JetBlue ranked 1st, Delta came in at 12

152CPT

New Member
[ QUOTE ]

Study Ranks JetBlue No. 1 in Airline Quality
By LESLIE MILLER, AP

WASHINGTON (April 5) - JetBlue was No. 1 in quality among U.S. airlines in 2003, the first year that it carried enough passengers to be ranked, according to an annual study released Monday.

The budget carrier had the second-best on-time performance, arriving punctually 86 percent of the time. So few JetBlue passengers were bumped that they did not register in the statistics used by researchers. Also, JetBlue customers also filed fewer complaints - 0.31 per 100,000 - to the Transportation Department than all other airlines but Southwest.

Southwest, with 0.14 complaints per 100,000 customers, consistently generates the lowest complaint rate in the industry, was rated as the No. 3 carrier in the report.

Alaska Airlines came in second, America West fourth and US Airways, ranked No. 1 last year when it was still in bankruptcy, was fifth.

Northwest Airlines, which came in sixth, was the most improved airline in 2003. It ranked ninth in 2002.

The study's authors said the ratings showed that low-cost airlines are gaining market share because they perform well in ways that are important to their passengers.


How They Rank

1. JetBlue Airways
2. Alaska Airlines
3. Southwest Airlines
4. America West
5. US Airways
6. Northwest Airlines
7. Continental Airlines
8. AirTran
9. United Airlines
10. ATA
11. American Airlines
12. Delta Air Lines
13. American Eagle
14. Atlantic Southeast


It "adds further evidence to the emerging performance gap between the legacy carriers and the no-frills network carriers," said Brent Bowen, director of the University of Nebraska's aviation institute and a co-author of the study.

Dean Headley, the other co-author and an associate professor of marketing at Wichita State University, said most of the low-cost carriers were above the industry average on four performance indicators last year. Most of the traditional airlines were below the industry average, he said.

"The low-fare carriers are definitely solid in their ability to attract passengers, and it shows in the market share gains that they're making," Headley said.

He said low-cost airlines comprised 4 percent of the market when he began the study in 1991. Now they carry one-quarter of all passengers; Headley expects them to transport four in 10 by 2006.

The report rated the 14 U.S. airlines that carried at least 1 percent of the 587 million passengers who flew last year.

Four low-cost carriers - AirTran, ATA, Atlantic Southeast and JetBlue - met that threshold for the first time in 2003.

Alan Bender, an aviation professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla., said the traditional airlines will still offer something that the low-cost carriers often do not: connecting flights to any commercial airport, first-class service and frequent flier miles.

"This doesn't mean the high-cost carriers are down and out," Bender said. "The survey seems to count out the fact that a large percentage of business people need ubiquitous service at any time of day."

He also said American travelers are addicted to frequent flier miles. "Business travelers will avoid low-cost carriers because they're not going to get miles that will take them to Hawaii," he said.

The report was based on Transportation Department statistics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how they decided to rank low cost budget carriers with major carriers thrown into the mix. Am I missing something here or shouldnt they have ranked them seperate?
confused.gif
 
Alaska Airlines came in 2nd?! I've heard about their maintance program, I'd like to stay as far away from them as possible!
 
Not to sound completely stupid here...but....wouldn't it be easier for smaller carriers such as JetBlue to get a better on-time percentage since they have drastically fewer flights than say Delta, United, or American?? Sounds pretty simple to me...more flights = more possibilities for delays. Am I way out in left field or what?
confused.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Funny how they decided to rank low cost budget carriers with major carriers thrown into the mix. Am I missing something here or shouldnt they have ranked them seperate?
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Why not rank them together? Low-cost carriers and majors provide the same primary service... air transportation... and from what I understand, this report measure the quality of that service based on responses from individuals using that service. If my assumptions are correct, then I think any thorough analysis/report would have to include both types of carriers. Just my thoughts
grin.gif
... would be interested to see what others think.
 
Correct.

Say for example taking a United flight from Pittsburgh to Ontario, California.

PIT to ORD may be ACA which is a entirely different airline, which flies into ORD. ORD is a very busy airport and you might be delayed because it's a major hub. Then you're changing gates between terminals and get to a UAL gate to board your flight.

Then you fly ORD to ONT on UAL.

The passenger is peeved because there are two different levels of service, it involved a gate change, perhaps a late flight or two and whatever else is inherent with a hub-spoke operation.

Unless we accept multiple leg hops (ala SWA or the old Essential Air Service days of flying SFO-FAT-VIS-LAX), we're going to only be flying metro area to metro area and secondary cities like FAT, BIL, AMA, etc will lose service altogether if we don't retain hub and spoke.

People wouldn't want to see what a half full 737 would cost per ticket to fly nonstop from BIL to LAX.

