Brent D. Bowen University of Nebraska at Omaha Aviation Institute. Dean E. Headley Wichita State University W. Frank Barton School of Business

Transcription

1 Brent D. Bowen University of Nebraska at Omaha Aviation Institute Dean E. Headley Wichita State University W. Frank Barton School of Business April, 28

2 Airline Quality Rating 28 Brent D. Bowen University of Nebraska at Omaha Aviation Institute Dean E. Headley Wichita State University W. Frank Barton School of Business April, 28 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

3 Dr. Brent D. Bowen holds the University of Nebraska Foundation Distinguished Professorship in Aviation, Aviation Institute, University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO). Bowen also serves in the capacity of Director, Division of Aviation and Transportation Policy and Research, for the School of Public Administration at UNO. He has been appointed as a Graduate Faculty Fellow of the University of Nebraska System where he chairs the Public Aviation and Transportation area of concentration in the School of Public Administration doctoral program. Bowen attained his Doctorate in Higher Education and Aviation from Oklahoma State University and a Master of Business Administration degree from Oklahoma City University. His Federal Aviation Administration certifications include Airline Transport Pilot (Type-rated Douglas DC SIC), Certified Flight Instructor (SEL, MEL, Instrument) with Gold Seal, Advanced- Instrument Ground Instructor, Aviation Safety Counselor, and Aerospace Education Counselor. Dr. Bowen s research interests focus on aviation applications of public productivity enhancement and marketing channels, specifically in the areas of service quality evaluation, benchmarking, safety and security. He is also well published in areas related to effective teaching, student recruitment and retention in collegiate aviation programs, and gender issues in aviation education. Dr. Bowen has over 3 publications, papers, and professional program appearances and is an active industry consultant, pilot, and former fixed-base operator and scheduled air carrier operator. Dr. Dean E. Headley is Associate Professor of Marketing and Chair of the Department of Marketing and Entrepreneurship in the W. Frank Barton School of Business and Faculty Associate of the National Institute for Aviation Research at Wichita State University. He holds a Doctorate in Marketing and Statistics from Oklahoma State University, a Master of Business Administration Degree from Wichita State University, and a Master of Public Health Degree from the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Headley's research interests include methodology development for measurement of service quality, the connection between service quality and consumer behavior, consumer choice processes in service settings, and the effects of marketing activities on consumers and providers of services. Dr. Bowen's and Dr. Headley's research on the development of the national Airline Quality Rating (AQR) is regularly viewed by tens of millions worldwide and has met with national and international acceptance and acknowledgment. The Airline Quality Rating is featured annually by ABC's Good Morning America, The Cable News Network, The Today Show, C- Span, USA Today, The Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal and network evening news, in Aviation Week and Space Technology, and in numerous other national and international media. Bowen and/or Headley have served as invited expert witnesses before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations and have served as invited speakers and panelists for such groups as the National Academy of Sciences/Transportation Research Board. Bowen has been an invited speaker and panelist at the National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board and other Congressional and Executive panels. Dr. Bowen served on the National Research Council Steering Group on the Small Aircraft Transportation System and was named by the FAA Administrator to a National Academy of Science study group on airspace optimization. Additionally, Dr. Bowen was appointed to serve on a National Academy of Science panel to examine the need to cultivate a future generation of transportation leaders and participated in a discussion of the plan with then U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary, Norman Y. Mineta. Their research has been recognized with awards from the American Marketing Association, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Embry- Riddle Aeronautical University, the Travel and Transportation Research Association, and others.

