ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2018 Q2 RESULTS Announcement INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2018 Q2 RESULTS Announcement INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

CSISG 2018 Q2 RESULTS LAND TRANSPORT & AIR TRANSPORT INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

csisg methodology INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? The CSISG Score Customer Satisfaction CSISG (Scale of 0-100) 1. Overall Satisfaction 2. Ability to Meet Expectations 3. Similarity to Ideal!4

CSISG Structural Model Qn. Perceived Overall Quality Qn. Perceived Customisation Qn. Perceived Reliability Perceived Overall Quality (After Recent Experience) Qn. Complaint Behaviour Customer Complaints Qn. Price / Quality Qn. Quality / Price Perceived Value Customer Satisfaction (CSISG) Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality Before Recent Experience) Qn. Overall Satisfaction Qn. Ability to Meet Expectations Qn. Similarity to Ideal Customer Loyalty/ User Trust # Qn. Expected Overall Quality Qn. Expected Customisation Qn. Expected Reliability Denotes positive relationship between the drivers Denotes inverse relationship between the drivers # Note: MRT Systems and Public Buses respondents are administered questions on User Trust instead of Customer Loyalty. Qn. Repurchase Intention Qn. Price Tolerance #Qn. Positive Word-of-Mouth #Qn. Price Tolerance!5

General CSISG Fieldwork Methodology Singapore citizens and PRs are interviewed at their homes. Homes are selected from a random address listing that matches the housing profile of Singapore resident population. Departing tourists are interviewed at Changi Airport. (Applicable to all sub-sectors except Transport Booking Apps) Each respondent answers up to 21 CSISG questions and about 25 touchpoint questions about the entity/ company they had recent experiences with. Each respondent evaluates only 1 entity/ company. Typically 100-200 respondents per entity/ company would have answered the CSISG questionnaire.!6

Overview of Score Calculation 1 2 3 4 Company Score Sub-Sector Score Sector Score National Score Local & Tourist Weights Company Weights Revenue / GDP Contribution Weights Incidence Study Identify companies with highest interactions with locals and tourists. Locals surveyed door-to-door. Tourists surveyed at Changi Airport. DOS population and STB Visitor Arrival data used to further identify proportion of locals and tourist customers. Revenue Share Study / DOS GDP Data Identify revenue contribution of each sub-sector to its respective sector. Identify GDP contribution of each sector to the total GDP of sectors measured in the CSISG.!7

CSISG 2018 Q2 Sub-Sectors Land Transport Sector Mass Rapid Transit System Public Buses Taxi Services Transport Booking Apps Air Transport Sector Full Service Airlines Budget Airlines Changi Airport!8

CSISG 2018 Q2 Quick Facts Sectors Covered Land Transport Air Transport Survey Period Apr to Jul 2018 Total Questionnaires Completed 6,249 Locals 3,539 Tourists 2,710 Distinct entities measured 60 Entities with published scores 25!9

CSISG 2018 Q2 RESULTS INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? CSISG 2018 Q2 Results Overview QUALIFIER FOR RESPONDENT (1) Recently interacted with company (Past 3 months for Land Transport, Past 6 months for Full Service Airlines & Budget Airlines) (2) Each respondent evaluates satisfaction with 1 company within the Air Transport and Land Transport sector * Refers to companies/sub-sectors significantly above their sub-sector/sector scores!11

land transport sector results INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

Land Transport Sector CSISG Trends Land Transport Sector 85 Taxi Services Transport Booking Apps 70 70 55 2007 2018 2007 2018 Public Buses Mass Rapid Transit System 2007 2018 2007 2018 Statistically significant IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE between 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence No statistically significant change between 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence!13

Land Transport Scores (Year-on-Year Movement in Satisfaction Drivers) Perceived Quality Customer Expectations Perceived Value CSISG Complaints Customer Loyalty Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality Before Recent Experience) Perceived Quality (After Recent Experience) Perceived Value CSISG Mass Rapid Transit System 68.4 65.9 66.7 63.6 Public Buses 68.3 67.9 69.0 65.6 Taxi Services 73.8 75.5 75.5 72.5 Transport Booking Apps 70.7 69.8 70.5 68.0 Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence!14

User Trust/Customer Loyalty Fell For MRT System & Transport Booking Apps Perceived Quality Customer Expectations Perceived Value CSISG Complaints Customer Loyalty Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality Before Recent Experience) Perceived Quality (After Recent Experience) Perceived Value CSISG User Trust/ Customer Loyalty Mass Rapid Transit System 68.4 65.9 66.7 63.6 63.7 Public Buses 68.3 67.9 69.0 65.6 67.9 Taxi Services 73.8 75.5 75.5 72.5 71.0 Transport Booking Apps 70.7 69.8 70.5 68.0 67.9 Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence!15

