INTRODUCTION
Vision
To be an unsurpassed full - range ground handling company in Vietnam
Mission
To provide international and domestic carriers in operation at Vietnam's airports with top quality ground services and competitive price
Quality policy
We are committed to providing professional services for our customers with the following shared values:
Safety: first priority in all activities
Accuracy: in everything we do
Green: greener handling, greener future
Satisfaction: extra smile for employees and customers
Key features
A subsidiary of Airports Corporation Of Vietnam (ACV)
State - of - the - art ground support equipment
Technical expertise and managerial experience
IATA and airline certified instructors
Pioneering in assisting airlines with the implementation of self service check in kiosks and other new airline applications
PERFOMANCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW BETWEEN 2013 VS 2012 &
Firstly, we periodically evaluate performance management review at beginning of
06 months of the year (from Jan to Jun)
Secondly, we periodically evaluate performance management review at last 06 months and the whole year (from Jun to Dec and from Jan to Dec)
The Quality Management Department has released a summary report on performance management reviews, highlighting the results of the performance process and instances of product non-conformity This analysis compares data from the last six months of 2013 with the full year of 2013, focusing specifically on company objectives and three key operational departments: GOD, CSD, and RED.
In our analysis, we compare the last six months of 2013 with the same period in 2012 to assess the performance of each management department This evaluation allows us to identify areas for improvement and establish actionable strategies for the upcoming year.
Throughly whole year 2013 with 2012 quality objective comparision, we definitely recognize how our company meet customer requirement, customer needs and adjust immediately and accordingly.
REVIEW COMPANY QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Over view Objectives of 06 last months
1.1.1 Result of company quality objectives
In 2013, SAGS established 16 quality objectives to guide our targets for the year After six months, we conducted a thorough evaluation and performance measurement of each objective, comparing actual outcomes to our planned targets.
After evaluating the last six months, we will assess the company's performance in meeting customer requirements and compare the results from the first half of the year with those from the latter half of 2013.
Here is quality objective result:
No Objective Ratio of plan (%)
Ensure 100% arrival and departure flight safety operation
Ensure 99.97424% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ big incident
Ensure 99.92841% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ small incident
Ensure 99.84894% departure flight don’t delay over 9’ 99.84894 99.92573 99.98939 99.96817 99.968
Ensure 99.88869% departure flight don’t delay over 20’ 99.88869 99.96817 99.96817 Pass
Ensure 100% departure flight don’t delay over 21’ 100 99.96817 99.98939 99.97878 Fail
Ensure 99,99925% departure passengers are checked travel document meeting standard
Ensure 99,99940% departure passenger are checked ticket meeting standard
Ensure 99.99832% departure CS meeting standard
Ensure 99.99789% departure checked bags are checked meeting standard
Ensure 99,98011% arrival flight meeting standard
Ensure 99,93640% departure flight of W&B meeting standard
Ensure 99,95227% arrival, departure flight of Loading process meeting standard
Ensure 99.93238% arrival departure of Ramp serveice meeting standard
Ensure 99,96816% arrival flight of Cabin Cleaning meeting standard
Ensure 98% GSE of other companies are served meeting standard
- There are 04 failed objectives over 16 objectives of SAGS‘s last 06 months 2013
- With the 04 failed objectives, we know we should secure and focus at that objectives in order to improve our services meeting requirement
- Moreover, we still have some passed objectives but the actual performance is affected badly to company performance We also focus to improve that mention objectives
1.1.2 Ratio NC occurrence of 03 Departments (GOD/CSD/RED)
The analysis of our four failed objectives and several objectives that were met yet negatively impacted customer service has led us to identify the reasons for poor performance across three departments, focusing on the handling of irregularities, referred to as NC.
By analyzing the origin of non-conformance (NC) issues across each department, we can effectively focus our efforts on securing and enhancing the relevant sections and personnel involved.
- The CSD occur 72 NC that appropriate 58% over the NC occurrence of SAGS
The RED occur 35 NC/28% and the GOD only occur 17 NC/14%
- So that we recognize where we should input most secure, methods etc.to improve where NC occurrence
1.1.3 Ratio of NC occurrence per quality objectives
To assess the poor performance of various objectives during the same timeframe, we compare this data with that from 2012 to identify patterns of mismanagement and the recurring occurrence of non-conformities (NC) Our analysis focuses on comparing NC occurrences over the last six months of 2013 against the same period in 2012.
