Journal of Air Transport Management 67 (2018) 169–180

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Air Transport Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jairtraman

Impact of service quality on customer satisfaction in Malaysia airlines: A T

PLS-SEM approach
Muhammad Shoaib Farooqa,∗, Maimoona Salamb, Alain Fayollec, Norizan Jaafard,
Kartinah Ayuppd
a
Institute of Business and Management, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
b
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia
c
Department of Strategy and Organization, EMLYON Business School, Ecully, France
d
Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study is aimed to assess the quality of service provided by Malaysia Airlines and its impact on overall
Quality customer satisfaction. This study employed a convenience sampling method for collecting data from 460 re-
Service quality spondents using a self-administered questionnaire, designed on five dimensions of AIRQUAL scale. Moreover,
Malaysia airlines variance based structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used for testing the proposed structural model.
Airline industry
Findings of this study revealed that all five dimensions of AIRQUAL scale i.e. airline tangibles; terminal tangi-
Customer satisfaction
IPMA
bles; personnel services; empathy and image have a positive, direct and significant impact on customer sa-
PLS-SEM tisfaction of Malaysia Airlines. This study investigated the impact of service quality dimensions on customer
AIRQUAL scale satisfaction in Malaysia Airlines. Due to limited resources and time constraints this study involves respondents
from Malaysia Airlines only; for that reason a comparative analysis of findings with other airlines was not
possible; therefore it is considered a limitation of this study. Moreover, importance-performance map analysis
(IPMA) was also performed for exploring the importance of various dimensions of service quality. Findings
indicate that airlines should focus on all dimensions of service quality, with special focus on personnel services
and image for enhancing their customer satisfaction. It is expected that findings of this study will help airlines to
understand the role of various dimensions of service quality for enhancing their customer satisfaction.

1. Introduction
With the rapid advancements in competitive business environment,
customer expectations and demands are also increasing, leading to a
situation where many companies – especially airlines – find it difficult
to retain their customers (Ali et al., 2015). Moreover failure to re-
cognize true needs and wants of customers is also a barrier to providing
high quality services (Izogo and Ogba, 2015). Today's competitive
market situation have forced airlines to focus on cost reduction for
achieving efficient business operations; however while doing so the
element of service quality and customer satisfaction is often compro-
mised (Boetsch et al., 2011).
Malaysia Airlines which was formerly known as Malaysian Airlines
System (MAS) enjoys the prestige of being Malaysia's only national flag
carrier. Company began as Malayan Airways Limited and flew its first
commercial flight in 1947 (Zaid, 1995). However after Singapore's ex-
pulsion from Malaysia in 1972, airline's assets were divided in Singapore
Airlines and Malaysian Airline System (MAS), which is now known as
Malaysia Airlines (Clarke, 2004; O'Connell and Williams, 2005). As the
nation's only flag-ship carrier Malaysia Airlines enjoyed the monopoly
status in domestic market since 1974–2000. However, with the liber-
alization of Malaysian domestic airline industry in early 2000, Air Asia
have changed the face of Malaysian air travel industry (Hankins, 2016;
Radovic-Markovic et al., 2017). Resulting in an intense competition
between its incumbent Malaysia Airlines and other budget airlines such
as Air Asia and Malindo Air (Ong and Tan, 2010).
Despite holding the recognition of being a leading airline in and to
Asia from World Travel Awards (2010-11, 2013) these days Malaysia
Airlines struggles to cut cost to compete with its rival low-cost airlines
(Hankins, 2016; Ong and Tan, 2010; Radovic-Markovic et al., 2017).
Since decades airline industry is facing challenges in terms of profit-
ability and customer satisfaction all over the world (Forgas et al.,
2012). However, Malaysia Airlines’ financial troubles started exacer-
bating in 2014, after the loss of flight MH-370 and flight MH-17. Both

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sshoaibfarooq2@yahoo.com (M.S. Farooq), maimoonasalam1@yahoo.com (M. Salam), fayolle@em-lyon.com (A. Fayolle), jnorizan@unimas.my (N. Jaafar),
akartinah@unimas.my (K. Ayupp).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.12.008
Received 6 September 2017; Received in revised form 26 December 2017; Accepted 27 December 2017
0969-6997/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.S. Farooq et al.
accidents were less than five months apart, and left a terrible impact on
the overall goodwill of company, which led to its renationalization
(Hankins, 2016; LeHardy and Moore, 2014). An unbiased analysis of
current situation reveals a harsh fact that, after these two accidents
many passengers still lack confidence in Malaysia Airlines in terms of its
service quality, reliability and value for money (Smith and Marks,
2014).
Better service quality is a critical factor which can be useful for
distinguishing and improving organization's performance in the era of
intense competition (Namukasa, 2013; Ong and Tan, 2010). Pertaining
to the subjective nature of service quality, its dimensions and mea-
surement issues have been investigated by various recent studies (e.g.
Farooq et al., 2009; Izogo and Ogba, 2015; Shabbir et al., 2016).
Conceptual and empirical relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction have received substantial attention from re-
searchers, turning it into one of the core marketing instruments
(Gustafsson et al., 1999; Zaid, 1995). Although measurement of service
quality has received a great deal of attention, yet service quality of
airline industry is still unexplored and requires a thorough investigation
(Ali et al., 2015; Farooq et al., 2017; Park et al., 2005). Unique nature of
airline service industry, which is substantially different from other
service industries, warrants further studies to explore the service
quality of Malaysia Airlines and its impact on overall customer sa-
tisfaction (Farooq et al., 2017; Radovic-Markovic et al., 2017). There-
fore, this study is aimed to assess the perceptions of Malaysia Airlines'
passengers, regarding the service quality and resulting customer sa-
tisfaction using the AIRQUAL scale.
For the ease of readers this paper is organized in five sections,
starting with the introduction and background of this study. Section
two provides a precise yet comprehensive insight of literature on ser-
vice quality and customer satisfaction, along with its application in
various airlines and description of scales used to measure service
quality in airline industry. Next section three explains the research
methodology and section four elaborates the survey results and findings
of this study. Last section concludes this study followed by discussion of
practical implications and limitations of this study.
2. Literature review
2.1. Service quality
According to Parasuraman et al. (1988, p. 13) service quality refers
to the “function of [the] difference between [the] service expected and [the]
customer's perceptions of the actual service delivered”. In recent past ser-
vice quality have received an intense attention from researchers in the
field of service marketing and business development (e.g. Aagja and
Garg, 2010; Farooq et al., 2009; Qin et al., 2010; Samen et al., 2013;
Shabbir et al., 2016). Moreover, a considerable attention has been given
to its conceptualization and measurement scales as well (Akter et al.,
2013; Cristobal et al., 2007; Farooq et al., 2009). Specifically, element
of service quality has been extensively explored in various industries
such as mobile banking, health management, telecommunication, on-
line education, hoteling and tourism etc. (Abdullah et al., 2011; Farooq
et al., 2017; Izogo and Ogba, 2015; Samen et al., 2013). According to
Tsoukatos and Mastrojianni (2010) customers compare actual service
delivery with their own expectations, which are shaped by their prior
experience, memories and/or word of mouth. This comparison helps to
determine customers' perceived service quality (Parasuraman et al.,
1988). Moreover in this regard Zeithaml et al. (1996) assert that better
understanding of customers' perceived service quality is significantly
important for enhancing customer satisfaction by delivering quality
services.
In order to measure service quality, Parasuraman et al. (1985)
proposed a comprehensive model comprising ten dimensions of service
quality i.e. (1) tangibles, (2) reliability, (3) responsiveness, (4) under-
standing the customers, (5) access, (6) communication, (7) credibility,
170
Journal of Air Transport Management 67 (2018) 169–180
(8) security, (9) competence and (10) courtesy. Same model was latter
simplified and named as SERVQUAL by Parasuraman et al. (1988) re-
ducing it to five dimensions i.e. (1) tangibles, (2) reliability, (3) re-
sponsiveness, (4) assurance and (5) empathy. The SERVQUAL scale has
been widely recognized by academicians, researchers and practitioners
in various fields and different countries (Butt and Run, 2010; Farooq,
2016; Lee-Ross, 2008). SERVQUAL offers a comprehensive measure-
ment scale with practical implications for customers' perceived service
quality (Parasuraman et al., 1994). It is worth mentioning that, al-
though SERVQUAL has been widely accepted and adopted by various
scholars (e.g. Gilbert and Wong, 2003; Lee-Ross, 2008; Samen et al.,
2013); yet it has also faced criticism by some scholars (e.g. Buttle, 1996;
Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Robledo, 2001) because it only involves
comparison of perceived quality of service received and customers’
expected service quality.
In this regard Wu and Ko (2013) assert that SERVQUAL offers some
general guidelines for assessment of service quality by incorporating its
few dimensions and contexts; however service quality dimensions are
ought to be scrutinized and examined discretely for incorporating
various industry-specific issues. Moreover Park et al. (2005) argue that
particular industry-specific operations and issues which are exclusive
for airline industry (e.g. online ticketing, check-in, luggage allowance,
boarding service and on-board facilities) distinguish airline industry
from those of other service oriented industries. Various scholars (e.g.
Chang and Yeh, 2002; Cunningham et al., 2004; Farooq et al., 2017;
Namukasa, 2013; Radovic-Markovic et al., 2017; Wu and Cheng, 2013)
have suggested that customers’ expectations in the field of airline in-
dustry are formed at the “moment-of-truth” by interacting with the
reservation department, telephonic communication, ticketing experi-
ence, baggage handling system, flight schedule and service of cabin
crew members. Therefore Park et al. (2005) assert that only five di-
mensions of SERVQUAL scale are not suitable for measuring all di-
mensions of service quality in airline industry as they do not involve
industry specific (i.e. airline industry) aspects of service quality.
Due to massive criticism on the application of SERVQUAL scale,
various scholars have used and recommended another service quality
measurement scale, which is developed by Cronin and Taylor (1992)
and is named as SERVPERF. According to Cronin and Taylor (1994)
SERVPERF scale is mainly designed to focus on customers' perceptions
about performance of service providers, to assess the actual service
quality received. Although some researchers have used this scale for
assessing service quality in airline industry; yet there are number of
critiques reporting its inability to capture all dimensions of airlines'
service quality (Ali et al., 2015; Farooq et al., 2017; Ostrowski et al.,
1993). Moreover some scholars (e.g. Cunningham et al., 2004) have
also criticised the generic nature of SERVPERF and argue that, too
much generic nature of this scale makes it difficult to capture industry-
specific dimensions of airline industry, which is crucial for under-
standing passenger's perception of service quality.
Therefore, various scholars have proposed different models for ex-
ploring the dimensions of service quality with specific reference to
airline industry (e.g. Chang and Yeh, 2002; Gourdin, 1988; Ostrowski
et al., 1993; Truitt and Haynes, 1994). One of the models presented by
Gourdin (1988) describes airline service quality with three distinct di-
mensions; i.e. price, safety, and timeliness of flights. Likewise, airline
service quality model presented by Ostrowski et al. (1993) involves
comfort of seats, food, and timeliness of flights. Whereas Truitt and
Haynes (1994) suggested to use cleanliness of seats, check-in process,
timeliness of flights, food and beverages, and customer complaints
handling system, as dimensions of airline service quality. However
Chang and Yeh (2002) suggested a revised version of five dimensions of
service quality presented by Parasuraman et al. (1988) which include
tangibility, responsiveness, reliability, empathy and assurance. Further
Park et al. (2005) also analysed airline service quality by involving only
few dimensions of service quality, which are reliability of customer
service, convenience of accessibility, and quality of in-flight services.
M.S. Farooq et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 67 (2018) 169–180

