SkyTeam Alliance

SkyTeam Alliance

SKYTEAM ALLIANCECUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY Results Report 2nd Semester 2008

April 2008 - September 2008

Contacts SKYTEAM : Contacts TNS Sofres : Charles HAGEMAN Malcolm BROWN + 31-20 64 95519 + 33 1 40 92 66 27Sophie GRIS Emmanuelle DUPUIS + 33 1 41 56 75 52 + 33 1 40 92 66 28

2

Contents

IntroductionMethodologyInterpretation of the resultsExecutive Summary:

- Overall Findings with main indicators- Alliance awareness- Overall rating SkyTeam benefits- Detailed Elite / Elite Plus benefits- Detailed transfer items- Overall rating SkyTeam airline performances- Overall rating SkyTeam airline performances Booking/Reservation- Overall rating SkyTeam airline performances Airport- Overall rating SkyTeam airline performances In-flight

- Conclusions- Recommendations

Trends

Detailed Findings (Appendices):Booking / reservation detailsAirport experience detailsIn-flight experience detailsGap in customer satisfaction depending on the operating airline

3

• Changes since the previous semester• The main change to the barometer concerns the inclusion of 4 new Alliance members: China Southern, Air

Europa, Copa Airlines and Kenya Airways. This report presents the results for the summer semester 2008 for the 14 airlines. Results are compared with the summer semester 2007 but only on the questionnaire base of the same 10 airlines of each semester (excluding the questionnaires of the 4 new members).

• The questionnaire has been updated to include the 4 new airlines (version 5) and at the same time some minor word changes were made.

• Objectives Track satisfaction among SkyTeam passengers with respect to

• the general and Elite benefits offered by SkyTeam, • the service provided during their trip with a SkyTeam carrier (booking, airport, in-flight)

• Questionnaire Subjects• Flight and background information (date, flight number, travel class, travel reason, marketing and operating

airline, age, gender, FFP etc.).• Reservations (method used, rating on 5 phone reservation service aspects and 3 airline website aspects).• Airport services (check-in airport, check-in method, rating on 10 airport services aspects, lounge visit, rating on 6

lounge aspects, transfer airport and rating on 3 transfer aspects).• In-flight services (rating on 14 in-flight aspects)• Overall impression of all the ground and in-flight services• SkyTeam awareness• SkyTeam benefits (rating on 8 SkyTeam benefits)• SkyTeam Elite / Elite Plus benefits (rating on 5 Elite / Elite Plus benefits)

IntroductionThe survey’s objective is to track customer satisfaction in respect to the benefits offered by SkyTeam.

4

• Paper questionnaires, available in several languages, are distributed and collected by cabin crew to customers aboard SkyTeam flights. Only flights between SkyTeam hubs are sampled.

• Each airline is responsible for organizing their questionnaire distribution and collection.

• Measurement is continuous throughout the year.

• All collected questionnaires are processed centrally in France, leading to the preparation of the semester survey report. Semester results are normally available 6 to 7 weeks after the end of the previous Semester.

• The results are analyzed on the basis of the number of respondents to each question. Customers are invited to express their satisfaction using a 5 point response scale. The results are presented showing the percentage of customers for each satisfaction level, as well as in the form of a mean score out of 5.

• The raw data is weighted in order for the results to be representative of the seat capacity per airline between SkyTeam hubs. On the following page the table presents the non-weighted and weighted summer semester 2008 sample. Due to the very big differences in the proportion of questionnaires per airline compared to the seat capacity, we have fixed maximum and minimum limits of respectively 5.0 and 0.1 in the weighting calculation, in order to avoid a too great distortion of the sample structure.

• In order to compare the 2008 and 2007 results on a like to like basis, we have applied a second weighting to the 2008 results for the questionnaires from the 10 airlines common to both years. In the trends chapter the overall 2008 results are not identical to the results in the rest of the report due to the application of this specific weighting on a smaller sample size. However, the 2008 results are comparable to the 2007 results.

• All results in this report are based on weighted results.

MethodologyA self-completion customer satisfaction tracking survey, bi-annual results analysis

5

MethodologyThe weighting is based on seats capacity per airline between SkyTeam hubs

Non weighted base Percentage Weighted

base Percentage Applied Weight

Korean Air 4334 17% 2584 10% 0,60Air France 958 4% 4812 19% 5,02Northwest 2465 10% 2508 10% 1,02Continental 548 2% 2786 11% 5,08KLM 289 1% 1393 5% 4,82Delta 236 1% 1140 4% 4,83Alitalia 1091 4% 2710 11% 2,48Czech Airlines 2028 8% 2280 9% 1,12Aeroflot 1061 4% 1140 4% 1,07Aeromexico 1402 6% 253 1% 0,18China Southern 2918 12% 1064 4% 0,36Copa Airlines 307 1% 963 4% 3,14Air Europa 7285 29% 1393 5% 0,19Kenya Airways 433 2% 329 1% 0,76TOTAL 25355 100% 25355 93% 1,00

Non weighted base Percentage Weighted

base Percentage Applied Weight

Korean Air 4334 30% 1355 9% 0,31Air France 958 7% 3604 25% 3,76Northwest 2465 17% 1326 9% 0,54Continental 548 4% 2738 19% 5,00KLM 289 2% 1441 10% 4,99Delta 236 2% 749 5% 3,17Alitalia 1091 8% 1369 9% 1,25Czech Airlines 2028 14% 1211 8% 0,60Aeroflot 1061 7% 331 2% 0,31Aeromexico 1402 10% 288 2% 0,21TOTAL 14412 100% 14412 100% 1,00

Weighting based on 14 companies applied to the summer semester 2008 results

Weighting based on 10 companies applied to the summer semester 2008 results compared to 2007.

6

Sample structure (Non-weighted base)City pairs sampled by airlines

Aeromexico Air France Alitalia Czech Airlines Delta Korean Air Continental KLM Northwest China Southern Kenya Airways Aeroflot Air Europa Copa Airlines ALLSHORT HAULJFK-MEX : 235 CDG-PRG : 21 AMS-FCO : 36 AMS-PRG : 113 MEX-JFK : 21 NRT-ICN : 242 IAH-PTY : 34 AMS-FCO : 52 NRT-ICN : 250 NRT-ICN : 2 AMS-SVO : 40 CDG-AGP : 1101 JFK-PTY : 21

MEX-JFK : 224 CDG-FCO : 62 CDG-FCO : 38 CDG-PRG : 181 ICN-NRT : 288 EWR-PTY : 10 AMS-SVO : 9 ICN-NRT : 213 NRT-CAN : 300 CDG-SVO : 88 CDG-MAD : 8 MEX-PTY : 32

MEX-LAX : 242 CDG-SVO : 44 PRG-FCO : 35 PRG-AMS : 133 NRT-GUM : 154 FCO-AMS : 21 DTW-MEX : 90 ICN-CAN : 153 PRG-SVO : 47 CDG-VLC : 298 LAX-PTY : 10

LAX-MEX : 208 PRG-CDG : 15 FCO-AMS : 26 PRG-CDG : 242 GUM-NRT : 171 MEX-DTW : 46 CAN-NRT : 385 FCO-SVO : 19 AGP-CDG : 1100 PTY-JFK : 25

FCO-CDG : 43 FCO-CDG : 124 PRG-FCO : 260 PTY-IAH : 24 MEX-LAX : 2 CAN-ICN : 230 SVO-AMS : 68 MAD-CDG : 7 PTY-MEX : 41

SVO-CDG : 27 FCO-PRG : 88 PRG-SVO : 230 PTY-EWR : 8 SVO-CDG : 126 MAD-ORY : 661 PTY-LAX : 26

AGP-CDG : 4 FCO-SVO : 121 FCO-PRG : 233 SVO-PRG : 151 VLC-CDG : 329

SVO-FCO : 79 SVO-PRG : 214 SVO-FCO : 112 ORY-MAD : 660

TOTAL SH 909 216 547 1606 21 530 401 82 601 1070 0 651 4114 307 11055LONG HAULCDG-MEX : 263 CDG-IAH : 121 EWR-FCO : 36 JFK-PRG : 198 CDG-JFK : 45 CDG-ICN : 295 AMS-IAH : 18 AMS-JFK : 15 AMS-MSP : 78 AMS-CAN : 438 AMS-NBO : 50 JFK-SVO : 20 MAD-CUN : 574

JFK-CDG : 1 CDG-ATL : 74 JFK-FCO : 79 PRG-JFK : 224 JFK-CDG : 36 ATL-ICN : 283 AMS-EWR : 19 AMS-NRT : 37 AMS-DTW : 74 CDG-CAN : 102 CDG-NBO : 309 NRT-SVO : 121 MAD-HAV : 535

MEX-CDG : 229 CDG-JFK : 27 FCO-EWR : 95 JFK-FCO : 17 JFK-ICN : 265 CDG-IAH : 10 AMS-ICN : 10 NRT-MSP : 200 LAX-CAN : 228 NBO-AMS : 54 SVO-JFK : 115 MAD-SDQ : 607

CDG-MEX : 55 FCO-JFK : 138 JFK-MXP : 51 PRG-ICN : 262 CDG-EWR : 14 AMS-MEX : 43 NRT-DTW : 224 CAN-AMS : 651 NBO-CDG : 20 SVO-NRT : 154 CUN-MAD : 477

IAH-CDG : 69 FCO-NRT : 68 FCO-ATL : 10 FCO-ICN : 187 IAH-CDG : 10 ATL-AMS : 12 NRT-LAX : 261 CAN-CDG : 160 HAV-MAD : 486

ATL-CDG : 245 NRT-FCO : 80 MXP-JFK : 41 NRT-LAX : 250 EWR-AMS : 11 NRT-AMS : 20 MSP-AMS : 23 CAN-LAX : 269 SDQ-MAD : 492

JFK-CDG : 79 NRT-MXP : 48 SVO-JFK : 15 ICN-CDG : 268 EWR-CDG : 23 MEX-AMS : 70 MSP-NRT : 84

MEX-CDG : 72 ICN-ATL : 297 MSP-ICN : 2

ICN-JFK : 284 DTW-AMS : 211

ICN-PRG : 325 DTW-CDG : 131

ICN-FCO : 243 DTW-NRT : 346

ICN-LAX : 295 LAX-NRT : 230

LAX-NRT : 291

LAX-ICN : 259

TOTAL LH 493 742 544 422 215 3804 147 207 1864 1848 433 410 3171 0 14300Total other - - - - - - 42 - - - - - - 152 194

TOTAL 1402 958 1091 2028 236 4334 548 289 2465 2918 433 1061 7285 307 25355

7

Guidelines in interpreting the results

A customer’s overall satisfaction at a given moment in time is influenced to a greater or lesser extent by SkyTeam’s performance on the detailed service attributes. It is this overall state of satisfaction that influences a customer’s loyalty and recommendation behaviour. By improving its performance on attributes that strongly influence customers’ overall satisfaction, SkyTeam will increase most efficiently loyalty and positive word of mouth communication.

In general, a dissatisfied customer expresses his dissatisfaction among 4 times more people than a satisfied customer expresses his satisfaction. A first objective of satisfaction surveys is to achieve a proportion of satisfied customers that is 4 times greater than the proportion of dissatisfied customers. In this way, the phenomena of word of mouth communication is controlled and negative communication does not exceed the reality.

The loyalty and recommendation behaviour is quite different between a customer who is totally satisfied and a customer who is only partially satisfied. In general, a customer who is totally satisfied is twice as likely to certainly use the service again and twice as likely to certainly recommend the service than a customer who is only partly satisfied.

Therefore, a double objective is required:

• Reduce customer dissatisfaction so as to reduce disloyalty and negative word of mouth.• Transform customers from a state of partial satisfaction to a state of total satisfaction.

8

Guidelines in interpreting the results

Partial and total dissatisfaction should be analyzed as a whole. A dissatisfied customer is likely to be disloyal and to promote disloyalty among others. Dissatisfaction that exceeds 15% of the customer base requires an improvement action.

The level of priority for the action will depend on the relative contribution of the attribute to overall satisfaction. It is almost impossible to totally eliminate dissatisfaction. If dissatisfaction concerns only a very small minority of the customer base (less than 5%), additional investment to further reduce this proportion is in most cases not justified.

Partial and total satisfaction should be analyzed separately. An often fixed objective is to dispose of more customers “totally satisfied” than “partially satisfied”.

The mean score represents the level of customer satisfaction using one value (on a scale from 1 to 5). The scores should be interpreted in the following way: 4.5 or more is a Very Good score, 4 to 4.5 is Good, 3.5 to 4 is Fair, 3.0 to 3.5 is Poor and less than 3.0 is Very Poor.

Differences between mean scores are statistically significant if they are of at least a 10th of a point and if they are calculated on a base of 500 answers or more. When the answer base is between 50 and 500, a gap of at least 0.2 between mean scores is required before it is considered significant. Mean scores are presented with two decimals so that significant differences between scores can be clearly seen. Results on smaller answer bases require a bigger difference in the mean score to be considered significantly different. Results are not presented if the number of observations is less than 50.

9

75%64% 60% 57% 56% 50% 48% 44% 44%

34% 33%

60%

52% Average awareness among SkyTeam Airline Nationals

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Czech French Mexican Korean Panamanian American Italian Dutch Spanish Russian Chinese JapaneseCustomer Nationality

Perc

enta

ge Y

es

99% 97% 97% 95% 95% 92% 91% 90% 84% 78% 77%69%

90% Average awareness among SkyTeam Airline Nationals

Elite/Elite+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

French Czech Russian Mexican Italian Dutch Spanish American Korean Japanese Panamanian ChineseCustomer Nationality

Perc

enta

ge Y

es

Alliance Awareness by customer nationalityQ24 – Prior to this trip, were you aware of the SkyTeam alliance?

Tota

lEl

ite/E

lite+

52% of SkyTeam Airline nationals were aware of the SkyTeam alliance before boarding. Czech (75%) and French (64%) still have the highest awareness score whereas Chinese (34%) and Japanese (33%) have the lowest scores. Elite/ Elite+ passengers have clearly a higher awareness (90% on average), but Chinese Elite/ Elite+ passengers (69% awareness) are less likely than others to know the SkyTeam alliance.

Kenyan results are not displayed due to a base <50

Kenyan results are not displayed due to a base <50

10

Alliance Awareness by Airline Frequent Flyer ProgramQ24 – Prior to this trip, were you aware of the SkyTeam alliance?

