Exploring different airport users’ service quality satisfaction between service providers and air travelers

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Exploring different airport users’ service quality satisfaction between service providers and air travelers

T

⁎

Seock-Jin Honga, , Dongho Choib, Junjae Chaeb a b

University of North Texas, G. Brint Ryan College of Business, 1155 Union Circle #311396, Denton, TX, 76203-5017, USA Korea Aerospace University, Deokyang-gu, Hanggongdaehang-ro, Gyeonggi-do, Goyang-si, South Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Airport services quality Users' satisfaction Interaction service Outcome service Servicescape Air traveler Service provider

This study investigates appropriate attributes— physical environment, outcome, and interactional quality—to measure users' satisfaction that influences airport users' satisfaction level. With these three attributes and users’ perspectives for air travelers and service providers, we generate a conceptual model of airport service quality and satisfaction. The findings indicate that different perceptions exist between airport service providers and air travelers. Air travelers are more concerned with interaction and outcome (convenience) quality attributes, while services providers reflect on interaction and physical environment (servicescape) quality attributes. The airport service quality is found to be significantly related to airport reuse, and destination revisits. An appropriate service-training program is needed to reduce the gap in the level of satisfaction.

1. Introduction Airports face many issues regarding service quality that contribute to increased profits and business expansion. Passengers often do not have a choice between airports, regardless of the price and quality levels of airport services (Yeh and Kuo, 2003). Particularly, passenger demand for airport services is likely to be relatively inelastic (Doganis, 1992). However, the airport industry is changing rapidly due to accelerating travel demands and integrated (integrating) regional markets. Airports are an increasingly competitive environment as more competitors enter the market and offer the airlines or air travelers a choice to operate or use services from elsewhere. Service quality at the airport passenger terminal is a significant performance indicator for airport operations and management (Yeh and Kuo, 2003); therefore, it should be treated with the same level of importance as profitability (Merkert and Assaf, 2015) and consideration to achieve competitive advantage (Hong and Lee, 2007; Lee-Mortimer, 1993; Pantouvakis and Renzi, 2016), to improve service levels (Yeh and Kuo, 2003), to prioritize investments (Correia et al., 2008), to attract passengers, and to generate non-aeronautical revenue (Jiang and Zhang, 2016). To yield the desired results, the service quality of airports must be defined by and measured from passengers themselves and not by or from others (Fodness and Murray, 2007). The customers' satisfaction is becoming an integral part of the thought processes of every type of

business, including airport services. However, the quality of service cannot be separated from the service provider as an internal customer because only motivated employees can satisfy their customers. Airport users vary from air travelers to service providers and includes airport authority and airlines’ employees, concessionaires, tenants, civil servants, safety and security-related personnel, and others. The service provider must empower all levels of airport organization to deliver quality services, improve existing services, and create innovative ideas. Thus, this study focuses not only on air travelers,1 the end-users of airport facilities, and services, but also investigates the gap between air travelers and service providers, the decision-makers of airport facilities and services, on a short- and long-term basis. Only a few researchers have investigated the service quality of airports from the viewpoint of passengers, airlines, and airport operators (Hong and Jun 2006; Jun and Hong, 2004 for the air cargo industry; Lemer, 1992; Seneviratne and Martel, 1994) as well as including internal and external stakeholders to measure airport performance along with service quality (Paraschi et al., 2019). Some researchers posit that air travelers' overall satisfaction to use the airport terminal may be influenced by a wide range of factors—such as walking distance, visual information, availability of space, changes in level, availability and comfort of seating, waiting time, and color scheme—that are measured for other reasons or derivable from basic facilities, design and operating information (Bezerra and Gomes, 2016;

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (S.-J. Hong), [email protected] (D. Choi), [email protected] (J. Chae). 1 Also known as customer or passenger. Hereafter, we refer to air travelers who use airline services to travel via airports. However, when we cite, we use the same word that the authors use. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101917 Received 4 April 2019; Received in revised form 19 July 2019; Accepted 12 August 2019 0969-6989/ Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

S.-J. Hong, et al.

the service-related air travel was done at airports including curb-, land-, and air-side except ticketing and in-flight services offered by airlines. Fig. 1 depicts the process of airline/airport-related services from ticketing to arrival to the destination including ground access to the airport, check-in, baggage handling, security and immigration at the origin airport, shopping and dining, boarding, in-flight services, immigration at the destination airport, and baggage claim. Researchers on airport service quality have focused more on the physical environment (Bitner, 1992; Fodness and Murray, 2007; Jiang and Zhang, 2016; Park and Park, 2018) as tangible attributes. Others have extended the research to the psychological attributes such as cognitive (visible, functional attributes; Lemer, 1992; Nghiêm-Phú and Suter, 2018; Tsai et al., 2011) and affective attributes (feeling; Pantouvakis and Renzi, 2016) as intangible attributes from the user's psychological perception. Ambiance, design, and social factors have also been applied to measure consumers' perceptions of service interaction (Baker, 1987) as well as the facility's exterior and interior environment (Zeithaml et al., 2006). However, we find that the attributes of airport service quality are different from that of other service industries. Other service industries, such as hotels, banks, restaurants, retail shops, and hospitals, used abstract terminology with reliability, responsiveness, empathy, assurance, convenience, affective, and tangible. For the airport industry, researchers have applied process-based terminology, such as access, check-in, passport control, security, navigation, facilities, environment, and arrival (ACI, 2018), service area focus (Correia et al., 2008), mixed processes, and areas with detailed service times (Bezerra and Gomes, 2016). Researchers have also used five attributes given by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988), three attributes from Brady and Cronin (2001), or combined some attributes of Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988) and some process (or area) based attributes. There is no universal framework or concept of measurement that covers mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive attributes that include pleasure and displeasure based on performance. Based on the existing literature for airport service quality, attributes, and components (or construct), the literature is either academic research (Brady and Cronin, 2001; Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988; Rust and Oliver, 1994) or practical surveys (ACI, 2018; WSJ, 2018) or mixed (see Fig. 2). Therefore, we attempt to find a hierarchical classification for all of the attributes on airport service quality with three levels—large, medium, and small categories—to establish a better framework. All of the components were applied to find the relationships with airport service quality, and we find that they are positively associated (Bezerra and Gomes, 2016; Correia et al., 2008; Nghiêm-Phú and Suter, 2018 [see Table 1];). Based on the review of literature (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988; Brady and Cronin, 2001; Airports Council International, 2018), we chose three attributes for this research that comprehensively cover all of the services and same level of words, such as interaction quality (Brady and Cronin, 2001 used the terminology with services; Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988 with empathy); outcome quality (Brady and Cronin, 2001 with convenience; Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988 with assurance, reliability, and responsiveness), and physical environment quality (Brady and Cronin, 2001 with servicescape; Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988 with tangible).

