A Proposed Performance Assessment System for Sustainable Recruitment Processes for Experienced Cabin Attendants: The PAS Model

Abstract

Among airlines, the continuous increase in the transfer of cabin crews is noteworthy. This phenomenon can be attributed to the perception held by most airlines that experienced cabin attendants play a pivotal role in gaining a competitive advantage. Hence, airlines seek to transfer in experienced cabin attendants who enhance service quality, align with industry standards, and support ongoing improvement initiatives. This study aims to formulate a standardized performance assessment system for airlines to address challenges encountered by transferred cabin crews stemming from the difficulty of moving their past performance data to the receiving airlines. In this research, the triangulation technique was adopted to develop recommendations for the Turkish airline industry that can address the challenges airlines face during transfers of experienced cabin crew. Within the framework of the acquired information, a proposed performance assessment system for sustainable recruitment processes for experienced cabin attendants, termed the PAS model, is suggested. It is recommended that the proposed model undergo thorough investigation and implementation across various airlines, each adhering to different business models, through the International Air Transport Association (IATA). This would then contribute to sustainable professional career management of cabin attendants and enhance decision-making processes of managers, particularly in strategic human resources management, such as procurement and recruitment activities.

1. Introduction

Cabin crew transfers between airlines are constantly increasing. Advances in aviation technology and the level of global competition among airlines has led to the need for experienced cabin attendants who create a competitive advantage and add value to the sustainability of airline management. As airlines desire to transfer in experienced cabin crew who increase service quality, meet industry standards, and support continuous improvement efforts to carry out their operations with high performance and sustainability, the transfer costs of experienced cabin crew to the airline increase, and the relevant recruitment process becomes more complex.

Cabin attendants are responsible for passenger safety and delivering in-flight services during the flight. The responsibilities of the cabin crew encompass a range of tasks, including conducting pre-boarding security searches of the aircraft, overseeing emergency equipment, and inspecting catering and comfort materials such as food, beverages, pillows, blankets, etc. Subsequently, they assist passengers in boarding, facilitate their secure settlement in assigned seats, conclude all essential safety preparations before take-off, deliver requisite services for passenger safety and comfort throughout the entirety of the flight, bid farewell upon landing, and conduct a final security search after passenger disembarkation [1].

Cabin attendants receive seniority in proportion to their experience and performance levels, depending on international rules, and the position they are assigned on board is determined according to their seniority. In general, cabin crew members are assigned positions from the lowest to the highest, such as cabin attendants, cabin chiefs, instructors, examiners, check pursers, executive cabin staff, etc. [2].

The demand for cabin crew has witnessed a gradual rise over the years, influenced by a multitude of factors [3]. Due to the expansion of the airline sector, characterized by an increase in the number of aircraft, flights, and emerging airlines, the demand for cabin attendants has concurrently escalated.

Although there are determinations in the literature about the increase in demand for cabin attendants, a comprehensive study has yet to be found on the factors affecting the increase in demand. The factors affecting the demand for cabin crew can be placed within the framework of developments in aviation technology, the level of competition in the airline industry, and international regulations. These factors, which may affect the increase in cabin attendant demand, are listed from a holistic perspective:

• Increase in the number of flights: The need for cabin crew has steadily increased due to the 87% increase in the number of flights operated by global airlines between 1998 and 2017 [4,5]. Moreover, the total number of flights, 23.8 million in 2004, is anticipated to reach 34.4 million by the end of 2023 [5].
• Increase in the number of passengers: The growing number of passengers increases the need for cabin attendants. Between 1950 and 2016, the number of passengers carried worldwide increased by 1200 times, reaching 3.696 billion [6]. In 2023, it is estimated that the total number of individuals expected to travel by air will be 8.6 billion [7].
• Increase in the number of aircraft and change in aircraft types: Depending on the increasing number of aircraft, the number of cabin attendants required to be assigned to the aircraft increases. For example, Turkish Airlines (THY), registered in Turkish civil aviation, employed 3090 cabin attendants for 127 aircraft in 2008, while it employed 9798 cabin attendants for 313 aircraft in 2017 [8,9]. As of 2023, THY possesses 435 aircraft and employs 14,307 cabin attendants [10]. The number of cabin attendants to be assigned during the flight differs depending on the narrow- and wide-body aircraft newly introduced within the sector. Narrow-body aircraft are usually assigned four cabin crew members. However, depending on the business model adopted by the airline and the preference for wide-body aircraft, between 3 and 24 cabin crew members can be assigned per flight [11,12].
• Increase in the number of destinations: The initial deregulation decision implemented in the USA in 1978 was subsequently adopted globally [13], and airlines had the opportunity to open new destinations [14]. Even if airlines do not profit in the short term, they can open new destinations with the expectation of profit in the long term and can gain a competitive advantage [15]. More cabin attendants are needed to be able to fly to more destinations.
• International civil aviation regulations: The seniority and positions of cabin attendants who work in the airline are limited according to rules determined by civil aviation authorities such as IATA. For instance, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), a civil aviation authority in Turkey, mandates the appointment of an experienced individual as cabin chief in instances where there exists more than one cabin attendant on a flight [16].
• Increase in flight distance: International airlines operating long-haul flights must assign more cabin attendants than airlines operating short-haul flights [17]. The demand for cabin attendants varies depending on the legal requirements to be complied with, according to the distance travelled, for the destination, and the competitive strategy of the airlines.
• Increase in the number of airlines: The demand for cabin crew escalates with the establishment of each new airline.
• Different business models: With the fast economic growth worldwide, especially after 2000, the number of airlines operating internationally has increased rapidly. Airlines that are trying to increase their occupancy rates by carrying more passengers to more destinations for lower costs have started to adopt different business strategies [3]. Low-cost airlines with frequent and short flights and traditional airlines that want to make a difference by increasing their service quality have a demand for cabin attendants in different numbers and with different characteristics.

