The Truths of Service Quality (Passenger Handing) in Airlines Industry: A Descriptive Exploration Between Malaysia Airlines and Air Asia
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Truths of Service Quality (Passenger Handing)
in Airlines Industry: A Descriptive Exploration
Between Malaysia Airlines and Air Asia
Asif Zamri Zainol, Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia
Abd. Rahim Romle, Faculty of Public Management and Law, Universiti Utara Malaysia
ABSTRACT
The very essence of airline survivability is the services and facilities provided. However, with the introduction of
cheap frills discounted airline; Air Asia, the need of service quality itself is being questioned. Are the passengers’ more
receptive towards price rather than service quality when it comes to flying domestically? The purpose of this survey is
to explore the passengers’ views on service quality provided by the Malaysia Airlines and Air Asia that they
experienced. Chang and Yeh’s (2002) modified model of SERVQUAL was used in this study while integrating
Parasuraman et al. (1985) original five-point Likert scale. The study was conducted in the departure hall of Langkawi
International Airport. The respondents consisting of 180 passengers of whom have had experience with both airlines
were selected based on convenience sampling. Descriptive analysis and mean comparison were used to analyze the
data. There were two main findings in this exploration. First, both of the airlines do not meet the service quality
standard expected by the passengers. Secondly, majority of the respondents participating in this study, during this
duration and route, choose price over service quality.
Keywords: Service Quality, Airlines Industry, Passenger Handling, Malaysia, Airlines, Air Asia, SERVQUAL
INTRODUCTION
Gilbert and Wong (2002) quoted;
“It has been suggested that delivering superior service quality is a prerequisite for success and survival in today’s
competitive business environment. However, some may feel price is an important aspect of demand. As Collis (1998),
IATA in 997 carried out research in North America, Europe and Asia and found passengers favored punctuality (65 per
cent) and scheduling (52 per cent) over price (37 per cent).”
This does not mean that price factors are to be taken lightly as cost structures and competitive pricing are of
extreme importance. This study is about understanding what is expected from the airline companies by the passengers
to provide the desired service quality and to identify service quality receptiveness as opposed to price sensitivity. This
paper will attempt in linking customer expectations and service quality, and highlight of passenger’s initial decision
making criteria. The expectations construct has been viewed as playing a key role in consumer evaluation of service
quality (Gronroos, 1999; Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, (1985; 1988). Its meaning in the service quality literature is
similar to the ideal standard in the consumer satisfaction/ dissatisfaction literature.
In the airline industry context the problem is whether management can perceive correctly what passengers want and
expect. Moreover, expectations serve as standards or reference points for customers. In evaluating service quality,
passengers compare what they perceive they get in a service encounter with their expectations of that encounter.
Assessing passenger expectations is not a static exercise as passengers are becoming increasingly sensitive to quality.
However, not all service dimensions are equally important to all passengers, because no two passengers are precisely
alike, especially when demographics such as purposes of traveling are considered (gilbert and Wong, 2002).
Parasuraman, Ziethaml and Berry first formulate the dimensions of service quality in 1985. SERVQUAL, short for
“service quality” as is commonly known, took into consideration the assessment of customer’s point of view in term of
the gap between expectations of a particular service and the evaluation of the said service by a particular provider.SERVQUAL was presented as a multidimensional construct and in their original formulation, Parasuraman et al.
(1985) indicated ten components of SERVQUAL, namely reliability, responsiveness, competence, access, courtesy,
communication, credibility, security, understanding/knowing the customer and tangibles. In 1988, (see Parasuraman et
al., 1988), these components were conceptualized into five dimensions; reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy, and
responsiveness. They developed 22-item instruments to measure customer expectations and perceptions (E and P) of
the five dimensions of SERVQUAL. Four or five items were used to measure each dimension. The instruments were
administered twice in different forms, first to measure expectations, and second to measure perceptions.
SERVQUAL were widely used in a variety of study includes public service (Juhary, 2001; Brysland and Curry,
2001), higher education (Abd. Rahim, Juhary and Ilias, 2006 Abd. Rahim, Ilias and Razli, 2005; Abd. Rahim and Ilias,
2005; Cuthbert, 1996; Joseph and Joseph, 1997; Pariseau and McDaniel, 1997; Oldfield and Baron, 2000), hotel (Dean
and White, 1999), banking (Mels, Boshoff and Nel, 1997), consulting (McLachlin, 2000), tourism (Tan and Pawitra,
2001; Augustyn and Ho, 1998), marketing (Imrie, Cadogan and McNaughton, 2002), hospital (Lam, 1997), and
telecommunication industry (Leisen and Vance, 2001).
