See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267454805

Service quality and customer satisfaction of a UAE-based airline: An empirical

investigation

Article  in  Journal of Air Transport Management · October 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.10.001

CITATIONS READS

101 11,583

3 authors, including:

Rahim Hussain Amjad Al-Nasser

University of Dubai Yarmouk University
12 PUBLICATIONS   154 CITATIONS    92 PUBLICATIONS   604 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Integrating morphological characters, molecular markers, and distribution patterns to assess the identity of Blepharis species from Jordan View project

Nonlinear regression estimation using generalized maximum entropy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rahim Hussain on 18 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Air Transport Management 42 (2015) 167e175

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Air Transport Management

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

Service quality and customer satisfaction of a UAE-based airline: An

empirical investigation
Rahim Hussain*, Amjad Al Nasser, Yomna K. Hussain
University of Dubai, United Arab Emirates

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper investigates the linkages among service quality, service provider image, customer expecta-
Received 13 February 2014 tions, perceived value, customer satisfaction and brand loyalty in a Dubai-based airline. Initially, the
Received in revised form determinants of service quality were identified utilizing the SERVQUAL framework with some modifi-
10 September 2014
cation. Service quality was then used as an antecedent to measure customer satisfaction, a condition
Accepted 3 October 2014
which can bring about brand loyalty. In a research initiative using a quantitative approach, data from 253
Available online 13 October 2014
questionnaires was analyzed. Using structure equation modeling, the data analysis suggests that service
quality, perceived value, and brand image have a positive significant impact on customer satisfaction,
Keywords:
Customer satisfaction
which can in turn lead to brand loyalty. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.
Service quality © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Corporate image
Brand loyalty
Customer value

1. Introduction
Dubai, perhaps the best-known city in the United Arab Emirates
(UAE), has long been a magnet for tourists and shoppers. The
number of people visiting Dubai in 2012 was about 10 million,
twice the population of the UAE. These numbers are expected to
increase due to Dubai's successful bid to host Expo 2020 and it
comes as no surprise that the vast majority of Dubai's guests will
arrive by plane. The satisfaction of these visitors is particularly
important to the airline business and to the economic growth of the
country as a whole. Measuring customer satisfaction in the airline
industry is becoming ever more frequent and relevant due to the
fact that the delivery of high-quality service is essential for airlines'
survival and crucial to the competitiveness of the airline industry
(Park et al., 2005). Recently, competition between airlines has
become more intense and service quality of airlines is receiving
more attention than ever before. High-quality service has become a
requirement in the market among air carriers, and helps companies
to gain and maintain customer loyalty. It also leads to creating
competitive pressure among air carriers (Chen et al., 2011). To
achieve a high level of customer satisfaction, a high standard of
service quality should be delivered by the service provider, since
service quality is considered the basis for customer satisfaction
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rhussain@ud.ac.ae (R. Hussain), anasser@ud.ac.ae (A. Al
Nasser), Yomna.Hussain@hotmail.com (Y.K. Hussain).
(Clemes et al., 2008). Thus, the purpose of this research is twofold.
The first step is to identify the determinants of airline service
quality, which can subsequently be used at a second stage e along
with corporate image, customer expectations, and customer com-
plaints e to measure passenger satisfaction leading to brand loyalty
toward airlines in the context of the United Arab Emirates.
Following this introduction, section two introduces the litera-
ture related to customer satisfaction and service quality, leading to
the development of the theoretical model. The methodology is
covered in third section followed by the data analysis, and finally
theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.
2. Literature review
2.1. Customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is one of the best-studied areas in mar-
keting, because it has become a principal factor in achieving
organizational goals, and is considered a baseline standard of per-
formance and a possible standard of excellence for any organization
(Gerson, 1993; Munusamy and Chelliah, 2011). The slogan “the
customer is always right” highlights a high priority and the
importance of customer satisfaction (Fecikova, 2004). Companies
recognize that keeping current customers is more profitable than
acquiring new customers to replace those who have been lost
(Boulter, 2013). Considering the intense competition in the airline
industry, just satisfying customers is not enough. Rather, they