Moreover, a recent study on Ugandan airline industry by Namukasa
(2013) categorized airline service quality in three areas, which include
pre-flight service quality, in-flight service quality, and post-flight ser-
vice quality. In order to measure pre-flight service quality, he used
responsiveness and accessibility of discounts; further in-flight service
quality was measured using courtesy of staff, tangibles and luggage
handling; whereas post-flight service quality was measured using
timeliness of flight and frequent flyers schemes (Namukasa, 2013).
Findings of his study confirmed that all three areas i.e. pre-flight service
quality, in-flight service quality and post-flight service quality are
equally important and have significant positive effect on customer sa-
tisfaction in Ugandan airline industry (Namukasa, 2013). In another
recent study Wu and Cheng (2013) classified airline service quality into
four main dimensions i.e. physical environment quality, interaction
quality, access quality and outcomes quality. These four dimensions
were further divided in eleven sub-dimensions which include, cleanli-
ness, problem solving skills, overall conduct, staff expertise, comfort,
safety and security, tangibles, waiting time, convenience, valence and
access to information (Wu and Cheng, 2013). Findings of their study
revealed that conceptual and theoretical understanding of airline ser-
vice quality and customer satisfaction is still at infancy stage (Farooq,
2016; Wu and Cheng, 2013). Moreover, inconsistency of measurement
scales, diverse analytical methodologies and different dimensions used
for assessing service quality of airline industry, have made it difficult to
perform a cross-study analysis for drawing a meaningful conclusion. An
overview of main dimensions of service quality, which are most fre-
quently used by previous studies for assessing service quality of airline
industry, is summarized in Table 1.
In order to resolve these inconsistencies Ekiz et al. (2006) presented
a comprehensive model, named AIRQUAL for assessing airline service
quality. This AIRQUAL model comprises of five dimensions, i.e. airline
tangibles, terminal tangibles, personnel services, empathy and image.
Later another study by Nadiri et al. (2008) also validated AIRQUAL
scale by using it to assess impact of airline service quality on customer
loyalty of North Cyprus Airlines; followed by Ali et al. (2015) who used
this scale for assessing service quality in Pakistan International Airlines
(PIA). However, they called for further studies to explore different
contexts of customer satisfaction and airline service quality, so that
AIRQUAL scale can be generalized and validated in a broader context.
Therefore, this study adapts AIRQUAL scale for analysing service
quality of Malaysia Airlines. Here is a brief description of all five di-
mensions involved in AIRQUAL scale:
2.2. Airline tangibles
Airline tangibles refers to the tangible cues which are associated
with service quality of an airline (Ekiz et al., 2006). It is considered as
one of the most important dimensions of service quality in airline in-
dustry (Farooq, 2016; Gudmundsson, 1998). According to Ali et al.
(2015) airline tangibles refers to the overall condition of aircrafts;
which involves the quality of interior and exterior equipments; quality
of catering service; comfortable seats and cleanliness.
2.3. Terminal tangibles
According to Ariffin and Yahaya (2013) terminal tangibles is one of
the most visible indicators of an airline's service quality. According to
them, terminal tangibles have a direct influence on airline's overall
image building. Terminal tangibles implicate the quality of services
which are available at terminal (Ekiz et al., 2006). These services
comprise of effective sign boards; friendly security and control system,
good air-conditioning system on terminal; clean toilets and information
counters for guiding passengers (Ali et al., 2015; Wu and Cheng, 2013).
2.4. Personnel services
Personnel services is an important dimension of airline's service
quality (Nadiri et al., 2008). It refers to the quality of service provided
by airline's staff (i.e. their attitude and behaviour towards customer
service) and flight attendants (Boetsch et al., 2011; Ekiz et al., 2006).
Moreover, personnel services also encompass an error free ticketing
service; responsiveness of aircraft crew members; personal care and
helping attitude (Namukasa, 2013).
2.5. Empathy
Benefits of emotional intelligence and empathy are an open secret;
therefore empathy is considered as an integral part of service quality in
any business (Humphrey, 2013; Radovic-Markovic et al., 2017). Var-
ious studies have reported that empathy have a direct effect on repeat

Table 1
Airline service quality dimensions.

Sr. No. Author(s) and Year Dimensions of Service Quality

1 Li et al. (2017) Tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy

2 Kos Koklic et al. (2017) Airline tangibles, quality of personnel
3 Sandada and Matibiri (2016) Reliability and customer service, convenience and accessibility, inflight service
4 Ali et al. (2015) Airline tangibles, terminal tangibles, personnel quality, empathy, image, customer satisfaction
5 Leong et al. (2015) Tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy
6 Suki (2014) Terminal tangible, empathy, word of mouth, airline tangibles
7 Archana and Subha (2012) In-flight service, in-flight digital services, airline back office services and operations
8 Boetsch et al. (2011) Airline brand, price, sleep comfort
9 Saha and Theingi (2009) Tangibles, schedule, flight attendants, ground staff
10 An and Noh (2009) Responsiveness, empathy, food quality, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, and reliability
11 Teichert et al. (2008) Flight schedule, total fare, frequent flyer package, flexibility, catering, punctuality, ground services
12 Babbar and Koufteros (2008) Level of concern and civility, listening and understanding, individual attention, cheerfulness, courtesy, friendliness
13 Aydin and Pakdil (2008) Tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy
14 Tiernan et al. (2008) On-time performance, overbooking, mishandled baggage, customer complaints
15 Nadiri et al. (2008) Airline tangibles, terminal tangibles, empathy, personnel
16 Park (2007) In-flight service, reservation-related service, airport service, reliability, employee service, flight availability, perceived price, passenger
satisfaction, perceived value, airline image
17 Liou and Tzeng (2007) Employees' service, safety and reliability, on-board service, on-time performance, schedule, frequent flyer package
18 Shaw (2007) Frequency and timing, punctuality, airport location and access, ticketing flexibility/seat accessibility, frequent flyer benefits, in-flight
services, airport services
19 Ekiz et al. (2006) Airline tangibles, terminal tangibles, image, personnel services, empathy
20 Park et al. (2005) Reliability and customer service, in-flight service, convenience and accessibility
21 Kozak et al. (2003) Terminal tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, empathy
22 Tsaur et al. (2002) Safety, courtesy of staff, seat comfort