Boeing’s 2023 forecast suggests that a total of 938,000 new cabin attendants would be needed in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Russia and Central Asia, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and North America by 2042 [18]. When airlines need new cabin attendants, they focus on experienced cabin attendants to increase their competitiveness by improving service quality. One of the main reasons for this is the notion that the service performance of experienced cabin attendants will be high.

Reducing the challenges arising for airlines and cabin crews due to the increasingly prevalent transfer of senior cabin crews to other airlines is crucial. This is because experienced cabin attendants undergoing transfers cannot preserve their seniority and positions from their prior airlines. Airlines needing more information about the past performance of transferred experienced cabin attendants may commit errors in their recruitment processes by relying solely on reference checks and interview performance assessments. Therefore, the necessity of a standardized performance analysis method becomes increasingly crucial for the comprehensive airline system.

However, no standard performance assessment system, criteria, and criterion weights are used to measure cabin crew performance. The divergence in utilizing distinct performance assessment methods, criteria, and criterion weights used among airlines can be attributed to adopting varying business models. In the early stages of the airline industry, airlines that offer similar services to passengers started to adopt different business models, such as traditional, low-cost, regional, charter, and air taxi, depending on the intensity of increasing competition [19]. Due to the lack of a standard performance assessment system depending on different business models, evaluating the past performance status of experienced cabin crew transferred in by an airline during the procurement and recruitment process is impossible.

2. Research and Methodology

2.1. Purpose and Importance of the Research

The research aims to propose a sustainable performance assessment system for cabin crews, designated as the PAS model (performance assessment system proposal on recruitment processes for experienced cabin attendants).

The research incorporating the performance assessment system proposal in aviation represents the worldwide inaugural study on this subject.

The results, encompassing one traditional and two low-cost airlines, apply nationwide in Turkey. This is applicable to nine airline companies engaged in passenger transportation in Turkey. While one of these airline companies continues its operations as the flag carrier, adhering to traditional airline practices, the remaining eight airline companies adopt low-cost and charter business models [20].

The study outcomes and the model implementation are significant for airlines and experienced cabin crews. Airlines need the competence of cabin attendants to earn above-average returns and to maintain their existence in the long term in an environment where the intensity of competition is high. Experienced cabin attendants can positively affect the quality of service perceived by the passenger and on re-selecting the airline. To meet passenger demand in the rapidly growing sector, experienced cabin crews have been transferred on an international scale. Nevertheless, owing to the absence of a standardized performance assessment system, past performance evaluation outcomes cannot be seamlessly transferred to the recipient airline.

This circumstance gives rise to two issues. The first one is that the transferred experienced cabin attendants are recruited at a lower level of seniority and positions than in the previous airline. The second problem is that the procurement and recruitment function, which the airline operates to gain a competitive advantage by hiring the right person, is carried out independently of past performance results.

The significance of the proposed model lies in its ability to enable cabin crew members, who play a substantial role in the sector, to sustain their careers without losing their privileges acquired from previous airlines, and the airlines provide a competitive advantage by hiring the right employee. Additionally, it may contribute as a motivation factor to obtain benefits from human resources within the scope of corporate sustainability.

2.2. Research Method

In this study, the triangulation technique was employed. In the triangulation technique, to ensure robust internal validity, comparisons are conducted by employing information from three distinct sources [21]. Comparative evaluation of different sources within the scope of analysis allows researchers to gain different perspectives. The method can generally be classified as theory, researcher, data source, and method triangulation [22]. This research utilizes explicit data triangulation, employing document analysis, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews as the methods of data collection. The procedural steps for implementing triangulation in this research encompass the following.

In the development of the PAS model, initial utilization was made of ratings based on passenger observations by international airline and cabin evaluation organizations. In the assessment of airlines, Skytrax stands out as one of the most reputable organizations today. The annual release of its list of top airlines and the awards it distributes are crucial for reflecting the performance of airlines in the eyes of passengers [23].

Various international rating organizations, notably Skytrax, in the assessment of cabin crew performance consider criteria such as boarding assistance, service friendliness/hospitality, service attentiveness/efficiency, staff language skills, meal service efficiency, cabin presence throughout the flight, cabin PA (public address) announcements, cockpit PA information, assisting families, problem-solving skills, staff attitudes, staff service consistency, and staff grooming.

To enable the immediate applicability of the PAS model among different business models during cabin crew transfers, these assessment criteria have been categorized, based on definitions found in the literature, to align with the business models of traditional (full-service) and low-cost airlines.

