Airline Service Quality Performance: a Comparison of Air China and Hainan Airlines
AIRLINE SERVICE QUALITY PERFORMANCE:
A COMPARISON OF AIR CHINA AND HAINAN AIRLINES
A Project
Presented to the
Faculty of
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
In
Hospitality Management
By
Jing Zhu
2016
SIGNATURE PAGE
PROJECT: AIRLINE SERVICE QUALITY PERFORMANCE: A COMPARISON OF AIR CHINA AND HAINAN AIRLINES
AUTHOR: Jing Zhu
DATE SUBMITTED: Fall 2016
Collins College of Hospitality Management
Dr. Wan Yang Project Committee Chair Professor of Hospitality Management
Dr. Zhenxing (Eddie) Mao Professor of Hospitality Management
Dr. Linchi Kwok Professor of Hospitality Management
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is deeply indebted to the project committee chair, Wan Yang, whose help, guidance and comments helped the author to complete this work. The author would also like to express her appreciation to all her friends and family for their help, support, and encouragement.
iii
ABSTRACT
This paper aims to measure the level of service quality issues and investigate the difference between two air carriers in China in terms of overall airline service quality performance, customers’ satisfaction, and selected attributes. The study is based on a literature review and an initial analysis of a survey designed to identify individuals’ views of passengers who have flown on Air China (CA), and/or Hainan Airlines (HU) within the past 12 months. By knowing the most valuable attribute to international travelers, the carriers will be able to determine the specific attributes to deliver quality of service accurately and properly. Therefore, this study will cast light on what passengers expect from airlines in terms of service quality and provide feedback to service providers.
Key words:
Airlines, Service quality, Air China, Hainan Airlines, SERVQUAL, IPA grid
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Signature Page ...... ii
Acknowledgements ...... iii
Abstract ...... ivv
List Of Tables ...... v
List Of Figures ...... vvi
Chapter One: Introduction ...... 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...... 5
Chapter Three: Methodology ...... 11
References ...... 28
Appendix A ...... 31
Section One: Service Attributes ...... 31
Section Two: Demographic Information ...... 32
.
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. JACEDE Sources ...... 4
Table 2. Profile of the Pespondents ...... 13
Table 3. Reliability Statistics ...... 14
Table 4. Performance of Service Quality Dimension ...... 15
Table 5. T-test Results for the Reliability Dimension ...... 16
Table 6. Air China’s Mean vs. Ranking ...... 20
Table 7. Hainan Airline’s Mean vs. Ranking ...... 24
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. IPA Grid ...... 10
Figure 2. Air China’s IPA Grid...... 18
Figure 3. Hainan Airlines’ IPA Grid...... 22
vii
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Worldwide, there are an increasing number of air passengers with higher expectations and demands, who want to “fly beyond the expectations” has led to the interest in the enhancement and measurement of service quality in the aviation industry.
Air China and Hainan Airlines are chosen in this paper to evaluate their levels of service performance. As China’s first and only 5-star airline, Hainan Airlines has been certified by Skytrax with the highest airline rating for its high-quality service. Since 2009, the company has built a great reputation for being a notch above its local rivals in China. In direct contrast, Air China, ranked as a 3-star airline by Skystrax, provides relatively poor service for being China’s national flag airline company. Not surprisingly, Hainan Airlines is quickly emerging as a new challenger by offering a high-quality flight service, while
Air China is experiencing its consecutive market loss in recent years because of the unfavorable service quality. One way in which Air China could regain its market share is by raising its service performance to a higher standard. Thus, the current study aims to compare the service quality difference between the two carriers; and then highlight the need to attend to customers’ perceptions of service quality for Air China and suggest improvements. The findings of this research might be generalized to other airline companies that need to improve their service quality. The drawing of evidence and findings provide a reliable basis for considering possible alternative ways for further research and development. In summary, this research aims to 1) explore the performance difference between two airline companies; and 2) perform IPA analysis for both companies to provide useful managerial recommendations.
1
Study Background
According to the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), there are currently 42 air transport companies operating in mainland China. The four largest airlines in terms of fleet size are China Southern Airlines, Air China, China Eastern
Airlines, and Hainan Airlines, which account for nearly 80 percent of all market penetration. Air China is a publicly owned company that is managed by the Chinese central government, while Hainan Airlines is the largest privatie air carrier with a local government background. Previously, Air China was successful in playing the role of
China’s aviation authority, managing and controlling the airspace under the civic aviation regulation. In 1987, Air China signed an agreement to separate its operating sector from
CAAC, which led directly to the rapid development of local commercial airlines such as
Hainan Airlines and Xiamen Airlines.