171
M.S. Farooq et al.
buying behaviour (e.g. Chang and Yeh, 2002; Ekiz et al., 2006; Farooq
et al., 2009; Humphrey, 2013). In airline industry empathy is reflected
by hassle and problem free service; which involves careful luggage
handling, courteous ticketing service and thoughtful compensation
plans in case of any loss or hazards (Ekiz et al., 2006; Farooq, 2016).
2.6. Image
Life cycle of airlines is not different from other general firms
(Gudmundsson, 1998). Therefore, airlines also have to be very con-
scious about their image, goodwill and brand recognition value (Nadiri
et al., 2008; Radovic-Markovic et al., 2017). In order to maintain their
good image, airlines have to bring various promotional offers and fre-
quent flyer programs (Gudmundsson et al., 2002; Radovic-Markovic
et al., 2017). According to Ekiz et al. (2006) an airline's image com-
prises of its overall perception; value for money; promotional offers and
goodwill.
2.7. Customer satisfaction
According to Kotler and Caslione (2009) satisfaction refers “to a
person's feeling of pleasure or disappointment resulting from comparing a
product's performance in relation to his or her expectations”. Customer
satisfaction have remained a key focus area in many social and beha-
vioural studies (e.g. Chen et al., 2012; Farooq et al., 2009, 2010). The
concept of customer satisfaction is generally based on the notion that a
business must satisfy its customers in order to be sustainable and
profitable (Farooq, 2016; Izogo and Ogba, 2015; Radovic-Markovic
et al., 2017). According to Westbrook and Oliver (1991) customer sa-
tisfaction is defined as positive post-consumption feelings. Instead of
exploring cognitive outcomes, customer satisfaction is considered to be
an effective measure of usefulness of a product or service availed by
customers (Berezina et al., 2012). Moreover, various scholars (e.g.
Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Farooq et al., 2009; Seth et al., 2005) have
agreed that re-purchase intention is strongly associated with customer
satisfaction. Likewise customer satisfaction serves as a major element
for customer retention (Abdullah et al., 2011; Farooq et al., 2016).
Further, Park et al. (2005) note that customer satisfaction leads to a
positive and favourable word-of-mouth; which is widely acknowledged
as a critical source of indirect marketing for brand building. A number
of studies (e.g. Farooq and Radovic-Markovic, 2017a; Jun et al., 2004;
Prayag, 2007; Shin and Elliott, 2001) have reported that satisfied cus-
tomers can improve the profitability of organizations, by helping them
to expand their business through new referral customers and repeat
business from existing customers.
Pertaining to the complex nature of human behaviour and percep-
tions, the phenomenon of customer satisfaction has remained under-
researched in various industries (e.g. Ali et al., 2015; Farooq et al.,
2009; Izogo and Ogba, 2015; Shabbir et al., 2016). Moreover, due to the
subjective nature of customer satisfaction, complete understanding of
its determinants have remained somewhat elusive (Farooq et al., 2017;
Gudmundsson et al., 2002; Qin et al., 2010). Specifically, for businesses
which are operating in service sector it is far more challenging to
achieve and maintain customer satisfaction (Li et al., 2017). For in-
stance, nature of some services is multi-layered and extremely complex;
due to multiple service encounters involved in the whole process
(Farooq and Radovic-Markovic, 2016; Han and Ryu, 2012). According
to Archana and Subha (2012) customer satisfaction in airline industry is
influenced by multi-dimensional service quality, which involves pre-
flight services, in-flight services, baggage handling, in-flight digital
services, and post-flight services. Likewise another recent study by Ali
et al. (2015) also reported a positive relationship between customer
satisfaction, loyalty and repeat purchase intentions. Therefore in airline
industry customer satisfaction is a very critical element, for ensuring a
sustainable business and long term relationship with customers (Ali
et al., 2015; Archana and Subha, 2012; Wu and Cheng, 2013).
172
Journal of Air Transport Management 67 (2018) 169–180
2.8. Service quality and customer satisfaction
Service quality have been considered a strong antecedent and pre-
dictor of customer satisfaction (McDougall and Levesque, 2000). A re-
cent study by Saha and Theingi (2009) investigated the relationship
between airline service quality and customer satisfaction; findings of
their study revealed a strong connection between perceived service
quality and customer satisfaction. A satisfied customer is most likely to
remain loyal to airline company; whereas an unsatisfied customer have
a likelihood of switching to any other service provider (Ali et al., 2015;
Archana and Subha, 2012; Gudmundsson and Lechner, 2006).
It is pertinent to mention that, despite a general consensus on the
basic definition of the concept of perceived service quality and cus-
tomer satisfaction; the causal relationship between both constructs have
remained controversial (Al-alak, 2014; Bansal et al., 2004). Various
scholars (e.g. Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Oliver, 1997; Parasuraman
et al., 1988) have suggested perceived service quality to be the ante-
cedent of customer satisfaction; whereas others (e.g. Andreassen and
Lindestad, 1998; Bitner, 1990; Bolton and Drew, 1991) consider cus-
tomer satisfaction as an antecedent of perceived service quality. In
order to resolve this discrepancy Han et al. (2008) investigated the role
of perceived service quality as an antecedent of customer satisfaction in
a number of different industries, including banking sector, hospitals,
information technology, education sector, beauty salons and airline
companies. A recent study by Ali et al. (2015) have also used similar
notion for investigating customer satisfaction and perceived service
quality in Pakistan International Airlines. Therefore, this study also
embraces first school of thought and hypothesises that, perceived ser-
vice quality of airline companies will have a significant effect on its
customer satisfaction. As mentioned earlier this study employs
AIRQUAL scale, which was developed by Ekiz et al. (2006) to overcome
the shortcomings of other existing service quality scales in terms of
airlines industry. This AIRQUAL scale encompasses five dimensions i.e.
airline tangibles, terminal tangibles, personnel services, empathy and
image, which are also posed in Fig. 1 showing proposed research fra-
mework of this study. Developing on the base of logical relationships
derived from aforementioned literature review; which provided support
for perceived service quality being an antecedent of customer sa-
tisfaction in airlines industry, this study proposes following five hy-
potheses:
H1. Perceived quality of airline tangibles have positive and significant
direct effect on customer satisfaction
Airline
Tangibles
H1
Terminal
Tangibles
H2
Personnel Customer
H3 Satisfaction
Services
H4
Empathy
H5
Airline
Image
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
M.S. Farooq et al.
H2. Perceived quality of terminal tangibles have positive and
significant direct effect on customer satisfaction
H3. Perceived quality of personnel services have a positive and
significant direct effect on customer satisfaction
H4. Perceived empathy have a positive and significant direct effect on
customer satisfaction
H5. Perceived airline image have a positive and significant direct effect
on customer satisfaction
3. Research methodology
3.1. Research instrument/operationalization of constructs
A survey instrument was adopted from Westbrook and Oliver
(1991) and Ekiz et al. (2006) for data collection from passengers of
Malaysia Airlines. Final questionnaire comprised of total 33 items, out
of which six items belonged to airline tangibles (AT) i.e. (1) aircrafts
were equipped with latest and modern technology (2) quality of ca-
tering service was good (3) quality of air-conditioning in the planes was
good (4) interior of aircraft was well maintained (5) seats were clean
and comfortable (6) cleanliness of the plane toilets was well main-
tained. Seven items belonged to terminal tangibles (TT) i.e. (1) quality
of air-conditioning on airport terminals (2) information counter was
readily available to assist me (3) number of shops were adequate for my
needs (4) airport had effective sign boards (5) security and control
system was friendly and reliable (6) adequate number of trolleys were
available on airport (7) cleanliness of the airport toilets was well
maintained.
Further, seven items belonged to personnel services (PS) i.e. (1)
airline staff was well dressed (2) workers were well aware of their
duties (3) ticketing and reservation service was error free (4) flight
attendants were well behaved and had a good attitude (5) whenever I
required airline personnel answered my questions (6) flight attendants
were providing equal personal care to everyone (7) workers were
willing to extend their help to everyone on plane. Next six items be-
longed to empathy (E) i.e. (1) departures and arrivals are usually on
time (2) transportation between city and airport is not a problem (3) in
case of loss or hazard compensation plans are clearly communicated (4)
my luggage is handled very carefully (5) ticketing office staff is very
courteous (6) number of flights is enough to satisfy passengers’ de-
mands.
Three items belonged to image (I) i.e. (1) availability of seats and
promotional offers are very much appealing to me (2) ticket prices are
worth the services I received (3) Malaysia Airlines bears a good brand
image. And last four items belonged to customer satisfaction (CS) i.e.
(1) i am happy for my decision to choose Malaysia Airlines (2) my
choice of Malaysia Airlines was a wise decision (3) i did the right thing
to choose Malaysia Airlines as a service provider (4) i am satisfied, and
my experience with Malaysia Airlines was very enjoyable. A seven point
Likert-type scale was used to enhance the redundancy and sanctity of
this study, as advised by (Farooq, 2016). Moreover, in order to validate
the questionnaire, a pilot study was also conducted, which involved 50
respondents who had recently travelled with Malaysia Airlines. Al-
though some minor changes were made in the sentence structure of
final questionnaire, but overall findings of pilot study established the
reliability and validity of questionnaire used for data collection.
3.2. Sample design and data collection
This study is aimed to investigate the role of service quality in de-
termining customer satisfaction of Malaysia Airlines. In order to
achieve this objective, the target population for this study was identi-
fied as all passengers who have travelled with Malaysia Airlines in last
three months. Determining a right sample size is very crucial for
173
Journal of Air Transport Management 67 (2018) 169–180
ensuring quality and rigour of any study. For this purpose, Hair et al.
(2017, p. 20) have suggested the use of 10 times rule, which was pro-
posed by Barclay et al. (1995) for determining minimum sample size in
a PLS-SEM analysis. This rule states that minimum sample should be
“10 times the largest number of structural paths directed at a particular
construct in structural model”. Structural model of this study involves six
constructs (i.e. five independent and one dependent variable) and ac-
cording to this 10 times rule criterion, our minimum sample size should
be 50 respondents.
However, we have adopted a more rigorous criterion proposed by
Westland (2010). Moreover, sample size of this study was determined
on the base of review of previous related studies and suggestions of
different scholars (e.g. Ali et al., 2015; An and Noh, 2009; Archana and
Subha, 2012; Farooq and Radovic-Markovic, 2017b). A self-adminis-
tered survey questionnaire was used for data collection. Using a con-
venience sampling approach, 750 questionnaires were distributed in
waiting lounges of Kuala Lumpur International Airport and Kuching
International Airport. A total of 460 responses were received back,
which indicates an overall response rate of 61.33%. This response rate
is very close to a recent study by Ali et al. (2015), who reported 58%
response rate while investigating service quality of Pakistan Interna-
tional Airlines.
3.3. Analytical methods
Data was analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 24.0 and
SmartPLS version 3.2.7 (Ringle et al., 2017). Variance based PLS-SEM
approach was adopted, because it can handle both types of measure-
ment models (i.e. reflective and formative models) which are involved
in the proposed model of this study. However, CB-SEM/AMOS can ty-
pically handle only reflective models. In a similar recent study Farooq
et al. (2017) have also used PLS-SEM for validating UTAUT3 model (i.e.
extended version of unified theory of acceptance and use of tech-
nology). Moreover, this choice of PLS-SEM was made on the base of its
ability to estimate causal relationships among all latent constructs si-
multaneously, while dealing with measurement errors in the structural
model (Farooq, 2016; Hair et al., 2017). Furthermore, our study is
explanatory in nature; therefore, PLS-SEM is a best fit for this study
(Farooq and Radovic-Markovic, 2017b). Considering the guidelines
suggested by Hair et al. (2017) measurement models were evaluated
separately before the evaluation of structural model. Furthermore, in
order to ascertain the data quality and consistency of structural model,
several tests (e.g. common-method variance bias test, non-response bias
test and data screening for missing values etc.) were also performed
along with other validity and reliability checks, before performing PLS-
SEM analysis.
4. Data analysis
4.1. Common-method variance bias test
In order to determine the possible presence of common-method
variance bias among variables, this study employs Harman (1976) one-
factor test. Researchers observed the guidelines and approach of
Podsakoff et al. (2003) for conducting Harman (1976) one-factor test.
For this purpose, all items of measurement scale were entered into a
principal component analysis with varimax rotation, so that any signs
of single factor could be identified from factor analysis. The results
extracted six different factors from 33 items of measurement constructs
(i.e. Airline Tangibles; Terminal Tangibles; Personnel Services; Em-
pathy; Image and Customer Satisfaction) and rotation converged in 7
iterations. On the base of these results, it is determined that this study
do not have any problem of common-method variance bias.
M.S. Farooq et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 67 (2018) 169–180

