See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264277412
Air India: Identifying Service Quality Gaps and Positioning through
SERVQUAL and Perception Mapping
Conference Paper · December 2012
DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4942.6561
CITATIONS
READS
0
11,279
4 authors, including:
Ajoy Kumar Dey
Birla Institute of Management Technology
57 PUBLICATIONS 134 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Workplace Bullying among employees in Indian Organizations: A Grounded Theory Approach View project
Student engagement; Effect of culture, engagement, job crafting on personal level outcomes, Patient engagement View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ajoy Kumar Dey on 29 July 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Air India: Identifying Service Quality Gaps
and Positioning through SERVQUAL
and Perception Mapping
Annie Mattoo*, Charu Saxena*, Lakshmi Ninan* and A.K. Dey**
ABSTRACT
In a connected and globalised world, civil aviation is a catalyst for economic development
and trade. The domestic sector of Indian civil aviation is also witnessing a boom. The
market is dominated by six players: Air India, Jet Airways, Kingfisher, Spice Jet, Indigo
and Go Air. Service quality is one of the most important determinants which affect the
competitiveness in the aviation industry. In spite of being the largest carrier with
longest standing and support of the government, the market share of Air India is behind
Kingfisher and Jet Airways. This study attempts to uncover the reasons for Air India’s
lack lustre performance by measuring the service quality and comparing with other five
airlines by creating perception maps of travellers and travel agents. A total of 100 Air
India passengers; 100 fliers of other five airlines and 23 travel agents were involved in
this study. SERVQUAL model identified that for Air India customer expectations are
falling short of perceptions on Tangibility, Reliability and Assurance dimensions.
These areas need reinforcements. Attribute based maps created with the perceptions of
fliers as well as of travel agents revealed that Air India positioning is more close to Go
Air and far removed from the industry leaders Kingfisher and Jet Airways. But the
perceptual map of different airline brands as a whole indicates that users of airlines
perceive Air India to be similar to Kingfisher and Jet Airways. This indicates that there
is a strong case for re-positioning Air India by strengthening its service levels, redesigning
its service package and creating distinctive positioning through communication.
Keywords: Indian aviation, SERVQUAL, Service quality, Perception map
INTRODUCTION
With private airlines accounting for more than 75 per cent of the sector of the domestic
aviation market, the Indian aviation industry has become the ninth largest aviation market
* PG Student, Bimtech Institute of Management Technology, Greater Noida, India;
E-mail: annie.mattoo11@bimtech.ac.in, charu.saxena11@bimtech.ac.in,
lakshmi.ninan11@bimtech.ac.in
** Professor, Bimtech Institute of Management Technology, Greater Noida, India;
E-mail: ak.dey@bimtech.ac.in
Air India: Identifying Service Quality Gaps and Positioning through SERVQUAL ... 361
in the world. The domestic sky is dominated by six major players: Air India, Jet Airways
(including JetLite), Kingfisher, Spice Jet, Indigo and Go Air. Today less than 2% of Indians
fly domestic and only 0.5% international each year. With a population only slightly larger
than India, China’s domestic air traffic (198 million) is 5 times the size of Indian domestic
air traffic. Australia with a population of just 22 million, generates more domestic passengers
than the whole of India (Table 1). The Indian domestic air travel volume is set to rise
rapidly.
Table 1: Comparison of domestic air traffic
Country
Australia
Population
Domestic
Traffic
Trips per
Capita
GDP per
Capita
Million
21
Million
50
Number
USD
2.38
38,100
307
650
2.12
46,900
26
14
0.54
15,200
Brazil
199
~50
0.25
10,200
China
1,339
198
0.15
6,000
India
1,200
52
0.04
2,900
USA
Malaysia
Source: Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, IFFAAD Seminar, New Delhi,
5th April 2011
DRAMATIC CHANGE
Perhaps the period of 2003 - 2008 witnessed the fastest metamorphosis of a national
aviation industry in history. The country realized the generational shift in attitudes towards
the role of aviation in the economy. LCC model truly established itself in India. Some of
the nation’s full service airlines rank amongst the best in the world. Airport upgrades will
serve India well for decades to come. Areas that are of concern are: strengthening of the
regulatory regime –technical as well as economic; development of skills through education
and training; external environment turned sharply negative; fuel prices( reached US$147/
gallon) – resultant cost pressure became a huge burden; global recession resulted in
slowdown in Indian GDP growth; collapse of international financial markets; impending
threat of terrorist attacks impacted inbound tourism. Even during such gloomy environment
LCC model bloomed, highlighting its strength. IndiGo reported strong profit in 2009/10.
