Passenger expectations and airline services: a Hong Kong based study
David Gilberta,*, Robin K.C. Wongb
a Surrey European Management School, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK
bCathay Pacific Airways Ltd, 2/F, Central Tower, Cathy City, Hong Kong International Airport, Lantau, Hong Kong
Received 3 April 2002; accepted 14 November 2002
Abstract
The airline industry is undergoing a very difficult time and many companies are in search of service segmentation strategies that
will satisfy different target market segments. This study attempts to identify the service dimensions that matter most to current
airline passengers. The research measures and compares differences in passengers’ expectations of the desired airline service quality
in terms of the dimensions of reliability; assurance; facilities; employees; flight patterns; customization and responsiveness. Primary
data were collected from passengers departing Hong Kong airport. Regarding the service dimension expectations, differences
analysis shows that there are no statistically significant differences between passengers who made their own airline choice (decision
makers) and those who did not (non-decision makers). However, there are significant differences among passengers of different
ethnic groups/nationalities as well as among passengers who travel for different purposes, such as business, holiday and visiting
friends/relatives. The findings also indicate that passengers consistently rank ‘assurance’ as the most important service dimension.
This indicates that passengers are concerned about the safety and security aspect and this may indicate why there has been such a
downturn in demand as this study was conducted just prior to the World Trade Center incident on the 11th September 2001.
r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Airline; Services; Marketing; SERVQUAL; Segments
1. Introduction
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 1997 carried out research in
North America, Europe and Asia and found passengers
favoured punctuality (65 per cent) and scheduling (52
per cent) over price (37 per cent). This is not to say that
price is of secondary concern to airlines as cost
structures and competitive pricing are always of key
importance but for this study the emphasis is on
improving service strategies. In the airline industry
understanding what passengers expect is essential to
providing desired service quality. However, service
quality research that has focused on airline passengers’
expectations has been limited. This research paper
focuses on the link between customer expectations and
service quality, and demonstrates how an airline can
utilize a measure of different passengers’ expectations as
a diagnostic tool in managing its service quality. This
study takes expectations to be the pre-consumption
beliefs that consumers draw upon as the probabilities of
the occurrence of positive and negative events. Therefore,
they form an important part of the decision process
for an airline. The expectations construct has been
viewed as playing a key role in consumer evaluation of
service quality (Gro¨ nroos, 1994; Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985, 1988). Its meaning in the
service quality literature is similar to the ideal standard
in the consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction literature.
Such approaches have been previously researched in the
tourism field. Tourism research utilizing applications of
SERVQUAL has been carried out by a number of
authors (Cunningham, Young, & Lee, 2002; Lam &
Zhang, 1999; Ryan & Cliff, 1997; Bojanic & Rosen,
1994; Saleh & Ryan, 1991).
In reviewing the lessons learned over the last decade
from service quality research there is a strong indication
that improvement in service provides improved profit
due to increasing the customer base through new and
repeat purchases from more loyal customers. Research
has indicated that companies that offer superior service
are able to charge 8 per cent more for their product
ARTICLE IN PRESS
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1483-873-981.
E-mail address: d.gilbert@surrey.ac.uk (D. Gilbert).
0261-5177/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00002-5
(Gale, 1992), while achieving higher-than-normal market
share growth (Buzzell & Gale, 1987) and profitability.
In addition it is realized lowering customer
defection rate can be profitable to airlines. This
approach is reinforced by Johnson, Nader, and Fornell
(1996) who argue cumulative customer satisfaction can
help predict future retention behaviour and profitability.
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; purposes of
travelling and ethnic background is considered.
2. Purchase criteria
In order to produce a valid questionnaire different
studies were examined to find the variables related to
purchase criteria. Bowen and Headley (2000) have
undertaken research on Airline Quality Rating (AQR)
which has met with national and international acceptance
and acknowledgement. The latest report, is based
on attributes that focus on airline performance areas
important to air passengers. All of these attributes are
reported monthly in the Air Travel Consumer Report
maintained by the US Department of Transportation.
They include: On-time arrival; Being ‘bumped’ from a
flight; Mishandled baggage (whether lost, damaged,
delayed or pilferage of baggage) and Airline safety. It
also includes passenger complaints: Flight problems
(e.g. cancellations, delays, deviations from schedule);
Reservations, ticketing, and boarding problems (e.g.
problems in making reservation and obtaining tickets due
to busy telephone lines, queuing); Fares (incorrect or
incomplete information about fares, overcharges, discount
availability); Refunds; Customer service (rude or unhelpful
employees, inadequate meals or cabin service, treatment
of delayed passengers); Advertising (misleading
messages) and Frequent flyer programmes. The AQR
only measures US domestic airlines and some attributes
might not be suitable for some international airlines.
Another department, the US Department of Commerce,
also conducts periodic surveys on international air
travellers’ choice of airlines which includes monitoring
of: schedule; Non-stop flight availability; Safety reputation;
On-time reputation; In-flight service reputation;
Frequent flyer programme. The key purchase criteria of
travellers is a multi-attribute of service based upon:
Frequency of flights; Timings; Punctuality; Good inflight
service and facilities; Good on-ground service and
facilities; Non-stop service; Safety records.