4.2. Non-response bias test Table 2

Passengers’ demographic Attributes.
This study employs extrapolation method, for testing non-response
Attributes Distribution Frequency %
bias. Extrapolation method is most commonly used technique which
involves comparison of early and late respondents for possible differ- Gender Male 212 46%
ence in demographics and mean values of other key constructs Female 248 54%
Age Under 20 years 37 8%
(Armstrong and Overton, 1977). For this purpose, an independent
21-30 years 216 47%
sample t-test was performed for comparing the responses of first 50 and 31-40 years 129 28%
last 50 questionnaires. Findings of independent sample t-test revealed 41-50 years 46 10%
that there was no significant 0.05 level difference in the mean values of Above 50 years 32 7%
both groups (i.e. first 50 respondents vs last 50 respondents). Thus, on Ethnic Background Malaysian 147 32%
Indian 80 17%
the base of the findings of independent sample t-test, it was concluded
Chinese 137 30%
that there was no substantial difference in the responses of both groups; Others 96 21%
and hence, non-response bias is not a problem for this study. Education level School 28 6%
High school 110 24%
Bachelor's degree 166 36%
4.3. Data screening and pre-analysis
Master's degree 129 28%
Other 27 6%
As part of preparation for data analysis, a thorough screening pro- Purpose of Visit Vacations 248 54%
cess was conducted. Data was tested for any possible statistical error of Business 55 12%
normality, outliers, missing values and demographic characteristics. Education 78 17%
Visiting friends and family 69 15%
Although there were very few missing values, however missing values
Medical 10 2%
were handled using widely recommended approach of mean replace-
ment. This option is a built-in feature of SmartPLS, and replaces missing
data points with the mean values of all data points of the same indicator discriminant validity. This section is aimed to discuss the evaluation of
(Hair et al., 2017). One of the most sought after benefit of mean re- measurement models (outer models) starting with the assessment of
placement method is that; this approach does not alter our sample size reflective measurement models.
(unlike list-wise deletion and pair-wise deletion); and at the same time
mean values of all the variables remain unchanged (Hair et al., 2017; 4.5. Analysis of reflective measurement models
Radovic-Markovic et al., 2017).
Further, data analysis and discussion of research findings begins Considering the guidelines of Hair et al. (2017) and Henseler et al.
with the brief description of demographic attributes of respondents in (2009) constructs with reflective measurement models (i.e. Airline
terms of their age, gender and education level; moreover, nature of Tangibles; Terminal Tangibles; Personnel Services; Empathy and
their travel plan is also categorized by asking their purpose of visit. Out Image) were separately analysed. In order to evaluate the reflective
of total 460 respondents 46% were male, whereas 54% were female. measurement models, all constructs were assessed for their reliability
Majority of the respondents (almost 47%) were aged between 21 and 30 and validity. Results revealed that, all constructs have a fairly accep-
years. Ethnic background information revealed that, majority of re- table factor loading value, ranging between 0.70 and 0.90. Further all
spondents (nearly 32%) were Malaysians, followed by 30% Chinese and constructs were assessed for their composite reliability (CR) and
only 17% were from Indian ethnicity. Furthermore, 36% of the re- Cronbach's alpha values, which were higher than 0.70 critical level
spondents had a bachelor degree, 28% had a master's degree and 24% suggested by Cohen (1988). Average variance extracted (AVE) value of
had a high school certificate. Regarding the nature of their trip, 17% all constructs was also higher than the critical value of 0.50 suggested
respondents mentioned that they were traveling for educational pur- by Hair et al. (2017). Complete results of validity and reliability of all
pose and 54% were traveling for leisure and tourism purposes. constructs are presented in Table 3.
Complete details about the respondents' demographic attributes are Moreover, Fornell-Larcker criterion was used to assess the dis-
listed in Table 2. criminant validity, which is presented in Table 4. Bold values in Table 4
show the square-root of AVE, which is higher than the estimated cor-
4.4. Analysis of measurement model relation values, thus demonstrating the discriminant validity of con-
structs involved in the proposed measurement models (Farooq et al.,
Conceptual model of this study involves both types of measurement 2016; Hair et al., 2017). Overall, these results satisfy all requirements
models, i.e. formative measurement models as well as reflective mea- for establishing the validity and reliability of reflective measurement
surement models. Out of six total variables, one variable (i.e. Customer models.
Satisfaction) has a formative measurement model and five variables Moreover, HTMT ratio of correlations was also calculated, which is
(i.e. Airline Tangibles; Terminal Tangibles; Personnel Services; suggested by Henseler et al. (2015) as a modern tool for analysing
Empathy and Image) have reflective measurement models. Statistical discriminant validity of constructs involved in measurement models. As
evaluation criteria for reflective measurement models is different from a rule of thumb, an HTMT value greater than 0.85 indicates a potential
formative measurement models (Hair et al., 2017). In case of formative problem of discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2017). For this study, all
measurement models, concept of internal consistency is inappropriate
(Chin, 1998), because items of formative measurement scale are likely Table 3
to represent an independent cause and are not necessarily highly cor- Validity and reliability of latent constructs.
related with each other (Hair et al., 2017). Whereas items of reflective
Latent Constructs AVE Composite Cronbach's
measurement models need to be correlated, and they should depict
Reliability Alpha
significant outer loading values (Hair et al., 2017). For the purpose of
this study, both reflective and formative measurement models were Airline Tangibles (AT) 0.589 0.907 0.865
evaluated separately. Considering the guidelines of Hair et al. (2017) all Terminal Tangibles (TT) 0.647 0.941 0.883
Personnel Services (PS) 0.638 0.938 0.901
reflective measurement models were analysed for reliability and va-
Empathy (E) 0.687 0.942 0.851
lidity of constructs; whereas formative measurement model (i.e. Cus- Image (I) 0.63 0.843 0.799
tomer Satisfaction) was analysed for its convergent validity and