Lemer, 1992; Tsai et al., 2011; Yeh and Kuo, 2003). However, very few researchers reveal the intangible (psychological attributes with cognitive and affective (Nghiêm-Phú and Suter, 2018) and servicescape attributes (Fodness and Murray, 2007; Pantouvakis and Renzi, 2016; Park and Park, 2018) that contribute to airport user's satisfaction with the passenger terminal services. Within the academic literature, there is limited coverage of the servicescape attribute as a physical environment at airports that utilize air travelers and service providers to measure service quality at airport passenger terminals. There is no generally accepted conceptual framework of what constitutes an adequate service quality measure with the users’ overall satisfaction at airports. However, the continuing growth in air traveler demand and the evolution of airports make it likely that interest in common service quality measures and evaluation frameworks will increase. Hence, the overall aim of this research is to fill this gap using a structural equation model to get a conceptual framework to find the relationship between service quality and user satisfaction at airports. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a literature review of the service quality and theoretical background. Section 3 describes the data, methodology, and research attributes and hypotheses, focusing on the service factors for airport passenger terminals. Section 4 presents the results of analysis and discussion. Section 5 concludes with limitations and future research directions. 2. Literature review of service quality measures The service quality (SERVQUAL) is evaluated by the gap of customers’ perception of service and service promises with past experiences, personal needs, and word-of-mouth for expected quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985) using a multi-attribute scale (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Despite the validation for the concept of SERVQUAL (=Performance-Expectations), the model may have inherent problems in actually measuring perceived quality (Yeh and Kuo, 2003). Gronroos (1984) suggests measuring customer expectations of service quality by providing a close approximation to service performance (SERVPERF=Performance [Cronin and Taylor, 1992]) that uses two-factor, technical, and functional quality attributes. Since the inception of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF, there have been lots of discussions to clarify conceptualization of service quality (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988) that is applied very widely to various industries to measure the service quality using the five attributes of assurance, empathy, reliability, responsiveness, and tangible. Rust and Oliver (1994) proposed that the service quality is composed of product, delivery, and the environment. Brady and Cronin (2001) used three dimensions: the customer-employee interaction, the service environment (also known as servicescape [Bitner, 1992]), and the outcome. We trace back the conceptual framework for evaluating the gap (SERVQUAL, differences of performance and expectations) based on perception, performance (SERVPERF), Rust and Oliver (1994) and Brady and Cronin (2001) models, or any other models regarding the airport service quality. To the best of our knowledge, Lemer (1992) and Seneviratne and Martel (1994) were at nearly the beginning stage of using research to measure the perceptions and expectations of service quality at airport passenger terminals. The literature on service quality at the airports is rich enough to provide a concept from academic journals (Bezerra and Gomes, 2016; Fodness and Murray, 2007; Hong and Lee, 2007; Jiang and Zhang, 2016), an industry organization report (ASQ2: Airport Service Quality; Airports Council International, 2018), and a newspaper survey report (The Wall Street Journal,3 2018). All of

(footnote continued) to travelers, including categories like security-line wait times, Wi-Fi speed, average Yelp scores for restaurants, average fares, Uber traveling cost to local convention centers, rental-car taxes and fees, number of non-stop destinations and market dominance of the largest airline. The survey of over 4800 readers with the groups of measurements were labeled most reliable, best value and most comfortable.

2 ASQ has been developed and implemented by ACI to survey airport customers' experiences since 2007. 3 The Wall Street Journal (2018) has ranked the 20 largest U.S. airports after weighing 15 key factors. The rankings are designed to reflect what matters most

2

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

S.-J. Hong, et al.

Fig. 1. Types of airline/airport services based on who performs actions.

Fig. 2. Attributes for service quality and airport service quality (Airports Council International, 2018; Parasuraman et al., 1985).

3. Methodology and hypotheses

categories of airport service quality (ACI, 2018) from international airport agencies such as access, check-in, passport control, security, navigation, facilities, environment, and arrival, and the Wall Street Journal ([WSJ], 2018). We applied these service attributes for this survey, adopting it for passenger terminals at international airports with two languages (Korean and English) with the references of Fodness and Murray (2007) and Lemer (1992). The constructs of the questionnaire are modified for operational and spatial measures of service quality at airport passenger terminals with the users' perspective. The questionnaire consists of three segments with respondents’ socio-demographic traits including gender, the purpose of the trip, and frequency of international travel for airport users; and gender, affiliation, and work experience in years for airport service providers. The second segment is for overall service quality of IIA (B20). The third segment has 34 service quality constructs from C01 to C34 (see Table 2). The questionnaire is tested using a five-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree, and 5 = strongly agree. The survey was conducted during February and March 2018. The respondents were chosen

