ali

etor

f sestigh Apormainefereoc

and uacross its network of airports, aimed at ma

. Wha0 FIFAal togrammn airpt provof th

result,ice to

contexts is necessary. Thus, a secondary aim here is to apply themodel of Fodness and Murray in a specic cultural context.

Previous work on airport service quality has primarily focussedon service performance measure methodologies and Fodness and

mind.The function dimension has two sub-dimensions, the rst

relates to how effectively passengers move through an airport,basically how well people nd their way to either their departuregate or facilities and amenities such as restrooms and restaurants;and the second to how efciently passengers move through theairport; the timeliness of their movements. The second dimension,interaction, is mainly related to problem-solving behaviours of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 27 124204 102; fax: 27 124203349.

Contents lists availab

Journal of Air Trans

se

Journal of Air Transport Management 17 (2011) 224e227E-mail address: berendien.lubbe@up.ac.za (B. Lubbe).African airports and particularly at O.R. Tambo International Airport(ORTIA) in Johannesburg, the key entry point into the country. Herewe undertake an evaluation of whether ACSAwas achieving its goalin meeting expectations on service quality at ORTIA. The concept ofexpectations underlies the selection of Fodness and Murrays(2007) methodology for measuring service quality with its focuson passenger expectations in service quality. Fodness and Murraysuggest that for a model to be fully developed as a global measureof airport service quality, application within different cultural

where passenger expectations determine their level of satisfaction.They also argue that ignoring passenger expectations in servicequality measurement could result in a misguided effort by air-port management to improve services inways that are unimportantto customers. To overcome this they developed a conceptual modelfor service quality expectations suggesting that passenger airportservice quality expectations could be structured along three dimen-sions e function, interaction and diversion e with each dimensionhaving sub-dimensions associated with them in the passengerswas focused on the quality of servanticipated tourist trafc growthinvestments from others is the 201infrastructure investments essentiforward. Under this investment prothe end-user or air traveller with aprogramme being instituted aimed aof service, particularly for the periodCompany South Africa, 2010). As a0969-6997/$ e see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2010.08.001tching infrastructure tot differentiates theseWorld Cup because allsuccess was broughte focus was placed onort-wide staff trainingiding exceptional levelse tournament (Airportsmuch media attentionbe expected at South

dimensionality of passenger expectations of airport service quality.They conceded that in their study passenger data was collected ina contextual void because respondents were asked to indicatetheir expectation for airports in general, without taking intoconsideration passenger, trip or airport characteristics and theyproposed that for the model to become a global measure it shouldalso be tested in different locations. The research undertaken inSouth Africa serves to begin fullling this purpose.

FodnessandMurrayargue that traditional airportmarket researchhas ignored the gap-theory method of service quality measurementSince 2006, the Airports Companinvested about $2.5 billion expandingouth Africa (ACSA) haspgrading infrastructure

they developed, from best practices in marketing and servicesresearch, a conceptual theory-based model focussing on they of Sof gap-theory methodology for analysing service quality. As a resultNote

An application of the airport service qu

Berendien Lubbe*, Anneli Douglas, Julia ZambellisDepartment of Tourism Management, University of Pretoria, Duxbury Road, Hateld, Pr

Keywords:AirportsBusiness travellersLeisure travellersService qualityExpectationsPerformanceSouth Africa

a b s t r a c t

Passengers expectations ogrows. This research inveInternational Airport, Soutcentral to measuring an airin terms of the investmentThe results show that busimportance of services ofSignicant differences also

1. Background

journal homepage: www.elAll rights reserved.ty model in South Africa

ia, Gauteng 0002, South Africa

rvice quality at airports are becoming increasingly important as air trafcated passengers perceptions of airport service quality at O.R. Tambofrica. An existing model placing the concept of passenger expectationsts specic level of performance was applied. The results proved signicantde by the airport in staff training and highlighted areas for improvement.ss travellers and leisure travellers have different opinions regarding thed by airports and of the level of performance at ORTIA in particular.cur in the perceptions of frequent travellers and infrequent travellers.

2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Murray suggested that literature could benet from the application

le at ScienceDirect

port Management

vier .com/locate / ja i r t raman

Airport Service Quality

Interaction

Effectiveness Maintenance

External signs

Efficiency

Function

Complaints responded to immediately

Offerindividualised attention

Respond promptly to requests

Productivity Dcor

Diversion

Baggage waiting time Availability of conference

Dcor match local culture

Availability of national retail outlets

ilabilin res

ilabili

B. Lubbe et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 17 (2011) 224e227 225Signs to airport facilities

Physical layout

Speed of check in process

Duration of exit from airplane

Avachai

Avaairport service personnel. Thus, where the customers physicalpresence is required for service delivery, the interactionsa passenger has with service providers inuence the passengersquality perceptions. Fodness and Murray describe the third

