Airlines Service Evaluation Report
2018 01 Overview
Full-Service Airlines Service Evaluation 02 in Mainland China
03 Regional and International Full-Service CONTENTS Airlines Service Evaluation
04 Low-Cost Carriers Service Evaluation
05 About CAPSE Overview Overview
CAPSE selected 59 airlines to measure passenger satisfaction in 2018, including 24 full-service airlines within Mainland China, 23 full-service airlines outside Mainland China and 12 low-cost carriers.
The full-service airlines within Mainland China are Xiamen Airlines, Sichuan Airlines, China Southern Airlines, Shandong Airlines, Hainan Airlines, Shenzhen Airlines, Air China, China Eastern Airlines, Shanghai Airlines, Juneyao Air, Hebei Airlines, Tibet Airlines, Kunming Airlines, China Express Air, Okay Airways, Loong Air, Donghai Airlines, Fuzhou Airlines, Beijing Capital Airlines, Qingdao Airlines, Chengdu Airlines, Ruili Airlines, Suparna Airlines and Tianjin Airlines.
Meanwhile, the full-service airlines outside Mainland China are All Nippon Airways, Singapore Airlines, Japan Airlines, Emirates Airlines, Korean Air, EVA Air, China Airlines, Thai Airways, Lufthansa, Cathay Pacific Airways, Cathay Dragon Airlines, Qatar Airways, Delta Air Lines, Asiana Airlines, United Airlines, Air Canada, Royal Dutch Airlines, Hong Kong Airlines, Vietnam Airlines, Air Macau, American Airlines, Swiss International Air Lines and Air France.
In addition, the low-cost carriers are Tiger Airways, Thai AirAsia, AirAsia, Thai Lion Air, Spring Airlines, Urumqi Air, Lucky Air, China United Airlines, GX Airlines, 9 Air, West Air and Air Changan. Full-Service Airlines Service Evaluation in Mainland China Mainland China - Full-Service Airlines Full-Service Airline Rankings for Passenger Satisfaction in 2018
3.99 3.96 3.93 3.92 3.76 3.88 3.88 3.86 3.85 3.82 Mean: 3.76 3.76 3.74 3.73 3.71 3.70 3.68 3.68 3.67 3.66 3.64 3.64 3.63 3.60 3.60
MF 3U CZ SC ZH HU MU CA FM KY NS TV HO G5 QW DZ BK GS FU Y8 DR GJ JD EU
Data: CAPSE.net
The evaluation criteria for airline rankings: Booking services, in-flight services, ground services and flight disruption assistance. Airline Rankings for Booking Services in 2018
4.49 4.48 4.46 4.46 4.45 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.43 4.43 4.43 4.43 4.43 Mean: 4.43 4.41 4.41 4.41 4.41 4.41 4.41 4.39 4.37 4.37 4.36
CZ HO CA FU MU NS SC GJ MF 3U JD Y8 FM GS TV ZH EU HU DR BK QW DZ G5 KY
Data: CAPSE.net
The evaluation criteria for overall rankings of booking services: Convenience of booking process and standardization of booking services. Airline Rankings for In-Flight Services in 2018
4.03 4.01 3.97 3.94 3.90 3.89 3.86 3.85 3.80 3.75 3.74 3.72 Mean: 3.73 3.69 3.65 3.65 3.64 3.63 3.59 3.58 3.57 3.55 3.52 3.50 3.49
MF 3U CZ SC ZH HU MU CA FM TV KY NS QW DZ HO BK G5 DR GS FU Y8 GJ JD EU
Data: CAPSE.net
The evaluation criteria for overall rankings of in-flight services: Cabin crew services, in-flight broadcasting, in-flight catering, cabin facilities and in-flight entertainment. Airline Rankings for Cabin Crew Services in 2018
4.48 4.48 4.46 4.45 4.44 4.41 4.40 4.40 4.39 4.37 4.32 4.31 4.30 Mean: 4.29 4.25 4.24 4.21 4.20 4.17 4.14 4.14 4.12 4.11 4.07
MF 3U ZH CZ SC CA FM MU HU G5 KY FU GS BK HO NS Y8 TV GJ DR JD QW DZ