The following procedures were used to develop our theory: 1) review literature on service attributes for airport service quality, 2) specify survey questionnaire items based on the literature review, 3) collect data at passenger terminals at the Incheon International Airport (IIA), 4) normality, homoscedastic, and non-response bias test, 5) apply exploratory factor analysis and reliability test, 6) set hypotheses and research model, 7) apply confirmatory factor analysis (structural equation model), and 8) verify hypotheses. Questionnaire and data collection: The design of the questionnaire for this study follows Cronin and Taylor (1992), Gronroos (1984), and Parasuraman et al. (1985) for service quality perception results by comparing customer expectations with the actual service performance and using a performance-based measure of service quality. Based on the literature review, we have service quality items in five service categories—assurance, empathy, reliability, responsiveness, and tangibles (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988)—from academia, eight 3

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

randomly at passenger terminals including departure, arrival, shopping, and a hotel in Seoul who were going to take or use an airline, such as Korean Airlines, Asiana Airlines, Air China, China Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Air France, and KLM. The survey of employees was conducted at the airport who provided direct service to air travelers using the snowballing method. The response rate for passengers is only 7%–8%, but for that of employees is over 70%. A total of 138 arrival and departure passengersgave their responses including business purposes (22), leisure (104), visit friend-relative ([VFR], 12), and service provider, which (110) included airport corporations (33), airlines (56), and commercial employees (11) as well as civil servants (10) who work in airports regarding safety and security (see Table 3). Normality, homoscedastic, and non-response bias test. All analyses have been subject to bootstrap analysis with 5000 bootstrap samples because of the non-normality of data sets (all of the variables, [based on Shapiro-Wilk's test]) and heteroscedastic (standardized residual variables between B20 and attributes, [based on Levene's test]). To test non-response bias, we used an extrapolation method using different waves of respondents which are assumed to be more similar to non-respondents between respondents of different time waves (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). We received the samples from two different time waves with three-week differences; the first wave was collected with 114 samples, and the second wave 134 samples through face-to-face interviews at the passenger terminal or office of the employees. The t-test bootstrap (5000 samples) results show that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups because all of the items from the variable B20 to C34 had a p level of 0.05, which means that non-response bias does not exist in our data. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability test. We extracted the component using EFA. Based on the principal component analysis and principal axis factoring, 66.6% of the total variance in the items can be explained by the three extracted principal components, which have at least three items using the equamax rotated component matrix. We applied several rotation methods such as varimax, equamax, quartimax, direct oblimin, and promax. Among the methods, the equamax was suitable to get the appropriate model for this research. The KMO and Bartlett's test (0.964 and Approx. χ2: 7389.59 [sig. = 0.000]) are significant statistically (see Table 4). Cronbach's alpha (α) is above 0.700, which is statistically significant. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The selected constructs were evaluated through confirmatory analysis using SPSS AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structures). We applied the traditional CFA using each item as a separate indicator of the relevant construct, thus providing a detailed level of analysis. The CFA combined data with air travelers and service providers ([see Table 5], Cmin/df (χ2/df) = 2.075 [statistical significance of χ2: 0.000], CFI = 0.967, SRMR = 0.036, RMSEA = 0.066, PClose = 0.011), the model for air travelers (χ2/df = 1.740 [statistical significance of χ2: 0.000], CFI = 0.953, SRMR = 0.055, RMSEA = 0.073), and the model for service providers (χ2/df = 1.651 [statistical significance of χ2: 0.000], CFI = 0.964, SRMR = 0.037, RMSEA = 0.077, PClose = 0.013) evaluated the model as an excellent fit for χ2/df, CFI, and SRMR and acceptable fit for RMSEA and PClose based on Hu and Bentler (1999). Therefore, the model of this research is acceptable to deploy the structural equation model (see Fig. 3). Based on the literature review, using EFA and CFA, we use three research attributes—interactional quality (Delivery), outcome quality (Convenience), and physical environment quality (Servicescape). Interactional quality (Delivery). The airport service activities consist of three types4—self-service, interpersonal services, and remote

Assurance Reliability Responsiveness

Empathy

Outcome quality (Convenience; Technicald)

Interactional quality (Delivery; Functionald)

4

If the servicescape needs less employee involvement and the level of customer activity is lower, Bitner (1992) categorizes the service type as “self-service” actions. If the actions need little or no customer involvement, it is “remote service.” Both customers and employees are present and performing actions within servicescape, the service positioned “interpersonal services.”

d

c

Based on Brady and Cronin (2001). Attributes of service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988). Airport Council International (ACI_2018) – Airport Service Quality (ASQ). Rust and Oliver (1994). b

a

Outcome quality Intangible (Psychological) quality

Interaction quality

Physical environment Tangible quality

Signage, cleanliness, lighting condition, congestion level, the overall ambiance of the airport, information visibility, safety measures and security facility, compactness, sound, temperature, diversion, physical environment Processing time, delays, convenience, service reliability & reasonableness, functionality, operational effectiveness, flexibility, efficiency and speed of check-in and baggage delivery service, comfort to use, safety, security, immigration procedure, the convenience of public transportation, airport circulation planning Courtesy of staff, airport receptionist's attitude, interaction, image

Bogicevic et al. (2013); Fodness and Murray (2007); Nghiêm-Phú and Suter (2018); Oliver (1993); Tsai et al. (2011); Pantouvakis and Renzi (2016);

Tangible Physical environmental quality (Servicescape)

Bezerra and Gomes (2016); Bitner (1992); Bogicevic et al. (2013); Correia et al. (2008); Fodness and Murray (2007); Lemer (1992); Nghiêm-Phú and Suter (2018); Pantouvakis and Renzi (2016); Park and Park (2018); Tsai et al. (2011); Yeh and Kuo (2003) Bezerra and Gomes (2016); Fodness and Murray (2007); Lee et al. (2009); Lemer (1992); Nghiêm-Phú and Suter (2018); Oliver (1993); Pantouvakis and Renzi (2016); Tsai et al. (2011); Yeh and Kuo (2003)

Access Check-in Passport control Security Navigation Facilities Environment Arrival

Parasuraman et al.’s attributesb This research attributes Source Components Middle categorya Large category

Table 1 Hierarchical structure of the airport service quality attributes.