- There are 03 services which gain perfect result with 0% NC occurrence during operation lasting 06 months
In 2013, five services experienced a significant increase in non-conformities (NC) compared to 2012, with Ramp service showing a staggering 300% rise, reporting 12 NCs in 2013 versus only 4 in 2012 This indicates a decline in performance and service quality in 2013, adversely affecting customer satisfaction and airline targets aligned with global objectives.
1.1.4 Compare number of NC occurrence with same period of time 2012
Continously, we conduct this analyzation to recognize that how many NC occurrence during our operation to each quality objective
- There are 26 NC/2013 and only 14NC/2012 of departure CS It almost occurs double so the quality performance of depature customer services doesn’t meet customer airlines requirements
- Besides, the travel document services occurs 11 NC/2013 but only 06NC/2012
- But there are still good performance of flight with accident/big incident which only 2NC/2013 and 5NC/2012
- Finally, there are 05 quality objectives exceed NC occurrence in 2012 which mean we need to improve those services Besides, there are 11 quality objectives have good performance
1.1.5 Compare NC occurrence per airlines
Moreover, we statistic the NC occurrence per airlines in order to recognize the bad performance related to which airlines and ratio of NC occurrence per airlines
We compare the NC occurrence with the same of time 2012 to know that exactly how often the NC occurrence on per airlines and know ratio of the NC occurrence
- The most NC occurrence on VJ flights (11NC/2012 -> 26NC/2013) which appropriate 21.0%
- AK flights appropriate 12.9%, QR/9.7%, EK/8.9%
- Finally, there are 09 airlines NC occurrence exceeding at the same time of 2012
And 17 airlines left that NC occurrence less than 2012
1.1.6 Compare NC occurrence per airlines on yield
Besides, we conduct this analyzation base on yield of each airlines, we will know specifically the root of bad handling, NC occurrence during operation
Despite having a higher number of non-compliance (NC) occurrences, some airlines offer flight services that exceed 200% to 300% compared to others with fewer NC issues This disparity highlights the need to identify where preventive actions should be implemented to improve overall service quality and compliance.
- We compare the NC occurrence and yield so that we regconize that others flights
Charter services have experienced a significant increase in non-compliance occurrences, rising from 2.03% in 2012 to 4.68% in 2013 This translates to approximately 4.68 non-compliance incidents per 100 charter flights, indicating that these airlines represent a high-risk group in terms of service handling Due to their infrequent operations, it becomes challenging to maintain service quality that meets the airlines' requirements.
- Even VJ have highest NC occurrence but per 100 flights only there is 0.28 NC occurrences
- UA: per 100 flights, there are 3.47 NC occurrence
- Finally, there are 08 flights NC occurrence exceeding at the same time 2012 which base our actual flight yield.
Over view Objectives of full year 2013 vs 2012
1.2.1 Result of company quality objectives
Following a comprehensive evaluation of the last six months of 2013, we will analyze and assess the entire year's performance to gain a complete understanding of our company's effectiveness and the services provided to meet the needs of our airline customers.
We compare with the objectives of 2012 in order to see the performance repeatedly and will have generally overview and issue the corrective, preventive action accordingly, exactly
No Objective Ratio of plan (%)
Ensure 100% arrival and departure flight safety operation 100 100 Pass
Ensure 99.97424% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ big incident
Ensure 99.92841% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ small incident
Ensure 99.84894% departure flight don’t delay over 9’ 99.84894 99.94014 99.98912 99.972
Ensure 99.88869% departure flight don’t delay over 20’ 99.88869 99.96191 99.98912 99.972
Ensure 100% departure flight don’t delay over 21’ 100 99.96735 99.99456 99.972
Ensure 99,99925% departure passengers are checked travel document meeting standard
Ensure 99,99940% departure passenger are checked ticket meeting standard
Ensure 99.99789% departure checked bags are checked meeting standard 99.99789 99.9987
Ensure 99,98011% arrival flight meeting standard 99.98011 99.98911 99.98911 Pass
Ensure 99,93640% departure flight of W&B meeting standard 99.9364 99.93469 99.93469 Fail
Ensure 99,95227% arrival, departure flight of Loading process meeting standard 99.95227 99.98095 99.98095 Pass
Ensure 99.93238% arrival departure of Ramp serveice meeting standard 99.93238 99.9374 99.9374 Pass
Ensure 99,96816% arrival flight of Cabin Cleaning meeting standard 99.96816 100 Pass
Ensure 98% GSE of other companies are served meeting standard 98 98.77 98.77 Pass
- There are 04 failed objectives over 16 objectives of SAGS‘s 2013.