Jet / Kingfisher converted most domestic capacity to low cost operations. From 2010
onwards growth has resumed and domestic traffic is on upswing; private airlines were on
track to post combined profit of US$250m for FY10/11, but impacted by fuel price increases
in March quarter; opening of Delhi T3 a landmark development in Indian aviation. Focus
on the upgrade of non-metro airports has resumed. DGCA is preparing for long term
restructuring –creation of new organisation. Decision to hive of ATC is an important
decision.
362
Building Competencies for Sustainability and Organizational Excellence
POSITIVE INDICATORS
Some of the indicators that make us believe that growth of domestic aviation sector will
continue are:
• IndiGo recently announced plans to acquire 180 narrow bodies;
• CAPA expects Indian carriers to order up to 200 new aircraft this year with list price
of US$11-12 billion;
• Indian carriers expected to raise up to US$1.5 billion equity from the markets;
• Air India will be seeking additional equity infusion from government;
• Two Indian LCCs planning to launch IPOs.
However, not everything is rosy. Indian carrier debt is expected to reach close to
US$20 billion by end of this year - 50% aircraft related and 50% working capital/trade
creditors; big three airline groups are low on cash, need to reduce debt and increase
liquidity.
CHALLENGES
The challenges that national air carrier firms will have to grapple are:
Increase of fuel prices is a major concern; inflation at a macro level may require
tightening measures –could affect demand; governance and corruption scandals have
impacted investor sentiment; congestion is re-emerging at the 4-5 largest airports; Navi
Mumbai Airport tender is expected to be delayed until late this year; shortage of skills is
affecting ability to support expansion plans; discovery of pilot licenses issued against
forged documents is a serious concern; impending cabinet reshuffle has slowed momentum.
Administration of aviation in India requires transformational not ad hoc change.
In India, Air India had been the prominent airline carrier from the beginning of the
aviation industry. The entry of several private carriers in the airline industry, has led to
intense competition in the market. The growth of new low cost, no-frills airlines has made
air travel a lot easier and affordable for all. Continued liberalization and ‘open skies’, the
impact of global alliances, on-line ticket selling, improved infrastructure and privatization
of state-owned airlines are some of the crucial developments that have been impacting the
airline business at a time of continually falling average fares and yields. These factors
present imminent threats for Air India.
The present situation is not favourable for Air India. A critical analysis of the
information contained in Table 2 reveal that as per May 2011 performance data released
by DGCA its share of domestic market is 18.7% is below Jet Airways and Kingfisher; on
time performance 82% is second lowest; seat factor 78.1% is the lowest; percent of flights
cancelled is 200 times the next rival; and during the period Jan – July 2010, the number of
passengers (1.989 million) carried for 58 destinations with combined (post merger of Air
India…..) fleet of 158 aircraft is marginally more than the lowest figure in the industry
(1.651 million) that of GoAir covering 19 destinations with 10 aircrafts. Only favourable
Air India: Identifying Service Quality Gaps and Positioning through SERVQUAL ... 363
figure is the number of complaints per 10000 passengers is the lowest among the six
airlines.
Table 2: Performance of domestic air carriers ( Source: DGCA data of May 2011)
Airlines
Fleet
No. of
No. of
Percentage of
Current
On Time
Seat factor Passengers
flew
complaints per
size Destinations market share Performance
flights
covered
(%)
(%)
10000
May 2011 Jan – July
cancelled in
2010
May 2011
May 2011
passengers
May 2011
Million
May 2011
Jet Airways 90
44
26.9
94.0
79.8
5.588
3.3
0.7
Kingfisher
66
63
19.8
87.5
88.4
6.300
1.6
0.9
Air India
154*
58
18.7
82.0
78.1
1.989
1.4
18.0
Indigo
33
22
16.2
89.9
89.4
4.616
2.2
0.0
Spice Jet
22
19
12.6
82.7
82.7
3.187
2.5
0.2
Go Air
10
19
5.8
80.1
87.0
1.651
2.7
0.2
Source: Information contained in the above table extracted from DGCA Reports; *National Aviation
Company of India Ltd. Number of aircraft deployed on domestic routes could not be ascertained.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In spite of long tenure in the industry, backing of government, deployment of relatively
large resources compared to other domestic carriers, largest fleet of aircraft, why market
share of Air India is behind Jet Air and Kingfisher? Why passengers are not selecting Air
India? How do they perceive the services offered by Air India as compared to competing
airlines? Do the travel agents no longer find Air India as their choice airline? What are their
perceptions? How to detect the gap between expectations and perceptions for the passengers
as well as retailers of airline tickets?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Service quality is recognised to be the cornerstone for operational efficiency and business
profitability. Customer loyalty through improved service has become vital for small airlines
to survive in this increasingly competitive global environment. Air travel, driven by
liberalization and globalization, remains the fastest-growing market. Focus on service
quality is the need of the hour if the airlines aspire to improve market share and further
enhance financial performance in domestic and international markets. A necessary corollary
is that domestic airlines need to have valid and reliable measures to better understand the
variables likely to have a bearing on the service quality offered by their organization, e.g.
expectations and perceptions of airline passengers vis-à-vis service quality.