4 AIRLINE QUALITY RATING 28 Brent D. Bowen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Dean E. Headley, Wichita State University Abstract The Airline Quality Rating (AQR) was developed and first announced in early 1991 as an objective method for assessing airline quality on combined multiple performance criteria. This current report, the Airline Quality Rating 28, reflects monthly Airline Quality Rating scores for calendar year 27. AQR scores for 27 are based on 15 elements in four major areas that focus on airline performance aspects important to air travel consumers. The Airline Quality Rating 28 is a summary of month-by-month quality ratings for U.S. airlines that are required to report performance by virtue of having at least 1% of domestic scheduled-service passenger revenue during 27. Using the Airline Quality Rating system of weighted averages and monthly performance data in the areas of ontime arrivals, involuntary denied boardings, mishandled baggage, and a combination of 12 customer complaint categories, airlines comparative performance for the calendar year of 27 is reported. This research monograph contains a brief summary of the AQR methodology, detailed data and charts that track comparative quality for domestic airline operations for the 12-month period of 27, and industry results. Also, comparative Airline Quality Rating data for 26 are included, where available, to provide historical perspective regarding performance quality in the industry. The Airline Quality Rating (AQR) System The majority of quality ratings available in the past have relied on subjective surveys of consumer opinion that were infrequently collected. This subjective approach yields a quality rating that is essentially non-comparable from survey to survey for any specific airline. Timeliness of survey-based results can be a problem in the fast-paced airline industry as well. Before the Airline Quality Rating, there was effectively no consistent method for monitoring the quality of airlines on a timely, objective, and comparable basis. With the introduction of the AQR, a multi-factor, weighted average approach became available that had not been used before in the airline industry. The method relies on utilizing published, publicly available data that reports actual airline performance on critical quality criteria important to consumers and combines them into a rating system. The final result is a rating for individual airlines with interval scale properties that is comparable across airlines and across time periods. The Airline Quality Rating (AQR) is a weighted average of multiple elements (see Table 1) important to consumers when judging the quality of airline services. Elements considered for inclusion in the rating scale were screened to meet two basic criteria; 1) an element must be obtainable from published data sources for each airline; and 2) an element must have relevance to consumer concerns regarding airline quality. Data for the elements used in calculating the ratings represent performance aspects (on-time

5 arrival, mishandled baggage, involuntary denied boardings, and 12 customer complaint areas) of airlines that are important to consumers. All of the elements are reported in the Air Travel Consumer Report maintained by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Weights were originally established by surveying 65 airline industry experts regarding their opinion as to what consumers would rate as important (on a scale of to 1) in judging airline quality. Each weight and element was assigned a plus or minus sign to reflect the nature of impact for that criterion on a consumer's perception of quality. For instance, the criteria of on-time arrival performance are included as a positive element because it is reported in terms of on-time successes, suggesting that a higher number is favorable to consumers. The weight for this criterion is high due to the importance most consumers place on this aspect of airline service. Conversely, the criteria that includes mishandled baggage is included as a negative element, and is reported in terms of mishandled bags per 1 passengers served, suggesting that a higher number is unfavorable to consumers. Because having baggage arrive with passengers is important to consumers the weight for this criterion is also high. Weights and positive/negative signs are independent of each other. Weights reflect importance of the criteria in consumer decision-making, while signs reflect the direction of impact that the criteria should have on the consumer's rating of airline quality. When all criteria, weights and impacts are combined for an airline over the year, a single interval scaled value is obtained. This value is comparable across airlines and across time periods. In the spring of 22, a nationwide survey of frequent flyers was conducted that allowed a revisiting of the weighting for the AQR elements. Analysis of the sample of 766 opinions showed no appreciable difference in the relative weights for the AQR elements. To maintain comparability across the years, the weights have been held constant. The Airline Quality Rating criteria and the weighted average methodology allow a focused comparison of domestic airline performance. Unlike other consumer opinion approaches that have relied on consumer surveys and subjective opinion, the AQR continues to use a mathematical formula that considers multiple weighted objective criteria to arrive at a single, fully comparable rating for airline industry performance. The Airline Quality Rating provides both consumers and industry watchers a means for monitoring comparative quality for each airline on a timely basis, using objective, performance-based data. Over the years, the Airline Quality Rating has often been cited as an industry standard for comparing airline performance. Currently the AQR stands as the only regularly published rating available for airline performance. With the continued global trend in airline operations alliances, the argument becomes even stronger for the Airline Quality Rating to be used as a standard method for comparing the quality of airline performance for international operations as well.

6 Table 1 AIRLINE QUALITY RATING CRITERIA, WEIGHTS AND IMPACT CRITERIA WEIGHT IMPACT (+/-) OT On-Time DB Denied Boardings MB Mishandled Baggage CC Customer Complaints Flight Problems Oversales Reservations, Ticketing, and Boarding Fares Refunds Baggage Customer Service Disability Advertising Discrimination Animals Other Data for all criteria is drawn from the U.S. Department of Transportation's monthly Air Travel Consumer Report. ( The formula for calculating the AQR score is: (+8.63 x OT) + (.3 x DB) + (.92 x MB) + (.17 x CC) AQR = ( )