According to sources in the literature, traditional performance assessment methods are generally used by traditional airlines. Traditional performance assessment methods focus on criteria such as attendance at work, passenger complaints, disciplinary sanctions, timely participation in the pre-flight briefing, completeness of uniform parts and adequacy of personal care, proficiency of emergency and safety knowledge, fulfilment of pre-departure duties, using positive body language during passenger welcome/farewell, working cleanly and in an orderly fashion during flight, the manner of behaviour towards passengers, and a style of action suitable for teamwork [24].

On the other hand, contemporary performance assessment methods are generally preferred by low-cost airlines. In addition to traditional methods, the performance criteria they focus on include the cabin crew’s appearance, communication ability, technical competence, organizational skills, success in problem-solving, interaction with the passenger, cooperation with the crew, and management skills [24].

After the criteria were classified within the scope of the different business models, the criteria emphasized in the literature for the performance assessment of airline cabin crews were reviewed. Thus, to identify data sources, the databases of Kocaeli University, Eskisehir Technical University, and Anadolu University were consulted to establish a contextual understanding. The initial version of the criteria and sub-criteria recommended for transferring experienced cabin crew was developed by utilizing information from international rating organizations and university publications in aviation management education.

In the subsequent phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with twelve individuals holding various managerial positions within the cabin crew departments of four airlines in Turkey, including one flag carrier and three low-cost carriers. These airlines collectively represent diverse operational models. The insights gleaned from these interviews were instrumental in refining the PAS model, resulting in its second version.

In the third stage, a focus group comprising a total of 37 participants was assembled, including ten academics with over twenty years of experience in aviation management, twelve managers with a minimum of five years of experience in the cabin crew department, and fifteen individuals with at least ten years of cabin crew experience, having worked in at least two different airline models. The focus group was convened to solicit input on determining the criteria and sub-criteria of the PAS model within the framework of distinct business models. The data obtained from the focus group were iteratively organized, refined, and returned for validation three times, ultimately leading to the final version of the PAS Model.

3. The Collection and Analysis of Data Pertaining to Performance Assessment Criteria, the Development of the PAS Model, and Transformation Examples

As detailed in the methodology section, the PAS model was constructed based on data obtained from airline managers, academicians, and experienced cabin crew members. The data facilitated the determination of the leading and sub-criteria considered by traditional and low-cost airlines in their cabin crews, along with their respective weights.

Below are details on the collection and analysis of data on the performance assessment criteria, the development of the PAS model, and transformation examples on a Turkish scale.

3.1. Data Collection and Analysis of Performance Assessment Criteria Employed by Turkish Airline Companies

The collective efforts of all personnel are crucial for successful and functional airline operations. However, the highest responsibility falls on the cabin crew to ensure that passengers have a satisfying, comfortable, and enjoyable flight. The capabilities and attitudes of the cabin crew are essential in the passenger choosing the airline again. Hence, optimizing cabin crew performance is one of the primary objectives for all proficient and well-managed airlines [25].

While traditional or low-cost airlines may employ different performance assessment methods, a substantial portion of the performance assessment criteria is similar or identical. However, the weights assigned to these performance assessment criteria can vary across airlines.

Therefore, the criteria and weights considered by three airlines, each adopting different business models—one being the flag carrier traditional model and the other two employing low-cost models—have been determined when evaluating the performance of their cabin crews. Shown in

Table 1. The performance assessment criteria and weights applied to cabin crew by airlines adopting different business models in Turkey.

Criteria	Traditional Airline 1 Percentage Weights	Low-Cost Airline 1 Percentage Weights	Low-Cost Airline 2 Percentage Weights
Corporate commitment	8%	10%	5%
Organizational commitment	5%	-	5%
Uniform integrity and personal care	3%	10%	-
Collaboration and team communication	9%	5%	10%
Team spirit and taking responsibility when off duty	3%	-	2%
Effective communication with teammates	3%	2%	3%
Reporting on and being reported of problems among attendants during flight	3%	3%	5%
Catering service	8%	-	-
Friendly service	5%	-	-
Correct and effective presentation of products	3%	-	-
Analysing and problem solving	5%	5%	10%
Offering alternatives to the passenger	-	3%	5%
Solving passenger problems quickly	5%	2%	5%
Continuous learning and personal development	5%	10%	8%
Being open to learning	2%	3%	5%
Being open to criticism	2%	2%	3%
Participation in optional professional development activities	1%	5%	-
Effective communication and customer orientation	7%	8%	6%
Greeting passengers with a smiling face	4%	8%	2%
Using positive body language during the flight	3%	-	4%
Compliance with operational standards and procedures	9%	8%	7%
Staying up to date by following the recently published procedures	5%	3%	3%
Implementing procedures	4%	5%	4%
Occupational health and safety	6%	15%	16%
Frequency of receiving sick report	4%	10%	8%
Frequency of occupational accident	2%	5%	8%
Success status in training results	7%	4%	3%
Success status as the result of recurrent training	5%	2%	3%
Completing E -learning training on time	2%	2%	-
Foreign language level	8%	6%	7%
English proficiency	6%	3%	6%
Effective announcements	2%	3%	1%
Ability to speak multiple foreign languages	-	-	-
Emergency and normal safety knowledge control	8%	4%	3%
Spot test success status	4%	-	-
Success status in line controls	4%	4%	3%
Passenger feedback	12%	5%	-
Number of passenger acknowledgments	4%	3%	-
Number of passenger complaints	8%	2%	-
Sales orientation	-	20%	25%
Sales of food and beverage products	-	15%	20%
Duty-free and souvenir sales	-	5%	5%
Assessment of airline personnel about the cabin attendant	8%	-	-
Mystery passenger assessments	-	-	-
Assessment by airline staff when they join the flight as a passenger or deadhead crew	8%	-	-
Total	100%	100%	100%

are the various performance assessment methods, criteria, and their respective weights employed by Turkish airline companies.