1.2.2 Ratio NC occurrence of 03 Departments (GOD/CSD/RED)
- The entire NC occurreces of 2012 are 234 and 2013 are 232 so the NC occurrence of 2013 decrease 02 NC
- The ratio making NC of CSD 52%/2012 and increase 57%/2013 GOD 29%/2012 decrease 27%/2013 RED 19%/2012 decrease 16%/2013
- Finally, the CSD is department that NC occurrences frequency
1.2.3 Ratio of NC occurrence per quality objectives
- In year 2013, there is one more new objective about maintenance services (16) and it obtains 100% good performance those bases on customer evaluation
- Compare between 2013 vs 2012, there are 05 objectives occurrence increasely
- 1 Ramp services: increase 77% that meaning is quality is decreasing
- The others objectives are reducing, very good performance especially, the Cabin cleaning services have 05 NC/2012 but 00NC/2013, obtain 100% good performance
- The quality of Ramp services are decreasing from 13NC/2012 up to 23NC/2013,
W&B services from 9NC/2012 up to 12NC/2013, Travel document services from 16NC/2012 up to 22NC/2013 and flights occur accident/big incident from 15NC/2012 up to 25NC/2013
1.2.4 Compare NC occurrence per airlines
Through this evaluation, we will recognize the bad performance related to which airlines and ratio of NC occurrence per airlines
- Compare about NC per airlines, VJ is the top airlines which low quality performance from 20NC/2012 up to 48NC/2013 aproppriate 20.7% the whole NC of the SAGS directly operation
- AK: 15NC/2012 up to 23NC/2013 aproppriate 9.9%
- EK: 05NC/2012 up to 22NC/2013 aproppriate 9.5%
- P8 stopped to operate from Feb, 2013
- Others: per airlines only utilize push back services or charter flight
1.2.5 Compare NC occurrence per airlines on yield
Through yield comparision, we will regconize the main risk that NC occurrence on each airline
- However, if we base on the yield of entire flights, EK is to risk performance in
2013 as per 100 flights will have 3.02 flight NC ocurrence, and next is UA, AE,
NH, QR Especially, VJ only 0.29 flight over 100 flights due to its have a high yield per year
- But in general, the frequencies of all airlines are tendentiously decreasing as 2012, especially EK.
Prevention action for 2014
In 2013, significant issues arose in various areas such as human safety, theft, negative activities, boarding services, travel document services, and loading services It is crucial for all departments to prioritize improvements in these areas and establish measurable goals for evaluation in 2014.
- Each department must focus on the bad performance that related on its objective and closely monitor the performance at the right place
- After analyzation each department where must evaluation and measurement itself in order to recognize where should improve the services to meet and satisfy customer airilines.
REVIEW GROUND OPERATION DEPARTMENT QUALITY
Over view Objectives of 06 last months
2.1.1 The result of quality objectives
There are 10 quality objectives of GOD Here is quality objective result:
No Quality Objectives Ratio of
1 Ensure 100% arrival and departure flights safety operation 100 0 100 0 Pass
2 Ensure 99.98029% arrival and departure flights don’t occur accident/ big incident
3 Ensure 99,98409% arrival and departure flights don’t occur accident/ small incident
4 Ensure 99,97615% departure flights don’t delay over 9’ 99.97615 2 99.98939 1 Pass
Ensure 99,97615% departure flights don’t delay over 20’ 99.97615 2 100 0 Pass
Ensure100% departure flights don’t delay over 21’ 100 0 99.98939 1 Fail
7 Ensure 99,98409% arrival, departure flights operation meeting standard 99.98409 3 100 0 Pass
8 Ensure 99,98011% arrival, departure flights are coordinated meeting standard
9 Ensure 99,93640% departure flights of W&B meeting standard 99.9364 6 99.93635 6 Fail
10 Ensure 99,95227% arrival, departure flight of Loading process meeting standard
- There are 02 failed quality objectives over 10 of GOD last 06 months 2013
2.1.2 Compare NC occurrence per quality objectives
GOD compares each service that related to quality objectives with same period of time 2012 in order to recognize the NC occurrence repeatedly
2.1.3 Ratio NC of 03 Sections (Loading/COOR/W&B)
Like the company analyzation, GOD also separate 03 sections that NC occurrence
To do it will help GOD manager know where the NC occurrence and sercure the operation management accordingly
- In the whole NC of GOD, Loadmaster occur 07 NC to aproppriate 41%, W&B occur 06 NC to aproppriate 35% and COOR occur 04 NC/24%
We compare the NC occurrence each section to evaluate the performance of each section and will know where we should focus to enforce monitoring, supervising and securing
- W&B: there are 06 NC/2013 decreasing 01 NC as 2012/07NC
02 NC related to sending message
02 NC related to transfer PNL
02 NC related to professional mistake
- Loadmaster: there are 07 NC/2013 as 11 NC/2012
02 NC related to accident/ small incident
01 NC related to flight delay over 20’
03 NC related to mis-offload checked bag on arrival flight
01 NC related to forget delivery document flight to Captain
- COOR: there are 04 NC same with 2013/2012
01 NC related to flight delay under 10’
03 NC related to professional mistake
- The NC occurrence of VJ oppropriate 24% of all airlines Then OZ, QR/18%,
UA/12%, 3K, AK, FD, LD, TR/6%
In 2012, certain airlines, including CV, EK, JT, NH, SV, TK, and UN, reported non-conformance (NC) occurrences, but by 2013, these airlines achieved zero NC occurrences, indicating significant improvements in service and quality.