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.10.001
0969-6997/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
168 R. Hussain et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 42 (2015) 167e175
should be extremely satisfied, which can initiate brand loyalty and
better long-term relationships with customers who are then less
prone to overtures from competition. However, conversely,
dissatisfied customers can express their feelings through their
behavior (Zeelenberg and Pieters, 2004). These negative behavioral
responses may impact on a firm's profitability. At the very least,
consumers can express negative feelings to people they know, and
due to advancements in digital communication, word-of-mouth
can spread rapidly, which can very likely affect a business's repu-
tation in a positive, or, more worryingly, a negative way (Babin and
Harris, 2012). Research shows that an unsatisfied customer will
communicate to nine other people his or her bad experience
(Hoffman and Bateson, 2010). This negative word-of-mouth can be
very harmful, and can adversely impact the firm's reputation and
profitability. The good news for marketers is, however, that if firms
satisfactorily resolve customers' problems, previously dissatisfied
customers will spread this news to five other people concerning the
treatment they have received, and they will be more likely to do
business again with the firm than non-complainers.
2.2. Service quality
Satisfaction is an immediate response to consumption, while
service quality is interpreted as the overall impression of a cus-
tomer's judgment concerning service provided (Bitner and
Hubbert, 1994; Culiberg, 2010). Service quality is influenced by
expected service and perceived service. If services are received as
expected, the service quality is satisfactory, but if the services
received exceed their expectations, customers will be delighted,
and will perceive service quality as excellent and vice versa
(Parasuraman et al., 1985). So, improving service quality depends
on the airlines' ability to consistently meet the needs as well as
desires of passengers. Airlines can benefit as well as achieving
competitive advantage by doing their best to create and maintain
service quality, which can lead to customer satisfaction. This in turn
will grant various benefits to the airline by, for instance: (1)
building strong relationships between the airline and its passen-
gers, (2) providing a good basis for re-purchase activities, (3)
encouraging passenger loyalty, (4) creating recommendations by
word-of-mouth which will promote the airline, (5) creating a good
corporate reputation in passengers' minds, and, finally, (6) by
prompting an increase in the airline's profits (Park et al., 2005;
Rizan, 2010). Thus, airlines must realize the strategic importance
of quality: continuously upgrading quality is not costly in the long
term; rather, it is an investment that will generate greater profits.
2.3. Service quality dimensions
The evaluation of service is generally assessed through the
service quality procedure known as SERVQUAL, which contains five
dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and
tangibles, which employs a 22-item instrument for measurement
(Parasuraman et al., 1985). Despite its widespread application, it
might not be suitable for measuring all aspects of an airline's ser-
vice due to the different characteristics and features of service
quality in the airline industry as compared to other industries. Also,
the universality of the five dimensions of SERVQUAL has been
questioned by many authors (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Culiberg,
2010). It is argued that these five dimensions are industry-specific
and cannot be applicable to all service industries without modifi-
cations (Culiberg, 2010). To apply the SERVQUAL framework to this
research, the researchers have ensured that the selection of ques-
tions and dimensions of the framework are commensurate with the
service quality of the airline under investigation. For the purposes
of the present research, service quality is measured by making use
of six dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, tangibility,
security and safety, and communications, as shown in Fig. 1. The
operational definitions of these variables are presented below.
Reliability is the ability to perform the promised services in a
dependable, accurate and fully responsible manner, without
negligence and failure (An and Noh, 2009). Reliability has been
operationalized using four items: efficiency of the check-in process,
flight punctuality, reaching the destination within the promised
time, and the handling of missing luggage complaints. Respon-
siveness is the willingness to help passengers, provide prompt
service, and respond quickly and immediately to their requests
(Bebko, 2000). Responsiveness has been operationalized by means
of four items: willingness to help, attention to passengers' needs,
keeping passengers informed about delivery of services, and
keeping passengers updated in case of any modification in the flight
schedule. Assurance involves both knowledge and courtesy on the
part of employees, and their ability to convey trust and confidence
(Buttle, 1995). Assurance has been operationalized via four items:
the employees' skillfulness in providing service, courtesy towards
customers, employees' ability to create confidence in passengers,
and employees' expertise when responding to passengers' ques-
tions. Tangibility refers to the appearance of physical facilities,
equipment, personnel and communication materials (Lundstrom
and Dixit, 2008), and involves any real object(s) perceptible by
touch. Tangibility was measured using eight items in this study:
cleanliness of the aircraft interior, cleanliness of the exterior of the
aircraft, comfort of seats, employees' attire, variety in inflight
entertainment facilities, variety and quality of in-flight meals,
aircraft facilities generally, and installation of up-to-date technol-
ogy. Security and safety was measured using two items: one's own
personal safety, and that of one's luggage. Communication is the
ability of the staff to communicate with the passengers during the
flight. Three items were used to operationalize communication: the
cabin crew's ability to communicate with passengers in different
languages, the pilot's communication with passengers, and infor-
mative announcements during the flight.
As discussed above here it is proposed that airline service
quality is a multi-dimensional construct composed of six di-
mensions: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, tangibles, security
and safety, and communications, consistent with the five-
dimensional SERVQUAL model. Comparing these two models, the
airline service quality model identified in this research confirms the
four dimensions e reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and tan-
gibles e put forward by Parasuraman et al. (1988). The major dif-
ference between the two models is the identification of two
additional dimensions e security and safety and communication e in
the airline service quality model.
Security and safety is considered to be the greatest asset of the
airline industry, and airlines are making great efforts to guarantee
their passengers the security and safety they require. Specifically,
after the events of 9/11, the issue of security and safety has become
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Service
Quality
Tangibility
Security and safety
Communication
Fig. 1. Service quality dimensions.
 R. Hussain et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 42 (2015) 167e175
an important factor for passengers to consider before making any
air travel decision. Employing the latest technology, the airline
should make sure that passengers feel safe and secure; however,
there must be a balance between the provision of security and
delays in service operations, and the impact of security checks
should not be cause significant delays in flight operations. Pas-
sengers are also concerned about their luggage when traveling
since misplaced luggage can cause passengers delays in reaching
their destinations or can make them miss connecting flights, both
of which lead to considerable dissatisfaction. Logically, therefore,
airlines should maintain a high level of security and at the same
time continue to improve service quality.
Communication has been defined here as the interaction be-
tween staff and passengers during the flight. Effective communi-
cation between passengers and cabin crew is vital for service
quality. The airline under investigation provides services in 62
countries, making it imperative for the cabin crew to be able to
communicate with passengers in their own languages. Passengers
usually come from different backgrounds and cultures, and the
airline should make sure that the cabin crew communicates with
passengers using a language that passengers feel comfortable with.
Pilots' informative announcements during the flight are also
important factors leading to service quality.
2.4. Customer satisfaction and development of hypotheses
The proposed theoretical model consists of seven constructs:
perceived quality, customer expectations, service provider image,
perceived value, customer satisfaction, customer complaints and
brand loyalty. These are depicted in Fig. 2, below.
2.4.1. Corporate image
An organization with a positive corporate image is more likely to
stand out in the marketplace, attract new customers and retain
existing ones (Connor and Davidson, 1997). Corporate image can be
defined as the perceptions of an organization reflected in the as-
sociations held in consumers' memory, which distinguishes the
organization from other competitors (Elgin and Nedunchezhian,
2012). Due to the competitive nature of the airline industry,
corporate image plays a vital role in attracting passengers and
distinguishing a company from other competitors, because the
more reputable an airline is, the more trust it can build among its
passengers. Corporate image serves as an important factor influ-
