Service Quality Perceptions of Domestic

Airline Consumers in India:

An Empirical Study*
Bhagyalakshmi Venkatesh 1 & R. Nargundkar2

Abstract
Pricing and service quality are the key variables that decide the brand equity of each player in the airline
industry. Existing literature suggests that measurement and management of service quality is the key
for survival of airline companies. This research paper examines the service quality delivered by four
major airlines in India on the backdrop of stiff competition in the airline service sector. The process of
traveling on a domestic airline was divided into pre-flight, in- flight and post-flight experiences. A
survey was conducted to find out the perceived service quality of frequent fliers on each of the four
airlines across a series of service performance variables. The airline brands were positioned in a perceptual
space, where the perceived service attributes were also mapped. Clear differences emerged among the
airlines, with two of them perceived as being similar to each other, and the other two differing in many
respects.

1. INTRODUCTION expected to grow by 20 percent annually

India at present has twelve competing
airlines in the domestic market as against
a single government owned airline in
1991. According to McKinsey Quarterly
(2005), the Indian aircraft market is the
world’s second largest commercial
aircraft market. On-time performance and
service levels have risen dramatically and
fares have dropped. Passenger traffic is
over the next five years.
Only a small percentage of India’s
population travels by air partly due to
the high costs of domestic flying.
According to the Center for Asia Pacific
Aviation (CAPA) consultancy, new
players will help domestic passenger
numbers. The players in the current
airline market include airlines like Air

* Received April 12, 2006

1. Research Associate, Dept. of Management Studies, PESIT, 100 Ft Ring Road, Bangalore,
e-mail: bhagi3@gmail.com
2. Director-MBA Program, Dept. of Management Studies, PESIT, 100 Ft Ring Road,Bangalore,
e-mail: rnargundkar@yahoo.com
114 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management
Deccan with low-cost, low-fare and no
frills along with airlines like Kingfisher,
which offers some frills, and premium
airline like Jet Airways. Competition has
brought in some price advantages to
travelers and has converted many railway
passengers to airline travelers. This article
examines customer satisfaction among
travelers of four major domestic airlines
in India. Because of proliferated number
of players in the airline industry, airlines
may enjoy new business opportunities
along with high competitive threats. The
objective of this study is to understand the
customer satisfaction levels of the four
major airlines viz. Jet Airways, Indian
Airlines, Air Deccan and Kingfisher.
A comparison of customer satisfaction
based on service quality was done among
the four major airlines based on responses
from frequent fliers across fourteen
variables on a five point Likert scale. A
flying experience was divided into three
stages- namely, pre-flight, in-flight and
post-flight experience. A questionnaire
was designed in such a way that the same
sets of variables were measured among
the customers of the four airlines under
study. Fliers who had flown any of the
four airlines could answer the questions
pertaining to those airlines. The objective
of this study was to understand the
satisfaction levels of the airline customers.
The study measured the expected level of
service quality using a Likert type scale.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
In the 1970’s the Civil Aeronautics Board
(Douglas & Miller, 1974; Jordan, 1970)
developed the initial tools of service quality
measurement in the airline industry in the
U.S.A. These studies were based on
economic variables, and pre-deregulation,
developed as service quality assessments
from the perspective of the airline
consumer. Kearney (1986) was the first one
to conduct service quality assessments
from the perspective of the airline
consumer in his doctoral dissertation work,
which examined service quality from the
perspective of industry-based economic
and marketing measures.
Many researchers and marketers have
focused their attention on customer
evaluations of services in an effort to find
ways to improve service quality (Fisk,
Brown, & Bitner, 1993). Extensive research
has been conducted in the field of service
quality. Parasuraman et al. (Parasuraman,
Berry, & Zeithaml, 1991; Parasuraman,
Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985, 1988) developed
a service quality measure, called
SERVQUAL, which states that the
customer’s assessment of overall service
quality is determined by the degree and
direction of the gap between their
expectations and perceptions of actual
performance levels. They also identified
five essentials for service quality: tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and
empathy. They proposed that perceived
service quality could be estimated by
calculating the difference between
expectations and perceptions of actual
service performance. The SERVQUAL
scale has been criticized for its validity and
reliability. Buttle (1996) pointed out that
including all 44 items (22 items of service
expectations and a duplicate of 22 items of
service performance) in one study often