Public Transport: Satisfaction Among Locals Remain Lower than Tourists Mass Rapid Transit System Public Buses CSISG 61.1 75.2 CSISG 65.2 74.7 85 Score (0 to 100) 70 55 User Trust Confidence** User Trust Confidence** GREEN/RED scores indicates Local performed BETTER/WORSE than Tourist respondents with statistical significance Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence!16

Public Transport: Locals User Trust & Confidence Fell For MRT System Mass Rapid Transit System Public Buses CSISG 61.1 75.2 CSISG 65.2 74.7 80 Score (0 to 100) 65 50 User Trust Confidence** User Trust Confidence** GREEN/RED scores indicates Local performed BETTER/WORSE than Tourist respondents with statistical significance Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ** Note: The confidence score was calculated from the question confidence that the operator will do a good job in the future and reported on a 0 to 100 scale.!17

Mass Rapid Transit System INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

Marginal But Not Statistically Significant Drop (MRT System) CSISG 2017 CSISG 2018 85 70 Mass Rapid Transit System 55 2007 2018 63.6 SBS Transit Trains 65.1 SMRT Trains 64.6 63.9 SBS Transit Trains 63.4 SMRT Trains!19

Downward Shift in Satisfaction Across All Lines (CSISG Scores by Train Lines) 70 MRT LRT 2017 2018 Overall CSISG: 63.6 Overall CSISG: 63.4 Score (0 to 100) 63 Line 56 NEL (Purple) NSL (Red) EWL (Green) Downtown Line (Blue) Circle Line (Orange) Punggol LRT Bukit Panjang LRT Sengkang LRT Operator SBS SMRT SMRT SBS SMRT SBS SMRT SBS Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence!20

Several Attributes Saw Y-O-Y Declines (Trains Attributes: Y-O-Y Comparison) Maintenance of station amenities Accuracy of information provided throughout the station 2018 Avg Rating Cleanliness of station amenities Ease of clearing fare gate Cleanliness of trains Assistance and information for passengers with special needs Safety and security considerations Accuracy of train information during the train ride Ease of moving within station Helpfulness of staff Comfort of ride Sufficiency of train arrival information Travel time to reach destination Train frequency Handling of train disruptions Reliability of trains 6.0 7.0 8.0 Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence!21

Decline in Attributes Largely Coming From Locals (Trains Attributes: Y-O-Y Comparison) Tourists Sorted in descending order of Locals attribute ratings Accuracy of information provided throughout the station Locals Maintenance of station amenities Ease of clearing fare gate Cleanliness of station amenities Accuracy of train information during the train ride Cleanliness of trains Safety and security considerations Helpfulness of staff Assistance and info for passengers with special needs Sufficiency of train arrival information Comfort of ride Ease of moving within station Travel time to reach destination Train frequency Handling of train disruptions Reliability of trains 8.2 7.1 6.0 6.0 7.1 8.2 Satisfaction Rating (1 to 10 scale) Satisfaction Rating (1 to 10 scale) Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence!22

Declines Observed Among Key Train Attributes (Impact On Quality: Trains Attributes) 2018 Avg Rating Significant Impact on Perceived Quality Score Reliability of trains Handling of train disruptions Travel time to reach destination Sufficiency of train arrival information Comfort of ride Train frequency Limited Impact on Perceived Quality Score Cleanliness of trains Accuracy of information provided throughout the station Ease of clearing fare gate Safety and security considerations Helpfulness of staff Ease of moving within station Maintenance of station amenities Cleanliness of station amenities Accuracy of train information during the train ride Note: Assistance and info for passengers with special needs not included in impact analysis due to proportion of respondents who did not rate the question 6.0 7.0 8.0 Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence!23

Public Buses INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

Marginal But Not Statistically Significant Upticks for SMRT and SBS (Public Buses) CSISG 2017 CSISG 2018 85 70 Public Buses 55 2007 65.6 2018 SMRT Buses 66.6 67.3 SMRT Buses 65.2 SBS Transit Buses SBS Transit Buses 64.0 63.4 Other Bus Operators E.g., other bus operators includes Go-Ahead and Tower Transit!25

