
4.42
4.134.40
4.38
4.43
4.514.36 4.37
4.374.26
4.13
4.47
3
4
5
Total Korean Air Aeroflot CzechAirlines
Air France KLM AeroMexico Continental Northwest Alitalia
AeroMexico, Aeroflot, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
Delta is not displayed due to a base <50.
SkyTeam Alliance
Appendices
47
The percentage of customers aware of the SkyTeam alliance does vary significantly according to the Marketing airline. Passengers who purchased their tickets from Alitalia and China Southern have a much lower awareness than other Marketing airlines (respectively 43.8% and 38.3%, the average being 51.8%).
Alliance Awareness analyzed by marketing Airline Q24 – Prior to this trip, were you aware of the SkyTeam alliance?
66.6% 62.5% 58.9% 58.7% 58.4% 57.1% 55.9% 49.1% 48.7% 46.9% 46.5% 45.8% 43.8% 38.3% 30.9%
Mean: 51.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aeromex
ico
Air Fran
ce
Korean A
ir
Northwes
t
Czech
Airli
nes
Kenya A
irway
sKLM
Continen
talDelta
Copa Airlines
Air Euro
pa
Aeroflo
t
Alitalia
China South
ernOther
Perc
enta
ge Y
es
48
Respondent base: Aware of SkyTeam before the trip
Not at all satisfied Not satisfied Neither satisfied,nor dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied
Overall rating SkyTeam benefitsQ25-8 Your overall satisfaction with SkyTeam alliance benefits: analyzed by Marketing Airline
12%
16%
15%
20%
20%
19%
22%
20%
24%
20%
18%
24%
1%
4%
2%
3%
4%
8%
47%
46%
58%
45%
42%
42%
45%
51%
46%
45%
52%
53%
57%
47%
30%
49%
41%
31%
36%
39%
36%
32%
27%
29%
30%
23%
23%
20%
20%
7%
14%
19%
3%
3%
4%
2%
3%
1%
1%
3%
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
35%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Total
Continental
Copa Airlines
Kenya Airways
China Southern
Delta
Aeromexico
Northwest
Czech Airlines
Korean Air
Aeroflot
KLM
Air Europa
Air France
Alitalia
4.02
4.31
4.27
4.18
4.13
4.12
4.11
4.07
4.01
3.99
3.97
3.94
3.94
3.89
3.77
Mean
There are significant differences in customer satisfaction depending on the Marketing airline considered. Continental is leading the way and is closely followed by Copa Airlines. Kenya Airways, China Southern, Delta and Aeroflot all have mean scores of 4.10 or above. KLM, Air Europa, Air France and Alitalia have lower mean scores due to a smaller proportion of “very satisfied” passengers.
49
Continental remains the leader regarding this benefit (4.56), followed by Korean Air (4.36) and Copa Airlines (4.35). Alitalia and Aeroflot stand out with scores significantly lower than the average.
Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits.Q23-1 Priority check-in at dedicated counters analyzed by Operating airline
4.56 4.36 4.35 4.25 4.25 4.12 4.09 4.05 4.04 3.94 3.93 3.84 3.77 3.70
Mean: 4.18
2
3
4
5
Continen
tal
Korean A
ir
Copa Airli
nes
KLM
China Southern
Northwes
t
Czech
Airli
nes
Aeromexic
o
Air Fran
ceDelt
a
Kenya A
irway
s
Air Europ
a
Aeroflo
t
Alitalia
50
Only four airlines show scores above 4.0: Continental, which remains the leader in priority baggage handling for Elite/Elite+ passengers, Korean Air, China southern and Copa Airlines. With mean scores close to 3.50, Air Europa, Aeroflot and Alitalia are significantly lower than the other operating airlines.
Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits. Q23-2 Priority baggage handling analyzed by Operating airline.
4.51 4.22 4.12 4.12 3.97 3.96 3.80 3.79 3.76 3.76 3.73 3.55 3.54 3.50
Mean: 3.99
2
3
4
5
Continen
tal
Korean A
ir
China Southern
Copa Airli
nes
Northwes
tKLM
Aeromexic
o
Czech
Airli
nes
Air Fran
ce
Kenya A
irway
sDelt
a
Air Euro
pa
Aeroflo
t
Alitalia
51
Satisfaction of Elite/Elite+ passengers with priority boarding is linked to the operating airlines.Five airlines stand out with scores below 3.5: Kenya Airways, Czech Airlines, Alitalia, Aeroflot and Air Europa, while Continental is still clearly the leader on this benefit with a mean score of 4.55.
Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits. Q23-3 Priority boarding for this trip analyzed by Operating airline
4.55 4.37 4.24 4.18 4.11 4.08 3.95 3.81 3.66 3.44 3.36 3.26 3.23 3.18
Mean: 3.98
2
3
4
5
Continen
tal
Copa Airli
nes
Northwes
t
Korean A
irKLM
China Southern
Aeromexic
oDelt
a
Air Fran
ce
Kenya A
irway
s
Czech
Airlines
Alitalia
Aeroflo
t
Air Europa
52
On the preferred seating benefit, Continental obtains the best score, significantly ahead of a group of airlines with mean scores greater than 4.0: Copa Airlines, China Southern, Northwest and KLM. The other airlines obtain “fair” scores. Alitalia, Aeroflot and Air Europa are further behind with mean scores under the 3.5 threshold.
Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits.Q23-4 Preferred seating on this trip analyzed by Operating airline.
4.564.26 4.17 4.16 4.08 4.00 3.91 3.81 3.77 3.68 3.64 3.48 3.48 3.44
Mean: 4.00
2
3
4
5
Continen
tal
Copa Airlines
China Southern
Northwes
tKLM
Korean Air
Delta
Aeromexic
o
Czech
Airli
nes
Air Fran
ce
Kenya A
irway
s
Alitalia
Aeroflo
t
Air Euro
pa
53
Continental and Copa Airlines are the leaders on the special recognition from cabin crew. Four other airlines, Korean Air, China Southern, KLM and Czech Airlines obtain a score higher than 4.0. Alitalia is very detached from the others (3.28).
Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits. Q23-5 Special recognition from cabin crew on board when traveling in First / Business class, analyzed by Operating airline.
4,42 4,41 4,30 4,26 4,16 4,10 3,98 3,88 3,74 3,73 3,73 3,733,28
Mean: 4.04
2
3
4
5
Continen
tal
Copa Airli
nes
Korean Air
China SouthernKLM
Czech
Airlines
Aeromexic
o
Northwes
tDelt
a
Air Fran
ce
Air Europ
a
Aeroflo
t
Alitalia
Kenya Airways is not displayed due to a base <50.
54
Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits.Q23-1 Priority check-in at dedicated counters analyzed by check-in airport.
4.774.46 4.32 4.32 4.30 4.29 4.28 4.27 4.26 4.26 4.24 4.23 4.20 4.18 4.09 4.06 4.02 3.88 3.85
3.30
Mean: 4.18
2
3
4
5
GuamBeijin
g
New York JF
KSeo
ul
Panam
a City
Atlanta
Tokyo
Canton
New York Newark
Los Angele
s
Detroit
Prague
Amsterd
am
HoustonRome
Paris
Mexico
Malaga
Madrid
Moscow
On the whole, satisfaction on the priority check-in benefit maintains a high level in the different check-in airports (overall mean score of 4.18). Guam stands out (“very good” mean score), followed by Beijing, while Malaga, Madrid and in particular Moscow have significantly lower scores than the other airports (below 4.0).
Minneapolis, Valencia, Milan, Barcelona and Nairobi are not displayed due to a base <50
55
Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits. Q23-2 Priority baggage handling analyzed by check-in airport.
Guam and Houston are the leaders in terms of priority baggage handling, while Madrid and Moscow have the lowest mean scores and are rather detached from the other airports.
4.684.35 4.21 4.19 4.15 4.14 4.13 4.10 4.08 4.06 4.06 4.02 3.91 3.81 3.76 3.74 3.72
3.533.25
3.74
Mean: 3.99
2
3
4
5
Guam
Houston
New York Newark
Seoul
Tokyo
Canton
Beijing
Los Angele
s
Panam
a City
Amsterd
am
New York JF
K
Detroit
Prague
Atlanta
RomePari
s
Malaga
Mexico
Madrid
Moscow
Minneapolis, Valencia, Milan, Barcelona and Nairobi are not displayed due to a base <50
56
Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits. Q23-3 Priority boarding for this trip analyzed by check-in airportGuam and Houston obtain the best “very good” scores for the priority boarding. Prague, Paris, Madrid, Rome and Malaga have scores between 3.5 and 3.0. Moscow is further behind the other check-in airports, with a satisfaction score from their Elite/Elite+ passengers well below 3.0.
4.64 4.574.34 4.31 4.30 4.24 4.19 4.18 4.13 4.11 4.09 4.06 3.97 3.84
3.50 3.473.28 3.24 3.10
2.82
Mean: 3.98
2
3
4
5
Guam
Houston
Panam
a City
New York Newark
Los Angele
s
Detroit
Tokyo
Seoul
Canton
Atlanta
Amsterd
am
New York JF
K
Beijing
Mexico
Prague
Paris
Madrid
Rome
Malaga
Moscow
Minneapolis, Valencia, Milan, Barcelona and Nairobi are not displayed due to a base <50
57
Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits.Q23-4 Preferred seating on this trip analyzed by check-in airport.Overall, satisfaction is good for over half of the airports with clearly Guam in the lead. Madrid, Paris, Rome, Moscow and Malaga are detached from the other airports, with mean scores of between 3.54 and 3.29.