7 What the Airline Quality Rating Tells Us About 27 The Airline Quality Rating industry score shows an industry that has declined in quality relative to customer performance criteria over the course of 27. Of the 16 carriers rated in both 27 and 26, only AirTran, American Eagle, Atlantic Southeast, and Mesa improved their overall AQR score for 27. Atlantic Southeast had the largest gain in overall score, while USAirways had the largest decline in AQR score for 27. The overall industry AQR score was lower in 27 than in 26, with decreased industry performance in all four areas tracked. As an industry, the AQR criteria shows that on-time arrival percentage was down (75.5% in 26 compared to 73.% in 27), involuntary denied boardings per passenger served increased to 1.14 per 1, passengers in 27 from 1.1 per 1, passengers in 26 and mishandled baggage rates increased to 7.1 per 1, passengers in 27 from 6.5 per 1, passengers in 26. Consumer complaint rates increased to 1.42 per 1, passengers in 27 from.88 per 1, passengers in 26. Of the 1,96 complaints registered with DOT, 68% were for either flight problems, baggage handling problems, or customer service issues. Taking all airlines together, the AQR score for the industry declined from a level of.87 in 26 to.16 in 27. With the rating categories (On-Time, Denied Boardings, Mishandled Baggage, and Customer Complaints) all having poorer performance across the industry, the decline can be viewed as across-the-board. Also, with 12 of 16 airlines showing year to year AQR score declines, performance declines can be viewed as characteristic of the overall industry trend for 27. This decline in performance for all four criteria and the decline in the overall AQR score for the industry from 26 to 27 are similar to the performance outcomes seen since 24. AirTran Airlines (FL) On-time performance improved in 27 (76.8% in 27 compared to 74.6% in 26). AirTran s denied boardings performance (.15 per 1, passengers in 27 compared to.8 in 26) was the second lowest of the airlines rated. A customer complaint rate of.83 complaints per 1, passengers in 27 was worse than the 26 rate of.62. The mishandled baggage rate of 4.6 per 1, passengers in 27 is better than their 26 rate of 4.72 mishandled bags per 1, passengers. Alaska Airlines (AS) had performance declines in the areas of on-time arrivals (73.3% in 26 compared to 72.4% in 27), customer complaints (.52 per 1, passengers in 26 compared to.76 in 27), and mishandled baggage rate (5.71 mishandled bags per 1, passengers in 26 compared to 6.39 in 27). An improvement in the rate of involuntary denied boardings (1.26 per 1, passengers in 26 and compared to.73 in 27) was the only area of gain. The three areas of decline produce a lower AQR score for Alaska Airlines for 27 (.75 in 27 compared to.66 in 26). American Airlines (AA) AQR score for 27 declined for the fourth year in a row. The drop in AQR score reflects reduced performance for on-time arrivals (75.5% in 26 compared to 68.7% in 27). This below industry average on-time performance was coupled with poorer performance in the areas of mishandled baggage (6.33 in 26 compared to 7.25 in 27) and customer complaints (1.9 in 26 and 1.65 in 27). Denied boardings improved in 27 (.77 in 27 compared to.85 in 26). The combination of performance outcomes produced a more negative AQR score for 26.