makes the survey task too difficult for
respondents. Cronin and Taylor
(1992,1994) have empirically proved that
the measures of service performance or
SERVPERF, is more effective than
SERVQUAL, which includes expectations
as well as performance. SERVPERF is now
widely used in measuring customer
evaluations of service quality
(Cunningham and Young, 2004).
Cunningham and Young (2004) used
SERVPERF in measuring the airline
service quality. Their literature review
suggests that initial publications on airline
service quality appeared in 1988
(Gourdin, 1988). Fick & Ritchie and
Gourdin & Kloppenborg were the first to
apply the service quality gap model to the
airline industry in 1991. Fick and Ritchie
(1991) used the SERVQUAL scale to
measure perceived service quality within
several service industries including the
airline industry. They found the mean
scores of consumer expectation and
perception of service performance
measures and failed to determine the
relative impact of various SERVQUAL
items on overall service quality and
satisfaction (Cunningham etal 2004).
Measurement and management of service
quality is the fundamental issue for the
survival and growth of airline companies
(Cunningham, Young, and Lee 2002).
Cunningham, Young, and Lee (2002)
conducted studies on perceptions of
airline service quality of U.S. and Korean
customers based on SERVPERF and
industry-based measures, as well as their
perceptions of risks involved in the airline
choice. The results suggested that U.S.
Venkatesh et al, Service Quality ... 115
customers consider service reliability, in-
flight comfort, and connections as the key
factors determining satisfaction with
airline service, whereas Korean
passengers generally regard reliability,
assurance, and risk factors as predictors
of satisfaction. This study conducted by
Cunningham, Young, and Lee (2002) is
interesting as it has measured service
quality based on SERVPERF which is a
set of multi-dimensional measures of
customer evaluations of service quality
(Cunningham, Young, and Lee 2002).
Wen Li and Chen (1998) studied the
quality evaluation of domestic airline
industry using modified Taguchi loss
function with different weights and target
values. By using Taguchi loss function one
can quantify quality and thus compare
service quality objectively. According to
Wen Li and Chen (1998), the process of
traveling a domestic airline can be
described as follows:
Ticket— Check –in—boarding—
departure—flying—arrival—baggage
claim
Three quality categories with ten
identified variables are proposed by Wen
Li and Chen (1998) and service quality of
domestic airline is quantified accordingly.
Taguchi loss function requires industry
measures to measure airline service
quality.
As stated earlier, airline traffic in India has
picked up only recently. However,
competition has brought to surface,
industry issues such as insufficient
number of pilots, airport facilities and
trained personnel. When the objective of
116 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management
low-cost carriers is to convert railway
passengers to airline travelers at a very
low-fare, the focus of the service provider
may not be on the service quality but in
providing the basic service product. In
comparison, America’s budget airlines
have started to increase service quality in
spite of the low fare offers. Southwest and
Jet Blue have strong brand presence and
offer well defined service rather than just
low prices (Economist, 2004). On the other
hand, airline service quality across the
world have reached new heights where
in international airlines such as Virgin
Atlantic Airways have introduced double
suites, in-flight beauty therapy treatments
and massages, free limousines to and from
the airport and many more.
As a result of low fares, there is an
expected increase in the volume of
domestic airline travelers in India which
has accelerated competition in the air
travel market. While certain segments in
choosing an airline, consider price
advantages, service quality cannot be
absent. According to Zeithaml and Bitner
(1996b), the concept of satisfaction is
influenced by five variables viz. 1) service
quality 2) product quality 3) price 4)
situation and 5) personality.
Natalisa and Subroto ( 2003) combine the
variables of product quality and service
quality into variable of service quality and
studied the customers’ perception of
service quality in the domestic airline
services of Indonesia.
In short, service quality of airlines have
been studied based on industry measures,
SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, Taguchi loss
function and Zeithaml and Bitner Model.
Our study attempts to examine the
satisfaction level of service quality of
domestic airline travelers in India across
fourteen airline travel process variables
suggested by Wen Li and Chen (1998)
which are modified to suit the Indian
standards. Some of these variables can
also be included as the reliability and
responsiveness variables of SERVPERF.
The flying experience has been divided
into preflight, on flight and post flight
experiences.
3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1. To study the customer perceptions of
service quality of each of the four
airlines under study
2. To compare the service quality of the
airlines under study
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Questionnaire Design
The respondents were asked to evaluate
the service quality of the service provided
by the airline, which they have traveled.
Perceived service quality of each variable
was measured through questions
designed on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from always to never. For
example, the on-time services of the
airline was measured through the
question, “The flights are on time” with
always as a the best positive response and
never as the worst negative response, any
other response can be recorded between
“always” and “never” on the scale.
Similarly, other good ground service – in-
flight service and post-flight service were
measured through the same scale. The
questionnaire also had a question to check