ACI's ASQ attributesc

S.-J. Hong, et al.

4

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

S.-J. Hong, et al.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for determinants of service quality at incheon international airport (IIA). Item no.

Service Quality Constructs

n

B20 The overall service quality of passenger terminals at IIA. C01 At IIA, the aircraft arrives on time and departs on time. C02 Employees understand and reassure air travelers when problems arise. C03 Employees always give their users faith. C04 Employees explain service inquiries in a kind manner. C05 Employees immediately provide the services that air travelers require. C06 Employees seem to be willing to help users. C07 Employees are courteous and polite. C08 Services for money exchanges, purchases of goods, and foods are reliable. C09 Employees have enough knowledge about airports. C10 Employees know what air travelers' needs are. C11 IIA is sincerely interested in its air travelers. C12 Public transportation (buses, railways and taxis) are convenient. C13 Public transport personnel are kind and helpful C14 Parking facilities and valet service are excellent and satisfactory. C15 Convenient and easy to find guiding signs at the airport. C16 Convenient to be informed about flight information in the terminals. C17 Convenient to carry baggage. C18 Close and convenient to go to connecting gate. C19 Restaurants, cafeteria and bar facilities at an airport. C20 Retail outlet (souvenir and duty-free shops) at an airport. C21 Internet connection and rental service for mobile phones. C22 The restroom is close and clean. C23 The speed of baggage retrieval is fast. C24 The restaurant, cafeteria and duty-free shops' staff at the airport are friendly. C25 Passport and visa screening are fast and accurate, and the staff is friendly. C26 Security search agents are kind and flexible. C27 Responds to emergency requests such as lost or stolen baggage. C28 There is no fear of terrorism, and crime prevention is good. C29 It is convenient to use the airport terminals in general. C30 The overall terminal atmosphere (lighting, comfort, and seating). C31 Pleasant air and humidity at terminal. C32 In the surrounding environment, the scenery is beautiful. C33 During stopovers, it is easy to travel around the city at any time. C34 IIA contributes greatly to the development of the community. Total mean (C01–C34)

244 230 235 237 241 240 242 242 237 244 241 239 235 240 222 240 237 234 226 235 242 225 243 224 236 234 229 235 241 243 245 240 235 226 233

Avg.

3.92 3.55 3.66 3.66 3.94 3.85 3.87 3.96 3.87 3.88 3.76 3.77 3.94 3.86 3.44 3.86 3.86 3.77 3.53 3.82 3.91 3.61 4.09 3.69 3.82 3.78 3.57 3.77 4.03 3.92 4.15 4.03 3.78 3.51 3.92

Std. Dev.

0.95 0.92 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.92 0.85 0.83 0.86 0.96 0.90 1.01 0.92 0.94 0.91 1.02 0.93 0.87 1.01 0.87 1.07 0.91 0.94 1.01 0.88 0.89 0.93 0.81 0.89 0.96 1.03 1.00

Mean Provider

Traveler

3.84 3.45 3.62 3.62 3.89 3.76 3.80 3.85 3.89 3.77 3.77 3.80 3.69 3.79 3.34 3.76 3.80 3.62 3.50 3.81 3.83 3.45 4.09 3.64 3.86 3.75 3.54 3.74 4.01 3.79 3.99 3.83 3.61 3.38 3.89 3.77

3.99 3.63 3.69 3.71 3.98 3.93 3.91 4.05 3.84 3.95 3.76 3.75 4.14 3.91 3.53 3.96 3.92 3.90 3.57 3.83 3.98 3.73 4.13 3.75 3.80 3.82 3.57 3.82 4.05 4.03 4.27 4.18 3.94 3.66 3.98 3.88

*** Significant at 0.001; ** Significant at 0.01; * Significant at 0.05. Table 3 Descriptive statistics for respondents of airport service quality questionnaire. Male

Female

Sub-total

Job at Airport (only for the service provider) Airport

Service provider

Air traveler

Total a

56

77

133 (53.6%)

54

61

115 (46.4%)

110 (44.4%)

138 (55.6%)

248 (100%)

Airlines

Commercial

Civil servanta

No response

33 (30.0%) 56 (50.9%) 11 (10.0%) 10 (9.1%) 0 (0%) How many years worked? (only for the service provider) < 5 years 6–10 years 11–15 years > 16 tears No response 39 (35.5%) 28 (25.5%) 22 (20.0%) 19 (17.3%) 2 (1.8%) Travel Purpose (only for the air traveler) Business Leisure VFR No response 22 (15.9%) 104 (75.4%) 12 (8.7%) 0 (0%) How many international trips per year on average? (only for the air traveler) < 5 times 6-10 times 11 to 15 times > 16 times No response 124 (89.9%) 10 (7.2%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.4%) 1 (0.7%)

Sub-total 110 (100%) Sub-total 110 (100%) Sub-Total 138 (100%) Sub-Total 138 (100%)

Airport safety and security-related persons.

employees still have an influence on service quality? Each particular service step has a goal or purpose that may be aided or hindered by the setting and employees’ ability to do his or her work” (Bitner, 1992). The service quality could be related to airport staff, such as courtesy, helpfulness and competence (Liou et al., 2011; Yeh and Kuo, 2003), proper training of staff (Correia et al., 2008), and politeness of the security check employees for transfer passengers (de Barros and Tomber, 2007). Thus, the first dimension in our model of airport service quality expectation is the interactional services offered by the airport. We posit:

service (Bitner, 1992). The airline/airport-related services require a high level of employee involvement (Bitner, 1992). However, modern technology enables higher levels of customer service with less involvement by airlines or airport employees, including ticketing through an online website, self-check-in and baggage, and self-security and immigration checks using kiosks. Therefore, the interpersonal services are diminishing in the aviation industry, while airports increase in nonaviation related activities such as shopping, dining, and other activities. A large number of customers interact with technology to create service outcomes instead of interacting with a service firm employee (Meuter et al., 2000). Under these circumstances, we ask, “Do services of

H1. Interactional service quality has a positive effect on overall airport service quality satisfaction. 5

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

S.-J. Hong, et al.

