By Lt Col Teresa Crampton & Lt Col Amanda L. Femano
The DoD operates a vast and complex global transportation network, moving over 790,000 passengers annually across 166,000 mobility missions. While boasting impressive in-house capabilities, the DoD also relies heavily on civilian airlift through the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program for routine channel missions. This vital partnership between the DoD and US air carriers ensures surge capacity during crises and supplements peacetime airlift requirements. A key component of this peacetime operation is the Patriot Express (PE), a contracted airlift service managed by United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) and operated by Air Mobility Command (AMC), providing regular CONUS-OCONUS transportation for military personnel.
While a 2015 DoD Inspector General report lauded the PE program’s benefits, including generous luggage allowances, pet travel accommodations, and family travel assurances, the passenger experience doesn’t always align with this positive assessment. Mandated by the Defense Transportation Regulation (DTR) for international travel, the PE program has faced scrutiny, with instances of underutilized aircraft raising questions about its perceived customer service compared to commercial airlines. Recent media reports and congressional inquiries[1] have further amplified these concerns. This article delves into the complexities of the PE program, exploring potential areas for targeted analysis and improvement to ensure it effectively serves the needs of DoD passengers while maintaining the critical capacity required for successful DoD operations and the CRAF program’s overall viability.
The Performance Work Statement (PWS) for the International Charter Airlift Services in Support of the CRAF contract dictates that passenger service levels should not drop below those of commercial economy airline services. Compounding the issues, previous studies provide evidence to suggest that US consumers perceive airline performance in critical areas of quality as far worse than the data reported. Based on the perception of low service and underutilized channel missions, this research is intent on determining whether the PE mission service level is equal to that of commercial airlines.
This research seeks to evaluate the service level of the current PE program in comparison to commercial airlines. Specifically, it aims to determine whether the service quality provided by the PE is equivalent to that of commercial airlines operating on similar international routes. This will be achieved by directly comparing customer satisfaction levels between PE passengers and those traveling on commercial flights along comparable routes. Furthermore, the study will analyze and contrast the on-time arrival performance of both PE and commercial flights on these same routes to provide a comprehensive assessment of their relative operational effectiveness.
Evacuees from Afghanistan board a Delta Airbus A350 during Operation Allies Refuge at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, Aug. 25, 2021. Civil Reserve Air Fleet aircraft are being used for the onward movement of passengers from temporary safe havens and interim staging bases. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Donald Barnec)
While CRAF has been the subject of several studies, there is limited information or studies on PE besides cost analysis. Research regarding the customer experience on PE missions has yet to be published. The only analysis of customer service on the PE that is done is from a contract compliance stance. Comparing customer experiences and satisfaction on PE and similar commercial airline routes could help inform PE contract decisions in the future.
Individual airlines conduct internal surveys and studies to improve customer satisfaction, increase brand loyalty, and recruit new customers. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics, part of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection produce reports on an extensive range of topics, including flight delays and consumer complaints. These reports, published since 1987, have been used for multiple research topics, especially customer satisfaction. Various entities also utilize these reports to produce ratings and published reports on commercial airlines, with airlines at the top of categories utilizing them for advertising. One such report, is the Airline Quality Rating system, which utilizes Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection reports to produce ratings for “US based airlines which have at least 0.05% of domestic scheduled-service passenger revenue.”[2] For a given year, these ratings provide a system to compare the quality of airlines in a consistent manner. Delta Airlines had the best overall rating for 2021- 2022 primarily due to their on-time arrival percentage and low number of customer complaints in 2022.
The Air Travel Consumer Report is generally restricted to US airlines operating on domestic routes by law, and thus, most research based on them is restricted to US domestic routes. This varies significantly from the PE, as these missions are outside the CONUS. Additionally, due to international laws, academic research (domestic and international) tends to follow similar lines with studies staying within a specific country.