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicator for cabin crew services evaluation: Satisfaction of flight attendant (appearance, courtesy, response time, initiative service, etc). Airline Rankings for In-Flight Broadcasting in 2018
4.45 4.43 4.41 4.40 4.40 4.39 4.38 4.37 4.35 4.34 4.31 4.30 Mean: 4.27 4.24 4.23 4.21 4.20 4.18 4.18 4.16 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.09 4.08
CZ MF ZH FM MU 3U KY SC CA HU BK G5 NS GS HO TV FU GJ DZ DR QW Y8 EU JD
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicator for in-flight broadcasting evaluation: Cabin broadcast satisfaction (its clarity, accurate pronunciation, broadcasting frequency, etc). Airline Rankings for In-Flight Catering in 2018
4.06 3.98 3.81 3.71 3.67 3.65 3.60 3.60 3.57 3.57 3.56 3.56 3.46 3.42 Mean: 3.49 3.38 3.38 3.33 3.33 3.29 3.26 3.20 3.16 3.14 3.13
3U MF CZ ZH SC HU CA MU HO BK FM TV NS EU G5 KY DR DZ QW JD Y8 GJ GS FU
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for in-flight catering evaluation: Food satisfaction and beverages satisfaction. Airline Rankings for Cabin Facilities in 2018
4.10 4.06 4.05 4.03 4.01 4.00 3.98 3.97 3.95 3.95 3.94 3.94 3.92 3.91 3.90 3.89 3.89 Mean: 3.92 3.88 3.85 3.82 3.81 3.77 3.73 3.61
MF CZ SC HU 3U MU ZH Y8 QW FM KY CA HO TV NS FU DZ GJ BK GS DR G5 JD EU
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for cabin facilities evaluation: Cabin environment, seat comfort and satisfaction of cabin toilets. Airline Rankings for In-Flight Entertainment in 2018
3.48 3.46 3.40 3.40 3.37 3.35 3.30 3.30 3.28 3.26 3.18 3.16 3.16 3.13 Mean: 3.09 2.95 2.90 2.86 2.82 2.79 2.78 2.77 2.74 2.73
SC MF CZ HU 3U QW CA MU ZH TV DZ KY NS FM DR GS FU G5 Y8 GJ JD EU HO
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicator for in-flight entertainment evaluation: Satisfaction of in-flight entertainment (abundance of video programs, timeliness of contents update, availability of headset, abundance of publications, etc). Airline Rankings for Ground Services in 2018
4.08 4.05 4.02 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.00 4.00 3.99 3.98 3.97 Mean: 3.97 3.97 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.95 3.95 3.94 3.93 3.93 3.90 3.87 3.84
MF SC 3U G5 GJ FU HO ZH Y8 HU KY CA DZ NS FM GS MU CZ EU JD BK QW DR TV
Data: CAPSE.net
The evaluation criteria for overall rankings of ground services: Check-in and departure services, baggage services. Airline Rankings for Check-in and Departure Services in 2018
4.26 4.25 4.25 4.24 4.23 4.23 4.22 4.21 4.20 4.20 4.20 Mean: 4.19 4.19 4.19 4.19 4.18 4.18 4.18 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.16 4.12 4.10 4.09
MF DZ SC GJ 3U FU EU Y8 CA HO JD G5 CZ ZH KY BK MU HU GS FM NS QW TV DR
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for check-in and departure services evaluation: Check-in Satisfaction, shuttle service in departure airport, boarding satisfaction and shuttle service in arrival airport. Airline Rankings for Baggage Services in 2018
3.93 3.89 3.87 3.86 3.85 3.85 3.84 3.84 3.83 3.83 3.81 3.79 3.78 3.78 3.78 3.77 3.76 Mean: 3.79 3.73 3.73 3.72 3.71 3.71 3.68 3.62
MF SC G5 ZH 3U HO FU Y8 HU GJ KY NS FM GS CA MU CZ DZ QW BK EU JD DR TV
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for baggage services evaluation: Satisfaction of baggage protection and time of baggage transfer. Airline Rankings for Flight Disruption Assistance in 2018