This study uses the SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithaml
(1988), a service quality measure, which states that the customer’s assessment of overall
service quality is determined by the degree and direction of the gap between their
expectations and perceptions of actual performance levels. They also identified five essentials
for service quality: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. This
model is perhaps the most widely used customer-perceived service quality model. Gilbert
364
Building Competencies for Sustainability and Organizational Excellence
and Wong (2003) have measured and compared the differences in passengers’ expectations
of airline service quality by developing a questionnaire containing Reliability, Assurance,
Facilities, and Employees, Flight Patterns, Customization and Responsiveness dimensions.
Other researchers have examined the relationship between airline service quality, passenger
satisfaction, and behavioral intention /loyalty (Ostrowski & O’Brien, 1993; Chan, 2000).
Other researchers who have studied the relationships between service quality and airline
service include Etherington and Var (1984) and Furrer, Liu, and Sudharshan (2000).
There is a general agreement that excellent passenger service quality is a source of
competitive advantage in the airline industry. In simple terms, satisfaction is the result of
customers’ assessment of a service based on a comparison of their perceptions of service
delivery with their prior expectations. If customers’ perception of the service, the experience,
and outcomes match their expectations then they should be satisfied. If their perceptions
of the service exceed their expectations then they will be more than satisfied, even delighted.
If their perceptions of the service do not meet their expectations then they may be dissatisfied,
even disgusted or outraged (Andreassen, 2001; Schneider and Bowen, 1999). Cronin and
Taylor (1992) have also developed a model measuring service quality, called SERVPERF,
which is based on service performance.
Service Quality and Satisfaction for low cost carriers were studied by Ariffin, Salleh,
Norzalita, and Asbudin (2010). The results revealed that “caring and tangible” was the
most important dimension of service quality for low cost carriers, followed by “reliability”,
“responsiveness”, “affordability” and “visual attractiveness”. However, only “caring and
tangible” dimension contribute significantly to the prediction of satisfaction on the services
of low cost carriers.
Passengers’ views of Service Quality in Thai low cost carriers were studied by Somwang
(2008) who found that the expectations of Thai low cost carriers’ passengers on service
quality were higher than their perceptions.
Agarwal & Dey (2010) studied the perception of travellers for the six domestic airlines
in India. The perception of Malaysian consumers of the quality of airline services was
examined by Abdullah, Manaf, & Noor (2007) using the SERVQUAL measurement. The
results of the study indicate that the most significant factors in Malaysian customers’
perception of service quality are Empathy, Tangibles and Assurance. In addition, the
respondents indicated that the airlines surveyed performed better than expected on the
Responsiveness dimension of service quality.
Ling, Lin & Lu (2005) developed an instrument, based on the SERVQUAL model, to
gauge the characteristics of specific cross-strait routes, in order to measure the service
quality, perceived by travellers from Taiwan and Mainland China. The results indicated
that there were significant differences between the perceptions of Taiwanese and Mainland
Chinese travellers related to cross-strait airlines, in all service attributes.
Huang (2010) sought to improve the understanding of air passengers’ decision-making
processes by testing a conceptual model that considers service value, airline service quality,
satisfaction, perceived sacrifice, and behavioural intentions. Two modelling approaches
Air India: Identifying Service Quality Gaps and Positioning through SERVQUAL ... 365
were applied: the structural equation modelling (SEM) and the importance-performance
analysis (IPA). The SEM results of the study showed that the service value was the major
factor that could influence the behavioural intention. IPA results indicated that
responsiveness was the most important airline service quality attribute for passengers.
Diggines (2010) conducted a research to gain an understanding of the perceptions
South African passengers had of the low-cost carrier model and the full-service carrier
model and establish how these perceptions related to choice of airline when deciding to
fly.
Clemes, Gan, Kao, and Choong, (2008) conducted an empirical analysis of customer
satisfaction in international air travel. The study examined which dimensions had a positive
influence on service quality and which dimensions had the most and least important
impact on service quality in international air travel, as perceived by airline passengers.
