Wichita State University Libraries
SOAR: Shocker Open Access Repository
Airline Quality Rating Report
W. Frank Barton School of Business
The Airline Quality Rating 2000
Brent D. Bowen
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Dean E. Headley
Wichita State University
Citation
Bowen, Brent D. and Headley, Dean E. 2000. The Airline Quality Rating 2000. Wichita State
University: Wichita, KS -- 49 p.
This paper is posted in the Shocker Open Access Repository:
http://soar.wichita.edu/handle/10057/11224
The Airline Quality Rating 2000
Brent D. Bowen
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Aviation lnstitute
Dean Е. Headley
Wichita State University
W.. Frank Barton Schoo/ of Business
April$ 2000
АВОUТ ТНЕ AUТНORS
Brent Bowen is Director and Professor, Aviation Institute, University ofNebraska at
Omaha. Не has been appointed as а Graduate Faculty Fellow ofthe University ofNebraska
System-wide Graduate College. Bowen attained his Doctorate in Нigher Education and Aviation
ftom Oklahoma State University and а Master ofBusiness Administration degree ftom Oklahoma
City University. Нis Federal Aviation Administration certifications include Airline Transport
Pilot, Certified Flight lnstructor, Advanced-Instrument Ground Instructor, Aviation Safety
Counselor, and Aerospace Education Counselor. Dr. Bowen's research interests focus on
aviation applications of puЬlic productivity enhancement and marketing in the areas of service
quality evaluation, forecasting, and student recruitment in collegiate aviation programs. Не is also
well puЫished in areas related to effective teaching. Нis professional affiliations include the
Univeгsity Aviation Association, Council on Aviation Accгeditation, Woгld Aerospace Education
Association, International Air Transportation Research Group, Аегоsрасе Education Association,
Alpha Eta Rho Inteгnational Aviation Frateгnity, and the Nebraska Academy ofScience. Не also
serves as program director and principal investigator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration funded NeЬraska Space Grant Consortium.
Dean Headley is Associate Professor ofМarketing, W. Frank Barton School ofBusiness,
and Faculty Associate ofthe National Institute for Aviation Research at Wichita State University.
Не holds а Doctorate in Marketing and Statistics ftom Oklahoma State University, а Master of
Business Administгation Degree ftom Wichita State University, and а Masteг ofPublic Health
Degree ftom the University ofOklahoma. 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 ofmarketing
activities on consumers and providers of services.
Collectively, Dr. Bowen's and Dr. Headley's research on the Airline Quality Rating (AQR)
has met with national and international acceptance and acknowledgment. The Airline Quality
Rating has been featured on ABC's Good Morning America, Тhе Cahle News Network, Тhе
Today Shaw, C-Span, on network news, in USA Today, in Aviation Week and Space Technology,
and in numerous otheг national and international media. Bowen and Headley have served as
invited expert witnesses before the U.S. House ofRepresentatives Committee on Goveгnment
Operations and have served on multiple occasions as invited speakers and panelists for such
gгoups as the National Academy of Sciences/Transportation Research Board. Resulting ftom
work with the Aiгline Quality Rating, Bowen and Headley have been recognized with awards
ftom the American Marketing Association, the American Institute of Aeгonautics and
Astronautics, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, the Travel and Transportation Research
Association, W. Frank Barton School ofBusiness, and otheгs. Тhе AQR research has been
puЬlished in the Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education and Research, Journal of Air
Transportation World Wide, Advances in Marketing, Business Research Methods, as well as
other journals, proceedings, text books, and research monographs.
AIRLINE
QUALIТY
RATING 2000
Brent D. Bowen,. University ofNeЬraska at Omaha
Dean Е. Headley, Wichita State University
Abstract
The Airline Quality Rating (AQR) was developed and first announced in early 1991 as an
objective method of comparing airline quality on comЬined multiple performance criteria. This
current report, Airline Quality Rating 2000, reflects montbly Airline Quality Rating scores for
1999. AQR scores for the calendar year 1999 are based on 14 elements that focus on airline
performance areas important to air travel consumers.
The Airline Quality Rating 2000 is а summary of month-by-month quality ratings for the
ten major U.S. airlines operating during 1999. Using the Airline Quality Rating system of
weighted averages and montbly perfoпnance data in the areas of on-time arrivals, involuntary
denied boardings, mishandled baggage, and а comЬination of 11 customer complaint categories,
major airlines comparative performance for the calendar year of 1999 is reported. This research
monograph contains а briefsummary ofthe AQR methodology, detailed data and charts that track
comparative quality for major airlines domestic operations for the 12 month period of 1999, and
industry average results. Also, comparative Airline Quality Rating data for 1998, are included for
each airline to provide historical perspective regarding performance quality in the industry.
The Airline Quality Rating (AQR) System
The majority of quality ratings availaЫe rely on subjective surveys of consumer opinion
that are inftequently done. This subjective approach yields а quality rating that is essentially
noncomparaЬle ftom survey to survey for any specific airline. Timeliness of survey-based results
can Ье а proЬlem 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 а timely,
objective and comparaЬle basis. With the introduction ofthe AQR, а multi-factor, weighted
average approach became availaЬle that had not been used before in the airline industry. The
method relies on taking puЬiished, puЬiicly available data that reports actual airline performance
on critical quality criteria important to consumers and comЬines them into а rating system. The
final result is а rating for individual airlines with interval scale properties that is comparaЫe across
airlines and across time.
The Airline Quality Rating (AQR) is а weighted average of 14 elements (see ТаЬlе 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 Ье
obtainaЬle ftom puЬlished data sources for each airline; and 2) an element must have relevance to
consumer concerns regarding airline quality. Data for the 14 elements used in calculating the
гatings represent performance aspects (on-time arrival, mishandled baggage, denied Ьoardings,
and 11 customeг complaint areas) of airlines that are important to consumers. All of the 14
elements аге reported in the Air Travel Consumer Report maintained Ьу the U. S. Department of
Transportation.
Weights were estaЬiished Ьу surveying 65 airline industry experts regarding their opinion
as to what consumers would rate as important (on а scale ofO to 10) injudging airline quality.
Also, each weight and element were assigned а plus or minus sign to reflect the nature of impact
for that criterion on а consumer's perception of quality. For instance, the criteria of on-time
arrival performance is included as а positive element because it is reported in terms of on-time
successes, suggesting that а higher number is favoraЬle to consumers. The weight for this criteria
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 а negative element because it is
reported in terms of mishandled bags per passengers served, suggesting that а higher number is
unfuvoraЬle to consumers. Because having baggage arrive with passengers is important to
consumers the weight for this criteria is also high. Weights and positive/negative signs are
independent ofeach other. Weights reflect importance ofthe 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 comЬined for an airline and
averaged over the year, а single interval scaled value is obtained. Тhis value is comparaЬle across
airlines and across time periods.
The Airline Quality Rating criteria and the weighted average methodology allows а very
focused comparison of major airline domestic performance. Unlike other consumer opinion
approaches which rely on consumer surveys and subjective opinion, the AQR continues to use а
mathematical formula that takes multiple weighted objective criteria into account in arriving at а
single, fully comparaЬie rating for the airline industry. The Airline Quality Rating provides both
consumers and industry watchers а means for looking at comparative quality for each major
airline on а 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.
With the continued global trend in airline operations alliances, the argument becomes even
stronger for the Airline Quality Rating to Ье used as а standard method for comparing the quality
of airline performance for international operations as well.
ТаЬlе
AIRLINE
QUALПY
1
RATING CRITERIA,
CRITERIA
WEIGНТS
AND
WEIGНТ
IМРАСТ
+
от
On-Time
8.63
DB
Denied Boardings
8.03
мв
Мishandled
7.92
СС
Customer Complaints
7.17
Flight ProЬiems (-8.05)
Oversales
Reservations, Ticketing, and Boarding (-7.08)
Fares ( -7 .60)
Refunds (-7.32)
Baggage
Customer Service (-7.20)
Disability Note: appeared as а separate category 7/99
Advertising (-6.82)
Tours
Other (- 7.34) Note: as of9/99 also includes Smoking and Credit (-5.94).
Baggage
IМРАСТ
(+/-)
Data for all criteria is drawn fi-om the U.S. Department ofTransportation's montbly Ajr
Travel Consumer Report.
The formula for calculating the AQR score is:
(+8.63
AQR =
хОТ)+
(-8.03
х
DB) + (-7.92
х МВ)+
(-7.17
х СС)
-------------------------------------------------------------
(8.63 + 8.03 + 7.92 + 7.17)
What the Airline Quality Rating Tells Us About 1999
Since the Aiгline Quality Rating is соmрагаЬlе acгoss airlines and acгoss time, monthly
rating results can Ье examined both individually and coilectively. The pages foilowing these
summaгy comments outline the AQR scores Ьу airline, Ьу month fur 1999. For compaгison
puгposes, results for individual airlines аге also displayed for 1998. А composite industry average
chaгt that comЬines the ten airlines tracked is shown. With the performance-based e1ements, we
saw some changes in the order ofthe AQR scores for 1999.
