1 RESEARCH PAPER CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS, EXPECTATIONS AND GAPS IN SERVICE QUALITY: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF CIVIL AVIATION INDUSTRY IN INDIA

BY DR. MOHAMMED NAVED KHAN Senior Lecturer Department of Business Administration Faculty of Management Studies & Research Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh-202002 (UP) INDIA e-mail: mohdnavedkhan@gmail.com Ph: 0091571 2701184(R) Mobile : +919411800860

VIPPAN RAJ DUTT Doctoral Research Scholar (Corresponding author) Faculty of Management Studies and Research Aligarh Muslim University, AMU. Manager (System / Maintenance) NACIL (I) Correspondence Address: Dutt Niwas, 809 Sector 17 A Gurgaon 122001 Haryana 122001 INDIA e-mail : vrdutt@indianairlines.co.in Ph. (R) 0091 124 2397809 Mobile : +919818207809 &

Dr. S C BANSAL Associate Professor Indian Institute of Management Lucknow 226 013 (India) e-mail: bansal@iiml.ac.in Ph. 0091 522 2736637

2 CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS, EXPECTATIONS AND GAPS IN SERVICE QUALITY: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF CIVIL AVIATION INDUSTRY IN INDIA

ABSTRACT Civil aviation is a catalyst for economic development and trade in an increasingly globalized world where people and goods are moving farther, faster and cheaper than ever. The Indian civil aviation sector too is presently witnessing a boom with a host of private airlines taking to the skies. Leading players in the Indian aviation industry include Air India, Indian Airlines, Jet Airways, Sahara Airlines, Kingfisher, Spicejet, Paramount, Indigo and Go Air. While the growth rate of the civil aviation sector has slowed down in the mature international markets, it is increasing at a brisk pace in India. This growth is fuelled by the liberalization of the industry, increase in investments, emergence of low cost carriers (LCCs), positive impetus by regulatory authorities and improvement in the standards of living in the region. With the entry of LCCs, the domestic airline industry in India is presently experiencing its second phase of liberalization. The winds of competition have changed the rules of the game. As airfares drop, an increasing number of middle-income travelers are preferring to travel by air. In fact, domestic air travel has grown at the rate of around 38 per cent in the period Jan July 2007. The pressure to provide better customer services has never been greater. Consequently, the primary purpose of this study was to compare the quality of service on domestic flights of various Indian airlines. The service components considered for the study were expectations and perceptions. The research questions and the derived hypotheses were

3 examined comparing expectations and perceptions and the gap between them. An analysis of demographics like age, gender and level of income for the airlines surveyed was also carried out. The validity of the classical five-dimensions of SERVQUAL could not be resolved for service quality in case of domestic airlines. The reliability estimates for SERVQUAL as a unidimensional instrument were found to be higher. The main findings of the study indicated that there were significant differences between expectations and perceptions of service quality on domestic flights. Dimensions of Tangibility (Legacy Support Service, Additional LCC Support Service and Flight) and Reliability were significant drivers of customer service. Passengers expect airlines to ensure safe journey, support in mitigating problems due to critical incidents and of course meet time commitments. The study has an applied bias as the findings of the study can help the airlines, government and regulating agencies in evaluating the level of existing services being offered by the players as also in deciding on the portfolio of services to be made mandatory in the interest of passengers.

JEL classification : M31, L93, N75 Key words: Customer Satisfaction, Airline, Customer Service, SERVQUAL, India, Civil Aviation

4 CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS, EXPECTATIONS AND GAPS IN SERVICE QUALITY: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF CIVIL AVIATION INDUSTRY IN INDIA

INTRODUCTION Civil aviation industry has been swept by a wave of liberalisation throughout the world (Chan 2000, InterVISTAS-ga 2006). The aviation industry has moved towards liberalisation in the ownership of national carriers, capacity sharing, price controls and market access, leading to greater competition among airlines. Open sky policy is being followed in increasing number of countries. Airline alliances are being forged for enhanced networking of destinations and code sharing among airlines is becoming common. With facilities for easy entry, exit and freedom over fare structure, domestic private operators are competing with national carriers. Airports, apart from providing range of facilities to airlines, are evolving into multifaceted hubs containing hotels, conference centres, duty free shops, and shopping malls. Air travel, driven by liberalization and globalization, remains the fastest-growing market. Over 2.1 billion passengers departed on scheduled journeys in 2006 (IATA 2007). Strong economies saw international passenger demand grow by 5.9%. Driving these developments are further market liberalization and the availability of more fuel efficient and longer-range aircraft that are better able to serve thinner routes. Focus on service quality is the need of the hour if the airlines aspire to improve market share and further enhance financial performance in domestic and international markets. A necessary corollary is that domestic airlines need to have valid and reliable measures to better understand the variables likely to have a bearing on the service quality offered by

5 their organization, e.g. expectations and perceptions of airline passengers vis--vis service quality. The article provides introduction to theoretical foundations for measurement of service quality in the context of airline industry. This is followed by a brief profile of civil aviation industry in India. Research objectives, hypotheses and methodology are discussed followed by results from the data analysis. The study has an applied bias as it also discusses practical implications for airline marketing managers in India.

SERVICE QUALITY MEASUREMENT: THEORITICAL FOUNDATIONS Much of the research in services marketing centers on understanding services and service quality from customers point of view (Brown et al. 2006). The use of service quality as a competitive edge has been extensively addressed in marketing literature (Shostack 1977; Lovelock 1983; Gronroos 1978, 2006; Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994A, 1994B; Bitner, Booms & Tetreault 1990; Rust, Zahorik & Keiningham 1995; Rust & Chung 2006; Kasper, Helsdingen, & Gabbott 2006). However, service quality is an elusive and abstract construct that is difficult to measure (Cronin et al. 2000). The disconfirmation model of service quality provides a customer referenced method for assessing service quality. In this model quality is implied if the customers expectations of the service experience beforehand are exceeded by the service when it is delivered. Disconfirmation has had a huge impact upon service quality and has been subject to a series of refinements. Grnroos (1978) identified that services are not one big amorphous event but comprise of different components technical quality and functional quality which interact to determine overall quality. SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al. 1985; 1988) based service quality approach in academic literature, takes into account disconfirmation

6 and different service attributes and links them together with management activity through a gap framework. Six-Sigma model of service quality was developed by Motorola in 1980s, and is an organizational change model driven by customer demand. Customer equity framework (Rust et al. 2000; 2004; 2006) provides an information-based, customer-driven, competitor-cognizant, and financially accountable strategic approach to maximizing the firms long-term profitability. Customer equity projections are built from a new model of Customer Life-Time Value (CLV)which permits the modeling of competitive effects and brand switching patterns. Service-dominant-logic (SDL) model (Vargo and Lusch 2004; Lusch et al 2006) work in progress status - represents an inversion from goods dominant logic, that places activities driven by specialized knowledge and skills, rather than units of output, at the center of exchange processes. While according to Kanos model (Yueh-Ling et al 2007), quality elements can be classified into three categories, namely Must-be, Onedimensional and Attractive needs, depending on their ability to create customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

The Gaps Model Of Service Quality (Parasuraman et al. 1985) developed a model which depicts how various gaps in the service process may affect the customers assessment of the quality of the service. The foundation of the model (see Figure 1) is a set of four gaps which are the major contributors to the service quality gap which customers may perceive: Gap 1 (Consumer Expectation Management Perception Gap): In formulating its service delivery policy, management does not correctly perceive or interpret consumer expectation.

7 Gap 2 (Management Perception Service Quality Specification Gap): Management does not correctly translate the service policy into rules and guidelines for employees. Gap 3 (Service Quality specification service delivery Gap): Employees do not correctly translate rules and guidelines into action. Gap 4 (Service Delivery External Communications Gap): External communications promises made to customers do not match the actual service delivery.

These four gaps emerge from an executive perspective on a service organizations design, marketing and delivery of services. These gaps are located throughout the organization between frontline staff, customers and managers. They, in turn, contribute to another gap, i.e. gap 5, which is the discrepancy between customers expected services and the perceived service actually delivered. This gap is a function of the other four gaps: i.e. Gap 5 = f (gaps 1, 2, 3, 4). It is this gap that Parasuraman et al. (1985) sought to measure using the SERVQUAL instrument. The instrument has been further developed and promoted through a series of publications (Parasuraman et al. 1988; 1991, 1994a, 1994b; Zeithaml et al. 2003). Much of the research in this area since then has been concerned with validating or challenging the construct (Cronin et al 1992; Babakus et al 1992a, 1992b; Teas 1993; Smith 1995; Buttle 1996; Genestre & Herbig 1996; Asubonteng McCleary & Swan 1996; Nel, Pitt & Berthon 1997; Llosa, Chandon & Orsingher 1998; Hussey 1999; Brady, Cronin & Brand 2002; Myerscough 2002; Nyeck et al. 2002) and suitability of SERVQUAL vs SERVPERF scale (Cronin et al 1994; Elliot 1994; Jain & Gupta 2004). Chang & Lim (2002) carried out comparative study of relevance of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales to airline industry. In their opinion, SERVQUAL model is more appropriate for airline service industry than SERVPERF.