Therefore, airlines that adopt different or the same business models can reach different performance results when evaluating the performance of experienced cabin attendants. When transferring experienced cabin crew, the past performance data of the candidate is meaningless for the airline that requests the transfer.

The significance of the presented table reflects the current situation. If the criteria in performance management are not determined correctly and adequately, they create a risk for sustainable performance. However, if the criteria are determined in terms of performance management, they can turn risks into sustainability opportunities.

3.2. Performance Assessment System Proposal on Recruitment Processes for Experienced Cabin Attendants (PAS Model)

The PAS model aims to harmonize the performance criteria and corresponding criterion weights employed by airlines in assessing cabin attendant performance. The PAS model transforms the performance results of the candidate into the criteria and criterion weights of the airline requesting the transfer of experienced cabin crew between the same or different business models.

To better manage the procurement and recruitment activities during the transfer process and to carry the seniority and positions of the cabin crew from the airline they worked for to the airline to which they were transferred, it is necessary to determine standard performance assessment criteria and criterion weights based on the business model.

If the model proposed is implemented by the airlines, it will support the effective and efficient execution of airline procurement and recruitment activities in transferring cabin attendants. For instance, an airline that wants to transfer an experienced cabin crew member may request that the candidate bring their past performance status if they are working for an airline that adopts the same business model. A transformed performance status can be asked if they work in an airline adopting a different business model. Similarly, suppose a condition is specified in the job posting that the past performance status must be above a specific score. In that case, savings will be achieved regarding time spent and costs incurred in the procurement and selection process.

Airlines tend not to share the criteria and weights they consider when evaluating cabin crew performance. For this reason, it is essential to spread the use of the PAS model through a department established by a reliable regulatory institution such as IATA. The performance status of the experienced cabin crew will be transformed by the respective department performance assessment system of the transferring airline.

Cabin attendants are certified by institutions assigned by the authorized DGCA. One of the suggestions of the PAS model is that the number written on the certificates should be given as an identification number to the members of the department we recommend being established by IATA. Implementing such an identity recognition system is likely to mitigate similar situations.

The candidate will be able to permit the airline to which they are applying for the job to monitor their personal performance data through IATA and will be able to have their identification number issued by IATA during the application. In addition, the airline can request the converted performance data that the candidate can bring from IATA by asking for it.

The airline, which has information about the past professional performance of the cabin crew, will be able to decide more easily on giving the appropriate seniority and position relative to the candidate’s experience. In the case of flight attendant transfer between airlines, accepting the previous seniority/status may positively affect the job satisfaction level of the cabin attendant. It may cause the performance-related service quality to be maintained at a particular level. On the other hand, accepting the previous seniority/position may adversely affect the overall performance of the airline, as it may hinder the career of other flight attendants working in the airline and cause disruption of workplace harmony.

The PAS model proposes a strategy wherein 50% of the seniority and professional status of the cabin crew members from their previous airline should be acknowledged to preserve workplace harmony. In this way, it will be possible to prevent the cabin crew from being employed at the lowest seniority and position in the airline to which they are transferred, and the cabin crew will have an advantage in terms of time for transitioning to a higher seniority and status.

In terms of the functionality of the PAS model, first, it is necessary to determine the standard and job-specific performance criteria that all airlines can use for cabin attendant transfer. In general, cabin attendants are expected to be friendly and helpful, communicate well with passengers, pay attention to their physical appearance (height-to-weight ratio) and health, and know a foreign language [26]. In the airline sector, cabin attendants who serve passengers are at the forefront. Since cabin crews are at the forefront and significantly impact the passenger’s perception of service quality [27], the above features must be present in all cabin crew, regardless of the business model.

Cabin attendants who have transferred to a different business model must add new performance targets to the above-mentioned standard criteria to reach the performance targets set by the airline. Depending on the business model, cabin crews may be expected to focus on in-flight sales or keep service quality high. For example, an airline that adopts a low-cost business model strives to have ancillary income by selling food and beverages during the flight [28] and expects cabin attendants to be sales-oriented [29].

The PAS model, created by the triangulation method and presented in

Table 2. Performance assessment system model on recruitment processes for experienced cabin attendants (PAS model).