The authors therefore conclude that the literature
indicates passengers regard the following to be important
attributes to delivering superior airline service
quality:
* Reliability in maintaining flight schedules and reservation/
ticketing/in-flight/ground services; Reassurance
by good safety records; Convenient flight
schedules and non-stop service; Correct and prompt
handling of baggage; Friendly and helpful employees;
A beneficial frequent flyer programme.
As the competition among airlines intensifies the
above lists become important guidelines to areas the
airline has to consider in greater detail. These guidelines
informed the questionnaire design of this study.
3. Hypotheses formulation
Some of the differences in expectations of service are
derived from different passenger cultures. Values and
attitudes help to determine what members of a culture
think is desirable. Moreover, consumer behaviour flows
from values and attitudes adopted across cultures and
airline marketers must understand these differences.
This leads to the first hypothesis:
H1: If passengers are of different ethnic groups/
nationalities then there will be significant difference
in their expectations of desired airline service
quality.
The reason this research stresses ‘desired service’ is
because passenger expectations are often dual-level and
dynamic whereby a ‘zone of tolerance’ separates the
‘desired service’ from ‘adequate service’ (Parasuraman
et al., 1991). Simply meeting passenger adequate service
expectations may not be good enough for airlines to
survive the rivalry.
There are two main factors affecting expected desired
service, namely ‘enduring service intensifiers’ and
‘personal needs’ (Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996). One of the
most important enduring service intensifiers is ‘derived
service expectations’ (Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996), which
takes place when another person or group of people
drive passengers’ expectations. For example, a parent
choosing an airline for the family members on a
vacation occasion, his/her individual expectations are
intensified because he/she experiences derived expectations
from other family members who will receive the
airline service too. In addition, he/she might want
to impress the family members, and would blame
ARTICLE IN PRESS
520 D. Gilbert, R.K.C. Wong / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 519–532
himself/herself when dissatisfied. This leads to the
second hypothesis:
H2: If passengers are the decision-makers in choosing
the airline, then their expectations of desired airline
service quality will be significantly different from
those of non-decision-makers.
This research is interested in identifying the difference
in service expectations between decision-makers and
non-decision makers because based on a survey (Cathay
Pacific Airways, 1996–1999), 64 per cent of the
passengers had the ability to make their own airline
selection decision.
Another enduring service intensifier is ‘personal
service philosophy’ (Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996). This
concept coincides with the role of culture in the
passenger’s decision making process, which was discussed
earlier in the first hypothesis (H1). The third
hypothesis is derived from personal needs. There are
three major reasons passengers need to travel: namely
for business, for holiday and to visit friends/relatives,
and it is believed that each group’s expectations would
be different:
H3: If passengers’ needs for travelling are different,
then there will be a significant difference in their
expectations of desired airline service quality.
When monitoring service quality, airlines need to
assess passenger expectations of service. Only when
passengers’ expectations have been met or exceeded by
perceptions are there acceptable levels of satisfaction.
Goodman, Marra, and Brigham (1986) indicated that
it is necessary to identify and prioritize expectations for
service and to incorporate these expectations into
improving service quality. According to their studies
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988), reliability has
repeatedly been rated above all other dimensions.
However, Cronin and Taylor (1992) argued that is
important to be specific as it was posited that what holds
for one type of service may not hold for another. This
leads to the fourth hypothesis:
H4: If desired airline service is measured in terms of
seven dimensions, namely reliability, assurance,
facilities, employees, flight patterns, customization
and responsiveness, then passengers’ expectations
of reliability will be above all the other six
dimensions.
4. Methodology
The research method is a combination of Key
Purchase Criteria formulated by Mason (1995), whereby
a multi-attributes approach to service is formulated
utilizing secondary data on airline service criteria to
inform the questionnaire content, and by the use of
SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988, 1991). However
the main approach comes from SERVQUAL.
SERVQUAL is a survey instrument that purports to
measure the quality of service rendered by an institution
along five dimensions: reliability, assurance, tangibles,
empathy and responsiveness (RATER). Assurance and
empathy contain items representing seven original
determinants—communication, credibility, security,
competence, courtesy, understanding/knowing customers,
and access. Therefore, while SERVQUAL has
only five distinct dimensions, they capture facets of all
10 originally conceptualized determinants. The strength
of SERVQUAL is it can measure what the customer
expects from the airline in relation to these dimensions.
In addition the personalization and customization
aspect of service, which is overlooked in other research,
is also advocated in the SERVQUAL model.
5. Concerns regarding SERVQUAL
In their 1988 work, Parasuraman et al. defined
expectations 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 & Bitner, 1996).
Teas (1993a, b) found explanations of the desires and
wants of consumers as vague and has questioned
respondents’ interpretation of expectations battery in
the SERVQUAL instrument. He believed that respondents
might be using any one of the following six
interpretations:
* Service attribute importance. Customers may respond
by rating the expectation statements according to the
importance of each.
* Forecasted performance. Customers may respond by
using the scale to predict the performance they would
expect.
* Ideal performance. The optimal performance; what
performance ‘‘can be’’.
* Deserved 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’’.
Each of these interpretations is somewhat different,
and Teas contends that a considerable percentage of the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Gilbert, R.K.C. Wong / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 519–532 521
variance of SERVQUAL expectations measure can be
explained by difference in respondents’ interpretations.