8 Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Service Quality Word of Mouth Personal Needs Past Experience

Expected Service Gap 5 Perceived Service Consumer Marketer Service Delivery Gap 3 Gap 1 Translation of Perceptions into Service Gap 2 Management Perceptions of Consumer Expectations Source: Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A. (1988), Communication and Control Processes in the Delivery of Service Quality, Journal of Marketing, 52, p. 36 Gap 4

External Communication to Consumers

9 The development of SERVQUAL by Parasuraman et al. (1988) as a generalisable measure of service quality was a seminal contribution that has been adapted and widely used across industries around the world (Dabholkar et al. 1996). The instrument empirically relies on the difference in scores between expectations and perceived performance. It consists of 22 items divided along the 5 dimensions, with a seven-point scale accompanying each statement to test the strength of relations. These 22 items are used to represent five dimensions viz. reliability, responsiveness, tangibles, assurance and empathy (RATER). Mathematically, the same may be expressed as:

SQ i = ( Pij Eij )
j =1

where, SQi = Perceived service quality of individual i k=Number of service attributes / items P=Service quality perception of individual i for service attribute j E=Service quality expectation of individual i for service attribute j

A variant of SERVQUAL scale, SERVPERF scale contains perceived performance component only. A higher perceived performance implies higher service quality. In an equation form, it can be expressed as follows:

SQi = Pij
j =1

where, SQi = Perceived service quality of individual i k=Number of service attributes / items P=Service quality perception of individual i for service attribute j

10

The identification of five dimensions of service quality has dominated the literature in the field of service quality. There are now over 5500 research articles on this model (Kasper et al. 2006). According to EBSCO database (30 Sept07), SERVQUAL as a keyword is appearing in 102 publications. Major published studies include Banking (Arasli, Katircioglu & Mehtap-Smadi 2005; Bexley 2005; Baumann et al. 2007; Aga & Safakli 2007), Education (Arambewela & Hall 2006), Health (Lam 1997; Kilbourne et al. 2004; Pakdil & Harwood 2005), Hotel (Antony, & Ghosh 2004; Juwaheer 2004), Information System & E-Commerce (vanDyke, Kappelman & Prybutok 1997; Cook 2000; Jiang, Klein & Carr 2002), Internal Marketing (Frost & Kumar 2000, 2001; Straughan 2002), Public Services (Orwig, Pearson & Cochran 1997; Donnelly & Shiu 1999; Wisniewski 2001; Brysland & Curry 2001), Retail (Finn &Lamb 1991; Dabholkar, Thorpe, & Rentz 1996; Zhao, Changhong & Hui 2002) and Tourism & Hospitality (Saleh & Ryan 1991; Kouthouris & Alexandris 2005; Home, Peter & Pikkemaat 2005), Transportation (Crosby & LeMay 1998; Mehta & Durvasula 1998; Durvasula & Lysonski 1999) .

SERVICE QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF AIRLINE INDUSTRY Continued liberalisation and open skies, the impact of global alliances, new low-cost, no-frills carriers, on-line ticket selling, and privatisation of state-owned airlines are some of the crucial developments that have been impacting on airline business at a time of continually falling average fares and yields. Increasing competition from low cost, low fare carriers is one of the fundamental challenges being faced by the traditional full service carriers (Chen, Gupta & Rom 1994; Cerasani 2002; Gillen & Morrison 2002; Sayanak 2003; Franke1 & Hamilton 2004; Cary 2004; OConnell 2005; and Pant 2006) and it has also led to reduction in average quality of service provided to the customer

11 (Trapani & Olson 1981; Bhatt 1997; Chan 2000; Butler 2001; Servitopoulos 2002; Mazzeo 2003; Morrison 2004; Manuela 2007). The airline industry is inherently unstable (Doganis 2006) and highly competitive, where all airlines have comparable fares and matching frequent flyer programs. In such a scenario, service quality is a significant driver of passenger satisfaction, loyalty and choice of airline (Sultan et al 2000; Chang et al 2002, Gilbert et al 2003; Rust et al 2006). Figure 2 outlines airline service delivery mechanism. Airlines need to have valid and reliable measures for a better understanding of the variables likely to impact the perception of service quality being offered by them. They need to measure not only customer perceptions but also expectations of airline passengers. If significant variations are found in the perceptions of airline passengers vis--vis service quality on the different flights, changes in the marketing mix need to be implemented to improve the perception of quality. But, in general, passenger hardships have increased after Sept 11 attacks (Leone & Liu 2003; Gkritza, Niemeier & Mannering 2006). Several papers have been written during the past few years examining the service quality of airline industry. These papers focus primarily on measuring the performance of airlines using SERVQUAL instrument (Gourdin & Kloppenborg 1991; Ostrowski, O'Brien & Gordon 1993; Young, Cunningham, & Moonkyu 1994; Bejou & Palmer 1998; Gustafsson, Ekdahl & Edvardsson 1999; Sultan & Simpson 2000; Chang et al 2002; Tsaur, Chang & Yena 2002; Gilbert & Wong 2003; Alter 2003; Kozak, Karatepe & Avci 2003; Boland, Morrison & ONeill 2003; Natalisa & Subroto 2003; Scheraga 2004; Truitt & Haynes 1994; Heracleous, Wirtz, & Johnston 2004; Bel 2005; Ling et al 2005; Gursoy, Chen. & Kim 2005; Knibb 2005; Rhoades & Waguespack 2005; Anitsal & Paige 2006; Hunter 2006; Pham 2006; Pham & Simpson 2006; Park, Robertson & Wu 2005, 2006;

12 Sima, Kohb & Shetty 2006; Venkatesh & Nargundkar 2006; Chitnis 2007; Pakdil & Aydin 2007; Chitnis 2007; Lioua & Tzeng 2007). In US, Airline quality ratings (AQR) that also take in to account 12 customer complaint categories are being published annually since 1991 (Headley and Bowen 1997, Bowen & Headley 2007). Gardner (2004) carried out a dimensional analysis of airline quality based on on-time arrivals, denied boardings, mishandled baggage and customer complaints, which is in conflict with the results of AQR 2004. The travel industry has been a pioneer in the innovative use of Information Technology (IT) (Feldman 2001; Gareiss 2001; Gareiss 2003; Kelemen 2003; Botha 2004; Ghobrial & Trusilov 2005). The airline industry is embracing cutting edge technology to gain competitive edge (Jiang & Doukas 2003; Baker 2007). OToole (2004) predicts that air travel could become worlds first web-enabled industry as online sales, e-tickets and range of new technologies gain ground with increasing speed. The dramatic growth of web and self-service technologies permit customers and airlines to bypass the complexity and cost of old legacy systems (McIvor, OReilly & Ponsonby 2003; Shon, Chen & Chang 2003). Researchers have employed Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to investigate the effects of individual dimensions of airline service quality (Cezard 1999; Kalamas, Laroche & Cezard 2002); Park et al 2005, 2006; Ling, Lin & Lu 2005; Cassab & MacLachlan 2006). Chang & Yeh (2001) suggested a multiattribute decision making model to measure and compare overall competitiveness of airlines on five dimensions and their associated objective performance measures. Danaher (1997) employed a method based on conjoint analysis to determine the relative importance of service attributes measured in airline customer satisfaction surveys.

13 Figure 2 : Customer Service Delivery in Airline Industry

Pax makes PASSENGER (Pax) Flight Reservation Bkg Office / Internet Ticketing Check-in at Airport (Pax, Baggage) Preboarding Security Check Boarding and Seating Inflight Service Arrival, Baggage Retrieval

LINE OF

INTERACTION

FRONT LINE

Reservation Desk Check Availability, Quote Fare & Reserve Seat

Ticket Office Payment & Collection of Ticket

LINE OF INTERNAL INTERACTION

Internet based Reservation & Ticketing

Check-In Counter Issue Boarding Pass & Tag Baggage Security Check-in Baggage Security Check

Security Passenger & Hand Baggage Check

Transportation of Pax to Aircraft Cabin Crew Greet, assistance to seat & store bags

Cabin Crew Safety Demo, Meals, Adhoc Request

Arrival Helpdesk Special need passengers, Transfer case, Pax Feedback

SUPPORT

IT Reservation Database, Frequent Flyer Database Catering Meal Request

Finance Accounts IT Ticketing Database

IT CheckIn Database Commercial Check-in Baggage Reconciliation & Loading

Engineeri ng A/c Check & Flight Clearance Refuelling Catering Loading of Meals Cabin

Preparation of Trim Sheet, Aircraft fueling & preparation for Take-off

Commer cial Flight Monitor ing

Baggage Unload Baggage and load it on airport carousel

14 CIVIL AVIATION IN INDIA The Indian air transport sector is among the most vibrant and fastest growing in the world. As per IATA forecasts, with GDP growth of 7.2% for 2005 to 2009, air traffic growth can be expected to be in the 15% range (Bisignani 2005). With less than 1% of its population currently traveling by air, India's growth potential is enormous. Within a period of 15 years, the number of Indian carriers has grown from 2 players to more than 10 today. More than 24.85 million passengers traveled between January and July 2007 as against 18.03 million in the same period last year (Awasthi 2007). Figure 3 details the growth of domestic passenger traffic in last 10 years.

Figure 3: Growth of Domestic Passenger Traffic in last 10 Years

Domestic Passenger Traffic for last 10 Years

30

Passenger Traffic in Millions

25 20 15 10 5 0
1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Year
NATIONAL CARRIERS PRIVATE CARRIERS TOTAL

Source: Directorate General of Civil Aviations (DGCA) 2007

15 In India, Air Deccan, which started operations in August 2003, was the first airline to adopt the low-cost business model. But low fares translate into sustainable gains when backed by safety and on-time performance (Gopinath 2007). Five new carriersAir Deccan, SpiceJet, GoAir, IndiGo and Paramount Airwayshave already started operations and many more such as Indus Air, AirOne, East-West and Magic Air are on the horizon. Presently, Indian Airlines, Jet Airways, Sahara and Kingfisher are the Full Service Carriers (FSC), whereas Air Deccan, Spicejet, Paramount, IndiGo and Go Air fall in the category of Low Cost Carriers (LCC). Table 1 gives the profile of domestic airlines operating in India. The National Council for Applied Economic Research (NCAER) Report (2000) identified the factors restraining the Civil Aviation sector from fully contributing to the growth and progress of the country. Naresh Chandra Committee Report, (2003) delineated the problems being faced by airline industry in India and proposed a roadmap for its rapid growth and improvement in services to the passengers. According to Bhandari (2002) regulatory policy framework has prevented this sector from being transformed into a mass transport system. He suggested minimal intervention of the government to unlock its potential. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has identified five challenges for the successful development of air transport in India (1) enhancing safety, (2) urgent infrastructure improvement, (3) reasonable taxation, (4) commercial freedom and (5) Simplifying the Business through effective use of technology (Concil 2005).