Table 4 Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis for All Respondents (customers and service providers). Item No.

Research Attributes

Selected Service Quality Constructs

Components 1

C02 Interactional quality (Delivery) C03 C04 C05 C06 C07 C09 C10 C11 C20 Physical environment quality (Servicescape) C22 C30 C31 C32 C15 Outcome quality (Convenience) C16 C17 C18 Extraction sums of squared loading (%) KMO and Bartlett's test a b

Employees understand and reassure all air travelers when problems arise. Employees always give their users faith. Employees explain service inquiries in a kind manner. Employees immediately provide the services that air travelers require. Employees seem to be willing to help users. Employees are courteous and polite. Employees have enough knowledge about airports. Employees know what their users' individual needs are. IIA is sincerely interested in its air travelers. Retail outlets (souvenir and duty-free shops) at an airport. The restroom is close and clean. The overall terminal atmosphere (lighting, comfort, and seating). Temperature and humidity at terminal. In the surrounding environment, the scenery is beautiful. Convenient and easy to find guiding signs at the airport. Convenient to be informed about flight information in the terminals. Convenient to carry baggage. Close and convenient to go to connecting gate.

.750 .768 .790 .761 .757 .768 .730 .677 .654 .281 .204 .212 .258 .224 .195 .272 .187 .228 57.1 0.964

2 .213 .200 .307 .308 .242 .357 .344 .197 .173 .608 .668 .745 .735 .671 .380 .344 .330 .246 6.2 and χ2:

Reliability Test 3 .275 Cronbach's α = 0.964 .323 .213 .228 .239 .193 .282 .270 .267 .374 α = 0.894 .300 .254 .295 .240 .738 α = 0.900 .686 .710 .727 3.3 66.6a 7389.59 (0.000b)

Total extraction sums of squared loading (%). Significant at 0.001.

quality is different. Thus we have subcategories of H1 as follows:

This paper discusses the conceptual framework to measure the service quality as it may be viewed by the various groups who are interested in airport terminals. Airport passenger terminals generally provide services for moving travelers, airport employees, and their baggage between aircraft and ground transportation. Airport users have different perceptions of the service quality at airports, and air travelers’ views are the primary source to measure service quality. However, travelers, airlines, airport operators, and other users of the terminals have subjective ideas about comfort, convenience, costs, and ambiance that should accompany the movement of users and baggage (Lemer, 1992). The service quality has to be balanced among these user groups (Paraschi et al., 2019), not only for air travelers but also service providers and other related persons at the airport, to address service quality performance at airport passenger terminals (see Fig. 4), because airports can attribute to the tourism destination and tourist experience by taking the role of an experienced provider (Wattanacharoensil et al., 2016). Even though air travelers and service providers are a mixed group (nationality, gender, age, job) that have different perceptions (Bezerra and Gomes, 2015), a variety of concerns about service, and different reasons to travel (business, leisure, visit friend-relative) and use airport terminals, we grouped air travelers into one group and service providers who provide service directly or indirectly to air travelers into another group; we propose that their perception of service

H1-a. The air traveler perceives that interactional service quality has a positive effect on the airport's overall service quality satisfaction. H1-b. The service provider perceives that interactional service quality has a positive effect on the airport's overall service quality satisfaction. Physical environmental quality (Servicescape). At the airport, passengers encounter a bundle of tangible and intangible services in a physical setting that might be characterized as an elaborate servicescape (Bitner, 1992). The human behavior that is influenced by the physical environment represents a subset of social rules, conventions, and expectations in force in a given behavior setting, serving to define the nature of social interaction (Baker, 1987; Bitner, 1992; Forgas, 1980). The environmental variables are propinquity, seating arrangements, size, and flexibility that can define the possibilities and limits of social episodes, such as those between and among customers and employees (Forgas, 1980). The physical evidence including terminal amenities is used by customers to evaluate the service before purchase and to evaluate the outcomes of service during and after service consumption (Farooq et al., 2018; Zeithaml et al., 2006). Bitner (1992) defined the physical environment as a servicescape to render services. The servicescape influences the nature of social interactions between and among customers and employees (Bitner, 1992). The components

Table 5 Results of confirmatory factor analysis for airport service quality. Airport usersa (Hx)

Good of fits

χb/df CFI SRMR RMSEA PClose

Air travelers (Hx-a)

Service providers (Hx-b)

Estimate

Interpretationb

Estimate

Interpretationb

Estimate

Interpretationb

2.075 0.967 0.036 0.066 0.011

Excellent Excellent Excellent Acceptable Acceptable

1.740 0.953 0.055 0.073 0.012

Excellent Excellent Excellent Acceptable Acceptable

1.651 0.964 0.037 0.077 0.013

Excellent Excellent Excellent Acceptable Acceptable

CFI: Comparative Fit Index. SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual. RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. PClose: p of Close Fit. a Airport users include air travelers and service customers. b Source: Hu and Bentler (1999). 6

Threshold for Excellentb

– – – < 0.06 > 0.05

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

S.-J. Hong, et al.