An Introduction to Air China and Hainan Airlines
Air China, established in 1988 with main bases at Beijing Capital International
Airport, Shanghai Pudong International Airport, and Guangzhou Baiyun International
Airport, operates 284 routes with 6,000 weekly services with a mixed fleet of Boeing and
Airbus aircrafts, including 72 international routes, 15 regional routes and 197 domestic routes, covering 29 countries and 145 cities. Air China is China’s second largest carrier and is the only airline that can hang the country’s national flag on body of its aircrafts. In addition, the company is responsible for special plane services for China’s leaders. To date, although its products and service standards have been improving, Air China is a
Skytrax certified 3-star airline. However, despite its service rating, Air China is
2 experiencing a loss in their market share because of a lack of proper assessment of the demand.
Founded in 1993, Hainan Airlines is the fourth largest airline company in the country.
The carrier operates in Hainan Island where the tourism industry is growing fast, facing a high level of competition from other airline companies. The airline has a wide domestic network in mainland China, serving more than 500 routes and linking more than 100 cities with a fleet of over 150 aircrafts, including a wide body of Boeing 787 Dreamliners and Airbus A340 jetliners. Although Hainan Airlines may not be the largest, they have been rewarded seven years in a row for its elite level of service, high quality products, and Asian hospitality.
A Comparison of the Two Airlines
For the past ten years, delivering top quality service has been a stand out feature for Hainan Airlines, which has almost overtaken Air China in terms of the number of destinations across the Pacific. In fact, Hainan Airlines began its service to North
America in 2008 and has recently accelerated rapid growth in expanding destinations.
Table 1 describes the data analyzed and presents the results of the difference between Air
China and Hainan Airlines. JACEDE sources (2011) found that the following difference in ranking was significant: The average age of Hainan Airlines’ airplanes was 5.1 years, which was approximately 1.4 years younger than Air China. However, passengers were most satisfied with Air China’s on-time performance, and they were ranked higher for punctuality than Hainan Airlines. Approximately 85% of the flights operated by Air
China were on time, which was slightly higher than its competitor (e.g., Hainan Airlines at 78.87%). Notably, Air China’s growth was slow compared to that of Hainan Airlines
3 in terms of increasing the number of destinations across North America. Therefore,
Hainan Airlines has grown through the years, chipping away at Air China’s market share, and winning over their customers.
Table 1
JACEDE Sources
Air China Hainan Airlines
Alliance Grouping Star Alliance Unaligned
Overall Ranking 3-star 5-star
Service Ranking 4/7 7/7
Product Ranking 5/7 5.5/7
On-time Performance 84.80% 78.87%
Average Age of Fleet 6.5 years 5.1 years
4
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
The Importance of Service Quality in the Airline Industry
By its nature, service is heterogeneous (Silvestro et al, 1992). As defined by
Norman (1984), “It is a social act that takes place in direct contact between the customer and representatives of the service company”. The main attributes of service are as follows: intangibility, inseparability, variability, and perishability (Zeithaml et al, 1990).
However, quality is the degree of excellence at an acceptable price and the control of variability at an acceptable cost (Broh, 1982). Additionally, quality is an important attribute for achieving a competitive advantage through the strategy of differentiation
(Tiernan, Rhoades and Waguespack, 2008). In the context of air travel, passengers compare what they perceive they would get in a service encounter with their expectations of that encounter in evaluating airline service quality. Understanding passengers’ expectations are essential for airline management to provide a superior service (Broh,
1982). To survive in a fast-changing environment, service industry providers in recent years have become accustomed to being increasingly aware of the necessity of providing high quality service (Nadiri, 2008).
Several factors account for overall customer satisfaction in the aviation industry.
Service quality is considered the most important characteristic among them. The airline industry has long been one of the lowest scoring economic sectors, and several studies have been conducted in the past to better understand airline service quality. In 2008,
Waguespack and Rhoades carried out a study and found that passengers’ perceptions and expectations of airline services are not fully understood by the airlines (Waguespack and
5
Rhoades, 2008). It has been argued that many airlines fail to allocate their resources correctly; and lack a clear understanding of passengers’ expectation of their service offerings (Curtis, Rhoades and Waguespack, 2012). More recently, travelers have grown accustomed to seeing significant improvements in their experiences. Large and small products are more reliable and user-friendly than ever before. However, air travel has not followed this pattern. It remains for many a disappointing, grumble-worthy experience
(Clayton and Hilz, 2015).