16

Table 1: Profile of Various Players in the Civil Aviation Sector in India

FSCPUBLIC Indian Airlines FSC PRIVATE Jet Sahara King fisher Air Deccan Spice Jet LCC Para mount Go Air IndiGo

Start Date Web Site

Technology Partner 71 / 6 Current Fleet # (Classic / Small) 62/18 Destinations @ (Domestic/ International) 250 Daily Flights 21.5 Domestic Market # Share (2006) 6.903 Passengers Carried in Millions (2006) 63,193.5 Operating Revenue in Millions (2005-06) 62,873.2 Operating Expenses in Millions (2005-06) 320.3 Operating Result in Millions (2005-06) 63.8 Passenger Load Factor (2005-06) 43 Fleet on Order Government Owner / Business of India Group

IC Aug, 1953 www.indian airlines.in In-house

9W May, 1993 www.jetair ways.com Sabre 57 / 8 44/8

S2 Dec, 1993 www. Airsahara.net Gabriel 17 / 7 34

IT May 2005 www.fly kingfisher.com Sabre 21 / 10 31

DN Aug 2003 www. airdeccan.net Radixx 21 / 22 65

OS May 2005 www. spicejet.com Navitaire 13 / 0 15

I7 Oct 2005 www.paramount airways.com Amadeus 0/5 8

G8 Nov 2005 www. goair.in BIS 4/0 11

6E Aug 2006 www.indigo airlines.com Inter Globe Technologies 11 / 0 15

340 31.2 10.028 56,960.6 51,573.0 5,387.6 73.7 40 Naresh Goyal

147 8.8 2.816 20,617.2 21,212.1 -594.9 70.8

180 8.7 2.793 4,250.1 6,587.8 -2,337.7 59.3 84 Kingfisher UB Group

350 18.3 5.875 13,518.1 16,741.4 -3,223.3 74.7 90 Air Deccan / Capt. Gopinath

86 6.9 2.216 3,418.6 3,903.9 -485.3 82.9

53 0.7 0.225 144.2 321.9 -177.7 44.1

56 2.8 0.905 384.0 968.0 -584.0 45.1 20 Wadia Group

78 1.3 0.412 Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available 95 InterGlobe Enterprises

Sahara India Pariwar

20 10 Royal Holding / Paramount Kansagra Family Group

Source : Prepared by researchers with inputs from official websites of DGCA and domestic airlines (as on 19th Aug 2007)

17 Baisya (2004), while identifying the key attributes that influence customer choice in airline selection, also presented a comparative analysis of the performance of domestic airlines on the attributes. Khan, Dutt & Bansal (2007), in a preliminary study, investigated the service quality provided by different domestic airlines. Bansal, Khan & Dutt (2006a) employed the concept of customer lifetime value in measuring marketing ROI for domestic airlines in India. Khan, Dutt & Bansal (2006c) also discussed at length the deployment of IT by the airline industry in India for providing upgraded services to the passengers thereby leading to enhanced customer satisfaction and improvement in overall efficiencies. In yet another research, Khan & Dutt (2006b) traced developments in the aviation sector in India with special reference to LCCs and their role in the emerging borderless world.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES Review of literature conducted as a prelude to the present study revealed that majority of the available studies on customer services are confined to US and Europe. Studies, particularly, in the context of Indian airline industry, are few and far between. Although, airlines have introduced various measures to improve their service profile in the eyes of the customer, yet there is a need to continually assess the dimensions of service that customers look forward to in an airline. LCCs are relatively a new phenomenon in India, and service quality expectations from these carriers have till date not been covered by any researcher in detail. The present study attempts to bridge this gap. Thus, the primary objective of the study was to examine

18 the customers perceptions and expectations of service quality in domestic airline industry with special reference to LCCs. Specifically the study attempts to measure the:1) Dimension of services valued by the passengers, 2) Satisfaction levels of customers on various dimensions of services, 3) Compare the quality of services on domestic flights of selected airlines in India, 4) Compare service expectations; perceptions and the gaps between them using the SERVQUAL scale, and 5) Investigate the extent of applicability of the SERVQUAL instrument to airline industry in India.

Based on the above objectives, the following relationships were hypothesized: H01: There is no difference in the gap between customers perceived and expected service quality vis--vis Tangibility - Legacy Support Services among different categories of airlines. H02: There is no difference in the gap between customers perceived and expected service quality vis--vis Tangibility Additional LCC Support Services among different categories of airlines. H03: There is no difference in the gap between customers perceived and expected service quality vis--vis Tangibility Flight among different categories of airlines. H04: There is no difference in the gap between customers perceived and expected service quality vis--vis Reliability among different categories of airlines. H05: There is no difference in the gap between customers perceived and expected service quality vis--vis Empathy among different categories of airlines.

19 H06: There is no difference in the gap between customers perceived and expected service quality vis--vis Responsiveness among different categories of airlines. H07: There is no difference in the gap between customers perceived and expected service quality vis--vis Assurance among different categories of airlines. H08: There is no difference between customers expected service quality among different categories of airlines. H09: There is no difference between customers perceived service quality among different categories of airlines. H10: There is no difference in the gap between customers perceived and expected service quality among different categories of airlines. It is expected that the findings of the study will help the airlines, government and regulating agencies in evaluating the level of existing services being offered by the players as also in deciding on the portfolio of services to be made mandatory in the interest of passengers. Thus, analysis of various dimensions of service could help evolve a model of service parameters that airlines could adopt.

20 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The tool used primarily in the present research was SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988, 1991). SERVQUAL is a survey instrument that purports to measure the quality of service rendered by an organisation along five dimensions: reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness (RATER). The instrument is viewed as a basic skeleton that requires modification to fit airline industry (Sultan et al., 2000; Gilbert et al., 2003; Park et al., 2006). The gap analysis as per SERVQUAL instrument has been carried out first time across the domestic airline industry in India. SERVPERF analysis has also been simultaneously carried out to provide further insight. Combination of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF instrument makes this study unique in Indian context. The study was carried out across three categories of airlines: Full Service Carriers Public Sector, which includes Indian Airlines and Alliance Air Full Service Carriers Private Sector, which includes Jet Airways, Air Sahara and Kingfisher Airlines Low Cost Carriers, which includes Air Deccan, Spicejet, Paramount, IndiGo and Go Air

Questionnaire Design and Measurements The questionnaire is primarily based on 22 items of SERVQUAL model. In depth interviews were held with airline staff, airline passengers and academics connected with the aviation industry to develop the questionnaire. In addition, the service quality measures were checked against other independent sources of literature related to service

21 quality. These resulted in the identification of 7 service quality dimensions and 31 measurement items suitable for the airline industry. Tangibility dimension was modified to reflect unique characteristics of airline service industry. The instrument used in the present study for measuring airline service quality encompasses 31 items grouped under seven dimensions is given in Table 2. All the items were measured on a 7 point Likerttype scale. The survey instrument contained questions pertaining to expectation and perception rating for each driver. In addition, the research instrument also had questions related to demographics. Service quality feedback was obtained from passengers and domestic airline staff. Gaps 1 4 were measured using quality service audit questionnaire (Messinger 2003) that was filled by staff of the airlines.

Pilot Study The main study was preceded by a pilot study in order to check for appropriateness of the items used in the study. A convenience sample of passengers who had recently traveled by air was used. The pilot study was carried out in two stages. Stage I: In all 65 questionnaires were distributed to passengers to check for clarity of the measurement items. Passengers were asked to complete the questionnaire and also give overall comments about the questionnaire. A total of 45 passengers responded. Based on the feedback, the questionnaire was revised. Stage II: The revised survey questionnaire was tested a second time using 75 passengers who had used domestic airline service during the last 12 months. In total, 66 individuals responded. The revised survey questionnaire was then used on the final sample.

22 Table 2: Instrument for Measuring Airline Service Quality

Service Quality Parameters Tangibility Legacy Support Services

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Visually Appealing Physical Facilities Vast Sales and Support Network Vast Network of Destinations Economical Airfare and Discount Schemes Web-site and Call Center usage Modern Aircraft with up-to-date Facilities Neat Well Dressed and Visually Appealing Staff Seat in Flight of Choice Hassle free Check-in and Boarding Efficient Baggage Handling Mechanism Excellent Quality In-Flight Services Multiple Meal Options of High Quality Special Need Customers Problems due to Critical Incidents Meet Time Commitment Keep Error Free Records Perform Service right the first time Prompt Service to Customers Always Willing to Help Customers Staff Behavior should Instill Confidence Keep Customer informed about time of Service Staff never too busy to respond to customer's request Safe Planes and Facilities During Journey Consistently Courteous Staff Knowledge to Answer Customers' Queries Individual Attention to Customer Staff gives Personal Attention to Customer Customer's Best Interest at Heart Understand Specific Needs of Customers Convenient Flight Schedules Overall Satisfaction with the Airline

Abbreviation
VAPF VSSN VND EADS WCCU MAUF VAS SFC HCB EBHM EQIS MMO SNC PCI MTC EFR PSRF PSC AWHC SBIC CITS SNB SPF CCS KACQ IAC PAC CBIH USNC CFS OSA

Tangibility Additional LCC Support Services

Tangibility Flight

Reliability

Responsiveness

Assurance

Empathy

23 Data and Sampling Illustrative data was mainly obtained from real airline passengers at domestic terminals at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi (IGIA); Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport at Ahmedabad; Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport at Mumbai and Bangalore Airport. It should be noted that the airports covered are the busiest in their respective sectors and thus expected to provide an unbiased representative sample. In all, 1081 passengers were randomly approached during the months of March 2006 Feb 2007. Of these, 477 agreed to participate in the study. During editing phase of the questionnaires, it was observed that 57 responses were incomplete in various respects and thus had to be discarded. This resulted in a total of 420 responses. It included 171 FSC Public, 169 FSC Private and 80 LCC passengers. Of these, New Delhi accounted for around 40%, Mumbai 30%, Bangalore 20% and Ahmedabad 10%. Most of the respondents were Indian. Table 3 gives the demographic profile of the respondents.