the response to the loyalty programs
provided by the airlines to frequent fliers
which was measured through, “ the
airline offers real benefits to frequent
fliers” on the five point Likert – type scale.
The authors discussed the air travel
process with at least five frequent fliers
of domestic airlines in India to understand
the process in the Indian condition apart
from the fact that both the authors are
themselves frequent fliers of domestic
airlines. For further reference,
questionnaire is attached as Appendix 1.
4.2 Sample Characteristics
Some of the SERVPERF variables
developed by Cronin and Taylor (1992)
were adapted along with the process
variables (Wen Li and Chen 1998) to the
Indian market conditions based on the fact
that air traffic in India has gone up only in
the last three years and still a very small
percentage of the population travel by air.
“Population” consisted of the customers of
four domestic airline companies in India
viz. Jet Airways, Indian Airlines, Air
Deccan and Kingfisher. These airlines were
selected, as they are representative of the
major segments in the airline industry from
Table 1 – Airline wise Composition of
Sample
No Company Obtained number
of samples
1 Jet Airways 39
2. Indian Airlines 40
3. Air Deccan 29
4. Kingfisher 26
“Always” (as a response) was a given a score of
(=1) and “Never” (as a response) was a given a
score of (=5) and any other response was between
these.
Venkatesh et al, Service Quality ... 117
full fare to low priced airlines.
Convenience sampling was done. Targeted
sample size was 30 per airline, and
achieved sizes were as follows.
5. DATA ANALYSIS & RESULTS
The statistical analyses used were one way
ANOVA, Discriminant Analysis, Cluster
analysis and Cross Tabulation. Analysis
of research data used the level of
significance, a = 0.05
5.1 Mean Difference Results
Table 2 provides a summary of the mean
scores for the variables in the study.
The objective of this study was to examine
customer perception of service quality.
One way-ANOVA was performed and
the result showed a significant difference
among the four airlines, except in two
variables viz. baggage loss and online
booking. Travelers agreed that all the
airlines manage baggage well and all of
them provided online booking.
5.2 Pre-Flight Service Quality
Pre-flight service was examined by rating
the variables listed below.
1. Flights are on time
2. Good ground service,
3. The airline keeps its travelers
informed in the case of a delay
through SMS or a call
4. The airlines makes regular
announcement in case of a delay to
keep the travelers informed of the
status quo
5. The airline provides refreshments
whenever there is a delay,
118 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management

Table 2 – Service Quality Scores for Various Airlines

Variables Indian Air Kingfisher One-Way
Jet Air Airlines Deccan ANOV
Mean Mean Mean Mean df F Signi
Value ficance
On-time 1.9231 3.0750 3.96 2.4583 3 21.941 .000
Delay information 1.7895 3.1282 2.8929 2.3158 3 7.372 .000
Announce delay 1.4595 2.0278 2.9231 1.8571 3 9.593 .000
Good in-flight service 1.5641 2.8158 3.7692 1.5833 3 37.506 .000
Good in-flight food 1.7632 2.7895 3.8261 2.0435 3 20.961 .000
Waiting time for 2.2895 2.6053 3.2800 2.4167 3 4.760 .004
baggage
Baggage loss 4.1212 3.6857 3.8696 4.4000 3 1.347 .263
Compensate baggage- 2.6957 3.2083 3.8667 2.5000 3 3.028 .035
Loss
Good ground service 1.7059 2.6000 3.0833 1.5417 3 12.147 .000
Refreshments on delay 1.9189 3.0000 4.1818 1.8095 3 19.609 .000
Accommodation on- 2.2258 2.7931 4.1053 2.7647 3 7.231 . 000
Delay 1.2571 1.7241 1.3333 1.2381 3 1.805 .151
Discounted fare 1.4000 2.0294 1.3462 1.5000 3 3.184 . 023
Real benefits for- 1.4211 2.5455 2.5455 2.1111 3 5.489 .002
Frequent fliers