encing brand loyalty (Nguyen and LeBlanc, 2001), repeat patronage
(Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998), and customer retention (Nguyen
and LeBlanc, 2001). Various sources have indicated that corporate
image is an important determinant of customer satisfaction and
loyalty (Johnson et al., 2001; Wu, 2011). So, it is hypothesized that
image has a positive impact on customer expectations, perceived
value, customer satisfaction and brand loyalty. Thus, the following
hypotheses were elaborated:
Service Quality
Customer Perceived Value
expectations
Corporate Image
Fig. 2. Airline customer satisfaction model.
169
H1. Corporate image has a positive impact on customer
expectations.
H2. Corporate image has a positive impact on perceived value.
H3. Corporate image has a positive impact on customer
satisfaction.
H4. Corporate image has a positive impact on brand loyalty.
2.4.2. Perceived value
Perceived value is a term used to compare services in two
opposing dimensions; one side is the overall price, given the
quality, and the other side is the overall quality, given the price
(Woodruff, 1997). Perceived value acts as one of the core drivers for
delivering the right products and services to the right customer at
the right time. It also provides opportunities to compare organi-
zations on the price-value ratio (Anderson et al., 1994), and is the
fundamental basis for all marketing activity (Holbrook, 1994). In
addition, perceived value contributes directly to customer satis-
faction, which in turn leads to behavioral intention (McDougall and
Levesque, 2000). Therefore, it is hypothesized that perceived value
has a positive impact on customer satisfaction.
H5. Perceived value has a positive impact on customer
satisfaction.
2.4.3. Customer expectations
Customer expectations develop from customers' prior con-
sumption experience with a firm's products or services as well as
advertising along with word-of-mouth information (Johnson et al.,
2001). Similarly, passengers judge the performance of an airline
according to their expectations. So, it is important for an airline to
identify what the passengers' expectations are and to strive not
only to meet their expectations but also to exceed them in order to
maximize their satisfaction. Therefore, it is hypothesized that
customer expectations have a positive impact on both perceived
value and perceived quality:
H6. Customers' expectations have a positive impact on
perceived value.
H7. Customers' expectations have a positive impact on service
quality.
2.4.4. Service quality
Satisfaction is an immediate response to consumption, while
service quality involves customers' judgments concerning the dif-
ference between the expected service and the perceived service
(Culiberg, 2010; Parasuraman et al., 1985). Service quality is the
difference between customers' expectations and their perception of
service. If performance is better than expected, then perceived
Customer’s
Complaints
Customer
Satisfaction
Brand loyalty
170 R. Hussain et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 42 (2015) 167e175
quality is more than satisfactory, hence customer satisfaction oc-
curs (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Much evidence exists indicating
that there is a direct relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction (e.g., Lee et al., 2000; Parasuraman et al.,
1985; Saravanan and Rao, 2007). However, when performance is
below expectations, customer dissatisfaction ensues, which can
lead to complaints. Further, providing quality service leads to a
higher perceived value; in fact, research has shown that service
quality is an important driver of perceived value (Cronin et al.,
2000; Parasuraman and Grewal, 2000). In the first part of this pa-
per, using the SERVQUAL framework as a basis, a six-dimension
(tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, communication,
security and safety) service quality instrument has been developed.
Hence, it is hypothesized that service quality has a positive impact
on perceived value, customer satisfaction, and a negative impact on
customer complaints.
H8. Perceived quality has a positive impact on perceived value.
H9. Perceived quality has a positive impact on customer
satisfaction.
H10. Perceived quality has a negative impact on customer
complaints.
2.4.5. Customer satisfaction and its relationship with brand loyalty
and complaints
Brand loyalty, which is a consistent preference for one brand
over all others, is characterized by customers experiencing the
highest level of satisfaction (Park et al., 2004). Two constructs e
brand loyalty and customer complaints e are considered conse-
quences of customer satisfaction in the proposed model, which is
derived from Hirschman's (1970) exit-voice theory. According to
the theory, customers have a choice of two options when they are
dissatisfied with an organization: they may either exit (that is, stop
buying that brand) or voice a complaint. So, when customers are
satisfied, they intend to repurchase the product or service, which
should lead to increased brand loyalty (Bloemer and Odekerken-
Schroder, 2002) and a decreased number of complaints (Johnson
et al., 2001). Therefore, it is hypothesized that customer satisfac-
tion has a positive impact on brand loyalty and a negative impact on
customers' complaints.
H11. Customer satisfaction has a positive impact on brand
loyalty.
H12. Customer satisfaction has a negative impact on customer
complaints.
2.4.6. The relationship between customer complaints and brand
loyalty
Landon (1980) defines a customer complaint as an expression of
dissatisfaction on a customer's behalf to a responsible party. In
order to assess employee performance, customer analysis of com-
plaints (feedback) is very important in the airline industry. There-
fore, it is hypothesized that passengers' complaints will have a
positive impact on brand loyalty.
H13. Customer complaints have a positive impact on brand
loyalty.
As the literature also indicates that there is a significant positive
relationship between service quality and customer loyalty (Lai
et al., 2009), the following proposition has been developed:
P1. Service quality has a positive impact on brand loyalty.
3. Methodology and data analysis
3.1. Operationalization of the constructs
The customer satisfaction model incorporated seven constructs.
Service quality has been defined with six dimensions: reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, tangibility, security and safety, and com-
munications. Corporate image has been operationalized by four
items: an airline that is considered reliable, professional, innova-
tive, and one which confers prestige upon its passengers. Perceived
value has been operationalized by two items: an airline that pro-
vides value for money and quality for money. Customer expectations
was operationalized by three items: an airline that is cleaner than
expected, more economical than expected, and faster in check-in,
boarding, and other such services than expected. Customer loy-
alty was operationalized by two items: the passengers' intent to
repeat a purchase and to tolerate on increase in price. Customer
satisfaction was operationalized by two items: overall passenger
satisfaction and prompt service delivery. Finally, customers' com-
plaints have been operationalized by three items: negative word-
of-mouth on the part of customers, their making formal com-
plaints and the proper handling of these complaints by the firms
involved.
3.2. Data collection and sampling
A questionnaire was used as a primary data collection tool. The
researcher collected the data from Dubai International Airport
Terminal 3 at the departure area close to the boarding area and at
the “Duty Free Area” at different times and days. The respondents
were selected through judgment sampling, which, in this case,
involved the choice of passengers who were in the best position to
provide the information required for the study. The criteria for
qualifying for the sample were twofold. First, the respondent had to
be a passenger of the airline, and secondly, the respondent had to
have dealt with or communicated with airline staff at least once
during the flight. A self-administered questionnaire was used to
obtain data over the period July 1eJuly 7, 2012. The questionnaire
took approximately 10 min to complete. During the administration
of the survey, the researcher informed respondents that their
participation in the survey was voluntary and also assured them of
its anonymity and confidentiality. Within the given time period,
300 questionnaires were completed and returned to the researcher.
During the data screening process, questionnaires with 20% (or
more) missing values were excluded from the analysis. As a result
of this process, the final sample size decreased to 253, with an
84.3% response rate. The majority of respondents were male
(57.7%), between 18 and 30 years old (48.6%), from Asia (38.3%), and
traveled at least once a year (50.6%) with an income of less than
AED 5000, as shown below in Table 1.
To measure customer satisfaction for this airline, a theoretical
model was developed consisting of seven constructs. Initially, the
service quality construct was measured separately using the
SERVQUAL framework with some modifications (Parasuraman
et al., 1988). The service quality instrument comprised 25 items
measuring six dimensions: reliability (4 items), responsiveness (4
items), assurance (4 items), tangibility (8 items), security and safety
(2 items), and communication (3 items). The airline customer
satisfaction model, as shown in Fig. 1, consisted of seven di-
mensions broken down into 40 items: brand loyalty (2 items),
customer satisfaction (2 items), airline image (4 items), perceived
value (2 items), complaints (2 items), service quality (25 items) and
customer expectations (3 items). All of these constructs were
measured using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1
indicated “strongly disagree” and 5, “strongly agree”.
 R. Hussain et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 42 (2015) 167e175 171