24 Table 3: Demographic Profile - Passenger Dimension Primary Airline Total FSC FSC LCC Public Private 148 23 1 101 66 3 32 67 72 16 60 76 19 104 48 14 5 6 62 32 71 102 38 17 14 115 56 73 98 171 143 26 2 125 40 2 35 70 64 15 105 33 16 75 64 17 13 6 84 32 47 92 34 26 17 109 60 73 96 169 70 10 5 61 14 0 27 25 28 13 53 7 7 51 22 5 2 7 49 11 13 51 22 5 2 62 18 54 26 80 361 59 8 287 120 5 94 162 164 44 218 116 42 230 134 36 20 19 195 75 131 245 94 48 33 286 134 200 220 420

Male Female Age Group Less than 21 21 to 40 41 to 60 Above 60 Graduation or Below Highest Qualification Post Graduation Professional Occupation Self Employed Employed (Private Sector) Employed (Govt/ Public Sector Others Less than 0.5 Million Annual Income 0.5 1.0 Million Bracket 1.0 2.0 Million Above 2.0 Million Less than 1 Year Since how long Flying 1 - 5 Years 5 10 Years More than 10 Years 15 Domestic Flights in last 6 10 1 Year 10 20 Above 20 No Frequent Flyer Yes Member No Travel to International Yes Sector Total Gender

25 A non-probability sampling design was used to collect the data from staff who were approached individually during their rest periods for the feedback. Of the 218 questionnaires distributed, 72 were returned. A total of 15 questionnaires were rejected as they were incomplete in various respects. This resulted in 57 usable responses. Table 4 gives the demographic profile of the respondents.

Table 4 Demographic Characteristics Airline Staff Total Primary Airline FSC FSC Public PRIVATE LCC Male 16 15 11 42 Gender Female 4 7 4 15 2 15 13 30 Age Group Less than 30 30 to 40 8 4 1 13 41 to 50 4 3 1 8 Above 50 6 0 0 6 Graduation or Below 6 11 12 29 Highest Qualification Post Graduation 3 6 3 12 Professional 11 5 0 16 0 7 4 11 Duration in Less Than 1 Year Present 1 to 5 Years 2 9 11 22 Airline 5 to 10 Years 1 6 0 7 More than 10 Years 17 0 0 17 7 9 14 30 Functional Passenger Services Area In Flight Services 5 10 0 15 Support Services 8 3 1 12 4 15 10 29 Level in the Junior Management Organization Middle Management 13 7 5 25 Top Management 3 0 0 3 Less than 5 8 10 7 25 Staff Reporting to 5 to 10 5 8 3 16 You 11 to 50 4 1 2 7 More than 50 3 3 3 9 20 22 15 57 Total Dimension

26 The responses were analyzed using SPSS, LISREL and MS-Excel 2000 spreadsheet program. Appropriate statistical tools like EFA, CFA, cross tabulation and one-way ANOVA have been applied on the data collected for the study.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION CUSTOMER SERVICE The validity and reliability analyses of SERVQUAL were conducted as part of the study to determine the extent of the applicability of the dimensions of SERVQUAL to this study.

Validity Analysis Face validity, a subjective criterion reflecting the extent to which scale items are meaningful and appear to represent the construct being measured, has been explicitly assessed a priori in most studies (Babakus et al 1992; Carman, 1990; Parasuraman et al., 1988). In the instant case too, extensive discussions were held with airline executives, passengers and academicians who reviewed the questionnaire and confirmed that modified SERVQUAL - with minor wording changes in few items - had face validity. After evaluation of the questions they judged that all questions were appropriate to be used in measuring passengers attitudes about service quality of domestic airlines in India. Factor analysis was conducted on perceived performance scores (P) and gap between perceived and expected service quality scores (G), using principal component analysis with varimax rotation (Table 5). Items for perception and gap loaded on five factors each.

27 The validity of the classical five-dimensions SERVQUAL is still an unresolved issue when applied to studying airline service quality. The items related to expectations and perceptions might be too general for such a study. Also, the fact that passengers are required to respond to both expectations and perceptions of service quality at the same time could affect the instruments validity and reliability.

28 Table 5: Factor Analysis on Perception (P) and Gap (G) Service Quality Parameters 1

3
P, G P, G P, G

Visually Appealing Physical Facilities Vast Sales and Support Network Vast Network of Destinations Economical Airfare and Discount Schemes Web-site and Call Center usage Modern Aircraft with up-to-date Facilities Neat Well Dressed and Visually Appealing Staff Seat in Flight of Choice P, G Hassle free Check-in and Boarding P, G Efficient Baggage Handling Mechanism P, G Excellent Quality In-Flight Services P, G Multiple Meal Options of High Quality P, G Special Need Customers P, G Problems due to Critical Incidents P, G Perform Service right the first time P, G Meet Time Commitment P, G Keep Error Free Records P, G Keep Customer informed about time of Service P, G Prompt Service to Customers P, G Always Willing to Help Customers P, G Staff never too busy to respond to customer's request P, G Staff Behavior should Instill Confidence P, G Safe Planes and Facilities During Journey P, G Consistently Courteous Staff P, G Knowledge to Answer Customers' Queries P, G Individual Attention to Customer P, G Staff gives Personal Attention to Customer P, G Customer's Best Interest at Heart P, G Understand Specific Needs of Customers P, G Convenient Flight Schedules G Extraction Method : Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method : Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation iterations for both Perception and Gap.

P, G P, G P, G P, G

converged in 6

29 Reliability Measures To assess reliability, Cronbachs alpha was used. Cronbachs alpha is the average of all possible split-half coefficients resulting from different ways of splitting the scale items and a value of 0.6 or less generally indicates unsatisfactory consistency reliability (Malhotra 2005). Reliability analysis was conducted for perception and gap on each category of airline and reliability values were calculated for each dimension of SERVQUAL. The reliability value for SERVQUAL as a uni-dimensional instrument was high in all cases. The Cronbachs alpha values for each measure are presented in Table 6.

Table 6 Reliability of SERVQUAL Dimensions Cronbach's ALPHA PERCEPTION Overall ( 30 Items ) 0.964 Tangible Legacy Support Services ( 3 Items ) 0.695 Tangible New Support Services ( 2 Items ) 0.685 Tangible Flight ( 7 Items ) 0.873 Reliability ( 4 Items ) 0.878 Responsiveness ( 5 Items ) 0.921 Assurance ( 4 Items ) 0.891 Empathy ( 4 Items ) 0.832

GAP 0.955 0.660 0.660 0.845 0.863 0.896 0.864 0.799

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using LISREL 8.5 to validate the relationship between observed and the latent variables. The results of CFA suggested that the seven dimension conceptualization fitted the data for Indian domestic passengers (Table 7).

30 Table 7: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary Goodness of Fit Statistics PERCEPTION

Degrees of Freedom Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Normed Fit Index (NFI) Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) Standardized RMR Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) 384 1246.665 (P = 0.0) 0.0760 0.972 0.978 0.981 0.110 0.0552 0.827 0.791

GAP
384 1127.628 (P = 0.0) 0.0694 0.968 0.976 0.979 0.131 0.0527 0.844 0.811

PERFORMANCE OF AIRLINES ON VARIOUS SERVICE PARAMETERS The performance of the airlines on various service parameters was analyzed and the same is presented below: a) Tangibility Legacy Support Services FSC Public has the biggest network of destinations. It also has vast sales & support network. FSC Private have visually appealing physical facilities. Gap was highest in case of LCC for network of destinations. Airline staff exhibited higher perception of customers expectation across all the airlines. Passengers expected LCCs to fly to more destinations. b) Tangibility Additional LCC Support Services LCCs were rated high on economical airfares and use of website/call center. Passengers expected more discount and economical airfares in case of full service carriers. c) Tangibility Flight Passengers had high perception regarding the quality of in-flight service of private airlines. Gap regarding aircraft quality and facilities available was high in case of FSC

31 Public as the aircrafts are quite old, especially those used by Alliance Air. Passengers were not satisfied with the quality of food provided during the flight. Interestingly, the gap was also high for LCC vis--vis in flight meal options, even though the LCC guidelines are quite clear regarding non-supply of meals to the passengers. Passengers were clearly not satisfied with baggage handling procedure of LCCs. FSC - Private and LCC staff was perceived to be neat and good looking. FSC Private customers expected more from the airlines. They wanted better quality service during check-in and baggage handling. They desired seat of choice and better quality meals during the flight. FSC Public passengers expected more with respect to in-flight services. d) Reliability Gap was high in case of reliability of service for LCCs. Respondents were not satisfied with their service in case of special needs, problems due to critical incidents 1 and their inability in meeting time commitments. The service of FSC Public was also perceived to be poor during the critical incidents. The general perception was that FSC Private keep error free records and performed service right the first time. During critical incidents, FSC Private customers expect airline to provide better service. FSC Public passengers have higher expectation from the airline to meet time commitment. Private airlines (both FSC and LCC) passengers expect airlines to keep error free records.

Negative customer encounters, which do not proceed normally but create friction, irritation and dissatisfaction. According to Edvardsson (1992) the major critical incidents in the view of business passengers are delays, cancelled flights, delayed or damaged luggage and overbooking.

32 e) Empathy Gap between passengers expectation and perception was high for LCC on all the parameters, namely, staff giving personal attention to customer, airline having customer's best interest at heart; staff attending to specific needs of customers, and convenient flight schedules. It is worth mentioning that LCCs started operations in India during the last few years and their fleet size is not big. To extract maximum revenue, they tend to fly aircraft for longer durations leading to inconvenient flight schedules and inconvenience to passenger in case of any snag in aircraft. Overall, all airlines scored low on empathy. FSC Private passengers expect airline staff to have customers best interest at heart. Passengers expect FSC to provide more convenient flight schedules. f) Responsiveness LCCs were unable to provide prompt service to customers perhaps due to low staff to passenger ratio owing to rapid expansion in their operations. At Delhi airport, the number of counters available to them are few (and small) leading to congestion and delay in service to customers. Most of the LCC passengers are first time flyers and consequently they have high anxiety regarding when service will be performed. LCCs have not been able to keep pace with their expectations. The perception was that FSC Private provides prompt service to customers and that their staff was always willing to help customers, and they keep the customer informed about the time of service. Overall, FSC Private scored high on responsiveness. Passengers expect FSC Private staff to meet their requirements and provide prompt service.