3.37 3.37 3.36 3.35 3.34 3.33 3.31 3.29 3.29 3.27 3.26 3.26 3.26 Mean: 3.21 3.19 3.15 3.13 3.12 3.11 3.08 3.07 3.07 3.05 3.03 3.01
MU CZ SC 3U MF FM CA HU GS ZH G5 HO NS KY EU TV JD FU DR Y8 GJ BK QW DZ
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for flight disruption assistance evaluation: On-time performance of flight, satisfaction on refund and rerouting service, notifications of flight delays, meals, accommodations, ground services for irregular flight, in-flight services for irregular flight. Regional and International Full-Service Airlines Service Evaluation Regional and International - Full-Service Airlines Full-Service Airline Rankings for Passenger Satisfaction in 2018
4.28 4.25 4.25 4.20 4.18 4.15 4.14 4.11 4.08 4.06 4.06 4.04 Mean: 4.04 4.02 4.01 4.01 3.99 3.96 3.93 3.93 3.90 3.87 3.77 3.77
SQ NH JL QR EK KE BR TG CX LH KL CI AA OZ DL KA AF HX LX AC UA NX VN
Data: CAPSE. net
The evaluation criteria for airline rankings: Booking services, in-flight services, ground services and flight disruption assistance. Airline Rankings for Booking Services in 2018
4.47 4.45 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.43 4.42 4.42 4.41 4.41 4.39 Mean: 4.40 4.39 4.37 4.37 4.36 4.36 4.35 4.34 4.34 4.32 4.30
AF TG LX UA NH DL SQ KL NX KE KA AA HX BR AC EK JL OZ QR LH VN CX CI
Data: CAPSE.net
The evaluation criteria for overall rankings of booking services: Convenience of booking process and standardization of booking services. Airline Rankings for In-Flight Services in 2018
4.32 4.30 4.29 4.27 4.26 4.20 4.19 4.13 4.12 4.10 4.08 4.06 Mean: 4.05 4.02 4.01 3.98 3.98 3.96 3.91 3.88 3.87 3.76 3.71 3.65
SQ JL QR NH EK BR KE TG CX CI KL LH KA OZ AA DL AF LX HX AC UA VN NX
Data: CAPSE.net The evaluation criteria for overall rankings of in-flight services: Cabin crew services, in-flight broadcasting, in-flight catering, cabin facilities and in-flight entertainment. Airline Rankings for Cabin Crew Services in 2018
4.63 4.59 4.56 4.56 4.54 4.53 4.49 4.43 4.40 Mean: 4.36 4.34 4.34 4.32 4.30 4.29 4.29 4.25 4.25 4.23 4.22 4.20 4.17 4.12
NH KE JL SQ QR BR CI OZ LH KL TG AF LX CX DL KA EK AA HX AC NX VN
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicator for cabin crew services evaluation: Satisfaction of flight attendant (appearance, courtesy, response time, initiative service, etc). Airline Rankings for In-Flight Broadcasting in 2018
4.51 4.48 4.43 4.42 4.40 4.40 4.39 4.39 4.38 4.36 4.32 4.29 4.29 4.28 4.27 4.24 Mean: 4.29 4.21 4.19 4.18 4.13 4.12 4.08 3.95
SQ NH JL BR LH CI KE KL QR DL AA EK AC AF OZ KA CX TG UA HX NX LX VN
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicator for in-flight broadcasting evaluation: Cabin broadcast satisfaction (its clarity, accurate pronunciation, broadcasting frequency, etc). Airline Rankings for In-Flight Catering in 2018
4.25 4.23 4.23 4.21 4.12 4.10 4.09 4.03 4.02 3.99 3.96 3.94 3.92 3.87 3.86 3.86 Mean: 3.93 3.84 3.77 3.72 3.65 3.64 3.55 3.51
NH JL SQ QR EK KE TG BR KL LH CI CX AF DL OZ LX KA AA VN HX AC NX UA
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for in-flight catering evaluation: Food satisfaction and beverages satisfaction. Airline Rankings for Cabin Facilities in 2018
4.32 4.31 4.29 4.27 4.26 4.24 4.24 4.20 4.14 4.12 4.09 4.08 Mean: 4.09 4.05 4.02 4.01 4.01 4.00 3.99 3.94 3.91 3.88 3.88 3.87