Boulding, Kalra, and Zeithaml (1993) also identify three
types of expectations among respondents’ interpretations:
the will expectation, should expectation, and, ideal
expectation.
Carman (1990) conducted a study of SERVQUAL
across four different industries, and found it necessary
to add as many as 13 additional items (originally 22) to
the instrument in order to adequately capture the service
quality construct in various settings, while at the same
time dropping as many as 14 items from the original
instrument.
Although SERVQUAL has been widely used to
measure service quality across industries no two providers
of service are exactly alike. Therefore, the authors of
this study concluded that an adaptation of SERVQUAL
is needed and it should serve only as a framework for this
research. The instrument is viewed as a basic ‘‘skeleton’’
that requires modification to fit the specific airline
situation and supplemental context-specific items. The
proposed survey for this research did not follow all of the
original 22 SERVQUAL items; instead, items were
modified, added or even deleted when planning the
survey instrument. In addition, the categorization of
the five dimensions was re-defined to fit the situation
of the airline industry. The dimension ‘tangibles’ is too
broad and was therefore broken down into three, namely,
‘facilities’, ‘employees’ and ‘flight patterns’. The dimension
‘empathy’ was renamed as ‘customization’ for
clearer identifications. In their 1989 set of studies,
Parasuraman et al. asked more than 1900 customers of
five different service companies to rate the relative
importance of the five dimensions by allocating 100
points among them, and the result is given in Table 1.
The implication of identifying the relatively more
important service dimension(s) is that, the ‘zone of
tolerance’ (Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996) differs across the
five dimensions passengers use in evaluating the airline
service. In general, the greater a dimension’s importance,
the smaller is its zone of tolerance, reflecting less
passenger willingness to relax assessment of service
standard. According to the studies of Parasuraman et al.
(1985), reliability has been repeatedly shown to be above
all other dimensions. Moreover, reliability largely
concerns the service outcome, i.e., whether the promised
service is delivered. The remaining dimensions relate
more to the service process, i.e., how the service is
delivered.
Therefore, instead of five dimensions, seven dimensions
(reliability, assurance, facilities, employees, flight
patterns, customization and responsive) were identified to
be measured. Specific questions asked were also
modified, deleted or even added to adapt to the airline
industry context. These were validated as will be
discussed later.
5.1. Questionnaire design
The questionnaire is a refinement of the original
SERVQUAL instrument in that the questions were
altered to fit the airline industry. In addition, instead of
measuring both expectations and perceptions the questionnaire
was designed to measure the expectations of
passengers. This serves as a generic guiding framework
for individual airlines when formulating strategies to
monitor and exceed passengers’ expectations.
Part 1 of the questionnaire dealt with specific airline
service criteria relating to the 7 dimensions. Respondents
were asked to rank each question on a scale of 1–8
which tends to avoid the ‘neutral’ central tendency and
can differentiate the various levels of respondents’
expectations more clearly as found in the pilot test.
Each of the 26 questions pertains to one of the
dimensions (see appendix for example of questionnaire).
Part 2 asked respondents to prioritize the dimensions
‘‘in order of importance’’, and provided space for the
respondents to offer comments about desired airline
service. Part 3 gathered demographic information such
as country of origin of the respondent, the purpose of
travelling, in addition, whether he/she is the decisionmaker
in choosing the airline.
6. Sampling process
Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA), as an
international air travel hub, has 255 flights scheduled to
depart on each weekday (source: Hong Kong Airport
Authority, Aug 2001). The total passenger throughput
in July 2001 was about 2.8 million (source: Hong Kong
Airport Authority). According to the Hong Kong
Tourist Association, the major visitor categories in
2000 were Mainland Chinese (36 per cent), Taiwanese
(22 per cent), Japanese (13 per cent) and American (9
per cent), and around 49 per cent were leisure travellers
while business visitors made up 30 per cent of the total.
These passenger profiles meet the fundamental requirement
of this research as air travellers from different
market segments can be found at HKIA, reducing the
possible sampling error as valid samples can be clearly
identified.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Relative importance of SERVQUAL dimensions
Reliability 32
Responsiveness 22
Assurance 19
Empathy 16
Tangibles 11
Source: Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1989).
522 D. Gilbert, R.K.C. Wong / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 519–532
The study excluded arriving whereby it is argued that
memories of the tangible evidence right after the service
received might endure most strongly and could lead to
bias. Moreover, this research is aimed to measure the
‘expectations’ rather than ‘perceptions’ of airline service.
Therefore, departing passengers and even potential
passengers seeing their friends off at the airport form
more valid samples. Systematic sampling was adopted
with a ‘skip interval’ of every 10th individual arriving at
the entrance of HKIA. All three main entrances to the
departure terminal were stationed by two interviewers
(a total of 6 interviewers) in order to cope with flows of
respondents. 336 completions of the questionnaire was
calculated as the appropriate sample size. A pilot test of
the questionnaire found the response rate to be about 34
per cent therefore, it was planned to approach at least
1200 respondents to ensure the capture of sufficient
numbers of different ethnic travellers and to have a large
enough response. The questionnaire was self-completion
and prepared in three versions: English, Chinese and
Japanese. The questionnaire was completed in the
presence of the interviewer who encouraged the respondent
to also write further information in the comments
columns.