Criteria	Traditional Airline Percentage Weights	Low-Cost Airline Percentage Weights
Corporate Culture and Corporate Commitment	11%	9%
Exhibiting Behaviour Compatible with Airline Culture	4%	4%
2. Behaviour Indicating Commitment	2%	3%
3. Standardization, Uniform Compliance, and Personal Care	2%	1%
4. The Completeness of Documents, Certificates, and Goods Obligated to Carry	2%	1%
5. Frequency of Use of Excused Leave	1%	-
Effective Communication, Team Spirit, and Cooperation	11%	12%
Greeting Passengers with a Smiling Face	3%	2%
2. Using Positive Body Language Throughout the Flight	3%	2%
3. Alignment with Team Members	3%	4%
4. In-Team Assistance	2%	4%
Analysing and Problem Solving	4%	11%
Detecting Operational Disruption	2%	3%
2. Ability to Produce Practical Solutions	2%	4%
3. Ability to Use Initiative	-	4%
Continuous Learning and Personal Development	9%	13%
Participation in Existing Personal Development Activities	3%	4%
2. Requesting New Personal Development Training	-	1%
3. Timely Participation and Success in Planned Vocational Training	3%	3%
4. Follow-up of Planned Distance Education and Success Status	2%	3%
5. Making Suggestions by Following the Developments in the Sector	1%	2%
Attributing Importance to Occupational Health and Safety	10%	9%
Detecting Problems that Endanger Occupational Health and Suggesting Solutions	2%	3%
2. Identifying Deficiencies in Occupational Safety and Offering Solutions	2%	2%
3. Frequency of Received Sick Reports	3%	4%
4. Frequency of Occupational Accidents	3%	-
Emergency and Normal Safety Knowledge	12%	6%
First Aid Knowledge	2%	1%
2. Dangerous Goods (DGR) Knowledge	2%	1%
3. Evacuation Knowledge	1%	2%
4. Decompression Knowledge	1%	1%
5. Fire Fighting Knowledge	2%	1%
6. Spot Test Success Status	2%	-
7. Success Status in Line Checks	2%	-
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)	5%	6%
Implementing SOP	3%	2%
2. Following Announcements and Recent Airline Procedures	2%	4%
Foreign Language Proficiency Level and Effective Announcements	11%	9%
English Proficiency Level	3%	2%
2. Fluent Speech and Correct Pronunciation	3%	2%
3. Ability to Speak Multiple Foreign Languages	2%	-
4. Effective Announcements	1%	2%
5. Making Timely and Accurate Announcements	2%	3%
Feedback from Passengers, Subordinates and Superiors	13%	9%
Number of Passenger Acknowledgments/Complaints	5%	2%
2. Number of Acknowledgments/Complaints from Subordinates	-	2%
3. Number of Acknowledgments from Superiors	4%	3%
4. Number of Cautions, Reprimands, and Final Warnings	4%	2%
Total	100%	100%

, is designed to use a performance assessment system for cabin attendants according to the business model adopted by airlines. The weights of the main and sub-criteria given in Table 2 were created by averaging the data obtained from full-service providers and low-cost airlines during the research. In this way, the procurement and selection process and career planning problems arising from performance assessment in cabin crew transfers to be realized between the same business models will be eliminated. In transfer activities between different business models, the performance data converted using the PAS model can be meaningful for the airline requesting the transfer.

Table 3. A comparative analysis of cabin attendant performance scores in traditional airlines based on performance assessment criteria and weightings in comparison with low-cost airlines.