The Airline Quality Rating industry average score shows an industry that is declining in
quality relative to customer performance criteria. Northwest, Alaska, and Southwest were the
only airlines to show improvement in the overall AQR scores for 1999. ТWА was most constant
ftom 1998 to 1999, with only а slight decгease in theiг AQR sсоге. US Airways and American
registered the laгgest dec1ine in AQR scoгes. America West, Continental, Delta, and United all
declined as well, but at more moderate levels. In all, seven ofthe ten airlines гated posted lower
AQR scores in 1999 than in 1998. The AQR results fог 1999 indicate that:
+
+
+
+
+
Southwest Aiгlines' performance for 1999 took them ftom the middle ofthe pack in 1998
to the top in 1999. They recoгded the third largest maгgin of improvement in AQR sсоге
of the ten aiгlines. Involuntaгy denied boarding rates and mishandled baggage rates were
betteг in 1999, while on-time arrival percentage and customer complaint гates grew worse
in 1999. In а time when industry customer complaint rates are multiplying гapidly,
Southwest has, Ьу fаг, the lowest rate ofany ofthe ten majoг carriers (0.40 per 100,000
passengers).
Continental Aiгlines showed а dгор in performance quality in 1999 in al1 of the four агеаs
ofthe AQR. Even though theiг scores declined, they maintained the second ranked
position ofthe ten aiг1ines rated. Better than industry average performance in the areas of
on-time arrivals, mishandled baggage, and involuntary denied Ьoaгdings helped
Continental maintain their rank order ftom 1998.
Delta Airlines' AQR score for 1999 reflects а decline in performance for on-time arrivals,
denied boaгdings, mishand1ed bags, and customer complaints. With most of the other
airlines also showing а performance decline, Delta posted the third smallest decline and
actually moved up to third in the ranking positions for 1999.
Northwest Airlines posted the most improved overall AQR score of all airlines rated in
1999. Improvements in on-time arrival performance, denied boa.rdings (industry best), and
mishandled baggage all contributed to their improved score and moved them well up in the
ranking order.
Alaska Airlines had bright spots in 1999 in the areas offewer denied boardings and fewer
mishandled bags рег passenger flown. On the down side, Alaska Airlines had а lower ontime performance in 1999 than in 1998 and а higher consumer comp1aint rate. This
comblnation contributed to Alaska Ainines having the second most improvement in AQR
score for all ofthe major airlines.
+
+
+
+
+
+
US Airways had the most decline in AQR score ftom 1998 to 1999 of all the major
airlines. Looking at some of the details reveals that US Airways performed more poorly
in all ofthe four major areas monitored Ьу the Airline Quality Rating. On-time arrival
performance, mishandled baggage rates, involuntary denied Ьoarding rates, and customer
complaint rates all became worse for US Airways in 1999, moving the airline down in the
rankings.
American Airlines' AQR score for 1999 reflects their declining performance in on-time
arrivals, mishandled bags, and customer complaints compared to 1998. An irnprovement
in involuntary denied boarding rates was not enough to offset declines in other
performance areas and reduced their overall score. American registered the second Iargest
decline in AQR score of the ten major airlines.
America West irnproved their on-time performance for 1999, but still posted the worst ontime performance rate (69.5%) ofall the major airlines in 1999. Denied Ьoardings and
mishandled baggage were also а source of performance decline. America West was the
only majoг carrier to have the rate of consumer complaints per passenger served decline
for 1999.
Trans World Airlines improved performance in 1999 over 1998 in two areas, on-time
arrivals and involuntary denied boardings. On-time perfoпnance (80.9%) was the best in
the industry fог the year. Мishandled baggage rates stayed the same and customer
complaint rates increased in 1999. These improvements helped TWА show the smallest
decline in AQR score of all the seven airlines posting declines.
United Airlines had а better on-time arrival percentage for 1999, but the airline posted
declining performance in denied boardings and number of complaints per passenger
served. Although United improved their mishandled baggage rate for 1999, it was still the
worst among the ten major carriers. All ofthese elements comЬined to keep United as the
lowest performing carrier in the Airline Quality Ratings.
For 1999 the overall industry average AQR scorewas lowerthan in 1998. As an industry,
the AQR criteria shows that on-time arrival percentage declined slightly (76.1% in 1999
compared to 77.2% in 1998), involuntary denied boardings per passenger served increased
slightly ( 0.88 per 10,000 passengers in 1999 compared to 0.87 per 10,000 passengers in
1998), mishandled baggage rates improved (5.08 per 1,000 passengers in 1999 versus
5.16 per 1,000 passengers in 1998), and consumer complaint rates increased (2.48 per
100,000 passengers in 1999 compared to 1.08 per 100,000 passengers in 1998) Ьу over
130%. This continued decline in performance in all areas is а disturЬing trend. The nature
of customer complaints reflect consumer ftustration with the policies and practices of the
industry and, to some extent, with the government agencies that regulate the industry.
Continued performance decline and consumer dissatisfaction expressed Ьу year afteг year
of increases in the volume of complaints seems to indicate that airline consurners have
reached the limits of tolerance and are expecting that the industry and go'llernment respond
in а more coordinated and considerate manner in addressing their concerns.
Observations About the Industry
As measured Ьу the Airiine Quality Rating, quality for the air1ine industry decreased in
1999. Consumer dissatisfaction with airline service was а dominant theme regarding the air1ine
industry over the past two years. There are many other issues which face the industry as we look
to the future. Looking ahead we suggest that:
~
Continued declining industry performance quality in 1999 gives cause for Congress to
again seriously consider the passage of an Airiine Passengers' Bill ofRights. An
assessment, due to Congress in June, 2000, ofhow the airiines delivered on their selfpoliced promise to do better in customer service areas will Ье exarnined with great
interest. Even though the plan was only deployed toward year-end, the airlines were
under high scrutiny all of 1999 regarding performance and the data shows continuing
failure on their part. Маnу consumers believe that the airlines have not delivered on
promises to improve. In the coming months, industry observers shou1d monitor and hold
the major airlines increasingly accountaЬle for implementing the service tenets advocated,
which include the provision of lowest fare information at time of booking, full disclosure
of information regarding service difficulties and delays, better responsiveness to customer
complaints, provision for basic needs of passengers, and enhanced baggage liaЫlity limits.
Generally, the consumer wants to Ье treated with more respect and receive more reliaЬle
service, and many think it may take an act of Congress to exact this fi-om the airlines.
~
ProfitaЬility in the industry remains good due to increasing demand, cost efficient on-line
reservation systems, and higher fare prices. Higher fuel costs have seriously hampered
profit growth as in past years. Labor issues will undoubted1y Ье а noticeaЬle issue in 2000
as labor negotiations come due for nearly all ofthe major domestic airlines. This can have
major implications for the airlines' attempts to achieve higher profits and higher levels of
customer satisfaction. When employees are in disagreement with management it is
difficult to expect that employees will not express their negative attitudes in ways that
affect consumers and the bottom line.
~
The industry financial performance has begun to reflect а changing demographic that
results fi-om fare disparity. Whi1e more passengers are being attracted to fly as а
transportation alternative, this growth is primarily fi-om leisure travelers, whereas business
travel may Ье in а period of decline. Since airlines have historically inflated business fares
and under-priced leisure fares, this change is having immediate fiscal impact. Business
travelers are finding reasons not to travel in an unfiiendly environment and are turning in
record numbers to private air charter options.
~
The FAA must accept some Ьlame in failing to meet the traveling puЬlic's needs. Not
effectively modernizing the National Airspace System with up to date techno1ogy, not
expediting the implementation of GPS navigation and approaches, fi-ee-flight, ground
incursion management, data-1ink and other enhancements to handling increased capacity in
а constrained system will soon have а direct and noticeaЬie deteriorating effect on
consumers' attitudes and confidence in the use of airline services. The $1 О Ьillion reserves
in the Аviation and Airways Trust Fund must Ье used for something other than budget
balancing.
~
The F AA/DOT reports that air travel passenger volume will continue to expand at а
moderate расе both domestically (3% to 4% per year thru 2010) and internationally (5%
per year thru 20 l 0). Тhе continuing growth will hasten the point of saturation for the hub
and spoke system during the first decade of the next century. With only limited airport
capacity expansion being availaЬie until 2006 or 2007, congestion will get worse before it
gets better. Factoring this unavoidaЬie congestion into an increasingly delayed and
dissatisfied consumer base willlead to а continued increase in consumer cornplaints.
Маnу of the proЬiems consurners face with the airline industry result frorn competitive and
airline policy choices. These proЬierns range from unfair business practices targeting new
start-up airlines, temporary route structure changes, gate-lock practices, select incentives
to travel agents, abllity to tie up Ianding slots and book them as assets, rapid expansion of
code sharing practices which in effect may reduce competition on rnany routes, and flight
scheduling cornpetition. Consurners are dernanding point-to-point air service availability
that new, smaller regional jet aircraft will enaЬie. Opportunities for route structures that
meet consurner needs in а changing airline environrnent hold promise.
~
The таnу anti-consumer oriented rules developed recently to enhance perceived
productivity at the expense of consumer cornfort and convenience have resulted in
consumer retaliation, as evidenced Ьу increasing cornplaints to the Department of
Transportation. Exarnples include limiting carry-on bags to unreasonaЬle requirernents,
disallowing the carry-on of food and Ьeverages, Iimiting pre-boarding with children and
then requiring thern to sit in the back of the aircraft, not allowing а consumer to take an
earlier connection when а seat is availaЬle, increasing change of ticket fees, limiting use of
child safety seats, Ьlocking access to window and aisle seats based on ticket price and
standing in а frequent flyer club, not providing accurate information on delays, and
constantly changing frequent flyer prograrns to the consumer's disadvantage (such as
basing awards on ticket price rather than miles, reflecting the airline's own disparity in
pricing). Soon, consumers will become driven Ьу price and schedule only and regard
airline loyalty as having no tangiЬle value.