Table 1 SRMR are given in Table 2 (Graves et al., 2013); the cut-off values of
Participant profile. NFI, CFI and RMSEA are also included.
Variable Category n % However, other model evaluation criterion such as the Residual
Gender Male 146 57.7
Means Squared Error (RMSEA), the Normed Fit Index (NFI) (Bentler
Female 107 42.3 and Bonett, 1980) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) (Bentler,
Age 18e30 123 48.6 1990) can also be used. It is recommended that the RMSEA value
31e40 65 25.7 should be less than 0.08. The NFI and CFI values should be more
41e50 46 18.2
than 0.9, and the closer the value is to 1, the better it is. A combi-
51e60 14 5.5
60þ 5 2.0 nation of these model evaluation criteria were used here to deter-
Nationality Africa 25 9.9 mine the model's fit.
Asia 97 38.3
Australia 4 1.6
Europe 66 26.1 3.4. Service quality model
GCC 43 17.0
North America 11 4.3 Initially, the data were cleaned, and the variables were screened
South America 7 2.8
for normality, homogeneity of variance and for detection of out-
Position Investor 5 2.0
Manager 36 14.2 liers. No outliers were found during the analysis.
Labor 86 34.0 In the first stage of data analysis, Conformity Factor Analysis
Unemployed 32 12.6 (CFA) was used to determine if the number of factors (dimensions)
Other 94 37.2 and the loadings of measured items on them conform to what is
Frequency of flights At least once a month 19 7.5
expected on the basis of the proposed model (Kim and Mueller,
with the airline At least once every three months 30 11.9
At least once every six months 39 15.4 1978). Using CFA to fit the results to a single service quality
Once a year 128 50.6 construct, a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with a Varimax
Once in more than a year 37 14.6 Rotation was carried out. The total variance explained for service
Monthly salary (AED) Less than 5000 112 44.3
quality ranged from 51.78% to 85.81% (see Table 3). The factors with
5000e9999 65 25.7
10,000e19,999 34 13.4
component values less than 0.4 were considered to have weak
20,000e29,999 18 7.1 correlation with the factor and were removed from the analysis.
More than 30,000 24 9.5 After data item reduction, the loading for all factors were suffi-
ciently high (see Table 3).
It can be noted that all items have the same component loading
Table 2 sign, which indicates the measure fits the data well. After data
Model evaluation cut-off points. reduction, the reliability coefficients are acceptable for all di-
GFI, NFI or CFI SRMR or RMSEA Model evaluation mensions ranging from 0.745 (tangibility) to 0.889 (assurance). The
Interval Interval overall estimate of internal consistency was 0.931 for service
Less than 0.90 More than 0.1 Deficient quality (25 items). Path analysis was used to develop a model for
(0.9, 0.95) (0.08, 0.1) Acceptable service quality with six dimensions: reliability, responsiveness,
More than 0.95 Less than 0.08 Excellent assurance, safety and security, tangibility and communication.
Basic descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients and regression
weights are shown in Table 4. All correlations were positive,
3.3. Goodness of fit ranging from 0.146 to 0.506, and significantly correlated at both the
0.01 and the 0.05 levels.
In order to test a model's fit, the Chi Square (c2) test statistic The fit of the measurement model was acceptable, with Chi-
with respect to degrees of freedom can be used. If the c2/df value is Square c2(9) ¼ 41.114, P < 0.001; RMR ¼ 0.047, GFI ¼ 0.948,
less than 3, the model is considered a good fit. With moderate NFI ¼ 0.895, CFI ¼ 0.901 and RMSEA ¼ 0.069. Inspecting the
sample sizes like the one considered here, the Chi Square test is regression weights, all factors reveal significant, positive effects of
prone to model rejection in virtually any formal test of significance the service quality dimension. However; it can be noted that the
(Marsh and Yeung, 1996). Another assessment that can be used is factor security and safety has the maximum effect (b ¼ 0.693,
the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), which was devised by Jo €reskog and p < 0.001) followed by tangibility (b ¼ 0.661, p < 0.001); the least
So€rbom (1989). In this case, the GFI value should be between 0.90 impact was found to be due to responsiveness (b ¼ 0.340, p < 0.001).
and 1. A value of 1 indicates a perfect fit, and a value of 0.90 means
the fit is deficient. Also, to assess fit, we relied on the Standardized 3.5. Airline customer satisfaction model
Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). The smaller the SRMR, the
better it is, so that a zero SRMR value indicates a perfect fit. To The airline customer satisfaction model (Fig. 2) was tested using
balance Type I and Type II errors, the cutoff ranges for GFI and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with latent variables, which is