As a service industry, the airline’s market share heavily depends on customers’ perceptions of service quality performance and in turn on customer satisfaction. Extant studies showed that many passengers select their airlines based on the service attributes, making airline differentiation, positioning and branding important (Prayag, 2007; Wen and Yeh, 2010). There is a significantly strong relationship between improvement in service and increasing profits due to increasing passenger retention through new and repeated purchasing behavior from more loyal customers. Long, Clark, Schiffman, and
McMellon (2003) confirmed that air companies that offer desired service quality tend to charge 8% more for its products, generally becoming more profitable than its competitors by gaining a higher market share. Moreover, much of the published literature including the work by Johnson, Nader and Fornell (1996), suggested that cumulative customer satisfaction is able to predict future retention behavior and profitability.
SERVQUAL
A study by Parasuraman, Zeithami, and Berri (1985) has led to the development to SERVQUAL, a set of measurements that compare customers’’ expectations and perceptions to capture service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985). SERVQUAL’s initial
6
34-item questionnaire with a set of ten dimensions was determined at the early stage of development; Later, Parasuraman et al. (1988) redefined the questionnaire to a smaller set of five dimensions (i.e., reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy, and responsiveness) based on a 22-item questionnaire.
In the studies with five dimensions, reliability involves the ability to perform the promised service independently, properly, and accurately. Assurance is the knowledge and courtesy of employees, and their ability to inspire customer trust and confidence.
Tangibles refer to the appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and communication materials. Empathy is defined as having caring, individualized attention provided to its guests and or customers. Responsiveness means the willingness to help customers and provide prompt service (Pizam, 2010).
SERVQUAL in the Airline Industry
Later research and studies have widely developed and expanded Parasuraman’s
22-item scale to study service quality in the airline industry. In the aviation industry, assurance refers to the airlines employees’ knowledge and courtesy, and their ability to convey trust and confidence. In 2003, Gilbert and Wong developed a 26-item questionnaire that corresponds to reliability, assurance, facilities, employees, flight patterns, customization, and responsiveness to measure the differences in passengers’ expectations. Significant differences were found between different ethnic groups and among passengers who travel for different purposes. The findings of their study showed that the “assurance” dimension was ranked as the most important service dimension by passengers (Gilbert and Wong, 2003).
7
Reliability has been considered a key dimension influencing customers’ perceptions of airline quality (Zeglat et al., 2008). Reliability is the airlines’ ability to perform the promised service accurately and properly whereas empathy refers to the caring, detailed, and individualized attention that airlines deliver to their customers.
According to Tsantoulis and Palmer (2008), cabin comfort, in-flight amenities, and the attitude of the ground and flight crew delivering the service were the most essential attributes of passenger satisfaction. On-time performance was the most important factor affecting the overall satisfaction of travelers flying for business purpose. Clifford,
Cunningham, and Moonkyu, in 1994, implemented SERVQUAL as the assessment for service quality of airlines, and the results suggested that “reliability” was the dominant predictor of customer satisfaction and the dimensions of both “reliability and empathy” influenced customer retention (Heskett et al., 1997; Tiernan, Rhoades and Waguespack,
2008). Furthermore, Chen and Chang’s study (1998) confirmed that passengers favored airline punctuality and scheduling, which were considered the most important attributes, followed by pricing and safety.
In addition to providing efficient transportation, an important dimension of tangibles is enhancing the passengers’ perception of service quality. Tangibles are associated with the appearance of the aircraft, the type of aircraft, ground facilities, personnel, airport layout, and communication. Many studies have examined the dimension of tangibles in the airline industry (Correia et al., 2008; Mohamed et al.,
2008). Mohamed, AbdelFattah and Gadallah (2008) conducted a study among three airports in the Middle East region, identifying five tangible service attributes, including the average age of the fleet, the appearance of aircraft, the layout of the aircraft, the in-
8 flight entertainment variety, and the cabin seat comfort. The results confirmed that tangible service was tightly related to the proposed quality of service.
Finally, the dimension of responsiveness concerns the airlines’ willingness to help customers and provide prompt service. Bruning, Hu and Hao (2009) suggested that the primary service quality dimension is responsiveness including attitude of the ground and flight crew members, baggage handling service, efficient check-in service, and employees handling of requests or complaints promptly. Clearly, responsiveness was critical to the airline industry, and the study indicated that frequent flyers have a higher service quality expectation of airlines’ responsiveness (Bruning, Hu and Hao, 2009;
Tiernan, Rhoades and Waguespack, 2008).