4.644.28 4.27 4.25 4.20 4.17 4.17 4.12 4.08 4.05 4.02 3.95 3.95 3.83 3.81
3.54 3.52 3.41 3.33 3.29
Mean: 4.00
2
3
4
5
Guam
New York Newark
Tokyo
Beijing
Canton
Houston
Detroit
Panam
a City
Amsterdam
Los Angele
sSeo
ul
Atlanta
New York JF
K
Prague
Mexico
Madrid
Paris
Rome
Moscow
Malaga
Minneapolis, Valencia, Milan, Barcelona and Nairobi are not displayed due to a base <50
58
Respondent base: Passengers who used the airline phone reservation service
Q11-2 Wait time to speak with reservation agent: analyzed by airline phone reservation service
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
18%
12%
10%
17%
14%
15%
10%
17%
18%
31%
8%
12%
7%
7%
7%
14%
12%
38%
27%
32%
42%
40%
43%
35%
37%
46%
50%
30%
36%
24%
39%
55%
53%
52%
43%
42%
38%
41%
39%
31%
26%
34%
25%
27%
13%
9%
8%
14%
8%
4%
7%
4%
2%
4%
2%
5%
5%
7%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
3%
1%
4%
37%
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Wait time to speakwith reservation agent
Copa Airlines
Czech Airlines
Continental
China Southern
Air Europa
Delta
Northwest
Korean Air
Air France
KLM
Aeroflot
Alitalia
Aeromexico
4.02
4.47
4.29
4.25
4.23
4.16
4.06
4.06
4.01
3.96
3.79
3.73
3.51
3.49
Mean
On average, 9% of concerned passengers are dissatisfied with the wait time to speak with the reservation agent. Improvements should be made to reduce this proportion. Copa Airlines is significantly above the overall mean score, with a high proportion of “very satisfied” passengers, followed by Czech Airlines and Continental. Aeroflot, Alitalia and AeroMexico are ranked at the bottom because of a relatively high proportion of dissatisfied passengers.
Kenya Airways is not displayed due to a base <50.
59
Respondent base: Passengers who used the airline phone reservation service
Q11-3 Information given on SkyTeam connection and route options: analyzed by airline phone reservation service
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
8%
14%
16%
14%
11%
20%
13%
34%
10%
19%
2%
11%
11%
36%
32%
36%
37%
41%
43%
25%
36%
27%
49%
23%
37%
37%
45%
58%
56%
49%
48%
43%
40%
53%
46%
47%
33%
40%
38%
32%
14%
15%
11%
12%
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
2%
1%
5%
3%
1%
2%
5%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
25%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Information given on Skyteam connection and route options
Copa Airlines
Continental
Korean Air
Delta
China Southern
Aeroflot
Czech Airlines
Air Europa
Northwest
Air France
KLM
Aeromexico
Alitalia
4.19
4.39
4.38
4.30
4.29
4.25
4.22
4.21
4.20
4.13
4.08
3.96
3.93
3.86
Mean
Satisfaction with information given on SkyTeam connections & route options remains “good” for most airlines’ phone reservation services. KLM, AeroMexico and Alitalia are the only companies with scores below 4.0.
Kenya Airways is not displayed due to a base <50.
60
Respondent base: Passengers who used the airline phone reservation service
Q11-4 Friendliness of staff: analyzed by airline phone reservation service
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
5%
6%
6%
5%
8%
6%
12%
9%
12%
1%
4%
4%
30%
17%
26%
24%
36%
31%
31%
34%
38%
40%
22%
39%
37%
61%
78%
79%
66%
65%
58%
61%
61%
58%
54%
53%
61%
50%
44%
1%
7%
2%
6%
9%
1%
2%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
20%
30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Friendliness of staff
Copa Airlines
Continental
Delta
Czech Airlines
Aeromexico
Korean Air
Air Europa
Aeroflot
Air France
China Southern
Northwest
KLM
Alitalia
4.49
4.76
4.71
4.56
4.52
4.50
4.50
4.49
4.47
4.46
4.44
4.39
4.37
4.17
Mean
Staff friendliness on the phone reservation service is “good” for all airlines (above 4.0). Copa Airlines, Continental, Delta and Czech Airlines exceed the 4.5 threshold, while Alitalia is a little bit detached at the bottom of the ranking.
Kenya Airways is not displayed due to a base <50.
61
Respondent base: Passengers who used the airline phone reservation service
Q11-5 Efficiency of staff: analyzed by airline phone reservation service
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
7%
14%
9%
11%
7%
13%
13%
4%
14%
2%
4%
6%
4%
30%
29%
16%
34%
31%
22%
39%
34%
38%
36%
25%
50%
35%
57%
74%
61%
68%
56%
59%
62%
50%
53%
50%
48%
56%
38%
44%
7%
8%
10%
2%
9%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
4%
1%
2%
2%
1%
3%
3%
3%
1%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
2%
20%
30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Efficiency of staff
Continental
Delta
Copa Airlines
Korean Air
Air Europa
Czech Airlines
China Southern
Aeroflot
Air France
Aeromexico
Northwest
KLM
Alitalia
4.37
4.60
4.47
4.45
4.44
4.44
4.41
4.36
4.34
4.30
4.27
4.25
4.15
4.14
Mean
Efficiency of phone reservation service staff is rarely questioned, and all companies obtain satisfactory results, even though KLM and Alitalia are slightly detached from other airlines.
Kenya Airways is not displayed due to a base <50.
62
Q14-2 Information about SkyTeam connections and route options: analyzed by airline website
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
Respondent base: Passengers who used the airline web site
20%
12%
15%
17%
18%
21%
17%
20%
21%
26%
9%
6%
4%
8%
40%
30%
29%
43%
46%
37%
39%
38%
46%
43%
50%
52%
40%
37%
55%
49%
48%
38%
37%
43%
41%
39%
30%
31%
24%
20%
22%
15%
20%
10%
18%
5%
3%
4%
3%
4%
3%
1%
4%
2%
3%
1%
4%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
34%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Information about Skyteam connections and route options
Copa Airlines
Aeromexico
Continental
Korean Air
Czech Airlines
Delta
Aeroflot
Northwest
Air France
China Southern
KLM
Air Europa
Alitalia
4.08
4.45
4.27
4.22
4.16
4.15
4.15
4.15
4.10
4.02
3.95
3.90
3.82
3.68
Mean
Information provided on Airline websites about SkyTeam connections and route options is satisfactory overall, even if some differences appear depending on the website used: 55% of the concerned passengers are very satisfied with information provided by Copa Airlines. On the other hand, 4 airlines have mean scores below 4.0 and Alitalia is rather detached from the others with a mean of only 3.68.
Kenya Airways is not displayed due to a base <50.
63
Q14-3 User-friendly navigation, ease of use: analyzed by airline website
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
Respondent base: Passengers who used the airline web site
6%
16%
7%
13%
16%
14%
12%
14%
19%
20%
3%
3%
7%
42%
37%
39%
35%
41%
57%
48%
43%
48%
45%
46%
47%
39%
42%
62%
55%
47%
47%
42%
34%
37%
38%
35%
37%
35%
30%
32%
13%
10%
11%
15%
5%
1%
3%
1%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
28%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
User-friendly navigation, ease of use
Copa Airlines
Continental
Czech Airlines
Northwest
Aeromexico
China Southern
Aeroflot
Korean Air
Air France
Delta
KLM
Air Europa
Alitalia
4.22
4.52
4.46
4.30
4.24
4.22
4.22
4.21
4.17
4.15
4.15
4.09
4.01
3.95
Mean
Generally, passengers are satisfied with the user-friendliness of the airline websites, resulting in a “good” mean score. Copa Airlines is in the lead followed by Continental, while Alitalia is slightly lower than the others (below the 4.0 threshold).
Kenya Airways is not displayed due to a base <50.
64
Q17-1 Overall satisfaction with the airport experience: by check-in airport.
4.50 4.44 4.42 4.39 4.32 4.30 4.30 4.28 4.22 4.17 4.15 4.14 4.11 4.07 4.06 4.05 3.98 3.93 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.89 3.863.75 3.70
3.23
Mean: 4.07
3
4
5
Housto
n
Panam
a City
Seoul
Detroit
Atlanta
Prague
Minneap
olis
Amsterd
am
Beijing
Guam
New York
Newark
Tokyo
Canton Mila
n
Cancu
n
Los Angele
s
New York
JFK
Mexico
Madrid
Santo
Domingo
Valencia
Paris
Malaga
Rome
Barcelo
na
Moscow
Mea
n sc
ore
Overall satisfaction with the airport experience is satisfactory for the two thirds of check-in airports. However this semester, ten airports are below the 4.0 threshold. Rome, Barcelona and especially Moscow are rather detached from the other airlines.
Nairobi is not displayed due to a base <50
65
Q17-2 Signs directing you to the check-in area: by check-in airport.