~
Electronic access to the airlines is а benefit to таnу consumers. Ву using this fast
growing delivery channel, the airlines are successfully circumventing costs associated with
travel agent and phone reservation systems. Internet ticketing and ticketless bookings are
areas that both consumeгs and airlines are finding useful. At present, this provides а
rnechanisrn for greater access and greater disparity in pricing which fills last-minute seats
cheaply, thus seemingly benefitting both parties. Technology applications are being used to
de-personalize service to the point that consumer travel preferences are not recognized
and not met. This continuing alienation generally affects the most valued custorner
groups. Furtherrnore it is disrupting and distancing the travel agent component ofthe
distribution chain on the faulty assumption that all travelers are technology liteгate.
Previous Airline Quality Reports
Bowen, Brent D ., Dean Е. Headley and Jacqueline R. Luedtke ( 1991 ), Airline Qualitv Rating,
National Institute for Aviation Research Report 91-11, Wichita, Кansas.
Bowen, Brent D., and Dean Е. Headley (1992), Airline Ouality Rating Report 1992,
National Institute for Aviation Research Report 92-11, Wichita, Kansas.
Bowen, Brent D., and Dean Е. Headley (1993), Airline Oualitv Rating Report 1993,
National Institute for Аviation Research Report 93-11, Wichita, Kansas.
Bowen, Brent D., and Dean Е. Headley (1994), Airline Ouality Rating Report 1994,
National Institute for Aviation Research Report 94-11, Wichita, Kansas.
Bowen, Brent D., and Dean Е. Headley (1995), Airline Quality Rating Report 1995,
National Institute for Aviation Research Report 95-11, Wichita, Kansas.
Bowen, Brent D., and Dean Е. Headley (1996), Airline OualityRating 1996, W. Frank Barton
School ofBusiness, Wichita, Kansas.
Bowen, Brent D., and Dean Е. Headley (1997), AirlineQualitvRating 1997, W. Frank Barton
School ofBusiness, Wichita, Kansas.
Bowen, Brent D ., and Dean Е. Headley ( 1998), Airline Ouality Rating 1998, W. Frank Barton
School ofBusiness, Wichita, Kansas.
Bowen, Brent D., and Dean Е. Headley (1999), Airline Ouality Rating 1999, W. Frank Barton
School ofBusiness, Wichita, Kansas.
For more information contact either:
Dr. Dean Е. Headley, Associate Professor
W. Frank Barton School ofBusiness
Wichita State University
304 Clinton Hall
Wichita, KS 67260-0084
Dr. Brent D. Bowen, Director
Aviation Institute
University ofNebraska at Omaha
Allwine Нall 422
Omaha, NE 68182-0508
Office: (316) 978-3367
FAX: 316-978-3276
E-mail: headley2@twsuvm.uc.twsu.edu
Office: {402) 554-3424
FAX: 402-554-3781
E-mail: unoai@unomaha.edu
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
AVERAGE AQR SCORES
AQR Scores
о
-]
-2
-з
-4~-.----~---.----т----.----.----.----~----.---~----~~
sw
со
DL
NW
AL
us
АА
Airlines Rated
~ 1998
-1999
All Мajor U. S. Airlines
Average AQR Scores
Southwest
Continental
Delta
Northwest
Alaska
US Airways
American
America West
Trans World
United
Industry Average
1998
1999
-1.408
-1.068
-1.366
-2.079
-2.077
-1.053
-1.256
-1.540
-2.076
-2.155
-1.279
-1.575
-1.689
-1.720
-1.853
-1.912
-1.991
-2.123
-2.126
-2.387
-1.609
-1.850
AW
TW
UN
TOTAL
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
ALL MAJOR U.S. AIRLINES
AQR Scores
о
-1
-2
-з
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Month
~ 1998
АН Major U.S. Airlines
Average Montbly AQR Scores
1998
1999
December
-1.789
-1.494
-1.579
-1.383
-1.589
-1.805
-1.614
-1.732
-1.636
-1.335
-1.317
-2.049
-2.663
-1.787
-1.735
-1.582
-1.683
-1.779
-2.077
-1.899
-2.094
-1.525
-1.527
-1.845
Industry Average
-1.609
-1.850
January
February
Мarch
April
Мау
June
July
August
Septembeг
October
NovemЬeг
-1999
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
ALL MAJOR AIRLINES
1998 - 1999
AQR Scores
1~---------------------------------------------------------~
-1
-2
-3 -
-4
L.____L___j____L__.L____/____!__-'-----L___l..__--'----''-----'----'-_j_____J__J__---'--J___j_----'--~----'
J.F М А М J J А S О N D J F М А М J J А S О N D
1
98
1
99
1
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
SOUTHWEST
AQR Scores
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Мау
..Jun
Jul
Aug
Month
I§R 1998
-
Southwest Airlines
Monthly AQR Scores
1998
1999
-1.490
-1.461
-1.506
-1.378
-1.312
-1.460
-1.398
-1.460
-1.279
-1.168
-1.164
-1.823
-1.640
-1.213
-1.174
-1.199
-1.256
-1.308
-1.311
-1.290
-1.140
-1.093
-1.260
-1.459
Airline AQR Score
-1.408
-1.279
Industry AQR Score
-1.609
-1.850
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1999
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AIRIJNE QUALITY RA TIN
SOUTHWEST 1998 - 1999
AQR Scores
1 --------------------------------------------------,
-1
-2 .
-3
-4
· J. F
1
L _ j j __
М
А
М
J J
98
А
S
О
N D J F
1
MontЬ
М
А
М
J J
99
А
S
О
N D
1
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
CONТINENTAL
AQR Scores
1 .-~----------------------------------------------------,
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Month
~
1998
Continental Airlines
Monthly AQR Scores
1998
1999
-1.147
-0.880
-1.001
-0.787
-0.957
-1.257
-0.956
-1.317
-0.891
-1.184
-0.970
-1.473
-2.330
-1.214
-1.172
-1.050
-1.314
-1.558
-1.876
-1.775
-2.234
-1.355
-1.420
-1.603
Airline AQR Score
-1.068
-1.575
Industry AQR Score
-1.609
-1.850
Jan
Feb
Маr
Apr
М ау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
-
1999
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AIRIJNE QlJALITY RATING
CONTINENTAL 1998 - 1999
AQR Scores
1~--------------------------------~
-1
-2
-3
-4
l _ _ _ _ L _ _ j _ _ _ j _ _ _ j _ _ _ J _ _ _ j _ - ' - - - J . _ _ j _ - - - ' - - . . J _ _ __
J F
1
.
М
А
М
J J
98
А
S
О
_j ______ _j ______ _j ______ _j_·~~-"-----'~~~
N D J F
1
Month
М
А
М
J J
99
А
S
О
N D
1
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
DELTA
AQR Scores
о
-1
-2
-з
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Month
~ 1998
-1999
Delta Airlines
Montbly AQR Scores
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Airline AQR
Sсоге
Industry AQR Score
1998
1999
-1.625
-1.450
-1.332
-1.407
-1.389
-1.328
-1.197
-1.269
-1.327
-1.259
-1.235
-1.570
-2.895
-1.931
-1.948
-1.616
-1.663
-1.600
-1.654
-1.699
-1.700
-1.270
-1.045
-1.250
-1.366
-1.689
-1.609
-1.850
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
DELTA 1998 - 1999
AQR Scores
1~--------------~----------~--~
-1
-2
-3
-4~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
· J F
1
М
А
М
J J
98
А
S
О
N D J F
1
МопtЬ.
М
А
М
J J
99
А
S
О
N D
1
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
NORTHWEST
AQR Scores
о
-\
-2
-з
Jan
Feh
Mar
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Month
~ 1998
-1999
Northwest Airlines
Montbly AQR Scores
1998
1999
-2.189
-1.500
-1.794
-1.945
-2.271
-2.568
-2.269
-2.744
-3.073
-1.267
-1.396
-1.930
-3.376
-1.767
-1.534
-1.558
-1.417
-1.391
-1.822
-1.478
-2.021
-1.338
-1.223
-1.715
Airline AQR Score
-2.079
-1.720
Industry AQR Score
-1.609
-1.850
Jan
Feb
Маr
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AIRLINE QlJ ALITY RA TIN G
NORTHWEST 1998 - 1999
AQR Scores
1~---------------------------------------------------~----------
-1
\
-2
-3 -
-4
~
r'
J
1
ll---'---"------~---J.............J.._____..L.-.....J_______L.._....J...._-'----J___L_-'--__J__-'---J..--------L....-.---L---~
.
М
А
М
J J
98
А
S
О
N D J F
1
MontЬ
М
А
М
J J
99
А
S
О
N D
1
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
ALASKA AIRLINES
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Month
~ 1998
-1999
Alaska Airlines
Montbly AQR Scores
1998
1999
-2.252
-1.778
-1.786
-1.443
-1.775
-2.068
-2.446
-2.312
-2.263
-1.613
-1.883
-3.301
-2.527
-1.721
-1.796
-1.887
-2.472
-2.562
-1.630
-1.493
-1.555
-1.141
-1.201
-2.251
Airline AQR Score
-2.077
-1.853
Industry AQR Score
-1.609
-1.850
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
ALASKA AIRLINES
1998
1999
AQR Scores
1 -
---~----~----~~----.