Fourteen questions from the SERVQUAL scale were
reworded to cater to the airline context; twelve additional
questions are derived from the passengers’ key purchase
criteria identified. The SERVQUAL dimension ‘tangibles’
is not specific enough and is therefore broken down
into three, namely, ‘facilities’, ‘employees’ and ‘flight
patterns’. The dimension ‘empathy’ is changed to
‘customization’ for better representation.
In order to evaluate the reliability and validity of the
questionnaire, a pilot test with 20 business travellers was
conducted as well as opinions being gathered from
expert marketers. A few questions were retested on the
respondents through a verification call-back. Eighty per
cent of the respondents selected the same scaledresponse
while the other 20 per cent selected the
scaled-response which are not too far from the original
ones (one scale up). In addition to verify the instrument
a split-half reliability test was conducted. The statements
in the questionnaire were split randomly into two
groups and compared based upon one group of items
to the other with a t-test used to analyse the data. As a
result, the difference in mean scores was calculated to be
insignificant. This indicated the questionnaire was
reliable in generating similar scale-responses from
respondents who reflect the final sample design.
7. Analysis of the findings
The survey was carried out in early September 2001
and the response rate was approximately 30 per cent.
The questionnaires completed were 218 males and 147
females by gender. Owing to the insufficient sample
collected from Filipino, Australian, Korean, Indian,
Thai and South African respondents, these responses
were not retained for the data analysis. The final ethnic
mix utilized represented: Chinese—122; North American—
86; Japanese—64; West European—56, making
up a total analysis of 328 respondents.
Regarding the respondents’ purpose of travel,
although some respondents chose more than one
purpose the interviewers immediately clarified this. The
reasons for travel fall into the following three categories:
Business, 135 respondents; Holiday 139 respondents;
Visiting friends/relatives 54 respondents. Airline decision
made by self was 188 respondents and by others 140
respondents.
7.1. Data analysis and hypothesis testing
A brief description of the 26 items in the questionnaire
and the importance of the statements tested
provides a better understanding of the analysis (see
Table 2). The following statistics, which indicate no
missing values, were generated by SPSS. It can be seen
the findings provide evidence of:
* 23 items out of 26 (88 per cent) scored 5 or above on
the 8-point scale, indicating respondents have above
average expectations of almost all dimensions.
* Q6 has the highest mean scores and the smallest
standard deviation, which indicates that safety is
respondents’ number one concern. Q1 ranks the
second, meaning that on-time departure and arrival is
also very important for respondents.
* Q21 (availability of air/accommodation packages)
has the largest standard deviation.
* Q11 (availability of in-flight internet/email/fax/phone
facilities); Q22 (availability of travel related partners)
and Q21 (availability of air/accommodation packages)
are of least importance for respondents and scored
4.22, 4.15 and 3.57, respectively.
Part 2 of the questionnaire asked respondents to
prioritize directly the dimensions ‘in order of importance’
for them directly, and the findings are given in
Table 3.
In both assessments (Parts 1 and 2 of the questionnaire),
‘Reliability’ was not ranked, as in the literature,
as the most important dimension (being ranked third
and second, respectively). Hence the hypothesis H4 is
rejected. Tsaur, Chang, and Yen (2002) in their research
into airline service quality utilizing a fuzzy set approach
found that of 15 service criteria the most important
attributes were related to courtesy, safety, comfort and
cleanliness. These reflect the findings of this study.
An independent sample t-test was carried out for
decision-makers in relation to non-decision-makers.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Gilbert, R.K.C. Wong / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 519–532 523
Overall none of the individual items had a significance
level less than 5 per cent. This implies the difference
between the service expectations of decision-makers and
non-decision-makers is so small that hypothesis H2 is
rejected.
7.2. Significance test of differences among ethnic groups/
nationalities
Four major ethnic groups/nationalities are identified,
namely North American, West European, Chinese and
Japanese. ANOVA was used and 13 items indicated
highly significant differences (Sig. value smaller than
0.01) while one item (Q14) signaled significant difference.
The differences come from various service dimensions
except ‘Assurance’ (Q5, Q6, and Q7). The results
indicate that there is no difference in expectations of
‘Assurance’ across different ethnic groups/nationalities.
Since there are more than half of the items (14 items)
signaling statistically significant differences, the hypothesis
H1 is accepted which indicates airlines need to
consider variations in service requirements by ethnic
group.
In theory, ANOVA will indicate wherever there is at
least one pair of sample groups that has statistically
significant difference, but does not indicate where the
differences are. Based on the means of individual items,
some observations are described below:
* Japanese travellers have relatively higher expectations
of various service dimensions in general (Q2,
Q3, Q4, Q8, Q9, Q12, Q13, Q17, Q18, Q23, Q25 and
Q26), particularly in areas such as: consistent ground/
in-flight service (Q2); food/beverages quality (Q4);
clean/comfortable aircraft interiors and seats (Q8);
courteous and helpful employees who render prompt
service with personal individual attention (Q12, Q25,
Q23, Q17 and Q18).
* Both Chinese and Japanese fliers have higher
expectations (rated 6.20 and 6.08, respectively) of
in-flight entertainment facilities/programmes (Q9)
when compared to North American and West
European passengers.