2.1.6 Evaluate NC per airlines on yield
- Frequencies NC of last 06 months 2013 strongly decrease at CV, SV, LD, NH, 3U,
EK as the same time 2012 However, some airlines as OZ, QR increase NC such as QR/3, OZ/2
- Frequency NC of UA appropriate top 2013 but decrease as 2012 (1NC).
Over view Objectives of full year 2013
2.2.1 The result of quality objectives
1 Ensure 100% arrival and departure flights safety operation 100 0 100 0 Pass
2 Ensure 99.98029% arrival and departure flights don’t occur accident/ big incident
3 Ensure 99,98409% arrival and departure flights don’t occur accident/ small incident
4 Ensure 99,97615% departure flights don’t delay over 9’ 99.97615 4 99.98912 2 Pass
Ensure 99,97615% departure flights don’t delay over 20’ 99.97615 4 99.98912 2 Pass
Ensure100% departure flights don’t delay over 21’ 100 0 99.99456 1 Fail
7 Ensure 99,98409% arrival, departure flights operation meeting standard 99.98409 6 99.99456 2 Pass
8 Ensure 99,98011% arrival, departure flights are coordinated meeting standard
9 Ensure 99,93640% departure flights of W&B meeting standard 99.9364 12 99.93469 12 Fail
10 Ensure 99,95227% arrival, departure flight of Loading process meeting standard
- The quality objectives performance of GOD fails 03/10 quality objectives
- There is 01 failed objective that doesn’t happen at last 06 months.
2.2.2 Compare the result of quality objectives performance
With this comparision between 2012 performance, number NC occurrence allowance (plan setting) and actual NC occurrence
We will know how the concerned department performance through the year
In 2012, the number of Non-Conformities (NC) recorded was 44, but this figure has now decreased to 38, reflecting a 6 NC reduction Despite an increase in flight yields by 20.67%, the organization has successfully managed to minimize the occurrence of poorly handled NCs, demonstrating a commitment to maintaining quality standards even with a higher workload.
2.2.3 Ratio of NC occurence of 03 Sections of GOD
2.2.4 Ratio NC occurrence between 03 sections
- * 05 PNL transfer, wrong seatmap adjustment
- Loading: 15 NC/2013, decreasing 40% of NC occurrences -> good performance
- 2013, NC focus on VJ, QR, OZ, AK, LD, especially QR increasing 06 NC as 2012, appropriate 18.4, VJ/5 NC/ 21.1% of all GOD NC
- NC focuses to reduce at UA, TR, 3U, B7, LD, NH, EK, SV However, CV has high frequency of NC occurrence
- Especially, for freighter flights as MH, CV, LD have very high frequency NC occurrence even the low frequency flights.
Preventive action in 2014
- GOD monitors, supervises and requires staffs enforcedly to conduct the procedure, process and working instruction accordingly, accurately
Each section is assigned a quality assurance auditor (QA) responsible for monitoring and evaluating non-conformities (NC) to enhance operational practices The QA conducts regular audits of actual flight operations to identify discrepancies and irregularities Prompt actions are taken on-site to minimize NC occurrences, contributing to overall improvements in operational quality throughout 2014.
- There are still NC occurrence repeatedly in 2013 as 2012, GOD will re-evaluate the
NC, the corrective action and issue the right method to measure accordingly, effectively:
WnB section: NC occurrence repeatedly in 2013, especially in sending messages (06 NC) to other airlines station
Loading section: NC occurrence seriously in 2013, especially in damaging A/C compartment, wrong cargo loading
GOD will review with above sections manager to evaluate staff, supervisor performance and assign accordingly.