-1
-2
-3
-4 --J F
.--l____L__L___j__j______l_____J____L_"----L___L___I_
1
М
А
М
J J
98
А
S
О
N D J F
1
Month
М
А
М
J J
99
А
S
О
N D
1
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
US AIRWAYS
AQR Scores
о
-1
-2
-3
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Month
~ 1998
US Airways
Montbly AQR Scores
1998
1999
-0.998
-0.945
-0.930
-0.828
-0.979
-1.570
-0.977
-1.144
-0.964
-0.871
-0.810
-1.624
-2.110
-1.834
-1.709
-1.635
-1.546
-1.733
-2.647
-2.162
-2.834
-1.582
-1.589
-1.565
Airline AQR Score
-1.053
-1.912
Industry AQR Score
-1.609
-1.850
Jan
Feb
Маr
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
-1999
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
US AIRWAYS
1998 - 1999
AQR Scores
1 -··········
-------------
0~---------------~
-3
-4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
F
· J
1
.
М
А
М
J J
98
А
S
О
N D
J
1
Month
F
М
А
М
J J
99
А
S
О
N D
1
AIRLINE Q U ALITY RA TIN G
AMERICAN AIRLINES
1
AQR Scores
.-~~~----------~------~------~--------------------.
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Month
f!;D 1998
American Aiгlines
Montbly AQR Scores
Jan
Feb
Маr
Apr
Мау
Jun
Ju1
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Aiгline
AQR
Sсоге
Industry AQR Score
1998
1999
-1.490
-1.204
-1.230
-1.005
-1.043
-1.234
-1.157
-1.267
-1.116
-1.351
-1.159
-1.814
-2.221
-1.727
-1.700
-1.643
-2.024
-2.105
-2.554
-2.190
-2.308
-1.620
-1.702
-2.094
-1.256
-1.991
-1.609
-1.850
-
1999
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AIRLINE QlJ ALIT'{ RA TIN G
AMERICAN
1998 - 1999
AQR Scores
1~--------------------------------~
-1
-2
-з
-4
~~~J~~~~~~l
F
· J
1
.
М
А
М
J J
98
_J ______ L_l---~~J--~---J ___ ....L~ ___ j
~~~1--
А
S
О
N D
J
1
Month
F
М
А
М
J J
99
А
S
__
О
N D
1
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
AMERICA WEST
Jan
Feb
M.ar
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Month
~ 1998
-
America West Airlines
Monthly AQR Scores
1998
1999
-1.418
-1.337
-1.344
-1.210
-1.417
-1.546
-1.817
-2.005
-1.758
-1.543
-1.389
-1.699
-2.226
-1.521
-1.564
-1.400
-1.652
-1.423
-2.311
-2.546
-2.781
-2.497
-2.737
-2.818
Airline AQR Score
-1.540
-2.123
Industry AQR Score
-1.609
-1.850
Jan
Feb
Mar
Арг
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1999
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
AMERICA WEST
1998 - 1999
AQR Scores
1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0~-----------------~
-1
~
·~···
-2
/ \
t--/~v~.
····/
\
-3
~
-4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
· J F
1
М
А
М
J J
98
А
S
О
N D J F
1
Montl1
М
А
М
J J
99
А
S
О
N D
1
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
TRANS WORLD AIRLINES
AQR Scores
о
-1
-2
-3
-4
Jan
Feh
Мат
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Month
~ 1998
Trans World Airlines
Monthly AQR Scores
1998
1999
-2.791
-2.256
-2.644
-1.901
-2.378
-2.644
-1.822
-1.893
-1.711
-1.278
-1.314
-2.283
-4.352
-1.961
-1.946
-1.312
-1.728
-2.084
-2.524
-2.035
-2.394
-1.482
-1.571
-2.122
Airline AQR Score
-2.076
-2.126
Industry AQR Score
-1.609
-1.850
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
-1999
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AIRLINE QUALIT1{ RA TIN G
TRANS WORLD AIRLINES
1998 - 1999
AQR Scores
1
01-----
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
_L ____ _
F
· J
1
.
М
А
М
J J
98
А
S
О
N D
J
1
Month
F
М
А
М
J J
99
А
S
О
N D
1
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
UNIТED
AQR Scores
о
-1
-2
-3
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Month
~ 1998
United Airlines
Montbly AQR Scores
1998
1999
-2.490
-2.128
-2.223
-1.929
-2.095
-2.374
-2.105
-1.912
-1.977
-1.811
-1.850
-2.971
-3.360
-2.387
-2.297
-2.124
-2.086
-2.294
-2.462
-2.351
-2.429
-2.064
-2.110
-2.681
Airline AQR Score
-2.155
-2.387
Industry AQR Score
-1.609
-1.850
Jan
FеЬ
Маг
Apr
Мау
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
-1999
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AIRLINE QUALITY RATING
UNIТED
1998 - 1999
AQR Scores
1 ----------------------------,
-1
-2
-3
-4
· J F
1
.
]______]_______
М
А
М
J J
98
А
S
О
N D
J
1
Month
F
М
А
М
J J
99
А
S
О
N D
1
APPENDIX
Detail of Frequently Cited Airline Performance Criteria
Consumer interest remains high regarding such issues as on-time performance, mishandled
baggage, involuntary denied boardings (Ьumping), 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 taЬles and charts provide а detailed look at
the performance ofeach ofthe ten major U.S. airlines for the 12 months of 1999 and 1998
regarding on-time arrivals, mishandled baggage, involuntary denied Ьoardings, and consumer
complaints. Data were drawn. ftom the U.S. Department ofTransportation monthly Air Travel
Consumer Report.
We offer some observations in areas of concern to most consumers ( on-time, mishandled
bags, denied boardings, consumer complaints, and safety). This information can Ье useful in
helping the less fumiliar consumer gain а perspective on issues of interest in the airline industry.
Additional taЬles are included that give an overview of consumer complaints Ьу type for 1999,
and on-time arrival and departure information for the busiest airports.
The final pages of this appendix outline the Airline Quality Rating criteria definitions for
reference and clarity in fully understanding the nature ofthe data reported.
1999 On-Time Arrival Percentage Ьу Month for U.S. Major Airlines
Jan
Feb
Mar Apr
М ау
Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
Alaska
American
America West
Continental
Delta
Northwest
Southwest
Trans World
United
USAirways
.665
.671
.683
.720
.714
.627
.767
.600
.709
.715
.780
.830
.808
.824
.828
.832
.726
.716
.792
.787
.806
.781
.803
.711
.743
.708
.652
.745
.797
.823
.797
.824
.737
.761
.742
.647
.708
.688
.723
.751
.769
.682
.689
.681
.726
.707
.595
.679
.741
.738
.784
.765
.695
.612
.644
.784
.629
.756
.780
.813
.817
.849
.718
,690
.775
.658
.788
.809
.856
.853
.894
.760
.715
Monthly Avg.
.757
.762
.709
.711
.761
.793
.бб5
.78б
.582
.745
.715
.728
.764
.803
.793
.810
.811
.846
.788
.730
.677
.789
.781
.б97
.74б
Oct Nov Dec
.794 .780 .692 .615
Airline
Average
.801
.781
,852
.834
.895
.795
.749
.832
.691
.814
.837
.881
.789
.897
.812
.782
.778
.718
.781
.802
.815
.770
,824
.779
.777
.710
.735
.695
.766
.780
.799
.800
.809
.744
.714
.801
.814
.780
.7б1
.812
.бб8
Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. o.partment ofТrзnsportation, Oflice of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
1999 On-Time Arrival Ranking Ьу Month for U.S. Major Airlines
Alaska
American
America West
Continental
Delta
Northwest
Southwest
Trans World
United
USAirways
Jan
Feb
б
10
9
7
2
5
4
3
1
6
8
5
4
2
3
8
1
.9
7
10
Mar Apr
М ау
7
10
8
9
10
7
6
4
2
3
1
8
5
10
9
7
4
5
3
2
1
6
8
3
4
1
5
2
9
6
Jun
3
10
5
7
4
2
1
8
6
9
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
10
9
9
5
5
8
Jul
б
10
8
3
4
1
2
7
9
4
10
6
5
3
2
1
7
8
Source: Air Travel Cansumer Report, U.S. Department ofТransport.ation, Oflice of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
7
10
6
4
2
3
1
8
9
4
10
5
7
2
3
1
6
9
4
10
5
3
2
7
1
6
8
6
9
4
3
2
8
1
5
7
Airline
Ranking
9
7
10
5
4
3
2
1
6
8
1998 On-Time Arrival Percentage Ьу Month for U.S. Major Airlines
Jan
Feb
Alaska
American
America West
Continental
Delta
Northwest
Southwest
Trans World
United
USAirways
.693 .665
.786 .819
.731 .б20
.722 .699
.755 .737
.691 .793
.794 .748
.733 .784
.694 .715
.808 .811
Monthly Avg.
.751
.754
Mar Apr
М ау
Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Airline
Average
.756
.731
.831
.731
.757
.795
.715
.834
.754
.690
.800
.721
.750
.663
.696
.754
.587
.814
.649
.646
.723
.809
.679
.737
.756
.729
.767
.705
.740
.825
.807
.848
.749
.760
.770
.713
.826
.783
.787
.820
.б53
.807
.819
.745
.839
.775
.739
.810
.740
.769
.655
.767
.827
.639
.826
.835
.750
.773
.8б2
.765
.774
.694
.841
.865
.859
.815
.879
.769
.832
.707
.838
.733
.822
.848
.860
.836
.877
.807
.857
.542
.783
.618
.802
.766
.781
.746
.757
.727
.617
.719
.801
.685
.773
.796
.706
.808
.783
.738
.789
.759
.791
.775
.704
.789
.770
.789
.817
.833
.732
.772
.78б
.б49
.782
.823
.692
.859
.862
.361
.853
.877
.793
Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department ofТrampomtion, Office of Aviation Enforcement at1d Proceedings.