Airline services are known to be the most elaborate in terms of service. There are many breakdowns of services in
airlines industry. They can be divided into four main areas which are passenger services, baggage or cargo services,
engineering services and catering services. In Malaysia, the airlines industry was monopolized by Malaysian Airlines
until 2001, when Air Asia decided to introduce no-frills discounted airfares.
Since then, the myth of good quality ensures good revenue has been challenged. Time and time again, Air Asia has
proved that it is capable of delivering service by focusing on the basic needs of traveling and this phenomenon gives a
new challenge towards on Malaysian Airlines in term of passenger handling context.
True enough that there are significant differences between the two airlines in terms of fleet size, experience,
destination coverage etc. The two are like apple and pears should there be a head-on comparison. Air Asia claims that
its services are not in direct competition but actually a compliment to the service provided by Malaysian Airlines
(Business Times, Jan 24, 2002). This is due to the fact that Air Asia is not capable of providing long haul journey to
destinations like Europe like Malaysia Airlines. As of the moment, Air Asia does mainly domestic routes with one
outbound, for the Haj pilgrims.
However, under the radical and aggressive leadership of chief executive officer Tony Fernandes, Malaysian first
budget airline Air Asia Sdn Bhd has return to the black by ranking in some RM1.5 million in profits a month since
introducing an aggressive cheap fares program in January 2002 (Business Times, April 17, 2002).
In his paper “Measuring and Monitoring Service Quality at Malaysia Airlines”’ Abdullah (1995) points out that the
approach of service quality study by Malaysian Airlines are in-flight surveys, survey audits, market studies, complaint
and compliment monitoring, positioning research and employee research.
Bearing these in mind, the question is what is the level of service being provided by Malaysian Airlines? Is there
any difference in the most basic of service quality for airlines passenger handling?
Abd. Rahim et al. (2006; 2005), and Abd. Rahim and Ilias (2005) in their study of service quality in higher learning
institution stressed that an excellent service quality ensures a yield of highly satisfied and loyal customers (students).
When customers are satisfied, they are more likely to return or to promote to somebody else to those who helped them,
while dissatisfied customers are more likely to go elsewhere.
While this is rightly so in the education industry, is the same applicable in the Malaysian domestic airline industry?
Is the Malaysian domestic airline industry being dictated by price sensitivity instead of service quality?
With these questions at hand, we are inspired to use SERVQUAL by Parasuraman et al. (1988) to do a study of
service quality in terms of passenger handling between Malaysia Airlines and Air Asia.
OBJECTIVES
The specific aims of this study were as follows:
1. To explore service quality practices from the view of airline passengers.2. To examine the service quality provided by both Malaysia Airlines and Air Asia from the view of expectations
and perceptions.
3. To investigate the passenger’s initial decision making criteria in choosing an airline.
Justification of the Study
This paper is an attempt to compare the service quality of two airlines on equal grounds towards passengers’
expectations and perceptions. In Malaysia, there has been a lack of study in the areas of service quality in airlines
industry. Findings resulted from this study should contribute towards understanding the need, or lack of it, of service
quality in Malaysian domestic airline industry.
METHODOLOGY
The population frame of this study consists of all airline passengers that have had an experience with Malaysia
Airlines and Air Asia. They must have traveled at least once with both airlines in order to ensure the fairness and
accuracy of this study. The questions would based on their expectations (E) and perception (P); and the gap scores (P-E)
should provide a clue as to whether there are any differences in terms of service quality being provided by both airlines
in the eye of the passengers. We have decided to use convenience sampling in this study as it requires the questionnaire
to be answered by passengers that have had experience with Malaysian Airlines.
As for the sample size, we have not been able to determine the amount of people that have traveled with both
airlines. Roscoe (1975) in Sekaran (2000; 2003) proposed some rules of thumb in determining sample size of which
one of it states, “sample size larger than 30 and less than 500 are appropriate for most researchers.” Sekaran (2000;
2003) also added that when qualitative studies are undertaken for exploratory purposes, the sampling design will be
convenience sampling. Therefore, a sample size of 180 is deemed sufficient for this descriptive exploration.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
The reservation method is to determine passengers’ preferred method of making reservations for the both airlines.