Variety of ground transportation

Convenient location of baggage carts

Accessibility of connecting flights

cuisine

Stores local cu

Fig. 1. Fodness and Murrays hierarchical structure for airport service

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Exte

rnal

Sig

ns

Sign

s to

airp

ort f

acilit

ies

Elec

troni

c in

fo d

ispla

y sc

reen

s

Phys

ical la

yout

Spee

d of

che

ck in

pro

cess

Varie

ty o

f gro

und

trans

porta

tion

Conv

enie

nt lo

catio

n of

bag

gage

Dur

atio

n of

exit

from

airp

lane

Spee

d of

imm

igra

tion

proc

ess

Acce

ssib

ility

of c

onne

ctin

g flig

hts

Bagg

age

waitin

g tim

e

Offe

rs in

divid

ualis

ed a

ttent

ion

Com

plai

nts

resp

onde

d to

PERFORMANCE

Function Interact

Fig. 2. Importance e performance analysis for service quality. Note: Scale values range fromfor importance they range from 1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Neither agree orfacilities

Availability of business centres

Availability of

Art display

Current dcor

ty of national taurants

ty of local dimension, diversion, as a turning aside from focussing on the factthat the passenger is, in effect trapped in the airport servicescapetoward activities that redirect their attention or stimulate themaesthetically. The sub-dimensions are referred to as productivity,

quiet areas

portraying lture

quality expectations. Source: Fodness and Murray (2007: 502).

Res

pond

pro

mpt

ly to

requ

ests

Avai

labi

lity o

f nat

iona

l ret

ail

Avai

labi

lity o

f cha

in re

stau

rant

s

Kios

ks &

sho

ps n

ear b

oard

ing

Avai

labi

lity o

f loc

al c

uisin

e

Stor

es p

ortra

ying

loca

l cul

ture

Dc

or m

atch

loca

l cul

ture

Art d

ispla

y

Curre

nt d

cor

Airp

ort l

eisu

re a

reas

Avai

labi

lity o

f con

fere

nce

Avai

labi

lity o

f bus

ines

s ce

ntre

s

Avai

labi

lity o

f WiF

i zon

es

Avai

labi

lity o

f qui

et a

reas

IMPORTANCE

ion Diversion

1 Very poor; 2 Poor, 3 Neutral, 4 Good to 5 Excellent for performance; whiledisagree, 4 Agree to 5 Strongly agree.

rom

sport Management 17 (2011) 224e227decor and maintenance, where the label diversion captures inessence that the passenger is caught up in the airport experience.

Fodness and Murrays model, as depicted in Fig. 1, is used as theconceptual framework to evaluate whether ACSA was achieving itsgoal in meeting expectations regarding service quality at the ORTambo International Airport in Johannesburg, and to look at theimplications of its use in a different cultural context.

2. Methodology

The target population examined consists of passengers at theSouth African Airways (SAA) international departures check-in areaof ORTIA. Data were collected using a convenience samplingmethod. This has obvious limitations but was used because of thestrict security control regulations at the airport; for securityreasons, SAA only provided permission for one researcher at theircheck-in counters. The questionnaires were distributed over vedays, at different intervals during the day, to ensure that the samplewas representative of all airline passengers. Because of the strictsecurity 100 passengers completed the self administered survey.

Fig. 3. Importance e Performance analysis: purpose of travel. Note: Scale values range f1 Strongly disagree to 5 Strongly agree.

B. Lubbe et al. / Journal of Air Tran226The questions asked reect Fodness and Murrays multi dimen-sional scale to assess respondents perceptions of the importance ofairport service quality in general and performance relating toORTIA specically. Various questions were added and some re-phrased to adjust to local conditions and airport characteristics. Asa result the Cronbach Alpha values were calculated to ensure val-idity of the three dimensions e function, interaction and diversione for both importance and performance, as well as for the sub-dimensions of each. Because the results are in the range of those ofthe original study, save for interaction, which is lower, they werenot modied to allow comparison with the original study. Meanvalues were used as an indication of how respondents rate theimportance and performance of specic items, and the dimensionsand sub-dimensions of service quality in relation to ORTIA. ANOVAtests were conducted to explore whether there are signicantdifferences in the service quality perceptions when travel is fordifferent purposes, and at higher or lower frequencies.

3. Results

Sixty-nine percent of respondents are from South Africa and 27%from Zimbabwe and the remaining 4% from other regions. Ninety-two percent indicated that it was not their rst visit to ORTIA, with49% having travelled through the airport one to three times in thelast year. The main reason for trips was leisure and visiting friendsand family (nearly 60%) with over 90% of individuals yingeconomy class. Thirty-seven percent of respondents were betweeneighteen and thirty years old, with an equal distribution of marriedand single respondents, and of males and females.