And yes, Alaska absolutely rocks. I've only flown them once but they blew me away.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Correct.

Say for example taking a United flight from Pittsburgh to Ontario, California.

PIT to ORD may be ACA which is a entirely different airline, which flies into ORD. ORD is a very busy airport and you might be delayed because it's a major hub. Then you're changing gates between terminals and get to a UAL gate to board your flight.

Then you fly ORD to ONT on UAL.

The passenger is peeved because there are two different levels of service, it involved a gate change, perhaps a late flight or two and whatever else is inherent with a hub-spoke operation.

Unless we accept multiple leg hops (ala SWA or the old Essential Air Service days of flying SFO-FAT-VIS-LAX), we're going to only be flying metro area to metro area and secondary cities like FAT, BIL, AMA, etc will lose service altogether if we don't retain hub and spoke.

People wouldn't want to see what a half full 737 would cost per ticket to fly nonstop from BIL to LAX.

And yes, Alaska absolutely rocks. I've only flown them once but they blew me away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhhh, the old EAS days. PHX-PRC-Kingman/Lake Havasu City comes to mind.
 
Also keep in mind that the perception of customer service is relative. I too think the LCC and the legacies should be ranked separately. However, Song, Ted, etc should be thrown in with the LCC. If the legacies want to ACT like a LCC, then they should be treated as one. God, I sound like my mother.

Anyway, back to my orginial tangent. Different classes of people look for different customer service standards. Joe Bob and his family visiting grandma just want to get on the flight, get there on time, and get junior a window seat. A CEO is looking for comfort, a place to maybe get some work done on the flight, and friendly service. The reason the LCCs faired better is exactly the same as why they are making more $$$: most travellers are leisure travellers. JetBlue has some of both as far as what people are looking for, so it doesn't surprise me at all that they are at the top.
 
Not Surprising is right... on my flight back from atl - phx, i heard quite a few people commenting on how they have to buy everything now.. buy the ticket, buy the meal, buy the headsets and they were wondering where the money was going?! because it wasn't going to service (I don't mean attitude wise, I mean they're not getting much for the price of their ticket and extra costs)...Plus, they give you a menu and then later come back and say " oh, we don't have this, we don't have that - sorry"... Delta's management or whoever's making the shots - not too smart...

I don't blame them!
 
It is embarassing to see airlines in America can't even serve food anymore. Delta was selling headsets $5 before, now they charge you lousy $2. They rarely serve you free food in their planes and the quality has degraded so bad it's not worth buying. Most major airlines don't even change their pillows and blankets in their planes and i never use them and ever plan to use them!
 
Just more and more propaganda for LCCs. The media is just on this LCC hype. No one bothers to explain why a comparison between legacys and LCCs isnt an even one.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Funny how they decided to rank low cost budget carriers with major carriers thrown into the mix. Am I missing something here or shouldnt they have ranked them seperate?
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Why not rank them together? Low-cost carriers and majors provide the same primary service... air transportation... and from what I understand, this report measure the quality of that service based on responses from individuals using that service. If my assumptions are correct, then I think any thorough analysis/report would have to include both types of carriers. Just my thoughts
grin.gif
... would be interested to see what others think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you're saying in that they both provide the same service, but that doesnt necessarily mean you have to include them both in a report. JetBlue for example doesnt fly into any of the major airports except for maybe 3 or 4. If you want to take JetBlue to L.A. then they'd fly you into Ontario, or Long Beach if you're up for a drive. The major carriers fly to LAX, ORD, ATL etc and those are usually the busiest airports in the country. I dont have anything against JetBlue or the budget carriers, but I don't see how you could compare them with the majors when it comes to service and being on time.

And doesnt it cost less for JetBlue to fly into Ontario as opposed to LAX where it would cost a hefty load and they wouldnt get nearly as many gates?
 
Suprise Suprise, JetBlue #1, I think somone hit the nail on the head customer service is relative, with all the hype around JetBlue and there "media darling halo" its a wonder they weren't ranked 1-10. Although, I must admit at times all airlines can leave a lot to be desired including JBU, then again I see ALOT OF CUSTOMERS THAT LEAVE A LOT TO BE DESIRED AS WELL!!
 
It all comes down to the public really having ridiculous expectations. People want the kind of service that you get on Emirates, Singapore, and so on. Except they want to pay $250 for a transcon and get that kind of service.

The reason you can get that kind of service from those guys is because they're charging you for it.

But nah, your typical uninformed American thinks that the reason he's not getting that kind of service is because those glorified bus drivers, waitresses, and grease monkeys get too much money. Never mind that he's never seen the prices that the guys known for great service charge -- and that he'd never even THINK of paying those prices.
 