Table 3
Percent of variance, Cronbach's Alpha and component loading range.

Dimension Number of cases Number of items Number of Average variance Cronbach's alpha Component loading range
removed items extracted (AVE)

Reliability 161 4 0 64.27% 0.814 0.69e0.89

Responsiveness 187 4 0 63.5% 0.759 0.52e0.91
Assurance 235 4 0 75.3% 0.889 0.80e0.91
Tangibility 213 8 3 51.78% 0.745 0.59e0.77
Security and safety 251 2 0 85.81% 0.832 0.92e0.92
Communication 250 3 0 72.48% 0.797 0.75e0.90
172 R. Hussain et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 42 (2015) 167e175

Table 4
Descriptive statistics; correlation coefficients and regression weights for service quality dimension (n ¼ 253).

Pearson's correlation coefficient matrix Regression weights

Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Tangibility Security and safety Communication Estimate Standardized estimate SE t P

Reliability 1 0.387 0.436 0.061 6.365 0.000

Responsiveness 0.375** 1 0.306 0.340 0.063 4.864 0.000
Assurance 0.254** 0.334** 1 0.374 0.556 0.045 8.351 0.000
Tangibility 0.299** 0.146* 0.375** 1 0.259 0.661 0.025 10.208 0.000
Security and safety 0.288** 0.186** 0.335** 0.467** 1 0.443 0.693 0.041 10.791 0.000
Communication 0.211** 0.155* 0.363** 0.441** 0.506** 1 0.382 0.660 0.038 10.193 0.000
Descriptive statistics SRMR ¼ 0.047 GFI ¼ 0.948
Mean 3.7727 3.8844 4.3864 4.7162 4.6225 4.6542 NFI ¼ 0.895 CFI ¼ 0.901
Standard deviation 0.88793 0.90343 0.67383 0.39316 0.63995 0.58074 RMSEA ¼ 0.069

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 5
Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix. The shaded value indicates the lowest significant correlation value between the constructs.

Mean SD Loyalty Satisfaction Image PV Expectation Complaints PQ

Loyalty 4.4842 0.68120 1

Satisfaction 4.2273 0.78220 0.413** 1
Image 4.7322 0.50609 0.378** 0.400** 1
Perceived Value 4.4605 0.67731 0.973** 0.378** 0.367** 1
Expectation 3.7457 0.89870 0.126* 0.255** 0.220** 0.105 1
Complaints 3.2846 1.33120 0.037 0.242** 0.160* 0.032 0.126* 1
Perceived Quality 4.3031 0.45563 0.497** 0.411** 0.523** 0.465** 0.215** 0.171** 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

well suited to highly complex predictive models (Joreskog, 1973).
SEM has several strengths that made it appropriate for this study,
including its ability to handle both reflective and formative con-
structs (Edwards and Bagozzi, 2000). SEM analyses were performed
using a covariance matrix as input to the Analysis of Moment
Structure software package (Arbuckle and Wothke, 2003), using
Maximum Likelihood Estimation. The missing data were replaced
by using the expectation maximization (EM) approach prior to
analysis. Descriptive statistics and the correlation coefficients of the
seven variables are displayed below in Table 5.
The results of the correlation analysis indicated that significant
pair-wise relationships exist when the absolute correlation coeffi-
cient is equal to or greater than 0.126 at a significance level of 0.05.
Also, reliability and factor conformity analyses were performed (see
Table 6). The total variance observed ranged between 68.8% and
93.9%.
It can be noted that all items have the same component loading
sign, which indicates the measure fits the data well. The Cronbach's
alpha for complaints is 0.552, which is low and will not be included
in any further analysis; because of this, H10, H12 and H13 are
dropped from the analysis. As a direct relationship between service
quality and brand loyalty had been proposed earlier, this relation-
ship (P1) will be converted into a hypothesis (i.e., H14). The
adjusted model is presented in Fig. 3. The reliability coefficients
were acceptable for all dimensions ranging from 0.797 (perceived
quality) to 0.946 (image). The overall estimate of internal consis-
tency was 0.877 for the model with 35 items.
Testing the proposed Linear Structural Model, the value of Chi-
Square is (c2(4) ¼ 742.111, P < 0.001), which is significant. Also,
the values of the statistical fit indexes, GFI ¼ 0.983 and
SRMR ¼ 0.036, indicate an excellent model fit. Additionally, the
other fit indices produced excellent results as well, with
NFI ¼ 0.955 and CFI ¼ 0.909. Moreover, RMSEA is equal to 0.088,
which is near the cutoff point of 0.08, indicating a close fit for the
model.
In the proposed model, the data indicate that the path co-
efficients for the relationships between customer satisfaction and
the three exogenous constructs were statistically significant
(Perceived Value: b ¼ 0.340, P ¼ 0.001; Image: b ¼ 0.346, P < 0.001
and Service Quality: b ¼ 0.236, P < 0.001). It can be noted as well
that Customer Satisfaction has a significant relationship with Brand
Loyalty (b ¼ 0.349, P < 0.001) (see Table 7).
4. Discussion
4.1. Service quality model
As discussed in the literature review, service quality dimensions
vary in different organizations. This research has demonstrated that
service quality is a multi-dimensional construct, but there is no