4.53 4.43 4.36 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.354.19 4.13 4.12 4.11 4.09 4.05 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 3.97 3.94 3.92 3.90 3.90 3.85 3.80 3.72 3.67
Mean: 4.10
3
4
5
Housto
nDetr
oit
Panam
a City
Prague
Amsterd
am
New York
Newark
Minneap
olisSeo
ul
Cancu
nGuam
Beijing
Atlanta
Valencia
Tokyo
New York
JFK
Los Angele
s
Canton
Madrid
Santo
DomingoMila
n
Mexico
Barcelo
naPari
s
Malaga
Rome
Moscow
Mea
n sc
ore
Regarding the signs directing passengers to the check-in area, Houston remains the best check-in airport, closely followed by Detroit and Panama City. Nine airports have scores below the 4.0 threshold and four are somewhat detached from the others with scores below 3.9 : Paris, Malaga, Rome and Moscow.
Nairobi is not displayed due to a base <50
66
Q17-3 Signs directing you to the lounge: by check-in airport.
4.29 4.19 4.18 4.17 4.16 4.15 4.11 4.10 4.07 4.06 4.03 3.99 3.98 3.95 3.92 3.92 3.90 3.80 3.77 3.69 3.663.53
3.423.26
Mean: 3.95
3
4
5
Housto
n
Atlanta
Detroit
Seoul
Beijing
Prague
Amsterd
am
Minneap
olis
New York
Newark
Canton Mila
n
Cancu
nToky
o
Panam
a City
New York
JFK
Guam
Los Angele
sPari
s
Barcelo
na
Madrid
Mexico
Rome
Moscow
Malaga
Mea
n sc
ore
The majority of airports don’t reach the 4.0 threshold for the signs directing you to the lounge. Houston obtains the best score whereas Madrid, Mexico, Rome, Moscow and Malaga occupy the last 5 places with mean scores below 3.7.
Nairobi is not displayed due to a base <50
67
Q17-4 Wait time for check-in: by check-in airport.
Satisfaction with the wait time for check-in varies according to the airport, half of the airports obtain mean scores between 4.0 and 4.5. Houston stands out with the best score (4.58) and Moscow stands out with a score that is far detached from the other airports (3.13).
4.584.39 4.39 4.33 4.29 4.28 4.25 4.21 4.20 4.17 4.16 4.13 4.09 4.07 3.98 3.98 3.97 3.96 3.94 3.89 3.82 3.74 3.65
3.52 3.49
3.13
Mean: 4.01
3
4
5
Housto
n
Atlanta
Minneap
olis
Detroit
Milan
Prague
Panam
a City
New York
Newark
Seoul
Amsterd
amGuam
Los Angele
sToky
o
Canton
New York
JFK
Valencia
Beijing
Santo
Domingo
Cancu
nRom
e
Madrid
Malaga
Paris
Barcelo
na
Mexico
Moscow
Mea
n sc
ore
Nairobi is not displayed due to a base <50
68
Q17-5 Efficiency of check-in process: by check-in airport.
4.684.43 4.41 4.37 4.34 4.34 4.34 4.27 4.25 4.24 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.18 4.15 4.14 4.13 4.10 4.07 4.06 4.00 3.99 3.95 3.94 3.91
3.49
Mean: 4.13
3
4
5
Housto
n
Panam
a City
Atlanta
Seoul
Prague
Detroit
Minneap
olisGuam
New York
Newark Mila
n
Amsterd
am
Los Angele
s
Valencia
Tokyo
Malaga
Beijing
Cancu
n
Canton
New York
JFK
Madrid
Mexico
Rome
Barcelo
na
Santo
DomingoPari
s
Moscow
Mea
n sc
ore
Almost all airports are showing “good” passenger satisfaction for the efficiency of the check-in process, except Moscow which is detached for the others.
Nairobi is not displayed due to a base <50
69
Q17-6 Friendliness of check-in staff: by check-in airport.
4.714.48 4.47 4.45 4.43 4.36 4.34 4.32 4.31 4.28 4.28 4.27 4.26 4.24 4.24 4.23 4.22 4.21 4.18 4.18 4.14 4.14 4.10 4.05 4.02
3.79
Mean: 4.27
3
4
5
Housto
n
Beijing
Panam
a City
Atlanta
Seoul
Prague
Amsterdam
Los Angele
s
Detroit
Minneap
olis
Valencia
Milan
Paris
Mexico
GuamToky
oRom
e
Malaga
New York
JFK
New York
Newark
Canton
Madrid
Cancu
n
Santo
Domingo
Barcelo
na
Moscow
Mea
n sc
ore
Friendliness of check-in staff obtains high levels of satisfaction for all airports and the overall mean score is at 4.27. Only Moscow stays below the 4.0 “good” threshold.
Nairobi is not displayed due to a base <50
70
Q17-7 Language skills of check-in staff: by check-in airport.
4.734.58
4.46 4.44 4.44 4.42 4.41 4.37 4.35 4.33 4.31 4.29 4.28 4.28 4.24 4.21 4.20 4.18 4.18 4.14 4.13 4.06 4.05 4.043.82 3.77
Mean: 4.26
3
4
5
Housto
n
Panam
a City
Atlanta
Seoul
Milan
Detroit
Minneap
olis
Los Angele
s
New York
Newark
Amsterdam
Beijing
Guam Paris
Mexico
Prague
Barcelo
naRom
eToky
o
New York
JFK
Madrid
Santo
Domingo
Malaga
Canton
Valencia
Cancu
n
Moscow
Mea
n sc
ore
High satisfaction scores are observed for all airports on the language skills of check-in staff, except for Cancun and Moscow which have a satisfaction score below the 4.0 threshold.
Nairobi is not displayed due to a base <50
71
Q17-8 Efficiency of boarding process: by check-in airport.
4.714.50
4.37 4.37 4.35 4.34 4.29 4.24 4.23 4.19 4.18 4.16 4.16 4.15 4.14 4.09 4.06 4.01 3.91 3.90 3.87 3.84 3.82 3.80 3.78 3.73
Mean: 4.11
3
4
5
Housto
n
Atlanta
Seoul
GuamDetr
oit
Panam
a City
Minneap
olis
New York
Newark
Los Angele
s
Prague
New York
JFK
Beijing
Cancu
nToky
o
Amsterd
am
Canton
Malaga
Santo
Domingo
Mexico
Milan
Paris
Valencia
Madrid
Barcelo
na
Moscow
Rome
Mea
n sc
ore
About two thirds of check-in airports obtain good satisfaction scores on the boarding process efficiency. Houston and Atlanta are in the lead, slightly above a second group of 4 airports with mean scores above 4.3. At the other end of the scale, Mexico, Milan, Paris, Valencia, Madrid, Barcelona, Moscow and Rome have the lowest scores (below 4.0).
Nairobi is not displayed due to a base <50
72
Q17-9 On time departure: by check-in airport.
4.77
4.46 4.40 4.35 4.32 4.27 4.24 4.21 4.16 4.15 4.13 4.08 4.05 4.01 3.97 3.96 3.89 3.88 3.783.55 3.49 3.46 3.42 3.34
3.20 3.12
Mean: 3.85
3
4
5
Housto
nGuam
Atlanta
Beijing
Panam
a City
Canton
Detroit
Los Angele
s
Malaga
Tokyo
Minneap
olisSeo
ul
Cancu
n
Santo
Domingo
New York
Newark Mila
n
Amsterdam
Valencia
Prague
Moscow
Barcelo
na
Mexico Pari
s
Madrid
Rome
New York
JFK
Mea
n sc
ore
Overall, satisfaction with the on-time departure is only at a “fair” level (mean score of 3.85). It is clearly dependent on the check-in airport used by passengers: Houston leads the whole, and thirteen other airports exceed the 4.0 threshold for a “good” score. On the other hand, Moscow, Barcelona, Mexico, Paris, Madrid, Rome and New York JFK are somewhat detached and obtain relatively “poor” results (between 3.12 and 3.55).
Nairobi is not displayed due to a base <50
73
Q17-10 Information about the delay from airline gate staff: by check-in airport.
4.68
4.17 4.13 4.10 4.04 4.01 3.90 3.89 3.85 3.80 3.66 3.63 3.53 3.38 3.35 3.33 3.26 3.20 3.17 3.09 3.03 3.02
Mean: 3.59
2
3
4
5
Housto
nGuam
Atlanta
Seoul
Los Angele
s
Beijing
Canton
Tokyo
Detroit
Panam
a City
New York
JFK
New York
Newark
Prague
Malaga
Amsterd
am
Barcelo
naPari
sMila
n
Mexico
Moscow
Madrid
Rome
Mea
n sc
ore
Passenger satisfaction with the information about the delay from airline gate staff is generally low, with an exception being the very good score for Houston. For 9 airports (Malaga, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Paris, Milan, Mexico, Moscow, Madrid and Rome) the results can be considered as “poor” (means between 3.0 and 3.5).
