júri presidente: luis guilherme picado santos
DESCRIPTION
EXPLORING THE PROSPECT OF OPERATING LOW COST AND LEGACY CARRIERS FROM THE SAME MAIN AIRPORT TERMINAL – A service quality perspective Master Thesis – nikhil menon ( ctis ). Júri Presidente: Luis Guilherme Picado Santos Orientador: Maria do Rosário Mauricio Ribeiro Macário - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
EXPLORING THE PROSPECT OF OPERATING LOW COST AND LEGACY
CARRIERS FROM THE SAME MAIN AIRPORT TERMINAL – A SERVICE
QUALITY PERSPECTIVE
MASTER THESIS – NIKHIL MENON (CTIS)
JúriPresidente: Luis Guilherme Picado Santos
Orientador: Maria do Rosário Mauricio Ribeiro Macário
Vogal: Vasco Domingos Moreira Lopes Miranda dos Reis
INTRODUCTORY NOTE AND OBJECTIVES Boom in the aviation industry –> deregulation in
the 70s –> LCC revolution (Southwest followed by Ryanair & easyJet)
LCCs –> business model thriving on cost advantage –> operations from smaller airports (time and cost advantage) –> time and cost advantage (customer and producer) with obvious impact on service quality.
Objective: to explore the prospect of operating low cost carriers and the legacy carriers out of the same main airport terminal, from a service quality point of view.
DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY Passenger questionnaire survey: service attributes selected
for the study focussing on the aspect of defining service quality in airport terminals (extensive litt review)
Target group of the survey – all passengers who use air as a mode of transportation with special reference to low cost airline customers.
Task: The target group’s opinions on the service attributes to be entered in two broad parameters – Importance & Performance.
Range of scale: multi – point likert scale (1-4) Importance: Least Important (1) to Most Important (4) Performance: Bad Performance (1) to High Performance (4)
DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY 2 methodologies applied for
the dissertation Importance Performance
Analysis (IPA) The 4 Q’s method
IPA – Martilla & James (1977) – used to measure customer satisfaction levels in a variety of segments. Dissertation Perspective –
assessing customer’s perception of the contribution of each service quality attribute in defining quality in an airport terminal.
Results Interpretation – represented on three approaches to get the maximum coverage into the results obtained – Scale Centered, Data Centered and Median Centered.
DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY
The 4 Q’s method - QUATTRO team (EC, OGM, 1998a, p99) – development of a European standard configuring of quality factors in an urban mobility system. Dissertation Perspective –
to develop a service quality level matrix for addressing the aspect of quality in airport terminals.
Methodology Assessing customer
perceptions of quality in an airport terminal (IPA)
Assessing quality gaps (satisfaction gap scores) that exist from customers’ perspective ( The 4 Q’s method)
Service Quality Level Matrix – matrix of all possible scenarios.
Synergy – Conflict Analysis
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS Importance Performance
Analysis (IPA) Analyzing the importance and
performance of each service attribute by means of the mean scores obtained on them through the questionnaire survey – 154 respondents – sample adequate.
Gives a clear picture on the customer perception on service quality in an airport terminal.
Most Imp – Availability of transport modes for commute from the terminal.
Least Imp – Accessibility to retail and concessions.
Highest Performing – Thermal Comfort and Visual Impact
Lowest Performing – Level of Congestion.
Importance Performance
1 3,33 2,83
2 3,27 2,79
3 3,06 2,47
4 2,84 2,79
5 2,81 2,60
6 2,79 2,90
7 2,78 2,99
8 2,78 2,80
9 2,59 2,99
10 2,53 2,57
11 2,42 2,86
12 2,23 2,84
Thermal Comfort (Temperature control)
Seat Availability inside the terminal
Visual impact of the terminal (cleanliness and design)
Availability of choices in food or retail
Availability of trolleys
Accessibility to retail and concessions
Availability of transport modes for commute from the terminal
Time taken to do check - in
Level of congestion (crowding)
Number of working check - in counters
Walking distances inside the terminal
Accessibility to food and beverages
Service Factor
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS - IPA
IPA (SCALE-CENTERED APPROACH) Plotting each of the attributes into the IPA grid using
the coordinates, the initial IPA grid was formed and depicted above in Figure.
For this grid, scale mean was used as the importance (Y) and performance (X) axes intersection point in accordance with the original IPA framework developed by (Martilla & James 1977).
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS - IPA
IPA (DATA-CENTERED APPROACH) The second IPA grid was formed using data means as
the intersection point of the X (performance) and Y (importance) axes.
Data means used were the average of the mean scores of attribute importance and attribute performance.