Methodology
The current and historical contracts for the PE missions (especially on the main routes analyzed) have primarily gone to Atlas Air and Omni Air International, both of which are charter airlines as opposed to commercial passenger airlines. As charter airlines, with the majority of their mission being cargo, not passengers, their requirements for reporting statistics are slightly different from more common commercial airlines such as United Airlines or Delta Airlines. Thus, analysis is done from the perspective of USTRANSCOM as the owner of the CRAF contract. While USTRANSCOM worked closely with the air carrier, there are two perspectives to any situation. This research was limited to the DoD perspective as told via USTRANSCOM, AMC/A4T, and public DOT records for similar routes; however, it was not specifically on Atlas Air and Omni Air International.
There are multiple routes that the PE routinely takes. For this study, two routes were selected for analysis due to their similarity to commercial routes and because they both originate at commercial airports with service contacts most similar to those of commercial airlines. These routes (both directions) are shown in Table 1.
The PE missions are all on a loop originating in the US commercial airport (KSEA/KBWI), with the first international stop at ETAR or RJTY/RJSM. These aircraft then continue their mission to more downline stations such as Okinawa AB, Osan AB, or Qatar. These downline stations were not part of the analysis. However, they can affect the studied route segments and are noted when this occurs. The KBWI to ETAR route was referred to as the Atlantic route, and KSEA to RJTY and RJSM was referred to as the Pacific route.
Past airline customer service quality research efforts have not focused studies on airline services based on longitudinal routes. For this reason, public records (such as the Air Travel Consumer Report) are utilized for academic research. The Airline Quality Report 2023, developed utilizing a year’s worth of Air Travel Consumer Reports, was used as the standard for commercial customer complaints and their categories. This is a standard method employed by research on airline customer service. The Airline Quality Report 2023 is a roll-up of data for 2022. The Air Travel Consumer Report is released the second week of the month and details the month two preceding it (for example, the February report of December numbers). In 2023, at release, these reports did not include the customer comments, as complaint data has substantially increased and consequently takes longer to analyze. The latest report on customer complaints is the June 2023 Air Travel Consumer Report, which has data from May 2023.
Customer complaints for the PE missions were pulled from the Interactive Customer Evaluation (ICE) system by AMC/A4T. These comments were filtered from the stations in Table 1 and downline stations that specifically mentioned PE missions. Comments submitted to AMC/A4T, which mention the PE, were also included (AMC Passenger Policy & AMC PE locations in the data). Comments from downline stations that were not about the PE (general comments, facility issues, etc.) were not counted. Blank comments, or N/A, were deleted, as were any duplicates caused by the system. Comments were filtered into two time frames: 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022, and 1 January 2022 to 10 April 2024. The first category was matched to the most recent Airline Quality Report and the larger timeframe due to several AMC process changes that took place since 2022. Natural language processing was utilized in Python to analyze 1,395 comments.
VaderSentiment was utilized to analyze the sentiment of each comment (negative, neutral, positive, compound). This provides a negative, neutral, positive, and compound score of -1 (negative) to +1 (positive) for each comment. The compound score is a weighted average of the scores, which can be utilized as an overall sentiment. The Excel data set was imported into Jupyter, which was converted to a string instead of a text. This data file was then analyzed utilizing VaderSentiment and the code in Equation 1 to assign a sentiment value to each comment.
The same list of 1,395 comments was also analyzed using Python’s Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK) to determine themes for each comment based on the words. The data frame was then loaded into Python via Jupyter. NLTK was then utilized to tokenize, convert to lowercase letters, and remove stop words and punctuation from the comments before creating a string. The string was then analyzed to identify themes based on the keywords identified in Table 2. The themes for the PE were meant to mirror the customer complaint categories found in the Air Quality Report as closely as possible. There were several minor differences, as annotated below.
The preceding code (Equation 2) was utilized to produce a list (by comment) of all themes identified in the comment. So that each comment had between one and eight themes present. The code displayed in Equation 3, was also run against the data frame to identify one central theme per comment based on the following order. The order attempts to align with the comment’s weight, as seen in the Air Travel Consumer Report.
Themes were then put into the same Excel data sheet as the sentiment analysis so that each comment had a central theme, multiple themes, and sentiment analysis (negative, neutral, positive, and compound). The results were then exported into Excel for analysis and comparison. This analysis was then utilized to compare with the commercial industry based on the Air Quality Report and Air Travel Consumer Report.