REVIEW CUSTOMER SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUALITY
Overview 06 last months 2013
3.1.1 Result of CSD quality objectives
Base on the company quality objectives, CSD manager separate into specific quality related to customer services operation
The quality objectives of CSD related to arrival services, lost and found services, ticketing services, check in services, boarding services etc
There are 15 quality objectives of CSD Here is quality objective result:
Ensure 100% arrival and departure flight safety operation 100 0 100 0 Pass
Ensure 99,99602% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ big incident
Ensure 99,97614% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ small incident 99.97614 4 99.97348 5 Fail
Ensure 99,90460% departure flight don’t delay over 9’ 99.9046 9 99.96817 3 Pass
Ensure 99 99,96025% departure flight don’t delay over 20’ 99.96025 4 99.96817 3 Pass
Ensure 100% departure flight don’t delay over 21’ 100 0 99.97878 2 Fail
Ensure 99,99925% departure passengers are checked travel document meeting standard 99.99925 10 99.99882 16 Fail
Ensure 99,99940% departure passenger are checked ticket meeting standard 99.9994 8 99.99993 1
Ensure 99,99893% departure checked bags are checked meeting standard 99.99893 9 99.99952 4
Ensure 99,80124% finalizing flight meeting standard 99.80124 19 99.91513 8
Ensure 99,99804% departure passenger are served meeting standard 99.99804 27 99.9983 23
12 Ensure 99,99910% departure 99.9991 12 99.99978 3 Pass passenger are boarded meeting standard
Ensure 99,99931% arrival & transit passenger are served meeting standard 99.99931 9 99.99978 3
Ensure 99,99981% special passenger are served meeting standard 99.99981 5 100 0
Ensure 99,99969% lost and found passenger are served meeting standard 99.99969 4 99.99993 1
- There are 03 quality objectives failing over 15 quality objectives
3.1.2 Compare of NC occurrence per quality objectives
Compare the services base on plan allowance of last 6 months 2013, 2012 and actual operation
Since 2012, travel document services have faced significant challenges, with 16 actual non-compliance occurrences compared to the planned 10 This poor performance negatively affects not only passengers and airline customers but also exposes our company to penalties due to airline regulations.
- Even the Customer service is not reaching the plan allowance but it seems impact badly to customer that has 23 NC occurrences as 27 NC occurrence allowance
After we recognize the bad performance on each service, we will focus on analyzing where this bad performance coming from by statisticing via per team
In the CSD, we divided into some team such as Team 1, Team 2, Team 3, Domestic team and each team will serve some appointed airlines
- There are 12 NC occurrences in last 6 months 2013 as the same period of time in
2012 at Team 6 (zero NC) Meaningfully, team 6 has very bad performance in this service so far
- Team 1 exceeds 02 NC occurrences as with same period of time 2012
- But other teams are served with good performance such as Team 3, Team 2, and
And the boarding service, we also analyze to recognize the performance and improvement of each team
- This boarding service objective reduces actively
For the services of delay flight operation, we analyze in order to know the NC occurrence in which team
- As the statistic, almost delay flights occurrence at Domestic team and other teams are reducing actively
In general performance of CSD, we recognize that the NC occurrences are increasing than 2012, look at the chart below:
- The NC of CSD in last 6 months 2013 are increasing 17 NC occurrences in last 6 months 2012 It is increasing 130%
- Meaningfully, the quality of CSD is decreasing and it also impacts directly into customer airlines goal and global performance of concerned customer airlines
3.1.7 Evaluate NC occurrence per team via each airlines
After we statistic which team has the most NC occurrences, we continuously evaluate which team and per airline perform badly
- The NC occurrence is highest in Team 6 then Domestic team
The analysis of non-conformance (NC) occurrences in the Air Asia group airlines reveals that AK/FD/QZ reported 22 NCs, VJ had 18 NCs, and UA/EK recorded 5 NCs This data allows us to identify which teams and airlines require targeted corrective and preventive actions to enhance overall performance and compliance.
3.1.8 Evaluate NC occurrence per team on yield
Now we know which team has the most NC occurrence, furthermore we analyze the ratio of each team base on flights of each airline
- However, if we evaluate on yield, the Team 6 is occupied 0.99% highly but the
Domestic team is only occupied 0.18% the ratio of NC occurrence between others
- So we must have solution for Team 6 due to almost 100 flight operation, Team 6 will cause 01 NC occurrence (0.99%) Secondly, Team 1 (0.76%)
Over the past six months of 2013, the Domestic team has recorded 18 non-conformance (NC) occurrences, despite having the highest workload within the entire Customer Service Division (CSD) This results in a low NC occurrence ratio of just 0.18%, indicating that approximately one NC occurs for every 500 flights handled.