[ QUOTE ]


And yes, Alaska absolutely rocks. I've only flown them once but they blew me away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Doug, ever think about doing some float flying up in Alaska? I got my rating last year and it was an absolute blast. No ATC, just mountain flying in a Supercub over the moose and Grizzlies in Moose Pass(about 130 miles south of Anchorage). If you want to check them out-www.scenicmountainair.com.
cool.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And yes, Alaska absolutely rocks. I've only flown them once but they blew me away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Doug, ever think about doing some float flying up in Alaska? I got my rating last year and it was an absolute blast. No ATC, just mountain flying in a Supercub over the moose and Grizzlies in Moose Pass(about 130 miles south of Anchorage). If you want to check them out-www.scenicmountainair.com.
cool.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Not to bash them, but I wonder if Alaska Air ever get there maintenance problems corrected? I recently watched a program about Alaska 261, and I know it’s been 4 years now, but they had extremely serious problems for a LONG TIME before 261.
Come to find out a maintenance supervisor who had been suspended at the time of the crash for "creating problems" had written proof that he had ordered the jack screw on the Horizontal Stabilizer be replaced, and it was later over ridden by a more senior supervisor because "the aircraft needed to be back in service" they hadn't even bothered to grease this screw in like 10x’s the number of hours they were supposed to.
Don’t quote me but it seems to me it was the Jack Screw was supposed to be greased and inspected every 250 hours, for cost effectiveness in there infinite wisdom Alaska Air decided they'd only inspect and grease the jack screw every 2500 hours.
This same maintenance supervisor had turned them into the FAA previous to the crash and had been placed on admin leave for doing so (i.e. “trouble starter”) he was eventually fired, so he sued Alaska Air, the company settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. As I am sure everyone knows, the Jack Screw was completely stripped out.
 
Hmmm. Does anyone know who won the FAA's Diamond award for best MX the past few years?

Too bad we can't get on that list for "best overall" though. I guess we are too busy taking delays for fixing stuff. Actually I think having our outstations manned by the competition airline is our big downfall.
 
I stand corrected... my assumptions in my original post were not correct
tongue.gif
. This study does not measure the quality of that service based on responses from individuals using that service as I had assumed. Additionally, I totally agree that "the perception of customer service is relative," or subjective.

After doing a bit of research on the study's methodology it turns out that it's not based on "perception" or survey results, but based on performance metrics that are inherently objective and quantifiable. Examples of performance metrics include on-time performance and mishandled-baggage incidents. Whether you're a business traveler in first-class or a college student flying for the first time on "Acme LCC" it's a measure of an airline's performance whether our luggage arrives with us at our intended destination and that we get there on time to join our buddies on the beach during spring break or make that all important 9:00 morning financial meeting. Introducing survey results, or subjective data like, how comfortable was I during the flight of how nice were the FAs onboard, creates quality ratings that are difficult to compare for specific airlines.

So in the end I can see both sides... those individuals that find it difficult to compare LCC to Major carriers and individuals who want some sort of common to scale to compare most airlines against one another. Personally, I live next to a major airport so I have the luxury of choosing between LCCs and Majors when making a reservation and view them fairly equally. Lowest price usually typically wins since most of my travel is for business and is on the company's or customer's dime.

Anyhow, thanks for the input. It's enlightening to see the different point of views
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
After doing a bit of research on the study's methodology it turns out that it's not based on "perception" or survey results, but based on performance metrics that are inherently objective and quantifiable. Examples of performance metrics include on-time performance and mishandled-baggage incidents. Whether you're a business traveler in first-class or a college student flying for the first time on "Acme LCC" it's a measure of an airline's performance whether our luggage arrives with us at our intended destination and that we get there on time to join our buddies on the beach during spring break or make that all important 9:00 morning financial meeting. Introducing survey results, or subjective data like, how comfortable was I during the flight of how nice were the FAs onboard, creates quality ratings that are difficult to compare for specific airlines.


[/ QUOTE ]

On the surface it is objective quantitative information, but it is a lot easier to fly into and out of MDW, ISP, or DAL and be on time than it is when you fly into or out of ORD, JFK or DFW during the international rush. Yes on the surface the numbers are quantitative, but with statistics you need to look at numbers that come from similar samples and not compare apples to oranges.
 
Since it's based on those metrics, wouldn't comparing hub/spoke carriers (with interline bags, hubs, connecting flights, etc) to point-to-point carriers be an invalid study?

For example, SWA doesn't have an interline bag agreement so they probably have less mishandled bags.

Delta might fly a pax from LAX to SLC on Delta, switch the bag over to NWA for a flight to MSP and then on Mesaba from DTW to Saskatoon...
 
Back
Top