Table 6
Percentage of variance, Cronbach's alpha and component loading range. The shaded value indicates the Cronbach’s Alpha value should be more than 0.7.

Dimension Number of items Number of removed items Average variance extracted (AVE) Cronbach's alpha Component loading range

Brand loyalty 2 0 91.20% 0.903 0.96e0.96

Customer satisfaction 2 0 82.70% 0.788 0.91e0.91
Corporate image 4 0 86.73% 0.946 0.77e0.91
Complaints 3 1 68.82% 0.552 0.33e0.83
Service quality 22 0 93.99% 0.797 0.97e0.97
Perceived value 2 0 86.18% 0.840 0.93e0.93
Customer expectation 3 0 79.87% 0.868 0.66e0.85
 R. Hussain et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 42 (2015) 167e175 173

Service
Quality

Customer Perceived Customer Brand

Expectations Value satisfaction loyalty

Corporate
Image

Fig. 3. The adjusted airline customer satisfaction model.

consensus on the number of items or the exact nature of the di-
mensions. This conclusion is consistent with previous, more
Western-oriented studies (Brandy and Cronin, 2001; Culiberg,
2010). This research identified the most salient factors that deter-
mine airline service quality as: reliability, responsiveness, assur-
ance, tangibles, security and safety, and communication. Airline
companies should make sure that they consider each of these di-
mensions in providing their services in order to improve overall
service quality and to augment customer satisfaction.
4.2. Customer satisfaction model
The customer satisfaction model, along with the empirical
findings of the current research, can provide several interesting
insights. The theoretical model consisting of seven constructs:
customer expectation, corporate image, service quality, perceived
value, customer satisfaction, customer complaints and brand loy-
alty, has led to the elaboration of 14 hypotheses.
4.2.1. Corporate image
Four hypotheses relating to corporate image were identified.
The result shows, corporate image has a significant relationship
with, and impacts upon, customer expectations (H1), perceived
value (H2), and customer satisfaction (H3). According to the liter-
ature, corporate image is a promising marketing strategy for
attracting new consumers, retaining existing customers and dis-
tinguishing a company from competitors. In contrast, this research
has found an insignificant relationship between corporate image
and brand loyalty (H4). This is not necessarily unique, but of in-
terest. This study is conducted in the UAE context and the monthly
income of the 44% of the respondents for the current study is less
than AED 5000 (Approximately US$1367). Also, the study was
conducted in the global economic recessionary period and this may
have impacted upon the outcome. Thus, this is clear evidence that
Western assumptions and paradigms may not directly relate to the
UAE context. However, the airlines should continuously protect and
enhance their image because it is basically the image that takes
precedents in the customer minds. According to Fombrun and
Shanley (1990), a planned and well-managed corporate image is
the most promising marketing strategy for attracting new and
retaining current customers. Techniques that will enhance corpo-
rate image involve the provision of good quality service, developing
visual brand identify and mobilizing the public relations
department.
4.2.2. Perceived value
This investigation has demonstrated that perceived quality has a
direct impact on customer satisfaction (H5). According to the
literature, perceived value is the consumer's overall evaluation of a
product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given
(Zeithaml, 1988); it is also considered the fundamental basis for all
marketing activities (Holbrook, 1994). The airline should design
appropriate marketing strategies that promote perceived value
when purchasing services since delivering value to customers
contributes directly to customer satisfaction, which in turn en-
courages customer loyalty (McDougall and Levesque, 2000). Loyal
customers generally increase purchase frequency, purchase in
quantity, and avoid switching behavior (Rust et al., 2004).
4.2.3. Customer expectations
There was found to be a significant relationship between
customer expectations and service quality (H7). Service marketing
is basically concerned with a promise and its delivery e while the
promise creates customer expectations, the delivery of quality
meeting those expectations leads to customer satisfaction. In order
to manage customer expectations, it is important to know what
they are in the first place. Therefore, managing passenger expec-
tations is the first step to consistently encouraging customers to
perceive high service quality. The airline should make sure that
they are familiar with the customer's expectations as excellence can
be achieved once the airline exceeds customer expectations. It was,
however, found that the relationship between customer

Table 7
Standardized estimates of the airline model.

Hypothesis Endogenous variable Exogenous variable Standardized estimate Estimate S.E. t P Result