H2-b. The service provider perceives that physical environmental quality (servicescape) has a positive effect on the airport's overall service quality satisfaction. Outcome Quality (Convenience). Time delays and crowding are the two most widely recognized indicators of poor service quality (Lemer, 1992). Air travelers have a greater concern regarding reaching the aircraft with ease, connecting to other transit, connecting with transfers, and finding alternate flights when there are airline delays. The uncertainty of connecting or alternating times may be more important than the trip time itself in evaluating service quality. Up-to-date flight information and guiding signs are important for moving passengers and their baggage and influences the judgments made by air travelers, airlines, and airport operators about the airport's service quality. Convenience denotes an environment where customers can receive services rendered with ease and comfort. This includes the furniture and equipment of the service facilities, their accessibility, the methods by which transfer ports are arranged, and the spatial relationship of these elements (Bitner, 1992) as well as availability and quality of convenient facilities and services (Bezerra and Gomes, 2016). Thus we hypothesize: H3. Outcome quality (Convenience) has a positive effect on the airport's overall service quality satisfaction. H3-a. The air traveler perceives that outcome quality (Convenience) has a positive effect on the airport's overall service quality satisfaction. H3-b. The service provider perceives that outcome quality (Convenience) has a positive effect on the airport's overall service quality satisfaction. Based on the above three hypotheses, we build up the research models for combined data with 1) air travelers and service providers, and 2) only for air travelers and service providers as shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 3. Research model for airport service quality.

of a servicescape vary with the nature of service or service industries. Bitner (1992) composes ambient factors, spatial layout and functionality, signs, symbols, and artifacts. The servicescape dimension relates to who is performing actions—the customer, the employee, or both (Bitner, 1992). The relative level of involvement of customers and employees determines whose needs should be consulted in the design of the environment. The variety of physical environmental factors in service organizations are perceived by both customers and employees, and both groups may respond cognitively, emotionally, and physiologically to the environment (Bitner, 1992). Even the importance of the quality of the physical environment may reduce the interpersonal service; very few researchers have studied the servicescape for airport passenger terminals (Fodness and Murray, 2007; Park and Park, 2018). The physical characteristics of the airport passenger terminals reflect more on the service quality than before. Thus we hypothesize:

4. Results and discussion Our findings indicate that the interactional service (delivery) quality attribute (H1), physical environment quality (servicescape [H2]), and outcome quality (convenience [H3]) for the service quality of passenger terminals at the Incheon International Airport are supported (see Table 6). However, when we separate the samples into two groups, such as air travelers and airport service providers, we have slightly different results for the outcome quality (Hx-a) and physical environment quality attributes (Hx-b). The attribute of interactional service quality (H1) containing courtesy and attitude of employees at the Incheon International Airport supports air travelers (H1-a) and service providers (H1-b) overall satisfaction. For physical environment quality (H2), which includes servicescape, such as restrooms, lighting, humidity, and temperature, it is supported by only service providers (H2-b) but is not supported by air traveler (H2-a). Conversely, the outcome quality (H3) composed of convenience and easy to find signs, flight information, baggage, and access to the gate, is supported by air travelers (H3-a), but not by service providers (H3-b).

H2. Physical environmental quality (servicescape) has a positive effect on the airport's overall service quality satisfaction. H2-a. The air traveler perceives that physical environmental quality (servicescape) has a positive effect on the airport's overall service quality satisfaction.

Fig. 4. Research model for airport service quality and users' satisfaction. 7

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

S.-J. Hong, et al.

Fig. 5. Structural equation model and hypotheses for airport service quality (Standardized regression weight of each item and covariance of research attributes from combined data with air travelers and service providers).

experience, interactional quality is strictly linked to customer satisfaction (Brady and Cronin, 2001). For transport services, reliability (one of the components of convenience) becomes the core of the airport's service quality (Martín-Cejas, 2006). The judgment of service quality and satisfaction appear to follow the evaluation of service providers' performance (Cronin and Taylor, 1992). Air travelers may raise or lower their performance beliefs based on how closely they measure the performance of service providers psychologically. Thus, air travelers capture the performance of service quality offered by a specific service provider instead of the physical environment quality even though some researchers (Park and Park, 2018) posit that the perceived servicescape has a positive effect on emotional responses and customer satisfaction. The servicescape that Park and Park (2018) applied is a broad range of concepts including not only tangible attributes (physical environment quality) but also intangible (psychological) attributes, such as

The analysis shows that all three attributes (interactional service, outcome, and physical environment quality) are acceptable to measure the service quality of passenger terminals at IIA. A gap exists between air travelers and service providers who frequently interact at airports. Service providers place more emphasis on physical environment quality (servicescape) and interactional service quality. This indicates that service providers put more emphasis on interactional quality (delivery) and products (physical environmental quality) and air travelers place more emphasis on interactional quality (delivery) and outcome (convenience). Air travelers consider more intangible attributes with the outcome, or technical quality and interactional or functional quality. Although airlines and airport services are changing from interpersonal to self-service, air travelers recognize that the services from face-to-face (interpersonal) contact are still important for their overall airport service satisfaction. Because service is not a physical item, but an Table 6 Results of structural equation model for airport service quality and satisfaction. Research path

Coefficients and hypotheses Airport users (Hx)

Delivery → SAT Servicescape → SAT Convenience → SAT Good of fits χ2/df CFI SRMR RMSEA PClose (2)

0.463*** 0.242* 0.219** Estimate 2.032 0.966 0.036 0.065 0.013

Air travelers (Hx-a) H1: Supported H2: Supported H3: Supported Interpretation Excellent Excellent Excellent Acceptable(2) Acceptable

0.458*** 0.118 0.303** Estimate 1.686 0.955 0.053 0.071 0.020

1 SAT: Overall airport users' satisfaction. 2 See Table 5 for the threshold for excellent. 8

Service providers (Hx-b) H1-a: Supported H2-a: Not supported H3-a: Supported Interpretation Excellent Excellent Excellent Acceptable Acceptable