174
M.S. Farooq et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 67 (2018) 169–180

Table 4 are likely to represent an independent cause for underlying latent

Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion). construct, thus formative indicators do not have high correlation among
measurement scale items. Moreover, method of convergent validity
Latent Constructs 1 2 3 4 5
calculation is also different for formative measurement models (Chin,
Airline Tangibles (AT) 0.767 1998; Hair et al., 2017). As mentioned in the previous section, this
Terminal Tangibles (TT) 0.612 0.804 study involves one formative measurement model (i.e. Customer Sa-
Personnel Services (PS) 0.678 0.787 0.798
tisfaction). In order to establish convergent validity the magnitude of
Empathy (E) 0.679 0.655 0.629 0.828
Image (I) 0.620 0.423 0.420 0.614 0.793 path coefficient (correlation) between formative constructs i.e.
CSformative → CSreflective was assessed.
∗
Values in the bold are Square root of AVE. As a rule of thumb correlation value between Yformative → Yreflective
should be 0.80 or higher for determining convergent validity of for-
Table 5 mative constructs (Chin, 1998; Hair et al., 2017). Results demonstrate
Cross loadings among reflective measurement scale items. that path coefficient values between CSformative → CSreflective is higher
than the threshold of 0.80, which fulfils the criteria described by (Chin,
Items AT TT PS E I
1998). Thus, it is established that our formative measurement model
AT-1 0.791 0.120 0.310 0.373 0.184 (i.e. Customer Satisfaction) have a sufficient degree of convergent va-
AT-2 0.760 0.281 0.285 0.293 0.179 lidity. Further, outer weights (relative importance) of formative in-
AT-3 0.729 0.129 0.476 0.207 0.173 dicators were also assessed for establishing the relative importance of
AT-4 0.745 0.123 0.396 0.182 0.167
AT-5 0.841 0.117 0.167 0.373 0.423
indicators for their underlying latent construct. A complete list of outer
AT-6 0.771 0.373 0.199 0.293 0.343 weights of all items involved in the measurement of formative model of
TT-1 0.299 0.753 0.266 0.064 0.149 customer satisfaction is provided in Table 6.
TT-2 0.274 0.832 0.261 0.096 0.144 Considering the guidelines of (Hair et al., 2017; Henseler et al.,
TT-3 0.465 0.821 0.255 0.163 0.138
2016) these outer weight values were assessed for their significance
TT-4 0.385 0.800 0.249 0.158 0.132
TT-5 0.156 0.793 0.243 0.152 0.423 also. Findings depict that all indicators of formative measurement
TT-6 0.188 0.850 0.237 0.146 0.343 model have significant and positive outer weight values. It proves that
TT-7 0.255 0.826 0.232 0.140 0.114 all indicators of formative measurement model have also met the cri-
PS-1 0.250 0.232 0.760 0.134 0.109 teria for establishing their relevance and significance. On the base of
PS-2 0.244 0.226 0.745 0.099 0.423
PS-3 0.238 0.220 0.851 0.094 0.423
above discussion, suitability of formative constructs is established and
PS-4 0.232 0.476 0.809 0.088 0.343 overall assessment of reflective and formative measurement models
PS-5 0.226 0.396 0.839 0.082 0.114 demonstrates acceptable results to proceed with the evaluation of
PS-6 0.221 0.202 0.770 0.373 0.146 structural model. Hereafter discussion continues with the assessment of
PS-7 0.215 0.197 0.859 0.343 0.213
structural model (inner model) in the next section.
E-1 0.209 0.191 0.189 0.775 0.208
E-2 0.465 0.185 0.221 0.762 0.202
E-3 0.385 0.476 0.288 0.891 0.196
E-4 0.191 0.396 0.283 0.844 0.190 4.7. Analysis of structural model
E-5 0.186 0.167 0.277 0.901 0.142
E-6 0.180 0.162 0.271 0.835 0.257
I-1 0.174 0.476 0.265 0.418 0.739
Structural model was assessed for overall explanatory power of
I-2 0.465 0.396 0.259 0.224 0.799 constructs through R2 value, predictive relevance through Q2 value and
I-3 0.385 0.217 0.254 0.219 0.859 path coefficient β-values. Findings of structural model are presented in
Fig. 2.
Note: Bold values are loadings for items, which are above the recommended value of 0.5. These results indicate that proposed model have 52.1% of ex-
planatory power for customer satisfaction with R2 = 0.521. Moreover,
HTMT values were well below the threshold level of 0.85, which in- it is found that relationship between airline tangibles and customer
dicates that there is no issue of discriminant validity. Another test for satisfaction (β = 0.548; t-value = 4.842; p = .000) is positive and sig-
discriminant validity of reflective measurement models was performed nificant, providing support for H1. Similarly, H2 which is relationship
by evaluating all cross-loading values of reflective constructs’ in- between terminal tangibles and customer satisfaction (β = 0.442; t-
dicators. As a rule of thumb, indicators of reflective measurement value = 3.251; p = .000) is also supported. Likewise, proposed relation
models should have highest loading on their own underlying latent between personnel services and customer satisfaction (β = 0.606; t-
construct, as compared to other constructs involved in the structural value = 5.754; p = .000) is also significant, thus H3 is supported.
model (Farooq et al., 2017; Hair et al., 2017). Complete list of cross- Further, a strong relationship of (β = 0.485; t-value = 3.788; p = .000)
loading values of all indicators involved in the constructs of reflective between empathy and customer satisfaction provides support for H4.
measurement models is presented in Table 5. Lastly, findings of SEM analysis support H5 indicating a strong and
As per the findings presented in Table 5 all indicators (measurement positive direct relationship (β = 0.626; t-value = 5.891; p = .000) be-
scale items) of reflective measurement models have a higher loading on tween image and customer satisfaction. A summarized overview of
their respective underlying latent construct, as compared to loading on these findings is presented in Table 7.
any other construct involved in the model. Hence, these findings meet
the cross loadings evaluation criteria and provide a satisfactory evi- Table 6
dence for discriminant validity of the reflective measurement models. Outer weights of items involved in formative constructs.
Now, discussion continues with the assessment of formative measure-
ment model (i.e. Customer Satisfaction) involved in this study. Outer Weights T Statistics P Values
(|O/STDEV|)

4.6. Analysis of formative measurement models CS_01 - > CS 0.4355 ** 7.9126 .0000
CS _02 - > CS 0.2620 ** 4.5213 .0000
CS _03 - > CS 0.3276 ** 3.4251 .0004
Evaluation process of formative constructs is different from re- CS _04 - > CS 0.2811 ** 3.1092 .0020
flective constructs (Chin, 2010; Hair et al., 2017; Henseler et al., 2009).
The logic behind this notion is that, all formative measurement models Note: *P < .05, **P < .01, CS = Customer Satisfaction.

175
M.S. Farooq et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 67 (2018) 169–180

model. As a rule of thumb, if a Q2 value is larger than zero, it suggests

Airline
that latent exogenous constructs involved in the structural model pos-
Tangibles
sess predictive relevance for latent endogenous constructs (Chin, 2010;
0.548* Hair et al., 2017). The Q2 value of our model is 0.386; which supports
the underlying assumption of this study, that the endogenous construct
Terminal (i.e. Customer Satisfaction) involved in this study have strong pre-
Tangibles dictive relevance. Moreover, every construct was assessed for possible
0.442*
R2 = 0.521 collinearity issue. Findings revealed that collinearity is not an issue for
our study. Hence, overall predictive relevance for our proposed struc-
Personnel Customer tural model is achieved. Now discussion continues with the analysis of
Services 0.606* Satisfaction importance-performance map analysis (IPMA); followed by assessment
of Goodness of Fit (GoF) value in next section.
0.485*
Empathy 4.8. Importance-performance map analysis (IPMA)
0.626*
Importance-performance map analysis (IPMA; also known as im-
Airline portance performance matrix analysis or priority map analysis) is a very
Image useful analytical tool in PLS-SEM; which graphically extends the stan-
dard path coefficient estimates in a more practical approach (Ringle
and Sarstedt, 2016). More precisely, IPMA presents a contrast of im-
portance (i.e. total effect of predecessor constructs in predicting a target
* p<0.01 construct) and performance (i.e. average latent variable scores). Ac-
Fig. 2. Findings of structural model.
cording to Ringle and Sarstedt (2016) goal of IPMA is to identify pre-
decessors which have a relatively low performance but high importance
for the target constructs. A one-unit point increase in the performance
Table 7 of predecessor construct, will increase the performance of target con-
Hypothesis assessment.
struct, by the total effect size (i.e. importance) of the same predecessor
Hypothesised Path β-value t-value p-value Decision construct (Ringle and Sarstedt, 2016; Schloderer et al., 2014).
In our case, Customer Satisfaction is a target construct, which is
H1 Airline tangibles → Customer 0.548 4.842 .000 Supported predicted by five predecessors (i.e. Airline Tangibles; Terminal
satisfaction
H2 Terminal tangibles → Customer 0.442 3.251 .000 Supported
Tangibles; Personnel Services; Empathy and Image); refer to Fig. 1. We
satisfaction have performed IPMA for this study and result is presented in Fig. 3.
H3 Personnel Services → Customer 0.606 5.754 .000 Supported Looking at the lower right area of the importance performance map;
satisfaction it is depicted that “image” have highest importance score i.e. 0.626; if
H4 Empathy → Customer satisfaction 0.485 3.788 .000 Supported
Malaysia Airlines increases its image performance by one unit point; its’
H5 Image → Customer satisfaction 0.626 5.891 .000 Supported
overall customer satisfaction will increase by 0.626 (ceteris paribus).
Moreover, our findings have revealed that Malaysia Airlines have
As depicted in Fig. 2 R2 value of our structural model is 0.521; lowest performance on Airline Tangibles and Terminal Tangibles i.e.
which indicates that proposed conceptual model have adequate ex- 58.256 and 51.857 respectively; which means that there is a great room
planatory significance. Here caution must be taken, because supporting for improvement in these areas. For the ease of readers, a complete list
a model only on the base of R2 value is not a good approach (Hair et al., of importance-performance values is provided in Table 8.
2017; Radovic-Markovic et al., 2017). Therefore, Stone-Geisser’s (1974)
Q2 test was used for assessing the predictive relevance of structural

Fig. 3. Importance-performance map analysis for customer satisfaction.