77% 76% 70% 69% 68% 64% 63% 62% 60% 56% 55% 50% 49%42%

30%19%

93% 88%

35%

Mean: 53.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Air Fra

nce

Aeromexic

o

Czech A

irline

s

Kenya

Airw

ays

KLMAlita

lia

Northwes

t

Korean

Air

Contin

ental

Aeroflo

tDelt

a

Copa Airli

nes

Air Eur

opa

China S

outhern

Other

None

Elite P

lus EliteNon

e

Frequent Flyer Program

Perc

enta

ge Y

es

Awareness of the SkyTeam alliance among the total sample is 53,6%. Air France / KLM remains the leading FFP with an awareness score of 77%. China Southern obtains the lowest score (42%). Awareness is greater among Elite plus passengers than Elite passengers (93% Vs 88%).

11Not at all satisfied Not satisfied Neither satisfied,

nor dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied

Respondent base: Aware of SkyTeam before the trip

Overall rating SkyTeam benefitsQ25-8 Your overall satisfaction with SkyTeam alliance benefits?

19%

47%

48%

48%

30%

30%

29%

28%

19%

19%

20%

3%

2%

3%

3%

1%

1%

1%

1%

48%

30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Overall rating of SkyTeam alliancebenefits

First / Business Class

Elite / Elite +

3 roundtrips and more

4.04

4.00

3.98

4.02

Mean

77% of the passengers are satisfied overall with the alliance benefits and only 4% are dissatisfied. Moreover, the overall satisfaction mean score passes the 4.0 threshold. There is no significant differences in overall satisfaction between the different passenger groups Elite/ Elite+, frequent travellers and First/Business.

12


Not at all satisfied Not satisfied Neither satisfied,nor dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied

Overall rating SkyTeam benefitsQ25-8 Your overall satisfaction with SkyTeam alliance benefits: analyzed by Operating Airline

13%

17%

21%

21%

19%

17%

22%

16%

16%

22%

22%

23%

3%

4%

4%

4%

4%

6%

47%

46%

44%

47%

47%

47%

51%

43%

46%

54%

53%

48%

53%

48%

30%

51%

42%

38%

32%

30%

29%

27%

33%

29%

25%

25%

25%

21%

21%

13%

14%

19%

3%

5%

2%

3%

4%

1%

3%

3%

2%

1%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

1%

1%

34%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Total

Continental

Copa Airlines

Aeromexico

China Southern

Northwest

KLM

Czech Airlines

Delta

Korean Air

Kenya Airways

Air France

Aeroflot

Air Europa

Alitalia

4.02

4.34

4.29

4.12

4.07

4.03

4.02

4.01

4.00

4.00

3.97

3.96

3.90

3.88

3.79

Mean

There are significant differences between Airlines for the overall rating of SkyTeam benefits. Continental has the best mean score with 4.34. Five out of fourteen airlines have a score below 4.0. Aeroflot, Air Europa and Alitalia are somewhat detached from the others with the lowest mean scores (respectively 3.90, 3.88 and 3.79).

13



Q27 - SkyTeam benefits

12%

18%

22%

21%

25%

5%

47%

37%

36%

42%

45%

40%

37%

30%

40%

46%

43%

34%

28%

32%

27%

19%

12%

16%

7%

3%

1%

3%

3%

4%

3%

1%

2%

2%

2%

1%

2%

3%

46%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Overall rating of SkyTeam alliance benefits

Number of destinations served

Ability to check-in for entire trip at originating city

Ability to earn and redeem miles on any SkyTeam airline

Access to lounges worlwide

Coordination of flight schedules and convenience of connections

Ability of any employee of a SkyTeam airline to address your needs

Consistent service at the airport no matter which SkyTeam airline I fly with

4.02

4.23

4.22

4.14

4.03

3.95

3.96

3.79

Mean

For passengers, the most satisfying SkyTeam benefit is the number of destinations served (with 86% of passengers being satisfied), just ahead of the ability to check-in only once for the entire trip (83%) and the ability to earn and redeem miles on any SkyTeam airline (79%). Three other benefits are less satisfactory (with mean scores below 4.0), and the airport service consistency whatever the airline used is clearly the least appreciated.

14

Not at all satisfied Not satisfiedNeither satisfied,nor dissatisfied

Satisfied Very satisfied

Respondent base: SkyTeam Elite or Elite Plus members

Detailed Elite (Plus) benefitsQ23 Please rate the following special services you received as a SkyTeam Elite/Elite Plus member?

17%

15%

19%6%

30%

27%

31%

28%

29%

50%

45%

45%

42%

45%

40%

12%

17%

18%

4%

6%

6%

5%

6%

5%

4%

5%

6%

6%

7%

28%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Priority check-in at dedicatedcounters

Special recognition from cabincrew on board when traveling in

First/Business class

Preferred seating on this trip

Priority baggage handling

Priority boarding for this trip

Priority baggage handling: Elite+passengers only

4.18

4.04

4.00

3.99

3.98

3.90

Mean

The priority check-in is still the most satisfactory Elite/Elite+ special service (4.18 mean score) but Elite/Elite+ passengers are less satisfied about Priority boarding. Thanks to the combination of a relatively high proportion of passengers “very satisfied” and a slight rate of “not at all satisfied”, the mean scores of “special recognition from cabin crew” and “preferred seating on this trip” reach the 4.0 threshold.

15

Q21 Services when making a connection with another SkyTeam Airline



Respondent base: Passengers who made a connection with another SkyTeam airline

Satisfaction mean scores in terms of services offered for interconnecting passengers remain below 4.0, with significant proportions of dissatisfied passengers. The time between connecting flights is significantly less satisfactory than the ease of transfer between connecting flights and the Airline staff assistance during transfer.

17%

35%

32%

34%

36%

33%

16%

20%

10%

7%

6%

8%

7%

5%

34%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Airline staff assistance duringtransfer

Ease of transfer betweenconnecting flights

Time between connecting flight

3.87

3.85

3.71

Mean

16

4.07 4.01 3.98 3.854.164.214.214.274.304.314.414.494.50

Mean: 4.23

2

3

4

5

Korean Air ChinaSouthern

CzechAirlines

KLM Air France Aeromexico Continental Air Europa KenyaAirways

Northwest Aeroflot Delta Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

Overall rating SkyTeam airline performance by Operating AirlineQ26 Overall satisfaction with all ground and in-flight services offered for today’s flight.

LONG HAUL - First Business Class

LONG HAUL - Economy Class

During long haul flights, satisfaction of First/Business Class passengers is higher than for those flying in Economy Class for all airlines except China Southern and KLM. Korean Air and Continental are the best scoring airlines among First/Business class passengers, Korean Air also among Economy class, while Alitalia and Delta Airlines obtain the lowest mean scores for both classes.

4.10 4.084.174.194.234.324.354.384.384.414.534.62

Mean: 4.37

2

3

4

5

Korean Air Continental Northwest ChinaSouthern

CzechAirlines

Air France Air Europa Aeroflot KenyaAirways

KLM Alitalia Delta

Mea

n sc

ore

Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires, AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.

Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires.

17

Overall rating SkyTeam airline performance by Operating AirlineQ26 Overall satisfaction with all ground and in-flight services offered for today’s flight.

SHORT HAUL – First Business Class

SHORT HAUL – Economy Class

4.54 4.54 4.50 4.37 4.35 4.28 4.08 4.06 3.82 3.71

Mean: 4.32

2

3

4

5

Continental Copa Airlines KLM Northwest Aeroflot Czech Airlines Air Europa ChinaSouthern

Air France Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

4.17 4.08 3.90 3.804.184.184.244.254.254.274.284.444.58

Mean: 4.19

2

3

4

5

CopaAirlines

Korean Air Continental Aeroflot CzechAirlines

KLM ChinaSouthern

Northwest Aeromexico Air France Delta Alitalia Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore

On Short Haul flights the overall scores are good. First/Business Class passengers are more satisfied than Economy Class passengers except for China Southern, Air France and Alitalia where it is the opposite. Continental and Copa Airlines have the best mean scores among First/Business Class whereas Alitalia has the lowest. Copa Airlines also performs best among Economy Class whereas Air Europa has the lowest score.

Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires

Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. Korean Air, AeroMexico and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.

18

Respondent base: Passengers who used the phone reservation service

Q11-1 Overall satisfaction with the airline telephone reservation service



On the whole, passengers are very satisfied with the airline telephone reservation service. The satisfaction scores are above 4.05 for all airlines, and passenger dissatisfaction is quite low.Copa Airlines and Continental are above the others with mean scores respectively of 4.57 and 4.53.

9%

10%

7%

7%

6%

10%

13%

3%

12%

2%

6%

7%

32%

26%

34%

31%

31%

23%

35%

43%

31%

36%

31%

45%

40%

56%

73%

67%

59%

60%

59%

62%

56%

49%

58%

51%

53%

44%

40%

8%

10%

6%

6%

3%

2%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

4%

2%

3%

2%

2%

2%

4%

1%

2%

1%

2%

2%

1%

3%

2%

16%

30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Overall satisfaction with thephone reservation service

Copa Airlines

Continental

Korean Air

Air Europa

Czech Airlines

Northwest

Aeromexico

China Southern

Delta

Air France

Aeroflot

KLM

Alitalia

4,38

4,57

4,53

4,49

4,46

4,45

4,41

4,41

4,39

4,38

4,33

4,32

4,22

4,07

Mean

Kenya Airways is not displayed due to a base <50.

19

Respondent base: Passengers who used the airline website

Q14-1 Overall satisfaction with the airline website experience



8%

9%

11%

10%

11%

9%

13%

12%

16%

1%

1%

1%

1%

3%

2%

44%

31%

37%

48%

46%

40%

51%

52%

53%

53%

55%

55%

47%

45%

56%

61%

52%

44%

45%

47%

37%

37%

36%

35%

32%

30%

33%

6%

9%

2%

9%

7%

1%

1%

1%

1%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

43%

30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Overall satisfaction withwebsite experience

Copa Airlines

Continental

Northwest

Czech Airlines

Korean Air

Delta

Aeromexico

Air France

Aeroflot

KLM

China Southern

Air Europa

Alitalia

4.31

4.54

4.51

4.37

4.35

4.35

4.32

4.24

4.24

4.24

4.18

4.17

4.09

4.08

Mean

Generally high levels of satisfaction about the airlines website experience, but with significant differences between the airlines. Copa Airlines has the highest mean score again, followed by Continental. All but two of the other airlines have scores that are quite close together, between 4.37 and 4.17. Air Europa and Alitalia are the only airlines with a mean score below 4.10.


20

Q18 Your overall airport experience by check-in airport (1/2)



Respondent base: All passengers

Satisfaction levels with the overall airport experience vary significantly between check-in airports. Houston, Panama City and Seoul are in the lead, with mean scores exceeding 4.40. For half of the airports customer dissatisfaction remains very marginal (less than 5%) and the proportion of customers very satisfied varies from one third almost up to two thirds.

Nairobi is not displayed due to a base <50

8%

11%

10%

11%

7%

9%

21%

9%

18%

14%

3%

3%

3%

40%

36%

39%

33%

38%

41%

40%

45%

44%

30%

56%

41%

48%

38%

62%

55%

52%

54%

49%

46%

47%

44%

42%

46%

31%

38%

34%

12%

7%

12%

15%

2%

4%

2%

3%

1%

4%

1%

2%1%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

25%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Your overall experience

Houston

Panama City

Seoul

Detroit

Atlanta

Prague

Minneapolis

Amsterdam

Beijing

Guam

New York Newark

Tokyo

Canton

4.07

4.50

4.44

4.42

4.39

4.32

4.30

4.30

4.28

4.22

4.17

4.15

4.14

4.11

Mean

21

Q18 Your overall airport experience by check-in airport (2/2)




18%

21%

17%

20%

23%

14%

22%

28%

22%

29%

6%

6%

17%

40%

45%

35%

40%

39%

54%

47%

42%

45%

46%

38%

50%

30%

38%

34%

33%

41%

35%

33%

22%

27%

29%

30%

25%

25%

17%

15%

17%

16%

14%

15%

10%

6%

4%

5%

5%

6%

3%

3%

4%

5%

5%

3%

3%

1%

2%

2%

5%

2%

3%

2%

10%

3%

1%

2%

2%

48%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Your overall experience

Milan

Cancun

Los Angeles

New York JFK

Mexico

Valencia

Madrid

Santo Domingo

Paris

Malaga

Rome

Barcelona

Moscow

4.07

4.07

4.06

4.05

3.98

3.93

3.91

3.91

3.91

3.89

3.86

3.75

3.70

3.23

Mean

Approximately one third of check-in airports obtain a mean score below the 4.0 threshold. Rome, Barcelona and especially Moscow are rather detached from the other airports, with mean satisfaction scores less than 3.8.

22

Q18 Detailed customer satisfaction in respect to the airport experience




12%

13%

15%

14%

20%

15%

20%

40%

33%

34%

36%

38%

33%

34%

28%

30%

38%

52%

50%

46%

43%

40%

42%

37%

41%

30%

15%

12%

12%

6%

6%

4%

4%

3%

5%

5%

5%

9%

10%10%

2%

2%

2%

4%

3%

2%

5%

3%

8%

31%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Your overall airport experience

Friendliness of check-in staff

Language skills of check-in staff

Efficiency of check-in process

Efficiency of boarding process

Signs directing you to check-in area

Wait time for check-in

Signs directing you to the lounge

On time departure

If flight was delayed, information about the delay from airline gate staff

4.07

4.27

4.26

4.13

4.11

4.10

4.01

3.95

3.85

3.59

Mean

In comparison with the same semester last year, very similar results are observed: passengers are most satisfied with the check-in staff (friendliness & language skills). They are less satisfied with the information provided by airline gate staff in case of a delay and with the on-time departure. These two items, and “signs directing you to the lounge” obtain mean scores below the 4.0 threshold.

23

Q20 Services for the lounge you visited



Respondent base: Passengers who visited an airport lounge before boarding the flight

The overall level of services offered within the airport lounge is not entirely satisfactory. The mean score is below 4.0. Elite+ passengers have lower satisfaction, which may be caused by having higher expectations. In more detail, the condition & cleanliness of the lounge and its staff friendliness obtain more satisfactory results. There is significant passenger dissatisfaction with services: Internet facilities and the selection of newspapers/ magazines.