In this study, we attempt to examine the Gap 5 of SERVQUAL model and develop
perception maps based on the inputs received from travellers across the five dimensions
of service quality. Similarly the perceptions of travel agents have been studied to find out
as to why they do not prefer Air India? The analysis was done in three ways-using the
research work carried out by Khan, Dutt and Bansal (2007) on perceptions and gaps, factor
analysis and SERVQUAL analysis.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Qualitative research and results
To determine the service quality gaps from the perspective of Air India passengers
SERVQUAL model with 22 items was selected. The wordings were marginally modified
to incorporate the context of airline service. Responses of 100 Air India users have been
recorded.
With the help of survey of literature and brainstorming sessions with travellers, tour
organizers and ticket booking agents, important factors affecting service quality and image
of the airlines were identified. Factors affecting the choice of airlines from the perspectives
of air travellers and travel agents were identified. Two questionnaires were drafted, one
for travellers and the other for the travel agents, pilot testing done and contents finalized.
Surveys
Personal interviews conducted at air port exit lounges, various offices and shops in different
colonies of Delhi yielded 100 responses from air travellers using any of the six airlines.
This questionnaire had a question requesting respondents to rate six domestic air line
brands on similarity-dissimilarity seven point scale so that Multi Dimensional Scaling
could be used to plot direct perception map.
By interviewing twenty-three travel agents their perceptions of interactions with airlines
offices could be captured. This revealed travel agents’ preferences for airlines for domestic
travel.
366
Building Competencies for Sustainability and Organizational Excellence
Sampling
223 respondents were involved in this study . Judgemental method of sampling was
adopted. One hundred respondents were fliers with experience of flying Air India; another
hundred respondents were fliers with one or more domestic airlines and twenty-three
responses of ticket booking agents were captured. Out of the 100 fliers of domestic airlines
the break up achieved covered: Air India 76; Jet Airways 73; Kingfisher 69; Spice Jet 54;
Indigo 44 and Go Air 43.
Out of the total 200 passengers, only 27 were contacted at Delhi airport. 136 office
going working class of passengers were interviewed at their respective offices located in
Nehru Place, Bhikaji Cama Place, Preet Vihar and Connaught Place. Thirty-seven
respondents from trading community were contacted in Lajpat Nagar and Sarojini Nagar.
Further, 23 ticket booking agents were scattered all over Delhi. At the pilot testing stage
each question in all the three questionnaires were tested for reliability by applying a two
tailed t – test. The responses were arranged in ascending or descending order. T – test for
difference of means were applied between the averages of top and bottom quartiles. Only
those questions were retained for further data collection for which the null hypotheses
were rejected. This proved that such questions were well understood and they could
distinguish the respondents between those who wished to agree and those who wished to
disagree.
ANALYSIS, FINDINGS & RESULTS
SERVQUAL model as applied to Air India fliers
Responses to SERVQUAL parameters have been analysed with t – test for difference of
means. Null hypotheses got rejected for all those parameters for which there existed a
significant difference between perception and expectation at 0.05 level of significance
(refer Table 3).
The null hypotheses were rejected in case of all the statements except for the following
two pairs:
E10. They shouldn’t be expected to tell customers exactly when services will be
performed.
P10. Air India does not tell customers exactly when services will be performed.
E22. They shouldn’t be expected to have operating hours convenient to all their
customers.
P22. Air India does not have operating hours convenient to all their customers.
Statement E10/P10 belongs to Responsiveness dimension and E22/P22 belongs to
Empathy. For these two statements there is no significant difference between expectation
and perception. For rest of the twenty statements there exist significant differences. Further,
statements with rejected null hypothesis were divided into two categories: Favourable and
Unfavourable. If the average score of perception was more than the average score of
expectation, the measurement was favourable to Air India, otherwise it meant unfavourable.
Air India: Identifying Service Quality Gaps and Positioning through SERVQUAL ... 367
It is found that all the four statements measuring the Responsiveness dimension are
favourable. Similarly, all the four statements measuring the Empathy dimension are
favourable. For other three dimensions of Tangibility, Reliability and Assurance the
perceptions of travellers on Air India fall short of their expectations. There is strong case
that Air India needs to improve experience of travellers in the dimensions of Tangibility,
Reliability and Assurance while retaining the service level in Responsiveness and Empathy.