1998 On-Time Arrival Ranking Ьу Month for U.S. Major Airlines
Alaska
American
America West
Continental
Delta
Northwest
Southwest
Trans World
United
USAirways
Jan
Feb
9
9
1
10
8
6
3
5
4
7
2
3
6
7
4
10
2
.5
8
Mar Apr
М ау
Jun
5
2
10
7
4
8
3
9
4
1
9
8
7
10
2
8
2
7
5
4
9
1
б
б
б
5
3
10
3
4
3
6
5
2
10
1
8
9
7
Jul
9
4
10
5
2
7
1
б
8
3
Aug Sep
8
5
9
6
2
10
3
1
7
4
Source:Air Travel Consumer Repott, U.S. Department ofTrampomtion, Office of Aviation E.nforcement and Proceedings.
8
6
9
4
2
10
5
1
7
3
Oct
9
7
10
4
2
3
б
1
8
5
Nov Dec
10
5
9
7
4
2
6
1
8
3
10
2
8
1
4
3
6
5
7
9
Airline
Ranking
8
2
10
6
3
9
1
5
7
4
On-Time Performance for Selected* U.S. Airports
January- Jun~ 1999
On-Time
Dep.
Arr.
FEB
0
/oOn-Time
Arr.
Dep.
67.7
68.5
61.4
68.0
54.8
70.3
72.5
69.9
68.0
68.8
58.0
73.7
78.7
81.6
70.4
79.7
73.5
84.9
75.5
73.5
61.0
78.7
68.2
72.5
73.6
77.6
57.8
80.5
73.4
75.5
71.8
70.8
68.7
62.6
61.1
67.9
APR
о/о On- Time
Arr.
Dep.
82.3
83.0
76.9
77.8
77.6
88.4
76.8
77.5
63.1
79.9
75.3
82.9
79.0
78.9
73.8
79.5
77.3
86.6
74.0
79.6
72.6
80.8
64.6
79.1
81.7
84.2
83.4
86.7
80.7
78.5
78.8
86.0
81.4
87.8
85.2
79.8
78.2
84.9
80.4
83.2
81.1
78.8
77.4
86.4
78.7
85.6
84.4
78.9
78.2
74.2
68.5
69.0
66.0
74.5
75.1
75.0
84.4
70.4
872.3
82.6
79.4
76.3
85.1
77.0
78.1
85.9
76.1
78.0
83.9
70.8
70.0
80.4
57.9
73.4
58.7
75.4
69.2
61.0
55.9
74.7
58.6
81.9
77.1
72.5
72.5
78.9
80.2
81.2
76.8
66.6
72.5
80.1
81.3
85.4
81.5
75.1
72.7
63.8
79.9
64.7
65.7
67.8
81.0
75.1
60.5
72.7
72.4
71.5
75.2
72.0
83.0
79.6
78.4
74.9
80.4
81.0
83.5
82.9
82.4
79.4
/о
0
АТL
BWI
BOS
CLT
ORD
CVG
DFW
DEN
DTW
IАН
MCI
LAS
LAX
МlА
МSР
LGA
EWR
м со
РНL
РНХ
РП
SLC
SAN
SFO
SJC
SEA
SТL
ТРА
DCA
IAD
МАR
%0n-Time
Arr.
Dep.
JAN
*Selected Ьased on average
ATLAtlanta
numЬer
ВWI Вaltimore
DFVV Dallas
DENDenver
BOSВostoп
DTWDetroit
CLT Charlotte
ORDChicago
CVG CincUmati
MCI Kansas City
LAS Las Vegas
Souroe:Air Travel
IAНHouston
Coпsumer Report~
МАУ
о/о Оп-
.JUN
о/о On-Тime
Arr.
Time
Dep.
Arr.
Dep.
79.0
77.7
74.4
80.5
73.6
85.1
77.7
75.9
67.9
82.1
65.9
80.3
80.4
78.7
79.8
81.2
73.6
85.4
68.1
70.2
69.0
74.4
64.6
76.6
73.0
73.5
77.5
73.3
68.8
81.5
74.9
77.0
81.0
80.9
76.9
74.5
76.9
82.5
80.7
84.8
83.0
76.8
69.9
81.7
82.3
77.0
77.7
80.3
70.8
85.3
82.4
80.7
84.9
81.4
71.9
72.7
78.5
68.3
70.4
74.5
72.8
76.9
77.9
73.1
77.1
75.4
80.2
82.0
84.0
79.0
77.5
84.0
70.3
76.0
83.1
73.9
69.9
78.8
77.7
81.0
86.1
82.7
80.6
83.7
76.5
71.5
83.2
65.1
65.8
78.9
81.4
79.8
85.4
78.6
77.6
84.6
69.2
59.8
74.6
65.0
64.7
70.3
78.3
69.1
76.1
76.0
74.7
78.8
70.4
77.8
78.7
82.8
74.3
70.4
71.0
77.6
80.2
86.9
80.5
78.7
71.0
72.1
77.1
81.9
72.2
70.2
74.7
74.1
81.1
86.6
80.0
79.7
67.8
81.5
80.6
84.7
78.1
71.1
74.4
80.2
81.8
87.4
82.2
80.2
65.2
74.9
73.9
78.5
73.1
69.3
69.7
74.8
72.9
83.9
81.9
79.9
78.6
78.0
84.1
78.3
76.4
68.0
83.9
82.8
83.6
82.1
80.4
72.9
76.3
74.6
79.0
75.8
79.2
72.5
80.7
80.1
80.5
82.6
85.1
77.6
81.5
71.3
83.3
76.5
75.1
71.5
85.5
77.8
82.5
82.6
83.1
79.8
77.1
68.5
71.3
67.0
70.9
64.8
84.4
76.7
68.7
76.5
80.3
73.4
of reported operations exceeding 5000 per month.
LAX Los A.ngeles
PHL Philadelphia
MIAMiami
MSP Minn../St.Pau1
LGA LaGuardia
EWRNewark
PНXPhoenix
MCOOтlando
РIТ PittsЬurgh
SLC Salt Lake City
SAN San Diego
SFO SanFrancisco
SJCSanJose
SEASeattie
SТL St . .Louis
TPATampa
DC'A Regan Nat•t
lAD Washington. Dul!es
V.S. Department ofTransportation.. Office of' Aviation Enf"orcernent and Proceedings..
Оп-Time
JUL
On-Time
Arr.
Dep.
AUG
о/о On-Time
Arr.
Dep.
SEP
/о On-Time
Arr.
Dep.
On-Time
Arr.
Dep.
69.1
67.0
62.3
68.9
66.4
78.2
73.2
70.6
70.7
66.7
70.1
82.2
75.2
74.3
72.6
76.2
74.0
81.7
78.1
75.7
79.2
74.2
77.9
85.8
77.4
77.3
67.8
80.5
79.9
88.1
82.0
80.0
75.9
79.8
82.7
90.1
68.2
79.6
72.6
82.2
78.2
87.3
78.3
74.5
75.4
71.2
74.9
73.7
76.3
78.4
73.7
75.4
81.7
71.8
84.0
77.5
82.9
80.5
81.3
75.1
83.6
81.0
81.0
82.6
86.2
73.3
85.8
83.1
86.8
85.0
85.1
76.2
86.3
87.2
84.8
88.1
90.1
76.0
73.9
66.8
74.8
59.9
83.5
73.0
79.2
75.4
75.3
71.1
85.9
81.4
73.6
67.4
81.4
71.0
80.5
75.4
77.1
73.2
82.6
78.5
82.9
82.8
69.3
70.6
88.4
66.2
80.1
76.7
59.6
70.4
66.7
81.9
75.9
67.9
62.1
69.2
63.9
84.0
81.5
78.5
67.5
72.8
75.2
81.6
76.4
61.3
71.5
72.2
76.2
83.8
79.5
72.4
78.1
69.5
78.0
67.7
67.3
63.6
85.1
76.1
74.1
77.9
75.8
70.1
78.0
67.5
85.4
72.9
76.3
69.8
83.9
71.0
83.8
82.0
83.4
75.3
о/о
A'IL
BWI
воs
CLT
ORD
CVG
DFW
DEN
DТW
IАН
MCI
LAS
LAX
МIА
МSР
LGA
EWR
мсо
РНL
РНХ
РП
SLC
SAN
SFO
SJC
SEA
S'IL
ТРА
DCA
IAD
Performance for Selected* U.S. Airports
.July- December, 1999
*Se1ected based on average
ATLAtlanta
BWI ВaJtimore
ВOSВoston
CLT Chadotte
ORDChicago
CVG Cincinnati
numЬer
ост
NOV
о/о
о/о On-Тime
о/о On-Тime
Arr.
Dep.
Arr.
Dep.