IPA Analysis
The Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) framework was introduced by
Martilla and James (1997) to identify customer satisfaction and expectations regarding the significant attributes in terms of the relative performance. Importance and performance data are plotted on a two-dimensional grid and then mapped into four quadrants with importance on the Y-axis and performance on the X-axis, as shown in
Figure 1.
Quadrant I (i.e., high importance with low performance) is “Concentrate Here”, and any of attributes that fall in this quadrant represent top priority that need to be improved with. Quadrant II (i.e., high importance with high performance) is “Keep Up the Good Work”, and all attributes that fall in this quadrant are the strength of organizations. Quadrant III (i.e., low importance with low performance) is “Low
Priority”, and attributes that fall in this quadrant are not important with low priority.
9
Finally, Quadrant IV (i.e., low importance with high performance) is labeled “Possible
Overkill”, and this quadrant denotes attributes that are overemphasized by organizations.
Hence, instead of continuing to focus in this quadrant, organizations should allocate their resources to address attributes that belonged in Quadrant I (Keyt et al., 1994; Slack,
1991).
Quadrant I Quadrant II
Concentrate Here Keep Up the Good Work
High Importance High Importance
Low Performance High Performance
Quadrant III Quadrant IV Importance Importance Low Priority Possible Overkill
Low Importance Low Importance
Low Performance High Performance
Performance
Figure 1. IPA Grid
10
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
Research Design
A survey was designed to investigate the differences between the levels of service performance and the importance attributed to overall airline service quality. Air China and Hainan Airlines were chosen to analyze the levels of customer service quality across several dimensions, including on-ground and on-board airline personnel, inflight amenities, cleanliness and appearance of the aircraft, convenience of online services, availability of upgrades, and airline communication with passengers. The survey used a seven-point scale as the rating system including: strongly agree, agree, neutral, agree, strongly disagree and N/A which correspond from seven points to one point. An attribute that scores a higher point denoted higher importance or performance, whereas a lower point signified lower importance or performance on that specific dimension.
Data Collection
The survey was first translated into Chinese and then back translated into English to ensure accuracy. The researcher assessed any differences in interpretation to ensure the same instrument is used in both languages. A total of 200 air passengers (e.g., 100 from each airline company) were approached between August and September 2016. The researcher explained the purpose of the study and obtained their consent to participate.
The study was undertaken in the hotel lobby at Hilton San Gabriel, and the participants gave their consent to participate. Between August and September, 2016, 105 valid questionnaires were obtained, and the overall response rate was 52.5% (i.e., 105 out of
200). An example of the survey used during this study is shown in Appendix A. The
11 survey was divided into two sections. The first section included a 23-item questionnaire corresponding to the following five dimensions of service quality: reliability, tangibility, assurance, responsiveness, and empathy. The second section captured demographic information including gender, age, educational level, and air travel frequency.
Results
Characteristics of the Participants
The survey data were analyzed using SPSS. The following two groups were used for the analysis: Air China (i.e., 55 responses) and Hainan Airlines (i.e., 50 responses).
The sample comprised 47 (i.e., 45.5%) male and 58 (i.e., 54.5%) female participants, and the most of the respondents were aged 21-30 (i.e., 43%) followed by those were aged 41-
50 (i.e., 27.8%). Of the total participants, 45.5% had a college degree, and 18.2% of the participants had a post-graduate degree. A variety of departure cities were reported by the participants, including 24% departing from Beijing Capital International Airport, and
13% departing from Shanghai Pudong International Airport. Most of the participants (i.e.,
27.3%) had traveled by air 2-3 times in the year prior to this study. The demographic information of the participants are shown in Table 2, and are detailed below.
12
Table 2
Profile of the Respondents (n=105)
Demographics Air China Hainan Airlines
Gender
Male 21.8% 23.6%
Female 29.5% 25.1%
Age
21 – 30 10.2% 12.6%
31 – 40 23.0% 20.0%
41 – 50 14.3% 13.5%
Education Level
College graduate 28.7% 23.4%
Post-graduate degree 18.9% 20.7%
Air Travel Frequency
First time 8.5% 9.8%
Between 2 to 3 times 14.6% 12.7%
Between 4 to 5 times 10.1% 6.4%
Reliability Test for SERVQUAL
The reliability tests that were carried out corresponded to the five dimensions of service quality to examine the performance of Cronbach's alpha as an indicator of reliability. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient normally ranges from 0 and 1. It should be noted that an alpha of 0.7 is an acceptable goal. All four dimensions except
13
“responsiveness”, showed a high degree of internal consistency (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha
>0.7). To increase the Cronbach’s alpha above 0.7, “availability of flight information” from the “responsiveness” dimension was removed as suggested by SPSS. This action resulted in an increase in Cronbach’s alpha from 0.682 to 0.712. Table 3 shows the output from SPSS for the dimension scale of airline companies toward their actual performance.