Criteria	Maximum Points Earned on Traditional Airline			Performance Points of the Cabin Attendant in the Traditional Airline		Traditional Airline Percentage Weights		Low-Cost Airline Percentage Weights		Point Equivalents by Low-Cost Airline
Corporate Culture and Corporate Commitment	11			7		11%		9%		5
Exhibiting Behaviour Compatible with Airline Culture	4			2		4%		4%		2
2. Behaviour Indicating Commitment	2			1		2%		3%		1.5
3. Standardization, Uniform Compliance and Personal Care	2			2		2%		1%		1
4. The Completeness of Documents, Certificates, and Goods Obligated to Carry	2			1		2%		1%		0.5
5. Frequency of Using Excused Leave	1			1		1%		-		-
Effective Communication, Team Spirit, and Cooperation	11			6		11%		12%		6.68
Greeting Passengers with a Smiling Face	3			2		3%		2%		1.34
2. Using Positive Body Language Throughout the Flight	3			1		3%		2%		0.67
3. Alignment with Team Members	3			2		3%		4%		2.67
4. In-Team Assistance	2			1		2%		4%		2
Analysing and Problem Solving	4			3		4%		11%		5.5
Detecting Operational Disruption	2			1		2%		3%		1.5
2. Ability to Produce Practical Solutions	2			2		2%		4%		4
3. Ability to Use Initiative	-			-		-		4%		-
Continuous Learning and Personal Development	9			7		9%		13%		8.67
Participation in Current Personal Development Activities	3			2		3%		4%		2.67
2. Requesting New Personal Development Trainings	-			-		-		1%		-
3. Timely Participation and Success in Planned Vocational Trainings	3			3		3%		3%		3
4. Follow-up of Planned Distance Education and Success Status	2			2		2%		3%		3
5. Making Suggestions by Following the Developments in the Sector	1			-		1%		2%		-
Attributing Importance to Occupational Health and Safety	10			8		10%		9%		6.17
Detecting Problems that Endanger Occupational Health and Suggesting Solutions	2			1		2%		3%		1.5
2. Identifying Deficiencies in Occupational Safety and Offering Solutions	2			2		2%		2%		2
3. Frequency of Received Sick Reports	3			2		3%		4%		2.67
4. Frequency of Occupational Accidents	3			3		3%		-		-
Emergency and Normal Safety Knowledge	12			10		12%		6%		4.5
First Aid Knowledge	2			2		2%		1%		1
2. Dangerous Goods (DGR) Knowledge	2			2		2%		1%		1
3. Evacuation Knowledge	1			1		1%		2%		2
4. Decompression Knowledge	1			1		1%		1%		1
5. Fire Fighting Knowledge	2			1		2%		1%		0.5
6. Spot Test Success Status	2			1		2%		-		-
7. Success Status in Line Checks	2			2		2%		-		-
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)	5			3		5%		6%		4.34
Implementing SOP	3			2		3%		2%		1.34
2. Following Announcements and Recent Airline Procedures	2			1		2%		4%		2
Foreign Language Proficiency Level and Effective Announcements	11			8		11%		9%		6.18
English Proficiency Level	3			2		3%		2%		1.34
2. Fluent Speech and Correct Pronunciation	3			2		3%		2%		1.34
3. Ability to Speak Multiple Foreign Languages	2			2		2%		-		-
4. Effective Announcements	1			1		1%		2%		2
5. Making Timely and Accurate Announcements	2			1		2%		3%		1.5
Feedback from Passengers, Subordinates, and Superiors	13			9		13%		9%		4.7
Number of Passenger Acknowledgments/Complaints	5			3		5%		2%		1.2
2. Number of Acknowledgments/Complaints from Subordinates	-			-		-		2%		-
3. Number of Acknowledgments from Superiors	4			2		4%		3%		1.5
4. Number of Cautions, Reprimands, and Final Warnings	4			4		4%		2%		2
Total and Convertible Performance Criterion/Sub-Criteria Score/Percentage	86			61/52		86%/76%		84%/77%		51.74
Result from Conversion	It would not be an accurate result to turn 52 points out of a total of 69 points that can be evaluated due to the difference in performance criteria, into 51.74 points. Each point corresponds to 0.995 when converting. Considering the differences in performance criteria, 16.915 (17 × 0.995) points should be added instead of 17 (69 − 52 = 17) points that were not evaluated in the main and sub-criteria to make the transformation healthy and accurate. Therefore, the converted performance score should be 68.655.									51.74 + 16.915 = 68.655
Main Criterion and Performance Score That is in Traditional Airline But is Not in Low-Cost Airline				Main Criterion and Performance Score That is in Low-Cost Airline But is Not in Traditional Airline
Passenger and Service Orientation	14	8	14%	Sales Orientation					16%
Having Comprehensive Knowledge of Product and Service	5	3	5%	Percentage of Achieving the Set Target in the Sales of In-Flight Catering Products					5%
2. Providing Accurate and Timely Service to the Passenger	4	2	4%	2. Product Range and Bundle Knowledge					3%
3. Determining Service Needs Without Request by the Passengers.	2	1	2%	3. Ability to Convince the Passenger to Buy a Product 4. Suggesting an Alternative Product					4%
4. Exhibiting Behaviour that Satisfies the Expectations of Passengers from Different Cultures	3	2	3%	5. Percentage of Achieving the Set Target in the Sales of Duty-Free Products and Souvenirs					2%
Total	100	69	100%	100%						68.655

and

Table 4. The comparative assessment of cabin attendant performance scores in low-cost airlines by the performance assessment criteria and weights employed by traditional airlines.