17%

18%

20%

24%

8%

9%

11%

37%

36%

35%

32%

25%

29%

36%

31%

41%

40%

39%

37%

29%

17%

20%

19%

6%

4%

5%

5%

8%

8%

3%

4%

2%

4%

3%

41%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Your overall airportlounge experience

Your overall airport lounge experience: Elite+ passengers only

Friendliness of lounge staff

Condition and cleanliness of the lounge

Comfort and spaciousness

Internet facilities

Selection of newspapers/magazines

3.97

3.89

4.10

4.04

3.95

3.73

3.65

Mean

24

4.254.354.69 4.65 4.56 4.52 4.52 4.51 4.48 4.46 4.44 4.43

Mean: 4.52

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Korean Air Continental ChinaSouthern

Northwest Air France Aeroflot Air Europa CzechAirlines

Delta KLM KenyaAirw ays

Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

First/Business Class passengers tend to be more satisfied than Economy Class passengers with the Long haul in-flight experience. However, satisfaction levels differ significantly between airlines: among both classes, Korean Air obtains the highest scores whereas Alitalia and Kenya Airways are rather detached from the other airlines for Business Class and Alitalia also for Economy Class.

Q21-1 Overall satisfaction with the Long Haul in-flight experience: analyzed by Operating Airline and Class.

LONG HAUL - First Business Class

LONG HAUL – Economy ClassCopa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.


25

4.69 4.64 4.64 4.55 4.47 4.43 4.40 4.32 4.31 3.98

Mean: 4.51

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Continental Copa Airlines Aeroflot CzechAirlines

Northwest KLM Air France Air Europa ChinaSouthern

Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

Continental obtains the highest scores among F/B Class, closely followed by Copa and Aeroflot. Alitalia is detached by more than 0.3 points from the other airlines. In Economy class, Copa Airlines and Korean Air have the best scores, whereas Air Europa and Alitalia stand out with the lowest ones.

Q21-1 Overall satisfaction with the Short Haul in-flight experience: analyzed by Operating Airline and Class.

SHORT HAUL - First Business Class



Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. Korean Air, AeroMexico and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.

26

Almost half of all passengers are extremely likely to recommend the operating airline to a friend or colleague. Copa Airlines stands out with the highest level of recommendation. The majority of airlines obtain an “extremely likely” score of more than 50%. Alitalia is somewhat detached from the other airlines with a mean score less than 4.0.

Q27 Recommendation of the airline to a friend or colleague(by operating airline)

6%

10%

10%

9%

11%

12%

12%

15%

15%

16%

19%

3%

3%

3%

6%

3%

36%

20%

36%

36%

37%

35%

34%

31%

38%

31%

35%

38%

39%

33%

49%

74%

57%

55%

51%

51%

52%

54%

47%

51%

46%

41%

40%

37%

12%

4%

6%

3%

3%

3%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

2%

1%

1%

2%

2%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

5%

30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Recommendation of the airline

Copa Airlines

Korean Air

Czech Airlines

KLM

Air France

Aeromexico

China Southern

Kenya Airways

Aeroflot

Delta

Air Europa

Northwest

Alitalia

4.27

4.68

4.48

4.43

4.36

4.33

4.31

4.35

4.28

4.25

4.21

4.13

4.13

3.93

Mean

Not at all likely Fairly unlikely Neither likely, nor unlikely Fairly likely Extremely likely

Continental is not displayed due to a base < 50

27

The recommendation intention for the SkyTeam alliance is slightly lower overall than it is for the airline. This overall trend is repeated for each airline except for AeroMexico, Air Europa and Alitalia that show a slightly higher mean score for the alliance. The recommendation results of the alliance by operating airline are nevertheless very similar to the recommendation of the airline.

Q28 Recommendation of the Skyteam alliance to a friend or colleague (by operating airline)

Continental is not displayed due to a base < 50

10%

12%

13%

14%

15%

15%

17%

17%

18%

20%

22%

2%

3%

3%

4%

38%

26%

39%

36%

39%

39%

37%

34%

41%

35%

35%

38%

39%

36%

44%

68%

49%

50%

47%

45%

46%

48%

41%

46%

45%

39%

37%

35%

15%

6%

10%

1%

2%

2%

1%

1%

2%

1%

2%

2%

1%1%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

3%

1%

3%

30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Recommendation of the Skyteam alliance

Copa Airlines

Czech Airlines

Aeromexico

Korean Air

Kenya Airways

Air France

China Southern

Air Europa

KLM

Aeroflot

Delta

Northwest

Alitalia

4.22

4.61

4.34

4.32

4.31

4.24

4.25

4.26

4.17

4.24

4.19

4.09

4.08

3.96

Mean

Not at all likely Fairly unlikely Neither likely, nor unlikely Fairly likely Extremely likely

28

Main Conclusions

• SkyTeam Alliance Awareness• When comparing S2 2008 to S2 2007, the overall Alliance awareness among all SkyTeam passengers has decreased

from 54% to 52%. Two significant evolutions concern a decrease in awareness among French and Dutch passengers. • Czech passengers are still the most aware of SkyTeam (3 quarters being aware of the Alliance). On the other hand,

less than half of Dutch and Russian passengers, and only a third of Japanese passengers knew about SkyTeam before the flight.

• SkyTeam Alliance benefits• No significant evolution is to be reported in both the overall and the detailed satisfaction with the SkyTeam Alliance

benefits. However, mean scores are higher on all benefits, showing a trend towards improved passenger satisfaction. Differences in satisfaction still appear between the different Airlines: Passengers of Continental and Copa Airlines are the most satisfied overall with the benefits, while those flying with Aeroflot, Air Europa and Alitalia are the least satisfied.

• Among the different benefits provided, the number of destinations served, the ability to check-in the entire trip at the originating city, the ability to earn/redeem miles on flights within the alliance and the access to lounges worldwide are the most satisfactory, with mean scores between 4.23 and 4.03.

• With a mean score of only 3.79, the service consistency at the airport no matter which airline is used remains the least satisfactory benefit.

• The ability of any employee from SkyTeam to address customer needs and the coordination of flight schedules and convenience of connections, still obtain scores slightly lower than 4.0.

• Elite / Elite + special services• A significant positive evolution is observed this Semester on all Elite / Elite + aspects in comparison with S2 2007.

Three of these benefits now reach a mean score of 4.0. Only the benefits priority boarding and priority baggage handling are slightly below the 4.0 threshold.

• Recommendation• About half of the customers extremely likely to recommend operating airline (49%) and SkyTeam Alliance (44%).

29

• Reservations • The telephone reservation service remains satisfactory this Semester: all airlines obtain results above 4.0

(mean score 4.38 out of 5), without significant evolutions. Users of the telephone reservation services of Copa Airlines, Continental and Korean Air show the highest levels of satisfaction.

• Regarding the Airline web site, the experience also remains at a good level (overall mean score of 4.31), users of Copa Airlines and Continental Airlines being the most satisfied.

• Airport services• Overall, the airport experience remains at the same level as last year: the overall satisfaction is at a good

level (4.07 vs 4.04 in S2 2007). Big differences exist depending on the check-in airport considered, which probably explains the dissatisfactions about the service consistency. Houston, Panama City and Seoul have the best scores, Houston and Milan have improved significantly, whereas no airports have decreased significantly.

• During the same period, there has been a small increase in the satisfaction scores on all the services offered at the check-in airports. The language skills and the friendliness of the check-in staff remain the most satisfying aspects, while the information provided in case of a delay and the on-time departure being the less satisfactory aspects.

• Satisfaction with the lounge visited remains slightly below the 4.0 threshold. The scores overall and for each lounge service are almost the same when compared to S2 2007. Improvements are nonetheless expected on the Internet facilities and the selection of newspapers in particular.

• Finally, there have been significant increases in the mean scores for all three services offered for interconnecting passengers compared to S2 2007, with the biggest increase for the ease of transfer between connecting flights (+0.23).

• In-flight Services• First/Business class passengers tend to be more satisfied with overall in-flight services than those flying in Economy

class. In terms of significant evolutions on long haul, Air France has increased for its Economy class passengers and Delta has decreased for F/B class. On short haul, Continental has increased for both classes and Air France has also increased for F/B class.

Main Conclusions

SkyTeam Alliance

TrendsA comparison between Summer 2008 and Summer 2007 on

the basis of the 10 airlines included in the barometer in 2007.

Interpreting the trends results

This trends chapter provides an analysis of how the barometer results have evolved from one year to the next.

The 2008 results have been recalculated using a weighting that allows a comparison with the 2007 results on the basis of an identical sample structure (10 airlines).

Due to this re-calculation, the 2008 results presented in this trends chapter are not necessarily identical to the 2008 results in the rest of this report. This is normal due to the specific weighting applied to the 2008 results used in the trends chapter.

Only results for the total operating airline (the variable on which the weighting is based) are identical in this trends chapter and the rest of this report.

The true 2008 results, corresponding to the actual 14 member Alliance, are presented in the executive summary chapter and in the appendix of this report.

The 2008 scores in this trends chapter should not be interpreted as the 2008 results. The trends chapter has the sole objective of evaluating results evolutions on a like to like sample structure.

32

Alliance Awareness by nationalityQ24 – Prior to this trip, were you aware of the SkyTeam alliance?

73%

77%

53%

56%54%

63%60%60%

43% 36%

45%

60%

52%

56%

46%

60%

76%

63%

32%

52%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

Total Czech French Korean Mexican American Italian Dutch Russian JapaneseNationality

Aw

aren

ess

2S072S08

In comparison with the same semester the previous year, overall awareness has decreased by 2 percentage points: 52% of all passengers knew about the Alliance before the trip. Among different nationalities, it is worth noting the significant decrease in awareness among French and Dutch nationals (respectively -10 & - 17 points).

33


No significant changes in comparison with S2 2007 on the satisfaction with SkyTeam benefits overall, however a trend towards an increase with the mean score passing the 4.0 threshold. When analyzing the results by operating airline, Continental and Aeroflot passengers show an increase in satisfaction.

Overall rating SkyTeam benefitsQ25-8 Your overall satisfaction with SkyTeam alliance benefits: analyzed by Operating Airline

3,72

3,90

3,78

3,973,913,95 3,974,00

4,13 4,13

3,924,02 3,79

4,124,05

4,00 3,964,03 4,00 4,024,01

4,34

3

4

5

Total Continental AeroMexico Northwest Delta CzechAirlines

KLM Korean Air Air France Aeroflot Alitalia

2S072S08

34


Q27 - SkyTeam benefits

Mean scores are slightly higher in 2008 than in 2007 on all of the benefits, showing a clear trend towards improved passenger satisfaction, but it follows the same ranking.

35

Respondent base: SkyTeam Elite or Elite Plus members

As for other benefits, there is a significant positive evolution of the satisfaction on all of the dedicated services for Elite/Elite+ passengers. For each benefit, the mean scores increase by at least 0.10 points.

Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits

Means of 2S07 Evolutions Means of 2S08

n Priority check-in at dedicated counters 4.09 4.23

n Priority boarding for this trip 3.96 4.08

n Preferred seating on this trip 3.94 4.07

n Priority baggage handling 3.94 4.06

n Special recognition from cabin crew on board when traveling in First/Business class

3.94 4.09

36

Means of 2S07 Evolutions Means of

2S08

n Airline staff assistance during transfer 3.79 3.91

n Ease of transfer between connecting flights 3.66 3.89

n Time between connecting flight 3.61 3.71

Q21 Services when making a connection with another SkyTeam AirlineThe evolution in customer satisfaction between S1-2007 and S1-2008 in terms of connection services is positive. The satisfaction mean score for “ease of transfer between connecting flights” increases by more than 0.2 points. For the “airline staff assistance during transfer” and “time between connecting flights” the increase is less important but nevertheless significant (0.1 point).


37

First/Business Class Long Haul

4,39

4,04

4,28 4,35

3,97

4,364,34

4,57

4,57

4,384,54

4,41

4,08

4,354,37

4,10

4,62

4,16

3

4

5

Total Korean Air Continental Northwest Czech Airlines Air France KLM Alitalia Delta

2S072S08

Overall satisfaction with all ground and in-flight services offered to First/Business class passengers shows a slight increase overall. For long haul, satisfaction increased significantly among Air France passengers (+0.31) but it decreased among Delta passengers (-0.27). For short haul, it also increased significantly among Continental (+0.21) and KLM passengers (+0.38).

Overall rating SkyTeam airline performance by Operating Airline (1)Q26 Overall satisfaction with all ground and in-flight services offered for today’s flight.

Respondent base: Total

First Business Class Short Haul

3.754.254.314.334.23 3.91

4.10

4.374.48

3.713.78

4.284.364.54

3

4

5

Total Continental KLM Northwest Czech Airlines Air France Alitalia

AeroMexico and Aeroflot are not displayed due to a base <50.

Delta, Korean Air, AeroMexico and Aeroflot are not displayed due to a base <50.

38

Economy class passengers show a small increase in satisfaction on long and short haul flights (+0.10). On short haul flights, Continental and Air France passengers satisfaction have both increased significantly (+0.26). On long haul flights, Air France and AeroMexico passengers show increased satisfaction (respectively +0.40 & +0.21) compared to the same semester last year.

Overall rating SkyTeam airline performance by Operating Airline (2)Q26 Overall satisfaction with all ground and in-flight services offered for today’s flight.

Respondent base: Total

Economy Class Short Haul

3.86

4.104.17

3.94

4.184.174.37

4.114.21

4.02

4.17

3.91

4.284.21

4.44

4.204.25 4.254.26 4.25

3

4

5

Total Korean Air Continental Aeroflot Czech Airlines AeroMexico KLM Air France Northwest Alitalia

Economy Class Long Haul

4.03

4.09

3.783.90

4.244.07

4.074.21

4.12

4.40 4.41

4.24

3.99

3.84

4.50

4.23

4.03

4.304.41

4.21

4.314.07

3

4

5

Total Korean Air CzechAirlines

KLM Air France AeroMexico Continental Northwest Aeroflot Delta Alitalia

2S072S08

Delta is not displayed due to a base <50.

39

Respondent base: Passengers who used the phone reservation service

There is a small change (+0.07) in overall satisfaction with the telephone reservation service on the total sample. Furthermore, each airline shows a higher satisfaction score than the previous year, most notably for AeroMexico (+0.22) and KLM (+0.20), except Alitalia which has a decrease of 0.12 points.

Q11-1 Overall satisfaction with the airline telephone reservation service

4,164,444,37

4,444,33

4,274,32

4,16 4,20

4,45

4,144,04

4,39

4,54 4,49 4,46 4,444,38 4,38 4,35 4,35 4,34

3

4

5

Total Continental Korean Air CzechAirlines

Northwest Delta AeroMexico Air France Aeroflot KLM Alitalia

2S072S08

40

4,10

4,08

4,35

4,39

4,314,44

4,42

4,234,31 4,31

4,24 4,244,33

4,52

4,38 4,37 4,35

4,32

4,26

4,244,18 4,17

3

4

5

Total Continental Northwest Korean Air CzechAirlines

Delta Air France AeroMexico KLM Aeroflot Alitalia

2S072S08

Respondent base: Passengers who used the airline website

Q14-1 Overall satisfaction with the airline website experienceOverall, satisfaction with the airline websites remains at the same good level as for Q2 2007. Each airline shows a good satisfaction level (above 4.0) and the scores are very similar to the previous year. The most notable change is a decrease for AeroMexico (-0.18).