Table 3
Reliability Statistics
Items Mean SD Cronbach’s Alpha
Reliability 5.353 0.387 0.859
Assurance 4.714 1.702 0.935
Empathy 4.860 0.296 0.911
Tangible 4.601 0.233 0.964
Responsiveness 4.937 0.534 0.712
14
Descriptive Statistics for Performance
Table 4
Performance of Service Quality Dimension
SQ Dimensions Performance of Service Quality Dimension
Air China Hainan Airlines T-test
Mean SD Mean SD T-value P-value
Reliability 4.960 0.391 5.747 0.383 -2.191 0.053
Assurance 4.658 2.081 4.770 1.324 -0.136 0.895
Empathy 4.763 0.339 4.957 0.252 -0.435 0.686
Tangible 4.344 0.291 4.858 0.175 -1.169 0.131
Responsiveness 5.010 0.457 4.863 0.610 0.240 0.822
Table 4 presents the responses in relation to passengers’ perception of service quality performance. The purpose is to compare the responses of air passengers to obtain different findings for the two airlines. There are no statistically significant differences between the two companies except for the reliability dimension (i.e., marginally significant, P=0.053). A series of follow up t-tests were performed on the six items under the reliability dimension to further reveal the performance differences between the two companies (see Table 5). The results indicate that Hainan Airlines scored significant
15 higher on the “check-in service” attribute (i.e., mean=5.04) than Air China (i.e., mean=4.55, P=0.032). Regarding the other five items under the reliability dimension,
Hainan Airlines also received marginally significantly higher scores than Air China (i.e.,
P<0.1). Please refer to Table 5 for a detailed comparison.
Table 5
T-test Results for the Reliability Dimension
Reliability Mean T-value P-value
Air China Hainan Airline
On-time performance 5.08 6.05 8.1550 0.078
Check-in service 4.55 5.04 9.571 0.032
Baggage handling service 4.90 6.17 8.717 0.073
Convenience of flight schedule 4.73 6.09 7.956 0.080
Value for airfare 4.37 5.67 7.723 0.082
Ease of reservation/ticketing 6.13 5.01 9.946 0.064
The results of the t-test for the four dimensions except “reliability”, are not in concordance with several previous studies that reported that the differences between the two companies in the rankings are significant (see Table 1: JACEDE Sources).
Potentially the two primary reasons for the inconsistent results are the small sample size and limited survey site in the current study. In addition, the JACEDE study was conducted in 2011 and is out dated; Air China has implemented service improvement programs called “Customer Relationship Management” (CRM), which might also be a factor. According to Liang and Gao (2014), Air China is the first airline in China that
16 implemented a CRM strategy to improve its quality of customer service and enhance its competitive advantage. Notably, the CRM strategy is vital and effective, constantly bringing positive feedback to Air China over the past years. Quoted from Clayton’s
“Future Travel Experience”, he says the following in October, 2015.
“Air China product and service standards have been improving during the past five years, and the newest aircraft provide standards that are most competitive when compared to Western and other Asian carriers. Staff are generally well trained and provide service in quite a regimented and disciplined manner. At the right price, we see
Air China as a good choice if you are planning a trip to China.”
Chakrabarty and Kutlu (2014), the authors of “Flying with Air China”, commented in a newspaper article as follows:
“A lot of progress in both product and service development and improvement has been made during the last five years at Air China, and it is becoming a more recognised name on the international stage. They often provide competitive fares, and on this basis we would recommend them as an airline to try.”
IPA Analysis
The Importance-Performance Analysis frame is used to provide insights into passengers’ evaluation of critical service attributes in service quality. The importance and performance of service quality are analyzed using IPA by categorizing them into four
Quadrants.
Figure 2 shows the results of Air China’s IPA grid. The intersection in the IPA is made available using the mean level of importance at 5.47 and the mean level of performance at 4.71.