The majority of Malaysia Airlines’ respondents (64.1 %) prefer to make their reservations through the phone, 33.7 %
did a walk-in and remaining 2.2 % via the internet. In the case of Air Asia however, it can be seen that the majority of
63.6 % actually did their reservation via the internet; 30.7 % did their reservation by phone while the remaining 5.7 %
did a walk-in. We believe that there is significant relation between reservation method and cost reduction strategy. An
effective reservation method will have a direct impact on cost reduction strategy thus resulting in a better pricing
strategy and Malaysia Airlines should look at that point. Malaysia Airlines respondents prefer to buy tickets directly
from tour agency (69.6 %) instead of airline office (30.4 %). For Air Asia, a large majority forms the 92 % that
purchase their tickets through Air Asia’s office and a very small 8 % that went through a tour agency. In case of
Malaysia Airlines, 35.9 % flew with the same airlines only once over the last six months. In the case of Air Asia, 56.8
% of the respondents flew the same airline at least once in the same duration. Purpose of trip is to determine the
exact reason for traveling and since it is a school holiday week during this survey was conducted, it is expected that
most of the respondents were traveling for pleasure 69.6 % (Malaysia Airlines) and 71.6 % (Air Asia). Lastly, Reason
for Choosing the Airlines; this question is perhaps the most important question in this survey. It is to explore if the
Malaysian domestic passengers are more receptive to service quality or price. It is shown that a majority of Malaysia
Airlines respondents chose service quality at 42.4 %. In the case of Air Asia however, a majority of 89.8 % of the
respondents chose the airline for its pricing.Table 1. Respondents Initial Decision Making
Malaysia Airlines Air Asia
Questions Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Method of Making Reservation
Phone 59 64.1 27 30.7
Internet 2 2.2 56 63.6
Walk-In 31 33.7 5 5.7
Location of Ticket Purchase
Airline Office 28 30.4 81 92.0
Tour Agency 64 69.6 7 8.0
Same Airlines Frequency Over Six Months
1 33 35.9 50 56.8
2-5 37 40.2 31 35.2
6-10 14 15.2 6 6.8
11 and more 8 8.7 1 1.1
Purpose of Trip
Business 11 12.0 5 5.7
Commuting 2 2.2 1 1.1
Pleasure 64 69.6 63 71.6
Personal 15 16.3 19 21.6
Reason for Choosing the Airlines
Service Quality 39 42.4 1 1.1
Price 10 10.9 79 89.8
Holiday Package 28 30.4 4 4.5
Timing 11 12.0 2 2.3
At Random 4 4.3 2 2.3
The service quality results come as a surprise as both service quality of Malaysia Airlines and Air Asia has negative
results. These results mean that both airlines have not achieved the desired service quality in the eyes of the
respondents. Nonetheless, Hardie et al. (1992) in Buttle (1996) stated that from the customer’s perspective, failure to
meet expectations often seems a more significant outcome than success in meeting or exceeding expectations.
Customers will often criticize poor service performance and not praise exceptional performance.
When it comes to comparing service quality, the findings in this survey is rather interesting. Albeit the negative
results shown by both airlines, service quality provided by Malaysia Airlines is deemed to be better than Air Asia.
There are a few findings in this descriptive exploration. Firstly, since this survey was done during a school holiday,
the airline passengers are more receptive to price instead of service quality. Secondly, both airlines have not met the
service quality expectations as perceived by the respondents. And lastly, the usage of internet has proved to be
beneficial for Air Asia and Malaysia Airlines and they should maintained promote their airline booking via internet to
better serve its customers.Table 2. Service Quality Gap Analysis
MAS Air Asia
Item E P Service E P Service
Quality Quality
(P-E) (P-E)
4.24 3.87 -0.37 4.26 3.99 -0.27
1. Good and easy flight reservation
2. Fast and efficient ticket purchase and -0.35 -0.51
check-in 4.35 4.00 4.42 3.91
3. Fast and efficient boarding -0.32 -0.68
4. Cleanliness and quietness of aircraft 4.21 3.89 -0.38 4.23 3.55 -0.83
5. Good on-board facilities (seat comfort & 4.29 3.91 -0.62 4.32 3.49 -0.90
spacious) 4.23 3.61 4.16 3.26
6. Good on-board services (meals, drinks & -0.33 -0.62
newspapers) 4.05 3.72 3.56 2.94
7. Flight punctuality (on-time) -0.54 -0.94
8. Flight scheduling convenience 4.55 4.01 -0.26 4.59 3.65 -0.79
9. Good airline flight safety & security 4.14 3.88 -0.49 4.44 3.65 -0.78
measures 4.52 4.03 4.67 3.89
10.Minimum security related accidents -0.45 -0.56
11.Good handling of customer complaints & 4.35 3.90 -0.62 4.36 3.80 -0.85
flight delays 4.27 3.65 4.41 3.56
12.Good handling of luggage loss or damage -0.85 -0.94
13.Helpful attitudes and courtesy of check-in 4.51 3.66 -0.39 4.52 3.58 -0.41
personnel 4.32 3.93 4.34 3.93
14.Good attention by stewardesses -0.27 -0.28
15.Good appearance and courtesy of airline 4.18 3.91 -0.02 4.25 3.97 -0.20
personnel 4.01 3.99 4.12 3.92
16.Good service efficiency of airline -0.37 -0.59
personnel 4.29 3.92 4.36 3.77
Cluster 16.80 15.75 -1.05 17.07 15.59 -1.48
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
According to Gilbert and Wong (2002), understanding what passenger’s expect are essential to providing desired
service quality in the airline industry. The expectations construct has been viewed as playing key role in consumer
evaluation of service quality (Groonroos, 2001; Parasuraman et al. (1985;1988).