BR EK JL KE NH SQ QR TG CI OZ CX KL KA HX LX AA LH DL AF VN AC UA NX
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for cabin facilities evaluation: Cabin environment, seat comfort and satisfaction of cabin toilets. Airline Rankings for In-Flight Entertainment in 2018
4.37 4.16 4.15 4.14 4.10 3.92 3.88 3.87 3.86 3.81 3.79 3.77 3.73 Mean: 3.74 3.70 3.63 3.61 3.61 3.58 3.54 3.48 3.39 3.06
EK SQ QR CX JL TG BR NH KA AA KE KL CI LH HX DL AC OZ AF LX UA VN
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicator for in-flight entertainment evaluation: Satisfaction of in-flight entertainment (abundance of video programs, timeliness of contents update, availability of headset, abundance of publications, etc). Airline Rankings for Ground Services in 2018
4.28 4.22 4.21 4.19 4.19 4.15 4.15 4.12 4.11 4.09 4.07 4.07 4.07 4.05 4.05 Mean: 4.08 4.03 4.02 4.02 4.00 3.99 3.94 3.90 3.86
NH NX JL SQ UA AA DL BR CX OZ LH TG HX KA KE QR AF KL EK AC CI VN LX
Data: CAPSE.net
The evaluation criteria for overall rankings of ground services: Check-in and departure services, baggage services. Airline Rankings for Check-in and Departure Services in 2018
4.47 4.37 4.35 4.31 4.31 4.30 4.29 4.29 4.28 4.28 4.28 4.28 4.26 4.25 Mean: 4.25 4.23 4.23 4.22 4.21 4.20 4.16 4.14 4.13
3.95
NH SQ UA JL HX AA CX NX KL BR DL LH KE QR TG OZ KA AF EK AC LX CI VN
Data: CAPSE.net The sub-indicators for check-in and departure services evaluation: Check-in Satisfaction, shuttle service in departure airport, boarding satisfaction and shuttle service in arrival airport. Airline Rankings for Baggage Services in 2018
4.17 4.13 4.12 4.05 4.05 4.04 4.03 3.98 3.98 3.95 3.94 3.91 3.91 Mean: 3.94 3.88 3.88 3.87 3.87 3.84 3.84 3.83 3.80 3.79 3.63
NX NH JL UA SQ DL AA OZ BR CX TG KA LH KE HX AF VN AC QR EK KL CI LX
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for baggage services evaluation: Satisfaction of baggage protection and time of baggage transfer. Airline Rankings for Flight Disruption Assistance in 2018
4.18 4.04 4.02 3.95 3.94 3.90 3.87 3.86 3.80 3.77 3.75 3.73 3.71 3.71 Mean: 3.76 3.70 3.69 3.64 3.63 3.59 3.57 3.55 3.52 3.26
SQ NH JL EK KE QR LH TG LX KL AA OZ CI BR DL AC CX HX AF UA KA VN NX
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for flight disruption assistance evaluation: On-time performance of flight, satisfaction on refund and rerouting service, notifications of flight delays, meals, accommodations, ground services for irregular flight, in-flight services for irregular flight. . Low-Cost Carriers Service Evaluation Low-Cost Carriers Low-Cost Carrier Rankings for Passenger Satisfaction in 2018
3.73 3.68 3.63 3.53 3.48 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.40 Mean: 3.46 3.30 3.18 3.17
TR FD AK SL 9C 8L GX UQ 9H KN AQ PN
Data: CAPSE.net
The evaluation criteria for airline rankings: Booking services, general services, low-cost services and flight disruption assistance. Low-Cost Carrier Rankings for Booking Services in 2018
4.49 4.46 4.43 4.42 4.39 4.38 4.36 Mean: 4.35 4.30 4.27 4.27 4.24 4.23
SL TR 9C 8L 9H UQ GX PN FD AQ KN AK
Data: CAPSE.net
The evaluation criteria for overall rankings of booking services: Convenience of booking process and standardization of booking services. Low-Cost Carrier Rankings for In-Flight Services in 2018
3.64 3.64 3.58 3.38 3.38 3.36 3.34 3.33 Mean: 3.34 3.23 3.18 3.01 2.99
