1

1

201515-043767-01

PREPARED FOR:FABEC CRM

Customer Satisfaction Survey

Quantitative part

© 2016 Ipsos. All rights reserved. Contains Ipsos' Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos.

2

RESEARCH01

2

3

Background & objectives

FABEC ANSP have the intention to investigate customer satisfaction among airline companies, on a regular basis.A first customer satisfaction survey has been conducted by Ipsos for FABEC (Functional Airspace Block Europe Central) in 2012.

FABEC has asked Ipsos for conducting the next survey in 2015 on: ATM Safety Flight efficiency En-route capacity Cost efficiency Customer Communication

The main purposes of a FABEC customer survey are: to obtain quantitative evidence (customer satisfaction index) to identify opportunities for improving (qualitative)

- per ANSP- as FABEC (i.e. cross border or network)

to measure changes in performance (trends) to benchmark between ANSPs/centers within the FABEC .

4

Research Methodology

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

DATA COLLECTION METHOD

FIELDWORK PERIOD

SAMPLE SIZEAVG. INTERVIEW

DURATION

minutes20

Respondents

(response rate 25%)

n=26 FROM: 07/10/2015

TO: 18/12/2015

Interviews based on client file sent

by FABEC

ONLINE

(*) Please note that due to the very small sample size, we can not conclude about the significance between the scores of 2015 and 2012.

5

Methodology (Quantitative)

The study has been performed using an Online questionnaire hosted on the server of Ipsos.

As a first step, a letter signed by Mr. Maurice Georges, CEO DSNA, Chairman Fabec ANSP Strategic Board as well as an e-mail have been sent to the respondents end of September in order to invite them to participate to the survey.

As a second step, an email containing a link to access the Online questionnaire has been sent individually to respondents the 7th of October.

In order to increase the response rate, 2 reminders have been sent, the first one on the 21st of October, the second one on the 3rd of December. The fieldwork took place between the 7th of October and the 18th of December.

Almost all individual CRM colleagues have contacted their contacts at the airlines to encourage them to participate.

In total we have collected 26 interviews of which 20 completes.

6

Analysis of the results

All the data has been analyzed according to 3 criteria :

Importance of the airline company: Cluster : 1 = main clients, 2=medium clients, 3=small clients

Business : International Airlines, Charter, Cargo, Low Fares Airlines

Fabec : Yes = HQ in one of the Fabec States.

Those 26 airlines are representing almost 40 percent (EURO 1.055 billion) of the FABEC en-route charges.

Company Business Cluster FABEC Company Business Cluster FABEC Company Business Cluster FABEC

Air France International Airlines 1 YES Aer Lingus Charter 2 NO Aerologic GMBH Cargo 3 YES

Easyjet Low Fare Airlines 1 No Air Algerie International Airlines 2 NO Air Baltic International Airlines 3 NO

KLM International Airlines 1 YES Air Europa Charter 2 YES Air Corsica International Airlines 3 YES

Lufthansa International Airlines 1 YES DHL Cargo 2 YES BAFA-Ben Air Flight Academy Business 3 YES

SWISS International Airlines 1 YES Easyjet Switzerland Low Fare Airlines 2 YES EDELWEISS Charter 3 YES

HOP Low Fare Airlines 2 YES Federal Express Cargo 3 NO

Jet2.Com Low Fare Airlines 2 NO FLYBE Low Fare Airlines 3 NO

Monarch Airlines Charter 2 NO Flying Group Business 3 YES

Transavia France Low Fare Airlines 2 YES Star Air Cargo 3 NO

TUI Benelux / ArkeFly Charter 2 YES Sun Express Deutschland Charter 3 YES

United Airlines International Airlines 2 NO

7

RESULTS

02

7

8

Overall satisfaction

Average score on 5: 1 (minimum) = very dissatisfied –> 5 (maximum) = very satisfied

The overall satisfaction regarding the FABEC ANSP’s reaches a score of 3,7/5 which is the same level as in 2012.

Question: Q1. Based on the experience you have with the air navigation service providers, to what extent would you say you are satisfied regarding each air navigation service provider in general?(average of all ANSP’s scores).

12

46

58 13

5

7

6

5

15

4

13 15

Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Not used

Overall Satisfaction

2015 3,7

2012 3,7

Average score /5

9

Overall Satisfaction 2015 3,7

2012 3,7

ATM safety 2015 4,2

2012 4,0

Flight efficiency 2015 3,6

2012 3,5

En-route capacity 2015 3,6

2012 3,6

Cost efficiency 2015 3,1

2012 3,1

Customer Communication 2015 3,3

2012 3,4

Average score /5

FABEC CSI satisfaction 2015 - overview

Average score on 5: 1 (minimum) = very dissatisfied –> 5 (maximum) = very satisfied

12

23

15

10

8

10

6

4

3

6

6

46

58

52

64

40

47

38

48

25

19

27

32

13

6

13

23

25

21

33

31

40

37

36

5

7

3

2

8

9

6

7

13

10

6

8

6

5

4

4

2

0

7

6

4

3

15

4

16

7

15

8

24

5

21

21

21

16

13 15

Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Not used

The overall satisfaction toward FABEC is stable. Nevertheless, it gets even better score in ATM safety than in 2012.Customer Communication and Cost Efficiency remain its weakest areas of satisfaction.

10

ATM safety

Adherence to ATC rules and procedures 4,1Use of a intelligible and standardized phraseology 4,0

Reliability of information communicated 3,9Ability of the provider to improve and to learn from experiences 3,7Managing critical situations 3,8

Flight efficiency

Length and the vertical profiles of standard approaches and departures 3,2

Optimum flight profiles (including vertical flight profile, speed, length) 3,0Average horizontal en-route flight efficiency 3,5Use of CD0s and CCOs 2,6

Use of CDRs 3,5Rules of coordination between operational units/centres 3,1Amount of frequency changes 2,9

Implementation of PBN procedures 3,1

En-route capacity

Ability to cope with future capacity requirements/improvements increases 2,9

Ability to reduce restrictions to the minimum 2,7Timely and early communication of capacity restrictions 2,9Communication of reasons for possible delays 3,0

Common management of expected unusual situations to optimise the reduced capacity 2,9

Cost efficiency

Investment appropriate to customer’ s needs 2,9Value for money 2,8Transparency and visibility on internal costs and charging 2,6

The speed of change 2,2

Customer communication Communication in general 3,2

Participation on decision making processes 2,7Communication during crisis situation 3,4

All criteria overviewAverage score on 5: 1 (minimum) = very dissatisfied –> 5 (maximum) = very satisfied