33 g) Assurance Findings suggest that LCC staff were poorly trained to answer customers queries. In fact, most of the passenger handling staff is freshly recruited and at times they find it impossible to handle all the passenger queries. They also do no have adequate staff to provide individual attention to customers. The first time flier, who probably is paying beyond his means, expects higher level of personal attention, which, unfortunately for him, is not a part of package. FSC Private scored high on assurance. FSC Public and LCC staff was expected to provide more individual attention to the customer. Customers also expected FSC Private staff to have more knowledge to answer their queries.

Overall, airlines have higher perception of customers expectation. However, customer expect FSC Private to provide even higher level of service in case of tangibility additional LCC support services, tangibility flight, reliability and responsiveness. A summary of the above findings is presented in Table 8 given below:

34

Table 8: Airlines Performance on Service Parameters

Service Quality Dimension Tangibility Pax Legacy Support Staff Services Gap Tangibility Pax Additional LCC Staff Support Services Gap Tangibility Pax Flight Staff Gap Reliability Pax Staff Gap Empathy Pax Staff Gap Responsiveness Pax Staff Gap Assurance Pax Staff Gap Overall Pax Staff Gap FSC Public E P G 6.064 5.213 -0.851 6.483 5.717 -0.766 -0.419 -0.504 -0.085 6.368 4.714 -1.654 6.525 6.15 -0.375 -0.157 -1.436 -1.279 6.17 4.62 -1.55 6.39 5.04 -1.35 -0.22 -0.42 -0.2 6.31 4.66 -1.65 6.47 5.33 -1.14 -0.16 -0.67 -0.51 6.15 4.65 -1.5 6.36 5.21 -1.15 -0.21 -0.56 -0.35 6.27 4.63 -1.64 6.53 5.06 -1.47 -0.26 -0.43 -0.17 6.18 4.81 -1.37 6.39 5.03 -1.36 -0.21 -0.22 -0.01 6.21 6.44 -0.23 4.72 5.26 -0.54 -1.49 -1.19 -0.3 FSC Private E P G 5.97 5.209 -0.761 6.288 5.5 -0.788 -0.318 -0.291 0.027 6.432 5.039 -1.393 6.386 5.296 -1.09 0.046 -0.257 -0.303 6.22 5.11 -1.11 6.08 5.55 -0.54 0.14 -0.44 -0.57 6.43 5.07 -1.35 6.36 5.51 -0.85 0.07 -0.44 -0.5 6.24 5.01 -1.23 6.26 5.51 -0.75 -0.02 -0.5 -0.48 6.34 5.15 -1.2 6.28 5.64 -0.65 0.06 -0.49 -0.55 6.28 5.26 -1.02 6.38 5.67 -0.7 -0.1 -0.41 -0.32 6.27 6.27 0.00 5.12 5.55 -0.43 -1.15 -0.72 -0.43 E 6.008 6.422 -0.414 6.563 6.633 -0.070 6.03 6.45 -0.42 6.29 6.43 -0.14 6.16 6.45 -0.29 6.23 6.39 -0.16 6.16 6.33 -0.17 6.17 6.43 -0.26 LCC P 4.546 5.756 -1.210 5.494 6.633 -1.139 4.37 5.33 -0.96 4.57 5.65 -1.08 4.55 5.75 -1.2 4.59 5.53 -0.94 4.67 5.53 -0.86 4.6 5.63 -1.03 G -1.462 -0.666 -0.796 -1.069 0 -1.069 -1.65 -1.11 -0.54 -1.71 -0.77 -0.94 -1.61 -0.7 -0.91 -1.64 -0.85 -0.79 -1.49 -0.8 -0.69 -1.57 -0.8 -0.77 E 6.016 6.392 -0.376 6.431 6.5 -0.069 6.16 6.29 -0.13 6.35 6.42 -0.07 6.19 6.35 -0.16 6.29 6.4 -0.11 6.21 6.37 -0.16 6.23 6.37 -0.14 Overall P 5.084 5.643 -0.559 4.993 5.947 -0.954 4.77 5.31 -0.54 4.81 5.49 -0.68 4.78 5.47 -0.69 4.83 5.41 -0.58 4.96 5.41 -0.45 4.86 5.47 -0.61 G -0.932 -0.749 -0.183 -1.438 -0.553 -0.885 -1.39 -0.98 -0.41 -1.54 -0.93 -0.61 -1.41 -0.88 -0.53 -1.46 -0.99 -0.47 -1.25 -0.96 -0.29 -1.37 -0.9 -0.47

Legend: Expectation: E; Perception: P; Gap: G; Pax: Passenger

35 Reasons for Gaps Gap 1 (Consumer Expectation Management Perception Gap). 5 items LCCs do not undertake market research or utilize its findings. The regular interaction with customers is also low in their case. FSC Public, because of its size and legacy procedures, is not able to disseminate information to all levels. The staff agreed that levels of management inhibits communication with the customers. Gap 2 (Management Perception Service Quality Specification Gap). 17 items FSC Public scores lowest on most of the parameters as there are no clear goals for customer service, no mechanism to measure performance against these goals and there is no reward to improve service quality. For LCCs, sales goals are more important than customer service. Gap 3 (Service Quality specification service delivery Gap). 16 items Here also FSC Public score low on most of the parameters. The staff is neither empowered to deliver service, nor do they have the decision making freedom. There is also no reward for better customer. Staff feels that they spend more time resolving problems that they have little control over. Gap 4 (Service Delivery External Communications Gap). 5 items FSC Public customer service staff do not have input in planning and execution of advertising, nor are they aware of external communication to customers. Their staff feels that external communication does not accurately reflect what customers receive in the service encounter.

36 RESULTS OF HYPOTHESES TESTING One-way ANOVA test for independent samples were conducted at significance level of 0.05 to test the null hypotheses. To gain deeper insight, the same was checked for different sub groups too i.e. Tangible Support Services, Tangible Flight, Reliability, Empathy, Responsiveness and Assurance. It was observed that there is no difference between customers expected service quality among different categories of airlines. However, passengers were found to have significantly higher perception of service quality for FSC Private as compared to FSC Public and LCCs. Findings also indicate difference in the gap between customers perceived and expected service quality among different categories of airlines for all dimensions. Table 9 presents the results of ANOVA test.

37 Table 9: Results of One Way ANOVA

Hypotheses N H01 Gap between customers perceived and expected service quality (Tangibility Legacy Support Service) Airline Category H02 Gap between customers perceived and expected service quality (Tangibility Additional LCC Support Service) Airline Category H03 Gap between customers perceived and expected service quality (Tangibility - Flight) Airline Category H04 Gap between customers perceived and expected service quality (Reliability) Airline Category H05 Gap between customers perceived and expected service quality (Empathy) Airline Category H06 Gap between customers perceived and expected service quality (Responsiveness) Airline Category H07 Gap between customers perceived and expected service quality (Assurance) Airline Category H08 Customers expected service quality - Airline Category H09 Customers perceived service quality Airline Category H10 Gap between customers perceived and expected service quality Airline Category Descriptives Mean Homogeneity of Variances Std. Std. Levene Sig. Dev. Error Statistic ANOVA F Sig. Interpre tation

420 -0.932 1.171 0.057 0.741 0.477 10.897 0.000 Rejected

420 -1.438 1.294 0.631 3.420 0.034 5.897 0.003 Rejected

420 -1.393 1.199 0.059 3.380 0.035 8.329 0.000 Rejected

420 -1.545 1.262 0.062 3.182 0.043 3.330 0.037 Rejected

420 -1.410 1.201 0.059 2.942 0.054 3.567 0.029 Rejected

420 -1.460 1.315 0.064 5.915 0.003 5.860 0.003 Rejected

420 -1.252 1.298 0.063 4.231 0.015 4.920 0.008 Rejected Not Rejected

420 6.230 0.677 0.033 0.464 0.629 0.690 0.502

420 4.860 1.000 0.049 2.426 0.090 10.548 0.000 Rejected

420 -1.370 1.038 0.051 4.194 0.016 6.561 0.002 Rejected

Hypotheses H04 and H05 significant at p=0.05 while others were significant at p=0.01.

38 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS This paper provides some practical implications for airline marketing managers. The analysis shows that the dimensions of Tangibility (Legacy Support Service, Additional LCC Support Service and Flight) were significant drivers of customer service. Airline marketers should realize that improvements in these three factors would enhance passengers repurchase intention and their recommendation to other passengers via a favorable airline image. In addition, airline marketers should develop strategies to improve service quality such as meeting passengers desired service levels, improving the quality of in-flight meal, solving service problems effectively and immediately, making convenient schedules for passengers, preventing service problems from occurring and so on. These strategies will enhance airline image and result in retaining existing passengers and enticing passengers from other airlines. Reliability is one of the most important requirements of airline operations (Sultan et al 2000). Even a minor slip in reliability leads to the formation of a negative airline image. Therefore, domestic airlines should strive to keep a good safety record and on time performance in order to attract potential passengers. The study provides justification to the belief that differences exist in consumer perceptions and expectations based on airline categories. Although it is understood that practitioners had used the SERVQUAL model in various countries, it represents the first use of the model across airline categories in India. The study provides empirical evidence for the expectations and perceptions differences that may be expected in service quality and may significantly impact airlines. Airline passengers have different expectations for airline service quality based on airline category, as well as perceiving the service quality

39 Table 10 : Top Three Service Parameters* for Different Customer Profile

Total FSC - Public Airline Category FSC - Private LCC Gender Age Group Male Female Less than 21 21 to 40 41 to 60 Above 60 Expectations Perceptions Gap VND, VSSN, SPF PCI, MAUF, MTC 171 SPF, SNC, PCI VAS, SPF, CCS EADS, PCI, MTC 169 PCI, SPF, SNC 80 WCCU, EADS, SPF WCCU, EADS, VAS MMO, PCI, EBHM 361 SPF, SNC, PCI 59 EADS, PCI, HCB 8 SPF, WCCU, CFS 287 SNC, EADS, SPF 120 SPF, PCI, EBHM 5 EADS, VAS, EBHM SPF, VSSN, VAS VAS, VND, CCS WCCU, VAS, SNC PCI, MTC, SNC MTC, PCI, EADS PCI, MMO, MTC