* North Americans and West Europeans have higher
expectations (rated 6.20 and 5.96, respectively) of an
airline loyalty programme (Q19) than the Chinese
and Japanese.
7.3. Significance test of differences among passengers of
different travel purposes
Passengers usually travel for three main purposes:
business, holiday and visiting friends/relatives. ANOVA
results indicated 20 items with highly significant differences
(Sig. value smaller than 0.01). ‘Assurance’ (Q5, Q6,
and Q7) once again is not significant. This indicates that
there are similar expectations of ‘Assurance’ among
passengers travelling for different purposes.
On-time departure/arrival (Q1); clean and comfortable
aircraft interiors/seats (Q8) as well as neat and tidy
employee appearance (Q13) also are not significant.
However, since the majority of the items (20 items)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3
Descriptive statistics—relative importance of dimensions
N Meana Std. deviation
Assurance 328 1.1098 0.3411
Reliability 328 2.7165 0.9524
Responsiveness 328 2.8963 1.1500
Flight patterns 328 4.3659 1.1226
Employees 328 4.4299 1.0814
Facilities 328 6.0427 0.9945
Customization 328 6.4543 0.6892
aMean: 1=the most important; 7=the least important.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics—all questions
Mean Std.
deviation
Q6 (A) Safety 7.90 0.30
Q1 (R) On-time departure and arrival 7.84 0.37
Q5 (A) Behaviour of employees gives confidence 7.57 0.52
Q24 (RS) Efficient check-in/baggage handling
services
7.27 0.61
Q25 (RS) Employees are always willing to help 7.25 0.62
Q23 (RS) Prompt service by employees 7.12 0.62
Q12 (E) Courteous employees 6.97 0.71
Q26 (RS) Employees handle requests/complaints
promptly
6.96 0.72
Q15 (FP) Convenient flight schedules and
enough frequencies
6.93 0.65
Q8 (F) Clean and comfortable interior/seat 6.90 0.75
Q2 (R) Consistent ground/in-flight services 6.88 0.63
Q7 (A) Employees have knowledge to answer
questions
6.80 0.78
Q14 (FP) Non-stop flights to various destinations 6.70 0.66
Q3 (R) Perform service right the first time 6.60 0.72
Q13 (E) Neat and tidy employees 6.44 0.64
Q18 (C) Individual attention to passengers 6.33 1.02
Q17 (C) Understanding of passengers’ specific
needs
6.26 0.80
Q4 (R) Food and beverage 6.03 1.23
Q16 (FP) Availability of global alliance partners’
network
5.99 0.78
Q9 (F) In-flight entertainment facilities and
programmes
5.89 1.11
Q19 (C) Availability of loyalty programme 5.88 1.09
Q20 (C) Availability of frequent flyer programme 5.79 1.19
Q10 (F) Availability of waiting lounges 5.26 0.99
Q21 (C) Availability of air/accommodation
packages
4.22 1.53
Q22 (C) Availability of travel related partners,
e.g. hotels, car rentals
4.15 1.27
Q11 (F) In-flight internet/email/fax/phone
facilities
3.57 1.04
(n ¼ 328 respondents for all questions)
Key: R—reliability; A—assurance; F—facilities; E—employees; FP—
flight patterns; C—customization; RS—responsiveness.
524 D. Gilbert, R.K.C. Wong / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 519–532
tested signal statistically significant differences, hypothesis
H3 is hence accepted. As mentioned previously
ANOVA does not highlight where the differences are,
therefore, some observations related to these differences
are described below.
7.3.1. Business travellers
* They have the lowest expectations of quality service
in relation to food and beverages (Q4); individual
attention by airline employees (Q18); prompt service
(Q23) and in-flight entertainment facilities/programmes
(Q9), among the three categories identified.
This is an interesting finding as it is usually these
services that airlines concentrate on in relation to the
business traveller. Obviously current experiences
reflect that lower quality levels are influencing
expectation. This provides an ideal opportunity for
an airline brand to excel in these areas.
* They have relatively higher expectations of internet/
email/fax/phone (Q11) and travel related partners of
airlines (Q22). They have higher expectations of
waiting lounges (Q10); convenient schedules and
flight frequencies (Q15); loyalty and frequent flyer
programmes (Q19 and Q20) than others.
7.3.2. Holiday-makers
* Among the three categories, they have the highest
expectations of food/beverages quality (Q4); in-flight
entertainment facilities/programmes (Q9); individual
attention (Q18); helpful airline employees (Q25) who
deliver prompt service (Q23) and understand their
specific needs (Q17), as well as efficient in handling
requests and complaints (Q26). Given holiday-makers
normally fly on the cheapest fares then this finding can
create a dilemma to the airline wanting to reflect lower
price by having lower cost.
7.3.3. Passengers visiting friends/relatives
* They have generally the lowest expectations of the
various service dimensions among the three categories,
except in areas such as individual attention
(Q18); food/beverages quality (Q4); prompt service
(Q23) and for in-flight entertainment facilities/programmes,
their expectations are higher than those of
business travellers.