0.488*** 0.399** 0.063 Estimate 1.587 0.965 0.037 0.073 0.024

H1-b: Supported H2-b: Supported H3-b: Not supported Interpretation Excellent Excellent Excellent Acceptable Acceptable

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

S.-J. Hong, et al.

measurement of service quality and the relationship between service quality and users’ satisfaction at airports. This research includes service providers because the interaction with service providers leads to the satisfaction of air travelers, reuse, and destination choice. Furthermore, the service providers at the airport have an important role in satisfying the customer for the airport in the front line. We find the gap between service providers and air travelers at the airport terminal. Air travelers tend to value the attributes of interactional services (delivery) and outcome while service providers value the attributes of the product (physical environment) and delivery even though a high level of airport terminal facilities are important (lighting, comfort, seating, humidity, scenery, etcetera) at IIA. With these findings, the implementation of service-training programs for airport service personnel is recommendable (Chiu et al., 2016; Correia et al., 2008). The findings of this study can help airport authorities better recognize needed improvements in face-to-face service and strategies. The research studies on the conceptualization of service quality at the airport are abundant. This study contributes to the ongoing extension of the research to define a global performance construct. The common service quality measures that reflect several points of view for airport terminal operations will yield benefits in improved operations, decision-making, and a better quality of life for air travelers (Lemer, 1992). Additional research is needed to examine the implications that arise from the characteristics of self-service technologies. Technology has become an integral part of the marketplace. Customers are increasingly given the option to use self-service technologies, which is changing the way customers interact with firms to create better service outcomes (Meuter et al., 2000), and allows them more recreational time while traveling (Ku and Chen, 2013). Airports continue to apply more innovative self-service technologies, such as mobile check-in, kiosks for self-check-in, baggage drop, security, and immigration checks. The growing importance of self-service is changing the nature of services fundamentally at the airport. Further research should consider air traveler's trip purpose, income, nationality, airport ownership, and the degree of regulation to conceptualize the framework of service quality. Additionally, the sample used in this study reflects departure passengers only. Because of this limitation, the framework of this research is cautioned.

convenience, attractiveness, and pleasantness. They also used the attributes with a causal-effect relationship: servicescape - > service quality - > customer satisfaction - > purchase intentions (revisit, recommend to use). However, we define and use the servicescape with only physical environment constructs based on Brady and Cronin (2001). Moreover, we measure the relationship with users’ overall satisfaction not including purchase intention because airports have different perspectives than other industries, which means that air travelers rely more on carriers and certainty in the relationship between satisfaction and purchase intentions (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Martín-Cejas, 2006). One of the important purposes of this research is to avoid misinterpretation of the air traveler's demand for service quality. Positive perceptions of service quality create favorable behavioral intentions to repurchase/reuse, engage in positive word of mouth, endorse the products/services, price sensitivity, and ultimately, become loyal towards the firm (Prentice and Kadan, 2019) and destination choice. Air transport has played an important role in facilitating increased destination access and has paved the way for entirely new routes to operate, thus, expanding the scope of the tourism sector (Prentice and Kadan, 2019). However, the finding of this study shows that service providers have a different perception than their customers. The service provider recognizes the service quality as a view of themselves at first (employees' services) and the physical environment as a service product. Even though the physical environment and terminal amenities had a positive direct effect on air traveler satisfaction, and service providers at IIA have a prowess for the state-of-the-art amenities at the airport based on our interviews, air travelers put more priority on interpersonal service. 5. Conclusion with limitations and future research directions While the various concerns and points of view that define the service quality are expressed through the actions of market, regulatory, and political forces, observers with different points of view often can agree upon which passenger terminals perform very well or very poorly (Lemer, 1992). The United States' top three airports, Denver, Orlando, and Phoenix, have one major factor in common: strong competition among airlines (WSJ, 2018). Decision-makers concerned with passenger terminals need specific models for measuring and predicting how existing and proposed terminals respond to air travelers' demands and airline operations (Lemer, 1992). However, service quality is an elusive and abstract construct that is difficult to define and measure (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1985). Thus, interest in the measurement of service quality is high, and the delivery of higher levels of service quality is the strategy that is increasingly being offered as a key benefit to service providers’ efforts to position themselves more effectively in the marketplace (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1985). In this context, this current research provides the conceptual framework of service quality, including the need for service providers to fill gaps, design services, and operate airport passenger terminals more efficiently. This study conceptualizes airport service quality using three-dimensions—interactional, physical environmental, and outcome quality—and finds the gaps between service providers and air travelers' perception of service quality. Service providers place more emphasis on interactional service quality and physical environment quality (servicescape) while air travelers place more emphasis on interactional service quality and outcome quality (convenience). The evaluation of passenger satisfaction levels on airport services has become an important issue for airport management (Yeh and Kuo, 2003; Wattanacharoensil et al., 2016). Air travelers' choices among airports are increasing. Airports are the first point of contact when visitors arrive at a destination. Thus, an airport introduces the first images of a destination to visitors (Martín-Cejas, 2006; Paraschi et al., 2019). The objective of this study was to investigate the conceptualization and