75.7
79.6
78.4
80.2
82.2
90.0
80.5
75.3
75.8
85.6
82.2
87.8
85.3
77.4
83.7
84.4
85.2
90.3
74.1
79.1
78.7
83.0
68.9
84.9
80.4
80.2
84.4
85.1
73.5
88.4
87.1
84.3
86.1
85.6
82.8
77.2
87.5
87.6
83.9
82.9
87.4
76.3
89.6
88.4
87.1
87.5
84.3
76.8
88.6
89.8
85.9
89.0
86.7
75.3
82.7
82.4
84.1
76.7
77.5
76.8
83.4
85.6
81.1
74.3
80.7
76.1
75.2
75.6
87.9
76.3
83.7
82.7
77.1
74.5
87.3
71.3
72.8
77.3
80.6
79.0
88.0
78.9
79.0
83.3
77.0
82.4
89.8
71.2
67.1
83.8
78.2
84.9
89.5
80.4
78.4
88.4
81.0
75.2
81.7
75.2
69.3
78.2
81.3
83.1
79.7
83.0
78.6
86.5
68.5
77.1
79.6
85.9
80.1
69.2
73.0
77.1
79.1
89.0
84.4
77.5
75.8
79.4
81.6
88.2
82.3
76.0
77.7
77.2
80.5
90.4
84.8
83.0
72.0
80.8
82.5
86.7
78.1
70.9
77.1
76.3
83.2
88.0
78.8
76.8
73.5
80.7
80.9
80.9
81.2
83.0
78.1
78.0
83.0
82.4
82.1
85.9
76.0
76.9
90.1
75.8
74.8
69.9
79.8
82.1
89.9
82.8
82.4
76.0
81.4
72.2
87.9
74.7
81.2
76.2
84.0
79.8
88.1
83.6
86.4
81.5
76.4
74.5
88.6
81.6
83.2
79.7
78.0
79.5
87.7
86.9
88.9
84.8
79.9
60.9
80.0
74.5
81.3
79.8
81.1
68.4
81.0
84.4
87.2
84.4
0
of reported operations exceeding 5000 per month.
DFW' Da11as
LAX Los Ange[es
l'HL Phi!adelpltia
DENDenver
PНXPhoenjx
IAНHouston
MIAMiami
MSP Minn./St.Paul
LGA LaGuardia
MCI Кansas City
LAS Las Vegas
EWRNewark
MCOOrlando
DТWDetroit
DEC
l'IТ PittsЬurgЬ
s.JC San Jose
SEASeattle
SТL St. Louis
SLC Satt Lake City
SAN San Diego
SFO SanFrancisco
TPATampa
DCA Regan Nat~1
IAD Wa.shington. Dulles
Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department ofTra.nsportation,. Office of Aviation
Enforcetneпt and
Proceed.ings.
1999 Involuntary Denied Boardings
Ьу
Quarter for U.S. Major Airlines
(per 10,000 passengers)
Alaska
Ameгican
Ameгica West
Continental
Delta
Nortbwest
Soutbwest
Trans World
United
USAirways
lndustry Average
Ist
Quarter
0.76
0.51
1.53
0.31
3.33
0.39
1.33
2.56
1.17*
0.94
1.44
2nd
3rd
4tb
1999
Quarteг
Quarteг
Quarteг
Aveгage
1.27
0.39
1.13
0.26
2.07
0.13
1.48
0.27
0.41*
0.53
0.92
0.37
1.48
0.28
0.61
0.12
1.39
0.10
0.55*
0.26
0.67
0.45
1.44
0.50
0.15
0.12
1.30
0.25
1.54*
0.39
0.91
0.43
1.39
0.34
1.53
0.18
1.38
0.73
0.90*
0.52
0.89
0.57
0.67
0.88
* Figures may reflect an inaccur:ate rate ol passengers invo1t.mtarily denied Ьoardings as reported to IX>T Ьу United Airlines.
Source: Air Travel Consumer Report~ U.S. Department ofTransportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
1998 Involuntary Denied Boardings
Ьу
Quarter for U.S. Major Airlines
(per 10,000 passengers)
Ist
Quarteг
Soutbwest
Trans World
United
USAirways
1.82
0.41
1.23
0.16
1.14
0.22
1.83
4.37
0.64*
0.27
Industry Average
0.95
Alaska
American
America West
Continental
Delta
Noгtbwest
2nd
Quarter
1.58
0.47
1.22
0.12
1.59
0.45
1.94
2.96
0.62*
0.28
1.01
3rd
4tb
Quaгter
Quaгter
1.14
0.37
0.91
0.11
0.99
0.30
1.75
1.86
0.53*
0.15
1.13
0.60
1.22
0.21
1.54
0.23
1.41
1.28
0.51*
0.20
0.74
0.82
* Figures may reflect an i:naccura:te rate of" passengers involuntarily denied Ьoardings as reported to J:X)T Ьу United Airlines.
Source: Air Travel Consumer Report. V.S. Department ofTransportation,. Office of Aviation Enforcementand Proceedings.
1998
Average
1.30
0.46
1.14
0.14
1.31
0.30
1.73
2.61
0.57*
0.22
0.87
1999 Mishandled Baggage Ьу Month for U.S. Major Airlines
(per 1, 000 passengers)
Alaska
American
America West
Continental
Delta
Northwest
Southwest
Trans World
United
USAirways
Jan
8.87
7.20
5.21
8.49
7.63
10.30
5.70
11.99
11.27
5.37
Feb
6.23
4.64
3.52
4.28
4.25
5.04
4.20
4.48
7.71
5.29
Mar
6.34
5.09
4.05
4.11
4.29
5.36
4.08
4.67
7.72
5.12
Apr
6.66
4.77
3.97
3.55
3.97
4.54
4.02
4.35
7.08
4.49
7.24
5.08
3.41
3.69
3.79
3.54
3.95
4.39
6.35
4.72
Jun
7.89
5.84
4.30
5.20
3.87
4.48
4.32
6.18
7.54
5.24
Jul
5.19
5.87
5.38
5.15
4.99
4.97
4.32
6.54
7.09
7.72
Aug
4.18
5.13
5.12
4.25
4.67
4.11
4.12
4.79
6.50
5.27
Sep
2.97
4.29
3.93
3.31
3.81
3.39
3.33
3.85
5.11
4.37
Oct
3.55
4.38
4.38
3.47
4.35
3.70
3.70
4.03
5.26
4.32
Nov
3.74
4.32
4.57
3.04
3.11
3.65
4.13
3.97
5.33
4.13
Dec
6.86
5.86
6.31
4.78
4.21
5.82
5.10
6.57
7.89
4.86
Airline
Average
5.75
5.21
4.52
4.42
4.39
4.81
4.22
5.38
7.01
5.08
Monthly Avg.
8.08 5.05
5.12
4.70
4.53
5.29
5.75
4.94
3.99 4.25
4.01
5.63
5.08
Мау
Source: Air Travel Carмumer Report, U.S. Department ofTransportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
1999 Mishandled Baggage Rankings Ьу Month for U.S. Major Airlines
Alaska
American
America West
Continental
Delta
Northwest
Southwest
Trans World
United
US Airways
Jan Feb Mar Apr
7
9
9
9
8
4
6
6
2
1
1
1
4
6
3
1
5
3
4
3
8
7
7
8
3
2
4
2
5
10
5
5
10
9
10
10
8
2
7
6
М ау
Jun Jul
10
10
5
7
8
7
1
2
6
5
4
3
3
4
1
2
4
2
5
3
1
6
8
8
9
9
9
10
7
6
Aug Sep
3
1
8
8
7
7
4
2
5
5
4
1
3
2
6
6
10 10
9
9
Source: Air Trovel Consumer Report, U.S. Department ofTransportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
Oct
2
8
9
1
7
3
4
5
10
6
Nov
4
Dec
9
8
9
1
2
3
7
5
10
6
6
7
2
1
5
4
8
10
3
Airline
Ranking
9
7
4
3
2
5
1
8
10
6
1998 Mishandled Baggage Ьу Month for U.S. Major Airlines
(per 1, 000 passengers)
Jan Feb
Alaska
American
America West
Continental
Delta
Northwest
Southwest
TransWorld
United
US Airways
Mar Apr
7.63
5.49
4.04
4.56
5.62
8.01
4.71
5.50 5.72
4.11 4.61
3.80 3.56
3.45 4.00
4.96 4.39
5.47 б.83
4.81
3.56
3.00
3.51
4.16
4.б0
4.б9
6.б8
4.58
9.04 7.25
4.10 3.90
6.14
8.12
3.82
4.22
4.53
б.55
М ау
Jun
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov Dec
5.73
3.55
3.53
3.88
4.00
6.89
4.03
7.32 8.64 8.51
4.50 4.22 4.49
4.27 4.48 4.56
4.57 3.50 4.22
3.99 4.07 4.08
8.3б б.7б
7.70
4.62 4.58 4.57
6.91 5.12 4.81
8.5б
7.б3
7.59
5.99 3.95 4.18
8.09
3.72
3.81
3.21
3.96
4.25
4.03
3.99
5.54
4.32
3.44
4.01
3.72
4.56
4.05
3.58
6.33
3.89
3.03
3.83
3.50
б.84
б.24
б.84
7.29
3.42
З.б8
Jul
Monthly Avg.