No Statistically Significant Y-O-Y Movements (Buses Attributes) 2018 Avg Rating Clarity of bus route information Ease of boarding buses Availability of bus route information Helpfulness of bus captain Smoothness of the bus journey Comfort of the ride Safety of the ride Politeness of the bus captain No significant year-onyear movements across all buses attributes Accuracy of bus arrival information Condition of the buses Ease of moving within the bus Bus frequency Travel time to reach destination 6.0 7.0 8.0 Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)!26

Key Drivers of Perceived Quality for Public Buses Comfort of the ride 2018 Avg Rating Significant Impact on Perceived Quality Score Safety of the ride Bus frequency Politeness of the bus captain Smoothness of the bus journey Availability of bus route information Travel time to reach destination Condition of the buses Limited Impact on Perceived Quality Score Clarity of bus route information Ease of moving within the bus Helpfulness of bus captain Accuracy of bus arrival information Ease of boarding buses 6.0 7.0 8.0 Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)!27

Perceptions of Transport Operator & Satisfaction with Government Intervention (Public Transport) INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

Perceptions of Transport Operator & Satisfaction with Government Intervention Local commuters were asked how much they trust that the public transport operator is working in their best interests and how satisfied they were with the government s intervention in the area of public transport. Operator Working In Best Interests: How much do you trust that the operator is working in your best interests? Satisfaction with Government Intervention: How satisfied are you with LTA s intervention in the area of public buses/train systems?!29

Perceptions of Transport Operator & Satisfaction with Government Intervention MRT System Operator Working In Best Interests Satisfaction with Government Intervention Rated 1-5 Rated 6-10 Rated 6-10 0.2% 83.9% Rated 1-5 15.9% 0.0% % of Local Respondents Public Buses Operator Working In Best Interests Satisfaction with Government Intervention Rated 1-5 Rated 6-10 Rated 6-10 0.0% 92.3% Rated 1-5 7.7% 0.0% % of Local Respondents

Satisfaction & User Trust with Train Operator Lower When Perceptions of the Operator and Satisfaction with Government Intervention are Poor MRT System Satisfaction with Government Intervention Operator Working In Best Interests Rated 6-10 Rated 1-5 Rated 1-5 Rated 6-10 29.6 Customer Satisfaction 67.1 Customer Satisfaction Operator Working In Best Interests Rated 6-10 Rated 1-5 Satisfaction with Government Intervention Rated 1-5 Rated 6-10 22.8 User Trust with Operator 68.6 User Trust with Operator

Similar Findings Seen in Satisfaction & User Trust for Bus Operator Public Buses Satisfaction with Government Intervention Operator Working In Best Interests Rated 6-10 Rated 1-5 Rated 1-5 Rated 6-10 29.9 Customer Satisfaction 68.2 Customer Satisfaction Operator Working In Best Interests Rated 6-10 Rated 1-5 Satisfaction with Government Intervention Rated 1-5 Rated 6-10 23.4 User Trust with Operator 71.3 User Trust with Operator

Locals with Poor Perceptions of the Train Operator & Low Satisfaction with Government Interventions on the Rise Satisfaction with Government Intervention Rated 1-5 Rated 6-10 20% MRT System Public Buses Operator Working In Best Interests Rated 6-10 Rated 1-5 % 15.9% % Of Local Respondents 10% 9.5% 14.8% 10.1% 8.7% 7.7% 0% 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018!33

Taxis & Transport Booking Apps Sub-Sectors INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

Marginal Upticks Across All Taxi Companies (Taxis) 85 Taxi Services CSISG 2017 CSISG 2018 70 72.5 55 2007 2018 Transcab 73.4 Premier 73.3 SMRT 71.8 ComfortDelGro 71.4 Prime 69.3 74.0 Transcab 73.8 Premier 72.3 ComfortDelGro 72.1 SMRT 70.0 Prime!35

Several Attributes Saw Y-O-Y Increases (Taxi Services Attributes: Y-O-Y Movements) YOY Percentage Change In Satisfaction Ratings Payment options available +3.1% Courtesy of taxi driver Comfort of the ride Taxi drivers road knowledge Cleanliness of the taxi Smoothness of the ride Interaction with taxi driver Clarity of fare structure Safety of the ride Fares charged Availability of feedback channels Condition of the taxi Payment process Helpfulness of taxi driver +3.0% +2.5% +2.2% +1.8% +1.7% +1.5% +1.3% +1.0% +1.0% +0.7% +0.6% +0.5% +0.2% / Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence No statistically significant changes year-on-year at 90% confidence!36

Marginal Decline in Grab s Scores (Transport Booking Apps) CSISG 2017 CSISG 2018 85 70 Transport Booking Apps 68.0 55 2007 2018 Grab 69.5 ComfortDelGro 68.3 68.8 ComfortDelGro 67.5 Grab!37