176
M.S. Farooq et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 67 (2018) 169–180

Table 8
Importance-performance map analysis for customer satisfaction.
Latent Variables Importance
Airline Tangibles 0.548
Terminal Tangibles 0.442
Personnel Services 0.606
Empathy 0.485
Image 0.626
Note: All total effects (importance) larger than 0.10 are significant at the α ≤ 0.10 level.
The bold values indicate the highest importance (total effect) and highest performance
value.
4.9. Goodness of Fit (GoF)
Although, PLS-SEM do not generate overall Goodness of Fit (GoF)
indices, and R2 value is considered as the primary way to evaluate the
explanatory power of the model (Henseler et al., 2016). However a
diagnostic tool, presented by Tenenhaus et al. (2005) as the Goodness
of Fit (GoF) index for PLS-SEM was used to assess the model fit. This
Goodness of Fit (GoF) is measured by using the geometric mean value of
the average communality score (AVE values) and the average R2 values
(for endogenous constructs) and is calculated using following equation,
(GoF = √(AVE × R2)). Although Tenenhaus et al. (2005) have not re-
ported any cut off values for this aforementioned Goodness of Fit (GoF)
index; but Wetzels et al. (2009) reported following cut off values for
assessing the results of the GoF analysis: GoFsmall = 0.1;
GoFmedium = 0.25; GoFlarge = 0.36. According to Henseler et al. (2016)
a good model fit indicates that a model is parsimonious and plausible.
Considering the guidelines of Tenenhaus et al. (2005) and Henseler
et al. (2016) we have calculated the Goodness of Fit (GoF) index for the
model involved in this study, which is presented in Table 9. As depicted
in the said table, conceptual model used in this study yielded a Good-
ness of Fit (GoF) index value of 0.572, which indicates a very good
(GoFlarge) model fit.
On the base of comprehensive analysis of measurement models and
structural model, it is concluded that both models (i.e. measurement
model and structural model) are validated. Moreover, these results
demonstrate that proposed theoretical model of this study have sig-
nificant predictive relevance and explanatory power.
which was developed by Ekiz et al. (2006) for investigating its impact
on overall customer satisfaction. Findings of this study revealed that, all
proposed hypotheses are strongly supported and customer satisfaction
Performance
of Malaysia Airlines is influenced by all dimensions of AIRQUAL i.e.
58.256 airline tangible, terminal tangible, personnel services, empathy and
51.857 brand image. This study contributes to service quality literature by
85.021
providing a first hand and cross-country validation of AIRQUAL scale in
62.324
74.902 the passengers of Malaysia Airlines.
Findings of this study have shown that better quality of aircrafts and
terminal tangibles leads to enhanced customer satisfaction in airline
industry. These findings are in line with the previous studies in this
field. For example, Ali et al. (2015) and Nadiri et al. (2008) also ob-
served that quality of terminal tangibility have a high influence on
passengers’ satisfaction. However, it is pertinent to mention that, their
findings reported that empathy have a higher predicting power as
compared to quality of terminal tangibles. Whereas findings of our
study show that as compared to empathy, quality of terminal tangibles
have a high influence on customer satisfaction. A similar study by Saha
and Theingi (2009) reported that quality of airline tangibles not only
stimulate customer satisfaction but also foster the goodwill of organi-
zation by positive word-of-mouth.
This study has also provided evidence for the fact that batter quality
of personnel services will significantly improve customer satisfaction
level. These findings endorse the results of previous studies, such as Ali
et al. (2015) who observed that the attitude of ground staff and flight
attendants have a significant impact on passengers' satisfaction in Pa-
kistan International Airlines. Similarly, Saha and Theingi (2009) also
noted the importance of personnel services for enhancing customer
satisfaction in airline industry. Consistent with the various other studies
(e.g. Cunningham et al., 2004; Humphrey, 2013; Prayag, 2007;
Radovic-Markovic et al., 2017) this study also provides evidence for the
significant influence of empathy on overall customer satisfaction. For
instance, Nadiri et al. (2008) stated that personal empathy positively
contributes to airline service quality for Cyprus National Airline. Ad-
ditionally, this study found a significant relationship between airlines’
image and its customer satisfaction. Although this result is contrary to
the findings of Tsaur et al. (2002), however it is in line with the findings
of Ali et al. (2015) who explored the role of brand image on airline
customer satisfaction.
5.1. Implications

5. Discussion This study has a number of practical implications for Malaysia

Airlines, its policy makers and practitioners. Findings of this study
Service quality is one of the critical success factors in today's service suggest that Malaysia Airlines should focus on a strategy of service
industry, especially when it is considered as one of the distinguishing differentiation for improving their customers' satisfaction. Considering
factors (Ekiz et al., 2006; Farooq et al., 2009). This argument holds true the rapid growth of tourism activities and air traffic to Malaysia, find-
in the recent competitive and challenging nature of airlines industry ings of this study will be useful for policy makers and practitioners for
(Farooq et al., 2016; Gudmundsson and Rhoades, 2001; Srinidhi and better understanding of important dimensions of airline service quality.
Manrai, 2013). Intense competition among budget airlines have forced Company should recruit and train their human resource to provide
them to improve service quality in order to retain and satisfy their better and personalized services with higher empathy, which is found to
customers (Truitt and Haynes, 1994). This study aimed to evaluate the be of greater importance to airline passengers. Customers expect to
service quality of Malaysia Airlines by employing the AIRQUAL scale, have a personal warmth, customized touch and sense of pride in service
delivery. As mentioned in the findings of our importance-performance
Table 9 map analysis, Malaysia Airlines have lowest performance on Airline
Calculation of Goodness of Fit (GoF) index.
Tangibles and Terminal Tangibles. Therefore, company should focus on
Constructs AVE R2 improving the quality of tangible cues by renovating their aircrafts’
exterior and interior appearance along with terminal appearance.
Airline Tangibles 0.589 Additionally, we recommend that Malaysia Airlines should ensure the
Terminal Tangibles 0.647
Personnel Services 0.638
efficiency of catering service, cargo handling and technical main-
Empathy 0.687 tenance of aircrafts in order to build its image as a reliable and safe
Image 0.630 airline.
Customer Satisfaction 0.587 0.521
Average Scores 0.630 0.521
5.2. Limitations and future research directions
AVE * R2 0.328
GoF = √(AVE × R2) 0.572
Although findings of this study shed light on several important