41

3.333.71

4.164.314.29 4.00

3.78

4.22

4.374.04

3.803.93

4.124.04

4.37

4.214.30

4.41

3.22

4.17

4.344.404.42

4.09

3.73

3.913.94

3.914.02

4.14

4.314.33

4.09

4.30

4.54

4.16

3

4

5

Total

HoustonSeo

ul

Detroit

Minneapolis

Atlanta

Prague

Amsterd

amGuam

Tokyo

New York

NewarkMila

n

Los Angele

s

New York

JFK

Paris

Mexico

Rome

Moscow

2S072S08

Q18 Your overall airport experience by check-in airportSatisfaction with the overall airport experience has slightly increased compared to S2 2007, but this is not significant. There are significant differences depending on the check-in airport. Satisfaction has significantly increased at Milan and Paris, whereas the most notable decreases are at Mexico and Moscow airports. Moscow still stands out with a much lower satisfaction score (3.22, and lower than the year before).


42

Q18 Detailed customer satisfaction in respect to the airport experienceOn every airport experience aspect, the 2008 mean score is higher than that in S2 2007: the increasing trend in customer satisfaction with the airport experience is clear to see, even though individual evolutions are not statistically significant.



2S08

n Your overall airport experience 4.04 4.09

n Language skills of check-in staff 4.26 4.28

n Friendliness of check-in staff 4.22 4.29

n Efficiency of check-in process 4.11 4.15

n Efficiency of boarding process 4.07 4.13

n Signs directing you to ckeck-in area 4.07 4.11

n Wait time for check-in 3.97 4.03

n Signs directing you to the lounge 3.90 3.97

n On time departure 3.75 3.84

n If flight was delayed, information about the delay from airline gate staff

3.56 3.60

43

Q20 Services for the lounge you visited

Respondent base: Passengers who visited an airport lounge before boarding the flight

Concerning the overall airport lounge experience, the 2008 mean score is equal to that of S2 2007. On the detailed services there are no significant changes. The services with the lowest scores are “Internet facilities” and “selection of newspapers/magazines”.


2S08

n Your overall airport lounge experience 3.99 3.99

n Friendliness of lounge staff 4.07 4.10

n Condition and cleanliness of the lounge 4.07 4.04

n Comfort and spaciousness 3.95 3.97

n Selection of newspapers/magazines 3.69 3.78

n Internet facilities 3.72 3.70

44

No change overall in the long haul in-flight experience for First/business Class passengers and the only significant change at airline level is a decrease for Delta (-0.23). Other trends are an increase for Air France (+0.19) and a decrease for Czech Airlines (-0.15). For Economy Class passengers, there are no major evolutions at an airline level except for Air France (+0.28). Alitalia remains the only airline with a satisfaction level under 4.0.

Q21-1 Overall satisfaction with the Long Haul in-flight experience: analyzed by Class and Operating Airline.

4,48

4,51

4,66

4,20

4,54

4,68

4,32

4,614,74

4,254,434,434,46

4,514,52

4,65

4,69

4,53

3

4

5

Total Korean Air Continental Northwest Air France Czech Airlines KLM Delta Alitalia

2S07

2S08

Long Haul Flights First/Business Class

Long Haul Flights Economy Class

4.17

3.94

4.39

4.20

4.25

4.204.32

4.524.35

4.40

4.62

4.304.16

3.97

4.484.57

4.244.37

4.404.384.55 4.22

3

4

5

Total Korean Air CzechAirlines

Air France KLM Continental Delta AeroMexico Aeroflot Northwest Alitalia

AeroMexico and Aeroflot are not displayed due to a base <50.

45

A small satisfaction increase on short Haul flights for First / Business Class from S2 2007 to S2 2008 (+0.1): The only two significant evolutions are increases for Continental and Air France (both + 0.21). For Economy Class passengers, the only significant evolutions is an increase for Continental (+0.30).

Q21-1 Overall satisfaction with the Short Haul in-flight experience: analyzed by Class and Operating Airline.

Short Haul Flights Economy Class

Short Haul Flights First/Business Class

4.19

4.50

4.45 4.47

4.64

4.33

3.94

4.404.55

4.55 4.47

4.40

4.68

3.98

3

4

5

Total Continental Alitalia Air France Czech Airlines KLM Northwest

2S07

2S08

4.474.26

4.324.50

4.45

4.374.46

4.07

4.42

4.134.40

4.38

4.43

4.514.36 4.37

4.374.26

4.13

4.47

3

4

5

Total Korean Air Aeroflot CzechAirlines

Air France KLM AeroMexico Continental Northwest Alitalia

AeroMexico, Aeroflot, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.

Delta is not displayed due to a base <50.

SkyTeam Alliance

Appendices

47

The percentage of customers aware of the SkyTeam alliance does vary significantly according to the Marketing airline. Passengers who purchased their tickets from Alitalia and China Southern have a much lower awareness than other Marketing airlines (respectively 43.8% and 38.3%, the average being 51.8%).

Alliance Awareness analyzed by marketing Airline Q24 – Prior to this trip, were you aware of the SkyTeam alliance?

66.6% 62.5% 58.9% 58.7% 58.4% 57.1% 55.9% 49.1% 48.7% 46.9% 46.5% 45.8% 43.8% 38.3% 30.9%

Mean: 51.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Aeromex

ico

Air Fran

ce

Korean A

ir

Northwes

t

Czech

Airli

nes

Kenya A

irway

sKLM

Continen

talDelta

Copa Airlines

Air Euro

pa

Aeroflo

t

Alitalia

China South

ernOther

Perc

enta

ge Y

es

48



Overall rating SkyTeam benefitsQ25-8 Your overall satisfaction with SkyTeam alliance benefits: analyzed by Marketing Airline

12%

16%

15%

20%

20%

19%

22%

20%

24%

20%

18%

24%

1%

4%

2%

3%

4%

8%

47%

46%

58%

45%

42%

42%

45%

51%

46%

45%

52%

53%

57%

47%

30%

49%

41%

31%

36%

39%

36%

32%

27%

29%

30%

23%

23%

20%

20%

7%

14%

19%

3%

3%

4%

2%

3%

1%

1%

3%

2%

1%

2%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

35%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Total

Continental

Copa Airlines

Kenya Airways

China Southern

Delta

Aeromexico

Northwest

Czech Airlines

Korean Air

Aeroflot

KLM

Air Europa

Air France

Alitalia

4.02

4.31

4.27

4.18

4.13

4.12

4.11

4.07

4.01

3.99

3.97

3.94

3.94

3.89

3.77

Mean

There are significant differences in customer satisfaction depending on the Marketing airline considered. Continental is leading the way and is closely followed by Copa Airlines. Kenya Airways, China Southern, Delta and Aeroflot all have mean scores of 4.10 or above. KLM, Air Europa, Air France and Alitalia have lower mean scores due to a smaller proportion of “very satisfied” passengers.

49

Continental remains the leader regarding this benefit (4.56), followed by Korean Air (4.36) and Copa Airlines (4.35). Alitalia and Aeroflot stand out with scores significantly lower than the average.

Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits.Q23-1 Priority check-in at dedicated counters analyzed by Operating airline

4.56 4.36 4.35 4.25 4.25 4.12 4.09 4.05 4.04 3.94 3.93 3.84 3.77 3.70

Mean: 4.18

2

3

4

5

Continen

tal

Korean A

ir

Copa Airli

nes

KLM

China Southern

Northwes

t

Czech

Airli

nes

Aeromexic

o

Air Fran

ceDelt

a

Kenya A

irway

s

Air Europ

a

Aeroflo

t

Alitalia

50

Only four airlines show scores above 4.0: Continental, which remains the leader in priority baggage handling for Elite/Elite+ passengers, Korean Air, China southern and Copa Airlines. With mean scores close to 3.50, Air Europa, Aeroflot and Alitalia are significantly lower than the other operating airlines.

Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits. Q23-2 Priority baggage handling analyzed by Operating airline.

4.51 4.22 4.12 4.12 3.97 3.96 3.80 3.79 3.76 3.76 3.73 3.55 3.54 3.50

Mean: 3.99

2

3

4

5

Continen

tal

Korean A

ir

China Southern

Copa Airli

nes

Northwes

tKLM

Aeromexic

o

Czech

Airli

nes

Air Fran

ce

Kenya A

irway

sDelt

a

Air Euro

pa

Aeroflo

t

Alitalia

51

Satisfaction of Elite/Elite+ passengers with priority boarding is linked to the operating airlines.Five airlines stand out with scores below 3.5: Kenya Airways, Czech Airlines, Alitalia, Aeroflot and Air Europa, while Continental is still clearly the leader on this benefit with a mean score of 4.55.

Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits. Q23-3 Priority boarding for this trip analyzed by Operating airline

4.55 4.37 4.24 4.18 4.11 4.08 3.95 3.81 3.66 3.44 3.36 3.26 3.23 3.18

Mean: 3.98

2

3

4

5

Continen

tal

Copa Airli

nes

Northwes

t

Korean A

irKLM

China Southern

Aeromexic

oDelt

a

Air Fran

ce

Kenya A

irway

s

Czech

Airlines

Alitalia

Aeroflo

t

Air Europa

52

On the preferred seating benefit, Continental obtains the best score, significantly ahead of a group of airlines with mean scores greater than 4.0: Copa Airlines, China Southern, Northwest and KLM. The other airlines obtain “fair” scores. Alitalia, Aeroflot and Air Europa are further behind with mean scores under the 3.5 threshold.

Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits.Q23-4 Preferred seating on this trip analyzed by Operating airline.

4.564.26 4.17 4.16 4.08 4.00 3.91 3.81 3.77 3.68 3.64 3.48 3.48 3.44

Mean: 4.00

2

3

4

5

Continen

tal

Copa Airlines

China Southern

Northwes

tKLM

Korean Air

Delta

Aeromexic

o

Czech

Airli

nes

Air Fran

ce

Kenya A

irway

s

Alitalia

Aeroflo

t

Air Euro

pa

53

Continental and Copa Airlines are the leaders on the special recognition from cabin crew. Four other airlines, Korean Air, China Southern, KLM and Czech Airlines obtain a score higher than 4.0. Alitalia is very detached from the others (3.28).

Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits. Q23-5 Special recognition from cabin crew on board when traveling in First / Business class, analyzed by Operating airline.

4,42 4,41 4,30 4,26 4,16 4,10 3,98 3,88 3,74 3,73 3,73 3,733,28

Mean: 4.04

2

3

4

5

Continen

tal

Copa Airli

nes

Korean Air

China SouthernKLM

Czech

Airlines

Aeromexic

o

Northwes

tDelt

a

Air Fran

ce

Air Europ

a

Aeroflo

t

Alitalia


54

Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits.Q23-1 Priority check-in at dedicated counters analyzed by check-in airport.

4.774.46 4.32 4.32 4.30 4.29 4.28 4.27 4.26 4.26 4.24 4.23 4.20 4.18 4.09 4.06 4.02 3.88 3.85

3.30

Mean: 4.18

2

3

4

5

GuamBeijin

g

New York JF

KSeo

ul

Panam

a City

Atlanta

Tokyo

Canton

New York Newark

Los Angele

s

Detroit

Prague

Amsterd

am

HoustonRome

Paris

Mexico

Malaga

Madrid

Moscow

On the whole, satisfaction on the priority check-in benefit maintains a high level in the different check-in airports (overall mean score of 4.18). Guam stands out (“very good” mean score), followed by Beijing, while Malaga, Madrid and in particular Moscow have significantly lower scores than the other airports (below 4.0).

Minneapolis, Valencia, Milan, Barcelona and Nairobi are not displayed due to a base <50

55

Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits. Q23-2 Priority baggage handling analyzed by check-in airport.

Guam and Houston are the leaders in terms of priority baggage handling, while Madrid and Moscow have the lowest mean scores and are rather detached from the other airports.

4.684.35 4.21 4.19 4.15 4.14 4.13 4.10 4.08 4.06 4.06 4.02 3.91 3.81 3.76 3.74 3.72

3.533.25

3.74

Mean: 3.99

2

3

4

5

Guam

Houston

New York Newark

Seoul

Tokyo

Canton

Beijing

Los Angele

s

Panam

a City

Amsterd

am

New York JF

K

Detroit

Prague

Atlanta

RomePari

s

Malaga

Mexico

Madrid

Moscow


56

Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits. Q23-3 Priority boarding for this trip analyzed by check-in airportGuam and Houston obtain the best “very good” scores for the priority boarding. Prague, Paris, Madrid, Rome and Malaga have scores between 3.5 and 3.0. Moscow is further behind the other check-in airports, with a satisfaction score from their Elite/Elite+ passengers well below 3.0.

4.64 4.574.34 4.31 4.30 4.24 4.19 4.18 4.13 4.11 4.09 4.06 3.97 3.84

3.50 3.473.28 3.24 3.10

2.82

Mean: 3.98

2

3

4

5

Guam

Houston

Panam

a City

New York Newark

Los Angele

s

Detroit

Tokyo

Seoul

Canton

Atlanta

Amsterd

am

New York JF

K

Beijing

Mexico

Prague

Paris

Madrid

Rome

Malaga

Moscow


57

Detailed Elite (Plus) benefits.Q23-4 Preferred seating on this trip analyzed by check-in airport.Overall, satisfaction is good for over half of the airports with clearly Guam in the lead. Madrid, Paris, Rome, Moscow and Malaga are detached from the other airports, with mean scores of between 3.54 and 3.29.

4.644.28 4.27 4.25 4.20 4.17 4.17 4.12 4.08 4.05 4.02 3.95 3.95 3.83 3.81

3.54 3.52 3.41 3.33 3.29

Mean: 4.00

2

3

4

5

Guam

New York Newark

Tokyo

Beijing

Canton

Houston

Detroit

Panam

a City

Amsterdam

Los Angele

sSeo

ul

Atlanta

New York JF

K

Prague

Mexico

Madrid

Paris

Rome

Moscow

Malaga


58

Respondent base: Passengers who used the airline phone reservation service

Q11-2 Wait time to speak with reservation agent: analyzed by airline phone reservation service



18%

12%

10%

17%

14%

15%

10%

17%

18%

31%

8%

12%

7%

7%

7%

14%

12%

38%

27%

32%

42%

40%

43%

35%

37%

46%

50%

30%

36%

24%

39%

55%

53%

52%

43%

42%

38%

41%

39%

31%

26%

34%

25%

27%

13%

9%

8%

14%

8%

4%

7%

4%

2%

4%

2%

5%

5%

7%

4%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1%

3%

1%

4%

37%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Wait time to speakwith reservation agent

Copa Airlines

Czech Airlines

Continental

China Southern

Air Europa

Delta

Northwest

Korean Air

Air France

KLM

Aeroflot

Alitalia

Aeromexico

4.02

4.47

4.29

4.25

4.23

4.16

4.06

4.06

4.01

3.96

3.79

3.73

3.51

3.49

Mean

On average, 9% of concerned passengers are dissatisfied with the wait time to speak with the reservation agent. Improvements should be made to reduce this proportion. Copa Airlines is significantly above the overall mean score, with a high proportion of “very satisfied” passengers, followed by Czech Airlines and Continental. Aeroflot, Alitalia and AeroMexico are ranked at the bottom because of a relatively high proportion of dissatisfied passengers.