Fares & Promos/Discounts Are Lowest Rated Attributes Driver s road knowledge Safety of the ride Ease of getting a ride Clarity of fare structure Ease of using app Helpfulness of driver Cleanliness of the vehicle Security measures to safeguard personal details Comfort of the ride Payment process Courtesy of driver Accuracy of waiting time estimation Range of service types Accuracy of information provided on company's booking app Ease of providing feedback Sufficiency of feedback channels Fares charged Attractiveness of app promotions and discounts 2018 Avg Rating 6.0 7.0 8.0 Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) Lowest Rated Attributes!38

Decline in Satisfaction for Fares & Promos/Discounts (Transport Booking App Attributes: Y-O-Y Movements) Ease of getting a ride Driver s road knowledge Ease of using app Helpfulness of driver Safety of the ride Cleanliness of the vehicle Comfort of the ride YOY Percentage Change In Satisfaction Ratings +2.3% +1.6% +1.6% +1.0% +0.9% +0.9% +0.6% Clarity of fare structure Security measures to safeguard personal details Accuracy of waiting time estimation Courtesy of driver Payment process Sufficiency of feedback channels Ease of providing feedback Accuracy of information provided on company's booking app Range of service types -0.1% -0.3% -0.5% -0.6% -0.6% -1.0% -1.3% -1.3% +0.1% Fares charged Attractiveness of app promotions and discounts -17.1% -7.7% / Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence No statistically significant changes year-on-year at 90% confidence!39

Taxi Services Vs Private Hire Cars (Comparing Attributes AMONG LOCALS) INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

2017: Majority of Private Hire Cars Attribute Ratings Marginally Higher Than Taxis 2017 Comparable Attributes Payment process Clarity of fare structure 2018 Taxi Services (Locals) Private Hire Cars (Locals) Safety of the ride Cleanliness of the taxi/ car Drivers road knowledge Helpfulness of driver Courtesy of driver Fares charged Comfort of the ride 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 Satisfaction Rating 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 Satisfaction Rating!41

2018: Y-O-Y Decline in Fares Charged for Private Hire Cars 2017 Comparable Attributes Payment process 2018 Clarity of fare structure Safety of the ride Cleanliness of the taxi/ car Drivers road knowledge Helpfulness of driver Courtesy of driver Fares charged Comfort of the ride 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 Satisfaction Rating Taxi Services (Locals) Private Hire Cars (Locals) 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 Satisfaction Rating!42

2018: Taxis Registered Higher Ratings Than Private Hire Cars For Fares Charged 2017 Comparable Attributes Payment process 2018 Clarity of fare structure Safety of the ride Cleanliness of the taxi/ car Drivers road knowledge Helpfulness of driver Courtesy of driver Fares charged Rating for Taxi Significantly Higher Comfort of the ride 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 Satisfaction Rating Taxi Services (Locals) Private Hire Cars (Locals) 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 Satisfaction Rating!43

Fares Charged Top Attribute for Both Sub-Sectors (Taxis & Transport Booking App: Top 5 Attributes with Impact on Perceived Quality) Impact On Perceived Quality Score Taxis (Locals) Fares charged Transport Booking App (Locals) Fares charged Increasing Impact On Perceived Quality Score Interaction with taxi driver Comfort of the ride Payment process Cleanliness of the vehicle Safety of the ride Helpfulness of driver Smoothness of the ride Sufficiency of feedback channels!44

air transport sector results INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

Air Transport Sector CSISG Trends 95 Airport Full Service Airlines 70 Air Transport Sector 75 55 2007 2018 Budget Airlines 2007 2018 2007 2018 Statistically significant IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE between 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence No statistically significant change between 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence!46

Statistically Significant Upticks Across Air Transport Sub-Sectors Perceived Quality Customer Expectations Perceived Value CSISG Complaints Customer Loyalty Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality Before Recent Experience) Perceived Quality (After Recent Experience) Perceived Value CSISG Customer Loyalty Full Service Airlines 74.9 77.2 77.4 74.5 72.3 Budget Airlines 72.6 74.8 75.4 73.1 71.4 Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence!47

Customer Loyalty Fell For Full Service Airlines Perceived Quality Customer Expectations Perceived Value CSISG Complaints Customer Loyalty Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality Before Recent Experience) Perceived Quality (After Recent Experience) Perceived Value CSISG Customer Loyalty Full Service Airlines 74.9 77.2 77.4 74.5 72.3 Budget Airlines 72.6 74.8 75.4 73.1 71.4 Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence!48