17
Figure 2: Air China’s IPA Grid
18
In Quadrant I (i.e., upper left corner), “Concentrate Here”, passengers perceive the attributes as very important, but the perceptions of performance levels are below expectation. Thus, further improvement should be made here. The following four attributes fall in this quadrant: in-flight amenities, convenience of flight schedule, value for airfare, and friendliness of crew service. Attributes such as: safety records, on-time performance, problem solving skills of the crew, cleanliness of the aircraft, and complaints handling, are in Quadrant II (i.e., upper right corner), which is titled “Keep
Up the Good Work”. This quadrant is perceived to be very important and satisfied from the passengers’ perspective. Air China should keep up the good work in maintaining their customers’ satisfaction; otherwise, these attributes might risk falling into the
“Concentrate Here” quadrant. Service attributes categorized as “Low Priority” in
Quadrant III (i.e., lower left corner) include online management of trip, meal variety, in- flight entertainment variety, meal variety, and availability of flight information. In
Quadrant IV (i.e., lower right corner), “Possible Overkill”, the two attributes frequent flyer program and on-board atmosphere, are rated by customers as low importance with high performance.
19
Table 6
Air China’s Mean vs. Ranking
SQ Dimensions Importance Performance
Mean Ranking Mean Ranking
Reliability
On-time performance 6.50 3 5.08 5
Check-in service 5.25 16 4.55 14
Baggage handling service 6.46 4 4.90 8
Convenience of flight schedule 6.54 2 4.73 10
Value for airfare 6.44 5 4.37 16
Ease of reservation/ticketing 5.75 10 6.13 2
Assurance
Safety records 6.89 1 6.86 1
Meal variety 4.72 19 4.01 21
Freshness of meal 5.43 12 4.38 15
Frequent flyer program 3.44 23 5.06 6
Online management of trip 3.75 22 2.98 23
Empathy
Wait to be served 5.26 15 4.51 14
Friendliness of crew service 5.77 8 4.35 17
Problem solving skills of crews 6.34 6 5.43 4
20
Table 6
Air China’s Mean vs. Ranking (continued)
SQ Dimensions Importance Performance
Mean Ranking Mean Ranking
Tangible
The cleanliness of aircraft 5.54 11 4.91 7
On-board atmosphere 5.35 13 4.88 9
In-flight amenities 5.76 9 3.68 22
In-flight entertainment variety 5.03 18 4.03 20
Cabin comfort 5.17 17 4.22 18
Responsiveness
Availability of on-ground staff 5.32 14 4.71 11
Availability of flight information 4.43 21 4.20 19
Complaints handling 6.03 7 5.78 3
Use of airline official website 4.68 20 4.53 13
Figure 3 demonstrates the results of Hainan Airlines’ IPA grid. The intersection in the IPA is made available using the mean level of importance at 5.05 and the mean level of performance at 5.64.
21
Figure 3: Hainan Airlines’ IPA Grid
22
In constrast, it is found that the attributes: availability of on-ground staff, frequent flyer program, meal variety, and ease of reservation belong to Quadrant I (i.e., upper left corner), which is titled “Concentrate Here”. This suggests that these services require corrective attention, and thus, should be given top priority. In Quadrant III (i.e., lower left corner), the attributes including online management of trip and in-flight entertainment variety, have a low performance and also are not perceived to be an important feature by the passengers. Attributes in Quadrant II (i.e., upper right corner) are labeled “Keep Up the Good Work”. The results of this study confirm that attributes safety records, on-time performance, baggage handling service, value for airfare, complaints handling, convenience of flight schedule, and problem solving skills of crews are under Quadrant
II, which indicates Hainan Airlines’ core value and high quality products are stronger than its competitors, thus, this strength should continue to be maintained. There are two attributes found in Quadrant IV (i.e., lower right corner), which are freshness of meal and on-board atmosphere.