Nairobi is not displayed due to a base <50
74
4.32 4.29 4.16 4.15 4.14 4.13 4.08 4.06 4.04 4.04 4.03 4.00 4.00 3.84 3.75 3.753.55
3.37 3.28
Mean: 3.97
2
3
4
5
Seoul
Detroit
Prague
Tokyo
Panam
a City
New York
Newark
Atlanta
Amsterd
amPari
sGuam
Canton
New York
JFK
Los Angele
s
Madrid
Mexico
Beijing
Housto
nRom
e
Moscow
Mea
n sc
ore
Q19-1 Overall airport lounge experience: by check-in airport
Respondent base: Passengers who visited an airport lounge before boarding the flight or during a connection
The passenger lounge experience reaches a “good” level of satisfaction for about two thirds of airports. Furthermore, the perception of the service quality is relatively homogeneous across the majority of the airports (11 airports within a mean score range of 0.16). Seoul obtains the highest score (4.32) followed by Detroit, whereas Rome and Moscow check-in airports are clearly behind the others (“poor” mean scores).
Malaga, Milan, Barcelona, Valencia and Nairobi are not displayed due to a base <50
75
4.40 4.39 4.35 4.25 4.23 4.18 4.18 4.18 4.17 4.11 4.10 4.10 4.07 4.02 3.96 3.92 3.84 3.81 3.66
Mean: 4.10
2
3
4
5
Panam
a City
Seoul
Detroit
Atlanta
Canton
Guam
Housto
n
New York
Newark
Prague
Paris
New York
JFK
Los Angele
sToky
o
Amsterd
am
Beijing
Madrid
Rome
Mexico
Moscow
Mea
n sc
ore
Q19-2 Friendliness of lounge staff: by check-in airportFriendliness of lounge staff is “good” for nearly all airports, with results above 4.0, and especially acknowledged by passengers at Panama City, Seoul and Detroit airports. Passengers checking in at Moscow are the least satisfied.
Respondent base: Passengers who visited an airport lounge before boarding the flight or during a connection
Malaga, Milan, Barcelona, Valencia, Minneapolis and Nairobi are not displayed due to a base <50
76
4.36 4.29 4.25 4.25 4.15 4.04 4.03 4.02 4.02 4.00 3.96 3.94 3.91 3.90 3.873.48 3.39 3.30
3.11
Mean: 3.95
2
3
4
5
Seoul
New York
Newark
Tokyo
Detroit
Prague
Atlanta
Paris
New York
JFK
Los Angele
s
Canton
Guam
Amsterdam
Panam
a City
Beijing
Madrid
Mexico
Housto
nRom
e
Moscow
Mea
n sc
ore
Q19-3 Comfort and spaciousness of the lounge: by check-in airportMore than half of the airports reach a “good” mean score of 4.0 or more on this attribute. Mexico, Houston, Rome and Moscow are detached from the others with “poor” mean scores below 3.5.
Respondent base: Passengers who visited an airport lounge before boarding the flight or during a connection
Malaga, Milan, Barcelona, Valencia, Minneapolis and Nairobi are not displayed due to a base <50
77
4.65
4.20 4.11 4.11 4.05 3.98 3.90 3.89 3.86 3.80 3.67 3.66 3.61 3.57 3.563.33 3.30 3.19
2.66
Mean: 3.73
2
3
4
5
GuamDetr
oitSeo
ul
Panam
a City
Tokyo
New York
Newark
Canton
Prague
Los Angele
s
Amsterd
amBeij
ing
Atlanta
Housto
n
Mexico
New York
JFK
Paris
Madrid
Moscow
Rome
Mea
n sc
ore
Q19-4 Internet facilities: by check-in airportGuam is the clear leader in terms of satisfaction regarding the Internet facilities provided in the airport lounge. 4 airports stand out with “poor” or “very poor” scores for the lounge Internet facilities, those being Paris, Madrid, Moscow and Rome.
Respondent base: Passengers who visited an airport lounge before boarding the flight or during a connection
Malaga, Milan, Barcelona, Valencia, Minneapolis and Nairobi are not displayed due to a base <50
78
4.37 4.37 4.26 4.20 4.19 4.19 4.16 4.15 4.09 4.06 4.05 4.03 3.96 3.95 3.87 3.78 3.763.47 3.33
Mean: 4.04
2
3
4
5
Seoul
Detroit
Tokyo
New York
Newark
Prague
Los Angele
s
Panam
a City
Canton
Amsterd
amPari
sGuam
Atlanta
Beijing
New York
JFK
Housto
n
Mexico
Madrid
Moscow
Rome
Mea
n sc
ore
Q19-5 Condition and cleanliness of the lounge: by check-in airportSatisfaction about the cleanliness of the lounge is satisfactory for most airports. Moscow and Rome scores remain below other airports, while Seoul and Detroit obtain the highest scores.
Respondent base: Passengers who visited an airport lounge before boarding the flight or during a connection
Malaga, Milan, Barcelona, Valencia, Minneapolis and Nairobi are not displayed due to a base <50
79
4.09 4.05 3.96 3.86 3.81 3.80 3.80 3.78 3.76 3.76 3.73 3.66 3.61 3.613.36 3.35 3.35 3.31
3.07
Mean: 3.65
2
3
4
5
Seoul
Panam
a City
New York
Newark
Guam
Prague
Amsterd
amDetr
oit
Tokyo
Housto
n
Los Angele
sPari
s
Canton
Atlanta
New York
JFK
Mexico
Rome
Madrid
Beijing
Moscow
Mea
n sc
ore
Q19-6 Selection of newspapers / magazines: by check-in airportThis semester, all airports have a mean score below the 4.0 “good” score threshold except Seoul and Panama City (4.09 and 4.05 respectively). Mexico, Rome, Madrid, Beijing and Moscow airport lounges obtain the lowest scores (all below 4.0).
Respondent base: Passengers who visited an airport lounge before boarding the flight or during a connection
Malaga, Milan, Barcelona, Valencia, Minneapolis and Nairobi are not displayed due to a base <50
80Not at all satisfied Not satisfied
Neither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
Respondent base: Passengers who made a connection with another SkyTeam airline
Detailed transfer itemsQ21 Satisfaction with respect to a SkyTeam airline connection
18%
16%
14%
14%
15%
17%
14%
15%
18%
10%
6%
8%
7%
6%
5%
10%
35%
40%
36%
34%
34%
38%
38%
32%
38%
38%
33%
34%
35%
35%
31%
36%
38%
36%
33%
33%
37%
35%
32%
20%
21%
21%
8%
6%
6%
3%
5%
6%
7%
7%
8%
5%
3%
3%
7%
7%
5%
6%
8%
37%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Airline staff assistance during transfer
First/Business
Elite/Elite +
3 roundtrips and more
Ease of transfer between connecting flights
First/Business
Elite/Elite +
3 roundtrips and more
Time between connecting flight
First/Business
Elite/Elite +
3 roundtrips and more
3.87
3.98
3.98
3.79
3.85
3.92
3.94
3.81
3.71
3.94
3.88
3.69
Mean
Satisfaction regarding airline connections is not entirely satisfactory: between 11% and 18% of passengers are dissatisfied with items related to the transfer. “3 and more roundtrips” passengers tend to be slightly less satisfied than others on all items related to the transfer experience.
81
Q20-1 Time between connecting flights: by transfer airport
Time between connecting flights is rarely satisfactory for the concerned passengers except for Detroit (4.17). Los Angeles and NY JFK obtain “poor” results.
4.173.98 3.95
3.73 3.65 3.64 3.63 3.56 3.453.10
Mean: 3.71
3
4
5
Detroit Paris Tokyo Prague Rome Mexico Atlanta Moscow LosAngeles
New YorkJFK
Mea
n sc
ore
Respondent base: Passengers who made a connection with another SkyTeam airline
Guam, New York Newark, Seoul, Minneapolis, Amsterdam, Panama City, Nairobi, Madrid, Milan, Canton, Houston, Cancun, Malaga, Valencia, Barcelona and Beijing are not displayed due to a base <50
82
Q20-2 Ease of transfer between connecting flights: by transfer airport
3.953.71 3.68
3.553.31 3.28 3.16
4.49
4.194.00
Mean: 3.85
3
4
5
Detroit Tokyo Prague Atlanta Mexico Rome Paris New YorkJFK
Moscow LosAngeles
Mea
n sc
ore
Ease of transfer between connecting flights can be considered as good for Detroit, Tokyo and Prague. NY JFK, Moscow and Los Angeles “transfer” airports are performing less well on this dimension (“poor” scores).
Respondent base: Passengers who made a connection with another SkyTeam airline
Guam, New York Newark, Seoul, Minneapolis, Amsterdam, Panama City, Nairobi, Madrid, Milan, Canton, Houston, Cancun, Malaga, Valencia, Barcelona and Beijing are not displayed due to a base <50
83
4.33 4.26
3.92 3.88 3.833.73 3.72 3.69
3.48
3.02
Mean: 3.87
3
4
5
Detroit Tokyo Paris Prague Mexico Atlanta New YorkJFK
Rome LosAngeles
Moscow
Mea
n sc
ore
Q20-3 Airline staff assistance during transfer: by transfer airport
Only Detroit and Tokyo airports achieve a “good” level of satisfaction in the staff assistance during transfer. Los Angeles and in particular Moscow are behind with “poor” results.