USTRANSCOM, which manages the PE and CRAF contracts, provided delay and utilization information for PE missions from the Global Decision Support System (GDSS) for March 2023 to April 2024. From January 2022 to April 2024, 110,436 passengers flew on the analyzed routes. USTRANSCOM also provided the PWS for the CRAF contract. The delay data was filtered only to the selected routes and locations. The actual departure and arrival times were then compared with the scheduled departure and arrival times to identify if a mission departed or arrived early, on time, or delayed. The offset time for delays and early arrivals was then calculated. For all delays in GDSS, a delay code and comments stating the cause are required. These comments were then read and assigned a primary delay cause (and secondary if needed). The delay causes mirrored those utilized by the DOT, as indicated in Table 3. A commercial airline owns its own process at an airport, including ground support and maintenance. This differs from the PE, where passenger processing, maintenance, and ground support (as well as baggage at KBWI and KSEA) are either contracted out or performed by uniformed military members. The aircraft crew on a commercial airline is part of the airline. For the PE, the crew is part of the contract (a service) versus an air carrier. For these reasons, the causes of baggage, crew, passenger processing, maintenance, and ground support were given their own categories, even though the DOT considers them all part of the air carrier cause.
On average, Fort Bragg receives nearly 40,000 Interactive Customer Evaluation comments each year from active-duty military service members, government civilians, contractors, retirees, and Family members. Let Your Voice Be Heard! To submit an ICE comment, go to https://ice.disa.mil/ or click the ICE link at the bottom of the Fort Bragg Home website at https://home.army.mil/bragg. (U.S. Army photo courtesy Fort Bragg Plans, Analysis and Integration Office)
This delay information was compared against delay information for commercial airlines obtained from the DOT website and Flight Aware. Flight Aware only had data available for the routes from November 2023 to the present. This data did not have reasons for delays, but the delay time could be calculated as it was done for the PE data. The causes of delays were pulled from the DOT website, which allows for filtering specific airlines at a specific airport at a designated time. This delay and on-time arrival data is for all missions for the airline from the stated airport in the timeline. The airlines are not required to report on international legs of missions. Due to these limitations and the size difference in the data points, percentages were utilized for analysis. For commercial airlines, an on-time departure or arrival is defined as a pushback or block into the gate within 15 minutes of the scheduled time. In contrast, per the PWS, on-time departure and arrival are within 30 minutes of the scheduled time for the PE.
Results
In 2022, US airlines carried 853 million passengers, and the DOT received 77,656 complaints, equating to only 9.1% of passengers filing complaints. In that same year, there were almost four times as many customer complaints lodged with the Department of Transportation than in 2021. (US Department of Transportation, 2023)[3] Table 4 shows the categories of these complaints, compiled in the Airline Quality Report 2023 from the Air Travel Consumer Reports. At first glance, there was a significant change in complaint themes from 2021 (refunds) to 2022 (flight problems).
By comparison, 106,055 passengers traveled on the two PE routes studied from January 2022 to April 2024, with 1,394 complaints filed or 1.3% of passengers filing. Despite the differences in percentages of complaints received, several comparisons can be made between the DOT complaints and those in ICE utilizing the themes as laid out in Table 2. In Table 5, it is apparent that the top theme for 2022 and 2022-2024 was Customer Service, with 62% and 64% of the comments, respectively. This is a significant difference from the DOT, (shown in Table 4), which only had 3.7% of the comments regarding customer service, which are shown in Table 6 to be overwhelmingly positive or neutral. This is a trend seen across the ICE comments but best seen in the customer service theme, with 63% of the comments received being positive sentiments. Most of these comments specifically lauded passenger agents, by name, who had assisted them.
The Air Travel Consumer Report does not show the sentiment of its complaint data; however, it breaks down the comments received into complaints, opinions, compliments, and information requests. From January 2022 to May 2023, only 30 compliments were received. This significant disparity in the two data sets meant a direct comparison was difficult.