3.1.9 Compare the ratio of NC occurrence per airlines
With this evaluation, we will recognize which airlines is most effected badly performance
- Besides, we compare NC occurrence per airline so we regconize the NC occurrence in Air Asia (AK/FD/QZ) concentratively, 31% occupation on all airlines Secondly,
VJ occupation 25% (18NC) and others airline reduction tendentiously.
Over view quality bjectives of 2013 vs 2012
3.2.1 The result of CSD performance
Now we evaluate the whole year 2013 in order to see the whole picture of CSD performance through a year so we will give the direction, prevention for 2014
Ensure 100% arrival and departure flight safety operation 100 0 0.00% 0 Pass
Ensure 99,99602% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ big incident 99.996 1 0.00% 0 Pass
Ensure 99,97614% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ small incident 99.9761 9 0.03% 10 Fail
Ensure 99,90460% departure flight don’t delay over 9’ 99.9046 18 0.02% 5
Ensure 99 99,96025% departure flight don’t delay over 20’ 99.9603 7 0.02% 5
Ensure 100% departure flight don’t delay over 21’ 100 0 0.03% 5
Ensure 99,99925% departure passengers are checked travel document meeting standard 99.9993 20 0.00% 22
Ensure 99,99940% departure passenger are checked ticket meeting standard 99.9994 16 0.00% 5
Ensure 99,99893% departure checked bags are checked meeting standard 99.9989 19 0.00% 12
Ensure 99,80124% finalizing flight meeting standard 99.8012 37 0.02% 10
Ensure 99,99804% departure passenger are served meeting standard 99.998 51 0.00% 39
Ensure 99,99910% departure passenger are boarded meeting standard 99.9991 24 0.00% 6
Ensure 99,99931% arrival & transit passenger are served meeting standard 99.9993 18 0.00% 5
Ensure 99,99981% special passenger are served meeting standard 99.9998 10 0.00% 1
Ensure 99,99969% lost and found passenger are served meeting standard 99.9997 8 0.00% 6
- There are still 03 failed quality objectives over 15 of CSD
3.2.2 Compare quality objectives of 2013 vs 2012
- In 2013 there are 03 failed objectives:
+ Accident/ small incident occupation 10 NC as 09 NC allowance
3.2.3 Evaluate travel document NC occurrence per team
- The travel document objectives are failed in both year 2013, 2012 that increase 06
NC occurrence than 2012 Almost the NC occurrence in Team 6, only 2 in Team 3 which reduce as the same period of time in 2012
3.2.4 Compare the NC occurrence of CSD
- The NC occurrence in 2013 increasing 08 NC, 20.67% exceeding as 2012
Ratio of increase and decrease of
3.2.5 Evaluate NC occurrence of delay flight per team
We analyze which team have most impacted the delay flight of CSD
- In general, the NC occurrence in delay flight is reducing as 2012
3.2.6 Evaluate NC occurrence of boarding services per team
- For the Boarding performance, the CSD operation effectively, the NC occurrence is reducing totally in 2013 compare with 2012 performance It should be remained continuously
3.2.7 Evaluate NC occurrence per team which detail in per airlines
- 2013, the NC occurrence still in Team 6 with Air Asia/30 NC, EK/9NC and
3.2.8 Evaluate NC occurrence per team on yield
To make the clearance which base on workload of each team per airlines, we countinuosly evaluate on each team
An evaluation of non-conformance (NC) occurrences reveals that Team 1 has a high rate of 0.82%, indicating poor performance compared to other teams In contrast, Team 6 recorded 39 NC occurrences but maintained a lower yield rate of only 0.38% Notably, the Domestic team demonstrates a significantly lower ratio of NC occurrences, highlighting their effective performance.
3.2.9 Evaluate the ratio of NC occurrence on individual airlines
- Compare NC occurrence in 2013 vs 2012, VJ and Air Asia appropriate 26% and
23% on entire airlines that NC occurrence Other airlines reduce such as AE, UA,
Preventive action in 2014
In 2013, CSD implemented temporary boarding services campaigns without thorough evaluation, resulting in unsatisfactory outcomes and poor on-time performance for customer airlines To address this, CSD should integrate a long-term strategy focused on enhancing service quality Establishing a monthly review process will allow for the assessment and measurement of staff performance improvements, ensuring that the boarding services objectives are consistently met.