Respondent base: Passengers who made a connection with another SkyTeam airline
Guam, New York Newark, Seoul, Minneapolis, Amsterdam, Panama City, Nairobi, Madrid, Milan, Canton, Houston, Cancun, Malaga, Valencia, Barcelona and Beijing are not displayed due to a base <50
84
Q22 Detailed customer satisfaction in respect to in-flight services: For Long Haul flights analyzed by Class (1)
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
7%
34%
25%
28%
31%
34%
28%
30%
27%
29%
60%
52%
72%
63%
64%
54%
65%
59%
66%
23%
9%
3%
9%
5%
27%
5%
5%
7%
9%
2%
1%
2%
1%
14%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
8%
1%
1%
1%
1% 37%
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Your overall in-flight experience (FB Class)
Your overall in-flight experience (Eco Class)
Friendliness of cabin crew (FB Class)
Friendliness of cabin crew (Eco Class)
Avaibility of cabin crew (FB Class)
Avaibility of cabin crew (Eco Class)
Language skills of cabin crew (FB Class)
Language skills of cabin crew (Eco Class)
Leg room (FB Class)
Leg room (Eco Class)
4.52
4.37
4.67
4.50
4.57
4.39
4.56
4.45
4.56
3.45
Mean
On Long Haul flights, the main difference between Classes remains the leg room available: only half the Economy class passengers are satisfied with this attribute, in comparison with 93% of First / Business class passengers. Also on all other items, F/B class passengers are significantly more satisfied than Economy class passengers.
85
Q22 Detailed customer satisfaction in respect to in-flight services: For Long Haul flights analyzed by Class (2)
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
19%
12%
18%
6%
6%
4%
36%
37%
40%
36%
39%
39%
38%
31%
31%
52%
44%
51%
36%
48%
33%
45%
36%
50%
19%
10%
14%
9%
29%
13%
12%
17%5%
1%
3%
2%
15%
3%
4%
6%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
1%
1%
38%
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Cabin cleanliness (FB Class)
Cabin cleanliness (Eco Class)
Meal quantity (FB Class)
Meal quantity (Eco Class)
Overall meal service (FB Class)
Overall meal service (Eco Class)
Lavatory cleanliness (FB Class)
Lavatory cleanliness (Eco Class)
Seat comfort (FB Class)
Seat comfort (Eco Class)
4.38
4.19
4.37
4.03
4.27
3.92
4.25
3.99
4.23
3.41
Mean
Also “seat comfort” is a satisfaction criteria that greatly dependents varies for the class used: only half of Economy passengers being satisfied (vs. 81% for First/Business passengers). Economy class passengers are also less satisfied than First/Business passengers on all the other items.
86
Q22 Detailed customer satisfaction in respect to in-flight services: For Long Haul flights analyzed by Class (3)
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
20%
15%
20%
8%
10%
38%
32%
30%
35%
30%
33%
28%
41%
31%
43%
27%
39%
35%
40%
34%
18%
21%
15%
17%
25%11%
4%
8%
4%
7%
5%
9%
4%
7%
7%
3%
4%
2%
4%
38%
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Meal quality (FB Class)
Meal quality (Eco Class)
Availability of newspapers,magazines (FB Class)
Availability of newspapers,magazines (Eco Class)
Onboard information about thedelay (FB Class)
Onboard information about thedelay (Eco Class)
Audio / video entertainment (FB Class)
Audio / video entertainment (Eco Class)
4.13
3.85
4.08
3.60
4.00
3.79
3.97
3.68
Mean
Here again, satisfaction levels are higher among First/Business class passengers than those in Economy. The availability of newspapers is the most unsatisfactory aspect for Economy class passengers. The access to audio/video entertainment could also be improved for economy class passengers.
87
Q22 Detailed customer satisfaction in respect to in-flight services: For Short Haul flights analyzed by Class (1)
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
7%
12%
16%
32%
25%
31%
29%
37%
26%
33%
26%
32%
36%
41%
60%
48%
71%
61%
65%
51%
66%
53%
57%
31%
49%
40%
11%
4%
10%
7%
23%
11%
6%
7%
10%
4%
2%
1%
1%
1%
10%
1%
2%
1%
3%
3%
1%
4%
2%
1%
41%
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Your overall in-flight experience (FB Class)
Your overall in-flight experience (Eco Class)
Friendliness of cabin crew (FB Class)
Friendliness of cabin crew (Eco Class)
Avaibility of cabin crew (FB Class)
Avaibility of cabin crew (Eco Class)
Language skills of cabin crew (FB Class)
Language skills of cabin crew (Eco Class)
Leg room (FB Class)
Leg room (Eco Class)
Cabin cleanliness (FB Class)
Cabin cleanliness (Eco Class)
4.51
4.34
4.66
4.50
4.58
4.38
4.56
4.35
4.33
3.75
4.30
4.17
Mean
The difference observed in in-flight services between class categories is less obvious for Short haul as it is for Long haul. The only exception being the leg room: this aspect is more satisfying for First / business class passengers.
88
Q22 Detailed customer satisfaction in respect to in-flight services: For Short Haul flights analyzed by Class (2)
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
17%
35%
33%
33%
28%
34%
30%
32%
46%
34%
45%
27%
48%
25%
46%
27%24%
15%
21%
15%
16%
25%
27%
10%
9%
5%
4%
4%
5%
10%
6%
7%
2%
4%
6%
1%
2%
1%
2%
40%
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Lavatory cleanliness (FB Class)
Lavatory cleanliness (Eco Class)
Meal quantity (FB Class)
Meal quantity (Eco Class)
Seat comfort (FB Class)
Seat comfort (Eco Class)
Overall meal service (FB Class)
Overall meal service (Eco Class)
4.22
4.01
4.16
3.65
4.14
3.67
4.12
3.62
Mean
On Short Haul flights Economy class passengers are clearly less satisfied than First / Business class passengers for the overall meal service, the meal quantity and the seat comfort. Regarding the lavatory cleanliness, the difference is less significant among the two passenger classes.
89
Q22 Detailed customer satisfaction in respect to in-flight services: For Short Haul flights analyzed by Class (3)
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
21%
32%
32%
29%
27%
28%
26%
21%
40%
25%
38%
34%
40%
27%
32%
21%
23%
21%
18%
19%
25%
19%
24%
12%
12%
10%
7%
11%
6%
9%
16%
5%
3%
7%
5%
8%
9%
9%
19%
33%
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Meal quality (FB Class)
Meal quality (Eco Class)
Onboard information about thedelay (FB Class)
Onboard information about thedelay (Eco Class)
Availability of newspapers,magazines (FB Class)
Availability of newspapers,magazines (Eco Class)
Audio / video entertainment (FB Class)
Audio / video entertainment (Eco Class)
3.98
3.57
3.93
3.72
3.86
3.52
3.60
3.09
Mean
Meal quality, onboard information about the delay, availability of newspapers / magazines and audio / video entertainment are all in-flight aspects that should be considered as only fairly satisfying onboard short haul flights. F/B class passengers tend to be more satisfied than Economy class passengers on these aspects.
90
Q21-1 Overall in-flight experience on Long Haul flights: analyzed by operating airline and by class (1)
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
5%
4%
15%
3%
3%
25%
24%
39%
34%
33%
34%
39%
42%
36%
33%
38%
72%
62%
71%
49%
61%
62%
60%
41%
55%
57%
60%
43%
5%
12%
4%
2%
6%
3%
4%
4%
14%
1%
1%
1%
1%
4%
1%
1%
1%
33%
30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Korean Air (FB Class)
Korean Air (Eco Class)
Continental (FB Class)
Continental (Eco Class)
China Southern (FB Class)
China Southern (Eco Class)
Northwest (FB Class)
Northwest (Eco Class)
Air France (FB Class)
Air France (Eco Class)
Aeroflot (FB Class)
Aeroflot (Eco Class)
4.69
4.57
4.65
4.37
4.56
4.57
4.52
4.16
4.52
4.48
4.51
4.19
Mean
Overall, the majority of Long Haul passengers onboard these six airlines are very satisfied with their overall in-flight experience (above the 4.5 “very good” threshold for First/business). The most visible gap between passenger class is on Northwest and Aeroflot Long Haul flights: Economy class passengers are less satisfied, even though satisfaction remains “good” (respectively 4.16 and 4.19).