59


Q11-3 Information given on SkyTeam connection and route options: analyzed by airline phone reservation service



8%

14%

16%

14%

11%

20%

13%

34%

10%

19%

2%

11%

11%

36%

32%

36%

37%

41%

43%

25%

36%

27%

49%

23%

37%

37%

45%

58%

56%

49%

48%

43%

40%

53%

46%

47%

33%

40%

38%

32%

14%

15%

11%

12%

7%

3%

2%

3%

2%

2%

1%

5%

3%

1%

2%

5%

3%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

25%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Information given on Skyteam connection and route options

Copa Airlines

Continental

Korean Air

Delta

China Southern

Aeroflot

Czech Airlines

Air Europa

Northwest

Air France

KLM

Aeromexico

Alitalia

4.19

4.39

4.38

4.30

4.29

4.25

4.22

4.21

4.20

4.13

4.08

3.96

3.93

3.86

Mean

Satisfaction with information given on SkyTeam connections & route options remains “good” for most airlines’ phone reservation services. KLM, AeroMexico and Alitalia are the only companies with scores below 4.0.


60


Q11-4 Friendliness of staff: analyzed by airline phone reservation service



5%

6%

6%

5%

8%

6%

12%

9%

12%

1%

4%

4%

30%

17%

26%

24%

36%

31%

31%

34%

38%

40%

22%

39%

37%

61%

78%

79%

66%

65%

58%

61%

61%

58%

54%

53%

61%

50%

44%

1%

7%

2%

6%

9%

1%

2%

1%

2%

2%

1%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

20%

30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Friendliness of staff

Copa Airlines

Continental

Delta

Czech Airlines

Aeromexico

Korean Air

Air Europa

Aeroflot

Air France

China Southern

Northwest

KLM

Alitalia

4.49

4.76

4.71

4.56

4.52

4.50

4.50

4.49

4.47

4.46

4.44

4.39

4.37

4.17

Mean

Staff friendliness on the phone reservation service is “good” for all airlines (above 4.0). Copa Airlines, Continental, Delta and Czech Airlines exceed the 4.5 threshold, while Alitalia is a little bit detached at the bottom of the ranking.


61


Q11-5 Efficiency of staff: analyzed by airline phone reservation service



7%

14%

9%

11%

7%

13%

13%

4%

14%

2%

4%

6%

4%

30%

29%

16%

34%

31%

22%

39%

34%

38%

36%

25%

50%

35%

57%

74%

61%

68%

56%

59%

62%

50%

53%

50%

48%

56%

38%

44%

7%

8%

10%

2%

9%

2%

2%

1%

2%

1%

4%

1%

2%

2%

1%

3%

3%

3%

1%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

2%

20%

30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Efficiency of staff

Continental

Delta

Copa Airlines

Korean Air

Air Europa

Czech Airlines

China Southern

Aeroflot

Air France

Aeromexico

Northwest

KLM

Alitalia

4.37

4.60

4.47

4.45

4.44

4.44

4.41

4.36

4.34

4.30

4.27

4.25

4.15

4.14

Mean

Efficiency of phone reservation service staff is rarely questioned, and all companies obtain satisfactory results, even though KLM and Alitalia are slightly detached from other airlines.


62

Q14-2 Information about SkyTeam connections and route options: analyzed by airline website



Respondent base: Passengers who used the airline web site

20%

12%

15%

17%

18%

21%

17%

20%

21%

26%

9%

6%

4%

8%

40%

30%

29%

43%

46%

37%

39%

38%

46%

43%

50%

52%

40%

37%

55%

49%

48%

38%

37%

43%

41%

39%

30%

31%

24%

20%

22%

15%

20%

10%

18%

5%

3%

4%

3%

4%

3%

1%

4%

2%

3%

1%

4%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

34%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Information about Skyteam connections and route options

Copa Airlines

Aeromexico

Continental

Korean Air

Czech Airlines

Delta

Aeroflot

Northwest

Air France

China Southern

KLM

Air Europa

Alitalia

4.08

4.45

4.27

4.22

4.16

4.15

4.15

4.15

4.10

4.02

3.95

3.90

3.82

3.68

Mean

Information provided on Airline websites about SkyTeam connections and route options is satisfactory overall, even if some differences appear depending on the website used: 55% of the concerned passengers are very satisfied with information provided by Copa Airlines. On the other hand, 4 airlines have mean scores below 4.0 and Alitalia is rather detached from the others with a mean of only 3.68.


63

Q14-3 User-friendly navigation, ease of use: analyzed by airline website



Respondent base: Passengers who used the airline web site

6%

16%

7%

13%

16%

14%

12%

14%

19%

20%

3%

3%

7%

42%

37%

39%

35%

41%

57%

48%

43%

48%

45%

46%

47%

39%

42%

62%

55%

47%

47%

42%

34%

37%

38%

35%

37%

35%

30%

32%

13%

10%

11%

15%

5%

1%

3%

1%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

28%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

User-friendly navigation, ease of use

Copa Airlines

Continental

Czech Airlines

Northwest

Aeromexico

China Southern

Aeroflot

Korean Air

Air France

Delta

KLM

Air Europa

Alitalia

4.22

4.52

4.46

4.30

4.24

4.22

4.22

4.21

4.17

4.15

4.15

4.09

4.01

3.95

Mean

Generally, passengers are satisfied with the user-friendliness of the airline websites, resulting in a “good” mean score. Copa Airlines is in the lead followed by Continental, while Alitalia is slightly lower than the others (below the 4.0 threshold).


64

Q17-1 Overall satisfaction with the airport experience: by check-in airport.

4.50 4.44 4.42 4.39 4.32 4.30 4.30 4.28 4.22 4.17 4.15 4.14 4.11 4.07 4.06 4.05 3.98 3.93 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.89 3.863.75 3.70

3.23

Mean: 4.07

3

4

5

Housto

n

Panam

a City

Seoul

Detroit

Atlanta

Prague

Minneap

olis

Amsterd

am

Beijing

Guam

New York

Newark

Tokyo

Canton Mila

n

Cancu

n

Los Angele

s

New York

JFK

Mexico

Madrid

Santo

Domingo

Valencia

Paris

Malaga

Rome

Barcelo

na

Moscow

Mea

n sc

ore

Overall satisfaction with the airport experience is satisfactory for the two thirds of check-in airports. However this semester, ten airports are below the 4.0 threshold. Rome, Barcelona and especially Moscow are rather detached from the other airlines.


65

Q17-2 Signs directing you to the check-in area: by check-in airport.

4.53 4.43 4.36 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.354.19 4.13 4.12 4.11 4.09 4.05 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 3.97 3.94 3.92 3.90 3.90 3.85 3.80 3.72 3.67

Mean: 4.10

3

4

5

Housto

nDetr

oit

Panam

a City

Prague

Amsterd

am

New York

Newark

Minneap

olisSeo

ul

Cancu

nGuam

Beijing

Atlanta

Valencia

Tokyo

New York

JFK

Los Angele

s

Canton

Madrid

Santo

DomingoMila

n

Mexico

Barcelo

naPari

s

Malaga

Rome

Moscow

Mea

n sc

ore

Regarding the signs directing passengers to the check-in area, Houston remains the best check-in airport, closely followed by Detroit and Panama City. Nine airports have scores below the 4.0 threshold and four are somewhat detached from the others with scores below 3.9 : Paris, Malaga, Rome and Moscow.


66

Q17-3 Signs directing you to the lounge: by check-in airport.

4.29 4.19 4.18 4.17 4.16 4.15 4.11 4.10 4.07 4.06 4.03 3.99 3.98 3.95 3.92 3.92 3.90 3.80 3.77 3.69 3.663.53

3.423.26

Mean: 3.95

3

4

5

Housto

n

Atlanta

Detroit

Seoul

Beijing

Prague

Amsterd

am

Minneap

olis

New York

Newark

Canton Mila

n

Cancu

nToky

o

Panam

a City

New York

JFK

Guam

Los Angele

sPari

s

Barcelo

na

Madrid

Mexico

Rome

Moscow

Malaga

Mea

n sc

ore

The majority of airports don’t reach the 4.0 threshold for the signs directing you to the lounge. Houston obtains the best score whereas Madrid, Mexico, Rome, Moscow and Malaga occupy the last 5 places with mean scores below 3.7.


67

Q17-4 Wait time for check-in: by check-in airport.

Satisfaction with the wait time for check-in varies according to the airport, half of the airports obtain mean scores between 4.0 and 4.5. Houston stands out with the best score (4.58) and Moscow stands out with a score that is far detached from the other airports (3.13).

4.584.39 4.39 4.33 4.29 4.28 4.25 4.21 4.20 4.17 4.16 4.13 4.09 4.07 3.98 3.98 3.97 3.96 3.94 3.89 3.82 3.74 3.65

3.52 3.49

3.13

Mean: 4.01

3

4

5

Housto

n

Atlanta

Minneap

olis

Detroit

Milan

Prague

Panam

a City

New York

Newark

Seoul

Amsterd

amGuam

Los Angele

sToky

o

Canton

New York

JFK

Valencia

Beijing

Santo

Domingo

Cancu

nRom

e

Madrid

Malaga

Paris

Barcelo

na

Mexico

Moscow

Mea

n sc

ore


68

Q17-5 Efficiency of check-in process: by check-in airport.

4.684.43 4.41 4.37 4.34 4.34 4.34 4.27 4.25 4.24 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.18 4.15 4.14 4.13 4.10 4.07 4.06 4.00 3.99 3.95 3.94 3.91

3.49

Mean: 4.13

3

4

5

Housto

n

Panam

a City

Atlanta

Seoul

Prague

Detroit

Minneap

olisGuam

New York

Newark Mila

n

Amsterd

am

Los Angele

s

Valencia

Tokyo

Malaga

Beijing

Cancu

n

Canton

New York

JFK

Madrid

Mexico

Rome

Barcelo

na

Santo

DomingoPari

s

Moscow

Mea

n sc

ore

Almost all airports are showing “good” passenger satisfaction for the efficiency of the check-in process, except Moscow which is detached for the others.


69

Q17-6 Friendliness of check-in staff: by check-in airport.

4.714.48 4.47 4.45 4.43 4.36 4.34 4.32 4.31 4.28 4.28 4.27 4.26 4.24 4.24 4.23 4.22 4.21 4.18 4.18 4.14 4.14 4.10 4.05 4.02

3.79

Mean: 4.27

3

4

5

Housto

n

Beijing

Panam

a City

Atlanta

Seoul

Prague

Amsterdam

Los Angele

s

Detroit

Minneap

olis

Valencia

Milan

Paris

Mexico

GuamToky

oRom

e

Malaga

New York

JFK

New York

Newark

Canton

Madrid

Cancu

n

Santo

Domingo

Barcelo

na

Moscow

Mea

n sc

ore

Friendliness of check-in staff obtains high levels of satisfaction for all airports and the overall mean score is at 4.27. Only Moscow stays below the 4.0 “good” threshold.


70

Q17-7 Language skills of check-in staff: by check-in airport.

4.734.58

4.46 4.44 4.44 4.42 4.41 4.37 4.35 4.33 4.31 4.29 4.28 4.28 4.24 4.21 4.20 4.18 4.18 4.14 4.13 4.06 4.05 4.043.82 3.77

Mean: 4.26

3

4

5

Housto

n

Panam

a City

Atlanta

Seoul

Milan

Detroit

Minneap

olis

Los Angele

s

New York

Newark

Amsterdam

Beijing

Guam Paris

Mexico

Prague

Barcelo

naRom

eToky

o

New York

JFK

Madrid

Santo

Domingo

Malaga

Canton

Valencia

Cancu

n

Moscow

Mea

n sc

ore

High satisfaction scores are observed for all airports on the language skills of check-in staff, except for Cancun and Moscow which have a satisfaction score below the 4.0 threshold.


71

Q17-8 Efficiency of boarding process: by check-in airport.

4.714.50

4.37 4.37 4.35 4.34 4.29 4.24 4.23 4.19 4.18 4.16 4.16 4.15 4.14 4.09 4.06 4.01 3.91 3.90 3.87 3.84 3.82 3.80 3.78 3.73

Mean: 4.11

3

4

5

Housto

n

Atlanta

Seoul

GuamDetr

oit

Panam

a City

Minneap

olis

New York

Newark

Los Angele

s

Prague

New York

JFK

Beijing

Cancu

nToky

o

Amsterd

am

Canton

Malaga

Santo

Domingo

Mexico

Milan

Paris

Valencia

Madrid

Barcelo

na

Moscow

Rome

Mea

n sc

ore

About two thirds of check-in airports obtain good satisfaction scores on the boarding process efficiency. Houston and Atlanta are in the lead, slightly above a second group of 4 airports with mean scores above 4.3. At the other end of the scale, Mexico, Milan, Paris, Valencia, Madrid, Barcelona, Moscow and Rome have the lowest scores (below 4.0).


72

Q17-9 On time departure: by check-in airport.

4.77

4.46 4.40 4.35 4.32 4.27 4.24 4.21 4.16 4.15 4.13 4.08 4.05 4.01 3.97 3.96 3.89 3.88 3.783.55 3.49 3.46 3.42 3.34

3.20 3.12

Mean: 3.85

3

4

5

Housto

nGuam

Atlanta

Beijing

Panam

a City

Canton

Detroit

Los Angele

s

Malaga

Tokyo

Minneap

olisSeo

ul

Cancu

n

Santo

Domingo

New York

Newark Mila

n

Amsterdam

Valencia

Prague

Moscow

Barcelo

na

Mexico Pari

s

Madrid

Rome

New York

JFK

Mea

n sc

ore

Overall, satisfaction with the on-time departure is only at a “fair” level (mean score of 3.85). It is clearly dependent on the check-in airport used by passengers: Houston leads the whole, and thirteen other airports exceed the 4.0 threshold for a “good” score. On the other hand, Moscow, Barcelona, Mexico, Paris, Madrid, Rome and New York JFK are somewhat detached and obtain relatively “poor” results (between 3.12 and 3.55).