+ Training center should lengthen training time to focus on content and OJT time for more effect
CSD should organize specialized knowledge seminars to address team NC occurrences, scheduling weekly sessions for underperforming teams and monthly sessions for high-performing teams It is essential for managers to participate in these seminars to foster improvement and share insights.
+ Moreover, if staff has bag performance in this objective frequently, CSD should change another suitable working position
- CSD manager must care about management, evaluate staff performance
(skill, attitude, productivity…) in order to suggest or offer accordingly Especially, CSD should cooperate with Training center to update the irregularity handling content and recurrent if necessary.
REVIEW RAMP EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT QUALITY
Overview quality objectives of 06 last months of 2013 and full 2013
4.1.1 The result of quality objectives a 06 last months 2013
Also base on company requirement and quality objectives, RED set the quality objective of itself in order to meet, satisfy customer airlines requirement and satisfaction
No Quality Objectives Ratio of plan (%)
1 Ensure 100% arrival and departure flight safety operation 100 0 100 0 Pass
Ensure 99,98807% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ big incident
Ensure 99,96818% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ small incident
4 Ensure 99,96820% departure flight don’t delay over 9’ 99.96820 3 99.96817 3 Fail
5 Ensure 99,95230% departure flight don’t delayover 20’ 99.9523 4 100 0 Pass
6 Ensure 100% departure flight don’t delay over 21’ 10 0 100 0 Pass
Ensure 99,94432% arrival and departure ramp service meeting standard
Ensure 99,98807% arrival and departure flight PBB service meeting standard
9 Ensure 99,99896% checked bag service meeting standard 9.99896 9 99.9994 5 Pass
10 Ensure 99.80294% departure flight has finalized accurancy 99.80294 19 99.94696 5 Pass
11 Ensure 99,99983% arrival bags are served meeting standard 99.99983 1 100 0 Pass
12 Ensure 99,96816% arrival flight 99.96816 3 100 0 Pass have cabin cleaning served meeting standard
Ensure 98% GSE of other companies are served meeting standard
Ensure 99,96716% arrival and departure flight have GSE operation met standard
15 Ensure GSE operation factor obtain 98% 98 0 98.85 0 Pass
We compare NC occurrences per quality objectives of 06 last months 2013
- There are 02 failed quality objectives over 15 of RED last 06 months 2013 which is number 4 and 7
In 2013, several notable occurrences were identified, primarily related to GSE technical issues, poor handling performance, staff assignment challenges, and customer complaints from airlines Notably, two incidents directly contravened company regulations, significantly impacting the company's reputation and image Additionally, the results of the quality objectives for the entire year highlight the need for improvement in these areas.
No Quality Objectives Ratio of
1 Ensure 100% arrival and departure flight safety operation 100 0 100 0 Pass
Ensure 99,98807% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ big incident
Ensure 99,96818% arrival and departure flight don’t occur accident/ small incident
4 Ensure 99,96820% departure flight don’t delay over 9’ 99.9682 6 99.97823 4 Pass
5 Ensure 99,95230% departure flight don’t delay over 20’ 99.9523 9 100 0 Pass
6 Ensure 100% departure flight don’t delay over 21’ 100 0 100 0 Pass
Ensure 99,94432% arrival and departure ramp service meeting standard
Ensure 99,98807% arrival and departure flight PBB service meeting standard
9 Ensure 99,99896% checked bag service meeting standard 99.99896 18 99.99938 11 Pass
10 Ensure 99.80294% departure flight has finalized accurancy 99.80294 36 99.96735 6 Pass
11 Ensure 99,99983% arrival bags are served meeting standard 99.99983 3 100 0 Pass
Ensure 99,96816% arrival flight have cabin cleaning served meeting standard
13 Ensure 98% GSE of other companies are served meeting standard 98 0 98.77 0 Pass
Ensure 99,96716% arrival and departure flight have GSE operation met standard
15 Ensure GSE operation factor obtain
Compare NC occurrences per quality objectives of 2013 vs 2012
- Full year 2013, there are 02 failed objectives over 15 that is number 2 and 7
Among them, the objectives number 2 & 7 are failed at last 06 months 2013 RED attempt to limit NC occurrence so that there are only 02 failed one
- The NC occurrences are not only in said above reason but also in failed communication between staff/staff, section to another section, damage to aircraft, occupational accident
4.1.2 Evaluate NC occurrence in each section a Last 06 months 2013 vs 2012
Compare ratio of NC occurrence of RED
RED NC last 6 months 2013 NC last 6 months 2012
Comment: Compare with 2012, RED has ratio of NC occurrence increasing from