6.04 4.91 5.2б 4.5б 4.79 5.7б 5.09 5.28
Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department ofТransportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
б.4б
б.35
7.82
11.55
3.14
3.58
3.08
б.ЗI
7.27
4.40
3.88
4.06
4.27
6.63
4.53
5.39
7.79
4.09
4.41
4.39
4.21
7.19
5.16
4.6б
3.93
4.04
12.27
6.34
4.99
5.96
5.06
7.73
Airline
Average
б.43
1998 Mishandled Baggage Rankings Ьу Month for U.S. Major Airlines
Jan Feb
Alaska
American
America West
Continental
Delta
Northwest
Southwest
TransWorld
United
USAirways
8
5
1
3
6
9
4
7
10
2
Маг
Apr
Мау
Jun
7
5
2
3
8
4
1
3
5
9
6
7
10
2
7
2
1
4
5
9
8
3
2
4
9
4
2
1
7
8
9
б
б
5
10
3
8
10
1
4
б
8
10
3
1
9
5
7
10
Jul
10
4
5
1
3
8
6
7
9
Aug
Sep
Oct
10
4
5
3
10
3
4
2
5
8
7
6
9
7
1
5
4
8
6
3
10
2
1
9
6
7
8
2
б
2
Source: A1r Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Deplll1ment ofTransportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
9
1
Nov Dec
9
7
1
4
3
8
6
7
10
2
10
5
1
3
2
7
6
8
9
4
Airline
Ranking
9
5
1
2
4
8
б
7
10
3
1999 Total Complaints to Department of Transportation Ьу Month for U.S. Major Airlines
(per 100,000 passengers)
Mar Apr
Jan
Feb
Alaska
American
America West
Continental
Delta
Northwest
Southwest
Trans World
United
USAirways
1.34
2.21
3.21
1.46
1.52
3.89
0.40
3.88
1.92
3.06
0.74 0.96
2.81 2.21
2.07 1.66
1.30 1.27
1.10 1.11
2.81 1.51
0.24 0.18
1.87 1.61
1.69 1.28
2.12 1.74
Monthly Avg.
2.07
1.67
1.35
Oct
Nov
0.45 2.38 2.10
2.41 3.70 3.21
1.41 3.18 1.14
1.39 2.35 1.69
1.40 1.82 1.36
2.71 3.21 1.97
0.15 0.50 0.29
1.67 3.49 2.92
1.98 2.65 2.20
2.58 2.74 2.11
1.33 1.74 3.53
5.26 4.56 6.00
3.35 4.72 7.11
3.12 3.76 6.87
2.02 2.62 3.61
3.33 2.85 6.10
0.42 0.59 0.84
4.76 4.63 7.31
3.29 3.48 5.41
3.64 4.29 8.29
1.32
2.81
5.41
2.57
1.59
2.73
0.30
2.91
2.56
2.70
1.27 2.38
3.26 3.23
6.29 4.76
3.35 2.20
2.03 1.68
2.31 2.01
0.51 0.30
3.37 2.85
2.71 2.37
2.98 2.06
1.64
3.50
3.73
2.62
1.82
2.93
0.40
3.45
2.66
3.15
1.73
3.06
2.27
2.56
2.48
2.47
Jun
Airline
Average
Aug Sep
М ау
1.89
Jul
3.23
5.18
Dec
2.14
Source: Air Trave/ Consumer Reporr, U.S. Department ot'Transportation. otlice of Aviation Enforcornent and Proceedings.
1999 Total Complaints to Department ofTransportation Rankings Ьу Month for U.S. Major Airlines
Alaska
American
America West
Continental
Delta
Northwest
Southwest
Trans World
United
US Airways
Jan
Feb
2
2
9
7
4
3
10
1
б
8
3
4
10
1
9
5
7
б
5
8
Mar Apr
2
10
8
4
3
б
1
7
5
9
2
8
5
3
4
10
1
б
7
9
М ау
Jun
4
10
7
3
2
8
1
9
5
6
10
2
4
3
5
1
9
8
7
Jul
2
10
7
4
3
б
1
9
5
8
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2
б
2
8
10
5
3
7
1
9
4
10
9
4
6
2
7
10
8
3
4
1
9
5
7
9
10
5
2
3
1
8
б
4
2
8
10
б
3
4
1
9
5
б
Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, V.S. Department ofТransportation. Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
7
5
8
7
3
1
б
Airline
Ranking
2
9
10
4
3
6
1
8
5
7
Overview of Complaints Received Ьу Department of Transportation
1998 and 1999
Jan
Complaints Received
for All Airlines*
1998
1999
629
1175
Complaints Received
for U.S. Airlines
1998
1999
521
1028
Complaints Received
for 10 Major Airlines
1998
1999
336
829
Тор Four Categories**
of Complaints to All
U.S. Airlines, 1999
1
2
3
4
FP
cs BG тв
Feb
731
1018
567
849
354
651
FP
cs
BG
тв
Mar
767
1154
627
969
368
647
FP
BG
cs
тв
Apr
705
1314
590
1122
408
804
FP
cs
BG
тв
М ау
914
1704
774
1436
531
1151
FP
BG
тв
.Jun
709
1332
637
1142
473
925
FP
BG
тв
.Jul
920
2485
779
2111
582
1584
FP
BG
тв
Aug
1129
2347
973
1983
768
1634
FP
BG
тв
Sep
1026
3161
872
2732
695
2265
FP
BG
тв
Oct
805
1616
644
1325
485
1086
FP
BG
тв
Nov
722
1700
602
1385
481
1179
FP
BG
тв
Dec
550
1477
445
1231
327
952
FP
cs
cs
cs
cs
cs
cs
cs
cs
BG
тв
Total
9606
20495
7994
17381
FP
cs
BG
тв
Percent
(0/о)
13.5
7.6
5808
13709
of All Complaints for U.S. Carriers in these Categories for 1999
37.2 21.1
* TotaJ numЬeт includes complaints f'or alt U.S. air!ines + foreign a:irlines + cargo companies + 'travel.agents + tour operators + misce]Janeous
sources.
** FP = Flight Prohlems; CS = Customer Service; ВG Вaggage; ТВ= Reservations. Ticketing,_ and Вoarding. Details оС categories and definitions
=
are listed in tЬе appendix.
Source: Afr Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department ofTransportation, 08:ice of" Aviation Enforoement and Proceedings.
1998 Total Complaints to Department of Transportation Ьу Month for U.S. Major Airlines
(per 100,000 passengers)
Alaska
American
America West
Continental
Delta
Northwest
Southwest
Trans World
United
USAirways
Jan
0.34
1.02
1.32
0.73
0.62
1.43
0.30
0.97
1.16
0.56
Monthly Аvg.
0.85
Feb
0.56
1.32
1.09
0.75
0.55
1.31
0.24
0.98
1.56
0.55
Mar
0.46
0.84
1.46
0.72
0.68
1.03
0.36
0.88
1.05
0.59
Apr
0.28
1.01
1.58
0.39
0.78
1.73
0.26
104
1.24
0.56
0.92
0.79
0.89
0.64
1.17
1.89
0.73
0.91
2.80
0.19
1.23
1.36
0.92
Jun
0.17
0.87
1.56
1.22
0.60
2.34
0.17
1.54
1.14
0.81
Jul
0.88
1,02
2.86
1.17
0.68
3.15
0.18
1.26
1.19
0.77
Aug
0.45
1.16
3.61
1.97
1.00
4.08
0.45
1.99
1.58
1.21
Sep
0.75
1.41
3.39
1.31
1.43
9.01
0.28
2.14
1.56
1.67
Oct
0.68
1.47
2.50
1.59
0.78
1.35
0.10
1.33
1.24
0.68
Nov
0.93
1.17
2.32
0.82
0.90
1.81
0.24
0.98
1.58
0.99
Dec
0.45
1.30
1.39
0.67
0.56
0.69
0.29
0.95
0.70
0.74
Airline
Average
0.54
1.14
2.11
1.02
0.79
2.21
0.25
1.29
1.28
0.84
1.15
0.98
1.16
1.56
1.69
1.07
1.12
0.74
1.08
М ау
Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S, Department ofTransportation, Office of Aviation Enforcoment and Proceedings.
1998 Total Complaints to Department of Transportation Rankings Ьу Month for U.S. Major Airlines
Alaska
American
America West
Continenta1
Delta
Northwest
Southwest
Trans World
United
USAirways
Jan
2
7
9
5
4
10
1
6
8
3
Feb
4
9
7
5
2
8
1
6
10
3
Mar Apr
2
2
6
6
10
9
5
3
5
4
10
8
1
1
7
7
8
9
4
3
М ау
Jun
2
6
9
3
4
10
1
7
8
5
2
5
9
7
3
10
1
8
6
4
Jul
4
5
9
б
2
10
1
8
7
3
Aug
1
4
Sep
2
4
9
7
3
10
2
8
9
3
5
10
1
8
6
7
б
5
Source: Air Travel Consumer Report, U.S. Department ofTransportation, Office of Aviation Enforcoment and Proceedings.
Oct
3
8
10
9
4
7
1
6
5
2
Nov Dec
4
2
7
9
10
10
2
4
3
9
1
5
8
6
3
5
1
8
6
7
Airline
Ranking
2
6
9
5
3
10
1
8
7
4
Some Interesting Facts About U.S. Airlines
Approximately 499 million people Ьoarded one ofthe ten major U.S. carriers to fly
somewhere inside the U.S. in 1999. This does not consider the almost 55 million people that
boarded а flight in the U.S. and went to an intemational destination. Regional and commuter
carriers accounted for an additional approximately 57 million passengers flying domestic routes as
well. This totals to approximately 611 million реор1е boarding а plane in the U.S. in 1999.
Looking to the future, the Federal Aviation Administration forecasts that domestic passenger
enplanements will increase, on average, between 3% and 4% each year for the next 12 years.
Тhat would mean domestic enplanements could reach 1 Ьillion passengers Ьу the year 2011.
