"Boeing: Taking Flight 11. IntroductionDream liner ?787? the new live blood considered to be the most effective and efficientaircraft that are major growth driver in the Boeing incorporation. Considering thesatisfaction of the consumer and cost effective of the mid range aircraft, the resentreport has attempted to describe certain important issue that is relevant with thecustomer delight. It has been noticed that demographic factor as well as employmentlength of service play an important role in measuring the profitability and customerloyalty. Along with 787 dream liner Boeing has able to launch few more internationaldebut in the related segment (eg. 757, 767 and Airbus A300, A310, and A330models). The present research has a remarkable impact of the Boeing and othercommercial players belongs the aviation industry (Addison et al., 2008).The biggest threat of the organisation definitely how it can manage the profit from itscompetitors. Otherwise it may affect the overall market share and the profitability ofthe firm on priority basis. The vice president of the organisation is Nicole Piasecki(Marketing as well business strategy division) evaluated the need for mid size aircraft. The dream liner has certain extra ordinary benefits compare to other aircraft -its fuelefficiency, route it covers, spacious luggage cabinet and decorated interiors, hugewindows always able to attract the new customer. As par the case both USA andCanadian metropolitan areas (Toronto and Montreal) the sales person whose agebelongs to 18 to 65 was participated in the survey and interview process (Adley et al.,1997).At the time of this telephonic interview, following areas was considered.? Employee perception level about the condition of employment and it cancontrols the satisfaction level of the customer.? There is positive impact on the customer and employee satisfaction due tothese factors.? The factors are positively correlated with the demographic factor, the length oftheir employment and loyalty level of the customer.2. RationaleThe entire report was conducted with a span of 90 days. The entire survey wasorganised within the B2B sales person in the North America. More than 1500respondents were participated through 6-7 focus groups and 100 telephonicinterviews. The organisation has considered age qualification, year of service andmany other factors while collecting the feedback from the Montreal and Toronto. Theretired, school goers and participants below school level education were excludedfrom the survey. The initial screening of the employee was done on two levels. Level- 1 constitutes of how long they are with the organisation and if at all they are in work or not. Level-2 screening was conducted with the retired or who have left the job butwilling to rejoin (Bradley et al., 1977).Hypothesis a)H :There is no positive correlation exists between the demographic factors and0 employees loyalty level H :There is a positive correlation exists between the demographic factor and1 employee loyalty level.b)H : There is no negative impact on the employee working condition and Loyalty0 H :There is negative impact on the employee working condition and Loyalty1 Reference to the appendix-1, the result of non recursive multivariate regressionanalysis illustrated the employer’s loyalty to its employee and their perception level ofthe employee about the working condition. These are considered by assessingmultiple parameters (ref to the table-1), All these parameters are related to theemployee perception and are related with the dependent variables. All the beta coefficient of the independent variables determines the relative impact of each regressorcoefficient on the dependent one. This evaluates how these independent variables caninfluence the loyalty of the employers. Especially in the B2B segment for Boeing incorporation this will give a unique opportunity to assess how to improve thecustomer delight by making the employee happy. Employee involvement andengagement can be increased through empowerment which has an indirect impact onthe loyalty of the employee (Berge , 1993).2 R , the value of the coefficient of determination determines what extent the selectedvariables from the existing equation able to create an impact on the dependent2variables. The value of R (0.62, p=0.00<0.05) determines that almost 62 percent ofthe existing independent variables can control the employer’s loyalty. The adjusted R2 (0.3130) defines that almost 31 percent of the appropriate variables were consideredin the above process (Barnhart et al., 2002).Ref to the ANOVA table -1b, the value of regression and residual coefficient is F(7.388, P=0.00< 0.05) at two tail test. It depicts that the mean difference between thegroup mean, if it is significant or not. As par table 1c (ref appendix-1),There are few independent parameters like duration in the current organization, thenumbers of jobs employee had in the last 5 years they perceive were considered to bestatistically significant and have certain impact on developing loyalty betweenemployee and employer. All these regressor co efficient (beta co efficient) value hasanalysed below -Duration of the work if it 5 years or more (0.617, p=0.00<0.05), jobs employee isdoing since last one year (-0.449, p=0.00<0.05) and, employee perception on his paypackage (0.241, p=0.29>0.05) deliver statistically significant result at 5% and 10%level of significance in the two tail test. Barnhartet al. (1998) mentioned that duration of work if it more than 5 years,suppose to create maximum level of impact (almost 61.7 percent) on the loyaltylevel between employee and employer. Employee perception about its packagesuppose to be another significant component that influence the loyalty level of thesales person .In the present case it influences almost 24.1 percent of the loyalty levelin the Boeing incorporation B2B sales personnel. On the contrary if the individualwere on/off the job since last 5 years that parameter has a negative impact on theloyalty level. Score obtained from the ?t – statistic? in the above cases are more than2 (with p value <0.05.).This indicates each result is independent with other. Henceno relationship with their means exist. As par the case study report beyond the year2007, the sales revenue for Boeing has gone up by manifold. The organization hasable to assess the true need of the customer and investors. On analyzing the report,the management able to understand, how the size of the aircraft and frequency of theair travel can be a crucial components especially for mid and small segments airbus.Validation of hypothesis