Measuring the Benefit of Offering Auxiliary Services: Do Bag-Checkers Differ in Their Sensitivities to Airline Itinerary Attributes?

M. Nicolae, Mark E. Ferguson, L. Garrow
{"title":"Measuring the Benefit of Offering Auxiliary Services: Do Bag-Checkers Differ in Their Sensitivities to Airline Itinerary Attributes?","authors":"M. Nicolae, Mark E. Ferguson, L. Garrow","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2724018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When firms evaluate their service system design choices, there is typically more uncertainty surrounding the value that a particular auxiliary service provides than there is on the cost of providing that service. To help inform this decision, we propose an approach where we compare the relative value of the segment of passengers who use an auxiliary service to the segment that does not use it. We demonstrate this approach for a typical auxiliary service common to the airline industry. In 2008, most U.S. airlines implemented checked baggage fee policies to decrease their costs by reducing the number of customer service agents needed in the check-in and baggage handling processes. The success of this change has led to a current debate at many of these airlines on whether to make further staffing cuts in these areas, essentially making it even less attractive for passengers to check their baggage. Our proposed methodology helps answer whether passengers who continue to check bags in today’s baggage-fee era are more or less valuable than passengers who do not check bags. We explore this question empirically by examining, through a stated preference survey, if a history of checking or not checking bags can be used to segment passengers based on how their itinerary choices are influenced by common airline service attributes (price, number of connections, itinerary time, schedule delay, and on-time performance). Contrary to the opinions of some top airline executives, we find that the passengers who continue to check bags at airlines that charge baggage fees are generally less sensitive to differences in three of these important service attributes and are less likely to switch airlines when a competing airline improves its offerings along these dimensions. Thus, airlines that charge for checked bags should consider improving the customer experience for their bag-checking passengers, as they represent a potentially more valuable segment class to the airline.","PeriodicalId":105021,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Operations (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IRPN: Innovation & Operations (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2724018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When firms evaluate their service system design choices, there is typically more uncertainty surrounding the value that a particular auxiliary service provides than there is on the cost of providing that service. To help inform this decision, we propose an approach where we compare the relative value of the segment of passengers who use an auxiliary service to the segment that does not use it. We demonstrate this approach for a typical auxiliary service common to the airline industry. In 2008, most U.S. airlines implemented checked baggage fee policies to decrease their costs by reducing the number of customer service agents needed in the check-in and baggage handling processes. The success of this change has led to a current debate at many of these airlines on whether to make further staffing cuts in these areas, essentially making it even less attractive for passengers to check their baggage. Our proposed methodology helps answer whether passengers who continue to check bags in today’s baggage-fee era are more or less valuable than passengers who do not check bags. We explore this question empirically by examining, through a stated preference survey, if a history of checking or not checking bags can be used to segment passengers based on how their itinerary choices are influenced by common airline service attributes (price, number of connections, itinerary time, schedule delay, and on-time performance). Contrary to the opinions of some top airline executives, we find that the passengers who continue to check bags at airlines that charge baggage fees are generally less sensitive to differences in three of these important service attributes and are less likely to switch airlines when a competing airline improves its offerings along these dimensions. Thus, airlines that charge for checked bags should consider improving the customer experience for their bag-checking passengers, as they represent a potentially more valuable segment class to the airline.
衡量提供辅助服务的好处:行李检查人员对航空公司行程属性的敏感度不同吗?
当企业评估他们的服务系统设计选择时,围绕特定辅助服务提供的价值的不确定性通常比提供该服务的成本更大。为了帮助做出这一决定,我们提出了一种方法,将使用辅助服务的乘客与不使用辅助服务的乘客的相对价值进行比较。我们为航空业常见的一个典型辅助服务演示了这种方法。2008年,大多数美国航空公司实施了托运行李费政策,通过减少办理登机手续和行李处理过程中所需的客服人员数量来降低成本。这一改变的成功引发了许多航空公司目前关于是否进一步削减这些领域人员的争论,这实际上使乘客检查行李的吸引力更小。我们提出的方法有助于回答在今天的行李收费时代,继续托运行李的乘客是否比不托运行李的乘客更有价值。我们对这个问题进行了实证研究,通过一项明确的偏好调查,研究是否可以使用托运或不托运行李的历史来根据乘客的行程选择如何受到普通航空公司服务属性(价格、转机次数、行程时间、航班延误和准点表现)的影响来划分乘客。与一些航空公司高管的观点相反,我们发现,继续在收取行李费的航空公司托运行李的乘客通常对这三个重要服务属性的差异不太敏感,而且当竞争对手的航空公司在这些方面改进其产品时,他们不太可能更换航空公司。因此,对托运行李收费的航空公司应该考虑改善托运行李乘客的客户体验,因为他们对航空公司来说可能是一个更有价值的航段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信