I.

INTRODUCTION

A travel industry magazine received several reports from international travelers about
the quality of in-flight service on various carriers from the United States to Europe. Before writing
a feature story, the magazine decided to get the services of a researcher to study the perspectives
and reactions of travelers. The researcher selected passengers who had current impressions of the
meal service, comfort, and friendliness of a major carrier. Three airlines were chosen and 20
passengers were selected for each airline. The respondents were requested to rate the services of
the airlines. This is known as Rating 1. After sometime, the same respondents were again asked
if there was an improvement in the services provided by the airline companies. This is labeled as
Rating 2.

The airline group are consists of Delta which is number one (1) in the code, Lufthansa which
is number one (2) in the code and code number three (3) pertains to KLM while the class group
are consists of number one (1) in the code Economy and Business with a code of two (2)

II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 shows the distribution of passengers with the corresponding airline company. The
results are there are 20 passengers in each airline company.

Table 1: Distribution of Passengers According to Airline Company

Airline
Company Frequency Percent
Delta 20 33.3
Lufthansa 20 33.3
KLM 20 33.3
Total 60 100.0
 The pie chart below further illustrates the distribution of the passengers according to the
airline company. The blue represents the passengers of Delta. It is followed by Lufthansa in red
color and KLM in green. The illustration shows the equal distribution of passengers in respect to
their airline company.

Figure 1. Pie Chart of the Distribution of Respondents According to Airline Company

The respondents were requested to rate the services of the airlines. This is known as
Rating 1. Arter sometime, the same respondents were again asked if there was an improvement in
the services provided by the airline companies.

The difference in the score in Class was tested using One-way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) to determine the differences in relation to the class and the ratings 1 and 2. Table 2
shows the ANOVA between Class and the Ratings.
 Table 2. ANOVA between the Class and the Ratings

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
rating1 Between 3182.817 1 3182.817 9.145 .004
Groups
Within Groups 20185.767 58 348.030
Total 23368.583 59
rating2 Between 843.750 1 843.750 1.582 .214
Groups
Within Groups 30935.233 58 533.366
Total 31778.983 59

Table 2 shows that the total degrees of freedom in 59, the F value for the ANOVA in rating
1 is 9.145 which is significant at 0.004. Because of this, we can conclude that there is a significant
difference among the class when it comes to the rating 1. However, the F value for the ANOVA
in rating 2 is 1.582 which have a significance value of 0.214 which explain that there is no
significance difference among the class when it comes to rating 2.

The difference in the score was tested using One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to
determine the differences in relation to the airlines and the ratings 1 and 2. Table 2 shows the
ANOVA between the Airlines and Ratings
 Table3. ANOVA between the Airlines and the Ratings

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
rating1 Between 11644.033 2 5822.017 28.304 .000
Groups
Within Groups 11724.550 57 205.694
Total 23368.583 59
rating2 Between 25945.233 2 12972.617 126.752 .000
Groups
Within Groups 5833.750 57 102.346
Total 31778.983 59

Table 3 shows that the total degrees of freedom in 59, the F value for the ANOVA in rating
1 is 28.304 which is significant at 0.000. Because of this, we can conclude that there is a significant
difference among the airlines when it comes to the rating 1. However, the F value for the ANOVA
in rating 2 is 126.752 which have a significance value of 0.000 which explain that there is a
significance difference among the airlines when it comes to rating 2.

To determine which specific groups have significant difference from each other, the data
were further tested using post-hoc by Scheffe. These tests are used when we have found statistical
significance between conditions but then we do not know where the significant differences are.

Table 4. Multiple Comparison Table using Scheffe.

Dependent (I) Airline (J) Airline Mean Std. Sig.

Variable company company Difference Error
(I-J)
rating1 Delta Lufthansa -19.950* 4.535 .000
KLM -33.950* 4.535 .000
 Lufthansa Delta 19.950* 4.535 .000
KLM -14.000* 4.535 .012
KLM Delta 33.950* 4.535 .000
Lufthansa 14.000* 4.535 .012
rating2 Delta Lufthansa -39.850* 3.199 .000
KLM -47.400* 3.199 .000
Lufthansa Delta 39.850* 3.199 .000
KLM -7.550 3.199 .070
KLM Delta 47.400* 3.199 .000
Lufthansa 7.550 3.199 .070
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 4 shows that rating 1 really has significant difference to its class. All the variables in
Rating 1 are less than 0.05. When it comes to rating 2, two variables are greater than 0.05 which
are the Lufthansa and KLM. That’s why in Table 2, rating 2 has no significance difference with
respect to its accommodation class.

III. CONCLUSION

To conclude, between accommodation class and rating 1 has only significant difference.
Accommodation class and rating 2 has no significant difference. The difference in the ratings of
the services among the three airline has significant difference It only means that Rating 1 and
rating 2 are the same or improvement in the service of particular airline are not shown or there is
no improvement in the service at all.