Evident that the use of the data-centered approach will yield more distinctive results as compared to the scale-centered approach.
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS - IPA
IPA (MEDIAN – CENTRED APPROACH) The third IPA grid was formed using the median
value of the mean score of attribute importance and performance respectively as the intersection- point of the X (performance) and Y (importance) axes.
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS - IPA Some observations from the IPA results
Transition from Quad B to Quad A Big change from “Keep Up the Good Work” to “Concentrate Here” Service Factor 2 (Time taken to do check – in) and Service factor 1 (Availability of transport
modes for commute from the terminal) swing in this manner.
Transition from Quad B to Quad C Shift from “Keep Up the Good Work” to “Low Priority” Service Factor 4 (Number of working check – in counters) swings in this manner but this is
less than A –> B & C –> D.
Transition from Quad D to Quad C Shift from “Possible Overkill ” to “Low Priority” Service Factor 11 (Availability of trolleys) , Service Factor 12 (Accessibility to retail and
concessions) and Service Factor 8 (Thermal Comfort) swing in this manner but this is less than A –> B & C –> D.
Transition from Quad A to Quad D Biggest shift from “Concentrate Here” to “Possible Overkill” – opposing effect Usually a situation that should never arise if done with good level of precision in sample
sizes and also good quality responses. No service factors doing this shift.
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS - IPAQuadrant Attributes Importance Performance Aseesement Model
A (Concentrate Here)
3, 4 Scale - Centered Approach 2,3,4 Data - Centered Approach
2,3,4,7 Median - Centered Approach
B (Keep Up the Good Work)
1,2,5,6,7,8 Scale - Centered Approach 1,6,5 Data - Centered Approach 1, 5 Median - Centered Approach
C (Low Priority)
10 Scale - Centered Approach 10 Data - Centered Approach
7, 10 Median - Centered Approach
D (Possible Overkill)
9,11,12 Scale - Centered Approach 7,8,9,11,12 Data - Centered Approach 8,9,11,12 Median - Centered Approach
Sensitivity Analysis on the Level of Precision
3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15%
Sample Size n 1099 398 204 123 83 59 44
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS - IPA ADEQUACY OF THE SAMPLE SIZE Confidence Interval = 95% Degree of variability = 0.5 Population Size, N = 100,000 Level of Precision, e = 0.05 – 0.1, adopted value =
0.09 Optimal number of samples required,
But sample size of the questionnaire survey = 154 (> 123).
Sample adequate. Corrections: 40% for non response bias. (Israel 1992)
Therefore, the sample size for the questionnaire survey would be 154 + 0.4*154 = 216 (>123)
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS – THE 4 Q’S METHOD Main aim: Establishing quality criteria that will aid in
setting up a service quality level matrix for defining quality in airport terminals.
Various approaches that addressed service quality studied IPA SERVQUAL SQI The 4 Q’s Method
The 4 Q’s method chosen over the other methods: Overall outlook into the aspect of defining service quality
by addressing both customer and producer perspectives Other approaches utilized in airlines/ airports before;
using the 4Q’s method –> novelty and expansion of horizons in the knowledge base.
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS – THE 4 Q’S METHOD
THE 4 Q’S METHOD Main task: establishment of
quality criteria – service quality level matrix –> defining quality in airport terminals.
Customer perspective –> Evaluation of satisfaction gap scores = Expected Quality (QE) – Perceived Quality (QP)
One major anomaly –> different ranges of mean value scores evaluated (IPA) Solution – harmonization of
scores. Value functions & value
scores –> least significant attribute gets a value score of 0 & the most significant attribute gets a score of 100.
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS – THE 4 Q’S METHOD
Analysis of customer needs & further trends satisfied by the IPA conducted earlier which gave an insight into the
needs and wants of the customers as against what they perceive. Establishing quality criteria –> Expected Quality (QE) – mapped on is
synonymous with the Importance criteria of IPA (value scores) – assumption.