6. Provide accommodation if there is a
long delay.
All the six pre-flight SERVPERF variables
were found to be significant as shown by
the one way ANOVA that is displayed as
Table 2. The four airlines provided
significantly different service quality in
the pre flight service.
Jet Airways travelers found its flights to
be on time usually against Air Deccan
travelers who rated its flights to be almost
never on time. Jet Airways, Kingfisher,
and Air Deccan usually informed the
customers about delay in advance
through SMS or telephone call. Indian
Airlines was rated average on this service
quality variable. All the four airlines were
found to be above average in announcing
delay. Except for Air Deccan, the other
three airlines were rated as providing
good ground service. In the case of a delay
Jet Airways and Kingfisher usually
provided the travelers with refreshments
whereas Air Deccan never provided such
services. Except Air Deccan, all the other
airlines usually provided accommodation
in case of delay. The study conducted by
Gourdin and Kloppenborg (1991)
identified on-board comfort, being kept
informed regarding delays and being
cared for when travel was disrupted as
being important to passengers.
5.3 In-flight Services
Jet Airways, Indian Airlines and Kingfisher
were rated as providing very good in-flight
service whereas Air Deccan was rated to
 Venkatesh et al, Service Quality ... 119

be providing almost no service quality on Table 3: Wilks’ Lambda

in-flight services. Jet Airways was found Test of Wilks’ Chi- df Sig.
to be providing good in-flight food along Fun- Lambda square
with Kingfisher. Indian airlines was rated ction(s)
as average in providing good in-flight 1 through 3 .238 60.340 42 .033
food. Air Deccan did not offer in-flight food
at all. The study conducted by Gourdin 2 through 3 .625 19.774 26 .802
and Kloppenborg (1991) did not find 3 .933 2.897 12 .996
courteous cabin attendants and beverage
service on short flights as important to Table 4: Standardized Canonical
passengers. Discriminant Function Coefficients
5.4 Post Flight Services Function

Air Deccan travelers rated longest waiting 1 2 3

time for baggage arrival against other on time .354 .242 .733
airlines. Baggage loss was found to be delay information -.283 .979 -.150
almost never a problem with Jet Airways good inflight service .742 .211 -.407
and Kingfisher where as Indian Airlines
good inflight food -.326 .072 -.086
and Air Deccan travelers had to face
waiting time .582 -.199 -.253
baggage loss, sometimes. On the
for baggage
occurrence of baggage loss Air Deccan
sometimes never compensated for the baggage loss .073 -.091 .416
baggage loss. compensate -.617 .233 -.535
baggage loss
There was no significant difference among
good ground service .024 -.135 -.643
the airlines on services such as online
refreshments on delay .521 -.273 .072
booking which just meant such a service
was provided by all the airlines. All the accomodation on delay .529 -.466 .304
airlines were found to be providing online booking -.118 -.069 -.352
discounted fares and real benefits for discounted fare -.526 .130 .502
frequent fliers. real benefits for -.060 .440 .102

5.5 Discriminant Analysis frequent fliers

Discriminant analysis revealed significant
differences among the airlines. Three
functions were produced, of which the
first was statistically significant. (Refer
Table 3). The second and third functions
were not significant.
From the standardized discriminant
function coefficients (Table 4) , it appears
that function 1 consists of good in-flight
service, waiting time for baggage,
compensation for baggage loss,
refreshments on delay, accommodation
on delay and discounted fare. Hence, we
could conclude that the difference
between airlines is a multi-dimensional
construct consisting of in-flight service,
delay handling, baggage handling and
120 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management

pricing. Together, these may be named as perceptual map is drawn using functions
basic service elements, on which airlines 1 and 2, the relative positions of the four
seem to differ significantly. The only brands of airlines which is derived from
exception seems to be delay information, Table 5.
loading highly on function two, and delay The perceptual map shows that Jet Airways
announcement and good ground service, and Kingfisher are positioned together. Air
which are loading highly on function Deccan and Indian Airlines are positioned
three. But these are not significant far away from each other. A, B, C and D in
statistically and therefore should be the perceptual map represents the airlines
treated with caution. as per Table 6 given below. The horizontal
Positioning of the four airline brands axis represents Function 1 and the vertical
through Discriminant Analysis: A axis, Function 2.
Table 5: Functions at Group Centroids The fourteen attribute vectors are mapped
airline name Function across the perceptual space. Vectors 1 to