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires and AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50
91
Q21-1 Overall in-flight experience on Long Haul flights: analyzed by operating airline and by class (2)
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
10%
22%
3%
4%
38%
31%
33%
39%
40%
43%
40%
39%
42%
41%
35%
56%
43%
59%
62%
53%
47%
50%
50%
50%
48%
45%
36%
7%
9%
8%
10%
5%
7%
9%
9%
5%
11%
3%
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
3%
2%
1%
2%
1% 44%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Air Europa (FB Class)
Air Europa (Eco Class)
Czech Airlines (FB Class)
Czech Airlines (Eco Class)
Delta (FB Class)
Delta (Eco Class)
KLM (FB Class)
KLM (Eco Class)
Kenya Airways (FB Class)
Kenya Airways (Eco Class)
Alitalia (FB Class)
Alitalia (Eco Class)
4.48
4.27
4.46
4.55
4.44
4.30
4.43
4.40
4.35
4.34
4.25
3.98
Mean
The gap in the satisfaction scores between First/business and Economy class passengers is much smaller on these airlines. Mean scores are in general “good”. It is to be noted that there is almost no difference in satisfaction among passengers on KLM and Kenya Airways flights.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires and AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50
92
Q21-1 Overall in-flight experience on Short Haul flights: analyzed by operating airline and by class (1)
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
5%
19%
25%
26%
29%
40%
35%
38%
40%
46%
75%
51%
71%
68%
67%
54%
60%
54%
54%
42%
4%
4%
4%
5%
10%
6%
13%
3%
7%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
35%
20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Continental (FB Class)
Continental (Eco Class)
Copa Airlines (FB Class)
Copa Airlines (Eco Class)
Aeroflot (FB Class)
Aeroflot (Eco Class)
Czech Airlines (FB Class)
Czech Airlines (Eco Class)
Northwest (FB Class)
Northwest (Eco Class)
4.69
4.38
4.64
4.60
4.64
4.46
4.55
4.43
4.47
4.27
Mean
On Short Haul flights, the satisfaction level is “good” to “very good” for these airlines, with little or no dissatisfied passengers in both classes. In general, First /Business class passengers are rather more satisfied with their overall in-flight experience, expect on Copa Airlines flights where both classes obtain almost the same scores.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires and Delta, Korean Air and AeroMexico are not displayed due to a base <50
93
Q21-1 Overall in-flight experience on Short Haul flights: analyzed by operating airline and by class (2)
Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
14%
47%
59%
44%
43%
54%
35%
40%
43%
44%
48%
44%
41%
48%
45%
23%
49%
47%
30%
36%
18%
7%
9%
21%
18%
5%
5%
1%
11%
4%
1%
2%
1%
2%
6%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
51%
30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
KLM (FB Class)
KLM (Eco Class)
Air France (FB Class)
Air France (Eco Class)
Air Europa (FB Class)
Air Europa (Eco Class)
China Southern (FB Class)
China Southern (Eco Class)
Alitalia (FB Class)
Alitalia (Eco Class)
4.43
4.39
4.40
4.37
4.32
3.93
4.31
4.31
3.98
4.13
Mean
The overall in-flight experience is satisfactory on these Short Haul flights. Passengers show the same level of satisfaction, except for Air Europa that shows higher satisfaction for F/B class and for Alitalia that shows the opposite trend.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires and Delta, Korean Air and AeroMexico are not displayed due to a base <50
94
4,43 4,34 4,22 4,08
4,71 4,69 4,68 4,62 4,58 4,53 4,49 4,47 4,44
Mean: 4.50
3
4
5
ChinaSouthern
Korean Air CzechAirlines
Air France KLM KenyaAirways
Air Europa Delta AeromexicoContinental Aeroflot Northwest Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
Q21-2 Friendliness of cabin crew: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class
4,57 4,484,80 4,80 4,73 4,72 4,72 4,71 4,66 4,66 4,64 4,62
Mean: 4.67
3
4
5
Korean Air Continental ChinaSouthern
CzechAirlines
Aeroflot Air Europa KLM KenyaAirways
Delta Air France Northwest Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
LONG HAUL- First Business Class
Overall, friendliness of the cabin crew is satisfactory (all mean scores above 4.0). First / Business class are usually more satisfied than Economy passengers on Long Haul flights.
LONG HAUL- Economy ClassCopa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
95
Q21-2 Friendliness of cabin crew: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class
4.344.504.574.584.624.684.714.744.754.81
Mean: 4.66
3
4
5
Copa Airlines Continental Aeroflot KLM CzechAirlines
Air Europa Air France Northwest ChinaSouthern
Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
SORT HAUL-Economy Class
SHORT HAUL- First Business Class
4,39 4,36 4,36 4,284,434,434,484,584,634,644,654,654,69
Mean: 4.50
3
4
5
CopaAirlines
Air France KLM Korean Air Aeroflot CzechAirlines
AeromexicoNorthwest ChinaSouthern
Delta Continental Alitalia Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
For Short Haul (just like for Long Haul flights), satisfaction remains at a high level on this attribute. Unlike most other companies, Economy class passengers onboard Air France and Alitalia are slightly more satisfied than those in First/Business class.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires.
96
Q21-3 Language of cabin crew: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class
4.49 4.364.71 4.63 4.60 4.60 4.59 4.57 4.52 4.51 4.49 4.49
Mean: 4.56
3
4
5
Continental Korean Air Delta CzechAirlines
Northwest Air Europa KLM Aeroflot Air France ChinaSouthern
KenyaAirways
Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
All airlines are obtaining good to very good satisfaction scores on the language of cabin crew on long haul flights. Alitalia and AeroMexico have lower scores than the other airlines and could perform better on this attribute.
4.23 4.20 4.17 4.15
4.69 4.54 4.54 4.53 4.51 4.49 4.48 4.46 4.40
Mean: 4.45
3
4
5
CzechAirlines
Delta Korean Air ChinaSouthern
ContinentalAir France KLM Air Europa Northwest Aeroflot KenyaAirways
Alitalia Aeromexico
Mea
n sc
ore
LONG HAUL- First Business Class
LONG HAUL- Economy Class Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
97
Q21-3 Language of cabin crew: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class
4.184.184.384.464.524.534.544.604.704.70
Mean: 4.56
3
4
5
Continental Copa Airlines Aeroflot KLM Northwest CzechAirlines
Air France Air Europa Alitalia ChinaSouthern
Mea
n sc
ore
SHORT HAUL- First Business Class
SHORT HAUL- Economy Class
All airlines are performing well on this attribute. First/Business class passengers are more satisfied on average than Economy Class passengers. The exceptions being China Southern and to a lesser extent Air France and Alitalia (although not significant), for which Economy Class passengers tend to be more satisfied.
4.32 4.21 4.193.97
4.61 4.54 4.51 4.48 4.48 4.47 4.46 4.38 4.35
Mean: 4.35
3
4
5
CopaAirlines
Korean Air Delta Air France ContinentalAeromexico Aeroflot KLM Northwest ChinaSouthern
Alitalia CzechAirlines
Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires.
98
Q21-4 Availability cabin crew throughout the flight: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class
4.47 4.364.484.524.534.584.634.634.664.674.684.70
Mean: 4.57
3
4
5
Continental CzechAirlines
Korean Air ChinaSouthern
Air Europa Delta Aeroflot Northwest KLM KenyaAirways
Air France Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
A good to very good satisfaction overall on the cabin crew availability during Long Haul flights. Alitalia is behind the other operating airlines on this attribute.
4.28 4.24 4.223.98
4.334.344.374.384.424.514.514.544.62
Mean: 4.39
3
4
5
CzechAirlines
ChinaSouthern
Air France Korean Air Delta KenyaAirways
Continental KLM Air EuropaAeromexico Aeroflot Northwest Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
LONG HAUL- First Business Class
LONG HAUL- Economy Class Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
99
Q21-4 Availability cabin crew throughout the flight: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class
4.284.364.484.484.534.584.614.654.654.70
Mean: 4.58
3
4
5
Continental Copa Airlines Aeroflot CzechAirlines
KLM Northwest Air France Air Europa ChinaSouthern
Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
SHORT HAUL – First Business Class
SHORT HAUL – Economy Class
Availability of cabin crew is highly appreciated by both class categories. Onboard Alitalia, satisfaction is slightly lower among First / Business class passengers, whereas among Economy class passengers Air Europa has the lowest score.
4,29 4,28 4,26 4,094,57 4,48 4,48 4,45 4,44 4,43 4,41 4,39 4,34
Mean: 4.38
3
4
5
CopaAirlines
Delta Aeroflot KLM CzechAirlines
Air France Korean AirAeromexicoContinental Alitalia Northwest ChinaSouthern
Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires
100
Q21-5 Leg room: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class
4.41 4.28
4.74 4.70 4.57 4.55 4.49 4.48 4.47 4.46 4.45 4.45
Mean: 4.56
3
4
5
Continental Northwest Korean Air Air France Air Europa Delta Aeroflot KLM Alitalia KenyaAirways
ChinaSouthern
CzechAirlines
Mea
n sc
ore
LONG HAUL – First Business Class
LONG HAUL – Economy Class
3.223.23 3.093.35
3.89 3.71 3.60 3.55 3.47 3.45 3.44 3.42 3.38
Mean: 3.45
3
4
5
ChinaSouthern
KenyaAirways
ContinentalKorean Air Air France CzechAirlines
Northwest Delta KLM Aeroflot Aeromexico Alitalia Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
The gap between the class categories is very significant and the leg room generates relatively high dissatisfaction among Economy class passengers.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
101
The gap between the class categories is significant on Short Haul flights. This gap is biggest onboard Continental and Northwest flights, whereas the gap is relatively small on KLM, Air France or Alitalia flights.
Q21-5 Leg room: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class
3.523.60
4.094.114.264.314.364.524.644.66
Mean: 4.33
3
4
5
Northwest Continental Copa Airlines Aeroflot CzechAirlines
ChinaSouthern
KLM Air France Air Europa Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
SHORT HAUL – First Business Class
SHORT HAUL – Economy Class
3.63 3.58 3.563.04
3.97 3.89 3.87 3.84 3.83 3.82 3.72 3.71 3.71
Mean: 3.75
3
4
5
CzechAirlines
Korean Air CopaAirlines
KLM Aeroflot Continental Alitalia Air France ChinaSouthern
NorthwestAeromexico Delta Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires
102
3.203.253.383.383.393.503.523.533.723.803.21 3.14 3.12
Mean: 3.41
3
4
5
ChinaSouthern
KenyaAirways
Air France Korean Air CzechAirlines
Continental Delta Aeroflot KLM Northwest Air Europa Alitalia Aeromexico
Mea
n sc
ore
In a similar way as for leg room, satisfaction levels for seat comfort are significantly different between class categories on all airlines. The seat comfort generates relatively high dissatisfaction among Economy class passengers, whereas mean scores are “good” among First and Business class customers, except for Czech Airlines.