Ratio increasing and decreasing of NC occurrences per section
- Ramp increases 26% from 14 to 19 NC which bad services to delivery to customer airlines
- Bag increases 9% from 10 to 11 NC
- Especially, Workshop reduces -20% from 6 to 5 NC This is meaning that our solution and prevention valuable for this section b Full year 2013
Compare NC occurrence of RED in 2013 vs 2012
- Ramp section appropriates 51% much more 2012 39% It means increasing tendency of this service
- Bag handling section is only 29% less than 2012 43%
- Workshop oppropriates more than 2012 from 10% to 21%
Ratio increasing and decreasing of NC occurrences per section
- Cabin cleaning and PBB section are good perfomance in the whole year 2013
- Ramp section appropriate 51% entire NC of RED, increasing 19% as 2012
- Bag seciton appropriate 29% entire NC of RED but reduce -61% NC occurrence
- In short, NC occurrence on safety operation (6NC) increasing 4NC as 2012 only
2NC (see chart below), regulation (4NC), staff assignment (1NC)
4.1.3 Evaluate NC occurrence on per airlines a Last 6 months 2013
Ratio of comparision per airlines
- There are some airlines that NC occurrence increasing fast as the same period of time in 2012
- QR/UA appropriate 11% from 2/2012 to 4/2013
- BL, TK appropriate 9% from 0/2012 to 3/2013
- Especially, some airlines such as FD, KE, MH, PR, SQ, SV had a few NC occurrence but zero NC on 2013 b Full of year 2013
Ratio of comparision per airlines
- EK appropriate 11%, 2 NC in 2012 but 7 NC in 2013
- UA reduce 12% to 8% (compare last 6 months 2013 with full year 2013)
4.1.4 Evaluate NC occurrence on flight yield a Last 6 months 2013
In the last six months of 2013, Emirates Airlines (EK) recorded a concerning increase in the non-compliance (NC) occurrence ratio, rising from 1.08% to 2.73% across 183 flights This statistic indicates that for every 100 flights operated by EK, there are approximately 2.73 instances of non-compliance, highlighting a significantly elevated risk in their flight operations.
- TK increases fast from 0% to 1.65%
- QR even flight yields increase from 183 flights at last 6 month 2012 to 362 at the same time in 2013 but only little increases from 1.10% to 2.16%
- There are some airlines LD, AK, FD, MH, 7C reducing the ratio of NC occurrence b Full year 2013
- EK: compare with last 6 month 2013, ratio of NC occurrence on yield (364 flights) from 2.73% to 1.92% and icrease from 0.94%/2012 to 1.92%/2013
- QR even has 675 flights in 2013 but only 1.04% NC occurrence as 1.64% in 2012
- VJ even has 8215 flights but only 0.07% (6NC) in year 2013
- And others airlines have much flights but the ratio of NC occurrence is very low.
Preventive action in 2014
- About human safety, RED manager should report specifically each case and report to HR for arrangement accordingly
To prevent operational errors with Ground Support Equipment (GSE), it is essential to update the manufacturing manual in accordance with current procedures For instance, a common mistake occurs when the high-lift platform is raised while the operator mistakenly lowers it, potentially causing damage to the fuselage, the operator, and surrounding GSE Regular research and updates are crucial to ensure safe and effective operation.
The RED manager must diligently oversee daily operations, particularly the briefing process between each RED section and the Loading section before handling tasks Immediate suspension of any staff or supervisor who fails to adhere to procedures is essential for maintaining operational integrity.
- For NC occurrence of regulation, managers on duty must monitor closely at each sensitive sites Conduct to prevent negative activities, RED should input it to priority task in 2014
- Cabin cleaning section has very impressive performance in many years recently Others manager of department should learn experienced from this section.
CONCLUSION
Following performance evaluations and management reviews, it is essential for the company to acknowledge the distinct responsibilities and authorities of managers, supervisors, and staff in their respective operations Managers and supervisors play two critical roles: overseeing and managing staff while possessing advanced specialized knowledge.
In the evaluation of the quality objectives for 2013, the Board of Directors acknowledged that the company's performance improved compared to 2012 This success is attributed not only to the efforts of the managers in the GOD, RED, and CSD departments but also to the collaborative support from other departments in achieving the company's objectives.
Finally, all the departments need to focus on the corrective actions, QMD should evaluate into the main point frequently to support, assist others department dessimination and learn experienced promptly.
REFERENCE
2 http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso_9000.htm