H1 Expectations ) Image 0.392 0.392 0.109 3.589 0.000 Supported

H7 Perceived Quality ) Expectations 0.109 0.109 0.031 3.502 0.000 Supported
H8 Perceived Value ) Service Quality 0.011 0.562 0.084 6.710 0.000 Supported
H6 Perceived Value ) Expectations 0.231 0.011 0.043 0.249 0.804 Not supported
H2 Perceived Value ) Image 0.562 0.231 0.075 3.059 0.002 Supported
H5 Satisfaction ) Perceived Value 0.340 0.236 0.072 3.263 0.001 Supported
H9 Satisfaction ) Service Quality 0.236 0.346 0.102 3.386 0.000 Supported
H3 Satisfaction ) Image 0.346 0.340 0.086 3.944 0.000 Supported
H11 Brand Loyalty ) Satisfaction 0.349 0.198 0.052 3.838 0.000 Supported
H4 Brand Loyalty ) Image 0.043 0.140 0.074 1.904 0.057 Not supported
H14 Brand Loyalty ) Service Quality 0.287 0.522 0.082 6.349 0.000 Supported
174 R. Hussain et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 42 (2015) 167e175
expectations and perceived value (H6) was insignificant. However,
this may not be an unexpected result, since studies have reported
that the relationship between customer expectations and perceived
value is unclear (Fornell et al., 1996; Johnson et al., 2001).
4.2.4. Service quality
The results show that service quality has a direct impact on
perceived value (H8) and customer satisfaction (H9). As seen in the
literature, service quality is an important driver of perceived value
(Cronin et al., 2000; Parasuraman and Grewal, 2000). When cus-
tomers receive good quality service, they perceive it as good value
and are happy to pay a considerable price because high quality
leads to superior perceived value. Moreover, providing superior
service quality is a strategic tool for customer satisfaction. There-
fore, the airline should make sure that they provide superior quality
service by considering the six dimensions e reliability, respon-
siveness, assurance, tangibles, security and safety, and communi-
cations e identified in the current research, in order to enhance
customer satisfaction.
4.2.5. Customer satisfaction
The results of this study reveal that there is a direct, positive
relationship between customer satisfaction and brand loyalty
(H11). According to the literature, customer satisfaction is an
important driver of brand-loyal customers (Bloemer and
Odekerken-Schroder, 2002). These loyal customers may go on to
generate positive word-of-mouth, purchase more, purchase more
frequently, try out new products made by the company, as well as
provide the company with sincere suggestions for improvement.
Airlines should make sure they strive to satisfy passengers since
customer satisfaction is viewed as influencing repurchase in-
tentions and behavior, which in turn leads to future revenue and
profits for the organization.
5. Conclusion, limitations and further research
This paper contributes to the understanding of customer satis-
faction by determining the dimensions of airline service quality,
which in turn provides practical insights for airline managers into
how to improve airline service quality. This research initiative
examined exactly what goes to make up passenger satisfaction as
well as how satisfied customers were with the services provided by
the airline under consideration. The current research extends the
knowledge of customer satisfaction by developing a model which
clarifies the relationship between corporate image, customer ex-
pectations, service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction
and brand loyalty. This study was conducted within a non-Western
context and, as such, as far as the authors are aware, provides one of
the first descriptions of Dubai's airline passengers. Overall, the
study identifies the contributing factors as well as the outcomes of
airline passengers' satisfaction with service, and concludes that
superior service quality, good corporate image, and perceived value
lead to passenger satisfaction, which will in turn yield a further
outcome, brand loyalty. Due to the similar culture, the research
findings can also be applied in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
countries.
The study has contributed to the knowledge of customer satis-
faction and service quality in a specialized area of the airline in-
dustry and this contribution should be seen in the light of certain
limitations. Despite the good fit of the service quality model and the
customer satisfaction model identified in this research, the data
collected concerned just one airline, raising questions about the
generalizability of the results. Thus further research, including
whether customer satisfaction plays either a mediating or a
moderating role between an independent variable (e.g., service
quality) and a dependent variable (e.g., brand loyalty) would be
expedient.
References
An, M., Noh, Y., 2009. Airline customers' satisfaction and loyalty: impact of in-flight
service quality. Serv. Bus. 3 (3), 293e307.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., Lehmann, D.R., 1994. Customer satisfaction, market
share, and profitability: findings from Sweden. J. Mark. 58, 53e66.
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
(1), 7e23.
Arbuckle, J.L., Wothke, W., 2003. Amos 5.0 User's Guide. SPSS Inc. and SmallWaters
Corporation, Chicago, IL.
Babin, B.J., Harris, W.G., 2012. Consumer Behavior: CB, third ed. South-Western,
Cengage Learning, Mason, OH, USA.
Bebko, C.P., 2000. Service intangibility and its impact on consumer expectations of
service quality. J. Serv. Mark. 14 (1), 9e26.
Bentler, P.M., 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107,
238e246.
Bentler, P.M., Bonett, D.G., 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis
of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 88, 588e606.
Bitner, M.J., Hubbert, A.R., 1994. Encounter satisfaction vs. overall satisfaction and
quality. In: Rust, R.T., Oliver, R.L. (Eds.), Service Quality: New Directions in
Theory and Practice. Sage Publications, New York, pp. 72e94.
Bloemer, J.M.M., Odekerken-Schroder, G., 2002. Store satisfaction and store loyalty
explained by customer- and store-related factors. J. Consum. Satisf. Dissatis-
faction Complain. Behav. 15, 68e80.
Boulter, J., 2013. How to build profitable customer relationships. Retrieved 7 Jan
2013: http://www.businessexpertwebinars.com/content/view/1033/29/.
Brandy, M.K., Cronin, J.J., 2001. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived
service quality: a hierarchical approach. J. Mark. 65, 34e39.
Buttle, F., 1995. SERVQUAL: review, critique, and research agenda. Eur. J. Mark. 30
(1), 8e32.
Chen, Y., Tseng, M., Lin, R., 2011. Evaluation of customers' perceptions on in-flight
service quality. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 5 (7), 2854e2864.