most studies addressing service quality take an expectation – perception criteria into consideration. Importance
Expected Quality (QE)
3,33 100,03,27 94,53,06 75,52,84 55,52,81 52,72,79 50,92,78 50,02,78 50,02,59 32,72,53 27,32,42 17,32,23 0,0
Number of working check - in counters
Thermal Comfort (Temperature control)
Visual impact of the terminal (cleanliness and design)
Availability of trolleys
Availability of choices in food or retail
Walking distances inside the terminal
Seat Availability inside the terminal
Time taken to do check - in
Level of congestion (crowding)
Accessibility to retail and concessions
Availability of transport modes for commute from the terminal
Accessibility to food and beverages
Service Attribute
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS – THE 4 Q’S METHOD
ASSESSMENT OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Availability of transport modes for commute from the terminal Dissatisfaction over the choices
available for commute. Dissatisfaction over costs Dissatisfaction over frequencies
Time to do check – in Dissatisfaction over efficiency of
counter staff Dissatisfaction over number of
working counters Dissatisfaction over queue
management system Level of Congestion
(Crowding) Dissatisfaction over space available Dissatisfaction over design & visual
aspects of terminal
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS – THE 4 Q’S METHOD
ASSESSMENT OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Number of working check – in counters Dissatisfaction over the efficiency
of check – in staff Walking distances inside the
terminal Dissatisfaction over the space
allocation Dissatisfaction over the terminal
design and visual aspects. Accessibility to food and
beverages Satisfaction over the availability of
F&B – special significance to LCC pax
Thermal Comfort Satisfaction over ambient
temperature inside terminal – very limited effect in defining quality
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS – THE 4 Q’S METHOD
ASSESSMENT OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Seat Availability inside the terminal Satisfaction over the large
number of seats available Satisfaction over the presence
of retail and concessions negating the requirement of seating for long hours
Visual Impact of the terminal Satisfaction over the visual
impact – little role to play in defining quality.
Availability of choices in food & retail Satisfaction over availability of
choices as the distances involved are less than legacy flights.
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS – THE 4 Q’S METHOD ASSESSMENT OF
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Availability of Trolleys Satisfaction over
availability of trolleys since most pax (business or short visit) flying low cost do not carry a lot of baggage –> surplus supply for less demand.
Accessibility to retail and concessions Satisfaction over the
availability of retail and concession – LCC pax expectations are very low –> any presence of retail satisfies LCC pax.
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS – THE 4 Q’S METHOD Setting up Minimum Performance Thresholds – Service quality level
matrixService
Attribute / Service Level
Availability of transport modes for commute from the terminal
Time taken to do check - in
Level of congestion (crowding)
Number of working check - in counters
Walking distances inside
the terminal
Accessibility to food and beverages
Thermal Comfort (Temperature
control)
Seat Availability inside the terminal
Visual impact of the terminal (cleanliness
and design)
Availability of choices in food or retail
Availability of trolleys
Accessibility to retail and concessions
A All modes at all times. ≤ 15 mins
Terminal capable of taking traffic at all times
Check - in counters good
enough to ensure the
process takes ≤ 15 mins.
Walking distances ≤ 300 m
At a walking distance of 100
m from any point inside the
terminal
Terminal ambient temperature at 23
°c.Seats: Demand : :
1:1 ≥ 4 star rating (Skytrax) ≥ 3 alternatives
Trolleys: Demand : :
1:1
At a walking distance of ≤
200 m from any point inside the
terminal
B
All modes during peak, atleast one (taxi) during the
other times. ≤ 25 mins
Terminal capable of taking traffic at all times except the
peak hours.
Check - in counters good
enough to ensure the
process takes ≤ 25 mins.
Walking distances ≤ 500 m
At a walking distance of 200
m from any point inside the
terminal
Terminal ambient temperature at 24
°c.Seats: Demand : :
1:2 3 star rating (Skytrax) 2 alternatives
Trolleys: Demand : :
1:2
At a walking distance of ≥
400 m from any point inside the
terminal
C
One mode apart from taxi at peak hours, taxi during the
other times 30-40 mins
Terminal not capable of taking traffic at most times including the peak hours. Long queues
Check - in counters good
enough to snure the process takes only
between 30 - 40 mins
Walking distances ≤ 800 m
At a walking distance of 300
m from any point inside the
terminal
Terminal ambient temperature at 25 -
26 °c.Seats: Demand : :
1:3 2 star rating (Skytrax) 1 alternative
Trolleys: Demand : :
1:3
At a walking distance of ≥
500 m from any point inside the
terminal
D One mode (taxi) at all times > 40 mins
Terminal not capable of taking traffic at all times
including the peak hours. Extremely
Long queues
Check - in counters not
good enough to ensure the
process takes < 40 mins
Walking distances ≥ 800 m
At a walking distance
exceeding 300 m from any
point inside the terminal
Terminal ambient temperature
exceeding 26 °c.Seats: Demand : : ≥
1:5 1 star rating (Skytrax) NO alternatives
Trolleys: Demand : : ≥
1:5
At a walking distance of ≥
600 m from any point inside the
terminal
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS – THE 4 Q’S METHOD
SYNERGY CONFLICT ANALYSIS Main task: Grading each service
attribute against the possible impact that it creates on the research question.
whether the objective of the dissertation can be realized (Synergy) or not (Conflict), keeping in mind the current service attribute.