Table 3: Determining
gaps
in Air
India
service using SERVQUAL
Table 3. Determining
gaps in Air India
service
using
SERVQUAL
Tangibility
E6, P6
E7, P7
E8, P8
Empathy
Assurance
Responsiven
ess
E1, P1
E2, P2
Reliability
SERVQUAL
Parameters
Difference
between
Calculated
Perceptions
p Values of
and
t - test
Expectations
E3, P3
E4, P4
E5, P5
E9, P9
E10, P10
E11, P11
E12, P12
E13, P13
E14, P14
E15, P15
E16, P16
E17, P17
Null
Hypothesis:
Conclusion Based on Comparison of
Accept or
Reject at
Average Values
Significance
Level of 0.025
1.14E-11 Reject
Perception falls short of expectation
Reject
1.25E-10
Perception falls short of expectation
2.58E-07 Reject
Perception falls short of expectation
Reject
0.0001
Perception falls short of expectation
1.70E-13 Reject
Perception falls short of expectation
9.55E-07 Reject
0.0003 Reject
3.79E-09 Reject
0.0005 Reject
0.1876 Accept
1.82E-05 Reject
3.06E-05 Reject
9.38E-05 Reject
7.64E-06 Reject
Perception falls short of expectation
Perception falls short of expectation
Perception falls short of expectation
Perception falls short of expectation
Favourable
Favourable
Favourable
Favourable
Perception falls short of expectation
Perception falls short of expectation
Perception falls short of expectation
Perception falls short of expectation
E18, P18
E19, P19
E20, P20
7.42E-05 Reject
3.66E-06 Reject
6.65E-07 Reject
0.0039 Reject
3.48E-09 Reject
2.35E-05 Reject
E21, P21
E22, P22
6.65E-13 Reject
0.0453 Accept
Favourable
Favourable
Favourable
Favourable
Favourable
Comparison of services provided by Airlines: Perspective of air travellers
The perceptions of travellers about the quality of service provided by the six domestic
airliners have been captured on six fronts: Quality of In-Flight Services; On-time performance
of scheduled flights; Information about cancelled/delayed flights well in advance to customers; The
368
Building Competencies for Sustainability and Organizational Excellence
frequent flyer incentives offered by the airline is good; The airline staff possess good knowledge to
answer customers’ queries and The airline staff always gives personal attention to customers.
Reponses of travellers for each service were arranged according to six airlines and
analysed with first one way ANOVA followed by Tukey Kramer Minimum Significant
Difference tests (refer Table 4). Rejection of null hypothesis for ANOVA established that
there existed significant difference between the services provided by different airlines.
Tukey Kramer test identified the air line which was significantly different from the rest.
Comparison of average values revealed whether the difference was favourable or
unfavourable. Findings have been summarized in Table 4.
It has been observed that services of Air India on each of the six fronts are inferior
to some or the other air lines. There is enough scope of improvements. Derived perceptual
maps based on two meaningful combinations of services display the positioning of Air
India with respect to other airlines. Two such perceptual maps are displayed as Fig. 1 for
In flight services versus Personal attention to customer and Fig. 2 for Information about cancelled
& delayed flights versus On time performance. In both the cases positioning of Air India is
very poor with respect to Kingfisher and Jet Airways. Air travellers perceive Air India and
Go Air to be of similar rating – far below Kingfisher and Jet Airways. Perceptual maps of
other combinations can be plotted and inferences can be drawn to improve the services of
Air India.
Fig. 1: Perceptual map of travellers– In flight services versus
personal attention to customer
Air India: Identifying Service Quality Gaps and Positioning through SERVQUAL ... 369
Table 4: Comparison of six attributes between six airline companies based on travellers
perception
Table 4: Comparison of six attributes between six
Airline Companies based on travellers perception
ANOVA determines if the
mean values are
significantly different and
Tukey-Kramer minimum
significant difference tests
which airlines are
significantly different from
the rest
Quality of In-Flight
Services
On-time performance of
scheduled flights
Information about
cancelled/delayed
flights well in advance
to customers
The frequent flyer
incentives offered by
the airline is good
The airline staff possess
good knowledge to
answer customers’
queries
The airline staff always
gives personal attention
to customers
Null Hypo:
Reject or
Accept
(Alpha
0.05)
Tukey-Kramer
Minimum Significant
difference
Mean
Values
Calculated
Value of p
Air India
Jet Airways
Kingfisher
Spice Jet
Indigo
Go Air
Air India
Jet Airways
Kingfisher
Spice Jet
Indigo
Go Air
Air India
Jet Airways
Kingfisher
Spice Jet
Indigo
Go Air
Air India
Jet Airways
Kingfisher
Spice Jet
Indigo
3.434
3.959
4.391
3.222
2.955
3.233
3.481
4.000
4.000
3.574
3.636
3.333
3.390
3.775
3.928
4.054
3.818
3.395
3.468
3.767
4.116
3.370
3.341
2.52E-15
Reject
Air India is
significantly
different from Jet
Airways and
Kingfisher and they
are better
0.00127
Reject
Air India is
significantly
different from Jet
Airways and
Kingfisher and they
are better
0.000908
Reject
8.74E-08
Reject
Go Air
Air India
Jet Airways
Kingfisher
Spice Jet
Indigo
Go Air
Air India
Jet Airways
Kingfisher
Spice Jet
Indigo
Go Air
3.000
3.597
4.123
4.029
3.741
3.818
3.881
3.260
4.068
4.159
3.759
3.432
3.333
0.005177
Reject
Air India is
significantly
different from
Kingfisher and
SpiceJet and they are
better
Air India is
significantly
different from
Kingfisher whose
flyer incentives are
perceived to be
better
Air India is
significantly
different from Jet
Airways and
Kingfisher and they
are better
1.10E-08
Reject
Airlines
Air India is
significantly
different from Jet
Airways and
Kingfisher and they
are better
370
Building Competencies for Sustainability and Organizational Excellence
Fig. 2: Perceptual map of travellers – Information about cancelled/delayed flights
versus on time performance
With the help of similarity – dissimilarity questions direct perceptual map is also
created and displayed in Fig. 3. Interpreting the direct perceptual map it can be inferred
that the brand as a whole entity, Air India favourably compares with Jet Air and Kingfisher.