Criteria	Maximum Points Earned on Low-Cost Airline			Performance Points of the Cabin Attendant in Low-Cost Airline		Low-Cost Percentage Weights		Traditional Airline Percentage Weights		Point Equivalents by Traditional Airline
Corporate Culture and Corporate Commitment	9			6		9%		11%		6.34
Exhibiting Behaviour Compatible with Airline Culture	4			3		4%		4%		3
2. Behaviour Indicating Commitment	3			2		3%		2%		1.34
3. Standardization, Uniform Compliance, and Personal Care	1			1		1%		2%		2
4. The Completeness of Documents, Certificates, and Goods Obligated to Carry	1			-		1%		2%		-
5. Frequency of Using Excused Leave	-			-		-		1%		-
Effective Communication, Team Spirit, and Cooperation	12			9		12%		11%		8.25
Greeting Passengers with a Smiling Face	2			2		2%		3%		3
2. Using Positive Body Language Throughout the Flight	2			1		2%		3%		1.5
3. Alignment with Team Members	4			3		4%		3%		2.25
4. In-Team Assistance	4			3		4%		2%		1.5
Analysing and Problem Solving	11			8		11%		4%		2.84
Detecting Operational Disruption	3			2		3%		2%		1.34
2. Ability to Produce Practical Solutions	4			3		4%		2%		1.5
3. Ability to Use Initiative	4			3		4%		-		-
Continuous Learning and Personal Development	14			10		13%		9%		6.59
Participation in Current Personal Development Activities	4			3		4%		3%		2.25
2. Requesting New Personal Development Trainings	2			2		1%		-		-
3. Timely Participation and Success in Planned Vocational Training	3			3		3%		3%		3
4. Follow-up of Planned Distance Education and Success Status	3			2		3%		2%		1.34
5. Making Suggestions by Following the Developments in the Sector	2			-		2%		1%		-
Attributing Importance to Occupational Health and Safety	9			7		9%		10%		5.59
1. Detecting Problems that Endanger Occupational Health and Suggesting Solutions	3			2		3%		2%		1.34
2. Identifying Deficiencies in Occupational Safety and Offering Solutions	2			2		2%		2%		2
3. Frequency of Receiving Sick Reports	4			3		4%		3%		2.25
4. Frequency of Occupational Accidents	-			-		-		3%		-
Emergency and Normal Safety Knowledge	5			5		6%		12%		7.5
First Aid Knowledge	1			1		1%		2%		2
2. Dangerous Goods (DGR) Knowledge	1			1		1%		2%		2
3. Evacuation Knowledge	1			1		2%		1%		0.5
4. Decompression Knowledge	1			1		1%		1%		1
5. Fire Fighting Knowledge	1			1		1%		2%		2
6. Spot Test Success Status	-			-		-		2%		-
7. Success Status in Line Checks	-			-		-		2%		-
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)	6			5		6%		5%		6
Implementing SOP	2			2		2%		3%		3
2. Following Announcements and Recent Airline Procedures	4			3		4%		2%		1.5
Foreign Language Proficiency Level and Effective Announcements	9			4		9%		11%		3.5
English Proficiency Level	2			1		2%		3%		1.5
2. Fluent Speech and Correct Pronunciation	2			2		2%		3%		3
3. Ability to Speak Multiple Foreign Languages	-			-		-		2%		-
4. Effective Announcements	2			1		2%		1%		0.5
5. Making Timely and Accurate Announcements	3			-		3%		2%		-
Feedback from Passengers, Subordinates and Superiors	9			5		9%		13%		6.67
Number of Passenger Acknowledgments/Complaints	2			-		2%		5%		-
2. Number of Acknowledgments/Complaints from Subordinates	2			1		2%		-		-
3. Number of Acknowledgments from Superiors	3			2		3%		4%		2.67
4. Number of Cautions, Reprimands, and Final Warnings	2			2		2%		4%		4
Total and Convertible Performance Criterion/Sub-Criteria Score/Percentage	84			59/53		84%/77%		86%/76%		53.28
Result from Conversion	It would not be an accurate result to turn 53 points out of a total of 59 points that can be evaluated due to the difference in performance criteria. Each point corresponds to 1.005 when converting. Considering the differences in performance criteria, 17.085 (17 × 1.005) points should be added instead of 17 (70 − 53 = 17) points that were not evaluated in the main and sub-criteria to make the transformation healthy and accurate. Therefore, the converted performance score should be 70.365.									53.28 + 17.085 = 70.365
Main Criterion and Performance Score That is in the Low-Cost Airline But is Not in the Traditional Airline				Main Criterion and Performance Score That is in the Traditional Airline But is Not in the Low-Cost Airline
Sales Orientation	16	11	16%	Passenger and Service Orientation					14%
Percentage of Achieving the Set Target in the Sales of In-Flight Catering Products	5	4	5%	Having Comprehensive Knowledge of Product and Service					5%
2. Product Range and Bundle Knowledge	3	2	3%	2. Providing Accurate and Timely Service to the Passenger					4%
3. Ability to Convince the Passenger to Buy a Product	4	2	4%	3. Determining Service Needs Without Request by the Passengers.					2%
4. Suggesting an Alternative Product	2	2	2%	4. Exhibiting Behaviour that Satisfies the Expectations of Passengers from Different Cultures					3%
5. Percentage of Achieving the Set Target in the Sales of Duty Free and Souvenirs	2	1	2%
Total	100	70	100%	100%						70.365

show how the performance assessment data will be transformed in the transfer activities to be carried out between two airlines, one of which adopts a traditional and the other a low-cost business model, using the PAS model. Each row in Table 3 represents the main and sub-criteria. Shown in the columns are the maximum points that can be obtained for the relevant main and sub-criteria in the traditional airline, the actual scores of the candidate, the percentage weights of the main and sub-criteria, the percentage weights of the low-cost airline, and the converted scores in the last column. The past performance assessment scores of the experienced cabin crew to be transferred, indicated in the second column, have been hypothetically determined for illustrative purposes.

Upon examining the provided example in Table 3, it is observed that only 52 points can be used among the main and sub-criteria that make up the 69-point performance score of the cabin attendant who transferred from the airline that adopts the traditional business model to the airline that adopts the low-cost business model, depending on the difference in the performance criteria and weights used in the performance assessment. It is assumed that the performance of the cabin crew, which received 52 points for a specific criterion, remained consistent across the remaining 17 points, and the distribution of performance points was assumed to be similar. As a result, every 1 point that can be converted from the principal/sub-criterion scores and weights in the table has an effect of 0.995 points on the low-cost airline. In this case, the result can be found to be 68.655 by adding 16.915 points instead of 17 points that cannot be converted.

Table 4 shows the performance score of a cabin attendant who will be transferred from a low-cost airline to a traditional airline, according to the traditional airline performance assessment criteria and weights.

Upon examining the provided example in Table 4, it is observed that only 53 points out of the main and sub-criteria that make up the 70-performance score of the cabin attendant who transferred from the low-cost airline to the traditional airline can be used due to the different performance criteria and weights used in the performance assessment. It is assumed that the performance of the cabin crew, which received 52 points for a specific criterion, remained consistent across the remaining 17 points, and the distribution of performance points was assumed to be similar. As a result, every 1 point that can be converted from the principal/sub-criteria scores and weights in the table affects 1.005 points in the traditional airline. In this case, the result can be found as 70.365 by adding 17.085 points instead of 17 points that cannot be converted.