8. Conclusions
Understanding the relationship between airline service
quality and profitability is important. However,
it is perhaps more useful managerially to identify
specific drivers of airline service quality that most
relate to the passengers as appropriate intervention
strategies can then be formulated. Based on the
findings of the study it was found there are significant
differences in service expectations among passengers
of different ethnic groups/nationalities as well as passengers
with different purposes of travel. However, there
was no significant difference in service expectations
between decision-makers and non-decision-makers in
choosing airlines. Also, ‘Reliability’ was consistently
found to be lower in rank than expected from the
literature. The study allows a picture of passengers’
service expectations and some recommendations to be
summarized as follows:
* Safety is the number one priority for passengers. This
research occurred just prior to the ‘terrorist incident’
in New York, and it is predicted ‘Assurance’ will be
increasingly even more important for passengers and
should not be compromised in any way. More
measures in security and well-trained/vigilant employees
will give passengers more confidence.
* Consideration should be given to ensuring on-time
performance of flights, as it is another highly ranked
attribute.
* Being prompt/responsive, willing to help and having
a courteous attitude should be a priority objective for
the employees as part of the service culture.
* Resources invested in ‘Customization’ (such as
loyalty and frequent flyer programmes) and ‘Facilities’
(such as in-flight entertainment; waiting lounges
and in-flight internet/email/fax/phone services)
should be re-examined and targeted to the right
audience, as these are the areas that are not highly
regarded by all passengers in general.
8.1. Ethnic groups/nationalities
* More resources might need to be deployed across
various service dimensions on routes dominated by
Japanese passengers in order to meet their high
expectations.
* More Japanese and Chinese entertainment programmes/
movies and foreign films with subtitles are
desired on route with higher Japanese and Chinese
demographics (based on questionnaire written comments).
* More convenient schedules; frequencies of flight and
global airline partners can attract more business
travellers and holiday-makers.
* Availability of waiting lounges is one of the least
important services rendered from the passengers’
point of view. According to the written comments,
some passengers do not have time to visit the lounges
after checking-in and they also mentioned some
lounges are too far from boarding gates. The lounges
are more useful for transit passengers.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Gilbert, R.K.C. Wong / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 519–532 525
* Passengers visiting friends/relatives have lower expectations
across the service dimensions. According
to the written comments, price is one of the main
determining factors in selecting an airline.
In conclusion this research has attempted to provide
some useful information, i.e. the differences in service
expectations among passengers of different market
segments. Future research may want to expand on this
study. This research involves only four ethnic groups/
nationalities; so researchers might be interested in
testing the differences in service expectations of other
ethnic groups/nationalities. Future research may also
study if the identified seven dimensions are fully
appropriate in measuring the desired provision of airline
service quality.
Appendix A. Questionnaire used for the study
Dear passenger,
We are conducting a survey regarding
your expectations of airline services: Please indicate the
level of importance of each statement for you. Your
comment is highly important to the analysis, and will be
treated with anonymity and confidentiality. Thank you
very much for your cooperation.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Part 1: Please circle the number that indicates the level of importance of each statement for you
Unimportant Very
important
No
opinion
1. The flight departs and arrives at a
time it promises.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
2. The airline provides good ground/in-flight
services consistently.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
3. The airline performs the service right the
first time.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
4. The airline provides quality food and
beverages.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
5. The behaviour of employees gives you
confidence.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
6. The airline makes you feel safe. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
7. Employees of the airline have the knowledge
to answer your questions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
8. The aircraft has clean and comfortable
interiors and seats.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
9. The airline has up-to-date in-flight
entertainment facilities and programmes.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
10. The airline has comfortable waiting lounges. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
11. The airline provides in-flight
internet/email/fax/phone services.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
12. Employees of the airline are consistently
courteous with you.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
13. Employees of the airline appear neat and tidy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
14. The airline has non-stop service to various
destinations.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
15. The airline has convenient flight schedules and
enough frequencies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
16. The airline has global alliance partners in
order to provide a wider network and
smoother transfers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
17. Employees of the airline understand your
specific needs.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
18. Employees of the airline give you individual
attention.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
526 D. Gilbert, R.K.C. Wong / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 519–532
ARTICLE IN PRESS
19. The airline has a sound loyalty programme to
recognize you as a frequent customer.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
20. The airline has a sound mileage programme. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
21. The airline offers you with air/accommodation
packages.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
22. The airline has other travel related partners,
e.g. car rentals, hotels and travel insurance.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
23. Employees of the airline give you prompt
service.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
24. The airline has efficient check-in and baggage
handling services
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
25. Employees of the airline are always willing to
help you.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
26. Employees of the airline are never too busy to
respond to your request or complaint.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0
Part 2: Please prioritize the following 7 attributes in order of importance to you
(1=The most important; 7=The least important)
Assurance (safety records, employees’ capability)
Flight Patterns (flight schedules, flight frequencies, flight network)
Reliability (on-time departure/arrival, consistent service)
Responsiveness (efficient service, prompt handling of requests/complaints)
Employees (employees’ appearance and attitude)
Facilities (check-in / baggage handling service, in-flight facilities, waiting lounge)
Customization (individual attention, anticipation of your travel needs)
Are there any specific reasons why you prioritized the attributes in such order?
Part 3: Please tick the appropriate box below
27. You are: & Male1 & Female2
28. Your purpose of travel (or next possible trip if not travelling today):
& Business1 & Visiting friends/relatives3
& Tourist2 & Other (please write )
29. Who made/will make (if not travelling today) the airline decision for you:
& Yourself1 & Secretary2
& Travel agent2 & Family2
& Other (please write )
30. Which of these ethnic groups/nationalities do you belong to:
& American1 & French2
& Canadian1 & Chinese3
& British2 & Japanese4
&German2 & Other (please write )
D. Gilbert, R.K.C. Wong / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 519–532 527
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Any other comments?