8 American Eagle Airlines (MQ) had a denied boarding rate of 1.35 for 27, up from 1.31 per 1, passengers in 26. The airline had an increase in the rate of customer complaints (1.17 in 27 compared to 1.3 per 1, passengers in 26). On-time performance was 69.1% in 27 compared to 71.5% for 26. Their mishandled baggage rate (13.55 per 1, passengers in 27 compared to in 26) was again well above the industry rate of 7.1, but did show improvement. This combination of performance in the criteria produced an overall improvement in their AQR score for 27. Atlantic Southeast Airlines (EV) On-time performance was 64.7% (lowest of all carriers rated) in 27, compared to 66.% in 26. Atlantic Southeast s denied boarding performance was slightly worse for 27 (4.5 per 1, passengers in 27 compared to 4.47 in 26). Their mishandled baggage rate of per 1, passengers is above the industry average rate of 7.1 bags per 1, passengers, and is better than their rate in 26. Atlantic Southeast s 27 customer complaint rate of 1.21 complaints per 1, passengers was also worse than their 26 rate of.74. For 27, Atlantic Southeast continues (as since 23) to have the worst AQR score of any airline rated. Comair (OH) On-time performance dropped from 73.8% in 26 to 67.9% in 27. Comair s denied boarding performance worsened from 2.47 in 26 to 3.15 per 1, passengers in 27. An increase in the rate of customer complaints to 1.44 complaints per 1, passengers in 27 from.63 in 26 was near than the industry average of 1.42 for 27. Their mishandled baggage rate of 11.4 per 1, passengers in 27 is higher than the industry rate of 7.1 bags per 1, passengers but better than their 26 rate of Overall, Comair had the third worst AQR score (.78) of the sixteen airlines rated. Continental Airlines (CO) posted declines in performance for two of the four AQR criteria. Customer complaint rate (1.9 in 27 versus.88 in 26) and mishandled baggage rate (5.33 in 27 compared to 4.76 in 26) were areas of decline. Fewer denied boardings per 1, passengers (1.43 in 27 compared to 1.74 in 26) helped Continental s AQR score along with better on-time performance (74.3% in 27 compared to 73.4% in 26). Overall, their AQR score moved from.63 in 26 to.74 in 27. Delta Airlines (DL) On-time percentage for 27 reflects nearly identical performance to last year in on-time arrival percentage (76.9% in 27 and 76.3% in 26). Their rate of mishandled baggage (7.6 in 27 compared to 6.88 in 26) was above the industry average of 7.1 mishandled bags per 1, passengers. An increase in denied boardings (26 rate of 1.7 per 1, passengers increased to 2.47 for 27) and an increase in the rate of customer complaints (from 1.3 in 26 to 1.81 in 27) combined to move Delta s AQR score to.72 in 27 from.17 in 26. With only one of four criteria showing improvement in performance, Delta s overall AQR score reflects a lower level of performance for 27.

9 Frontier (F9) was included in the AQR for the first time in 26. On-time performance in 27 (77.6%) was lower than the 8.7% in 26, but was second best of all airlines rated. Frontier s denied boarding performance (.93 per 1, passengers in 27 compared to.47 in 26) indicates a performance decline, but was better than the industry average of A customer complaint rate of.66 complaints per 1, passengers for 27 compares favorably to the industry average of 1.42 in 26, but was worse than their 26 rate of.49. Their mishandled baggage rate of 6.16 per 1, passengers is better than the industry rate of 7.1 bags per 1, passengers, but does not compare favorably with their 26 rate of Frontier s AQR rating was.71 in 27 compared to.3 for 26. Jet Blue Airlines (B6) On-time performance in 27 declined (7.1% in 27 compared to 72.9% in 26). Jet Blue s denied boarding performance (.2 per 1, passengers in 27) is the lowest of the airlines rated. A customer complaint rate of.78 complaints per 1, passengers in 27 (compared to.4 in 26) was well below the industry average of 1.42 for 27. Their mishandled baggage rate of 5.23 per 1, passengers in 27 was third best among airlines rated, even though it was higher than their 26 rate of 4.9. Mesa (YV) was included in the AQR for the first time in 26. On-time performance (73.1%) in 27 is nearly identical to their rate of 73.3% in 26. Mesa s denied boarding performance in 27 (1.54 per 1, passengers) was slightly better than their rate of 1.59 in 26. A customer complaint rate of.83 complaints per 1, passengers shows improvement over the 26 rate of Their mishandled baggage rate of 1.46 per 1, passengers is well above the industry rate of 7.1 and is slightly better than their 26 rate of Overall, Mesa s AQR score was.99 for 27, an improvement over the.12 score for 26. Northwest Airlines (NW) performance declined in all four areas of the AQR for 27. The rate of customer complaints increased from.88 per 1, passengers in 26 to 1.43 per 1, passengers in 27. On-time arrival performance dropped from 75.8% in 26 to 69.6% in 27, and the mishandled baggage rate moved from 4.6 per 1, passengers in 26 to 5.1 in 27. Northwest s denied boarding rate increased slightly from.81 per 1, passengers in 26 to.83 in 27. With all four areas showing performance decline, their AQR score moved form.35 in 26 to.59 in 27. SkyWest (OO) On-time performance, 76.8% in 26, was down to 75.7%for 27. SkyWest s denied boarding performance (1.69 per 1, passengers in 27 compared to 1.12 in 26)) was higher than the industry average for 27. A customer complaint rate of.71 complaints per 1, passengers in 27 compared to the 26 rate of.68 had only a slight negative impact on the AQR score. Their mishandled baggage rate of 1.87 per 1, passengers in 27 is very similar to a 26 rate of 1.16 bags per 1, passengers. SkyWest s AQR score declined in 27 to.9 from.76 in 26.