A comparison, however, can be made in the flight problems category (which in the DOT data includes the subcategories of delays, cancellations, and missed connections). The Airline Quality Report shows the highest amount of complaint data concerning flight problems at 31%, while the ICE comments are at 43%. This does not include the theme of delays; however, if delays are included with other flight problems (like in the Air Travel Consumer Report), the percentage increased to 60% of comments pertaining to flight problems and delays. Additionally, the ICE delay comments had the most negative sentiment of any theme.
The interface theme was the sixth most frequent theme and included comments about how AMC and the carrier distributed information to the passengers. While the sentiment in these comments was almost an even split, it is worth noting that AMC has made significant efforts to improve this process since the data was pulled. AMC now offers text messaging updates to US phone numbers, which passengers provide when their flight is booked. There are still some issues with the system, such as international numbers being unable to receive text messages. This new process is expected to improve positive opinions about information distribution.
As displayed in Table 7, of the 1,395 comments analyzed, 75 were targeted at AMC/A4T, 380 referenced the Atlantic route, and 973 referenced the Pacific route. As the Pacific route has more scheduled flights and more passengers in a year, it is logical that they would have more ICE comments. Yokota AB had a disproportionately large volume of comments; this is likely because they had the ICE comment website as a portion of their login to the passenger internet, which some customers took as a requirement to complete. Interestingly, both the Joint Base Lewis-McChord Passenger Terminal and the squadron detachment location at SEATAC (KSEA) were the only two locations with an overall negative average.
Members of the 731st Air Mobility Squadron wait to off load a rotator flight that has landed at Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea, May 2, 2022. In addition to servicing in and outbound passengers, members of the 731st AMS are also responsible for tracking manifests, handling cargo, security checks and safety briefings. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Zachariah Lopez)
Focusing on Table 7 utilizing the average of the sentiment compound for each comment, along with the single main theme of each comment, it is apparent that most of the comments are positive in the customer service theme. In comparison, the themes of delay and carrier are, on average, negative. Flight problems were a high count for them; however, the average of the compound sentiment is fairly low due to a high number of negative comments.
The same analysis was then filtered by routes, Atlantic and Pacific, as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. These breakdowns by routes show differences, specifically in fares, COVID-19, carriers, and flights.
42,146 passengers flew on the Atlantic routes from January 2022 to April 2024, with 380 ICE Comments specific to those routes. This average of 9% of complaints is consistent with industry. Also, consistent with the combined analysis, the Atlantic route shows the highest number of comments about customer service, flight problems, and delays. As shown in Figure 9, the Atlantic route averaged less than 50% on-time rate, eliciting a predictable spike in negative sentiment. Given that only 77 of the 231 flights between March 2023 and April 2024 were on time per the PWS, there were 228 ICE comments. Of note, there were no comments regarding the carriers or fares, but several comments about the facility that were more negative than those on the Pacific route. Additionally, the comments about the interface and communication were neutral to positive sentiment, as opposed to negative on the Pacific route.
63,909 passengers flew on the Pacific route from January 2022 to April 2024, with 943 ICE comments in that time frame. Thus, 1.5% of the passengers filed comments, a much lower rate than the commercial standard of 9%. The Pacific route also had the highest number of comments concerning customer service and flights, all with lower and negative sentiment scores. The number of delayed comments and the severity of the negativity was also worse than the Atlantic route, which aligns with an on-time arrival percentage of only 42%, as seen in Figure 7. The majority of Pacific route comments from Yokota were positive customer service comments and neutral or positive comments about the facility. Mainly, passengers noted a desire for a designated smoking area and increased food options in the facility. These types of comments are likely why the DOT removed smoking and facilities as a separate category and lumped them into “other.” However, due to the large number of ICE comments that mention facility issues, it would skew the data for the “other” category. For this reason, the “facility” was separated.
There is an overall trend of highly positive customer service for commercial airlines, but a trend of highly negative sentiment regarding delays. Flight problems and delays align with the top categories in the commercial industry, although they are all still at lower percentages than PE. This led to the subsequent analysis of delay data.