FD TR AK SL UQ 9C 8L GX KN 9H AQ PN
Data: CAPSE.net
The evaluation criteria for overall rankings of in-flight services: Cabin crew services, in-flight broadcasting, in-flight catering and cabin facilities. Low-Cost Carrier Rankings for Cabin Crew Services in 2018
4.03 3.97 3.86 3.79 3.78 3.78 3.78 3.77 3.73 Mean: 3.74 3.68
3.40 3.34
TR FD AK GX 9C 8L UQ SL KN 9H PN AQ
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicator for cabin crew services evaluation: Satisfaction of flight attendant (appearance, courtesy, response time, initiative service, etc). Low-Cost Carrier Rankings for In-Flight Broadcasting in 2018
4.03 4.00 4.00 3.95 3.91 3.90 3.90 3.85 3.81 3.80 Mean: 3.86 3.69 3.51
FD SL TR 9C 8L KN GX UQ 9H AK AQ PN
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicator for in-flight broadcasting evaluation: Cabin broadcast satisfaction (its clarity, accurate pronunciation, broadcasting frequency, etc). Low-Cost Carrier Rankings for In-Flight Catering in 2018
3.32 3.32 3.07
2.68 2.67 2.66 Mean: 2.67 2.59 2.55 2.40 2.30 2.26 2.25
AK FD TR 9C UQ SL 8L GX KN PN AQ 9H
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for in-flight catering evaluation: Satisfaction of In-flight meals. Low-Cost Carrier Rankings for Cabin Facilities in 2018
3.75 3.61 3.53 3.52 3.51 3.48 3.47 3.45 Mean: 3.45 3.41 3.37 3.23 3.11
TR UQ SL GX 8L AK 9H FD 9C KN AQ PN
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for cabin facilities evaluation: Cabin environment, seat comfort and satisfaction of cabin toilets. Low-Cost Carrier Rankings for Ground Services in 2018
4.03 3.86 3.86 3.86 3.85 3.84 3.82 3.79 3.78 Mean: 3.78 3.61 3.57 3.44
TR AK 9C 9H FD 8L GX UQ SL KN PN AQ
Data: CAPSE.net
The evaluation criteria for overall rankings of ground services: Check-in and departure services, baggage services. Low-Cost Carrier Rankings for Check-in and Departure Services in 2018
4.14 4.12 4.06 4.06 4.03 4.01 4.00 4.00 3.94 Mean: 3.98 3.86 3.79 3.79
TR AK 9C 9H 8L FD PN GX UQ SL KN AQ
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for check-in and departure services evaluation: Check-in Satisfaction, shuttle service in departure airport, boarding satisfaction and shuttle service in arrival airport. Low-Cost Carrier Rankings for Baggage Services in 2018
3.93 3.72 3.71 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.68 3.67 3.65 Mean: 3.61 3.46 3.23 3.16
TR SL FD 9H 9C 8L GX UQ AK KN PN AQ
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for baggage services evaluation: Satisfaction of baggage protection and time of baggage transfer (waiting time at baggage carousel). Low-Cost Carrier Rankings for Flight Disruption Assistance in 2018
3.36 3.35 3.25 3.22 3.10 Mean: 3.06 3.03 3.02 2.97 2.90 2.90 2.78 2.77
TR FD SL AK 9H GX 9C 8L UQ AQ PN KN
Data: CAPSE.net
The sub-indicators for flight disruption assistance evaluation: On-time performance of flight, notifications of flight delays, ground staff assistance in the case of flight delays, meals and accommodations. About CAPSE Introduction
With using mobile Internet technology and being based on true passenger satisfaction survey that is being voted actively, CAPSE (Civil Aviation Passenger Service Evaluation) reflects the current civil aviation services in China through comprehensive analysis on travelers’ reviews.