Мishandled
Baggage:
Your chance ofhaving а bag mishandled or lost depends to some extent on how you use
the baggage systeщ but aЬout 1 out of every 200 bags that are checked are reported mishandled.
Most bags are retumed to the traveler within 48 hours. Only а very few are completely lost and
not returned. For 1999:
+ Most baggage was reported mishandled in January, July, and December.
+ Fewest bags were reported mishandled in September, October, and November.
+ Airline that mishandled bags most often per 1,000 passengers was United (7.01).
+ The ten majoг U.S. airlines averaged 5.08 mishandled bags per 1,000 passengers.
+ Airline that mishandled the fewest bags per 1,000 passengers was Southwest (4.22).
On-Time
Aпival:
On-time arrivals are affected Ьу many uncontrollaЬle factors. When just the more
controllaЬle elements are considered, the ten major U .S. carriers maintained а 76.1% on-time
arrival record for 1999. This was slightly woгse than the 77.2о/о on-time arrival record for the
industry in 1998.
+ Worst on-time arrival performer for 1999 was America West (69.5%).
+ Best on-time arrival performer for 1999 was Trans World (80.9%).
+ The most trouЬiesome months to fly in 1999 (lowest on-time arrival performance for
the industry) were January (67.7%), June (70.9%) and July (71.1%).
+ The most successful on-time arrival months for the industry in 1999 were November
(81.4%) and October (80.1%).
+ Performance regarding industry wide average on-time departure for the major U.S.
airlines at the largest airports was 76.9% in 1999.
Being Bwnped From
а
Flight (Involuntary Denied Boardings):
Across the industry, 0.88 passengers per 10,000 boardings were bumped ftom their flight
involuntarily in 1999. Тhis is slightly worse than the industry rate of0.87 denied boardings per
10,000 passengers in 1998.
+ The airline most likely to involuntarily bump а passenger in 1999: Delta (1.53).
+ The airline least likely to involuntarily bump а passenger in 1999: Northwest (0.18).
+ The first quarter of 1999 (January- March) was the worst at 1.44 per 10,000.
+ The third quarter of 1999 (July- September) was the best at 0.57 per 10,000.
Consumer Cornplaints:
On average, the Department ofTransportation received 2.48 consumer complaints per
100,000 passengers for the ten major carriers in1999. The volume ofcomplaints in 1999
represents а 130% increase in the rate ofcomplaints over 1998. These complaints represent а
wide range of areas such as cancellations, delays, oversales, reservation and ticketing proЬlems,
fares, refunds, customer treatment, unfair advertising, and other general proЬlems. For 1999:
+ Airline with the most complaints per 100,000 passengers was America West (3.73).
+ Airline with the fewest complaints per 100,000 passengers was Southwest (0.40).
+ SeptemЬer was the month with the highest complaint rate (5.18) per100,000 passengers
and March ( 1.35) had the lowest rate for the ten major carriers.
Airline Safety:
In 1999, there were 228 passenger deaths for the major (Part 121) airlines. These airlines
experienced 35 accidents in 1999, compared to 41 accidents in 1998. In 1998 and 1997, one
ground crew member was killed in each year during passenger operations, but no passenger
deaths were recorded in either year. In 1996, the major airlines experienced 22 accidents and 232
deaths (this does not reflect the 110 fatalities in the Valuejet accident since it is not considered а
major carrier). For 1995, major airlines experienced 19 accidents and 3 deaths. In 1994, these
airlines experienced 20 accidents and 23 9 deaths. As сап Ье seen the year to year statistics vary
greatly.
National and Regional carriers (Part 135) registered 12 fatalities in 1999 with 18 accidents
being reported. No fatalities were recorded in 1998, with eight accidents Ьeing reported. In 1997
these carriers experienced 46 fatalities, with 29 of these occurring on the Comair Airlines accident
in January, 1997. In 1996 this group ofcarriers experienced only one fatal crash with 14 victims.
General aviation accident numbers were higher in 1999 (2,055) than in 1998 (1,907).
With the slightly higher overall number of accidents, the number of fatalities were also higher in
1999 (670) than in 1998 (621). In 1999, about 1 in б (355 ofthe 2,055) general aviation
accidents involved а fatality.
Airline Quality Rating Criteria Overview
Since the original puЬiication of the Airline Quality Rating in 1991, the number of criteria,
definitions, and weights were held constant until the 1999 AQR report (reflecting 1998 data).
With а changing industry, an assessment of criteria relevance was needed. After statistical review
and discussion, the number of criteria used to calculate the Aidine Quality Rating, 1999 ( 1998
data) were reduced to 14 customer relevant performance criteria. These 14 criteria are summed
up in four basic areas that reflect customer oriented areas of airline performance. Definitions of
the four areas used in this AQR 2000 (1999 data) are out1ined below.
ОТ
ON-Т1МЕ PERFORМANCE (+8.63)
Regularly puЬlished data regarding on-time arrival performance is obtained from the U.S.
Department ofTransportation's Air Travel Consumer Report. According to DOT, а flight is
counted "on time" ifit is operated within 15 minutes ofthe scheduled time shown in the carriers'
Computerized Reservations Systems. Delays caused Ьу mechanical proЬiems are counted as of
January 1, 1995. 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 (-8.03)
Тhis criteria includes involuntary denied boardings. Data regarding denied boardings can
Ье obtained from the U.S. Department ofTransportation's Air Travel Consumer Report. Data
includes the number of passengers who are involuntarily denied boarding and the total number of
passengers boarded Ьу month. The AQR uses the ratio ofinvoluntary denied boardings per
10,000 passengers.
МВ
MISНANDLED BAGGAGE REPORTS (-7.92)
Regularly puЬlished data regarding consumer reports to the carriers of mishandled
baggage can Ье obtained from the U.S. Department ofTransportation'sAir Travel Consumer
Report. According to DOT, а mishandled bag includes claims for lost, damaged, delayed, or
pilfered baggage. Data is reported Ьу carriers as to the rate of mishandled baggage reports per
1,000 passengers and for the industry. The AQR ratio is based on the total number ofreports
each mЩor carrier received from passengers concerning lost, damaged, delayed, or pilfered
baggage per 1,000 passengers served.
СС
CONSUMER COMPLAINTS (-7.17)
The criteria of consumer complaints is made up of 11 specific complaint categories
(outlined below) monitored Ьу the U. S. Department ofTransportation and reported montbly in
the Air Travel Consumer Report. The AQR uses the complaints about the various categories as
part of the larger customer cornplaint criteria and bases the number on the number of complaints
received per 100,000 passengers flown.
FLIGHT PROBLEMS
Data is availaЬle Ьу the total number of consumer complaints pertaining to "cancellations,
delays, or any other deviations from schedule, whether planned ofunplanned" for each
airline each month.
OVERSALES
Тhis complaint category includes "all bumping proЬlems, whether or not the airline
complied with DOT oversale regulations". Data is availaЬle Ьу the total number of
consumer complaints pertaining to oversales for each airline each month.
RESERVATIONS, ТICКETING, AND BOARDING
This category includes "airline or travel agent mistakes in reservations and ticketing;
proЬlems in making reservations and obtaining tickets due to busy telephone lines or
waiting in line, or delays in mailing tickets; and proЬiems boarding the aircraft ( except
oversales)". Data is availaЬie Ьу the total number ofconsumer complaints pertaining to
ticketing and boarding for each airline each month.
FARES
As defined Ьу DOT, consumer complaints about fares include "incorrect or incomplete
information about fares, discount fare conditions and availaЬility, overcharges, fare
increases and level offares in general". Data is availaЬle forthe total number ofconsumer
complaints pertaining to fares for each airline each month.
REFUNDS
This category includes customer complaints about "proЬlems in obtaining refunds for
unused or lost tickets, fare adjustments, or bankruptcies". Data is availaЬle Ьу the total
number of consumer complaints pertaining to refunds for each airline each month.
BAGGAGE
"Ciaims for lost, damaged, or delayed baggage, charges for excess baggage, carry-on
proЬlems, and difficulties with airline claim procedure" are included in this category. Data
is availaЬie Ьу the total number of consumer complaints pertaining to baggage for each
airline each month.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
This category includes complaints about "rude or unhelpful employees, inadequate meals
or caЬin service, and treatment of delayed passengers". Data is availaЫe Ьу the total
numbeг of consumeг complaints pertaining to customer service for each airline each
month.
DISABILIТY
Previously included as рагt ofReservations, Ticketing and Boarding category (thru 6/99),
this category includes complaints aЬout "civil rights complaints Ьу аiг tгavelers with
disaЬilities". Data is availaЬle Ьу the total number of consumer complaints pertaining to
disaЬilities for each airline each month.
ADVERТISING
Тhese
are complaints conceming "advertising that is unfair, misleading or offensive to
Data is availaЬle Ьу the total numЬeг of consumer complaints regarding
advertising for each aiгline each month.
consumeгs".
TOURS
This category includes complaints about "proЬlems with scheduled or charter tour
packages". Data is availaЬle Ьу the total numЬer of consumer complaints pertaining to
tours for each aiгline each month.
ОТНЕR
Data regarding consumer complaints about "Пequent flyer programs, smoking, credit,
cargo proЬlems, security, airport fucilities, claims for bodily injury, and other problems not
classified above" are included in this category. The smoking and credit elements were
added to this geneгal category as of9/99. Data is availaЬle Ьу the total number of
consumer complaints regarding other proЬiems for each airline each month.