VSSN, SPF, VND PCI, MTC, SNC SPF, VAS, CCS PCI, AWHC, EBHM WCCU, VND, MAUF PSRF, CITS, SNB WCCU, VAS, HCB VSSN, SPF, VAS SPF, VND, VAS WCCU, VAS, SPF SPF, VAS, VSSN VND, VSSN, SPF PCI, MTC, SNC PCI, MTC, AWHC MTC, PCI, EBHM MTC, MMO, EBHM PCI, MTC, EADS PCI, SNC, EBHM PCI, MTC, EADS PCI, SNC, MTC MTC, PCI, CBIH PCI, EBHM, MTC MTC, SNC, AWHC MMO, MTC, KACQ PCI, MTC, MMO PCI, AWHC, MTC PCI, MTC, EADS MTC, PCI, SNC PCI, HCB, MTC PCI, MTC, EBHM PCI, MTC, MAUF PCI, MTC, SNC SBIC, MTC, EFR PCI, MTC, SNC EBHM, PCI, MTC PCI, MTC, MMO PCI, MTC, EBHM PCI, MTC, EBHM

Graduation or Below 94 SNC, SPF, PCI Highest Qualifica- Post Graduation 162 EADS, SPF, PCI tion Professional 164 SPF, PCI, EBHM Occupation Self Employed Employed (Private Sector) Employed (Govt/ Public Sector Others 44 MAUF, SNC, PCI 218 SPF, EADS, PCI 116 SNC, SPF, EBHM

42 EADS, EBHM, PCI VND, CCS, SPF VAS, SPF, CCS SPF, VND, VSSN VSSN, EFR, SPF CFS, VND, VAS VAS, EFR, SBIC VAS, SPF, WCCU SPF, VSSN, VAS SPF, VND, VSSN VAS, SPF, CCS VND, VSSN, SPF SPF, VAPF, VAS SPF, VSSN, VND SPF, VAS, VSSN

Annual Income Bracket

Less than 0.5 Million 230 EADS, SNC, PCI 0.5 1.0 Million 134 PCI, EBHM, SPF 1.0 2.0 Million 36 SPF, MAUF, EBHM Above 2.0 Million 20 SPF, SNC, PCI 19 CFS, KACQ, SPF 195 PCI, EADS, SNC 75 SPF, SNC, EADS 131 EBHM, SPF, HCB 245 94 48 33 EADS, SPF, PCI SNC, PCI, HCB SNC, MAUF, SPF SNC, MAUF, SPF SPF, SNC, PCI

Since how Less than 1 Year long 1 - 5 Years Flying 5 10 Years More than 10 Years Domestic 1 5 Flights in 6 10 last 1 Year 10 20 Above 20 Class of Travel Frequent Flyer Member Travel to Internatio nal Sector Overall Economy Business No Yes No Yes Parameters

MTC, CCS, MAUF VSSN, CFS, SPF VAS, SPF, VSSN 286 SPF, PCI, EADS 134 SNC, EBHM, HCB SPF, EFR, VAS 200 EADS, PCI, SPF 220 EBHM, SPF, SNC 420 SPF, PCI, EADS VAS, WCCU, SPF VND, VSSN, SPF SPF, VAS, VSSN

Overall Dimensions

7 T-ALSS, REL, RESP * Refer table 2 for parameter description

T-LSS, T-ALSS, REL, RESP, ASS T-ALSS

40 of airlines to vary in terms of SERVQUAL model features and overall service quality. Table 10 gives top three service parameters for different customer profile. The findings exemplify that merely excellent perceived service quality is insufficient to develop long-term service loyalty without investigating the mediating effect of customer satisfaction. Passengers expect airline to ensure safe journey, support to mitigate problems due to critical incidents and meet time commitments. Thus, service managers should ensure that the performance on all components of delivered service is perceived as excellent by customers and also sustain high levels of satisfaction. In order to meet this objective, service staff must be well trained for keeping good relationship with customers and for addressing customers enquires. As suggested from the measure of perceived service quality, besides the quality of interactions between service staff and customers, physical outcomes are also important and need to be well managed.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The major limitations of this study are as follows: a) This study was limited to airlines services in a specific domestic market, i.e. India. b) The study was conducted on a limited number of flights. c) Collecting respondents data on expectations and perceptions of service quality at the same time could have compromised the reliability of the data. The nature of this research precluded airlines renowned for service quality internationally and which do not compete on the designated routes, e.g. Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, and Emirates. As future growth for airlines competing internationally is forecast to rise in Asia in general and India in particular, studies of service quality issues encompassing such airlines and the influence of regional cultures need to be explored.

41 CONCLUSIONS In India, the domestic airline industry has entered into 2nd phase of liberalization with the entry of LCCs. There is a growing competition amongst airlines to provide better quality services to passenger at economical air-fares. Technology is also being extensively used to improve customer satisfaction. Analysis of data revealed that items for perception and gap loaded on four factors each. The validity of the classical five-dimensions of SERVQUAL could not be resolved for service quality in case of domestic airlines. The reliability value for SERVQUAL as a unidimensional instrument was high. In the context of customer service vis--vis Full Service Carrier Public Sector, Full Service Carrier Private Sector and Low Cost Carriers, expectations were significantly high for tangibility additional LCC support service, reliability and responsiveness. Service quality perceptions were low for tangibility flight and empathy, especially in case of Low Cost Carriers. Gap between perceptions and expectations were observed to be highest for Low Cost Carriers. Overall, reliability of service was an area of concern for passengers across all categories of airlines. There was no difference between customers expected service quality among different categories of airlines. However, there was difference between customers perceived service quality. As a result, gap was also observed between customers perceived and expected service quality among different categories of airlines. Dimensions of Tangibility (Legacy Support Service, Additional LCC Support Service and Flight) and Reliability were significant drivers of customer service. Passengers

42 expected airlines to ensure safe journey, offer support to mitigate problems due to critical incidents and particularly meet time commitments.

JEL classification: M31, L93, N75 Key words: Customer Satisfaction, Airline, Customer Service, SERVQUAL, India, Civil Aviation,

43 REFERENCES Aga, M. & Safakli, O.V. (2007). An empirical investigation of service quality and customer satisfaction in professional accounting firms: evidence from North Cyprus. Problems & perspectives in management, Issue 3, 84-98 Alter, S. (2003). Customer service, responsibility, and systems in international ecommerce: should a major airline reissue a stolen ticket? Communications of AIS, 2003(12), 146-154. Anitsal, I. & Paige, R.C. (2006). An exploratory study on consumer perceptions of service quality in technology-based self-service. Services Marketing Quarterly, 27(3), 53-67. Antony, F.J. & Ghosh, S. (2004). Evaluating service quality in a UK hotel chain: a case study. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(6), 380384. Arambewela, R. & Hall, J. (2006). A comparative analysis of international education satisfaction using SERVQUAL. Journal of Services Research, 6, 141-163. Arasli, H., Katircioglu, S.T. & Mehtap-Smadi, S. (2005). A comparison of service quality in the banking industry. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 2005, 23(7), 508526. Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K.J. & Swan, J.E. (1996). SERVQUAL revisited: a critical review of service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 10 (6), 62-81. Awasthi, R. (2007, August 19). Domestic travel segment clocks 38% growth. The Economic Times. Babakus, E., and Boller, G. W. 1992. An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Business Research, 24 (3), 253-268. Baisya, R. K., Sarkar, R. (2004). Customer satisfaction in the services sector : A case study of the airline industry, Journal of Advances in Management Research, I(2), 7379. Baker, C. (2007, 15 June). Centre stage: IT trends survey 2007, Airline Business, Downloaded from www.flightglobal.com on 3rd Sept 07. Bansal, S. C., Khan, M. N., & Dutt, V. R. (2006). Return on marketing investment: A case study of domestic airline industry in India. Proceedings of the International Conference on Return on Marketing Investment. Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Jan 5-6, 2006. Baumann, C., Burton, S., Elliott, G. & Kehr, H.M. (2007). Prediction of attitude and behavioural intentions in retail banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 25(3), 102-116.

44 Bejou, D. & Palmer, A. (1998). Service failure and loyalty: An exploratory empirical study of airline customers. Journal of Services Marketing, 12(1), 7-22. Bel, J.L.L. (2005). Beyond the friendly skies: An integrative framework for managing the air travel experience. Managing Service Quality, 15(5), 437-451. Bexley, J.B. (2005). Service quality: An empirical study of expectations versus perceptions in the delivery of financial services in community of Sterling. Unpublished doctoral thesis submitted to Department of Marketing, University of Stirling. Bhandari, L. (2002). Policy paper. Unshackling Indian air transport, Julian L Simon Centre for Research, Liberty Institute, New Delhi. Bhatt, S. (1997). The new aviation policy of India Liberalization and deregulation, Delhi. Lancer Books. Bisignani, G. (2005). Aviation in India : Great opportunities and great challenges. IATA, 18 October 2005 Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., & Tetreault, M.S. (1990). The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54(1) 71-84. Boland, D., Morrison, D. and ONeill, S. (2003), The future of CRM in the airline industry: A new paradigm for customer management, IBM Institute for Business Value, 2002. Botha, J.H. (2004). Improving customer satisfaction and operational effectiveness with the use of an ICT service management best practice framework: Action research in the shared service centre. Oxford Brookes University. Bowen, B.D. & Headley, D.E. (2007, April 1). Airline Quality Rating 2007. Downloaded from www.aqr.aero on 3rd Sept 07. Brady, M.K., Cronin, J.J. & Brand, R.R. (2002). Performance-only measurement of service quality: a replication and extension. Journal of Business Research 55, 17 31 Brown S.W. & Bitner M.J. (2006). Mandating a services revolution for marketing. Published in The service dominant logic of marketing by Lusch & Vargo. Brysland, A., and Curry, A. 2001. Service improvements in public services using SERVQUAL. Managing Service Quality, 11 (6), 389-401. Butler D. L. (2001). Deregulation, information technology, and the changing locational dynamics of the U.S. airline industry. Ph.D Thesis. University of Cincinnati, USA http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/view.cgi?ucin1000487876