1 2 3 Table 6: Brands of Airlines from the

Group Centroids
Jet Airways -1.022 -.733 -.158
Sl No Airline Name
Indian Airlines -.361 .886 -.074
Air Deccan 2.300 -.264 -.059 A Jet airways
Kingfisher -.350 -.189 .643 B Indian airlines
Unstandardized canonical discriminant C Air Deccan
functions evaluated at group means D Kingfisher

Graph 1 : Perceptual Map of four domestic airlines in India based on

Perceived Service Quality: Discriminant Function 1 (horizontal axis)
vs Function 2(vertical axis)
6
2

3
14

2
1
8
4
B 1
13

12
0 C
D
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 7 1 2 3 4 5
A
-1 9 6

10

-2
3 11

-3 ▼ Series 1
 Venkatesh et al, Service Quality ... 121

14 can be identified from Table 7 given 5.6 Cluster Analysis

below. Cluster analysis was performed to find
Table 7: Attribute Vectors based on out the similarity between brands and to
Standardized Canonical Discriminant reiterate the positioning exercise done by
Function Coefficients Discriminant analysis. An ANOVA
conducted for cluster analysis showed
1 On time that all the service attributes to be
2 Delay information significantly different across the different
3 Announce delay clusters (Refer Table 8).
4 Good in-flight service
5 Good in-flight food Four major clusters were identified. Cross
6 Waiting time for baggage tabulation was conducted to find the
7 Baggage loss relationship between the brands and the
8 Compensate baggage loss four different clusters. Table 9 shows that
most of the Jet Airways and Kingfisher
9 Good ground service
customers belong to cluster 2. Indian
10 Refreshments on delay
Airlines and Air Deccan customers
11 Accommodation on delay
dominate cluster 3. Cluster 4 has a large
12 Online booking
representation of customers of Indian
13 Discounted fare
Airlines where as cluster 1 does not seem
14 Real benefits for frequent fliers
to be very significant.
Table 8: ANOVA
Cluster Error
Mean df Mean df F Signi
Square Square
on time 30.783 3 .940 126 32.745 .000
delay information 35.893 3 1.209 120 29.680 .000
announce delay 29.422 3 .687 116 42.822 .000
good inflight service 39.452 3 .715 123 55.167 .000
good inflight food 38.787 3 .695 118 55.770 .000
waiting time for baggage 16.200 3 .853 121 18.995 .000
baggage loss 37.954 3 .861 107 44.093 .000
compensate baggage loss 18.986 3 1.214 68 15.641 .000
good ground service 26.857 3 .846 113 31.728 .000
refreshments on delay 39.417 3 1.278 109 30.845 .000
accomodation on delay 34.155 3 1.291 92 26.456 .000
online booking 6.105 3 .677 102 9.020 .000
discounted fare 5.528 3 .900 113 6.140 .001
real benefits for frequent fliers 20.021 3 1.430 107 13.999 .000
122 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management
Table 9: Airline Name and Cluster Number of Case Cross tabulation
airline name Jet Airways
Indian Airlines
Air Deccan
Kingfisher
Total
Based on the above findings, Jet Airways
and Kingfisher can be considered as
brands which have similar attributes, as
most of their customers are found to be
members of cluster two.
6. CONCLUSION
This study has several managerial
implications, as it demonstrates that the
adapted version of SERVPERF scale is
applicable in the Indian conditions. When
considered in totality the results of this
study suggest that implementation of basic
service quality is essential to combat the
growing competition. Differentiation can
occur only by adding new service elements
along with providing better quality in
delivering the current service. Safety has
been considered as a major element in
choosing an airline brand in the west, post
9/11. Crisis management has also taken
different dimensions in the U.S in the
airline industry post 9/11. This trend
suggests that many different social events
and variables also have an impact on how
customers look at each brand. This study
shows that customers of Jet Airways rate
it as an airline that provides very good
service quality across the fourteen service
variables. Kingfisher ranks second and its
customers have reported that usually the
Cluster Number of Case Total
1 2 3 4
0 27 5 7 39
1 7 17 15 40
6 0 18 5 29
2 15 4 5 26
9 49 44 32 134
airline provides good service quality.
Indian Airlines was rated as providing
good in-flight food, waiting time for
baggage, good ground service,
accommodation on delay and a few other
elements such as price, online booking and
benefits for frequent fliers. Indian Airlines
was rated as average or below average on
the rest of the service variables. Baggage
loss has been reported as a problem faced
by some of the Indian Airlines customers.
Air Deccan has been rated by its customers
as providing good service quality in
informing customer about delay. Air
Deccan customers are happy with its
provision for online booking, discounted
fare and real benefits for frequent fliers.
The study revealed that customers were
not happy with all the other service
variables which suggest that the overall
service quality of Air Deccan is not
considered good. Some of the Air Deccan
customers report baggage loss as a
problem. Air Deccan calls itself a no-frill
service provider as it is a low cost airline.
The travelers of Air Deccan seem to rate it
to be a bad service provider even though
they were flying on low fares. When Air
Deccan has large volume loads and
generates revenue, it should rethink its
value proposition in terms of providing