23
Table 7
Hainan Airlines’ Mean vs. Ranking
SQ Dimensions Importance Performance
Reliability Mean Ranking Mean Ranking
On-time performance 6.67 2 6.50 2
Check-in service 5.57 13 5.04 10
Baggage handling service 6.53 3 6.17 3
Convenience of flight schedule 5.61 12 6.09 4
Value for airfare 6.33 5 5.67 7
Ease of reservation/ticketing 6.36 4 5.01 11
Assurance
Safety records 6.93 1 6.51 1
Meal variety 5.67 10 4.33 20
Freshness of meal 5.30 17 5.32 9
Frequent flyer program 5.66 11 4.02 22
Online management of trip 4.33 22 3.67 23
Empathy
Wait to be served 5.33 15 4.53 16
Friendliness of crew service 5.69 9 4.83 12
Problem solving skills of crews 6.03 8 5.51 8
24
Table 7
Hainan Airlines’ Mean vs. Ranking (continued)
SQ Dimensions Importance Performance
Mean Ranking Mean Ranking
Tangible
The cleanliness of aircraft 5.05 21 4.71 14
On-board atmosphere 5.20 19 5.58 5
In-flight amenities 5.31 16 4.67 15
In-flight entertainment variety 4.04 23 4.51 17
Cabin comfort 5.55 14 4.82 13
Responsiveness
Availability of on-ground staff 6.24 6 4.50 18
Availability of flight information 5.10 20 4.17 21
Complaints handling 6.04 7 5.76 6
Use of airline official website 5.23 18 4.33 19
Discussion
The aim of this study is to assess different customers’ perspectives of the meaning of high quality service across Air China and Hainan Airlines, which have quite different service levels. The IPA grid is applied to offer strategic tools for understanding passengers’ needs, and assessing their satisfaction with the service quality. Having top rated importance items and a performance rating significantly lower than importance enable the air carriers to strategically identify area of focus to improve service quality.
25
According to the analysis of Air China, a top priority for improvement should be given to the “reliability” dimension, which is in concordance with the IPA analysis reporting that the friendliness of the crew, baggage handling service, and value of pricing are the least satisfactory attributes (i.e., items under Quadrant I). The results are realistic and reflect the present condition of Air China. Furthermore, this result helps to send an important signal to the airline company’s human resources department and the people who are responsible for implementing employee training and development programs, that is, investing in employee training represents the basic precondition for accomplishing the satisfaction of passengers. In addition, when Air China is dealing with outsourcers such as baggage handling and check-in services, Air China needs to ensure that their outscoring vendors can maintain the same or a higher level of service. Thus, it is essential for the airline to monitor and evaluate their third-party partners routinely. Otherwise, service quality can be negatively impacted.
Regarding Hainan Airlines IPA analysis, the results suggest that the “assurance” and “responsiveness” dimensions seem to be the main reason for passenger dissatisfaction in the service quality. Typical attributes include the frequent flyer program, availability of on-ground staff, meal variety, and ease of reservation, which are in Quadrant IV that is titled “Concentrate Here”. There is evidence to advise further improvement in these areas. Unfortunately, although Hainan Airlines seeks to expedite its international expansion by joining One World Alliance, Cathay Pacific from Hong Kong is an obstacle and remains opposed to the carrier joining the Alliance. As Hainan Airlines is rapidly spreading to the international market over the years, the carrier will take many days and chapters ahead to seek a proper solution.
26
Limitations
There are several limitations that might be found in this study. First, the sample size reported in the study is small and was limited by time and manpower. This limitation may undermine the reliability of the findings. Moreover, domestic flights are not considered, which might impact the results of the study as well. Future studies with different groups of passengers and a larger sample size are strongly recommended. Second, it is apparent that perceptions of airline quality may vary between different nationalities; notably, the participants are all Chinese citizens; and or are from China where the Chinese culture greatly impacts the passengers’ views of customer service quality. Additionally, the passengers who answered this questionnaire might not have a clear understanding of what the researcher wanted. For instance, they might not have a clear understanding of some of the questions, or they are unable to evaluate the quality of received services, which is especially true for first time travelers. Finally, the data in this study are not collected from participants younger than 21 years of age.
27
REFERENCE
Bloemer, J.M.M. and Kasper, H.D.P. (1995) ‘The complex relationship between
consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty’, Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 311-329.
Chakrabarty, D. , & Kutlu, L. (2014). Flying with Air China. Applied Economics, 46(28),
3421-3436.
Chen, F, & Chang, Y. (2005). Examining airline service quality from a process
perspective. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11(2), 79-87.
Clifford, Y., Cunningham, L., & Moomkyu, L. (1994). Assessing service quality as an
effective management tool: The case of the airline industry. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Spring, 76–96.
Done, K., 2005. A business model going places? Premium airlines lay down a challenge
for the big network carriers. Financial Times, 13.
Gilbert, D., Wong, K.C., 2003. Passenger expectations and airline services: a Hong
Kong-based study. Tourism Management 24, 519–532.
Heskett, J. W., Sasser, E., & Schlesinger, L. (1997). The service profit chain. New York,
NY: The Free Press
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
Keyt, J.C., Yavas, U. and Riecken, G. (1994), “Importance-performance analysis”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 35-40.