73

Q17-10 Information about the delay from airline gate staff: by check-in airport.

4.68

4.17 4.13 4.10 4.04 4.01 3.90 3.89 3.85 3.80 3.66 3.63 3.53 3.38 3.35 3.33 3.26 3.20 3.17 3.09 3.03 3.02

Mean: 3.59

2

3

4

5

Housto

nGuam

Atlanta

Seoul

Los Angele

s

Beijing

Canton

Tokyo

Detroit

Panam

a City

New York

JFK

New York

Newark

Prague

Malaga

Amsterd

am

Barcelo

naPari

sMila

n

Mexico

Moscow

Madrid

Rome

Mea

n sc

ore

Passenger satisfaction with the information about the delay from airline gate staff is generally low, with an exception being the very good score for Houston. For 9 airports (Malaga, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Paris, Milan, Mexico, Moscow, Madrid and Rome) the results can be considered as “poor” (means between 3.0 and 3.5).


74

4.32 4.29 4.16 4.15 4.14 4.13 4.08 4.06 4.04 4.04 4.03 4.00 4.00 3.84 3.75 3.753.55

3.37 3.28

Mean: 3.97

2

3

4

5

Seoul

Detroit

Prague

Tokyo

Panam

a City

New York

Newark

Atlanta

Amsterd

amPari

sGuam

Canton

New York

JFK

Los Angele

s

Madrid

Mexico

Beijing

Housto

nRom

e

Moscow

Mea

n sc

ore

Q19-1 Overall airport lounge experience: by check-in airport

Respondent base: Passengers who visited an airport lounge before boarding the flight or during a connection

The passenger lounge experience reaches a “good” level of satisfaction for about two thirds of airports. Furthermore, the perception of the service quality is relatively homogeneous across the majority of the airports (11 airports within a mean score range of 0.16). Seoul obtains the highest score (4.32) followed by Detroit, whereas Rome and Moscow check-in airports are clearly behind the others (“poor” mean scores).

Malaga, Milan, Barcelona, Valencia and Nairobi are not displayed due to a base <50

75

4.40 4.39 4.35 4.25 4.23 4.18 4.18 4.18 4.17 4.11 4.10 4.10 4.07 4.02 3.96 3.92 3.84 3.81 3.66

Mean: 4.10

2

3

4

5

Panam

a City

Seoul

Detroit

Atlanta

Canton

Guam

Housto

n

New York

Newark

Prague

Paris

New York

JFK

Los Angele

sToky

o

Amsterd

am

Beijing

Madrid

Rome

Mexico

Moscow

Mea

n sc

ore

Q19-2 Friendliness of lounge staff: by check-in airportFriendliness of lounge staff is “good” for nearly all airports, with results above 4.0, and especially acknowledged by passengers at Panama City, Seoul and Detroit airports. Passengers checking in at Moscow are the least satisfied.


Malaga, Milan, Barcelona, Valencia, Minneapolis and Nairobi are not displayed due to a base <50

76

4.36 4.29 4.25 4.25 4.15 4.04 4.03 4.02 4.02 4.00 3.96 3.94 3.91 3.90 3.873.48 3.39 3.30

3.11

Mean: 3.95

2

3

4

5

Seoul

New York

Newark

Tokyo

Detroit

Prague

Atlanta

Paris

New York

JFK

Los Angele

s

Canton

Guam

Amsterdam

Panam

a City

Beijing

Madrid

Mexico

Housto

nRom

e

Moscow

Mea

n sc

ore

Q19-3 Comfort and spaciousness of the lounge: by check-in airportMore than half of the airports reach a “good” mean score of 4.0 or more on this attribute. Mexico, Houston, Rome and Moscow are detached from the others with “poor” mean scores below 3.5.



77

4.65

4.20 4.11 4.11 4.05 3.98 3.90 3.89 3.86 3.80 3.67 3.66 3.61 3.57 3.563.33 3.30 3.19

2.66

Mean: 3.73

2

3

4

5

GuamDetr

oitSeo

ul

Panam

a City

Tokyo

New York

Newark

Canton

Prague

Los Angele

s

Amsterd

amBeij

ing

Atlanta

Housto

n

Mexico

New York

JFK

Paris

Madrid

Moscow

Rome

Mea

n sc

ore

Q19-4 Internet facilities: by check-in airportGuam is the clear leader in terms of satisfaction regarding the Internet facilities provided in the airport lounge. 4 airports stand out with “poor” or “very poor” scores for the lounge Internet facilities, those being Paris, Madrid, Moscow and Rome.



78

4.37 4.37 4.26 4.20 4.19 4.19 4.16 4.15 4.09 4.06 4.05 4.03 3.96 3.95 3.87 3.78 3.763.47 3.33

Mean: 4.04

2

3

4

5

Seoul

Detroit

Tokyo

New York

Newark

Prague

Los Angele

s

Panam

a City

Canton

Amsterd

amPari

sGuam

Atlanta

Beijing

New York

JFK

Housto

n

Mexico

Madrid

Moscow

Rome

Mea

n sc

ore

Q19-5 Condition and cleanliness of the lounge: by check-in airportSatisfaction about the cleanliness of the lounge is satisfactory for most airports. Moscow and Rome scores remain below other airports, while Seoul and Detroit obtain the highest scores.



79

4.09 4.05 3.96 3.86 3.81 3.80 3.80 3.78 3.76 3.76 3.73 3.66 3.61 3.613.36 3.35 3.35 3.31

3.07

Mean: 3.65

2

3

4

5

Seoul

Panam

a City

New York

Newark

Guam

Prague

Amsterd

amDetr

oit

Tokyo

Housto

n

Los Angele

sPari

s

Canton

Atlanta

New York

JFK

Mexico

Rome

Madrid

Beijing

Moscow

Mea

n sc

ore

Q19-6 Selection of newspapers / magazines: by check-in airportThis semester, all airports have a mean score below the 4.0 “good” score threshold except Seoul and Panama City (4.09 and 4.05 respectively). Mexico, Rome, Madrid, Beijing and Moscow airport lounges obtain the lowest scores (all below 4.0).



80Not at all satisfied Not satisfied

Neither satisfied,nor dissatisfied



Detailed transfer itemsQ21 Satisfaction with respect to a SkyTeam airline connection

18%

16%

14%

14%

15%

17%

14%

15%

18%

10%

6%

8%

7%

6%

5%

10%

35%

40%

36%

34%

34%

38%

38%

32%

38%

38%

33%

34%

35%

35%

31%

36%

38%

36%

33%

33%

37%

35%

32%

20%

21%

21%

8%

6%

6%

3%

5%

6%

7%

7%

8%

5%

3%

3%

7%

7%

5%

6%

8%

37%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Airline staff assistance during transfer

First/Business

Elite/Elite +


Ease of transfer between connecting flights

First/Business

Elite/Elite +


Time between connecting flight

First/Business

Elite/Elite +


3.87

3.98

3.98

3.79

3.85

3.92

3.94

3.81

3.71

3.94

3.88

3.69

Mean

Satisfaction regarding airline connections is not entirely satisfactory: between 11% and 18% of passengers are dissatisfied with items related to the transfer. “3 and more roundtrips” passengers tend to be slightly less satisfied than others on all items related to the transfer experience.

81

Q20-1 Time between connecting flights: by transfer airport

Time between connecting flights is rarely satisfactory for the concerned passengers except for Detroit (4.17). Los Angeles and NY JFK obtain “poor” results.

4.173.98 3.95

3.73 3.65 3.64 3.63 3.56 3.453.10

Mean: 3.71

3

4

5

Detroit Paris Tokyo Prague Rome Mexico Atlanta Moscow LosAngeles

New YorkJFK

Mea

n sc

ore


Guam, New York Newark, Seoul, Minneapolis, Amsterdam, Panama City, Nairobi, Madrid, Milan, Canton, Houston, Cancun, Malaga, Valencia, Barcelona and Beijing are not displayed due to a base <50

82

Q20-2 Ease of transfer between connecting flights: by transfer airport

3.953.71 3.68

3.553.31 3.28 3.16

4.49

4.194.00

Mean: 3.85

3

4

5

Detroit Tokyo Prague Atlanta Mexico Rome Paris New YorkJFK

Moscow LosAngeles

Mea

n sc

ore

Ease of transfer between connecting flights can be considered as good for Detroit, Tokyo and Prague. NY JFK, Moscow and Los Angeles “transfer” airports are performing less well on this dimension (“poor” scores).



83

4.33 4.26

3.92 3.88 3.833.73 3.72 3.69

3.48

3.02

Mean: 3.87

3

4

5

Detroit Tokyo Paris Prague Mexico Atlanta New YorkJFK

Rome LosAngeles

Moscow

Mea

n sc

ore

Q20-3 Airline staff assistance during transfer: by transfer airport

Only Detroit and Tokyo airports achieve a “good” level of satisfaction in the staff assistance during transfer. Los Angeles and in particular Moscow are behind with “poor” results.



84

Q22 Detailed customer satisfaction in respect to in-flight services: For Long Haul flights analyzed by Class (1)



7%

34%

25%

28%

31%

34%

28%

30%

27%

29%

60%

52%

72%

63%

64%

54%

65%

59%

66%

23%

9%

3%

9%

5%

27%

5%

5%

7%

9%

2%

1%

2%

1%

14%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

8%

1%

1%

1%

1% 37%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Your overall in-flight experience (FB Class)

Your overall in-flight experience (Eco Class)

Friendliness of cabin crew (FB Class)

Friendliness of cabin crew (Eco Class)

Avaibility of cabin crew (FB Class)

Avaibility of cabin crew (Eco Class)

Language skills of cabin crew (FB Class)

Language skills of cabin crew (Eco Class)

Leg room (FB Class)

Leg room (Eco Class)

4.52

4.37

4.67

4.50

4.57

4.39

4.56

4.45

4.56

3.45

Mean

On Long Haul flights, the main difference between Classes remains the leg room available: only half the Economy class passengers are satisfied with this attribute, in comparison with 93% of First / Business class passengers. Also on all other items, F/B class passengers are significantly more satisfied than Economy class passengers.

85




19%

12%

18%

6%

6%

4%

36%

37%

40%

36%

39%

39%

38%

31%

31%

52%

44%

51%

36%

48%

33%

45%

36%

50%

19%

10%

14%

9%

29%

13%

12%

17%5%

1%

3%

2%

15%

3%

4%

6%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

1%

1%

38%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Cabin cleanliness (FB Class)

Cabin cleanliness (Eco Class)

Meal quantity (FB Class)

Meal quantity (Eco Class)

Overall meal service (FB Class)

Overall meal service (Eco Class)

Lavatory cleanliness (FB Class)

Lavatory cleanliness (Eco Class)

Seat comfort (FB Class)

Seat comfort (Eco Class)

4.38

4.19

4.37

4.03

4.27

3.92

4.25

3.99

4.23

3.41

Mean

Also “seat comfort” is a satisfaction criteria that greatly dependents varies for the class used: only half of Economy passengers being satisfied (vs. 81% for First/Business passengers). Economy class passengers are also less satisfied than First/Business passengers on all the other items.

86




20%

15%

20%

8%

10%

38%

32%

30%

35%

30%

33%

28%

41%

31%

43%

27%

39%

35%

40%

34%

18%

21%

15%

17%

25%11%

4%

8%

4%

7%

5%

9%

4%

7%

7%

3%

4%

2%

4%

38%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Meal quality (FB Class)

Meal quality (Eco Class)

Availability of newspapers,magazines (FB Class)

Availability of newspapers,magazines (Eco Class)

Onboard information about thedelay (FB Class)

Onboard information about thedelay (Eco Class)

Audio / video entertainment (FB Class)

Audio / video entertainment (Eco Class)

4.13

3.85

4.08

3.60

4.00

3.79

3.97

3.68

Mean

Here again, satisfaction levels are higher among First/Business class passengers than those in Economy. The availability of newspapers is the most unsatisfactory aspect for Economy class passengers. The access to audio/video entertainment could also be improved for economy class passengers.

87

Q22 Detailed customer satisfaction in respect to in-flight services: For Short Haul flights analyzed by Class (1)



7%

12%

16%

32%

25%

31%

29%

37%

26%

33%

26%

32%

36%

41%

60%

48%

71%

61%

65%

51%

66%

53%

57%

31%

49%

40%

11%

4%

10%

7%

23%

11%

6%

7%

10%

4%

2%

1%

1%

1%

10%

1%

2%

1%

3%

3%

1%

4%

2%

1%

41%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Your overall in-flight experience (FB Class)

Your overall in-flight experience (Eco Class)

Friendliness of cabin crew (FB Class)

Friendliness of cabin crew (Eco Class)

Avaibility of cabin crew (FB Class)

Avaibility of cabin crew (Eco Class)

Language skills of cabin crew (FB Class)

Language skills of cabin crew (Eco Class)

Leg room (FB Class)

Leg room (Eco Class)

Cabin cleanliness (FB Class)

Cabin cleanliness (Eco Class)

4.51

4.34

4.66

4.50

4.58

4.38

4.56

4.35

4.33

3.75

4.30

4.17

Mean

The difference observed in in-flight services between class categories is less obvious for Short haul as it is for Long haul. The only exception being the leg room: this aspect is more satisfying for First / business class passengers.

88




17%

35%

33%

33%

28%

34%

30%

32%

46%

34%

45%

27%

48%

25%

46%

27%24%

15%

21%

15%

16%

25%

27%

10%

9%

5%

4%

4%

5%

10%

6%

7%

2%

4%

6%

1%

2%

1%

2%

40%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Lavatory cleanliness (FB Class)

Lavatory cleanliness (Eco Class)

Meal quantity (FB Class)

Meal quantity (Eco Class)

Seat comfort (FB Class)

Seat comfort (Eco Class)

Overall meal service (FB Class)

Overall meal service (Eco Class)

4.22

4.01

4.16

3.65

4.14

3.67

4.12

3.62

Mean

On Short Haul flights Economy class passengers are clearly less satisfied than First / Business class passengers for the overall meal service, the meal quantity and the seat comfort. Regarding the lavatory cleanliness, the difference is less significant among the two passenger classes.