One of the main statistics reported in the Air Travel Consumer Report is delays. On-time arrival is also the most heavily weighted component of the Airline Quality Rating. Therefore, PE missions were compared against commercial routes for both delays and on-time arrival and their causes; for commercial airlines, delays are defined as the aircraft departing from the gate within 15 minutes of the scheduled departure. On-time arrivals are defined as the aircraft arriving at the gate within 15 minutes of the scheduled arrival time. For the PE, the definitions are the same, except that per the PWS, the time is 30 minutes. Additionally, a new rule signed on 24 April 2024 from the DOT pertaining to passenger compensation for delays defines a delayed mission as one whose departure or arrival times are delayed more than six hours for an international flight (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2024). While delayed departure and on-time arrival are linked and thus frequently similar, they are separated because time can be made up in flight. The primary focus of this study was on-time arrival because that is of greatest concern to customers.
Passengers board the Patriot Express at Royal Air Force Mildenhall, England, Dec. 20, 2022. The Patriot Express flight, also known as the rotator, is a Department of Defense contracted commercial charter flight which provides international support to U.S. military and civilian members and their families permanently changing station to the United Kingdom. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Viviam Chiu)
Figures 4 through Figure 7 show the delayed departure and on-time arrival as pulled from the DOT website. The airline, airport, and timeframe are the same as those being compared with the PE; however, the charts are for all missions, not just the routes being studied. This was done to give a broader overview because the details (and delay causes) of the specific commercial routes were not available.
There is a slight difference in the on-time rate for each airport and route. Delta Airlines flights out of KSEA were on time 86.26%, with the main reason for the delay being air carrier (4.92%), followed closely by the aircraft arriving late (4.29%). United Airlines flights out of KIAD were on time 79.46% of the time, with the main reason for delay also being air carrier (6.8%) followed by aircraft arriving late (6.09%). In comparison, the PE (on both routes) delays significantly more. The industry standard for 2022 on-time arrival was 73%, and the lowest was Allegiant, with a 63.4%. [4]
Figures 6 through 9 show the on-time arrival rate for both the Atlantic (24%) and Pacific (53%); there is a slight difference between on-time arrival rates as viewed from the commercial standard of 15 minutes compared to the PWS of 30 minutes. This difference is minimal compared to the overall delays, though, especially on the Atlantic route. The analysis of the delay causes was thus done utilizing the commercial standard of 15 minutes, regardless of which standard is applied, though the PE on-time arrival rates are significantly lower than that of commercial. 
The percentage of on-time arrivals may be higher for the Pacific route due to more missions over the same period of time. From March 2023 to April 2024 there were 231 missions on the Atlantic route, while during the same time period there were 339 missions on the Pacific route. The Pacific route also had a higher number of flights which arrived at the scheduled time or early. This same trend was present on the commercial routes.
The breakdown of delays by cause is seen in Figures 10 and 11. The drastically lower on-time arrival rates of the PE required a more profound analysis than the standard categories utilized by the DOT, specifically for the “air carrier” category. Per the Bureau of Transportation Statistics website, the category of “air carrier” delay is defined as “The cause of the cancellation or delay was due to circumstances within the airline’s control (e.g., maintenance or crew problems, aircraft cleaning, baggage loading, fueling, etc.).” For the Pacific route, 47% of the 160 delays were caused by air carriers. For the Atlantic Route, 66% of the 117 delays were caused by air carriers. Because both of these are significantly higher than the 4.92% and 6.8% seen in commercial airlines, a secondary analysis was done. For both PE routes, delays due to the crew and passenger processing were the most prominent causes within the air carrier category. This is another difference between PE and a commercial flight. A commercial airline employs the check-in agents as well as the airplane crew members.4 For the PE, the check-in agents are either Airmen or a separate service contract. This difference means that in commercial airlines, there is one organization or company responsible, as opposed to the PE, which can have two or three.