177
M.S. Farooq et al.
issues, yet some limitations need to be considered. This study employed
only five dimensions of AIRQUAL scale i.e. airline tangibles; terminal
tangibles; personnel services; empathy and image; therefore other in-
dicators which are not a part of AIRQUAL scale e.g. safety matters,
technology acceptance and re-purchase intention were not included in
the conceptual model of this study. Future researchers can explore these
dimensions using latest technology acceptance models e.g. UTAUT3
model (i.e. extended version of unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology) in airline industry. Due to limited resources and time
constraints, this study employed convenience sampling method; how-
ever, future studies can overcome this limitation by using any other
sampling technique. Secondly, sample size for this study was relatively
small as compared to the target population of airline industry. Further
studies from other airline companies are also required to explore more
dimensions of airline service quality by making comparative analysis of
different cultures.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
Aagja, J.P., Garg, R., 2010. Measuring perceived service quality for public hospitals
(PubHosQual) in the indian context. Int. J. Pharmaceut. Healthc. Market. 4, 60–83.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17506121011036033.
Abdullah, F., Suhaimi, R., Saban, G., Hamali, J., 2011. Bank service quality (BSQ) index:
an indicator of service performance. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 28, 542–555.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711111132571.
Akter, S., D'Ambra, J., Ray, P., 2013. Development and validation of an instrument to
measure user perceived service quality of m-health. Inf. Manag. 50, 181–195. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.03.001.
Al-alak, B.A., 2014. Impact of marketing activities on relationship quality in the malay-
sian banking sector. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 21, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jretconser.2013.07.001.
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. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 32, 486–502. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJQRM-07-2013-0110.
An, M., Noh, Y., 2009. Airline customer satisfaction and loyalty: impact of in-flight ser-
vice quality. Serv. Bus 3, 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-009-0068-4.
Andreassen, T.W., Lindestad, B., 1998. Customer loyalty and complex services: the impact
of corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with
varying degrees of service expertise. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 9, 7–23. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09564239810199923.
Archana, R., Subha, M.V., 2012. A study on service quality and passenger satisfaction on
indian airlines. Indian J. Multidiscip. Res. 2, 50–63.
Ariffin, A.A.M., Yahaya, M.F., 2013. The relationship between airport image, national
identity and passengers delight: a case study of the malaysian low cost carrier
terminal (LCCT). J. Air Transp. Manag., Notes 31, 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jairtraman.2013.02.005.
Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mar.
Res. 14, 396–402. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150783.
Aydin, O., Pakdil, F., 2008. Fuzzy SERVQUAL analysis in airline services. Organizacija 41,
108–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10051-008-0012-8.
Babbar, S., Koufteros, X., 2008. The human element in airline service quality: contact
personnel and the customer. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 28, 804–830. https://doi.org/
10.1108/01443570810895267.
Bansal, H.S., McDougall, G.H.G., Dikolli, S.S., Sedatole, K.L., 2004. Relating e-satisfaction
to behavioral outcomes: an empirical study. J. Serv. Market. 18, 290–302. https://
doi.org/10.1108/08876040410542281.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., Thompson, R., 1995. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to
causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration (with com-
mentaries). Technol. Stud. 2, 285–324.
Berezina, K., Cobanoglu, C., Miller, B.L., Kwansa, F.A., 2012. The impact of information
security breach on hotel guest perception of service quality, satisfaction, revisit in-
tentions and word-of-mouth. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 24, 991–1010. https://
doi.org/10.1108/09596111211258883.
Bitner, M.J., 1990. Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses. J. Market. 54, 69–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251871.
Boetsch, T., Bieger, T., Wittmer, A., 2011. A customer-value framework for analyzing
airline services. Transport. J. 50, 251–270. https://doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.
50.3.0251.
Bolton, R.N., Drew, J.H., 1991. A multistage model of customers' assessments of service
quality and value. J. Consum. Res. 17, 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1086/208564.
Butt, M.M., Run, E.C. de, 2010. Private healthcare quality: applying a SERVQUAL model.
Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur. 23, 658–673. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09526861011071580.
Buttle, F., 1996. SERVQUAL: review, critique. Research Agenda. Eur. J. Mark 30, 8–32.
178
Journal of Air Transport Management 67 (2018) 169–180
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569610105762.
Chang, Y.-H., Yeh, C.-H., 2002. A survey analysis of service quality for domestic airlines.
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 139, 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00148-5.
Chen, R.-F., Hsiao, J.-L., Hwang, H.-G., 2012. Measuring customer satisfaction of internet
banking in taiwan: scale development and validation. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel.
23, 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2012.704284.
Chin, W.W., 2010. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin,
W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts,
Methods and Applications in Marketing and Related Fields, Springer Handbooks of
Computational Statistics Series. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 655–690.
Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In:
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295–358.
Clarke, K., 2004. Case study: implementing a revenue management system at Malaysia
airlines. J. Revenue Pricing Manag. 3, 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rpm.
5170092.
Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, second ed.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Cristobal, E., Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M., 2007. Perceived e-service quality (PeSQ): mea-
surement validation and effects on consumer satisfaction and web site loyalty.
Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 17, 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09604520710744326.
Cronin, J.J., Taylor, S.A., 1994. SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-
based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. J. Market.
58, 125–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252256.
Cronin, J.J., Taylor, S.A., 1992. Measuring service quality: a reexamination and exten-
sion. J. Market. 56, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252296.
Cunningham, L.F., Young, C.E., Lee, M., 2004. Perceptions of airline service quality pre
and post 9/11. Publ. Works Manag. Pol. 9, 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1087724X04265135.
Ekiz, H.E., Hussain, K., Bavik, A., 2006. Perceptions of service quality in North Cyprus
national airline”, tourism and hospitality industry 2006-new trends in tourism and
hospitality management. In: 18th Biennial International Conference. Faculty of
Tourism and Hospitality Management, Opatija, pp. 778–790.
Farooq, M.S., 2016. Social Support and Entrepreneurial Skills as Antecedents of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour. PhD Thesis. Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS),
Malaysia.
Farooq, M.S., Aslam, H.A., Khan, R.A., Gillani, F., 2009. Process definition clarity af-
fecting quality of healthcare services in public sector hospitals. In: The Second
Canadian Quality Congress. Canada.
Farooq, M.S., Jaafar, N., Ayupp, K., Salam, M., Mughal, Y.H., Azam, F., Sajid, A., 2016.
Impact of entrepreneurial skills and family occupation on entrepreneurial intentions.
Sci. Int.-Lahore 28, 3145–3148.
Farooq, M.S., Radovic-Markovic, M., 2017a. Entrepreneurial perspective of homestay
operators: a qualitative study from emerging tourism industry. In: Fostering
Entrepreneurship. Presented at the Sixth International Conference “Employment,
Education and Entrepreneurship” (EEE 2017). Compass Publishing, St Pauls Road,
Newton Abbot, United Kingdom, Belgrade, Serbia, pp. 55–69.
Farooq, M.S., Radovic-Markovic, M., 2017b. Impact of business simulation games on
entrepreneurial intentions of business graduates: a PLS-SEM approach. In:
Organisational Behavior and Types of Leadership Styles and Strategies in Terms of
Globalization. Presented at the Sixth International Conference “Employment,
Education and Entrepreneurship” (EEE 2017). Compass Publishing, St Pauls Road,
Newton Abbot, United Kingdom, Belgrade, Serbia, pp. 11–24.
Farooq, M.S., Radovic-Markovic, M., 2016. Modeling entrepreneurial education and en-
trepreneurial skills as antecedents of intention towards entrepreneurial behaviour in
single mothers: a PLS-SEM approach. In: Entrepreneurship: Types, Current Trends
and Future Perspectives. Presented at the Fifth International Conference
“Employment, Education and Entrepreneurship” (EEE 2016), Faculty of Business
Economics and Entrepreneurship. University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia, pp.
198–216.
Farooq, M.S., Sajid, A., Khan, R., Rafique, U., 2010. Relationship of motivation and the
performance of employees. Rep. Opin. 2, 75–76. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.
35373.
Farooq, M.S., Salam, M., Jaafar, N., Fayolle, A., Ayupp, K., Radovic-Markovic, M., Sajid,
A., 2017. Acceptance and use of lecture capture system (LCS) in executive business
studies: extending UTAUT2. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 14, 329–348. https://doi.
org/10.1108/ITSE-06-2016-0015.
Forgas, S., Palau, R., Sánchez, J., Huertas-García, R., 2012. Online drivers and offline
influences related to loyalty to airline websites. J. Air Transport. Manag. 18, 43–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2011.08.003.
Gilbert, D., Wong, R.K.C., 2003. Passenger expectations and airline services: a Hong Kong
based study. Tourism Manag. 24, 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-
5177(03)00002-5.
Gourdin, K., 1988. Bringing quality back to commercial air-travel. Transport. J. 27,
23–29.
Gudmundsson, S.V., 1998. New-entrant airlines' life-cycle analysis: growth, decline and
collapse. J. Air Transport. Manag. 4, 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-
6997(98)00013-1.
Gudmundsson, S.V., de Boer, E.R., Lechner, C., 2002. Integrating frequent flyer programs
in multilateral airline alliances. J. Air Transport. Manag 8, 409–417. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0969-6997(02)00043-1.
Gudmundsson, S.V., Lechner, C., 2006. Multilateral airline alliances: balancing strategic
constraints and opportunities. Air Transport Research Society Conference, Rio de
Janeiro, July 2005. J. Air Transport. Manag. 12, 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jairtraman.2005.11.007.
M.S. Farooq et al.
Gudmundsson, S.V., Rhoades, D.L., 2001. Airline alliance survival analysis: typology,
strategy and duration. Transport Pol. 8, 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-
070X(01)00016-6.
Gustafsson, A., Ekdahl, F., Edvardsson, B., 1999. Customer focused service development
in practice - a case study at scandinavian airlines system (SAS). Int. J. Serv. Ind.
Manag. 10, 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564239910282299.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2017. A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), second ed. Sage Publications Limited Inc,
London, Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Han, H., Ryu, K., 2012. Key factors driving customers' word-of-mouth intentions in full-
service restaurants: the moderating role of switching costs. Cornell Hosp. Q. 53,
96–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965511433599.