89




21%

32%

32%

29%

27%

28%

26%

21%

40%

25%

38%

34%

40%

27%

32%

21%

23%

21%

18%

19%

25%

19%

24%

12%

12%

10%

7%

11%

6%

9%

16%

5%

3%

7%

5%

8%

9%

9%

19%

33%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Meal quality (FB Class)

Meal quality (Eco Class)

Onboard information about thedelay (FB Class)

Onboard information about thedelay (Eco Class)

Availability of newspapers,magazines (FB Class)

Availability of newspapers,magazines (Eco Class)

Audio / video entertainment (FB Class)

Audio / video entertainment (Eco Class)

3.98

3.57

3.93

3.72

3.86

3.52

3.60

3.09

Mean

Meal quality, onboard information about the delay, availability of newspapers / magazines and audio / video entertainment are all in-flight aspects that should be considered as only fairly satisfying onboard short haul flights. F/B class passengers tend to be more satisfied than Economy class passengers on these aspects.

90

Q21-1 Overall in-flight experience on Long Haul flights: analyzed by operating airline and by class (1)



5%

4%

15%

3%

3%

25%

24%

39%

34%

33%

34%

39%

42%

36%

33%

38%

72%

62%

71%

49%

61%

62%

60%

41%

55%

57%

60%

43%

5%

12%

4%

2%

6%

3%

4%

4%

14%

1%

1%

1%

1%

4%

1%

1%

1%

33%

30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Korean Air (FB Class)

Korean Air (Eco Class)

Continental (FB Class)

Continental (Eco Class)

China Southern (FB Class)

China Southern (Eco Class)

Northwest (FB Class)

Northwest (Eco Class)

Air France (FB Class)

Air France (Eco Class)

Aeroflot (FB Class)

Aeroflot (Eco Class)

4.69

4.57

4.65

4.37

4.56

4.57

4.52

4.16

4.52

4.48

4.51

4.19

Mean

Overall, the majority of Long Haul passengers onboard these six airlines are very satisfied with their overall in-flight experience (above the 4.5 “very good” threshold for First/business). The most visible gap between passenger class is on Northwest and Aeroflot Long Haul flights: Economy class passengers are less satisfied, even though satisfaction remains “good” (respectively 4.16 and 4.19).

Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires and AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50

91

Q21-1 Overall in-flight experience on Long Haul flights: analyzed by operating airline and by class (2)



10%

22%

3%

4%

38%

31%

33%

39%

40%

43%

40%

39%

42%

41%

35%

56%

43%

59%

62%

53%

47%

50%

50%

50%

48%

45%

36%

7%

9%

8%

10%

5%

7%

9%

9%

5%

11%

3%

1%

1%

2%

2%

1%

2%

1%

3%

2%

1%

2%

1% 44%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Air Europa (FB Class)

Air Europa (Eco Class)

Czech Airlines (FB Class)

Czech Airlines (Eco Class)

Delta (FB Class)

Delta (Eco Class)

KLM (FB Class)

KLM (Eco Class)

Kenya Airways (FB Class)

Kenya Airways (Eco Class)

Alitalia (FB Class)

Alitalia (Eco Class)

4.48

4.27

4.46

4.55

4.44

4.30

4.43

4.40

4.35

4.34

4.25

3.98

Mean

The gap in the satisfaction scores between First/business and Economy class passengers is much smaller on these airlines. Mean scores are in general “good”. It is to be noted that there is almost no difference in satisfaction among passengers on KLM and Kenya Airways flights.

Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires and AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50

92

Q21-1 Overall in-flight experience on Short Haul flights: analyzed by operating airline and by class (1)



5%

19%

25%

26%

29%

40%

35%

38%

40%

46%

75%

51%

71%

68%

67%

54%

60%

54%

54%

42%

4%

4%

4%

5%

10%

6%

13%

3%

7%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

35%

20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Continental (FB Class)

Continental (Eco Class)

Copa Airlines (FB Class)

Copa Airlines (Eco Class)

Aeroflot (FB Class)

Aeroflot (Eco Class)

Czech Airlines (FB Class)

Czech Airlines (Eco Class)

Northwest (FB Class)

Northwest (Eco Class)

4.69

4.38

4.64

4.60

4.64

4.46

4.55

4.43

4.47

4.27

Mean

On Short Haul flights, the satisfaction level is “good” to “very good” for these airlines, with little or no dissatisfied passengers in both classes. In general, First /Business class passengers are rather more satisfied with their overall in-flight experience, expect on Copa Airlines flights where both classes obtain almost the same scores.

Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires and Delta, Korean Air and AeroMexico are not displayed due to a base <50

93

Q21-1 Overall in-flight experience on Short Haul flights: analyzed by operating airline and by class (2)



14%

47%

59%

44%

43%

54%

35%

40%

43%

44%

48%

44%

41%

48%

45%

23%

49%

47%

30%

36%

18%

7%

9%

21%

18%

5%

5%

1%

11%

4%

1%

2%

1%

2%

6%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

51%

30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

KLM (FB Class)

KLM (Eco Class)

Air France (FB Class)

Air France (Eco Class)

Air Europa (FB Class)

Air Europa (Eco Class)

China Southern (FB Class)

China Southern (Eco Class)

Alitalia (FB Class)

Alitalia (Eco Class)

4.43

4.39

4.40

4.37

4.32

3.93

4.31

4.31

3.98

4.13

Mean

The overall in-flight experience is satisfactory on these Short Haul flights. Passengers show the same level of satisfaction, except for Air Europa that shows higher satisfaction for F/B class and for Alitalia that shows the opposite trend.

Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires and Delta, Korean Air and AeroMexico are not displayed due to a base <50

94

4,43 4,34 4,22 4,08

4,71 4,69 4,68 4,62 4,58 4,53 4,49 4,47 4,44

Mean: 4.50

3

4

5

ChinaSouthern

Korean Air CzechAirlines

Air France KLM KenyaAirways

Air Europa Delta AeromexicoContinental Aeroflot Northwest Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

Q21-2 Friendliness of cabin crew: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class

4,57 4,484,80 4,80 4,73 4,72 4,72 4,71 4,66 4,66 4,64 4,62

Mean: 4.67

3

4

5

Korean Air Continental ChinaSouthern

CzechAirlines

Aeroflot Air Europa KLM KenyaAirways

Delta Air France Northwest Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

LONG HAUL- First Business Class

Overall, friendliness of the cabin crew is satisfactory (all mean scores above 4.0). First / Business class are usually more satisfied than Economy passengers on Long Haul flights.

LONG HAUL- Economy ClassCopa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.


95

Q21-2 Friendliness of cabin crew: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class

4.344.504.574.584.624.684.714.744.754.81

Mean: 4.66

3

4

5

Copa Airlines Continental Aeroflot KLM CzechAirlines

Air Europa Air France Northwest ChinaSouthern

Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

SORT HAUL-Economy Class

SHORT HAUL- First Business Class

4,39 4,36 4,36 4,284,434,434,484,584,634,644,654,654,69

Mean: 4.50

3

4

5

CopaAirlines

Air France KLM Korean Air Aeroflot CzechAirlines

AeromexicoNorthwest ChinaSouthern

Delta Continental Alitalia Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore

For Short Haul (just like for Long Haul flights), satisfaction remains at a high level on this attribute. Unlike most other companies, Economy class passengers onboard Air France and Alitalia are slightly more satisfied than those in First/Business class.

Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.

Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires.

96

Q21-3 Language of cabin crew: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class

4.49 4.364.71 4.63 4.60 4.60 4.59 4.57 4.52 4.51 4.49 4.49

Mean: 4.56

3

4

5

Continental Korean Air Delta CzechAirlines

Northwest Air Europa KLM Aeroflot Air France ChinaSouthern

KenyaAirways

Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

All airlines are obtaining good to very good satisfaction scores on the language of cabin crew on long haul flights. Alitalia and AeroMexico have lower scores than the other airlines and could perform better on this attribute.

4.23 4.20 4.17 4.15

4.69 4.54 4.54 4.53 4.51 4.49 4.48 4.46 4.40

Mean: 4.45

3

4

5

CzechAirlines

Delta Korean Air ChinaSouthern

ContinentalAir France KLM Air Europa Northwest Aeroflot KenyaAirways

Alitalia Aeromexico

Mea

n sc

ore


LONG HAUL- Economy Class Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.


97

Q21-3 Language of cabin crew: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class

4.184.184.384.464.524.534.544.604.704.70

Mean: 4.56

3

4

5

Continental Copa Airlines Aeroflot KLM Northwest CzechAirlines

Air France Air Europa Alitalia ChinaSouthern

Mea

n sc

ore

SHORT HAUL- First Business Class

SHORT HAUL- Economy Class

All airlines are performing well on this attribute. First/Business class passengers are more satisfied on average than Economy Class passengers. The exceptions being China Southern and to a lesser extent Air France and Alitalia (although not significant), for which Economy Class passengers tend to be more satisfied.

4.32 4.21 4.193.97

4.61 4.54 4.51 4.48 4.48 4.47 4.46 4.38 4.35

Mean: 4.35

3

4

5

CopaAirlines

Korean Air Delta Air France ContinentalAeromexico Aeroflot KLM Northwest ChinaSouthern

Alitalia CzechAirlines

Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore


Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires.

98

Q21-4 Availability cabin crew throughout the flight: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class

4.47 4.364.484.524.534.584.634.634.664.674.684.70

Mean: 4.57

3

4

5

Continental CzechAirlines

Korean Air ChinaSouthern

Air Europa Delta Aeroflot Northwest KLM KenyaAirways

Air France Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

A good to very good satisfaction overall on the cabin crew availability during Long Haul flights. Alitalia is behind the other operating airlines on this attribute.

4.28 4.24 4.223.98

4.334.344.374.384.424.514.514.544.62

Mean: 4.39

3

4

5

CzechAirlines

ChinaSouthern

Air France Korean Air Delta KenyaAirways

Continental KLM Air EuropaAeromexico Aeroflot Northwest Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore


LONG HAUL- Economy Class Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.


99

Q21-4 Availability cabin crew throughout the flight: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class

4.284.364.484.484.534.584.614.654.654.70

Mean: 4.58

3

4

5

Continental Copa Airlines Aeroflot CzechAirlines

KLM Northwest Air France Air Europa ChinaSouthern

Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore



Availability of cabin crew is highly appreciated by both class categories. Onboard Alitalia, satisfaction is slightly lower among First / Business class passengers, whereas among Economy class passengers Air Europa has the lowest score.

4,29 4,28 4,26 4,094,57 4,48 4,48 4,45 4,44 4,43 4,41 4,39 4,34

Mean: 4.38

3

4

5

CopaAirlines

Delta Aeroflot KLM CzechAirlines

Air France Korean AirAeromexicoContinental Alitalia Northwest ChinaSouthern

Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore



100

Q21-5 Leg room: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class

4.41 4.28

4.74 4.70 4.57 4.55 4.49 4.48 4.47 4.46 4.45 4.45

Mean: 4.56

3

4

5

Continental Northwest Korean Air Air France Air Europa Delta Aeroflot KLM Alitalia KenyaAirways

ChinaSouthern

CzechAirlines

Mea

n sc

ore

LONG HAUL – First Business Class

LONG HAUL – Economy Class

3.223.23 3.093.35

3.89 3.71 3.60 3.55 3.47 3.45 3.44 3.42 3.38

Mean: 3.45

3

4

5

ChinaSouthern

KenyaAirways

ContinentalKorean Air Air France CzechAirlines

Northwest Delta KLM Aeroflot Aeromexico Alitalia Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore

The gap between the class categories is very significant and the leg room generates relatively high dissatisfaction among Economy class passengers.

Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.


101

The gap between the class categories is significant on Short Haul flights. This gap is biggest onboard Continental and Northwest flights, whereas the gap is relatively small on KLM, Air France or Alitalia flights.

Q21-5 Leg room: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class

3.523.60

4.094.114.264.314.364.524.644.66

Mean: 4.33

3

4

5

Northwest Continental Copa Airlines Aeroflot CzechAirlines

ChinaSouthern

KLM Air France Air Europa Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore



3.63 3.58 3.563.04

3.97 3.89 3.87 3.84 3.83 3.82 3.72 3.71 3.71

Mean: 3.75

3

4

5

CzechAirlines

Korean Air CopaAirlines

KLM Aeroflot Continental Alitalia Air France ChinaSouthern

NorthwestAeromexico Delta Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore



102

3.203.253.383.383.393.503.523.533.723.803.21 3.14 3.12

Mean: 3.41

3

4

5

ChinaSouthern

KenyaAirways

Air France Korean Air CzechAirlines

Continental Delta Aeroflot KLM Northwest Air Europa Alitalia Aeromexico

Mea

n sc

ore

In a similar way as for leg room, satisfaction levels for seat comfort are significantly different between class categories on all airlines. The seat comfort generates relatively high dissatisfaction among Economy class passengers, whereas mean scores are “good” among First and Business class customers, except for Czech Airlines.

Q21-6 Seat comfort: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class

4.013.68

4.084.134.194.224.234.264.274.324.334.33

Mean: 4.23

3

4

5

Continental KenyaAirways

Air France Korean Air KLM Air Europa Northwest ChinaSouthern

Alitalia Aeroflot Delta CzechAirlines

Mea

n sc

ore


LONG HAUL – Economy ClassCopa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico is not displayed due to a base <50.


103

On Short Haul flights, seat comfort is generally perceived as being less satisfactory than other in-flight aspects. For First/business class passengers, KLM, Air France, Air Europa and Alitalia are detached from other Airlines with noticeably lower results. For Alitalia, satisfaction among Economy class passengers is higher than for First/Business class passengers.

Q21-6 Seat comfort: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class

3.243.523.683.82

4.014.144.274.344.40

4.53

Mean: 4.14

3

4

5

Continental Aeroflot Copa Airlines Northwest CzechAirlines

ChinaSouthern

KLM Air France Air Europa Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore



3.50 3.33 3.233.513.90 3.84 3.83 3.80 3.79 3.73 3.67 3.62 3.53

Mean: 3.67

3

4

5

Aeroflot CzechAirlines

KLM CopaAirlines

Korean AirContinental ChinaSouthern

Air FranceAeromexicoNorthwest Alitalia Delta Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore



104

Q21-7 Overall meal service: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class

4.05 4.014.094.174.214.224.264.314.334.334.374.49

Mean: 4.27

3

4

5

Continental Delta Korean Air Air France CzechAirlines

Northwest Aeroflot KLM ChinaSouthern

Air Europa KenyaAirways

Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

The overall meal service is more satisfactory for First/business Class passengers than for Economy class passengers on Long Haul flights. Among First and Business class passengers, all airlines achieve “good” to “very good” mean scores. Among Economy class passengers, satisfaction is close to a 4.0 mean score for the majority of airlines, although Alitalia and Air Europa are rather detached with scores lower than 3.5.