When Table 3 and Table 4 are examined, it can be seen that the past performance status of cabin attendants has become meaningful for the airline requesting the transfer. In a narrow sense, the PAS model is presented as a solution to the problem of not monitoring the past performance status of cabin crew. In the broader sense, in the case of transfer of the cabin attendants, the PAS model is recommended as a solution to not being able to start a new job in the previous seniority/position and to manage the procurement and selection processes of airlines effectively.

4. Conclusions

The aviation sector is characterized by continual expansion and high levels of competition. Consequently, the increasing prevalence of transfers by airline cabin crews can be attributed to the industry’s dynamic nature and the imperative to engage qualified and licensed personnel in civil aviation operations.

Business enterprises subject to international regulations, particularly airlines, underscore the paramount significance of their employees’ professional and personal competencies. Collaborating with proficient personnel in a sector that has sustained growth since its inception is desirable.

It is strategically important to identify individuals capable of fulfilling the criteria for a cabin crew position and actively contributing to maintaining service quality at a high standard. Challenges in securing new cabin attendants with sought-after qualifications may prompt airlines to seek out experienced cabin crew members.

Experienced cabin attendants play a pivotal role in enhancing the corporate image and establishing a positive correlation between the corporate image and the subsequent propensity of customers to choose the airline again. Increasing rates of re-selection hold strategic significance for both profitability and sustainability. Therefore, airlines prioritize performance assessment to enhance the cabin crew’s contribution to the corporate image.

Airlines endeavouring to attain a competitive advantage through the engagement of experienced cabin attendants encounter challenges in effectively overseeing the procurement and recruitment processes. The primary obstacle stems from the absence of meticulous management, wherein, despite the availability of information regarding the professional experience of prospective cabin crew members, a deficiency persists in accessing data on their past performance status. This deficiency arises from airlines’ need for a standardized performance assessment system. Conversely, the escalating demand for experienced cabin attendants prompts airlines to proffer enhanced remuneration and benefits. However, those cabin attendants who transition for improved compensation and benefits need help transmitting their historical performance data to the airline they recently joined. Consequently, they face being recruited at lower seniority levels and positions despite their wealth of experience.

Considering the lack of standardized performance assessment criteria and corresponding weights within the aviation industry, a triangulation method was applied nationwide in Turkey to develop the PAS model.

This model was specifically formulated to accommodate two distinct business models: traditional and low-cost. The PAS model is intricately designed to standardize airlines’ diverse criteria and criterion weights in their performance assessment procedures. This model facilitates more efficient procurement and recruitment activity management throughout the cabin attendant transfer process by scrutinizing past performance data. Consequently, such an approach yields advantages, enhancing temporal efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

A recommended strategy is for the airline receiving an experienced cabin crew member through transfer to consider fifty percent of their previous seniority and position. This approach aims to address the issue of cabin crew members being recruited at a lower seniority and position relative to their experience. Implementation of this recommendation not only mitigates such challenges but also contributes to the preservation of a harmonious working environment among the cabin crew within the receiving airline.

For the optimal integration and widespread adoption of the PAS model, obtaining recognition from a reputable regulatory institution, such as IATA, is crucial. In instances where the main and sub-criteria, derived from diverse sources within the PAS model, and the associated weights are not readily accepted, there exists the possibility of having IATA, or a collaborative working group convened through IATA, delineate the main and sub-criteria, along with their corresponding weights. This collaborative approach ensures a comprehensive evaluation process, incorporating the perspectives of entities vested with the authority to assess cabin crew performance.

The PAS model advocates for the oversight of cabin attendants’ past performance data by IATA and its subsequent conversion, based on the performance criteria and criterion weights specific to the respective airline during cabin crew transfer. Assigning a unique identification number to cabin crew members is imperative to uphold privacy standards. Additionally, the release of past performance data to the intended airline should be contingent upon the cabin attendant’s explicit permission or may be provided directly upon the cabin attendant’s request. This approach ensures a balance between information sharing and individual privacy considerations.

While the PAS model is a valuable tool for monitoring the ultimate performance outcomes of cabin crew, more is needed to understand their past performance comprehensively. A more robust and accurate assessment necessitates access to retrospective performance data spanning several years. If airlines collaborate with IATA to share comprehensive cabin attendant performance statuses retroactively over multiple years, the PAS model can be applied to convert and average the data annually. This approach enables airlines to make more informed decisions during the procurement and selection process by obtaining a nuanced perspective on the average performance trajectory of cabin crew members.

The proposed PAS model holds the potential to make significant contributions to the literature and the domains of human resources management and sustainable performance management. Additionally, its utility extends to enhancing decision-making processes for managers. The PAS model, tailored for the civil aviation cabin crew department, is versatile and adaptable, with potential applications in the recruitment processes of cockpit crews and technical department teams. This versatility underscores the broader relevance and potential impact of the model on various facets of aviation personnel management.

Adopting the PAS model necessitates a significant investment of time in developing a standardized system and its seamless integration into the existing frameworks of airlines. The model must be tailored to align with the business’s objectives, capabilities, and managerial values. The expectation is that implementing a customized PAS model tailored to the unique characteristics of the business will substantively bolster the management of cabin resource risks. This customization is expected to significantly diminish personnel turnover rates, foster heightened motivation, and enhance individual performance among the cabin crew.