10 Southwest Airlines (WN) On-time arrival percentages of 8.2% in 26 and 8.1% in 27 are nearly identical. A customer complaint rate of.26 per 1, passengers in 27 and.18 in 26 are the industry s best. Southwest Airlines is consistently the airline with the lowest customer complaint rate in the industry. An involuntary denied boarding rate of 1.11 per 1, passengers in 27, worsened from.91 per 1, passengers in 26. Their mishandled baggage rate of 5.87 per 1, passengers in 27 increased from 5.34 per 1, passengers for 26. Overall, Southwest shows the third best AQR performance score of all airlines rated for 27. United Airlines (UA) slipped in on-time arrival performance (from 73.9% in 26 to 7.3% in 27) and in mishandled baggage (5.76 per 1, passengers in 27 compared to 5.68 in 26). Performance regarding denied boarding rate (.71 per 1, passengers in 27 and.51 in 26) also declined. A higher customer complaint rate (2.25 in 27 compared to 1.36 per 1, passengers in 26) went along with general upward trend for the industry. US Airways (US) showed decline in all four AQR criteria tracked for 27. A closer look reveals that US Airways performed worse in on-time performance (68.7% in 27 compared to 76.9% in 26), mishandled baggage (8.47 per 1, passengers in 27 compared to 7.82 in 26), and customer complaint rate (3.16 per 1, passengers in 27 compared to 1.36 in 26). A denied boarding rate of 1.19 per 1, passengers in 27 was higher than their 26 rate of 1.8 per 1, passengers. Their overall AQR score (.94) was worse than their.32 score for 26.

11 Previous Airline Quality Reports Bowen, Brent D., Dean E. Headley and Jacqueline R. Luedtke (1991), Airline Quality Rating, National Institute for Aviation Research Report 911, Wichita, Kansas. Bowen, Brent D., and Dean E. Headley (1992,1993, 1994, 1995), Airline Quality Rating Report, National Institute for Aviation Research Report Series, Wichita, Kansas. Bowen, Brent D., and Dean E. Headley (1996), Airline Quality Rating 1996, W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita, Kansas. Bowen, Brent D., and Dean E. Headley (1997), Airline Quality Rating 1997, W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita, Kansas. Bowen, Brent D., and Dean E. Headley (1998), Airline Quality Rating 1998, W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita, Kansas. Bowen, Brent D., and Dean E. Headley (1999), Airline Quality Rating 1999, W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita, Kansas. Bowen, Brent D., and Dean E. Headley (2), Airline Quality Rating 2, W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita, Kansas. Bowen, Brent D., and Dean E. Headley (21), Airline Quality Rating 21, W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita, Kansas. Bowen, Brent D., and Dean E. Headley (22), Airline Quality Rating 22, W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita, Kansas. Bowen, Brent D., and Dean E. Headley (23), Airline Quality Rating 23, W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita, Kansas. Bowen, Brent D., and Dean E. Headley (24), Airline Quality Rating 24, W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita, Kansas. Bowen, Brent D., and Dean E. Headley (25), Airline Quality Rating 25, W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita, Kansas. Bowen, Brent D., and Dean E. Headley (26), Airline Quality Rating 26, W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita, Kansas. Bowen, Brent D., and Dean E. Headley (27), Airline Quality Rating 27, W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita, Kansas. For more information contact either: Dr. Dean E. Headley, Associate Professor Dr. Brent D. Bowen, Director W. Frank Barton School of Business Aviation Institute Wichita State University University of Nebraska at Omaha 31 Clinton Hall Allwine Hall 422 Wichita, KS Omaha, NE Office: (316) Office: (42)

12 Detail of Airline Performance Since the Airline Quality Rating is comparable across airlines and across time, monthly rating results can be examined both individually and collectively. The following pages outline the AQR scores for the industry and for each airline rated by month for 27. For comparison purposes, results are also displayed for 26 where available. A composite industry chart that combines the airlines tracked is shown at first, with individual airline performance charts following in alphabetical order.