But when it comes to different services provided, travellers perceive Air India to be of
much inferior quality as compared to Kingfisher and Jet Airways. Detailed analysis will
evolve action plan for improvement.
Derived Stimulus Configuration
Fig. 3: Direct perceptual map of Airlines users
Air India: Identifying Service Quality Gaps and Positioning through SERVQUAL ... 371
Comparison of services provided by airlines: Perspective of travel agents
In a similar fashion the perceptions of travel agents were captured on twelve dimensions
which were considered to be effective helpful in carrying out their businesses. These
dimensions are: effective advertisements; attractive frequent flyer program; special schemes during
festive seasons; safety, on-time performance; overall value for money; quickest and hassle-free ticket
refund facility for cancelled flights; provides quick flight updates; covers a vast network of destinations;
convenient flight schedules; attractive value-added services and easier billing & settlement procedure.
Instead of taking all twelve dimensions for analysis, this study has focused on just
five which were considered to be of higher importance. These five chosen are: attractive
frequent flyer program; overall value for money; vast network of destinations; convenient flight
schedules and attractive value-added service. Responses were analysed with one way ANOVA
and Tukey Kramer (refer Table 5). Overall, it appears that travel agents consider Air India
almost at par with Kingfisher, Jet Airways and Spice Jet.
Attribute based derived perception maps drawn for the combination of In flight services
versus Frequent flier incentives and On time performance versus Information about cancelled/
delayed flights indicate that travel agents perceive Air India to be more closer to Go Air and
far away from Kingfisher and Jet Airways. Air India needs to re-position itself favourably
in the minds of travel agents. By analysis of perceptual maps of different combinations,
action plan can be devised.
DISCUSSION & IMPLICATIONS
Summary and discussion of major findings
SERVQUAL analysis of Air India passengers confirmed that perceived service quality
matched expected quality for dimensions of Responsiveness and Empathy. But perception
fell short of expectation for Tangibility, Reliability and Assurance. Air India should attempt
to improve in these dimensions. A generic road map to improve experience of users of a
service is four fold: leadership must demonstrate that customer service is really a priority
for the organization, place management in direct touch with the customers, involves
customers in creating service standards and involve employees in planning and
implementing service standards. Air India needs to focus on above four dimensions.
Airline service can be improved by considering some of the important triggers that can
influence travel decisions. This study has stressed on six triggers that influence the
customer’s decisions. Unfortunately, as compared to other airlines, the service of Air India
is perceived by the users to be the poorest on all these six fronts of: Quality of in-flight
services; On-time performance; Information about cancelled/delayed flights; Frequent flyer incentives;
Knowledge of the staff and Personal attention to customers.