Q21-6 Seat comfort: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class
4.013.68
4.084.134.194.224.234.264.274.324.334.33
Mean: 4.23
3
4
5
Continental KenyaAirways
Air France Korean Air KLM Air Europa Northwest ChinaSouthern
Alitalia Aeroflot Delta CzechAirlines
Mea
n sc
ore
LONG HAUL – First Business Class
LONG HAUL – Economy ClassCopa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
103
On Short Haul flights, seat comfort is generally perceived as being less satisfactory than other in-flight aspects. For First/business class passengers, KLM, Air France, Air Europa and Alitalia are detached from other Airlines with noticeably lower results. For Alitalia, satisfaction among Economy class passengers is higher than for First/Business class passengers.
Q21-6 Seat comfort: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class
3.243.523.683.82
4.014.144.274.344.40
4.53
Mean: 4.14
3
4
5
Continental Aeroflot Copa Airlines Northwest CzechAirlines
ChinaSouthern
KLM Air France Air Europa Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
SHORT HAUL – First Business Class
SHORT HAUL – Economy Class
3.50 3.33 3.233.513.90 3.84 3.83 3.80 3.79 3.73 3.67 3.62 3.53
Mean: 3.67
3
4
5
Aeroflot CzechAirlines
KLM CopaAirlines
Korean AirContinental ChinaSouthern
Air FranceAeromexicoNorthwest Alitalia Delta Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires
104
Q21-7 Overall meal service: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class
4.05 4.014.094.174.214.224.264.314.334.334.374.49
Mean: 4.27
3
4
5
Continental Delta Korean Air Air France CzechAirlines
Northwest Aeroflot KLM ChinaSouthern
Air Europa KenyaAirways
Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
The overall meal service is more satisfactory for First/business Class passengers than for Economy class passengers on Long Haul flights. Among First and Business class passengers, all airlines achieve “good” to “very good” mean scores. Among Economy class passengers, satisfaction is close to a 4.0 mean score for the majority of airlines, although Alitalia and Air Europa are rather detached with scores lower than 3.5.
LONG HAUL – First Business Class
LONG HAUL – Economy Class
3.73 3.733.47 3.34
4.11 4.08 4.06 4.05 4.03 3.95 3.93 3.92 3.86
Mean: 3.92
3
4
5
Air France Korean Air CzechAirlines
ChinaSouthern
KLM Aeromexico Delta KenyaAirways
Continental Northwest Aeroflot Alitalia Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
105
Also on Short Haul flights the satisfaction scores are significantly different between class categories for most airlines, except Copa and China Southern. The overall meal service obtains relatively low levels of satisfaction among Air France, Alitalia and Air Europa First / Business class passengers.
SHORT HAUL – First Business Class
SHORT HAUL – Economy Class
3.463.533.553.77
4.134.184.214.254.304.44
Mean: 4.12
3
4
5
Continental Copa Airlines Northwest KLM CzechAirlines
Aeroflot ChinaSouthern
Air France Alitalia Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
3.242.60
3.023.433.563.713.743.743.763.813.833.94
4.24
Mean: 3.62
2
3
4
5
CopaAirlines
Aeroflot AeromexicoContinentalKorean Air KLM ChinaSouthern
CzechAirlines
Northwest Air France Alitalia Delta Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
Q21-7 Overall meal service: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires
106
Q21-8 Meal quality: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class
3.90 3.724.004.034.064.064.084.094.234.254.274.37
Mean: 4.13
3
4
5
Continental Air France Korean Air CzechAirlines
Northwest Delta KLM Aeroflot ChinaSouthern
Air Europa KenyaAirways
Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
LONG HAUL – First Business Class
LONG HAUL – Economy Class
3.67 3.57 3.38 3.333.753.773.833.893.923.934.054.054.08
Mean: 3.85
3
4
5
Korean Air Air France KLM ChinaSouthern
CzechAirlines
Aeromexico KenyaAirways
Continental Delta Aeroflot Northwest Air Europa Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
Differences between class categories remain significant for most airlines, especially for Air Europa, Continental and Northwest passengers, where First/business class are clearly more satisfied than Economy passengers on the meal quality. Alitalia is detached from other companies on this dimension (lowest marks on both First/business & Economy Classes).
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
107
Short haul First/business class passengers are more satisfied on the meal quality than Economy class passengers. Results for F/B class can be considered as “good” for Aeroflot, Korean Air, Czech Airlines and Northwest. Air France and Alitalia are at the bottom of the ranking in F/B Class, while Delta and Alitalia are ranked last in Economy Class.
Q21-8 Meal quality: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class
3.333.463.483.543.78
4.064.064.074.254.27
Mean: 3.98
3
4
5
Copa Airlines Continental Aeroflot CzechAirlines
Northwest KLM Air France Alitalia ChinaSouthern
Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
SHORT HAUL – First Business Class
SHORT HAUL – Economy Class
3.11 2.88 2.68
3.39
4.19 3.94 3.90 3.76 3.75 3.65 3.63 3.62 3.56
Mean: 3.57
2
3
4
5
CopaAirlines
Aeroflot AeromexicoContinentalKorean Air KLM ChinaSouthern
CzechAirlines
Northwest Air France Alitalia Delta Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires
108
Regarding the meal quantity available on Long Haul flights, all airlines obtain “good” to “very good” scores among F/B class passengers. Half of the airlines exceed the 4.0 threshold among Economy class passengers, but Alitalia and Air Europa are rather detached for the others.
Q21-9 Meal quantity: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class
4.13 4.10
4.664.45 4.42 4.41 4.39 4.38 4.35 4.30 4.27 4.24
Mean: 4.37
3
4
5
Continental CzechAirlines
Korean Air Air France Northwest Delta Aeroflot KLM ChinaSouthern
Air Europa KenyaAirways
Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
LONG HAUL – First Business Class
LONG HAUL – Economy Class
3.88 3.843.61
3.36
3.953.983.994.044.084.134.154.164.25
Mean: 4.03
3
4
5
Air France Korean Air CzechAirlines
KLM ChinaSouthern
AeromexicoContinental Delta KenyaAirways
Aeroflot Northwest Alitalia Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
109
3.523.563.633.83
4.124.264.264.274.384.45
Mean: 4.16
3
4
5
Continental Copa Airlines Northwest CzechAirlines
Aeroflot KLM ChinaSouthern
Air France Alitalia Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
On Short Haul flights, results are lower on this attribute than on long haul flights. And First/Business class passengers are more satisfied than Economy passengers. Air Europa obtains the lowest marks.
Q21-9 Meal quantity: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class
SHORT HAUL – First Business Class
SHORT HAUL – Economy Class
3.21 3.162.65
3.594.25
3.96 3.90 3.86 3.81 3.80 3.69 3.65 3.64
Mean: 3.65
2
3
4
5
CopaAirlines
Aeroflot AeromexicoContinental ChinaSouthern
Korean Air Northwest KLM CzechAirlines
Air France Alitalia Delta Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires
110
Q21-10 Availability of newspapers/magazines: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class
For Long Haul flights, satisfaction with newspapers/magazines availability is Class-dependent: on average First/Business Class passengers rate it at a “good” level, while results are only “fair” in Economy Class. KLM stands out from the other airlines with an opposite trend.
LONG HAUL – First Business Class
LONG HAUL – Economy Class
3.523.21 3.08
3.543.89 3.79 3.79 3.71 3.70 3.66 3.65 3.60 3.57
Mean: 3.60
3
4
5
ChinaSouthern
KLM Korean Air Air EuropaAeromexico CzechAirlines
Delta Air France Continental Aeroflot Alitalia Northwest KenyaAirways
Mea
n sc
ore
3.80 3.62
4.474.27 4.20 4.19 4.18 4.03 4.02 3.97 3.91 3.91
Mean: 4.08
3
4
5
Continental Korean Air CzechAirlines
Delta Air Europa Northwest Air France ChinaSouthern
Alitalia Aeroflot KenyaAirways
KLM
Mea
n sc
ore
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
111
Q21-10 Availability of newspapers/magazines: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class
3.113.453.583.653.863.903.933.953.964.19
Mean: 3.86
2
3
4
5
Continental Aeroflot KLM CzechAirlines
Northwest ChinaSouthern
Alitalia Copa Airlines Air France Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
On Short Haul flights, the difference between the two classes is less clear on this aspect. As observed previously, no such service is being provided to Short haul Economy Class passengers onboard KLM. Alitalia Economy Class passengers are more satisfied than F/B on this aspect.