13 Airline Quality Rating Scores 27 AQR 26 AQR 25 AQR 24 AQR 23 AQR Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Air Tran Alaska American American Eagle Atlantic Southeast Comair N/A - Continental Delta Frontier N/A - N/A - N/A - Jet Blue Mesa N/A - N/A - N/A - Northwest SkyWest N/A - Southwest United U.S. Airways Industry AQR Scores for airlines that report performance statistics voluntarily: Aloha -.84 N/A N/A N/A N/A Hawaiian N/A N/A N/A NOTES: Rankings for 27 reflect the removal of ATA and Hawaiian from the airlines ranked. Scores and rankings for 26 reflect the addition of Frontier, Hawaiian, and Mesa to the airlines tracked. As of January 26, data of the merged operations of US Airways and America West Airlines are combined, and appear only as US Air data. Rankings for 25 reflect the removal of Independence Air from the airlines tracked. Scores and Rankings for 24 reflect the addition of Comair and SkyWest to the group tracked. Scores and Rankings for 23 reflect the addition of Air Tran, ATA, Atlantic Southeast, and Jet Blue to the group tracked.

14 Airline Quality Rating U.S. Airline Industry AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month 27

15 Airline Quality Rating U.S. Airline Industry by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

16 Airline Quality Rating AirTran Airlines AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month 27

17 Airline Quality Rating AirTran Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

18 Airline Quality Rating Alaska Airlines AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month 27

19 Airline Quality Rating Alaska Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

20 Airline Quality Rating American Airlines AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

21 Airline Quality Rating American Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

22 Airline Quality Rating American Eagle Airlines AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month 27

23 Airline Quality Rating American Eagle Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

24 Airline Quality Rating Atlantic Southeast Airlines AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month 27

25 Airline Quality Rating Atlantic Southeast Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

26 AQR Scores Airline Quality Rating Comair Airlines J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

27 .5 Airline Quality Rating Comair by Month.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

28 Airline Quality Rating Continental Airlines AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month 27

29 Airline Quality Rating Continental Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

30 Airline Quality Rating Delta Airlines AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month 27

31 Airline Quality Rating Delta Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

32 AQR Scores Airline Quality Rating Frontier Airlines J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

33 Airline Quality Rating Frontier Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

34 AQR Scores Airline Quality Rating Jet Blue Airlines J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

35 Airline Quality Rating Jet Blue Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

36 AQR Scores Airline Quality Rating Mesa Airlines J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

37 Airline Quality Rating Mesa Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

38 Airline Quality Rating Northwest Airlines AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month 27

39 Airline Quality Rating Northwest Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

40 Airline Quality Rating SkyWest Airlines AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month 27

41 Airline Quality Rating SkyWest Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

42 Airline Quality Rating Southwest Airlines AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

43 Airline Quality Rating Southwest Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

44 Airline Quality Rating United Airlines AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month 27

45 Airline Quality Rating United Airlines by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

46 Airline Quality Rating US Airways AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

47 Airline Quality Rating US Airways by Month.5.5 AQR Scores J F M A M J J A S O N D Month

48 Detail of Frequently Cited Airline Performance Criteria Consumer interest remains high regarding such issues as on-time performance, mishandled baggage, involuntary denied boardings (bumping), and treatment of customers. Since these criteria are central to the AQR calculations, it is important to provide more complete data for individual airlines in these areas. The following data tables provide a detailed look at the performance of each of the 16 U.S. airlines required to report performance in the specific areas of on-time arrivals, mishandled baggage, involuntary denied boardings, and consumer complaints to the Department of Transportation. The requirement is based on the criteria that an airline handled at least 1% or more of the total domestic scheduled-service passenger revenues for 27. Data were drawn from the U.S. Department of Transportation monthly Air Travel Consumer Report. The final pages of this report outline the Airline Quality Rating criteria definitions for reference and clarity in more fully understanding the nature of the data reported.

49 26 On-Time Arrival Percentage by Month for U.S. Airlines Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual AirTran (FL) Alaska (AS) American (AA) American Eagle (MQ) ATA (TZ) Atlantic Southeast (EV) Comair (OH) Continental (CO) Delta (DL) Frontier (F9) Hawaiian (HA) Jet Blue (B6) Mesa (YV) Northwest (NW) SkyWest (OO) Southwest (WN) United (UA) US Airways (US) Industry by Month Aloha (AQ) 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Express Jet (XE) As of January 26, data of the merged operations of US Airways and America West Airlines are combined, and appear only as US Air data. 2 These airlines are not included in the Industry value. Only 18 airlines that reported all data elements for 26 are part of the Industry value. Performance statistics are presented here for reference and comparison. Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.