H : There is no negative impact on the employee working condition and Loyalty0 H :There is negative impact on the employee working condition and Loyalty1 Algers andBeser (2001) mentioned the degree of correlation (r) varies between +1to -1 , +1 indicates perfect positive correlation between the two variables where as -1indicate perfect negative correlation between it. Hence if one increases other willalso increase and vice versa.Beside ?0? indicates the neutral correlation betweenthe two variables, which indicates that there will be no change of one variable once the other change either in the positive or negative direction. The p value as usualdefine the level of significance (p<0.05, p<0.1 one tail or two tail test at 5% and 1 %level of significance).Ref to the table -2 (appendix-1), it has been seen that all the demographiccomponents are not either positively or negatively correlated with the employeesloyalty level. Education and gender does not have a significant role whileemployee’s loyalty level is assessed. It indicates that irrespective of the gender,education and employee’s household income the loyalty belongs within a staff. Asall these factor does (neither positively nor negatively) related with the with loyaltylevel of the employee. As all the p value is <0.05 so this result is not statisticallysignificant to each other (Abara,1989). Validation of hypothesis H :There is no positive correlation exists between the demographic factors and0 employees loyalty level (Accepted).H :There is a positive correlation exists between the demographic factor and1 employee loyalty level (Rejected).4. RecommendationIn the Boeing incorporation at present maintaining the customer loyalty presentlyconsidered as the most important criteria ? The knowledge about the management regarding the job has to be accurateand it needs to be compatible with the working condition. ?The knowledge of the management job is quite important for developingpositive perception among the employee.?Attitude of the customer always allow developing satisfaction and positiveoutlook towards the jobs. Knowledgeable customer always brings happinessand satisfaction among the employee.? Management need to focus on doing something worthwhile in the job of anemployee.? There shall certain employee family program (e.g. employee family gettogether to enhance bonding, motivational activities for employeeengagement).? Every employee demands certain degree of empowerment and freedom intheir job, therefore management need to create a suitable working conditioninside the organization to improve work performance.? Organisation needs to focus on technical, and administrative appraisal process,which should be governed by ISTAT.Reference ? Abara J (1989) Applying integer linear programming to the fleet assignmentproblem. Interfaces 19(4):20–28?Algers S, Beser M (2001) Modelling choice of flight and booking class—astudy using stated preference and reveled preference data. Int J Serv Technol ? Barnhart C, Boland NL, Clarke LW, Johnson EL, Nemhauser GL, Shenoi R(1998) Flight string models for aircraft fleeting and routing. ? Barnhart C, Kniker T, Lohatepanont M (2002) Itinerary-based fleetassignment. Transp Sci 36(2):199–217? Berge ME, Hopperstad CA (1993) Demand driven dispatchdispatch: a methodfor dynamic aircraft capacity assignment, models and algorithms. Oper Res41(1):153–168 ? Bradley SP, Hax AC, Magnanti TL (1977) Applied mathematicalprogramming. ? Addison Wesley, Menlo Park Carrier E (2008) Modeling the choice of anairline itinerary and fare product using booking and seat availability data.Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of civil and environmental engineering,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Civil AeronauticsBoard (1970) Effect on total market traffic of changes in quality of service(QSI).?J.F. Adley and C.J. Caridi Clarke L, Johnson E, Nemhauser G, Zhu Z (1997)The aircraft rotation problem. Ann Oper Res 69:33–46 ? Coldren, GM (2005) Modeling the competitive dynamic among air-travelitineraries with generalized extreme value models, Ph.D. Dissertation,Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, NorthwesternUniversity, Appendix-1 SPSS out file -1Table- 1 Regression analysis Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error ofSquare the Estimatea 1 .602 .362 .313 1.0253a. Predictors: (Constant), My opportunities for advancementare reasonable, plan to change job in the next 5years,Management is really interested in the welfare of itsemployees, My works pace is adequate, I am highly paid,Duration in the current organisation, Jobs you had in thelast 5yearsb. ANOVA Model Sum of df F Sig.Squaresb Regression 54.362 7 7.388 .000 1 Residual 95.658 91 Total 150.020 98c. a CoefficientsModel Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.CoefficientsB Std. Error Beta1 (Constant) 3.674 1.041 3.529 .001Duration in the current .610 .103 .617 5.928 .000organisationPlan to change job in the .019 .037 .046 .511 .611next 5yearsManagementis really .038 .110 .037 .348 .728interested in the welfareof its employeesJobs you had in the last -.453 .114 -.449 -3.974 .0005yearsMy work space is -.061 .112 -.054 -.548 .585adequateI am highly paid .257 .116 .241 2.219 .029My opportunities for -.118 .098 -.122 -1.205 .231advancement arereasonablea. Dependent Variable: Employer loyaltyTable-2 Karl Pearson correlation coefficient CorrelationsEmploy Gend Educati Marit Inco Rac Peopleee er on al me e contrib Loyalty status ute toyour househ oldincomeEmploy Pearson 1 -.043 -.004 -.013 -.031 - .090ee Correlati .14 Loyalty on 2Sig. (2- .672 .967 .899 .756 .15 .373tailed) 8N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100* Gender Pearson -.043 1 .041 .247 -.047 - .104Correlati .11 on 9Sig. (2- .672 .685 .013 .644 .23 .3040.72tailed) 9N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Educati Pearson -.004 .041 1 -.057 -.126 - .006on Correlati .06 on 8Sig. (2- .967 .685 .571 .210 .50 .956tailed) 3N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100* Marital Pearson -.013 .247 -.057 1 -.064 - .070status Correlati .11 on 3Sig. (2- .899 .013 .571 .529 .26 .491tailed) 3N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Income Pearson -.031 -.047 -.126 -.064 1 .16 -.062Correlati 4onSig. (2- .756 .644 .210 .529 .10 .540tailed) 2N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Race Pearson -.142 -.119 -.068 -.113 .164 1 -.145Correlati onSig. (2- .158 .239 .503 .263 .102 .149tailed)N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100People Pearson .090 .104 .006 .070 - - 1contrib Correlati 0.062 0.1 ute to on 45 "