The second-highest cause for delay was the aircraft arriving late from the previous station (14% for Pacific, 16% for Atlantic). This is also the second-highest cause of delay on commercial airlines, although in much lower percentages (4.29% and 6.09%, respectively). Some of these causes, as well as the higher delay rates with the crews, are likely due to the locations where the PE flies out, as well as the airline. Delta and United are both large carriers with multiple aircraft and crews at KSEA and KIAD. Thus, if an aircraft or a crew is running late, they might be able to readjust a different aircraft or crew to cover for the delay. There might still be a delay, but it would have a smaller impact. The PE is not operated at locations where this easy crew shift is possible. Atlas Air and Omni Airlines do not have additional aircraft or crews staged at any of the locations where the PE travels. For most of the locations, it is a considerable drive from the nearest commercial airport. This means that if a crew or aircraft is late, there is no option to readjust. This is a known issue, which is part of the reason the PWS has a 30-minute buffer for delays. The other reason is that the AMC personnel conducting the passenger processing are slower than commercial carriers. The carrier is only held financially responsible for the delay if the delay is determined to be “carrier controllable.” A delay is determined to be carrier controllable if the cause is specific to the carrier. (PWS, 2022) Of the 309 delays observed on the PE routes (140 Pacific, 160 Atlantic), only 88 were determined to be within the carrier’s control and thus affected the carrier financially. However, from a passenger standpoint, all that is seen is a delay in the scheduled arrival, which does not meet the customer’s needs. With the new DOT rule of six hours being a significant delay (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2024), there could be potential to change the PWS definitions and actions for delays over six hours versus twelve, which would benefit the customer.
Conclusion
Based on the ICE Comments data, some aspects of the PE service are equal to or better than those of commercial airlines. Of note, the positive comments regarding customer service were exceptionally high. However, the negative comments regarding flight problems and delays show that the PE service falls below commercial airlines. The on-time arrival rate is especially telling as it is much lower on the PE than that of even the lowest-rated commercial airlines. The PWS specifies how delayed arrivals affect the carrier companies’ payment; however, it is only applicable if the delay is considered under the carrier’s control. This is a contract nuance that a customer flying does not understand nor care to understand. In the formula utilized for the Airline Quality Report, On-time arrivals are the most heavily weighted factor; given how low the on-time arrival is for the PE, it does not meet the commercial standard.
In conclusion, the findings presented here underscore the need for a strategic recalibration of the USTRANSCOM PE contract. Specifically, aligning the contract with the evolving commercial landscape, particularly the DOT’s revised definition of extended delays on international flights, is paramount. Shortening the current 12-hour delay threshold to a more commercially relevant six hours, and incorporating industry-standard metrics like the Airline Quality Rating, would provide a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of carrier performance. By leveraging existing data points and integrating them into a unified rating system, USTRANSCOM can gain a clearer picture of whether contracted carriers are truly meeting the “commercial economy airline services” benchmark outlined in the PWS. Crucially, this revised framework must be coupled with a proactive passenger education initiative, setting realistic expectations and fostering a better understanding of the PE program’s inherent differences from standard commercial travel. By embracing these recommendations, USTRANSCOM can enhance the PE program, improve passenger satisfaction, and ensure the continued delivery of reliable and cost-effective transportation services.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author or authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Air Force, the Department of War, or the US Government.
About the Authors
Lt Col Teresa “Tiki” Crampton currently commands the 31st Logistics Readiness Squadron, Aviano AB. Her logistics career includes extensive time within Air Mobility Command, including aerial port assignments at Ramstein, Osan, and commanding the 305th Aerial Port Squadron at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, placing her at the forefront of Patriot Express operations. This direct experience with passenger processing, logistical hurdles, and traveler feedback provided firsthand insight into the service shortfalls analyzed in the article and its call for data-driven reforms to better serve military members and their families. She can be reached at teresa.crampton@us.af.mil.
Lt Col Amanda Femano, PhD, is currently serving as Commander, 502nd Logistics Readiness Squadron, Joint Base San Antonio, while remaining active as an Adjunct Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management for the Air Force Institute of Technology. As a Logistics Readiness Officer, she is a trusted logistics leader dedicated to tackling operational problems with data-driven decisions. Her research interests include supply chain resilience, transportation, and strategic mobility. She can be reached at amanda.femano@us.af.mil.
Work Cited
Bolkcom, C. (2006). Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF). CRS Report for Congress.
BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2024). Airline On Time Statistics and Delay Causes. Retrieved from TransStat: https://www.transtats.bts.gov/OT_Delay/OT_DelayCause1.asp?20=E
Congressional Research Service. (2022). Defense Primer: United States Transportation Command. Washington D.C. : IN FOCUS. Retrieved from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11479
Crackel, T. (1998). Roots of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. Air Power History, 26. DoD. (2022, September 2). Part I Passenger Movement. Defense Transportation Regulation.
DoD Inspector General. (2015). Patriot Express Program Could Be More Cost-Effective for Overseas Permanent Change of Station and Temporary Duty Travel.
Gourdin, K. N. (2019). Preserving the Civil Reserve Air Fleet: Sustaining America’s emergency lifeline. Journal of Defense Analytics and Logistics, 142-151.
Graham, D. (2003). Sustaining the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) Program. Institute for Defense Analyses.
Hiemstra-Van Mastrigt, S., Ottens, R., & Vink, P. (2019). Identifying bottlenecks and designing ideas and solutions for improving aircraft passengers’ experience during boarding and disembarking. Applied Ergonomics, 16-21.
Hunter, J. A. (2006). A Correlational Study of How Airline Customer Service and Consumer Perception of Airline Customer Service Affect the Air Rage Phenomenon. Journal of Air Transportation, 11(3), 78-109.
IATA. (2023). Global Passenger Survey.
IATA. (2023). Unruly Passengers Fact Sheet.
Keiningham, T. L., Morgeson, F. V., Aksoy, L., & Williams, L. (2014). Service Failure Severity, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Share: An Examination of the Airline Industry. Journal of Service Research, 17(4), 415-431.
Lapré, M. A. (2011). Reducing Customer Dissatisfaction: How Important is Learning to Reduce Service Failure? Production and Operations Management, 20(4), 491- 507.
Lewis. (1998). The Civil Reserve Air Fleet: Balancing Risks and Incentives. Transportation Journal.
Matikiti, R., Roberts-Lombard, M., & Mpinganjira, M. (2019). Customer attributions of service failure and its impact on commitment in the airline industry: an emerging market perspective. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 403-414.
Özyörük, H. E. (2023). Changes in Consumer Behaviour in Air Transportation Industry Due to Covid-19 Pandemic: A Literature Review. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 58(1), 244-261.
Patel, H., & D’Cruz, M. (2018). Passenger-centric factors influencing the experience of. TRANSPORT REVIEWS, 38(2), 252-269. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2017.1307877
Performance Work Statement (PWS). (2022, July 14). International Charter Airlift Services in Support of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF).
Peters, H. M. (2021). Afghanistan Evacuation: The Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) and the Defense Production Act (DPA). Congressional Research Service.
Rhoades, D. L., & Waguespack, B. J. (2008). Twenty years of service quality performance in the US airline industry. Managing Service Quality, 18(1), 20-33.
Rhoades, D. L., Waguespack, B. J., & Ambrose, S. C. (2021). The Best of Times: 30 Years of US Airline Service. Services Marketing Quarterly, 42, 180-193.
United States. Department of Transportation. Office of Aviation Consumer Protection. (2024). Air Travel Consumer Report: March 2024. doi:https://doi.org/10.21949/1530495
United States. Department of Transportation. Office of Aviation Consumer Protection. (23). Air travel Consumer Report: April 2023. doi:https://doi.org/10.21949/1530495
US Department of Transportation. (2023, April). Air Travel Consumer Report: December 2022, Full Year 2022 Airline Complaint Data.
Waguespack, B. J., Rhoades, D. L., & Tiernan, S. (2007). An Investigation into Airline Service Quality Performance between US Legacy Carriers and their EU competitors and Partners. Journal of Air Transportation, 12(2), 59-71.
[1] McArdle, T. (2022, July 18). Air Force General Apologizes After 3 Pets Die on Flights Arranged for Military Families. Retrieved from https://people.com/pets/air-force-general-apologizes-for-pet-deaths-on-military-flights/
[2] Headley, D., & Bowen, B. (2023). Airline Quality Rating 2023.
[3] Headley, D., & Bowen, B. (2023). Airline Quality Rating 2023.
[4] Headley, D., & Bowen, B. (2023). Airline Quality Rating 2023.