45 Buttle, F. A., (1996). SERVQUAL: Review, critique, research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 30, 8-32. Carman, J.M. 1990. Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing, 66 (2), 27-45. Cary, D., (2004). A view from the inside. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management; July. 3, 2 Cassab, H. & Maclachlan, D.L. (2006). Interaction fluency: A customer performance measure of multichannel service. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55(7), 555-568. Cerasani, R. A. A. (2002). Market structure and pricing relationships in the United States airline industry. MS Thesis. University of Nevada, Reno. http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/preview/1410242 Cezard, A. (1999). Determinant's of services expectations : An application to the airline industry. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Concordia University. Chan, D. (2000). The development of the airline industry from 1978 to 1998 A strategic global overview. The Journal of Management Development, 19 (6), 489-514. Chang, D., & Lim, S. (2002). Measuring airlines service quality : SERVQUAL or SERVPERF? Annual Meeting Proceedings. Decision Sciences Institute . Chang, Y. & Yeh, C. (2001). Evaluating airline competitiveness using multi-attribute decision making. Omega 29. 405415 Chen, I.J., Gupta, A. & Rom, W. (1994). A study of price and quality in service operations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(2), 23-33. Chitnis, A. (2007). Satisfaction formation process for Iranian airline passengers. Unpublished Master Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Division of Industrial Marketing and ecommerce, ISSN 1653-0187. Concil, A. (2005, 18 October). Five Challenges For A Successful Indian Air Transport Sector. IATA. Downloaded from www.iata.org on 1st Sept 07. Cook, C. & Thompson, B. (2000). Reliability and validity of SERVQUAL scores used to evaluate perceptions of library service quality. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(4), 248-258. Cronin, J., and Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, July, 55-67.

46 Cronin, J., and Taylor, S.A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling performance based and perceptions minus expectations measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58, January, 125-31. Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., Hult, G. M. 2000. Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioural intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), 193-218. Dabholkar, PA., Thorpe, D. L. & Rentz. J. O. (1996). A measure of service quality for retail stores: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(l), 3-16. Danaher, P.J. (1997) Using conjoint analysis to determine the relative importance of service attributes measured in customer satisfaction surveys. Journal of Retailing, Volume 73(Z), 235-260, DGCA (2007). India air transport statistics 2005 - 06. Statistical Division, Directorate General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. Doganis, R. (2006). The airline business. London: Routledge. Donnelly, M. & Shiu, E. (1999). Assessing service quality and its link with value for money in a UK local authority's housing repairs service using the SERVQUAL approach. Total Quality Management, 10(4/5), 498-507. Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S. & Mehta S.C (1999). Testing the SERVQUAL scale in the business-to-business sector: The case of ocean freight shipping service. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(2), 13-15. Edvardsson Bo (1992). Service breakdowns: A study of critical incidents in an airline. International Journal of Service Industry Management 3(4), 17-29 Elliott, K.M. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: A marketing management dilemma when assessing service quality. Journal of Marketing Management, 4(2), 5661. Feldman, J.M. (2001). Airline IT goes to war. Air Transport World, Nov 2001; 38, 11 Finn, D.W., Lamb Jr. & Charles W. (1991). An evaluation of the SERVQUAL scales in a retailing setting. Advances in Consumer Research, 18(1), 483-490. Franke1, M. & Hamilton, B.A. (2004). Competition between network carriers and lowcost carriersretreat battle or breakthrough to a new level of efficiency? Journal of Air Transport Management 10 (2004) 1521 Frost, F.A. & Kumar, M. (2000). Intservqual - An internal adaptation of the gap model in a large service organization. Journal Of Services Marketing, 14(5), 358-377.

47 Frost, F.A. & Kumar, M. (2001). Service quality between internal customers and internal suppliers in an international airline. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(4), 371-386. Gardner, E.S. Jr. (2004). Dimensional analysis of airline quality. Interfaces, 34(4), 272279. Gareiss, R. (2001). How IT helped an airline recover. InformationWeek. Nov 19, 2001; 864 Gareiss, R. (2003). Technology takes to the air. InformationWeek. Apr 21, 2003; 936 Herbig, P., Genestre, A. (1996), "An examination of the cross cultural differences in service quality: The example of Mexico and the USA", Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(3), 43-53. Ghobrial, A. & Trusilov. A (2005). A perspective on information technology in the airline industry. Journal of Transportation Law, Logistics, and Policy. 72(1), 71 Gilbert, D & Wong, R.K.C. (2003). Passenger expectations and airline services: A Hong Kong based study. Tourism Management, 24, 519-532. Gillen, D. & Morrison, W. (2002). Bundling, integration and the delivered price of air travel: Are low cost carriers full service competitors? Journal of Air Transport Management, 9(1), 15-23. Gkritza, K., Niemeier, D. & Mannering, F. (2006). Airport security screening and changing passenger satisfaction: An exploratory assessment. Journal of Air Transport Management 12, 213219 Gopinath, G.R. (2007, January 7). Skys not the limit for low-cost aviators. The Economic Times. Gourdin, K.N. & Kloppenborg, T.J. (1991). Identifying service gaps in commercial air travel: The first step toward quality improvement. Transportation Journal, 22-30. Grnroos, C. (1978). A Service oriented approach to marketing of services, European Journal of Marketing. 12(8) 588-601. Grnroos, C. (2006). Adopting a service logic for marketing. Marketing Theory, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2006, 317-333. Gursoy, D., Chen, M. & Kim. H.J. (2005). The US airlines relative positioning based on attributes of service quality. Tourism Management 26, 5767. Gustafsson, A., Ekdahl, F. & Edvardsson, B. (1999). Customer focused service development in practice - A case study at Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS). International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10(4), 344-358.

48 Headley, D. & Bowen, B. (1997). International airline quality measurement. Journal of Air Transportation World Wide 2(1), 55-63. Heracleous, L., Wirtz, J. & Johnston, R. (2004). Cost effective service excellence: Lessons from Singapore airlines. Business Strategy Review, 15(1) 33-38. Home, R.A., Peters, M. & Pikkemaat, B. (2005). A new tune from an old instrument: The application of SERVQUAL to a tourism service business. Innovation in Hospitality & Tourism, 185-202. Hunter, J.A. (2006). A correlational study of how airline customer service and consumer perception of airline customer service affect the air rage phenomenon. Journal of Air Transportation, 11(3), 78-109. Hussey, M.K. (1999). Using the concept of loss: An alternative SERVQUAL measure. The Services Industry Journal, 19(4), 89-101. IATA Annual Report 2007. Downloaded from www.iata.org on 1st Sept 07. InterVISTAS-ga (2006). Study. The economic impact of Air Service Liberalization. Downloaded from www.iata.org on 1st Sept.07. Jain, S. K. & Gupta, G. (2004). Measuring service quality: SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF scales. Vikalpa, 29 (2), 25-37. Jiang, H. & Doukas, L. (2003), Can customer-centric e-business system achieve competitive advantage for airline industry? The Ninth Australian World Wide Web Conference, July 5-9, 2003, Gold Coast, Australia. Jiang, J. J., Klein, G. & Carr, C. L. (2002). Measuring information system service quality: SERVQUAL from the other side. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 145-166. Juwaheer, T.D. (2004). Exploring international tourists perceptions of hotel operations by using a modified SERVQUAL approach A case study of Mauritius. Managing Service Quality, 14 (5), 350-64. Kalamas, M., Laroche, M. & Cezard, A. (2002). A model of the antecedents of should and will service expectations. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 9, 291 308 Kasper, H., Helsdingen, P.V. & Gabbott, M. (2006). Services marketing management A strategic perspective, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, England. Kelemen, Z. (2003). Latest information technology development in the airline industry. Periodica Polytechnica Ser. Transp. Eng, 31(1-2), 45-52. Khan, M. N., & Dutt, V. R. (2006a). Aviation marketplace and innovative business solutions: Evidences from low cost carriers in India. Proceedings of the National

49 Seminar on Business Strategies in the Borderless World. Amity Business School, Manesar, India October 8-9. Khan, M. N., Dutt, V. R., & Bansal, S. C. (2006b). Global challenges and entrepreneurship in civil aviation industry: A case study of India. Proceedings of Global Conference on Job And Wealth Creation Through Entrepreneurship, Management Development Institute (MDI), Gurgaon, India, & School of Public Policy, George Mason University, Virginia, U.S.A. and Max Planck Institute of Economics, Jena, Germany, October 26-28. Khan, M. N., Dutt, V. R., & Bansal, S. C. (2006c). Role of IT in enhancing service quality: An empirical study of domestic airlines in India. Proceedings of the international conference on Service Industry: Challenges & Opportunities. Waljat Colleges of Applied Sciences, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. 13-14 September . Khan, M. N., Dutt, V. R., & Bansal, S. C. (2007). Customer perceptions and expectations of service quality: A case study of domestic airline industry in India. Proceedings of the conference on Marketing. Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Jan 4-5. Kilbourne, W., Duffy, J.A., Duffy M., and Giarchi, G.G. (2004). The applicability of SERVQUAL in crossnational measurements of health-care quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 18 (7), 524-33. Knibb, D. (2005). Service formula. Airline Business;, 21(12), 68-70. Kouthouris, C. & Alexandris, K. (2005). Can service quality predict customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the sport tourism industry? An application of the SERVQUAL model in an outdoors setting. Journal of Sport Tourism, May2005, 10(2), 101-111. Kozak N., Karatepe O.M. & Avci T. (2003). Measuring the quality of airline services: evidence from northern Cyprus. Tourism Analysis, 8(1), 75-87. 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. Leone, K. & Liu, R. (2003). Measures of effectiveness for passenger baggage security screening. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Ling, F.I., Lin, K., and Lu, J.L. 2005. Difference in service quality of cross-strait airlines and its effect on passengers preferences. Journal of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 6, 798-813. Lioua, J.J.H. & Tzeng, G. (2007). A non-additive model for evaluating airline service quality. Journal of Air Transport Management 13, 131138 Llosa, S., Chandon, J.L., and Orsingher, C. (1998). An empirical study of SERVQUALs dimensionality. The Service Industries Journal, 18 (2), 16-44.