For recommending an airline, travel agents consider five dimensions to be of
importance: attractive frequent flyer program; overall value for money; vast network of destinations;
convenient flight schedules and attractive value-added service. Air India is perceived to be
superior to the rest on vast network of destinations and convenient flight schedules. There is no
372
Building Competencies for Sustainability and Organizational Excellence
Table 5: Comparison of five attributes between six airline companies
based on perceptions of travel agents
Table 5: Comparison of five attributes between six Airline Companies based on perceptions of travel agents
ANOVA determines if the
Airlines
Mean
Calculated Null Hypo: Tukey-Kramer minimum
mean values are significantly
Values
value of p
Reject or
significant difference
different and Tukey-Kramer
Accept
minimum significant
(Alpha 0.05)
difference tests which airlines
are significantly different
from the rest
The airline provides the
Air India
3.0435
0.0098 Reject
There is no significant
most attractive frequent
difference between Air
Jet Airways
3.4348
flyer program
India and other five air
Kingfisher
4.1304
lines. Some other air
line is different from
Spice Jet
2.7391
the rest
Indigo
3.0870
The airline provides
overall value for money
The airline covers a vast
network of destinations
Go Air
2.8261
Air India
3.3043
Jet Airways
3.6522
Kingfisher
4.4783
Spice Jet
4.5217
Indigo
4.3043
Go Air
4.0000
Air India
4.3043
Jet Airways
4.0435
Kingfisher
3.5652
Spice Jet
2.8261
Indigo
2.8696
Go Air
2.5217
The airline provides
Air India
convenient flight schedules
Jet Airways
to the customer
Kingfisher
The airline provides a good
package of value-added
services to maintain its
long term relations with
the travel agents
4.1304
0.00001 Reject
Air India is
significantly different
from Kingfisher, Spice
Jet and Indigo. Air
India is perceived to be
inferior
6.92E-07 Reject
Air India is
significantly different
from Spice Jet, Indigo
and Go Air. Air India
is perceived to be
superior
9.80E-08 Reject
Air India is
significantly different
from Spice Jet, Indigo
and Go Air. Air India
is perceived to be
superior
0.00033 Reject
There is no significant
difference between Air
India and other five air
lines. Some other air
line is different from
the rest.
4.2609
3.8261
Spice Jet
2.7391
Indigo
2.6957
Go Air
2.6087
Air India
3.6957
Jet Airways
4.2609
Kingfisher
4.4348
Spice Jet
3.5652
Indigo
3.2174
Go Air
3.0870
Air India: Identifying Service Quality Gaps and Positioning through SERVQUAL ... 373
significant difference among the airlines for the balance three factors. It appears that Air
India is not losing out because of recommendations of travel agents.
Attribute based perceptual maps created with the responses of travellers place Air
India close to Go Air. Figure 1 displays perceptual map created with combination of two
attributes viz., in-flight services and personal attention to customer. Similarly, Figure 2
shows a perceptual map of attributes: information about cancelled & delayed flights versus
on time performance. In both these maps Air India is placed very close to Go Air. This
simply means that air travellers perceive Air India to similar to Go Air for these attributes.
Also, they consider Kingfisher and Jet Airways to be far superior to Air India.
On the contrary the direct perceptual map created on the basis of responses of travellers
(Figure 3) show that Air India is more similar to Kingfisher and Jet Airways along the
second dimension. It is far removed for Go Air, Spice Jet and Indigo.
Attribute based perceptual maps (Figures 4 and 5) created with responses of travel
agents further confirm the positioning of Air India to be very close to Go Air.
It may be inferred that Air India brand as a whole is perceived to be competing with
other leading brands such as Kingfisher and Jet Airways. But based on different attributes
it is perceived to be competing with Go Air. Air India must strategise to break away from
being associated with Go Air and move closer to the preferred brands such as Kingfisher
and Jet Airways.
Fig. 4: Perceptual map of travel agents – In flight services versus frequent flier incentives
374
Building Competencies for Sustainability and Organizational Excellence
Fig. 5: Perceptual map of travel agents – On time performance versus
information about cancelled/delayed flights
This can be achieved by adopting a two prong approach: redesign service package and
develop an emotional bond with travellers and agents based on distinctive and relevant
positioning of the Air India brand.
Service package consists of supporting facility, facilitating goods, information, explicit
service and implicit service (Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons 2006). Air India should benchmark
their service package with that of Kingfisher and Jet Airways. In doing so Air India should
improve the tangibility, reliability and assurance dimensions while maintaining the intensity
of responsiveness and empathy.
For developing emotional bond, most of the airlines would like to have a positioning
of ‘provider of higher, more caring service for the business travellers’, since this segment
is critical to airlines profitability. An airline has many potential triggers of service within
the business travellers’ decision criteria. Examples are: reservations, quick check-in, hassle
free baggage handling, upgrade rules and many more. If an airline desires to have
positioning around ‘we save your valuable time’ theme, it should work on facilitating quick
check-in and boarding time. If the desired positioning is ‘we care for you’, it should focus
on upgrade rules, solving problems such as lost luggage, delays in flight etc. Deciding the
best combination of brand positioning and two to three potential triggers that will help in
increasing brand awareness and developing strong brand association is the magic of building
successful brands.
Air India: Identifying Service Quality Gaps and Positioning through SERVQUAL ... 375
Academic and managerial implications
This study sets an example of identifying gaps in service quality on the basis of SERVQUAL
model. SERVQUAL is selected because it is by far the most widely used tool to measure
service quality (Ladhari 2009). The study also helps in developing basic understanding of
perceptual mapping of direct and derived types. Further, this research focuses on identifying
competition and developing an action plan for improvement by capturing perceptions of
users and channel members.
Limitations and future studies
The findings of this study are limited to the airline industry in India. This study has not
considered other industry segments to measure and compare service quality. The research
work carried out was limited to the Delhi/NCR regions. It should be extended to other
parts of the country. For customers the sample size was confined to hundred respondents
each for Air India and other five airlines as a representative of the whole population and
in case of travel agents to twenty-three. The study should be repeated in other metro towns
with large sample of respondents.
REFERENCES
Abdullah, K., Manaf, N. H. A. & Noor, K. M. (2007), “Measuring the service quality of
airline Services in Malaysia”, IIUM Journal of Economics and Management 15, no. 1
pp. 1-29
Agarwal, S. & Dey, A. K. (2010), “Perception Mapping of Travelers: Case of Six Indian
Domestic Airlines”, American Journal of Economics and Business Administration 2 (2):
141-146, ISSN 1945-5488
Andreassen, T.W. (2001), “From disgust to delight: Do customers hold a grudge?”, Journal
of Service Research 4(1) 39-49.
Ariffin, A. A. M., Salleh, A. H. M., Norzalita, A. A., and Asbudin, A. A. (2010), “Service
Quality and Satisfaction for Low Cost Carriers”, International Review of Business Research
Papers, Vol. 6, No.1 February, pp. 47-56
Chan, D. (2000), “The development of the airline industry from 1978 to 1998 – A strategic
global overview”, The Journal of Management Development, 19 (6), 489-514.
Clemes, M. D., Gan, C., Kao, T. H. and Choong, M. (2008), “An empirical analysis of
customer satisfaction in international air travel”, Innovative Marketing, Volume 4, Issue
2, 49 – 62
Cronin, J and Taylor, S A (1992), “Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and
Extension,” Journal of Marketing, 56(July), 55-67.
Cronin, J and Taylor, S A (1994), “SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling Performancebased and Perceptions– Minus–Expectations Measurement of Service Quality,” Journal
of Marketing, 58(January), 125-31
376
Building Competencies for Sustainability and Organizational Excellence
Diggines, C. (2010), “Passenger perceptions and understanding of the low-cost and fullservice airline models in South Africa and and the implications of service strategy: A
case study involving South African Airways, British Airways (Comair), Kulula.com,
International Research Symposium in Service Management, ISSN 16940938, Le Meridien Hotel, Mauritius, 24-27 August
Etherington, L.D. & Var, T. (1984), “Establishing a measure of airline preferences for
business & non-business travellers”, Journal of Travel Research Vol. 22(4), pp 22-27.
Fitzsimmons, J. & Fitzsimmons, M. J. (2006), “Service Management: Operations, Strategy, and
Information Technology”, New Delhi, Tata McGraw Hill, 5th edition, page 19, ISBN-13:
978-0-07-061566-3, ISBN-10: 0-07-061566-7
Furrer, O., Liu, B.S., and Sudharshan, D. (2000), “The relationships between culture and
service quality perceptions: Basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource
allocation”, Journal of Service Research, 2 (4), 355-371.
Gilbert, D & Wong, R.K.C. (2003), “Passenger expectations and airline services: A Hong
Kong based study”, Tourism Management, 24, 519-532.
Huang, Y. K. (2010), “The Effect of Airline Service Quality on Passengers’ Behavioural
Intentions Using SERVQUAL Scores: A TAIWAN Case Study”, Journal of the Eastern
Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8, pp. 2330-2343
Khan, M. N., Dutt, V. R., & Bansal, S. C. (2007), “Customer perceptions and expectations
of service quality: A case study of domestic airline industry in India’, Proceedings of the
conference on Marketing, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Jan 4-5.
Ladhari, R. (2009). “A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL research”, International Journal
of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 1, Number 2. Page 172-198.
Ling, F.I., Lin, K., and Lu, J.L. (2005), “Difference in service quality of cross-strait airlines
and its effect on passengers’ preferences”, Journal of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, 6, 798-813
Ostrowski, P.L. and O’Brien, T.V. (1993), “Service quality and customer loyalty in the
commercial airline industry”, Journal of Travel Research 32 (2), 16-24.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale
for measuring customer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 1240.
Schneider, B. & Bowen, D. (1999, Fall), “Understanding customer delight and outrage”,
Sloan Management Review, 35-45.
Somwang, C. (2008), “An Assessment of Passengers’ Views of Service Quality in Thai Low
Cost Carriers”, RU. International Journal, vol.2(1), pp 71 - 81
M
View publication stats
a n
g
o
a n
d
1 t i m
e ”
,