Compared with previous survey methods, CAPSE believes this approach can avoid the possible deviation of results caused by centralized questionnaires, as well as differences between foreign surveys and China’s actual conditions.
Most importantly, the results come from neither experts nor temporary analysis, but just continuous evaluation of true passengers instead, which represents the reality of China’s air services.
CAPSE will publish China Civil Aviation Passenger Service Evaluation Report regularly, and hopes to be helpful to air services in China.
On the basis of this analytical report, CAPSE expects to not only express the true voices of travelers for air service, and make great efforts to help airline or airport find ways to improve it, but give a reference to global airlines that have great expectations in the potential market of China as well. Background and Main Points of CAPSE
It had been in bad need of a third-party evaluation that was real and objective for a long time, especially a real service evaluation from air travelers.
With using mobile Internet technology, and ensuring the veracity of travelers who take part in the survey, CARNOC.com and VariFlight App have been working on questionnaires of civil aviation service that travelers really care about since May 2012. Based on true passenger satisfaction survey, namely, CAPSE, which is being voted actively, and Civil Aviation Passenger Service Evaluation Report comes into being eventually.
A “Factual” Report---To ensure the veracity of flights and validity of questionnaires, passengers who take part in the survey need to sign up by mobile number, upload boarding pass, then make sure of its reality via manual audit, and complete the questionnaires finally.
A Report about “Feelings”---Civil Aviation Passenger Service Evaluation Report is about passengers’ true experience with civil aviation service.
Definition of “Best”---Travelers enjoy services and think that it is good value for money. As long as there is service offered by any entities, there is passengers’ feelings for it. Therefore, the evaluation standards of Civil Aviation Passenger Service Evaluation Report have nothing to do with entity's scale, transport volume and throughput, service levels as well as sales price, which just depend on feelings of service that is good or bad.
In Civil Aviation Passenger Service Evaluation Report, the best definition of passenger satisfaction is that, service experience and feelings are good values. Related Entities
CAPSE Taking advantage of mobile Internet technology, CAPSE is the first specialized institution to provide passenger service evaluation for civil aviation industry . To assist civil aviation entities to improve their services, CAPSE associates passengers with entities directly, and offers feedback more timely to entities, which relates with passengers’ suggestions and data analysis of evaluation. CARNOC.com CARNOC.com is the largest civil aviation platform in China since 1999. Nearly one in six Chinese Aviation professionals follow CARNOC.com with long-term. VariFlight VariFlight is a professional query software of flight dynamic. More than 90 percent of global flights are covered. Moreover, the accuracy of data is over 99.9 percent. Ctrip.com Ctrip.com, a leading provider of comprehensive travel services in China, provides full travel services for over 250 million members, including wireless application, accommodation reservation, transportation ticketing, packaged tours, corporate travel management and tourism information. For further information, please contact us: +86 0551-62618791 [email protected] Legal Notice
All materials contained in this statistical and analytical report, including text, graphics, images and tables, which are created or developed on the basis of Civil Aviation Passenger Service Evaluation (CAPSE) copyright of CARNOC.com, are the intellectual property of CAPSE. And the intellectual property is protected by Copyright Laws of the People's Republic of China.
For the purposes of private study, research or self-entertainment, as well as any other non-commercial or non-profit uses, the users are obliged to indicate the source. Meanwhile, they shall abide by the rules of Copyright Laws and other relevant laws, and not violate the lawful rights and interests of related rights owners.
With prior written permission from CAPSE, the users shall pay the remuneration for commercial or profitable purposes. Any legal liabilities caused by the users who quotes related data and more from this report, are assumed by quoters. Copyright owner has no relation to that .