50 Lovelock, C. (1983). Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights. Journal of Marketing, 47, 9-20. Lusch, R.F. & Vargo, S. L. (2006). The service dominant logic of marketing Dialog, debate & directions. Eastern Economy Edition. Malhotra, N.K. (2005). Marketing research An applied orientation, 4th Edition. Prentice Hall of India. Manuela Jr, W.S. (2007). Airline liberalization effects on fare: The case of the Philippines. Journal of Business Research 60, 161167 Mazzeo, M.J. (2003). Competition and service quality in the U.S. airline industry. Review Of Industrial Organization, 22, 275-296. McIvor, R., O'Reilly, D. & Ponsonby, S. (2003). The impact of internet technologies on the airline industry: Current strategies and future developments. Strategic Change; Jan/Feb 2003; 12, 1 Mehta, S.C. & Durvasula, S. (1998). Relationships between SERVQUAL dimensions and organizational performance in the case of a business-to-business service. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 13(1), 40-53. Messinger P.R. (2003). A service quality audit : Application of the gap analysis model. Downloaded from www.ciras.com on 15th May 2004 Morrison, W.G. (2004). Dimensions of predatory pricing in air travel markets. Journal of Air Transport Management 10, 8795 Myerscough, M.A. (2002). Concerns about SERVQUALs underlying dimensions. Iacis, 462-470. Naresh Chandra Committee Report, (2003). A road map for the civil aviation sector. Ministry of Civil Aviation, India. Natalisa, D. & Subroto, B. (2003). Effects of management commitment on service quality to increase customer satisfaction of domestic airlines in Indonesia. Singapore Management Review, 25(1), 85-104. NCAER Report for CII (2000). The future of civil aviation in India: Structure, policy, regulation and infrastructure. CII, India. Nel, D., Pitt, L.F., and Berthon, P.R. 1997. The SERVQUAL instrument: reliability and validity in South Africa. South African Journal of Business Management, 28 (3), 113123.

51 Nyeck, S., Morales, M., Ladhari, R. & Pons, F. (2002). 10 years of service quality measurement: reviewing the use of the SERVQUAL instrument. Cuadernos de Difusin. OConnell, J.F.(2005). Passengers perceptions of low cost airlines and full service carriers: A case study involving Ryanair, Aer Lingus, Air Asia and Malaysia Airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management 11, 259272 OToole, K., Pilling, M. (2004). IT trends survey 2004, Airline Business, July 2004 Orwig, R.A., Pearson, J. & Cochran, D (1997). An empirical investigation into the validity of servqual in the public sector. Public Administration Quarterly, 21(1), 5468. Ostrowski, P.L., O'Brien, T.V. & Gordon, G.L. (1993). Service quality and customer loyalty in the commercial airline industry. Journal of Travel Research 32; 16 Pakdil, F. & Aydin, O. (2007). Expectations and perceptions in airline services: An analysis using weighted SERVQUAL scores. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13/4, 229-237. Pakdil, F. & Harwood T.N. (2005). Patient satisfaction in a preoperative assessment clinic: An analysis using SERVQUAL dimensions. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 16(1), 15-30. Pant, M. (2006, September 16). Budget airlines not flying high. [Television broadcast]. New Delhi: CNN-IBN. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., and Zeithaml V.A. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 4(1), 12-37. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420-50. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994a). Alternative scales for measuring service quality: A comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 201-29. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994b). Reassessment of expectations as a comparison in measuring service quality: Implications for further research. Journal of Marketing, 58, January, 111-24.

52 Park, J.W., Robertson, R. & Wu, C.L. (2005). Investigating the effects of airline service quality on airline image and passengers future behavioural intentions: Findings from Australian international air passengers. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 16(1), 2-11. Park, J.W., Robertson, R. & Wu, C.L. (2006). The effects of individual dimensions of airline service quality : Findings from Australian domestic air passengers. The Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. Pham, K.Q.V. & Simpson, M. (2006). The impact of frequency of use on service quality expectations: An empirical study of trans-Atlantic airline passengers. Journal Of American Academy Of Business, Cambridge, 10(1), Pham, K.Q.V. (2006). U.S. and European frequent flyers service expectations: A crosscultural study. The Business Review, Cambridge, 6,2. Rhoades, D.L. & Waguespack, B. Jr (2005). Strategic imperatives and the pursuit of quality in the US airline industry. Managing Service Quality, 15(4), 344-356. Richards, J. (2006). Airport V. Airline IT investment. Airport Business; Jan 2006; 20, 2 Robledo, M.A. (2001). Measuring and managing service quality: Integrating customer expectations. Managing Service Quality, 11(1), 22-31. Rust, R.T., Zahorik, A.J. & Keiningham, T.L. (1995). Return on quality: Making service quality financially accountable, Journal of Marketing, 59 (April), 58-70. Rust, R.T., Zeithaml, V.A. & Lemon. K.N. (2000), Driving Customer Equity: How Customer Lifetime Value is Reshaping Corporate Strategy, New York: The Free Press. Rust, R.T., Zeithaml, V.A. & Lemon. K.N. (2004). Customer- centered brand management, Harvard Business Review, 82 (9), 110-118. Rust, R.T. & Chung, T.S. (2006). Marketing models of service and relationships. Marketing Science, 25(6), 560-580. Saleh, F. & Ryan, C. (1991). Analyzing service quality in the hospitality industry using the SERVQUAL model. Service Industries Journal, 11(3), p324-345. Sayanak, T. (2003). Do low cost carriers provide low quality service?, Master Research Paper Department of Economics, East Carolina University. http://www.ecu.edu/econ/ecer/teja.pdf Servitopoulos, F. (2002). The US airline deregulation and its effects on industry structure and competition: How much did they affect the range, nature and frequency of airline services. MBA Thesis. Glasgow Caledonian University - Scotland UK. www.dissertation.com/library/1121881a.htm

53 Shon, Z., Chen, F. & Chang, Y. (2003). Airline e-commerce: The revolution in ticketing channels. Journal of Air Transport Management 9, 325331 Shostack. G. L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing, Journal of Marketing, 41 (April), 73-80. Sima, K.L., Kohb, H.C. & Shetty, S. (2006). Some potential issues of service quality reporting for airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management 12, 293299. Smith, A.M. (1995). Measuring service quality: Is SERVQUAL now redundant? Journal of Marketing Management, 11(1-3), 257-276. Straughan, R.D. & Cooper, M. (2002). Managing Internal Markets: A Conceptual Framework Adapted from SERVQUAL. Marketing Review, 2(3), 253-262. Sultan, F. & Simpson Jr, M.C. (2000). International service variants: Airline passenger expectations and perceptions of service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(3), 188-216. Teas, R. K. (1993). Expectations, performance evaluation and consumer's perception of quality. Journal of Marketing, 57, October, 18-34. Trapani, J.M. & Olson, C. V. (1982). An analysis of the impact of open entry on price and the quality of service in the airline industry. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 64(1), 67-76. Truitt, L.J. & Haynes, R. (1994). Evaluating Service Quality and Productivity in the Regional Airline Industry. Transportation Journal, 33(4), 21-32. Tsaur, S., Chang, T. & Yena, C. (2002). The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management 23, 107115 vanDyke, T. P., Kappelman, L.A. & Prybutok, V.R. (1997). Measuring information systems service quality: Concerns on the use of the SERVQUAL questionnaire. MIS Quarterly, 21(2) 195-208. Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing 68 (1), 1 17. Venkatesh, B. & Nargundkar, R. (2006). Service quality perceptions of domestic airline consumers in India : An empirical study. Vilakshan, 3(2). Wisniewski, M. (2001). Assessing customer satisfaction with local authority services using SERVQUAL. Total Quality Management, 12(7), 995-1002. Young, C., Cunningham, L. & Moonkyu, L. (1994). Assessing service quality as an effective management tool: The case of the airline industry. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 2(2), 76-96.

54 Yueh-Ling, Chao-Che & Pei-Chi (2007). Capturing passengers voices: The application of Kanos model in the airline industry Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, A. (1988). Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 52, 35-38. Zeithaml, A.V. & Bitner, M.J. (2003). Services Marketing, 3rd edition, Mc-Graw-Hill, New Delhi. Zhao, X., Bai, C. & Hui, Y. V. (2002). An empirical assessment and application of SERVQUAL in a Mainland Chinese department store. Total Quality Management, 13(2), 241-254.

55 Authors Profile Dr. Mohammed Naved Khan, B. Sc. Engineering (Electrical), MBA, PhD, is at present working as Senior Lecturer, Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management Studies & Research, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. His areas of interest include Consumer Behavior & Marketing Research. He is the recipient of All India PD Agarwal-TCI Award for Doctoral Research in Management for the year 1997. Several of his research papers have been published in leading national and international publications. He has to his credit two books viz. Facets of Indian Advertising and Consumer Behavior: An Empirical Approach, Kanishka Publishers, New Delhi (2002) ISBN: 81-7391-447-8 and The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marketing, Response Books, Sage Publications, New Delhi/Thousand Oaks/London, ISBN: 0761935010.His areas of interest include marketing and marketing research.

Vippan Raj Dutt, B Tech. (Electronics and Telecommunication), MBA (Marketing), is pursuing his research on Dimensions of Customer Service Quality at the Faculty of Management Studies and Research, Aligarh Muslim University. At present, he is also working as Manager, (System/Maintenance) in the IT Department at NACIL (erstwhile Indian Airlines). He has previously worked with Engineers India Ltd. and Siemens India Ltd. His areas of interest include Information Technology and Customer Service in Service Sector.

Dr S C Bansal, earned his Ph D in Finance at the Department of Commerce, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Delhi in 1987. Currently, he is Associate Professor of Finance and Accounting at the Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow. He has held senior positions at the Institute of Company Secretaries of India, National Institute of Financial Management, and University of Delhi. He has teaching experience of about three decades. Dr Bansals teaching interests include corporate finance, management accounting and corporate restructuring.