Fig. 2 shows an analysis of themean values of individual items interms of their performance and importance rating by respondents.For the function dimension, clarity of external signs is perceived asthe most important item, followed by convenience of baggage cartlocation. ORTIAs performance on these items is also highest but,while external signs achieved a slightly better result, both fell shortof being in the good range. For the diversion dimension,passengers rated WiFi areas as the most important item followedby leisure areas where passengers can sit comfortably watching TVand listening to music. Performance levels on these items arescored lower than expected when compared to the level ofimportance of the items assigned by travellers. The least importantaspect to passengers is the availability of portable kiosks and shopsnear the boarding gates, as well as the display of art in the terminal.

1 Very poor to 5 Excellent for performance while for importance they range fromRegarding interactions, prompt response to requests and imme-diate response to complaints rate the highest in terms of impor-tance; but on the performance scale both items are rated in thepoor to neutral range.

Fig. 4. Importance e Performance analysis: frequency of travel. Note: Scale valuesrange from 1 Very poor to 5 Excellent for performance while for importance theyrange from 1 Strongly disagree to 5 Strongly agree.

same in terms of performance. However, frequent travellers rateORTIAs performance considerably lower in these dimensions.

To see if there are signicant differences between groups interms of their perceptions of the importance and performance ofthe three service quality dimensions, one-way ANOVA tests wereperformed. The results are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 indi-cates that the importance of the dimension interaction to frequentand infrequent travellers differ signicantly at the 5% level.

Table 2 indicates that business and leisure travellers may differin terms of the importance attributed to all three dimensions. Inevaluating performance, a trend emerges that business and leisuretravellers may differ on the function dimension.

study investigated passengers perceptions of the importance of

Table 2One-way ANOVA: Importance and performance: purpose of travel.

P Value

Importance Function Between Groups 0.063a

Within Groups 0.196

Table 1One-way ANOVA: importance and performance: frequency of travel.

P Value

Importance Interaction Between Groups 0.036a

Within Groups 0.356

a Indicates a signicant difference between groups on a 5% level of signicance.

B. Lubbe et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 17 (2011) 224e227 227Regarding the overall dimensions, it is found that on average forall respondents interaction rated as the most important feature ofairport service quality while function was second, followed bydiversion. ORTIAs overall performance in these areas is rated asfollows: the diversion features (productivity, dcor and mainte-nance) are rated the highest, followed by function (effectivenessand efciency) and lastly interaction features. While airportpersonnel and passenger interaction is rated as the most importantby passengers, its performance rating is the weakest.

Fig. 3 reports the importance and performance ndings withrespect to purpose of travel. Functionality is the most important toboth leisure and business travellers although for both groups thisdimension has the lowest value in terms of performance at ORTIA.Diversion is rated the best in performance at ORTIA for leisuretravellers while for business travellers it is rated quite low. Theinteraction dimension is more important for leisure travellers than

Importance Interaction Between Groups 0.062a

Within Groups 0.364

Importance Diversion Between Groups 0.090a

Within Groups 0.233

Performance Function Between Groups 0.062a

Within Groups 0.285

a Indicates a signicant difference between groups on a 10% level of signicance.for business travellers, and similarly, performance in the interactiondimension at ORTIA is rated higher by leisure travellers than bybusiness travellers.

Fig. 4 shows the results of the importanceeperformance anal-ysis according to frequency of travel through ORTIA based on themean values. Frequent travellers are dened as those who hadtravelled via ORTIA more than three times in the previous year.Those passengers who had only travelled three times or less ratethe function dimension as most important followed by interaction,while both function and diversion are rated approximately theairport service quality dimensions, according to the model found inFodness and Murray (2007), and assessed the performance ofORTIA along these dimensions in a South African context. Whenfunction, interaction and diversion are compared, passengersdescribe interaction as the most important, followed by functionand diversion signifying that it is the service one receives fromairport personnel that may ultimately determine whether anexperience at ORTIA was satisfactory. Overall ORTIAs performancehowever, is best in the diversion dimension, followed by functionand lastly by interaction; the reverse ordering.

Fodness and Murray also felt that there is a need to takepurposes and frequencies of travel into account, as well as anairports characteristics. Our results provide some evidence thatpurpose and frequency can inuence the importance passengersplace on particular service quality attributes, as well as their ratingsof the specic airport they are departing from. Business passengersnd interaction, function and diversion less important than doleisure travellers, and also rate ORTIAs performance in thesedimensions weaker than leisure passengers. Further, the moreoften a passenger travels the lower they rate ORTIAs overallperformance although the importance they placed on the servicedimensions are relatively the same.

References

Airports Company South Africa, 2010. Airports readying for the world cup. Availablefrom: (accessed: 23.04.10.).

Fodness, D., Murray, B., 2007. Passengers expectations of airport service quality.Journal of Services Marketing 21, 492e506.4. Conclusions

On a global scale, the importance of service quality measure-ment and management at airports is seen as important but forairport service strategies to yield the desired results, passengersthemselves need to be the ones to dene and evaluate service. The

An application of the airport service quality model in South AfricaBackgroundMethodologyResultsConclusionsReferences