Parasuraman et al. (1988) defined expectation as “desires or wants of consumers, i.e. what they feel a service provider
should offer rather than would offer’. The expectations component was designed to measure customers’ normative
expectations, and is “similar to the ideal standard in the customer satisfaction/ dissatisfaction literature (Zeithaml and
Bitner, 1996).
Teas (1993) in Gilbert and Wong (2002) however, is not contented with the expectation aspect of SERVQUAL
instrument and claim to be vague. He claims that respondents could be using any one of the following six
interpretations:
Service attributes importance. Customers may respond by rating the expectation statements according to the
important each.
Forecasted performance. Customers may respond by using the scale to predict the performance they would
expect.
Ideal performance. The performance level customers, in the light of their investment, feel performance
“should be”.
Equitable performance. The level of performance customers feel they ought to receive given a perceived set of
costs. Minimum tolerable performance. What performance “must be”.
Seeing that this study is an exploration towards comparing service quality in Malaysian domestic airlines, there are
a lot of areas of which further research can be made to understand Malaysian domestic airlines better. Through the
results, analysis and discussions we can highlight several recommendations for further research in the same context of
area of the study. Demographic factors; although the findings in this particular paper indicate that the respondents are
more receptive to price instead of service quality, it does not mean that service quality is of no importance. Assessing
passenger expectations is not a static exercise. Gilbert and Wong (2002) points out that no two passengers are precisely
alike, especially when demographics; time of traveling, gender and ethnic background is considered.
The scale to measure service quality that was used in this study was based on Parasuraman’s original 5-point
Likert-scale. Carman (1990) emphasized that another alternative was using single items to compare expectations with
perceptions. Expectations and Perceptions of quality can be measured on a 7-point scale that varied from “Much worse
than expected” to “much better than expected”. This study also agreed with Carman (1990) proposition that both
Expectations and Perceptions measures should be collected directly in terms of the perception-expectation difference
during the same administration of the questionnaire. However, Chang and Yeh (2002) used an 11-point Likert-scale in
their questionnaire to measure service quality of airlines in Taiwan and integrate the usage of fuzzy multi-criteria
analysis approach. They point out that despite the validation of Parasuraman’s SERVQUAL concept; there is no
quantitative yardstick available. The underlying concepts used by the fuzzy approach are comprehensible, and the
survey process and computations required are straightforward and simple. The approach is applicable to all routes
between two cities which are served by several airlines.
In the findings, there is an abnormally with the results seeing that even though Air Asia’s respondents know that
they are paying a cheaper airfare, they expect a better service as compared to the respondents or another airlines. There
should be a correlation and a regression analysis conducted with regards to price against expectation.
There has been a lack of publication in the area of Malaysian domestic airline service quality. The
recommendations suggest that there are a lot more areas to be explored and discovered to further understand service
quality in this field with regards to Malaysian perspective.
REFERENCES
Abd. Rahim Romle, Juhary Ali, Ilias Said and Razli Ahmad. (2006a). Assessing Service Quality In Selected Public Institutions Of Higher Learning In
Malaysia. A paper presented at the 3rd International Conference On Measurement and Evaluation in Education, Grand Plaza Parkroyal Hotel,
Penang, Malaysia, February 13th – 15th 2006.
Abd. Rahim Romle, and Ilias Said. (2005). The Myth and Reality of Students’ Perceptions on Service Quality in a Public University in Malaysia. A paper
presented at the 3rd International Seminar on Learning and Motivation, City Bayview Hotel, Langkawi, Kedah, Malaysia, September 10th -12th 2005.
Abd. Rahim Romle, Ilias Said, and Razli Ahmad. (2005). Emerging New Challenges on Service Quality In Higher Learning Institution: The Case of
UUM. A paper presented at the 2005 National Conference On Tertiary Education, Universiti Teknologi Mara Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia,
July 26th -28th 2005.