Marginal Movements Across Full Service Airlines (Full Service Airlines) 85 Full Service Airlines 74.5 CSISG 2017 CSISG 2018 70 55 2007 2007 2018 Singapore Airlines 77.5 Garuda Indonesia 76.1 Emirates 75.1 Cathay Pacific 74.2 Qantas 73.6 SilkAir 72.8 Other full service airlines 71.5 78.1 Singapore Airlines 76.4 Garuda Indonesia 75.6 Emirates 74.7 Cathay Pacific 73.9 Qantas 73.1 SilkAir 71.6 Other full service airlines E.g. of Other full service airlines includes Korean Air, Philippine Airlines, Malaysia Airlines!49

Statistically Significant Increase In Sub-Sector Score (Budget Airlines) CSISG 2017 CSISG 2018 85 Budget Airlines 70 73.1 55 2007 2018 75.3 Scoot Jetstar Asia 72.0 Scoot 71.8 AirAsia 71.6 Other budget airlines 70.8 72.4 Jetstar Asia 72.2 Airasia 70.5 Other budget airlines 69.9 Lion Air E.g. of Other budget airlines includes Cebu Pacific, VietJet Air, Firefly Note: Lion Air is a newly measured company in CSISG 2018!50

CSISG 5 Years Trend (Full Service Airlines vs. Budget Airlines) 80.0 Full Service Airlines (CSISG) Budget Airlines (CSISG) Scores (Scale 0 to 100) 72.5 Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT at 90% confidence 65.0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018!51

Narrowing Satisfaction Gap Between Airlines (Full Service Airlines vs. Budget Airlines) 80.0 Full Service Airlines (CSISG) Budget Airlines (CSISG) Scores (Scale 0 to 100) 72.5 Gap of 5.0-pts Gap of 1.4-pts 65.0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018!52

Perceived Quality 5 Years Trend (Full Service Airlines vs. Budget Airlines) 80.0 Full Service Airlines (CSISG) Full Service Airlines (Perceived Quality) Budget Airlines (CSISG) Budget Airlines (Perceived Quality) Scores (Scale 0 to 100) 72.5 65.0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018!53

Similar Narrowing Gap Between Airlines (Full Service Airlines vs. Budget Airlines) 80.0 Full Service Full Service Airlines (CSISG) Full Service Airlines (Perceived Quality) Budget Airlines (CSISG) Budget Airlines (Perceived Quality) Budget Airlines (CSISG) Gap of 2.4-pts Scores (Scale 0 to 100) 72.5 Gap of 4.2-pts 65.0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018!54

Convergence in Repurchase Intention Ratings (Full Service Airlines vs. Budget Airlines) 8.00 Full Service Airlines (Likelihood To Repurchase) Budget Airlines (Likelihood To Repurchase) Likelihood Ratings (Scale 1 to 10) 7.50 7.00 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018!55

Key Differentiators of Loyalty for Airlines (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on Loyalty) Impact On Loyalty Score Full Service Airlines Budget Airlines Condition of the cabin Comfort of the journey Increasing Impact On Loyalty Score Availability of reading materials on aircraft Airline is able to accommodate to your needs Comfort of the journey Airline is able to accommodate to your needs Airline staff has your best interest at heart Brand image complements your lifestyle Brand image complements your lifestyle Condition of the cabin!56

Common Differentiators That Have Impact On Both Airlines Loyalty Scores Impact On Loyalty Score Full Service Airlines Budget Airlines Condition of the cabin Comfort of the journey Increasing Impact On Loyalty Score Availability of reading materials on aircraft Airline is able to accommodate to your needs Comfort of the journey Airline is able to accommodate to your needs Airline staff has your best interest at heart Brand image complements your lifestyle Brand image complements your lifestyle Condition of the cabin!57

Summary Satisfaction levels across sub-sectors generally saw marginal movements except for Budget Airlines which saw a statistically significant increase. Public Transport: Marginal decline in satisfaction for trains, but decline in User Trust and Confidence with train operators amongst locals. Both perceptions of the operator and government intervention important for Customer Satisfaction and User Trust with the operator. Taxi & Transport Booking Apps: Exit of Uber saw Transport Booking App decline in loyalty and satisfaction with fares and promotions/discounts. Companies may wish to consider how to better manage these areas.!58

Summary Air Transport: Decline in loyalty for Full Service Airlines, met with a narrowing Customer Satisfaction and Perceived Quality gap with Budget Airlines. Full Service Airlines to consider creating wider differentiation especially from Budget Airlines to prevent customers potentially substituting their services with lower priced alternatives.!59