Availability of transport modes for commute from the terminal Some secondary airports – one mode
of transport to the city (cabs). Even when >1, services don’t suit pax always (greater waiting times and costs) –> SYNERGY
Time to do check – in Main airports – more counters – less
time. Main airports – more baggage – more
time. SYNERGY or CONFLICT depending
on the policies of the airport.
Service Attribute Conflict SynergyAvailability of transport modes for commute from the terminal
Time taken to do check - inLevel of congestion
(crowding)Number of working check -
in counters Walking distances inside
the terminalAccessibility to food and
beveragesThermal Comfort
(Temperature control)Seat Availability inside the
terminalVisual impact of the
terminal (cleanliness and design)
Availability of choices in food or retail
Availability of trolleysAccessibility to retail and
concessions
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS – THE 4 Q’S METHOD
SYNERGY CONFLICT ANALYSIS
Level of Congestion (Crowding) Always going to be a conflict when
more passengers are involved –> More Congestion –> CONFLICT
Number of working check – in counters Secondary airports – less counters –
less baggage – less time. Main airports – more counters – more
baggage – more time. SYNERGY or CONFLICT depending
on the policies of the airport. Walking distances inside the
terminal Difficult to assess preferences –
higher walking distances is preferred if compensated with ample F&B, R&C – main airports – not friendly for old pax –> SYNERGY
Service Attribute Conflict SynergyAvailability of transport modes for commute from the terminal
Time taken to do check - inLevel of congestion
(crowding)Number of working check -
in counters Walking distances inside
the terminalAccessibility to food and
beveragesThermal Comfort
(Temperature control)Seat Availability inside the
terminalVisual impact of the
terminal (cleanliness and design)
Availability of choices in food or retail
Availability of trolleysAccessibility to retail and
concessions
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS – THE 4 Q’S METHOD
SYNERGY CONFLICT ANALYSIS
Accessibility to food and beverages Secondary airports – one license
granted for F&B – space constraints; Main airports – more options for pax –> SYNERGY
Thermal Comfort 23 deg – No real effect in changing
the quality aspect –> SYNERGY Seat Availability inside the
terminal Secondary airports – 1:25; Main
airports – almost 1:1 –> SYNERGY Visual Impact of the terminal
No real effect in changing the service quality – augurs well for the LCC pax –> SYNERGY
Service Attribute Conflict SynergyAvailability of transport modes for commute from the terminal
Time taken to do check - inLevel of congestion
(crowding)Number of working check -
in counters Walking distances inside
the terminalAccessibility to food and
beveragesThermal Comfort
(Temperature control)Seat Availability inside the
terminalVisual impact of the
terminal (cleanliness and design)
Availability of choices in food or retail
Availability of trolleysAccessibility to retail and
concessions
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS – THE 4 Q’S METHOD
SYNERGY CONFLICT ANALYSIS
Availability of choices in food and retail Secondary airports – usually
less licenses granted for F&B, R&C – less choices – move benefits LCC pax –> SYNERGY
Availability of trolleys LCC pax – usually have lesser
baggage – so demand is met by the supply – move has no real effects on quality of service –> SYNERGY
Accessibility to retail and concessions Secondary airports – one license
granted for R&C – space constraints; Main airports – more options for pax –> SYNERGY
Service Attribute Conflict SynergyAvailability of transport modes for commute from the terminal
Time taken to do check - inLevel of congestion
(crowding)Number of working check -
in counters Walking distances inside
the terminalAccessibility to food and
beveragesThermal Comfort
(Temperature control)Seat Availability inside the
terminalVisual impact of the
terminal (cleanliness and design)
Availability of choices in food or retail
Availability of trolleysAccessibility to retail and
concessions
CONCLUSIONS & FURTHER RESEARCH Objective – Exploring the prospect of operating low cost and
legacy carriers from the same main airport terminal from a service quality point of view.
Data collection – pax questionnaire survey – 154 respondents (sample adequate)
Methodologies used to examine these aspects introduced ( IPA & The 4 Q’s method)
Results were analysed for IPA – passenger questionnaire survey – service attributes which play a key role identified – IPA interpretations (grids) represented by 3 approaches.
Quality criteria establishment – various approaches that address service quality were studied – The 4 Q’s method selected – satisfaction gaps ascertained – service quality level matrix established – synergy conflict analysis to address the objective.
Further research – Extension of the study to address producers’ perspectives as well – more clarity; In depth surveys – personal level addressing all stakeholders – eliminates risk of non response.
THANK YOU