Han, X., Kwortnik, R.J., Wang, C., 2008. Service loyalty an integrative model and ex-
amination across service contexts. J. Serv. Res. 11, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670508319094.
Hankins, C.A., 2016. Global challenges keynote address in memoriam to colleagues lost in
the Malaysia airlines 17 crash. AIDS Care 28, 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09540121.2016.1146220.
Harman, H.H., 1976. Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., Ray, P.A., 2016. Using PLS path modeling in new technology
research: updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116, 2–20. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C., Sinkovics, R.R., 2009. The use of partial least squares path
modeling in international marketing. New Chall. Int. Mark. Adv. Int. Mark 20,
277–319.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43,
115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
Humphrey, R.H., 2013. The benefits of emotional intelligence and empathy to en-
trepreneurship. Enterpren. Res. J. 3, 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2013-
0057.
Izogo, E.E., Ogba, I.-E., 2015. Service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty in auto-
mobile repair services sector. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 32, 250–269. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJQRM-05-2013-0075.
Jun, M., Yang, Z., Kim, D., 2004. Customers' perceptions of online retailing service quality
and their satisfaction. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 21, 817–840. https://doi.org/10.
1108/02656710410551728.
Kos Koklic, M., Kukar-Kinney, M., Vegelj, S., 2017. An investigation of customer sa-
tisfaction with low-cost and full-service airline companies. J. Bus. Res. 80, 188–196.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.015.
Kotler, P., Caslione, J.A., 2009. How marketers can respond to recession and turbulence.
J. Cust. Behav. 8, 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1362/147539209X459804.
Kozak, N., Karatepe, O.M., Avci, T., 2003. Measuring the quality of airline services:
evidence from northern Cyprus. Tourism Anal. 8, 75–87. https://doi.org/10.3727/
108354203108750184.
Lee-Ross, D., 2008. An exploratory study of the contextual stability of SERVQUAL
amongst three retail clusters in far North queensland. J. Place Manag. Dev. 1, 46–61.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17538330810865336.
LeHardy, P.K., Moore, C., 2014. Deep ocean search for Malaysia airlines flight 370. In:
2014 Oceans - St. John's. Presented at the 2014 Oceans - St. John's, pp. 1–4. https://
doi.org/10.1109/OCEANS.2014.7003292.
Leong, L.-Y., Hew, T.-S., Lee, V.-H., Ooi, K.-B., 2015. An SEM–artificial-neural-network
analysis of the relationships between SERVPERF, customer satisfaction and loyalty
among low-cost and full-service airline. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 6620–6634. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.04.043.
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. J. Air
Transport. Manag. 60, 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.01.006.
Liou, J.J.H., Tzeng, G.-H., 2007. A non-additive model for evaluating airline service
quality. J. Air Transport. Manag. 13, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.
2006.12.002.
McDougall, G.H.G., Levesque, T., 2000. Customer satisfaction with services: putting
perceived value into the equation. J. Serv. Market. 14, 392–410. https://doi.org/10.
1108/08876040010340937.
Nadiri, H., Hussain, K., Ekiz, E.H., Erdoğan, Ş., 2008. An investigation on the factors
influencing passengers' loyalty in the North Cyprus national airline. TQM J 20,
265–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542730810867272.
Namukasa, J., 2013. The influence of airline service quality on passenger satisfaction and
loyalty: the case of Uganda airline industry. TEM J. 25, 520–532. https://doi.org/10.
1108/TQM-11-2012-0092.
O'Connell, J.F., Williams, G., 2005. Passengers' perceptions of low cost airlines and full
service carriers: a case study involving ryanair, aer lingus, air Asia and Malaysia
airlines. J. Air Transport. Manag. 11, 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.
2005.01.007.
Oliver, R.L., 1997. Satisfaction: a Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. Irwin-
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ong, W.L., Tan, A.K.G., 2010. A note on the determinants of airline choice: the case of air
Asia and Malaysia airlines. J. Air Transport. Manag. 16, 209–212. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jairtraman.2009.06.001.
Ostrowski, P.L., O'Brien, T.V., Gordon, G.L., 1993. Service quality and customer loyalty in
the commercial airline industry. J. Market. 22, 16–24.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., 1988. SERVQUAL - a multiple item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail 64, 12–40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1994. Alternative scales for measuring
service quality: a comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic
criteria. J. Retail 70, 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4359(94)90033-7.
179
Journal of Air Transport Management 67 (2018) 169–180
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research. J. Market. 49, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.
2307/1251430.
Park, J.-W., 2007. Passenger perceptions of service quality: Korean and australian case
studies. J. Air Transport. Manag. 13, 238–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.
2007.04.002.
Park, J.W., Robertson, R., Wu, C.-L., 2005. Investigating the effects of service quality on
airline image and behavioural intentions: findings from australian international air
passengers. J. Tourism Stud. 16, 2–11.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.
879.
Prayag, G., 2007. Assessing international tourists' perceptions of service quality at air
Mauritius. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 24, 492–514. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02656710710748367.
Qin, H., Prybutok, V.R., Zhao, Q., 2010. Perceived service quality in fast-food restaurants:
empirical evidence from China. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 27, 424–437. https://doi.
org/10.1108/02656711011035129.
Radovic-Markovic, M., Farooq, M.S., Markovic, D., 2017. Strengthening the resilience of
small and medium-sized enterprises. In: Management, Enterprise and Benchmarking
in the 21st Century IV. Presented at the Management, Enterprise and Benchmarking
in the 21st Century. Óbuda University, Budapest, pp. 345–356.
Ringle, C., Wende, S., Becker, J.-M., 2017. SmartPLS-3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt.
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2016. Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: the im-
portance-performance map analysis. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116, 1865–1886. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2015-0449.
Robledo, M.A., 2001. Measuring and managing service quality: integrating customer
expectations. Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 11, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09604520110379472.
Saha, G.C., Theingi, 2009. Service quality, satisfaction, and behavioural intentions: a
study of low-cost airline carriers in Thailand. Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 19, 350–372.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520910955348.
Samen, A.A.A., Akroush, M.N., Abu-Lail, B.N., 2013. Mobile SERVQUAL: a comparative
analysis of customers' and managers' perceptions. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 30,
403–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711311308394.
Sandada, M., Matibiri, B., 2016. An investigation into the impact of service quality, fre-
quent flier programs and safety perception on satisfaction and customer loyalty in the
airline industry in southern africa. S. East Eur. J. Econ. Bus. 11, 41–53. https://doi.
org/10.1515/jeb-2016-0006.
Schloderer, M.P., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., 2014. The relevance of reputation in the
nonprofit sector: the moderating effect of socio-demographic characteristics. Int. J.
Nonprofit Voluntary Sect. Mark. 19, 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1491.
Seth, N., Deshmukh, S.G., Vrat, P., 2005. Service quality models: a review. Int. J. Qual.
Reliab. Manag. 22, 913–949. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710510625211.
Shabbir, A., Malik, S.A., Malik, S.A., 2016. Measuring patients' healthcare service quality
perceptions, satisfaction, and loyalty in public and private sector hospitals in
Pakistan. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 33, 538–557. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-
06-2014-0074.
Shaw, S., 2007. Airline Marketing and Management, sixth ed. Ashgate Publishing,
Hampshire.
Shin, D., Elliott, K.M., 2001. Measuring customers' overall satisfaction. Serv. Market. Q.
22, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1300/J396v22n01_02.
Smith, W.H.F., Marks, K.M., 2014. Seafloor in the Malaysia airlines flight MH370 search
area. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 95, 173–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2014EO210001.
Srinidhi, S., Manrai, A.K., 2013. A conceptual model for demand forecasting and service
positioning in the airline industry. J. Model. Manag. 8, 123–139. https://doi.org/10.
1108/17465661311312012.
Stone, M., 1974. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. Roy.
Stat. Soc. 36, 111–147.
Suki, N.M., 2014. Passenger satisfaction with airline service quality in Malaysia: a
structural equation modeling approach. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag., The Marketing of
Transportation Services 10, 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2014.04.001.
Teichert, T., Shehu, E., von Wartburg, I., 2008. Customer segmentation revisited: the case
of the airline industry. Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract 42, 227–242. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tra.2007.08.003.
Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.-M., Lauro, C., 2005. PLS path modeling.
Comput. Stat. Data Anal., Partial Least Squares 48, 159–205. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.csda.2004.03.005.
Tiernan, S., Rhoades, D.L., Waguespack, B., 2008. Airline service quality: exploratory
analysis of consumer perceptions and operational performance in the USA and EU.
Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 18, 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09604520810871847.
Truitt, L., Haynes, R., 1994. Evaluating service quality and productivity in the regional
airline industry. Transport. J. 33, 21–32.
Tsaur, S.-H., Chang, T.-Y., Yen, C.-H., 2002. The evaluation of airline service quality by
fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Manag. 23, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-
5177(01)00050-4.
Tsoukatos, E., Mastrojianni, E., 2010. Key determinants of service quality in retail
banking. EuroMed J. Bus. 5, 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/14502191011043170.
Westbrook, R.A., Oliver, R.L., 1991. The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns
and consumer satisfaction. J. Consum. Res. 18, 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1086/
209243.
Westland, J.C., 2010. Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling.
Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 9, 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.
M.S. Farooq et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 67 (2018) 169–180

003.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Van Oppen, C., 2009. Using PLS path modeling for
assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Q.
33, 177–195.
Wu, H.-C., Cheng, C.-C., 2013. A hierarchical model of service quality in the airline in-
dustry. J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 20, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2013.
05.001.
Wu, H.-C., Ko, Y.J., 2013. Assessment of service quality in the hotel industry. J. Qual.
Assur. Hospit. Tourism 14, 218–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2013.
802557.
Zaid, A.M., 1995. Measuring and monitoring service quality at Malaysia airlines. Manag.
Serv. Qual. Int. J. 5, 25–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604529510083558.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral consequences of ser-
vice quality. J. Market. 60, 31–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251929.

180