50 27 On-Time Arrival Percentage by Month for U.S. Airlines Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual AirTran (FL) Alaska (AS) American (AA) American Eagle (MQ) Atlantic Southeast (EV) Comair (OH) Continental (CO) Delta (DL) Frontier (F9) Jet Blue (B6) Mesa (YV) Northwest (NW) SkyWest (OO) Southwest (WN) United (UA) US Airways (US) Industry by Month Aloha (AQ) Express Jet (XE) Hawaiian (HA) Pinacle (9E) These airlines voluntarily report performance data. Only the 16 airlines required to report all data elements for 27 are part of the Industry value. Performance statistics for other airlines are presented where available for reference and comparison. 2 These airlines are not included in the Industry value due to lack of data on Involuntary Denied Boardings. Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.

51 26 Involuntary Denied Boardings by Quarter for U.S. Airlines (per 1, passengers) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Annual Aloha (AQ) 1 N/A N/A AirTran (FL) Alaska (AS) American (AA) American Eagle (MQ) ATA (TZ) Atlantic Southeast (EV) Comair (OH) Continental (CO) Delta (DL) Express Jet (XE) 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Frontier (F9) Hawaiian (HA) Jet Blue (B6) Mesa (YV) Northwest (NW) SkyWest (OO) Southwest (WN) United (UA) US Airways (US) Industry by Quarter These airlines are not included in the Industry value. Only the 18 airlines that report all data elements for 26 are part of the Industry value. Performance statistics are presented here for reference and comparison. 2 As of January 26, data of the merged operations of US Airways and America West Airlines are combined, and appear only as US Air data. Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.

52 27 Involuntary Denied Boardings by Quarter for U.S. Airlines (per 1, passengers) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Annual AirTran (FL) Alaska (AS) American (AA) American Eagle (MQ) Atlantic Southeast (EV) Comair (OH) Continental (CO) Delta (DL) Frontier (F9) Jet Blue (B6) Mesa (YV) Northwest (NW) SkyWest (OO) Southwest (WN) United (UA) US Airways (US) Industry by Quarter Aloha (AQ) Express Jet (RU) 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hawaiian (HA) Pinacle (9E) 2 N/A N/A N/A. N/A 1 These airlines voluntarily report performance data. Only the 16 airlines required to report all data elements for 27 are part of the Industry value. Performance statistics for other airlines are presented where available for reference and comparison 2 These airlines are not included in the Industry value due to lack of data on Involuntary Denied Boardings.. Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.

53 26 Mishandled Baggage by Month for U.S. Airlines (per 1, passengers) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual AirTran (FL) Alaska (AS) American (AA) American Eagle (MQ) ATA (TZ) Atlantic Southeast (EV) Comair (OH) Continental (CO) Delta (DL) Frontier (F9) Hawaiian (HA) Jet Blue (B6) Mesa (YV) Northwest (NW) SkyWest (OO) Southwest (WN) United (UA) US Airways (US) Industry by Month Aloha (AQ) 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Express Jet (XE) As of January 26, data of the merged operations of US Airways and America West Airlines are combined, and appear only as US Air data. 2 These airlines are not included in the Industry value. Only t8 airlines that report all data elements for 26 are part of the Industry value. Performance statistics are presented here for reference and comparison. Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.

54 27 Mishandled Baggage by Month for U.S. Airlines (per 1, passengers) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual AirTran (FL) Alaska (AS) American (AA) American Eagle (MQ) Atlantic Southeast (EV) Comair (OH) Continental (CO) Delta (DL) Frontier (F9) Jet Blue (B6) Mesa (YV) Northwest (NW) SkyWest (OO) Southwest (WN) United (UA) US Airways (US) Industry by Month Aloha (AQ) Express Jet (XE) Hawaiian (HA) Pinacle (9E) These airlines voluntarily report performance data. Only the 16 airlines required to report all data elements for 27are part of the Industry value. Performance statistics are presented here for reference and comparison. 2 These airlines are not included in the Industry value due to lack of data on Involuntary Denied Boardings. Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.