SHORT HAUL – First Business Class
SHORT HAUL – Economy Class
3.36 3.35
2.67 2.41
4.03 3.97 3.93 3.79 3.75 3.74 3.73 3.56 3.55
Mean: 3.52
2
3
4
5
Korean Air Delta Aeromexico Alitalia ChinaSouthern
Aeroflot Continental CzechAirlines
Northwest Air France CopaAirlines
Air Europa KLM
Mea
n sc
ore
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires
112
Q21-11 Audio/Video entertainment: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class
3.40 3.203.533.723.913.933.964.044.114.124.154.19
Mean: 3.97
2
3
4
5
KLM Continental Delta Korean Air Northwest Air France Air Europa Aeroflot ChinaSouthern
Alitalia KenyaAirways
CzechAirlines
Mea
n sc
ore
On Long Haul flights, First/Business class passengers are more satisfied than Economy class passengers regarding Audio / Video entertainment, except passengers from Air France, China Southern and Czech Airlines. It appears that no A/V entertainment service is being provided to Aeroflot Economy passengers, or if it is then passengers are not satisfied with it.
LONG HAUL – First Business Class
LONG HAUL – Economy Class
3.35 3.29 3.142.78
4.09 3.88 3.81 3.78 3.78 3.70 3.50 3.48 3.36
Mean: 3.68
2
3
4
5
Air France ChinaSouthern
Korean Air KLM Air Europa Delta Continental KenyaAirways
Aeromexico CzechAirlines
Northwest Alitalia Aeroflot
Mea
n sc
ore
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
113
Q21-11 Audio/Video entertainment: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class
2.582.722.913.01
3.353.733.903.953.97
Mean: 3.60
2
3
4
5
Continental Copa Airlines Aeroflot Northwest ChinaSouthern
Air France Czech Airlines Alitalia Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
On Short Haul flights, significant differences between airlines are linked to the provision of this service: Audio/Video entertainment seems not to be available for any class onboard Air Europa and Alitalia. This service seems not to be provided onboard Aeroflot and KLM Short haul Economy Class.
SHORT HAUL – First Business Class
SHORT HAUL – Economy Class
2.40 2.30 2.182.692.782.823.443.453.473.723.803.823.94
Mean: 3.09
2
3
4
5
CopaAirlines
Delta AeromexicoContinental Northwest Korean Air ChinaSouthern
CzechAirlines
Alitalia Air France KLM Air Europa Aeroflot
Mea
n sc
ore
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires
114
Q21-12 Cabin cleanliness: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class
4.183.98
4.214.254.284.354.364.364.384.424.554.61
Mean: 4.38
3
4
5
Continental Korean Air ChinaSouthern
Air France Northwest Air Europa KLM KenyaAirways
Delta CzechAirlines
Aeroflot Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
Cabin Cleanliness on Long Haul flights is good overall, but Alitalia is rather detached from the other airlines among First/business class. Alitalia remains detached from the other airlines among Economy class (well below the 4.0 threshold). Satisfaction among Czech Airlines F/B Class passengers is lower than among Economy Class passengers.
LONG HAUL – First Business Class
LONG HAUL – Economy Class
4.07 3.99 3.953.66
4.36 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.33 4.28 4.24 4.20 4.20
Mean: 4.19
3
4
5
CzechAirlines
KLM Korean Air ChinaSouthern
Air France ContinentalAir EuropaAeromexico KenyaAirways
Delta Northwest Aeroflot Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
115
Q21-12 Cabin cleanliness: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class
3.623.954.014.164.284.314.354.474.494.52
Mean: 4.30
3
4
5
Continental Aeroflot Copa Airlines KLM Northwest CzechAirlines
Air France Air Europa ChinaSouthern
Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
Cabin cleanliness remains satisfactory onboard Short Haul flights for most airlines, except for Alitalia which is behind on this in-flight dimension. Air France, Alitalia and China Southern F/B Class passengers tend to be less satisfied than Economy Class passengers.
SHORT HAUL – First Business Class
SHORT HAUL – Economy Class
4.09 4.053.81 3.80
4.39 4.38 4.37 4.29 4.28 4.26 4.24 4.22 4.14
Mean: 4.17
3
4
5
Aeromexico CopaAirlines
Aeroflot Korean Air CzechAirlines
Air France Continental Northwest Delta KLM ChinaSouthern
Alitalia Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires
116
Q21-13 Lavatory cleanliness: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class
4.08 3.934.134.164.164.174.214.224.294.404.444.46
Mean: 4.25
3
4
5
Continental Korean Air ChinaSouthern
Air Europa Air France KLM Northwest CzechAirlines
KenyaAirways
Aeroflot Delta Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
Overall, First/Business class customers on Long Haul flights are slightly more satisfied with Lavatory cleanliness than Economy class passengers. AeroMexico, Delta, Aeroflot, Northwest and Alitalia obtain low results on this aspect for Economy class passengers.
LONG HAUL – First Business Class
LONG HAUL – Economy Class
3.86 3.77 3.763.48
4.34 4.22 4.22 4.19 4.09 4.08 4.00 4.00 3.87
Mean: 3.99
3
4
5
ChinaSouthern
ContinentalKorean Air KLM CzechAirlines
Air France KenyaAirways
Air EuropaAeromexico Delta Aeroflot Northwest Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
117
Q21-13 Lavatory cleanliness: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class
3.47
3.963.994.114.174.204.214.304.364.46
Mean: 4.22
3
4
5
Continental Aeroflot Copa Airlines CzechAirlines
KLM Air France Northwest Air Europa ChinaSouthern
Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
In comparison with Long Haul flights, satisfaction with Lavatory cleanliness on Short Haul is at about the same level for both passenger classes. Alitalia stands out with the lowest scores among both classes.
SHORT HAUL – First Business Class
SHORT HAUL – Economy Class
3.93 3.913.68 3.57
4.014.024.064.114.134.134.134.194.20
Mean: 4.01
3
4
5
Korean Air CopaAirlines
AeromexicoContinental Aeroflot CzechAirlines
Northwest ChinaSouthern
Air France KLM Delta Air Europa Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires
118
Information about the delay obtains scores in excess of the 4.0 threshold for only a minority of airlines. Several airlines obtain scores below 4.0 among both classes: Air France, Continental, Delta, Alitalia and Air Europa.
Q21-14 Information about the delay: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class
4.36 4.24 4.16 4.01 3.92 3.88 3.87 3.76 3.71
Mean: 4.00
3
4
5
ChinaSouthern
Korean Air Northwest KLM Air France Continental Alitalia Delta Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
LONG HAUL – First Business Class
LONG HAUL – Economy Class
3,653,43 3,42 3,01
4,41 4,24 4,17 4,123,83 3,76 3,76 3,69 3,67
Mean: 3.79
3
4
5
ChinaSouthern
CzechAirlines
KLM Korean Air Aeroflot Northwest KenyaAirways
Delta Air Europa Air France Continental Alitalia Aeromexico
Mea
n sc
ore
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.
Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Aeroflot, Czech Airlines and Kenya Airways are not displayed due to a base <50.
119
4.444.12 3.88 3.74 3.74
3.40
Mean: 3.93
2
3
4
5
Continental Copa Airlines Czech Airlines Air France Northwest Alitalia
Mea
n sc
ore
Information about the delay tends to be less satisfactory while onboard Short Haul flights. Here again, noticeable differences appear depending on the airline: results are relatively low for Alitalia, AeroMexico and Air Europa.
Q21-14 Information about the delay: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class
SHORT HAUL – First Business Class
SHORT HAUL – Economy Class
3.35 3.352.93
3.563.793.803.944.004.024.114.184.21
Mean: 3.72
2
3
4
5
CopaAirlines
Continental Korean Air ChinaSouthern
Northwest KLM Air France Aeroflot CzechAirlines
Aeromexico Alitalia Air Europa
Mea
n sc
ore
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires
Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. KLM, Air Europa, AeroMexico, China Southern, Aeroflot, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.
120
Gap in customer satisfaction depending on the operating airline
Below are the differences observed among the different SkyTeam members on the passenger satisfaction for the airport and in-flight services provided.
Mean value of customer satisfaction on the following questions, depending on the operating airline
MIN mean value
MAX mean value
Difference between best and worst
SkyTeam memberQ11. Satisfaction towards phone reservation : Overall satisfaction with the phone reservation service 4,19 4,55 0,36
Q14. Satisfaction towards website reservation : Overall satisfaction with website experience 3,96 4,53 0,57
Q17. Airport experience : Your overall airport experience 3,62 4,44 0,82
Q17.4 Airport experience : Wait-time for check-in 3,53 4,31 0,78
Q17.5 Airport experience : Efficiency of check-in process 3,79 4,44 0,65
Q17.8 Airport experience : Efficiency of boarding process 3,87 4,40 0,53
Q17.9 Airport experience : On-time departure 3,25 4,43 1,18
Q19.1 Lounge experience : Overall airport lounge experience 3,67 4,25 0,58
Q20.1 Transfert experience : Time between connecting flights 2,85 4,20 1,35
Q20.2 Transfert experience : Ease of transfert between connecting flights 2,78 4,40 1,62
Q21. Service on flight : Your overall in-flight experience 4,08 4,63 0,55
Q21.14 Service on flight : Onboard information about the delay 3,26 4,22 0,96
Q21.6 Service on flight : Seat comfort 3,43 4,04 0,61
Q21.7 Service on flight : Overall meal service 3,29 4,27 0,98
Q26. Overall impression of all the ground and in-flight services offered 3,89 4,57 0,68
Q25. SkyTeam alliance benefits : Overall rating of SkyTeam alliance benefits 3,79 4,34 0,55