References Airports Council International, 2018. Airport Service Quality (ASQ). Retrieved from. http://www.aci.aero/Customer-Experience-ASQ/Homepage 6/8/2018. Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 14 (3), 396–402. Baker, J., 1987. The role of the environment in marketing services: the consumer perspective,. In: The Services Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage. American Marketing Association xx-xx. Bezerra, G.C.L., Gomes, C.F., 2015. The effects of service quality dimensions and passenger characteristics on passenger's overall satisfaction with an airport. J. Air Transp. Manag. 44–45, 77–81. Bezerra, G.C.L., Gomes, C.F., 2016. Measuring airport service quality: a multidimensional approach. J. Air Transp. Manag. 53, 85–93. Bitner, M.J., 1992. Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. J. Mark. 56 (2), 57–71. Bogicevic, V., Yang, W., Bilgihan, A., Bujisic, M., 2013. Airport service quality drivers of passenger satisfaction. Tour. Rev. 68 (4), 3–18. Brady, M.K., Cronin, J.J., 2001. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: a hierarchical approach. J. Mark. 65 (3), 34–49. Chiu, S.-C., Liu, C.-H., Tu, J.-H., 2016. The influence of tourists' expectations on purchase intention: linking marketing strategy for low-cost airlines. J. Air Transp. Manag. 53, 226–234. Correia, A.R., Wirasinghe, S.C., de Barros, A.G., 2008. A global Index for level of service evaluation at airport passenger terminals. Transp. Res. E Logist. Transp. Rev. 44 (4), 607–620. Cronin, J.J., Taylor, S.A., 1992. Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. J. Mark. 56 (3), 55–68. de Barros, A.G., Tomber, D.D., 2007. Quantitative analysis of passenger and baggage security screening at airports. J. Adv. Transp. 41 (2), 171–193. Doganis, R., 1992. The Airport Business. Routledge, London. Farooq, M.S., Salam, M., Fayollec, A., Jaafard, N., Ayuppd, K., 2018. Impact of service quality on customer satisfaction in Malaysia airlines: a PLS-SEM approach. J. Air Transp. Manag. 67, 169–180.

9

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

S.-J. Hong, et al.

Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I., Bitner, M.J., 2000. Self-service technologies: understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters. J. Mark. 64, 50–64. Nghiêm-Phú, B., Suter, J.R., 2018. Airport image: an exploratory study of McCarran international airport. J. Air Transp. Manag. 67, 72–84. Oliver, R.L., 1993. Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. J. Consum. Res. 20 (3), 418–430. Pantouvakis, A., Renzi, M.F., 2016. Exploring different nationality perceptions of airport service quality. J. Air Transp. Manag. 52, 90–98. Paraschi, E.P., Georgopoulos, A., Kaldis, P., 2019. Airport business excellence model: a holistic performance management system. Tour. Manag. 72, 352–372. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J. Mark. 49 (4), 41–50. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 64 (1), 12–40. Park, K., Park, J.-M., 2018. The effects of the servicescape of airport transfer amenities on the behavioral intentions of transfer passengers: a case study on Incheon international airport. J. Air Transp. Manag. 72, 68–76. Prentice, C., Kadan, M., 2019. The role of airport service quality in airport and destination choice. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 47, 40–48. Rust, R.T., Oliver, R.L., 1994. Service quality: insights and managerial implications from the frontier. In: Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Rust and Oliver. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1–19. Seneviratne, P.N., Martel, N., 1994. Criteria for evaluating quality of service in air terminal. Transp. Res. Rec. 1461, 24–30. Tsai, W.H., Hsu, W., Chou, W.C., 2011. A gap analysis model for improving airport service quality. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 22 (10), 1025–1040. Wall Street Journal, 2018. The Best of the Biggest U.S. Airports: the First WSJ U.S. Airport Rankings Uses 15 Metrics to Determine Which of the 20 Largest Airports Treat Travelers Better. The. 14 November. Wattanacharoensil, W., Schuckert, M., Graham, A., 2016. An airport experience framework from a tourism perspective. Transp. Rev. 36 (3), 318–340. Yeh, C.H., Kuo, Y.L., 2003. Evaluating passenger services of asia-pacific international airports. Transp. Res. E Logist. Transp. Rev. 39 (1), 35–48. Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J., Gremler, D.D., 2006. Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm, fourth ed. McGraw-Hill, New York (Irwin).

Fodness, D., Murray, B., 2007. Passengers' expectations of airport service quality. J. Serv. Mark. 21 (7), 492–506. Forgas, J.P., 1980. Social Episodes: the Study of Interaction Routines. Academic Press, London. Gronroos, C., 1984. A service quality model and its marketing implication. Eur. J. Market. 18 (4), 38–39. Hong, S.-J., Jun, I., 2006. An evaluation of the service quality priorities of air cargo service providers and customers. World Rev. Intermodal Transp. Res. 1 (1), 55–68. Hong, S.-J., Lee, J., 2007. A study of measuring service quality in Incheon international airport focusing on the passenger terminal. Journal of Korean Society of Transportation 25 (1), 81–91. Hu, L.-T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1), 1–55. Jiang, H., Zhang, Y., 2016. An assessment of passenger experience at melbourne airport. J. Air Transp. Manag. 54, 88–92. Jun, I., Hong, S.-J., 2004. An evaluation of the service quality priorities of air cargo service providers and customers. Journal of Korean Society of Transportation 22 (5), 35–45. Ku, E.C.S., Chen, C.-D., 2013. Fitting facilities to self-service technology usage: evidence from kiosks in taiwan airport. J. Air Transp. Manag. 32, 87–94. Lee, J., Hong, S.-J., Leem, C., 2009. A study on efficiency of major airports in asia-using DEA and super efficiency. Journal of the Aviation Management Society of Korea 7 (3), 3–12. Lee-Mortimer, A., 1993. Customer focus takes off. TQM Mag. 5 (3), 37–41. Retrieved from. https://libproxy.library.unt.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/ docview/227565932?accountid=7113. Lemer, A., 1992. Measuring performance of airport passenger terminals. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 26A (1), 37–45. Liou, J.J.H., Tang, C.-H., Yeh, W.-C., Tsai, C.-Y., 2011. A decision rules approach for improvement of airport service quality. Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (11), 13723–13730. Martín-Cejas, R.R., 2006. Tourism service quality begins at the airport. Tour. Manag. 27 (5), 874–877. Merkert, R., Assaf, A.G., 2015. Using DEA models to jointly estimate service quality perception and profitability–evidence from international airports. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 75, 42–50.

10