55 26 Total Complaints to Department of Transportation by Month for U.S. Airlines (per 1, passengers) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual AirTran (FL) Alaska (AS) American (AA) American Eagle (MQ) ATA (TZ) Atlantic Southeast (EV) Comair (OH) Continental (CO) Delta (DL) Frontier (F9) Hawaiian (HA) Jet Blue (B6) Mesa (YV) Northwest (NW) SkyWest (OO) Southwest (WN) United (UA) US Airways (US) Industry by Month Aloha (AQ) 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Express Jet (XE) As of January 26, data of the merged operations of US Airways and America West Airlines are combined, and appear only as US Air data. 2 These airlines are not included in the Industry value. Only 18 airlines that report all data elements for 26 are part of the Industry value. Performance statistics are presented here for reference and comparison. Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.

56 27 Total Complaints to Department of Transportation by Month for U.S. Airlines (per 1, passengers) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual AirTran (FL) Alaska (AS) American (AA) American Eagle (MQ) Atlantic Southeast (EV) Comair (OH) Continental (CO) Delta (DL) Frontier (F9) Jet Blue (B6) Mesa (YV) Northwest (NW) SkyWest (OO) Southwest (WN) United (UA) US Airways (US) Industry by Month Aloha (AQ) Express Jet (XE) Hawaiian (HA) Pinacle (9E) /64.96` 1 These airlines voluntarily report performance data. Only the 16 airlines required to report all data elements for 27 are part of the Industry value. Performance statistics are presented here for reference and comparison. 2 These airlines are not included in the Industry value due to lack of data on Involuntary Denied Boardings. Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.

57 Overview of Complaints Received by Department of Transportation for All U.S. Airlines 27 and 26 Top Four Categories 1 Complaints for of Complaints to All All U.S. Airlines U.S. Airlines, Jan BG FP CS TB Feb FP BG CS TB Mar 1, FP BG CS TB Apr 1, FP BG CS TB May FP BG CS TB Jun FP BG CS TB Jul 1, FP BG CS TB Aug 1, FP BG CS TB Sep FP BG TB CS Oct FP BG TB CS Nov FP BG TB RF Dec FP BG CS TB 1,96 6,452 FP BG CS TB Percent (%) of Complaints in these Categories for 27 37% 2% 11% 1% 1 FP = Flight Problems; CS = Customer Service; BG = Baggage; TB = Reservations, Ticketing, and Boarding; RF = Refunds; Details of categories are at the back of this report. Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.

58 Airline Quality Rating Criteria Overview The individual criteria used to calculate the AQR scores are summed up in four basic areas that reflect customer-oriented areas of airline performance. Definitions of the four areas used in this AQR 28 (27 data) are outlined below. OT ON-TIME PERFORMANCE (+8.63) Regularly published data regarding on-time arrival performance is obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Air Travel Consumer Report. According to the DOT, a flight is counted "on time" if it is operated within 15 minutes of the scheduled time shown in the carriers' Computerized Reservations Systems. Delays caused by mechanical problems are counted as of January 1, Canceled and diverted operations are counted as late. The AQR calculations use the percentage of flights arriving on time for each airline for each month. DB INVOLUNTARY DENIED BOARDINGS (.3) This criterion includes involuntary denied boardings. Data regarding denied boardings can be obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Air Travel Consumer Report. Data includes the number of passengers who hold confirmed reservations and are involuntarily denied boarding on a flight that is oversold. These figures include only passengers whose oversold flight departs without them onboard. The AQR uses the ratio of involuntary denied boardings per 1, passengers boarded by month. MB MISHANDLED BAGGAGE REPORTS (.92) Regularly published data regarding consumer reports to the carriers of mishandled baggage can be obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Air Travel Consumer Report. According to the DOT, a mishandled bag includes claims for lost, damaged, delayed, or pilfered baggage. Data is reported by carriers as to the rate of mishandled baggage reports per 1, passengers and for the industry. The AQR ratio is based on the total number of reports each carrier received from passengers concerning lost, damaged, delayed, or pilfered baggage per 1, passengers served. CC CONSUMER COMPLAINTS (.17) The criteria of consumer complaints is made up of 12 specific complaint categories (outlined below) monitored by the U. S. Department of Transportation and reported monthly in the Air Travel Consumer Report. Consumers can file complaints with the DOT in writing, by telephone, via , or in person. The AQR uses complaints about the various categories as part of the larger customer complaint criteria and calculates the consumer complaint ratio on the number of complaints received per 1, passengers flown for each airline.