Abdullah Mat Zaid. (1995) Measuring and Monitoring Service quality at Malaysia Airlines. Managing Service Quality, 5 (2). 25-27.
Augustyn, M. and Ho, S.K. (1998). Service Quality and Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 37 (1): 71-75.
Bani, E. (2002). Air Asia, MAS likely to compliment each other. Business Times, January 24, 2002.
Brysland, A. and Curry, A. (2001). Service Improvements in Public Services Using SERVQUAL. Managing Service Quality, 11 (6): 389-401.
Buttle, F. (1996). SERQUAL: Review, Critique, Research Agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 30(1): 8-32.
Carman, J.M. (1990). Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66(1): 33-38.
Chang, Y.H. and Yeh, C.H. (2002). A survey analysis of service quality for domestic airlines. European Journal of Operational Research, 139
(2002): 166-177.
Cuthbert, P.F. (1996). Managing Service Quality in HE: Is SERVQUAL the Answer?Part 1. Managing Service Quality, 6 (2): 11-16.
Cuthbert, P.F. (1996). Managing Service Quality in HE: Is SERVQUAL the Answer?Part 2. Managing Service Quality, 6 (3): 31-35.
Dean, M.A. and White, C.J. (1999). Analysing Service Quality in the Hospitality Industry. Managing Service Quality, 9 (2): 136-143.
Gilbert, D. and Wong, R.K.C. (2002) Passenger expectations and airline services: a Hong Kong based study. Tourism Management, 2002.Gronroos, C. (2001). The perceived service quality concept- a mistake? Managing Service Quality, 11(3): 150-152.
Imrie, B.C., Cadogan, J.W. and McNaughton, R. (2002). The Service Quality Construct on A Global Stage. Managing Service Quality, 12 (1): 10-18.
Joseph, M., Yakhou, M., and Stone, G. (2005). An educational institution’s quest for service quality: customers’ perpective. Quality Assurance in
Education, 13(1): 66-82.
Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1997). Service Quality in Education: A Student Perspective. Quality Assurance in Education, 5 (1): 15-21.
Juhary Haji Ali. (2001). Service Quality in Malaysian Public Sector: Challenges in K-Economy Era. Sixth National Civil Service Conference.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: 28-30 June 2001.
Lam, S.S.K. (1997). SERVQUAL: A Tool for Measuring Patients’ Opinions of Hospital Service Quality in Hong Kong. Total Quality Management,
8 (4): 145-152.
Leisen, B. and Vance, C. (2001). Cross-National Assessment of Service Quality in the Telecommunication Industry: Evidence From USA and
Germany. Managing Service Quality, 11(5): 307-317.
Kara, A., Lonial, S., Tarim, M., and Zaim, S. (2005). A Paradox of Service Quality in Turkey. European Business Review, 17(1): 5-20.
MacLachlin, R.D. (2000). Service Quality in Consulting: What is Engagement Success?. Managing Service Quality, 10 (4): 239-247.
Mels, G., Boshoff, C. and Nel, D. The Dimensions of Service Quality: The Original European Perspective Revisited. The Service Industries Journal,
17 (1). 173-189.
Oldfield, B.M. and Baron, S. (2000). Student Perceptions of Service Quality in A UK University Business and Management Faculty. Quality
Assurance in Education, 8 (2): 85-95.
O'Neill, M., Wright, C., and Fitz, F. (2001). Quality Evaluation In On-Line Service Environments: An Application Of The Importance-Performance
Measurement Technique. Managing Service Quality, 11(6): 402-417.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of
Marketing, 49 (31): 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, A., & Berry, L. L. (1998). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service
Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1): 12-40.
Pariseau, S.E. and McDaniel, J.R. (1997). Assessing Service Quality in Schools of Business. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 14 (3): 204-218.
Russell, M. (2005). Marketing education: areview of service quality perceprion among international students. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(1): 65-77.
Sekaran, U. (2000). Research Methods For Business: A Skill-Building Approach. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods For Business: A Skill-Building Approach. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Tan, K.C. and Pawitra, T.A. (2001). Integrating SERVQUAL and Kano’s Model Into QFD for Service Excellence Development. Managing Service
Quality, 11 (6). 418-430.
Zaidi Isham Ismail (2002). Air Asia to fly to 3 new destinations, add sixth aircraft. Business Times, Sept 17, 2002.
Ziethaml, V. and Bitner, M. (1996). Service marketing: integrating customer focus across the firm. New York: McGraw-Hill.You can also read