basic service quality to stay in the market.
In the U.S.A, Southwest and Jet Blue have
a strong brand presence and offer well
defined service rather than just low prices
(Economist, 2004). Most of the low cost
airlines in Europe had to shut shop as they
were not providing even the basic service
quality. A study conducted by Natalisa &
Subroto (2003) on the customer satisfaction
of domestic airlines in Indonesia proved
that customer’s perceptions of service
quality influence the level of customer
satisfaction by using regression analysis.
It can also be a case of concern to Indian
Airlines and Air Deccan as our study has
found that the overall service quality
provided by these airlines are considered
below satisfactory by its customers.
7. LIMITATIONS
The findings of this study are limited to
the airline industry in India. This study
has not considered industry measures to
measure service quality. We have
measured only the customer perception
of service quality.
REFERENCES
Buttle, F(1996). SERVQUAL: Review, Critique,
Research Agenda , European Journal of
Marketing, 30,1, 8-32
Cunningham, L. F., Young C. E., & Lee, M (2004).
Perceptions of airline service quality Pre and
Post 9/11. Public works Management & Policy,
9(1), 10-25
Cunningham, L. F., Young C. E., & Lee, M. (2002).
Cross-cultural perspectives of service quality
and risk in air transportation. Journal of Air
Transportation, 7(1), 3-26.
Venkatesh et al, Service Quality ... 123
Cronin, J. J., Jr., and Taylor, S. A. (1992),
“Measuring Service Quality: A
Reexamination and Extension,” Journal of
Marketing, 56 (July), 55–68.
Cronin, J.J.,Jr. and Taylor, S.A. (1994),
“SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling
Performance-Based and Perceptions-Minus-
Expectations Measurement of Service
Quality, Journal of Marketing, 58(January),
125-131
Douglas, G.W.,& Miller, J. C., III. (1974). Economic
regulation of domestic air transport: Theory and
policy . Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution.
Economist (2004). Turbulent Skies, Vol. 372, Issue
8383
Fick, G. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). “Measuring
service quality in the travel and tourism
industry,” Journal of Travel Research, 30 (Fall),
2-9.
Fisk, R. P., Brown, S. W., and Bitner, M. J. (1993),
“Tracking the Evolution of the Services
Marketing Literature,” Journal of Retailing, 69,
1 (Spring), 61–103
Gourdin, K. N., & Kloppenborg, T. J. (1991).
Identifying service gaps in commercial air
travel: The first step toward quality
improvement. Transportation Journal, 31(1),
22-30.
Jordan,W. A. (1970). Airline regulation in America:
Effects and imperfections. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Kearney, T. J. (1986). Quality of service under airline
deregulation. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University at Bloomington.
Nargundkar, R (2003), Marketing Research, 2nd
Edition, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi
124 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management
Natalisa Diah and Subroto Budiarto(2003),
“Effects of Management Commitment on
Service Quality to Increase Customer
Satisfaction of Domestic Airlines in
Indonesia” , Singapore Management Review,
Volume 25 (1)
Pandit, Ranjit V (2005). Why Believe in India.
McKinsey Quarterly, Special Edition, 133-170
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A.
(1991). Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVPERF Scale. Journal of Retailing, 67, 420-
150.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A.,& Berry, L. L.
(1985).A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research.
Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L.
(1988). SERVPERF: A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service
quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 28-31.
Wen Li, Ching and Chen K. Alice(1998).
Quality Evaluation of Domestic Airline
Industry Using Modified Taguchi Loss
Function with Different Weights and Target
Values. Total Quality Management, 9(7),
645-653
Zeithaml and Bitner (1996), