Air passengers are the key stakeholders in the air transport
industry. Developing a passenger-centred airport and providing
passenger-centric services are key to the success of airport and airline
companies (Cao et al., 2023). Maintaining a high level of customer
satisfaction through offering quality customer services is an important
tool to achieve a competitive advantage for both airports and airlines.
Research has shown that perceived service quality and airport efficiency
and profitability are closely linked (Merkert & Assaf, 2015). This
is also the case for airlines where the delivery of high-quality
services as an effective marketing strategy can increase an airline’s
customer patronage, and market share (Morash & Ozment, 1994).
Therefore, regular review and evaluation of the existing air transport
services are a focus and interest for both the aviation industry and
academics.
Consumers’ expectations have been constantly changing and shifting,
particularly in the last decade, driven by the applications of new
technologies in aviation, the increasing awareness of environmental
problem and most recently, the influence of Covid-19. This has
undoubtedly strengthened the need for air service evaluation in the new
contexts and it is not surprising that the number of scholarly studies
on air transport service quality has been increasing in recent years
(Bakır et al., 2022). Despite this, literature review papers on air
transport service quality still remain small in number. Only a handful
of papers so far have summarised the research topics and trends from
various aspects of air transport services. For example, Bellizzi et al.
(2020) reviewed 14 studies on airport services and 14 papers on airline
services for the period 2008-2018. This survey paper focuses mainly on
data collection and analysis methods, and does not represent a
comprehensive review and analysis of the air service quality indicators
and dimensions. Bakır et al. (2022) conducted a bibliometric analysis of
the airport service quality literature. With a survey of 100 papers
published from 1975 to 2020, the authors provided an overview of the
evolution of the research on airport service quality. In particular,
they revealed three underlying research clusters: developing
psychometric measurements on airport service quality, evaluating airport
service quality dimensions using SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models, and using
advanced quantitative methods for airport service quality evaluation.
The research findings of our paper are quite consistent with those
reported in Bakır et al. (2022). However, our research places a greater
emphasis on the emergence of new data collection methods using online
survey software and social media, and the need to include new air
transport service quality dimensions that have surfaced in the last few
years.
Although most studies focus on just one type of air transport
services: airport or airline, it is acknowledged that air passengers
that use in-flight services also need to spend time at an airport and
use airport service before making a flight (Bellizzi et al., 2020).
Therefore, studies on airline service quality should also include air
passengers’ airport experiences. Accordingly, our research will
investigate the service quality studies on both the land and air sides.
Most countries had deregulated the air transport sector by 2010 that
allowed airlines to compete on price and non-price factors, and
competition on service quality is a main instrument to attract
passengers. Thus, this study will only look at publications from 2010 to
present. A systematic literature review on air transport service quality
will be conducted for the papers published in quality journals to reveal
the current research status, emerging topics and trends. From 2010 to
now, there was a golden period during which airlines gradually recovered
from the hit of the 2008 global financial crisis and also a painful
pandemic period where aviation activities plummeted to the lowest level
in decades. The aviation industry has not been fully recovered from the
attack of the pandemic and the aviation businesses remain vulnerable at
this stage. A timely review of the air transport service quality
literature will not only provide future research directions to
researchers in this field, but also generate valuable insights for the
industry practitioners to understand service types and standards to meet
the needs of the post-Covid travellers.
A systematic literature review (SLR) uses a structured approach when
comprehensively searching for literatures that are relevant to specific
scopes and/or research questions (Mendes et al., 2022). According to
Bellizzi et al. (2020), unlike other modes of transportation,
literatures on air transport sector and its service quality are
relatively recent. This necessitated a systematic search for literatures
to promote a better understanding on the complicated nature of air
transport service quality to date which in turn informs research gaps
for a future focus. There are a number of different databases that can
be accessed for the literature search. The authors agreed to use the
Scopus database as it contains a larger and more comprehensive number of
publications than other databases (Abduljabbar et al., 2022). The Scopus
database also offers additional search functionalities that are better
suited for a systematic approach when searching for more appropriate
journal articles with specific search criteria. The database was
accessed on 23 February 2023.
The SLR followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009) and the flow
diagram is presented in Figure 1. The initial
search used the keywords, “Service Quality” with “Airline” or “Airport”
appeared in the titles, keywords or abstracts and this resulted in 750
journal articles that were published in 2010 and beyond. The first
screening process involved limiting subject areas to: Business,
Management and Accounting, Social Science, Economics, Econometrics and
Finance as these are more aligned to the Field of Research on service
quality of air transport industry for their primary customers. Also,
journal articles not written in English were excluded. The first
screening reduced the total number of journal articles to 642. The
second screening process involved removing journals that published less
than 10 articles on the focus of the present study, followed by
selecting the journals of high quality (mainly Scimago Q1 and Q2 ranking
journals in transport, tourism and service quality). This resulted in
207 journal articles. The third screening process includes reading
titles and abstracts to exclude journal articles that are clearly
outside the focus of this study. The geographical representation of
journal articles was also considered. A total of 153 journal articles
remained after the series of screening processes and these were shared
among the authors and were read at their entirety. Thirty articles were
further removed as they were outside the scope of the current study that
focuses on service quality of air transportation system. This resulted
in a total of 123 journal articles that are reviewed at their entirety
and summarised in the result section. The only literature review paper
on airport service quality in our sample is Bakir et al. (2022). This
paper offers an overview of the existing studies on airport service
quality using a bibliometric analysis. A few other literature survey
papers on air transport service quality (not included in our sample)
include: Zidarova and Zografos (2011) and Usman et al. (2011) on the
measures of airport service quality, and Ginieis et al. (2012), Bellizzi
et al. (2020) and Eboli et al. (2022) on air transport service quality
factors.
There are a variety of attributes, variables and/or factors that have
moderating or mediating effects on service quality and its impact on
customer satisfaction as well as adopting different research approaches
and research frameworks. Therefore, a word cloud, using NVivo, was
generated by combining all abstracts and keywords from 123 journal
articles into a single document to conduct a visual inspection to
frequently used words (Figure 2).
According to the United Nations (2022), countries worldwide are
geographically grouped into six major regions where the largest number
of studies were conducted in the Asia region with the majority of
countries in the East Asia region (Table 1). This disparity in different
concentration of studies by regions/sub-regions can be explained due to
differences in national culture compounded with different age categories
and their effects on the perceived service quality and customer
satisfaction (e.g., Kim et al., 2017).
A total of 326 authors are listed on the 123 journal articles, with
24 authors being featured in more than one publication either as lead or
co-authors. The list of authors in alphabetical order and their
affiliations when their latest journal articles were published are
presented in Table 3.
Within a research community, while quality of research and its
outputs is a multi-dimensional concept that encompasses certain
characteristics such as plausibility, scientific and societal values and
originality, it is often assumed that the number of citations reflects
the quality and impact of research (Aksnes et al., 2019). Using Google
Scholar, Table 4 below lists the top 10 most cited
journal articles. It appears that air transport service quality studies
tend to receive more citations than other research topics published in
Journal of Air Transport Management.
A framework in research is a set of concepts and theories that
scaffolds a study (Varpio et al., 2020). There are a variety of
different theoretical frameworks that underpinned the journal articles:
Service quality and brand equity theories (e.g., Chen et al., 2019),
expectancy-performance theory (e.g., Woo, 2019), fuzzy set theory (e.g.,
Percin, 2018), SERVQUAL (e.g., Rezaei et al., 2018), cognitive network
theory (e.g., Dirsehan & Kurtulus, 2018), important performance
analysis (e.g., Lin & Vlachos, 2018), psychological capital and
service behaviour (e.g., Cheng et al., 2018), AIRQUAL (e.g., Shen &
Yahya, 2021), theory of planned behaviour (e.g., Pan & Truong,
2018), complexity theory (e.g., Prentice & Correia-Loureiro, 2017),
and choice theory (e.g., Cho et al., 2017). Table 5 provides a
list of top three research frameworks adopted in the journal articles.
While several studies did not provide the specific framework, the
majority appeared to be primarily basing the extended literature review
of multiple journal articles on their research focus and questions
(e.g., Kurtulmusoglu et al., 2018).
A little over half of the studies collected required data utilising a
face-to-face technique and the majority of studies adopted convenient
sampling while only a small number of studies applied specific criteria
for their target participants: leisure and tourists vs. business
travellers (e.g., Chiu et al., 2016), airline full-time employees or
flight attendant (e.g., Cheng et al., 2018), certain travel experiences
such as certain geographic areas, airports, airlines and flight time
(e.g., Prentice et al., 2019), disabilities (e.g., Major & Hubbard,
2019), and tour leaders (Ghorabaee et al., 2017). A number of studies
collected more than one set of data that includes an interrogation of
multiple databases (e.g., Stamolampros & Korfiatis, 2019). Also,
several studies adopted mixed methods as their preferred methodology
(e.g., Go & Kim, 2018). This is an encouraging finding as given the
complex nature of service quality evaluations, the use of a
triangulation approach to answer research questions is important to
minimise the weakness of a single method/methodology while maximising
the synergy from using multiple methods/methodologies.
We acknowledge that there have been a few air transport service
quality survey papers that have had a good summary of the research
topics and empirical research methods in air service quality research.
This section will focus on the new research trends and research gaps we
have identified through a review of relevant articles.
Although the vast majority of the articles use a face-to-face data
collection approach, in the last five years or so, more and more authors
conducted online surveys to collect their data with the assistance of
various online survey technologies. Covid-19 was one of primary reasons
for such trend as during the pandemic, it was almost impossible to meet
the respondents or interviewees in person. However, the most important
reason behind this trend might be that today’s online survey software
has been well designed with sophisticated functions (Batterha, 2014),
which can produce accurate, valid and representative data needed for
research (Change & Krosnick, 2009). In addition, there is a
substantial cost saving for online survey compared with the traditional
face-to-face approach. The online technology has also allowed
researchers to reach the respondents who are not physically reachable
due to geographical constraints (Samanci et al., 2021). For example,
researchers have argued that Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) as a
research medium can generate large samples of motivated respondents at
least as representative of the population as those using the traditional
survey approach (Leon & Martin, 2020; Paolacci et al., 2010). In
particular, most of the online survey technologies can generate a Quick
Response (QR) code from the survey link, which can be posted at the
airport for passengers to scan and complete the online survey at a later
time (Antwi et al., 2020).
User-generated content (UGC) on the social media has become an
important data source to understand customer preferences, needs and
demands (Chau & Xu, 2012; Lucini et al., 2020), thanks to the
diffusion of Web 2.0 technologies (Guo et al., 2017; Lucini et al.,
2020), which enhances the experience sharing between customers and
strengthens the interactions between customers and airline businesses.
Researchers can access and collect consumers’ opinions, reviews and
comments, known as online customer reviews (OCR) from the social media
such as twitter, Facebook as well as many online customer reviews
websites for free or at a very low cost (Guo et al., 2017; Yao et al.,
2015). For example, Lucini et al. (2020) extracted their OCR data form
the website Air Travel Review (ATR), i.e., airlinequality.com, which is
an independent customer forum where air travellers post their reviews on
airport, airline and air travel experiences. Twitter has been frequently
used to recruit survey participants because of its large and diverse
client base as a popular microblogging platform (Gu et al., 2016;
Samanci et al., 2021). Liau and Tan (2014) collected 10,895 tweets of
Malaysian low-cost airlines’ passengers and found that they tend to
discuss four topics on Twitter: customer service, ticket promotions,
flight cancellations and delays, and post-booking management. Park et
al. (2020) collected consumer reviews at TripAdvisor to examine the
relationship between airline service attributes and overall
satisfaction. The authors claimed that compared with the traditional
survey data, the review data on TripAdvisor can be more truthful in
representing passengers’ experiences of airline services (i.e., the data
are more objective with less bias).
There is no doubt that SERVQUAL was the most popular model adopted in
studying airline service quality, and it will remain to be a powerful
tool for future research. Parasuraman et al. (1985) first developed the
SERVQUAL model which was later used by air transport researchers. The
air service attributes were grouped into this model’s five dimensions by
researchers such as Tsaur et al. (2002, p109):
Air transport researchers pointed out that the lack of flexibility of
the SERVQUAL model makes it difficult to assess the attributes of the
airport and airline services. To address the need to evaluate service
quality in the airline industry, Bari et al. (2001) created a
measurement scale tailored to the industry’s specific needs. This scale,
called Airline Service Quality (AIRQUAL), consists of five dimensions:
airline tangibles, terminal tangibles, personnel, empathy, and image.
Other extensions or modifications were also made to the SERVQUAL model
to make it suitable for various research purposes. For example, Gilbert
and Wong (2003) contended that the dimension ‘tangibles’ is too general
and should be further broken into facilities, employees, and flight
patterns. For a similar reason, the dimension ‘empathy ‘was renamed as
‘customisation’. As a result, the original five dimensions of the
SERVQUAL model became seven, namely: reliability, assurance, facilities,
employees, flight patterns, customisation and responsive. Similarly,
Ekiz et al. (2006) expanded the AIRQUAL scale by adding perceived
service quality and customer satisfaction dimensions. Wu and Cheng
(2013) developed a hierarchical model of service quality, which contains
four dimensions: iteration quality, psychical environment quality,
outcome quality, and access quality. Hussain et al. (2015) adapted the
SERVQUAL scale and divided service quality into six dimensions:
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, tangibles, security and safety,
and communication.
For airport service quality, the Airports Council International (ACI)
introduced its Airport Service Quality (ASQ) Survey program in 2007 to
measure airport passengers’ satisfaction at its participating airports.
ASQ since then has become a leading airport passenger satisfaction
program and is highly regarded by both industry and academics. The ASQ
Departures Survey considers 34 service items in 18 segmentation fields
while the Arrival Survey examines 37 service items across seven
segmentation fields. The ASQ Commercial Survey investigates airport
services that generate non-aeronautical revenues (ACI, 2023). Roughly,
these service items can be put under eight dimensions: access, check-in,
passport control, security, finding your way, airport facilities,
airport environment, and arrival services. The ACI’s ASQ attributes are
airport process based where they depict and capture the process of a
passenger’s travel journey from departure until he or she arrives at the
destination airport. Most of the studies on airport service quality in
the last decade is based on the ACI ASQ attributes with some
modifications and extensions (Chonsalasin et al., 2022; Mahapatra &
Bellamkonda, 2023; Martin-Domingo et al., 2019). Numerous studies have
shown that this process-based framework is consistent with the SERVQUAL
model (e.g., Isa et al., 2020; Jiang & Zhang, 2016b).
Therefore, it is safe to claim that the research frameworks of most
studies examining air transport services are derived from the SERVQUAL
or AIRQUAL model (e.g., Kankaew et al., 2022). In the basic AIRQUAL
model proposed by Bari et al. (2001), the first dimension, airline
tangible, pertains to the tangible aspects of the aircraft, including
the quality of the cabin interiors, in-flight food and beverages,
cleanliness of toilets, seating comfort, and air-conditioning (Farooq et
al., 2018; Henderson et al., 2019; Koklic et al., 2017; Tsafarakis et
al., 2018). The second dimension, terminal tangibles, concerns the
tangible elements inside the airport terminal such as the cleanliness of
the toilets, availability of shops, parking space, and waiting area
comfort (Ali et al., 2015; Farooq et al., 2018; Tsafarakis et al.,
2018). The third dimension evaluates the airline’s personnel service,
such as staff’s willingness and promptness in offering help to
passengers. It takes into account the staff’s attitude, knowledge,
experience, level of education, personal care towards customers, and
work ethic (Farooq et al., 2018; Hussain et al., 2015). The fourth
dimension measures empathy with a focus on airlines’ capacity in
offering individualised care and attention to passengers by providing
hassle free services (Badrillah et al., 2022; Farooq et al., 2018; Leong
et al., 2015). This dimension can also include the on-time performance
of the airline and sufficient flight frequency that meets the consumers’
needs (Kankaew et al., 2022). Finally, the fifth dimension examines the
reputation and image of the airline, looking at factors such as value
for money in terms of the airfares offered compared with the service
level provided, frequent flyer programs and the overall reputation of
the airline company (Ekiz et al., 2006; Farooq et al., 2018).
Having reviewed the details of the basic SERVQUAL and AIRQUAL models,
we can now turn to the discussion of the flaws and insufficiency of the
existing air transport service quality research using these models.
Airline services are presented by a chain of services from flight
booking to baggage claim at the destination airport, which can be broken
into two components: ground services, and in-flight services (Mahapatra
& Bellamkonda, 2023). The ground services include airport services,
and pre and post-airport services such as flight booking, flight change
communications, etc.Traditionally, a typical study on airline service
quality such as Jiang and Hong (2016b) would examine each service item
from booking to the completion of the travel journey, although it should
be acknowledged that which service item is put into which AIRQUAL
dimension can be arguable and is dependent on individual researchers’
interpretation and preferences. The recent airline service literature
starts to address some emerging service items or dimensions that are not
included in the AIRQUAL or SERVQUAL model. For example, the wide spread
of technology requires modifying the conventional SERVQUAL model by
including the digital dimensions in evaluating airline service quality
(Büyüközkan et al., 2020; Kavus et al., 2022). Büyüközkan et al. (2020)
proposed a digital service quality model that includes digital tangibles
(e.g., interoperability and functionality & efficiency), digital
interaction (e.g., digital readiness, agility, and gamification), and
digital trust (cybersecurity, online integrity and privacy, transparency
& accountability). They claimed that consumers had been digitalised,
and as a response, airlines need to offer digital products and services.
Therefore, technology should be included as one of the airline service
quality dimensions (Kokkinou & Cranage, 2013). Wang et al. (2017)
examined the impact of technology readiness on air passengers’ perceived
importance of airline technology-enabled services such as self-check-in
facilities, mobile boarding passes and booking systems. Passengers’
technology readiness refers to their intention to accept and use new
technologies which includes optimism, innovativeness, discomfort and
insecurity. Optimism and innovativeness are found to have a significant
and positive influence on the perceived importance of technology-enabled
services (Wang et al., 2017). This is particularly so when they travel
with low-cost carriers. However, it is found that digital technology is
less important than other dimensions. Mahapatra and Bellamkonda (2023)
reported that the availability of accessible services, food and
beverages, and staff services consecutively are core services that
should come ahead of updated technology services. Also, aged passengers
tend to prefer staff service over technology-enabled services. Compared
with the large body of literature examining traditional airline
services, digital and technology-enabled services have been largely
ignored and under-researched.
The technology-enabled services and their associated concerns of
privacy and cybersecurity have been largely omitted in the existing
airline service quality literature. In 2022 and 2023, a number of
Australian companies were hacked and millions of customers’ personal
information including contact details was stolen and leaked. The
cyberattack on the telecommunications Optus was classified as one the
worst in Australian history. Other victims include the customers of the
credit card company, Latitude, and insurance company, Medibank. This
implies that almost every Australian household has been exposed to the
cybersecurity risk. Air travellers share similar concerns about their
privacy and personal information in the online environment for flight
booking and for accessing the website and Apps of relevant airlines.
This is especially so with the application and dissemination of new
technologies in aviation such as Internet of Things, big data, cloud
computing and storage, and artificial intelligence. In addition, air
travellers’ mobile and laptop can now be connected to the airlines’
Wi-Fi on the ground and in the air, which again increases their exposure
to the risk of personal information leak. Surprisingly, little research
on airline or airport service quality has included privacy and
cybersecurity as a service quality dimension despite that they are
becoming increasingly newsworthy, and that airlines have started to put
resources to implement cybersecurity (Kagalwalla, et al., 2019). This
constitutes a significant research gap and opportunity in future air
transport studies.
In various industries, including air travel, the level of service
quality is now affected by environmental awareness, which can impact how
customers perceive quality (Kavus et al., 2022). The rapid growth of air
travel demand has had an adverse effect on the climate and environment
because of greenhouse gas emissions and noise pollution, which must be
addressed to maintain customer satisfaction. In fact, airlines are
placing greater emphasis on environmental issues by developing policies
and strategies such as offering carbon offset options, reducing
in-flight waste, and using sustainable aviation fuel consumption (Ma et
al., 2021). To measure the impact of environmental concerns on service
quality, the conventional SERVQUAL scale needed to be adapted to reflect
the growing importance of environmental and sustainability concerns.
Kavus et al. (2022) added an environmental dimension to the SERVQUAL
scale with three sub-dimensions: general eco-efficiency, operational
eco-efficiency, and ground eco-efficiency, aiming to provide a
comprehensive and versatile way of examining environmental impacts.
Passengers do appreciate airline companies’ implementation of
environmentally friendly and sustainable measures and these efforts
should be seen as one of the service dimensions, which, unfortunately,
has not drawn enough attention to air transport service quality
researchers.
A related issue is the corporate social responsibility (CSR) of
airline companies, which includes environmental, social and economic
responsibilities (Kuo et al., 2016). The CSR activities can enhance a
firm’s reputation and increase employees’ career satisfaction, thereby
resulting in a positive behavioural outcome at workplace (Panagopoulos
et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2020). An airline’s economic, legal, ethical
and philanthropic practices influence the customer’s perception of the
service quality received, which can, in turn, lead to increased consumer
loyalty and retention (Dijkmans et al., 2015; Kuo et al., 2016; Lee et
al., 2020). Airline literature on CSR practices mainly focuses on the
environmental issues with little discussion on the social, legal, and
economic aspects of CSR responsibilities (Park, 2019; Lee et al., 2022).
Also, there is a clear lack of studies examining the link between the
three CSR dimensions and perceived service quality and customer
satisfaction.
With the onset of Covid-19, cleanliness and hygiene became the top
priority and bore a high value to consumers. For example, the effort of
an airport on a safe and clean environment with automated processes had
a positive impact on passenger satisfaction in Spain (Lopez-Valpuesta
& Casas-Albala, 2023). Kavus et al. (2022) show that the pandemic
dimension has become the most important one in evaluating an airline’s
service quality. Therefore, in-flight hygiene should be the main focus
of an airline in maintaining its service quality level in the post-covid
period. To evaluate the service quality during the pandemic period,
Samanci (2021) extended the AIRQUAL by including additional dimensions
such as “social distance and hygiene during flight”, “information
awareness and concern”, and “infection alert procedure”. Although the
positive impact on satisfaction due to the hygiene measures may
gradually disappear, due to the fatigue brought about by the ongoing
campaigns and measures used to contain Covid-19 (Lopez-Valpuesta and
Casas-Albala, 2023), it will remain to be a significant consideration in
future research on airline service quality, given that hygiene was
regarded as an important factor in deciding a carrier to fly with for
almost 60% of Americans in 2022 (Ha & Park, 2022).
Some studies focus on a single air transport service dimension.
Bubalo and Gaggero (2021) found that network carriers operating a
hub-and-spoke system are better at managing flight delays than airlines
that operate a point-to-point model, suggesting that airlines dominating
a hub can internalise congestion into their own operations. Kim and Park
(2016) studied the impact of air transport service delay on customer
repurchase intention. The authors found that the amount of time that
passengers needed to wait for an airline service is positively
associated with negative word-of-mouth, and eventually influences
purchase intention.
The world’s population is ageing. The proportion of the population
over 60 is rapidly increasing. Therefore, the number of passengers with
reduced mobility is increasing, necessitating the assistance of
motorised mobility aids and other technologies. A small number of
studies have examined air service for special needs passengers (e.g.,
Ancell & Graham, 2016; Chang & Chen, 2012; Major & Hubbard,
2019). Budd and Ison (2020) claimed that passengers with special needs
are one of the fastest growing demographics in the aviation sector
worldwide. Unfortunately, there is a lack of global standards for air
services for disabled air passengers. Major and Hubbard (2019) reported
that in the US, the number and rate of disability complaints are
significantly higher than those of general air passengers for air
service. The complaints concentrate around wheelchair loss or damage,
long wait times, and accessibility. Again, this is an overlooked
research niche in the current research. Research into government
legislation, airport planning and airport and airline services to
accommodate the requirements of special needs passengers is much needed
and most welcomed in the coming decade.
Finally, studying air transport service quality and passenger
satisfaction is not the end goal. Also, there is no lack of research on
passenger retention, repurchase and loyalty (Chonsalasin et al., 2022;
Jiang & Zhang, 2016b; Mikulić & Prebežac, 2011). However, we
should realise that the ultimate goal of achieving passenger
satisfaction is to improve the aviation businesses’ efficiency and
profitability. Unfortunately, apart from a handful studies such as
Merkert and Assaf (2015), little attention has been given to the
question that whether passenger satisfaction will eventually translate
into improved efficiency and profitability in the long run. We hope more
research in the future can help us understand if such a long-run
relationship exists. This is of particular interest in the post-Covid-19
era when many airlines are cutting back on frills to save costs.
ACI (2023) Airport Service Quality Customer Experience. Airports
Council International (ACI) World, Montreal.
Abduljabbar, R. L., Liyanage, S., & Dia, H. (2022). A systematic
review of the impacts of the coronavirus crisis on urban transport: Key
lessons learned and prospects for future cities. Cities (London,
England), 127, 103770.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103770
Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations,
citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts
and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575
Ali, F., Dey, B. L., & Filieri, R. (2015). An assessment of
service quality and resulting customer satisfaction in Pakistan
International Airlines: Findings from foreigners and overseas Pakistani
customers. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 32(5), 486-502.
Allen, J., Bellizzi, M. G., Eboli, L., Forciniti, C., & Mazzulla,
G. (2020). Service quality in a mid-sized air terminal: A SEM-MIMIC
ordinal probit accounting for travel, sociodemographic, and user-type
heterogeneity. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 84, 101780.
Antwi, C. O., Fan, C. J., Ihnatushchenko, N., Aboagye, M. O., &
Xu, H. (2020). Does the nature of airport terminal service activities
matter? Processing and non-processing service quality, passenger
affective image and satisfaction. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 89, 101869.
Ancell, D., & Graham, A. (2016). A framework for evaluating the
European airline costs of disabled persons and persons with reduced
mobility. Journal of Air Transport Management, 50,
41-44.
Badrillah, M. I. M., Shuib, A., & Nasir, S. (2022). How Airline
Service Quality (AIRQUAL) Affects Customer Decision Making in Airline
Choices—A Conceptual Paper. In Sustainable Finance, Digitalization
and the Role of Technology: Proceedings of The International Conference
on Business and Technology (ICBT 2021) (pp. 201-215). Cham:
Springer International Publishing.
Bakır, M., Özdemir, E., Akan, Ş., & Atalık, Ö. (2022). A
bibliometric analysis of airport service quality. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 104, 102273.
Barakat, H., Yeniterzi, R., & Martin-Domingo, L. (2021). Applying
deep learning models to twitter data to detect airport service
quality. Journal of Air Transport Management, 91,
102003.
Bari, S., Bavik, A., Ekiz, H. E., Hussain, K., & Toner, S.
(2001). AIRQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring service quality,
customer satisfaction, and repurchase intention. HOS-414 Graduation
Project (Thesis), 1-104.
Basfirinci, C., & Mitra, A. (2015). A cross cultural
investigation of airlines service quality through integration of
Servqual and the Kano model. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 42, 239-248.
Batterham, P. J. (2014). Recruitment of mental health survey
participants using Internet advertising: content, characteristics and
cost effectiveness. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric
Research, 23(2), 184-191.
Bellizzi, M. G., Eboli, L., Mazzulla, G., & Postorino, M. N.
(2022). Classification trees for analysing highly educated people
satisfaction with airlines’ services. Transport
Policy, 116, 199-211.
Bellizzi, M. G., Eboli, L., & Mazzulla, G. (2020). Air Transport
quality Factors: A Systematic Literature Review, Transport Research
Procedia, 45. Pp. 218-225.
Bezerra, G. C., & Gomes, C. F. (2020). Antecedents and
consequences of passenger satisfaction with the airport. Journal of
Air Transport Management, 83, 101766.
Bezerra, G. C., & Gomes, C. F. (2018). Performance measurement
practices in airports: Multidimensionality and sutilisation
patterns. Journal of Air Transport Management, 70,
113-125.
Bezerra, G. C. L., & Gomes, C. F. (2016). Measuring airport
service quality: A multidimensional approach. Journal of air
transport management, 53, 85-93.
Bezerra, G. C., & Gomes, C. F. (2015). The effects of service
quality dimensions and passenger characteristics on passenger’s overall
satisfaction with an airport. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 44, 77-81.
Bubalo, B., & Gaggero, A. A. (2021). Flight delays in European
airline networks. Research in Transportation Business &
Management, 41, 100631.
Bubalo, B., & Gaggero, A. A. (2015). Low-cost carrier competition
and airline service quality in Europe. Transport
Policy, 43, 23-31.
Büyüközkan, G., Havle, C. A., & Feyzioğlu, O. (2021). An
integrated SWOT based fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS methodology for digital
transformation strategy analysis in airline industry. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 97, 102142.
Büyüközkan, G., Havle, C. A., & Feyzioğlu, O. (2020). A new
digital service quality model and its strategic analysis in aviation
industry using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy AHP. Journal of
Air Transport Management, 86, 101817.
Cao, M., Li, L., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Developing a
passenger-centered airport: A case study of Urumqi airport in Xinjiang,
China. Journal of Air Transport Management, 108,
102363.
Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2009). National surveys via RDD
telephone interviewing versus the Internet: Comparing sample
representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 73(4), 641-678.
Chang, Y. C., & Chen, C. F. (2011). Identifying mobility service
needs for disabled air passengers. Tourism
Management, 32(5), 1214-1217.
Chau, M., & Xu, J. (2012). Business intelligence in blogs:
Understanding consumer interactions and communities. MIS
quarterly, 1189-1216.
Chen, L., Li, Y. Q., & Liu, C. H. (2019). How airline service
quality determines the quantity of repurchase intention-Mediate and
moderate effects of brand quality and perceived value. Journal of
Air Transport Management, 75, 185-197.
Cheng, T-M., Hong, C-Y., & Yang, B-C. (2018). Examining the
moderating effects of service climate on psychological capital, work
engagement, and service behaviour among flight attendants. Journal
of Air Transport Management, 67. 94-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.11.009
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. Journal of Air Transport Management, 53.
226-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.03.010
Cho, W., Windle, R. J., & Dresner, M. E. (2017). The impact of
operational exposure and value-of-time on customer choice: Evidence from
the airline industry. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 103. 455-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.027
Choi, J. H., & Park, J. W. (2015). A study on factors influencing
‘CyberAirport’usage intention: an Incheon International Airport case
study. Journal of Air Transport Management, 42,
21-26.
Chonsalasin, D., Jomnonkwao, S., Chanpariyavatevong, K., Laphrom, W.,
& Ratanavaraha, V. (2022). Modeling of airline passenger loyalty: A
comparison of leisure and business travelers. Research in
Transportation Business & Management, 43, 100735.
Chow, C. K. W. (2015). On-time performance, passenger expectations
and satisfaction in the Chinese airline industry. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 47, 39-47.
Chow, C. K. W. (2014). Customer satisfaction and service quality in
the Chinese airline industry. Journal of air transport
management, 35, 102-107.
Del Chiappa, G., Martin, J. C., & Roman, C. (2016). Service
quality of airports’ food and beverage retailers. A fuzzy
approach. Journal of air transport management, 53,
105-113.
Dirsehan, T., & Kurtulus, S. (2018). Measuring brand image using
a cognitive approach: Representing brands as a network in the Turkish
airline industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 67.
85-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.11.010.
Eboli, L., Bellizzi, M. G., & Mazzulla, G. (2022). A Literature
Review of Studies Analysing Air Transport Service Quality from the
Passengers’ Point of
View. Promet-Traffic&Transportation, 34(2),
253-269.
Ekiz, H.E., Hussain, K., Bavik, A., (2006). Perception of service
quality in North Cyprus national airline. Tourism and Hospitality
industry 2006 - new trends in tourism and hospital management. 18th
Biennial International Conference. Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality
Management, Opatija, pp. 778–790.
Forooq, M. S., Salam, M., Fayolle, A., Jaafar, N., & Ayupp, K.
(2018). Impact of service quality on customer satisfaction in Malaysia
airlines: A PLS-SEM approach. Journal of Air Transport Management,
67. 169-180. DOI: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.12.008
Ghorabaee, M. K., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., &
Antucheviciene, J. (2017). A new hybrid simulation-based assignment
approach for evaluating airlines with multiple service quality criteria.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 63. 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.05.008
Gilbert, D., & Kc Wong, R. (2003). Passenger expectations and
airline services: A Hong Kong based study. Tourism Management,
24(5), 519–532.
Ginieis, M., Sánchez-Rebull, M. V., & Campa-Planas, F. (2012).
The academic journal literature on air transport: Analysis using
systematic literature review methodology. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 19, 31-35.
Go, M., & Kim, I. (2018). In-flight NCCI management by combining
the Kano model with the service blueprint: A comparison of frequent and
infrequent flyers. Tourism Management, 69. 471-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.06.034
Gu, L. L., Skierkowski, D., Florin, P., Friend, K., & Ye, Y.
(2016). Facebook, Twitter, & Qr codes: An exploratory trial
examining the feasibility of social media mechanisms for sample
recruitment. Computers in Human Behavior, 60,
86-96.
Guo, Y., Barnes, S. J., & Jia, Q. (2017). Mining meaning from
online ratings and reviews: Tourist satisfaction analysis using latent
dirichlet allocation. Tourism management, 59,
467-483.
Gupta, H. (2018). Evaluating service quality of airline industry
using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 68, 35-47.
Halpern, N., & Mwesiumo, D. (2021). Airport service quality and
passenger satisfaction: The impact of service failure on the likelihood
of promoting an airport online. Research in Transportation Business
& Management, 41, 100667.
Ha, K. O., & Park, K. (2022) Airlines step up hygiene to keep
Coid out of the air. Businessweek, Bloomberg, available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-19/airlines-step-up-plane-hygiene-and-safety-measures-to-keep-covid-out#xj4y7vzkg.
Han, S., Ham, S. S., Yang, I., & Baek, S. (2012). Passengers’
perceptions of airline lounges: Importance of attributes that determine
usage and service quality measurement. Tourism
Management, 33(5), 1103-1111.
Henderson, I. L., Tsui, K. W. H., Ngo, T., Gilbey, A., & Avis, M.
(2019). Airline brand choice in a duopolistic market: The case of New
Zealand. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 121, 147-163.
Hong, S. J., Choi, D., & Chae, J. (2020). Exploring different
airport users’ service quality satisfaction between service providers
and air travelers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 52, 101917.
Hussain, R., Al Nasser, A., & Hussain, Y. K. (2015). Service
quality and customer satisfaction of a UAE-based airline: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 42, 167-175.
Isa, N. A. M., Ghaus, H., Hamid, N. A., & Tan, P. L. (2020). Key
drivers of passengers’ overall satisfaction at klia2
terminal. Journal of Air Transport Management, 87,
101859.
Jiang, H., & Zhang, Y. (2016a). An assessment of passenger
experience at Melbourne Airport. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 54, 88-92.
Jiang, H., & Zhang, Y. (2016b). An investigation of service
quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty in China’s airline
market. Journal of air transport management, 57,
80-88.
Jiang, H. (2013). Service quality of low-cost long-haul airlines–The
case of Jetstar Airways and AirAsia X. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 26, 20-24.
Jeeradist, T., Thawesaengskulthai, N., & Sangsuwan, T. (2016).
Using TRIZ to enhance passengers’ perceptions of an airline’s image
through service quality and safety. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 53, 131-139.
Kankaew, K., Tansirib, E., & Guzikova, L. (2022). Intention to
Return Factors Using Low-Cost Airlines: A Case Study from
Thailand. Transportation Research Procedia, 63,
2442-2448.
Kavus, B. Y., Tas, P. G., Ayyildiz, E., & Taskin, A. (2022). A
three-level framework to evaluate airline service quality based on
interval valued neutrosophic AHP considering the new
dimensions. Journal of Air Transport Management, 99,
102179.
Kagalwalla, N., & Churi, P. P. (2019, September). Cybersecurity
in aviation: An intrinsic review. In 2019 5th International
Conference On Computing, Communication, Control And Automation
(ICCUBEA) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Kim, T. H., Wu, C-L., & Koo, T-R. (2017). Implications of the
ageing society and internationalisation for airport services: A
perspective on passenger demand for personal space at airport terminals.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 60, 84-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.01.002
Kim, N. Y., & Park, J. W. (2016). A study on the impact of
airline service delays on emotional reactions and customer
behavior. Journal of Air Transport Management, 57,
19-25.
Koklic, M. K., Kukar-Kinney, M., & Vegelj, S. (2017). An
investigation of customer satisfaction with low-cost and full-service
airline companies. Journal of Business Research, 80,
188-196.
Kokkinou, A., & Cranage, D. A. (2013). Using self-service
technology to reduce customer waiting times. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 33, 435-445.
Kuo, T. C., Kremer, G. E. O., Phuong, N. T., & Hsu, C. W. (2016).
Motivations and barriers for corporate social responsibility reporting:
Evidence from the airline industry. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 57, 184-195.
Kuo, C. W., & Jou, R. C. (2014). Asymmetric response model for
evaluating airline service quality: An empirical study in cross-strait
direct flights. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 62, 63-70.
Kurtulmusoglu, F. B., Can, G. F., Pakdil, F., & Tolon, M. (2018).
Does gender matter? Considering gender of service in the airline
industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 70. 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.04.011
Lee, C. K., Ng, K. K. H., Chan, H. K., Choy, K. L., Tai, W. C., &
Choi, L. S. (2018). A multi-group analysis of social media engagement
and loyalty constructs between full-service and low-cost carriers in
Hong Kong. Journal of Air Transport Management, 73,
46-57.
Lee, S., Han, H., Radic, A., & Tariq, B. (2020). Corporate social
responsibility (CSR) as a customer satisfaction and retention strategy
in the chain restaurant sector. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 45, 348-358.
Lee, W. S., Tang, R., Moon, J., & Song, M. (2022). The structural
relationship between a low-cost carrier’s service experience, corporate
social responsibility, brand love, and reuse intention: The case of
Southwest Airlines. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 102, 102216.
Leon, S., & Martín, J. C. (2020). A fuzzy segmentation analysis
of airline passengers in the US based on service
satisfaction. Research in Transportation Business &
Management, 37, 100550.
Li, W., Yu, S., Pei, H., Zhao, C., & Tian, B. (2017). A hybrid
approach based on fuzzy AHP and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic method for
evaluation in-flight service quality. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 60, 49-64.
Liau, B. Y., & Tan, P. P. (2014). Gaining customer knowledge in
low cost airlines through text mining. Industrial Management and
Data Systems, 114(9),
1344-1359. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2014-0225
Lin, Z., & Vlachos, I. (2018). An advanced analytical framework
for improving customer satisfaction: A case of air passengers.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
114. 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.04.003
Liou, J. J., Hsu, C. C., Yeh, W. C., & Lin, R. H. (2011a). Using
a modified grey relation method for improving airline service
quality. Tourism management, 32(6), 1381-1388.
Liou, J. J., Tsai, C. Y., Lin, R. H., & Tzeng, G. H. (2011b). A
modified VIKOR multiple-criteria decision method for improving domestic
airlines service quality. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 17(2), 57-61.
Liu, C. H. S., & Lee, T. (2016). Service quality and price
perception of service: Influence on word-of-mouth and revisit
intention. Journal of Air Transport Management, 52,
42-54.
Lopez-Valpuesta, L., & Casas-Albala, D. (2023). Has passenger
satisfaction at airports changed with the onset of COVID-19? The case of
Seville Airport (Spain). Journal of Air Transport Management,
102361.
Lubbe, B., Douglas, A., & Zambellis, J. (2011). An application of
the airport service quality model in South Africa. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 17(4), 224-227.
Lucini, F. R., Tonetto, L. M., Fogliatto, F. S., & Anzanello, M.
J. (2020). Text mining approach to explore dimensions of airline
customer satisfaction using online customer reviews. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 83, 101760.
Ma, W., Zhang, Y., & Cui, J. (2021). Chinese future frequent
flyers’ willingness to pay for carbon emissions
reduction. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 97, 102935.
Mahapatra, S. C., & Bellamkonda, R. S. (2023). Higher
expectations of passengers do really sense: Development and validation a
multiple scale-FliQual for air transport service quality. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 70, 103162.
Major, W. L., & Hubbard, S. M. (2019). An examination of
disability-related complaints in the United States commercial aviation
sector. Journal of Air Transport Management, 78. 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.04.006
Martín, J. C., Román, C., & Espino, R. (2011). Evaluating
frequent flyer programs from the air passengers’
perspective. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 17(6), 364-368.
Martin-Domingo, L., Martín, J. C., & Mandsberg, G. (2019). Social
media as a resource for sentiment analysis of Airport Service Quality
(ASQ). Journal of Air Transport Management, 78, 106-115.
Mendes, N., Vieira, J. G. V., & Mano, A. P. (2022). Risk
management in aviation maintenance: A systematic literature review,
Safety Science, 153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105810
Merkert, R., & Assaf, A. G. (2015). Using DEA models to jointly
estimate service quality perception and profitability–Evidence from
international airports. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 75, 42-50.
Mikulić, J., & Prebežac, D. (2011). What drives passenger loyalty
to traditional and low-cost airlines? A formative partial least squares
approach. Journal of Air Transport Management, 17(4),
237-240.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group
(2009) Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA
Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Ozment, J., & Morash, E. A. (1994). The augmented service
offering for perceived and actual service quality. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 22(4),
352–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070394224004
Pan, J. Y., & Truong, D. (2018). Passengers’ intentions to use
low-cost carriers: An extended theory of planned behaviour model.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 69. 38-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.01.006
Panagopoulos, N. G., Rapp, A. A., & Vlachos, P. A. (2016). I
think they think we are good citizens: Meta-perceptions as antecedents
of employees’ reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal
of Business Research, 69(8), 2781-2790.
Pantouvakis, A., & Renzi, M. F. (2016). Exploring different
nationality perceptions of airport service quality. Journal of air
transport management, 52, 90-98.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running
experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision
making, 5(5), 411-419.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A. (1985). A conceptual
model of service quality and its implications for future research. J.
Market. 49 (4), 41–50.
Park, S., Lee, J. S., & Nicolau, J. L. (2020). Understanding the
dynamics of the quality of airline service attributes: Satisfiers and
dissatisfiers. Tourism Management, 81, 104163.
Park, K., & Park, J. W. (2018). The effects of the servicescape
of airport transfer amenities on the behavioral intentions of transfer
passengers: A case study on Incheon International Airport. Journal
of Air Transport Management, 72, 68-76.
Park, J. W. (2010). The effect of frequent flyer programs: A case
study of the Korean airline industry. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 16(5), 287-288.
Park, E. (2019). Corporate social responsibility as a determinant of
corporate reputation in the airline industry. Journal of retailing
and consumer services, 47, 215-221.
Percin, S. (2018). Evaluating airline service quality using a
combined fuzzy decision-making approach. Journal of Air Transport
management. 68. 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.07.004
Prentice, C., Wang, X., & Loureiro, S. M. C. (2019). The
influence of brand experience and service quality on customer
engagement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50.
50-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.04.020
Prentice, C., & Kadan, M. (2019). The role of airport service
quality in airport and destination choice. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 47, 40-48.
Prentice, C., & Loureiro, S. M. C. (2017). An asymmetrical
approach to understanding configurations of customer loyalty in the
airline industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
38. 96-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.05.005
Rajaguru, R. (2016). Role of value for money and service quality on
behavioural intention: A study of full service and low cost
airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 53,
114-122.
Rezaei, J., Kothadiya, O., Tavasszy, L., & Kroesen, M. (2018).
Quality assessment of airline baggage handling systems using SERVQUAL
and BWM. Tourism Management, 66. 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.11.009
Samanci, S., Atalay, K. D., & Isin, F. B. (2021). Focusing on the
big picture while observing the concerns of both managers and passengers
in the post-covid era. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 90, 101970.
Shah, F. T., Syed, Z., Imam, A., & Raza, A. (2020). The impact of
airline service quality on passengers’ behavioral intentions using
passenger satisfaction as a mediator. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 85, 101815.
Shen, C., & Yahya, Y. (2021). The impact of service quality and
price on passengers’ loyalty towards low-cost airlines: The Southeast
Asia perspective. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 91, 101966.
Shiwakoti, N., Jiang, H., & Nguyen, A. D. (2022). Passengers’
perception of safety and its relationship with demographics, service
quality, satisfaction and loyalty in airlines sector-A case study of
Vietnam to Australia route. Transport Policy, 124,
194-202.
Stamolampros, P., & Korfiatis, N. (2019). Airline service quality
and economic factors: An ARDL approach on US airlines. Journal of
Air Transport Management, 77. 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.03.002
Steven, A. B., Yazdi, A. A., & Dresner, M. (2016). Mergers and
service quality in the airline industry: A silver lining for air
travelers?. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 89, 1-13.
Suk, M., Kim, M., & Kim, W. (2021). The moderating role of
subjective norms and self-congruence in customer purchase intentions in
the LCC market: Do not tell me I am cheap. Research in
Transportation Business & Management, 41, 100595.
Suki, N. M. (2014). Passenger satisfaction with airline service
quality in Malaysia: A structural equation modeling
approach. Research in transportation business &
management, 10, 26-32.
Tahanisaz, S. (2020). Evaluation of passenger satisfaction with
service quality: A consecutive method applied to the airline
industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 83,
101764.
Truong, D., Pan, J. Y., & Buaphiban, T. (2020). Low cost carriers
in Southeast Asia: how does ticket price change the way passengers make
their airline selection?. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 86, 101836.
Tsafarakis, S., Kokotas, T., & Pantouvakis, A. (2018). A multiple
criteria approach for airline passenger satisfaction measurement and
service quality improvement. Journal of air transport
management, 68, 61-75.
Tsaur, S.-H., Chang, T.-Y., & Yen, C.-H. (2002). The evaluation
of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management,
23(2), 107–115.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Division (2022). World Population Prospects. https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Documentation/Documentation/.
Usman, A., Azis, Y., Harsanto, B., & Azis, A. M. (2022). Airport
service quality dimension and measurement: a systematic literature
review and future research agenda. International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, 39(10), 2302-2322.
Varpio, L., Paradis, E., Uijtdehaage, S., & Young, M. (2020). The
distinction between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual
framework. Academic Medicine, 95(7). 989-994.
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003075
Waguespack, B. P., & Rhoades, D. L. (2014). Twenty five years of
measuring airline service quality or why is airline service quality only
good when times are bad?. Research in Transportation Business &
Management, 10, 33-39.
Wang, Y., So, K. K. F., & Sparks, B. A. (2017). What
technology-enabled services do air travelers value? Investigating the
role of technology readiness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 41(7), 771-796.
Wu, H. C., & Cheng, C. C. (2013). A hierarchical model of service
quality in the airline industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 20, 13-22.
Woo, M. (2019). Assessing customer citizenship behaviours in the
airline industry: Investigation of service quality and value.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 76. 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.02.006
Yao, B., Yuan, H., Qian, Y., & Li, L. (2015, June). On exploring
airline service features from massive online review. In 2015 12th
International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management
(ICSSSM) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Zhang, Y. (2012). Are Chinese passengers willing to pay more for
better air services?. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 25, 5-7.
Zidarova, E. D., & Zografos, K. G. (2011). Measuring quality of
service in airport passenger terminals. Transportation research
record, 2214(1), 69-76.