Clemes, M., Gan, C., Kao, T., Choong, M., 2008. An empirical analysis of customers'
satisfaction in international air travel. Innov. Mark. 4 (4), 49e62.
Connor, D., Davidson, J., 1997. Marketing Your Consulting and Professional Services.
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, J., Michael, K., Hult, G.T.M., 2000. Assessing the effects of quality,
value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
environments. J. Retail. 76 (2), 193e218.
Cronin, J.J., Taylor, S.A., 1992. Measuring service quality: a reexamination and
extension. J. Mark. 56 (3), 55e68.
Culiberg, B., 2010. Identifying service quality dimensions as antecedents to
customer satisfaction in retail banking. Econ. Bus. Rev. 12 (3), 151e166.
Edwards, J.R., Bagozzi, R.P., 2000. On the nature and direction of relationship be-
tween construct and measures. Psychol. Methods 5 (2), 155e174.
Elgin, A., Nedunchezhian, V.R., 2012. An analytical study into the effects of service
quality on the perception of domestic airline image with special reference to
frequent fliers at Trivandrum city in India. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. 29 (4), 521e527.
Fecikova, I., 2004. An index method for measurement of customers' satisfaction.
TQM Mag. 16 (1), 57e66.
Fombrun, C.J., Shanley, M., 1990. What's in a name? Reputation building and
corporate strategy. Acad. Manag. J. 33 (2), 233e258.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J., Bryant, B.E., 1996. The American
customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose and findings. J. Mark. 60, 7e18.
Gerson, R., 1993. Measuring Customers' Satisfaction: a Guide to Managing Quality
Service. Crisp Publications, CA.
Graves, M., Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., 2013. How transformational leadership and employee
motivation combine to predict employee pro-environmental behaviors in
China. J. Environ. Psychol. 35, 81e91.
Hirschman, A.O., 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty e Responses to Decline in Firms,
Organizations, and States. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hoffman, K.D., Bateson, J.E.G., 2010. Services Marketing: Concepts, Strategies, &
Cases, fourth ed. Cengage Learning, OH, USA.
Holbrook, M., 1994. The nature of customer value: an axiology of services in the
consumption context. In: Rust, R., Oliver, R.L. (Eds.), Service Quality: New Di-
rections in Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 21e71.
Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Andressen, T.W., Lervik, L., Cha, J., 2001. The evolution
and future of national customer satisfaction index models. J. Econ. Psychol. 22
(2), 217e245.
€reskog, K., So€rbom, D., 1989. LISREL 7: User's Reference Guide. Scientific Software
Jo
International, Chicago.
Joreskog, K.G., 1973. A general method for estimating a linear structural equation
system. In: Goldberger, A., Duncan, O. (Eds.), Structural Equation Models in the
Social Sciences. Seminar Press, New York, pp. 85e112.
Kim, J.O., Mueller, C.W., 1978. Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Is-
sues, vol. 14. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
 R. Hussain et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 42 (2015) 167e175
Lai, F., Griffin, M., Babin, B.J., 2009. How quality, value, image, and satisfaction create
loyalty at a Chinese telecom. J. Bus. Res. 62, 980e986.
Landon, E.L.J., 1980. The direction of consumer complaint research. In: Olson, J.C.,
Abor, A. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 7. Association for Con-
sumer Research, MI, pp. 335e338.
Lee, H., Lee, Y., Yoo, D., 2000. Th e determinants of perceived service quality and its
relationship with satisfaction. J. Serv. Mark. 14 (3), 217e231.
Lundstrom, W.J., Dixit, A., 2008. Is trust “Trustworthy” in customers' relationship
management? J. Acad. Bus. Econ. 8 (2), 140e144.
Marsh, H.W., Yeung, A.S., 1996. The distinctiveness of aspects in specific
school subjects: An application of confirmatory factor analysis with the
National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. Am. Educ. Res. J. 33 (3),
665e689.
McDougall, G.H., Levesque, T., 2000. Customer satisfaction with service: putting
perceived value into the equation. J. Serv. Mark. 14 (5), 392e410.
Munusamy, J., Chelliah, S., 2011. An investigation of impact of service strategy on
customers' satisfaction in the budget airline industry in Malaysia: a case study
of air Asia. Contemp. Mark. Rev. 1 (1), 1e13.
Nguyen, N., LeBlanc, G., 2001. Image and reputation of higher education institutions
in students' retention decisions. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 15 (6/7), 303e311.
Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., 2000. The impact of technology on the qual-
ityevalueeloyalty chain: a research agenda. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 28, 168e174.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual model of service
quality and its implication. J. Mark. 49 (Fall), 41e50.
View publication stats
175
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale
for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 64 (1), 12e40.
Park, J.W., Robertson, R., Wu, C.L., 2004. The effect of airline service quality on
passengers' behavioral intentions: a Korean case study. J. Air Transp. Manag. 10
(6), 435e439.
Park, J.W., Robertson, R., Wu, C.L., 2005. Investigating the effects of airline service
quality on airline image and passengers' future behavioral intentions: finding
from Australian International air passengers. J. Tour. Stud. 16 (1), 1e11.
Rizan, M., 2010. Analysis of service quality and customers' satisfaction, and its in-
fluence on customers' loyalty. Retrieved 10 Oct 2013: http://www.studymode.
com/essays/Analysis-Of-Service-Quality-And-Customer-937877.html.
Rust, R.T., Lemon, K.N., Zeithaml, V.A., 2004. Return on marketing: using customer
equity to focus marketing strategy. J. Mark. 68 (January), 109e127.
Saravanan, R., Rao, K.S.P., 2007. Measurement of service quality from the customer's
perspective e an empirical study. Total Qual. Manag. 18 (4), 435e449.
Woodruff, R.B., 1997. Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage.
J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 25 (2), 139e153.
Wu, L., 2011. Satisfaction, inertia, and customer loyalty in the varying levels of the
zone of tolerance and alternative attractiveness. J. Serv. Mark. 25 (5), 310e322.
Zeelenberg, M., Pieters, R., 2004. Beyond valence in customers' dissatisfaction: a
review and new findings on behavioral response to regret and disappointment
in failed services. J. Bus. Res. 57, 445e455.
Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end
model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 52 (July), 2e22.