-THANK YOUAppendix
B. ANOVA tables of findings
ANOVA—Ethnic groups/nationalities
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Q1 Between groups 0.257 3 8.576E-02 0.629 0.597
Within groups 44.179 324 0.136
Total 44.436 327
Q2 Between groups 12.680 3 4.227 11.563 0.000
Within groups 118.441 324 0.366
Total 131.122 327
Q3 Between groups 20.192 3 6.731 14.847 0.000
Within groups 146.878 324 0.453
Total 167.070 327
Q4 Between groups 55.625 3 18.542 13.684 0.000
Within groups 439.006 324 1.355
Total 494.631 327
Q5 Between groups 8.934E-02 3 2.978E-02 0.109 0.955
Within groups 88.298 324 0.273
Total 88.387 327
Q6 Between groups 0.154 3 5.132E-02 0.579 0.629
Within groups 28.724 324 8.865E-02
Total 28.878 327
Q7 Between groups 3.039 3 1.013 1.695 0.168
Within groups 193.680 324 0.598
Total 196.720 327
Q8 Between groups 16.274 3 5.425 10.475 0.000
Within groups 167.796 324 0.518
Total 184.070 327
Q9 Between groups 35.044 3 11.681 10.291 0.000
Within groups 367.782 324 1.135
Total 402.826 327
Q10 Between groups 1.974 3 0.658 0.665 0.574
Within groups 320.514 324 0.989
Total 322.488 327
Q11 Between groups 7.111 3 2.370 2.211 0.087
Within groups 347.413 324 1.072
Total 354.524 327
528 D. Gilbert, R.K.C. Wong / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 519–532
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Q12 Between groups 21.798 3 7.266 16.716 0.000
Within groups 140.833 324 0.435
Total 162.631 327
Q13 Between groups 8.167 3 2.722 6.966 0.000
Within groups 126.614 324 0.391
Total 134.780 327
Q14 Between groups 4.316 3 1.439 3.397 0.018
Within groups 137.197 324 0.423
Total 141.512 327
Q15 Between groups 1.083 3 0.361 0.865 0.459
Within groups 135.161 324 0.417
Total 136.244 327
Q16 Between groups 2.114 3 0.705 1.148 0.330
Within groups 198.858 324 0.614
Total 200.973 327
Q17 Between groups 58.929 3 19.643 42.990 0.000
Within groups 148.043 324 0.457
Total 206.973 327
Q18 Between groups 73.605 3 24.535 29.830 0.000
Within groups 266.489 324 0.822
Total 340.095 327
Q19 Between groups 15.395 3 5.132 4.497 0.004
Within groups 369.727 324 1.141
Total 385.122 327
Q20 Between groups 9.754 3 3.251 2.320 0.075
Within groups 454.148 324 1.402
Total 463.902 327
Q21 Between groups 8.089 3 2.696 1.155 0.327
Within groups 756.106 324 2.334
Total 764.195 327
Q22 Between groups 1.894 3 0.631 0.391 0.760
Within groups 523.082 324 1.614
Total 524.976 327
Q23 Between groups 9.777 3 3.259 9.116 0.000
Within groups 115.821 324 0.357
Total 125.598 327
Q24 Between groups 1.065 3 0.355 0.948 0.418
Within groups 121.325 324 0.374
Total 122.390 327
Q25 Between groups 10.287 3 3.429 9.643 0.000
Within groups 115.213 324 0.356
Total 125.500 327
D. Gilbert, R.K.C. Wong / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 519–532 529
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Q26 Between groups 16.013 3 5.338 11.342 0.000
Within groups 152.472 324 0.471
Total 168.485 327
ANOVA—Purpose of travel
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Q1 Between groups 0.508 2 0.254 1.878 0.155
Within groups 43.928 325 0.135
Total 44.436 327
Q2 Between groups 3.466 2 1.733 4.412 0.013
Within groups 127.656 325 0.393
Total 131.122 327
Q3 Between groups 14.295 2 7.148 15.206 0.000
Within groups 152.775 325 0.470
Total 167.070 327
Q4 Between groups 192.894 2 96.447 103.882 0.000
Within groups 301.738 325 0.928
Total 494.631 327
Q5 Between groups 1.415 2 0.707 2.643 0.073
Within groups 86.973 325 0.268
Total 88.387 327
Q6 Between groups 0.497 2 0.248 2.844 0.060
Within groups 28.381 325 8.733E-02
Total 28.878 327
Q7 Between groups 3.293 2 1.647 2.767 0.064
Within groups 193.426 325 0.595
Total 196.720 327
Q8 Between groups 0.985 2 0.493 0.875 0.418
Within groups 183.085 325 0.563
Total 184.070 327
Q9 Between groups 73.636 2 36.818 36.349 0.000
Within groups 329.190 325 1.013
Total 402.826 327
Q10 Between groups 57.520 2 28.760 35.276 0.000
Within groups 264.968 325 0.815
Total 322.488 327
Q11 Between groups 21.052 2 10.526 10.259 0.000
Within groups 333.472 325 1.026
Total 354.524 327
Q12 Between groups 11.190 2 5.595 12.007 0.000
Within groups 151.441 325 0.466
Total 162.631 327
530 D. Gilbert, R.K.C. Wong / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 519–532
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Q13 Between groups 0.803 2 0.401 0.974 0.379
Within groups 133.978 325 0.412
Total 134.780 327
Q14 Between groups 13.472 2 6.736 17.097 0.000
Within groups 128.041 325 0.394
Total 141.512 327
Q15 Between groups 19.183 2 9.592 26.630 0.000
Within groups 117.061 325 0.360
Total 136.244 327
Q16 Between groups 31.338 2 15.669 30.020 0.000
Within groups 169.635 325 0.522
Total 200.973 327
Q17 Between groups 17.377 2 8.689 14.894 0.000
Within groups 189.595 325 0.583
Total 206.973 327