28
Liang, H. and Gao, J. (2014). CRM Strategy of Air China. International Financial Law
Review. Accessed on 24 November 2016
http://faculty.insead.edu/reinartz/crm/projects/Spring%202004/Air%20China-
CRM.pdf
Long, M.M., Clark, S.D., Schiffman, L.G. and McMellon, C. (2003) ‘In the air again:
frequent flyer relationship programmes and business travellers’ quality of
life’, The International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 421-
432
Martilla, J.A. and James, J.C. (1977), “Importance-performance analysis”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 77-9.
Mohamed, T. , AbdelFattah, Y. , & Gadallah, M. (2008). Improvement of airline industry
service quality. Journal of Management & Engineering Integration, 1(1), 61.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L. (1988) ‘Servqual: a multiple-item scale
for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality’, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 64 No. 1, pp.12-40.
Pham, K.Q.V. (2006) ‘U.S. and European frequent flyers service expectations: A Cross-
cultural study’, The Business Review, Cambridge, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 32-38.
Pham, K.Q.V. and 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, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Pizam, A. (Ed.). (2010). International encyclopedia of hospitality management (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
29
Prayag, G. (2007) ‘Assessing international tourists’ perceptions of service quality at Air
Mauritius’, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.
24 No. 5, pp. 492-514.
Tiernan, S., Rhoades, D.L. and Waguespack, B.P. (2008) ‘Airline service quality:
Exploratory analysis of consumer perceptions and operational performance in
the USA and EU’, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 212-224.
Tsantoulis, M. and Palmer, A. (2008) ‘Quality convergence in airline co-brand alliances’,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 34-64.
Waguespack, B.P. and Rhoades, D.L. (2008) ‘Cancellations and their relationship to and
impact on airline service quality’, Airlines Magazine, Issue 40. Accessed on
24 April 2016
http://www.aerlines.nl/issue_40/40_waguespack_cancellations.pdf
Weber, K., Sparks, B., 2004. Consumer attributions and behavioral responses to service
failures in strategic airline alliance settings. Journal of Air Transport
Management 10, 362–367.
Zeglat, D., Ekinci, Y., & Lockwood, A. (2008). Service quality and business performance
in the hospitality industry. In H. Oh & A. Pizam (Eds.), Handbook of
Hospitality and Tourism Marketing (pp. 209–236). London: Elsevier.
30
APPENDIX A
Section One: Service Attributes
Direction: Please recall your most recent international air travel experience (from China to the U.S.), then answer the following questions based on your recalled experience.
Importance of attribute: The importance of an attribute you preferred to have for your flight experience. Performance of attribute: Actual performance of an attribute you received from the previous flight.
Rating system: “1” = Strongly disagree; “7” = Strongly agree; “N/A” = Not applicable.
Airline Service Attributes Importance of Attribute Performance of Attribute Reliability
On-time performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Check-in service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Baggage handling service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Convenience of flight schedule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Value for airfare 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Ease of reservation/ticketing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Assurance
Safety records 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Meal variety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Freshness of meal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Frequent flyer program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Online management of trip 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
31
Continued
Airline Service Attributes Importance of Attribute Performance of Attribute Empathy
Wait to be served 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Friendliness of crew service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Problem solving skills of crews 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Tangible
The cleanliness of aircraft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
On-board atmosphere 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
In-flight amenities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
In-flight entertainment variety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Cabin comfort 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Responsiveness
Availability of on-ground staff 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Availability of flight information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Airline complaints handling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
Use of airline official website 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A
32
Section Two: Demographic Information
1. What is your gender?
_____ Male
_____ Female
_____ Prefer not to answer
2. Please select your age group:
_____ 21 – 30
_____ 31 – 40
_____ 41 – 50
_____ Older than 51
_____ Prefer not to answer
3. What is the highest level of your education?
_____ Below high school
_____ High school graduate
_____ College graduate
_____ Post-graduate degree
_____ Prefer not to answer
_____ Other, please be specific_____
4. What was your departure airport?
_____ Beijing Capital International Airport
33
_____ Shanghai Pudong International Airport
_____ Changsha Huanghua International Airport
_____ Other, please be specific_____
5. Which airline did you fly with?
_____ Air China
_____ Hainan Airlines
_____ Other, please be specific_____
6. Please indicate the frequencies that you have been flying with the above airline in the past year:
_____First time
_____Between 2 to 3 times
_____Between 4 to 5 times
_____More than 5 times
7. How often do you travel by air (both domestic and international) per year?
_____First time
_____Between 2 to 3 times
_____Between 4 to 5 times
_____More than 5 times
Thank you!
34