3.73 3.733.47 3.34

4.11 4.08 4.06 4.05 4.03 3.95 3.93 3.92 3.86

Mean: 3.92

3

4

5


ChinaSouthern

KLM Aeromexico Delta KenyaAirways

Continental Northwest Aeroflot Alitalia Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore



105

Also on Short Haul flights the satisfaction scores are significantly different between class categories for most airlines, except Copa and China Southern. The overall meal service obtains relatively low levels of satisfaction among Air France, Alitalia and Air Europa First / Business class passengers.



3.463.533.553.77

4.134.184.214.254.304.44

Mean: 4.12

3

4

5

Continental Copa Airlines Northwest KLM CzechAirlines

Aeroflot ChinaSouthern

Air France Alitalia Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore

3.242.60

3.023.433.563.713.743.743.763.813.833.94

4.24

Mean: 3.62

2

3

4

5

CopaAirlines

Aeroflot AeromexicoContinentalKorean Air KLM ChinaSouthern

CzechAirlines

Northwest Air France Alitalia Delta Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore

Q21-7 Overall meal service: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class



106

Q21-8 Meal quality: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class

3.90 3.724.004.034.064.064.084.094.234.254.274.37

Mean: 4.13

3

4

5

Continental Air France Korean Air CzechAirlines

Northwest Delta KLM Aeroflot ChinaSouthern


Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore



3.67 3.57 3.38 3.333.753.773.833.893.923.934.054.054.08

Mean: 3.85

3

4

5

Korean Air Air France KLM ChinaSouthern

CzechAirlines

Aeromexico KenyaAirways

Continental Delta Aeroflot Northwest Air Europa Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

Differences between class categories remain significant for most airlines, especially for Air Europa, Continental and Northwest passengers, where First/business class are clearly more satisfied than Economy passengers on the meal quality. Alitalia is detached from other companies on this dimension (lowest marks on both First/business & Economy Classes).



107

Short haul First/business class passengers are more satisfied on the meal quality than Economy class passengers. Results for F/B class can be considered as “good” for Aeroflot, Korean Air, Czech Airlines and Northwest. Air France and Alitalia are at the bottom of the ranking in F/B Class, while Delta and Alitalia are ranked last in Economy Class.

Q21-8 Meal quality: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class

3.333.463.483.543.78

4.064.064.074.254.27

Mean: 3.98

3

4

5

Copa Airlines Continental Aeroflot CzechAirlines

Northwest KLM Air France Alitalia ChinaSouthern

Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore



3.11 2.88 2.68

3.39

4.19 3.94 3.90 3.76 3.75 3.65 3.63 3.62 3.56

Mean: 3.57

2

3

4

5

CopaAirlines

Aeroflot AeromexicoContinentalKorean Air KLM ChinaSouthern

CzechAirlines

Northwest Air France Alitalia Delta Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore



108

Regarding the meal quantity available on Long Haul flights, all airlines obtain “good” to “very good” scores among F/B class passengers. Half of the airlines exceed the 4.0 threshold among Economy class passengers, but Alitalia and Air Europa are rather detached for the others.

Q21-9 Meal quantity: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class

4.13 4.10

4.664.45 4.42 4.41 4.39 4.38 4.35 4.30 4.27 4.24

Mean: 4.37

3

4

5

Continental CzechAirlines

Korean Air Air France Northwest Delta Aeroflot KLM ChinaSouthern


Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore



3.88 3.843.61

3.36

3.953.983.994.044.084.134.154.164.25

Mean: 4.03

3

4

5


KLM ChinaSouthern

AeromexicoContinental Delta KenyaAirways

Aeroflot Northwest Alitalia Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore



109

3.523.563.633.83

4.124.264.264.274.384.45

Mean: 4.16

3

4

5

Continental Copa Airlines Northwest CzechAirlines

Aeroflot KLM ChinaSouthern

Air France Alitalia Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore

On Short Haul flights, results are lower on this attribute than on long haul flights. And First/Business class passengers are more satisfied than Economy passengers. Air Europa obtains the lowest marks.

Q21-9 Meal quantity: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class



3.21 3.162.65

3.594.25

3.96 3.90 3.86 3.81 3.80 3.69 3.65 3.64

Mean: 3.65

2

3

4

5

CopaAirlines

Aeroflot AeromexicoContinental ChinaSouthern

Korean Air Northwest KLM CzechAirlines

Air France Alitalia Delta Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore



110

Q21-10 Availability of newspapers/magazines: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class

For Long Haul flights, satisfaction with newspapers/magazines availability is Class-dependent: on average First/Business Class passengers rate it at a “good” level, while results are only “fair” in Economy Class. KLM stands out from the other airlines with an opposite trend.



3.523.21 3.08

3.543.89 3.79 3.79 3.71 3.70 3.66 3.65 3.60 3.57

Mean: 3.60

3

4

5

ChinaSouthern

KLM Korean Air Air EuropaAeromexico CzechAirlines

Delta Air France Continental Aeroflot Alitalia Northwest KenyaAirways

Mea

n sc

ore

3.80 3.62

4.474.27 4.20 4.19 4.18 4.03 4.02 3.97 3.91 3.91

Mean: 4.08

3

4

5

Continental Korean Air CzechAirlines

Delta Air Europa Northwest Air France ChinaSouthern

Alitalia Aeroflot KenyaAirways

KLM

Mea

n sc

ore



111

Q21-10 Availability of newspapers/magazines: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class

3.113.453.583.653.863.903.933.953.964.19

Mean: 3.86

2

3

4

5

Continental Aeroflot KLM CzechAirlines

Northwest ChinaSouthern

Alitalia Copa Airlines Air France Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore

On Short Haul flights, the difference between the two classes is less clear on this aspect. As observed previously, no such service is being provided to Short haul Economy Class passengers onboard KLM. Alitalia Economy Class passengers are more satisfied than F/B on this aspect.



3.36 3.35

2.67 2.41

4.03 3.97 3.93 3.79 3.75 3.74 3.73 3.56 3.55

Mean: 3.52

2

3

4

5

Korean Air Delta Aeromexico Alitalia ChinaSouthern

Aeroflot Continental CzechAirlines

Northwest Air France CopaAirlines

Air Europa KLM

Mea

n sc

ore



112

Q21-11 Audio/Video entertainment: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class

3.40 3.203.533.723.913.933.964.044.114.124.154.19

Mean: 3.97

2

3

4

5

KLM Continental Delta Korean Air Northwest Air France Air Europa Aeroflot ChinaSouthern

Alitalia KenyaAirways

CzechAirlines

Mea

n sc

ore

On Long Haul flights, First/Business class passengers are more satisfied than Economy class passengers regarding Audio / Video entertainment, except passengers from Air France, China Southern and Czech Airlines. It appears that no A/V entertainment service is being provided to Aeroflot Economy passengers, or if it is then passengers are not satisfied with it.



3.35 3.29 3.142.78

4.09 3.88 3.81 3.78 3.78 3.70 3.50 3.48 3.36

Mean: 3.68

2

3

4

5

Air France ChinaSouthern

Korean Air KLM Air Europa Delta Continental KenyaAirways

Aeromexico CzechAirlines

Northwest Alitalia Aeroflot

Mea

n sc

ore



113

Q21-11 Audio/Video entertainment: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class

2.582.722.913.01

3.353.733.903.953.97

Mean: 3.60

2

3

4

5

Continental Copa Airlines Aeroflot Northwest ChinaSouthern

Air France Czech Airlines Alitalia Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore

On Short Haul flights, significant differences between airlines are linked to the provision of this service: Audio/Video entertainment seems not to be available for any class onboard Air Europa and Alitalia. This service seems not to be provided onboard Aeroflot and KLM Short haul Economy Class.



2.40 2.30 2.182.692.782.823.443.453.473.723.803.823.94

Mean: 3.09

2

3

4

5

CopaAirlines

Delta AeromexicoContinental Northwest Korean Air ChinaSouthern

CzechAirlines

Alitalia Air France KLM Air Europa Aeroflot

Mea

n sc

ore



114

Q21-12 Cabin cleanliness: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class

4.183.98

4.214.254.284.354.364.364.384.424.554.61

Mean: 4.38

3

4

5

Continental Korean Air ChinaSouthern

Air France Northwest Air Europa KLM KenyaAirways

Delta CzechAirlines

Aeroflot Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

Cabin Cleanliness on Long Haul flights is good overall, but Alitalia is rather detached from the other airlines among First/business class. Alitalia remains detached from the other airlines among Economy class (well below the 4.0 threshold). Satisfaction among Czech Airlines F/B Class passengers is lower than among Economy Class passengers.



4.07 3.99 3.953.66

4.36 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.33 4.28 4.24 4.20 4.20

Mean: 4.19

3

4

5

CzechAirlines

KLM Korean Air ChinaSouthern

Air France ContinentalAir EuropaAeromexico KenyaAirways

Delta Northwest Aeroflot Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore



115

Q21-12 Cabin cleanliness: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class

3.623.954.014.164.284.314.354.474.494.52

Mean: 4.30

3

4

5

Continental Aeroflot Copa Airlines KLM Northwest CzechAirlines

Air France Air Europa ChinaSouthern

Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

Cabin cleanliness remains satisfactory onboard Short Haul flights for most airlines, except for Alitalia which is behind on this in-flight dimension. Air France, Alitalia and China Southern F/B Class passengers tend to be less satisfied than Economy Class passengers.



4.09 4.053.81 3.80

4.39 4.38 4.37 4.29 4.28 4.26 4.24 4.22 4.14

Mean: 4.17

3

4

5

Aeromexico CopaAirlines

Aeroflot Korean Air CzechAirlines

Air France Continental Northwest Delta KLM ChinaSouthern

Alitalia Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore



116

Q21-13 Lavatory cleanliness: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class

4.08 3.934.134.164.164.174.214.224.294.404.444.46

Mean: 4.25

3

4

5


Air Europa Air France KLM Northwest CzechAirlines

KenyaAirways

Aeroflot Delta Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

Overall, First/Business class customers on Long Haul flights are slightly more satisfied with Lavatory cleanliness than Economy class passengers. AeroMexico, Delta, Aeroflot, Northwest and Alitalia obtain low results on this aspect for Economy class passengers.



3.86 3.77 3.763.48

4.34 4.22 4.22 4.19 4.09 4.08 4.00 4.00 3.87

Mean: 3.99

3

4

5

ChinaSouthern

ContinentalKorean Air KLM CzechAirlines

Air France KenyaAirways

Air EuropaAeromexico Delta Aeroflot Northwest Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore



117

Q21-13 Lavatory cleanliness: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class

3.47

3.963.994.114.174.204.214.304.364.46

Mean: 4.22

3

4

5

Continental Aeroflot Copa Airlines CzechAirlines

KLM Air France Northwest Air Europa ChinaSouthern

Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

In comparison with Long Haul flights, satisfaction with Lavatory cleanliness on Short Haul is at about the same level for both passenger classes. Alitalia stands out with the lowest scores among both classes.



3.93 3.913.68 3.57

4.014.024.064.114.134.134.134.194.20

Mean: 4.01

3

4

5

Korean Air CopaAirlines

AeromexicoContinental Aeroflot CzechAirlines

Northwest ChinaSouthern

Air France KLM Delta Air Europa Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore



118

Information about the delay obtains scores in excess of the 4.0 threshold for only a minority of airlines. Several airlines obtain scores below 4.0 among both classes: Air France, Continental, Delta, Alitalia and Air Europa.

Q21-14 Information about the delay: analyzed by Long Haul, Operating airline and Class

4.36 4.24 4.16 4.01 3.92 3.88 3.87 3.76 3.71

Mean: 4.00

3

4

5

ChinaSouthern

Korean Air Northwest KLM Air France Continental Alitalia Delta Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore



3,653,43 3,42 3,01

4,41 4,24 4,17 4,123,83 3,76 3,76 3,69 3,67

Mean: 3.79

3

4

5

ChinaSouthern

CzechAirlines

KLM Korean Air Aeroflot Northwest KenyaAirways

Delta Air Europa Air France Continental Alitalia Aeromexico

Mea

n sc

ore


Copa Airlines has no long haul flight questionnaires. AeroMexico, Aeroflot, Czech Airlines and Kenya Airways are not displayed due to a base <50.

119

4.444.12 3.88 3.74 3.74

3.40

Mean: 3.93

2

3

4

5

Continental Copa Airlines Czech Airlines Air France Northwest Alitalia

Mea

n sc

ore

Information about the delay tends to be less satisfactory while onboard Short Haul flights. Here again, noticeable differences appear depending on the airline: results are relatively low for Alitalia, AeroMexico and Air Europa.

Q21-14 Information about the delay: analyzed by Short Haul, Operating airline and Class



3.35 3.352.93

3.563.793.803.944.004.024.114.184.21

Mean: 3.72

2

3

4

5

CopaAirlines


Northwest KLM Air France Aeroflot CzechAirlines

Aeromexico Alitalia Air Europa

Mea

n sc

ore


Kenya Airways has no short haul flight questionnaires. KLM, Air Europa, AeroMexico, China Southern, Aeroflot, Korean Air and Delta are not displayed due to a base <50.

120

Gap in customer satisfaction depending on the operating airline

Below are the differences observed among the different SkyTeam members on the passenger satisfaction for the airport and in-flight services provided.

Mean value of customer satisfaction on the following questions, depending on the operating airline

MIN mean value

MAX mean value

Difference between best and worst

SkyTeam memberQ11. Satisfaction towards phone reservation : Overall satisfaction with the phone reservation service 4,19 4,55 0,36

Q14. Satisfaction towards website reservation : Overall satisfaction with website experience 3,96 4,53 0,57

Q17. Airport experience : Your overall airport experience 3,62 4,44 0,82

Q17.4 Airport experience : Wait-time for check-in 3,53 4,31 0,78

Q17.5 Airport experience : Efficiency of check-in process 3,79 4,44 0,65

Q17.8 Airport experience : Efficiency of boarding process 3,87 4,40 0,53

Q17.9 Airport experience : On-time departure 3,25 4,43 1,18

Q19.1 Lounge experience : Overall airport lounge experience 3,67 4,25 0,58

Q20.1 Transfert experience : Time between connecting flights 2,85 4,20 1,35

Q20.2 Transfert experience : Ease of transfert between connecting flights 2,78 4,40 1,62

Q21. Service on flight : Your overall in-flight experience 4,08 4,63 0,55

Q21.14 Service on flight : Onboard information about the delay 3,26 4,22 0,96

Q21.6 Service on flight : Seat comfort 3,43 4,04 0,61

Q21.7 Service on flight : Overall meal service 3,29 4,27 0,98

Q26. Overall impression of all the ground and in-flight services offered 3,89 4,57 0,68

Q25. SkyTeam alliance benefits : Overall rating of SkyTeam alliance benefits 3,79 4,34 0,55

Documents

SkyTeam Alliance