Q18 Between groups 116.888 2 58.444 85.097 0.000
Within groups 223.207 325 0.687
Total 340.095 327
Q19 Between groups 166.894 2 83.447 124.275 0.000
Within groups 218.228 325 0.671
Total 385.122 327
Q20 Between groups 194.970 2 97.485 117.808 0.000
Within groups 268.933 325 0.827
Total 463.902 327
Q21 Between groups 283.967 2 141.984 96.089 0.000
Within groups 480.228 325 1.478
Total 764.195 327
Q22 Between groups 82.225 2 41.112 30.178 0.000
Within groups 442.751 325 1.362
Total 524.976 327
Q23 Between groups 13.707 2 6.854 19.907 0.000
Within groups 111.890 325 0.344
Total 125.598 327
Q24 Between groups 4.680 2 2.340 6.461 0.002
Within groups 117.710 325 0.362
Total 122.390 327
Q25 Between groups 9.018 2 4.509 12.581 0.000
Within groups 116.482 325 0.358
Total 125.500 327
Q26 Between groups 16.706 2 8.353 17.886 0.000
Within groups 151.779 325 0.467
Total 168.485 327
D. Gilbert, R.K.C. Wong / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 519–532 531
References
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., & Zeithaml, V. (1993). A dynamic process
model of service quality: From expectations to behavioral
intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 7–27.
Bowen, B., & Headley, D. (2000). Air travel consumer report: The
airline quality rating 2000. Washington DC: US Department of
Transportation.
Bojanic, D. C., & Rosen, L. D. (1994). Measuring service quality in
restaurants: An application of the SERVQUAL instrument.
Hospitality Research Journal, 18(1), 3–14.
Cunningham, L. F., Young, C. E., & Lee, M. (2002). Cross-cultural
perspectives of service quality and risk in air transportation.
Journal of Air Transportation, 7(1), 3–26.
Buzzell, R., & Gale, B. (1987). The PIMS principles. New York: The
Free Press.
Carman, J. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An
assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing,
66, 33–55.
Cathay Pacific Airways. (1996–1999). Reflex survey: Reflex demographic
information, Hong Kong.
Collis, R. (1998). What fliers would like—and get. International Herald
Tribune, 16 January.
Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination
and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55–68.
Goodman, J. A., Marra, T., & Brigham, L. (1986). Customer service:
Costly nuisance or low-cost profit strategy. Journal of Retail
Banking, 36, 36–48.
Gale, B. (1992). Monitoring customer satisfaction and marketperceived
quality. American Marketing Association Worth Repeating
Series, No. 922CSO I.
Gro¨ nroos, C. (1994). From scientific management to service management:
A management perspective for the age of service competition.
International Journal of Services Industry Management, 5, 5–20.
Hong Kong Airport Authority, Business Report, Aug 2001.
Johnson, M. D., Nader, G., & Fornell, C. (1996). Expectations,
perceived performance, and customer satisfaction for a complex
service: The case of bank loans. Journal of Economic Psychology,
17, 163–182.
Lam, T., & Zhang, H. Q. (1999). Service quality of travel agents in
Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 20, 341–349.
Mason, K. (1995). A stakeholder approach to the benefit segmentation
of the short haul business air travel market. European Journal of
Marketing, 29(5), 73.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual
model of service quality and its implications for future research.
Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A
multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service
quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12–40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1991). Understanding
customer expectations of service. Sloan Management Review, 32(3),
39–48.
Ryan, C., & Cliff, A. (1997). Do travel agencies measure up to
customer expectation? An empirical investigation of travel
agencies’ service quality as measured by SERVQUAL. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 6(2), 1–31.
Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analyzing service quality in the
hospitality industry using the SERVQUAL model. The Service
Industries Journal, 11, 324–343.
Teas, R. (1993a). Consumer expectations and the measurement of
perceived service quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing,
8(2), 33–54.
Teas, R. (1993b). Expectation, performance evaluation, and consumers’
perceptions of quality. Journal of Marketing, 57, 18–34.
Tsaur, S., Chang, T., & Yen, C. (2002a). The evaluation of airline
service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management, 23(1),
107–115.
Zeithaml, V., & Bitner, M. (1996). Service marketing: Integrating
customer focus across the firm. USA: McGraw-Hill.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
532 D. Gilbert, R.K.C. Wong / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 519–532