Q Commercial flying is one of those experiences to which most people can relate. Not too long ago, flying was considered extravagant and passengers looked forward to being pampered in luxurious surroundings and attended to by courteous staff. Today, however flying is commonplace and considered by many to be one of the worst experiences one can have. Within the airline industry, there is a wide range of providers, each offering a different experience at varying price points. By many accounts, the very worst experience is provided by Spirit Airlines and therefore they are perennially ranked as one of the most hated companies in America. according to the ACSI [ref 4], Spirit has the absolute lowest customer satisfaction score among airlines with a rating of 61 out of 100, compared to the industry average of 75. Additionally, 44.4% of respondents in a Zogby poll [ref 5] on customer service reported a negative experience with Spirit. This is the third largest share among all the companies considered across all industries. Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Spirit_Airlines_N905NK_at_STT%2C_Dec_2016.jpg According to “24/7 Wallstreet.com”, Spirit Airlines offers a remarkably unpleasant experience in an industry already known for long lines, invasive security screens, hidden fees, lost possessions, and delays. Services and amenities that are bundled into a ticket’s price on most airlines are sold separately on Spirit, which charges for putting a bag in the overhead compartment or for bottled water. In a 2013 study on the airline industry, Consumer Reports wrote that “bottom-¬ranked Spirit Airlines received one of the lowest overall scores for any company we’ve ever rated.” The U.S. PIRG Education Fund, a consumer advocacy group, also noted that Spirit was the most complained-about airline from 2009 through 2013, with roughly three times more complaints per 100,000 passengers than any other airline. Watch this video where comedian Brent Pella provides his comical insights on the customer experience with Spirit Airlines. Brent Pella - Why You Shouldn't Fly on Spirit Airlines (ANIMATED STAND-UP) (Links to an external site.) Question 1 - What are your top 10 criteria in rank order for determining the quality of a commercial flight experience? Would your criteria change if the flight were 5 hours versus 2 hours? Why or why not? Spirit has certainly earned their status, but in the vein of quality is determined by ability to meet expectations, are they performing better than the criticism may suggest? Some would argue that they exactly meet expectations, which are largely based on price at the expense of amenities. According to Spirit spokesperson Paul Berry, “the one thing consumers tell us is most important is price. We compete on price.” So if consumer’s expectations were appropriately tempered, would Spirit perform better through the lens of quality performance? Read this article describing one reviewers experience with their first flight using Spirit airlines ~ https://www.thisisinsider.com/spirit-airlines-flight-review-food-photos-2018-6 (Links to an external site.) Question 2 - Why do you think the author concludes the article indicating she will likely not book a Spirit flight again despite her experience meeting the majority of expectations? The Airline Quality Rating (AQR) is the most comprehensive study of performance and quality of the largest airlines in the United States. Click here to see the 2018 rankings of all (12) domestic airlines currently operating ~ https://airlinequalityrating.com/ (Links to an external site.). On time arrival percentage, which is completely independent of amenities offered or quality of service, is one of the key factors in assessing airline quality. Question 3 - What types of common cause and special cause variation may influence on-time arrivals? Question 4 - Consider how you might apply quality tools and concepts (minimum 5) from this chapter to understand and then improve an airlines process capability to achieve on-time delivery. Rubric Case Study Rubric Case Study Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication of Chapter Concepts to Case Study Example 10 to >7.0 pts Excellent Supports CS diagnosis and opinions with strong relevant arguments and well documented evidence; presents a balanced and holistic critical view; interpretation is both reasonable and objective. CS response shows evidence of knowledge and understanding of assigned reading and interactive exercises. Provides quality and quantity of relevant concepts applied to the specifics of the CS. Includes analytics, research, observation, ideas and recommendations, potential solutions and sensitivity analysis. Goes beyond the basic answers to the prompts and demonstrates thoroughness of responses by incorporating numerous chapter concepts. 7 to >5.0 pts Average Supports diagnosis, suggestions and opinions with limited reasoning and evidence; presents a somewhat one-sided or incomplete argument; demonstrates modest engagement of chapter concepts to the ideas presented. Makes appropriate but somewhat vague connections between identified issues/problems and concepts studied in readings, interactive exercises and/or lectures; demonstrates some command of the analytical tools studied; supplements case study with limited research. Answers to the prompts are basic and routine. 5 to >0 pts Poor CS response is light in content with little or no action suggested and/or inappropriate solutions proposed to the issues in the case study. Lacks suitable connection between the issues identified and the concepts studied in the readings and interactive elements; supplements case study, if at all, with incomplete research, documentation and citation of resources. Does not adequately answer all the CS prompts. 10 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent - Relevance, analytical thought and expression of ideas/points 5 to >3.0 pts Excellent Identifies and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the main issues/problems/opportunities in the case study. Presents an insightful and thorough analysis of all identified issues/problems; includes all necessary supporting materials and/or calculations. 3 to >2.0 pts Sufficiently Average Identifies and demonstrates an average understanding of most of the issues/problems/opportunities. Presents a moderate analysis of most of the issues identified within the CS; May lack appropriate elaboration to express ideas/points. May be missing some support materials and/or necessary calculations. 2 to >0 pts Poor Identifies and demonstrates at or below minimum acceptable understanding of the issues/problems/opportunities within the CS. Lacks analytical fortitude, or responses are irrelevant Presents a superficial or incomplete analysis of the identified issues; omits supporting materials and/or necessary calculations. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessionalism - Writing mechanics and formatting quality of written submittal 5 to >4.0 pts Impeccable - few to zero errors Demonstrates clarity, content flow and correctness; formatting is appropriate and writing is free of grammar and spelling errors. 4 to >2.0 pts Presentable Occasional grammar or spelling errors, however document offers a clear presentation of ideas; may lack organization or proper formatting. 2 to >0 pts Poorly presented - numerous errors Writing style is unfocused, difficult to follow, rambling, or contains serious/numerous errors; poorly organized or does not follow specified guidelines. 5 pts Total Points: 20 PreviousNext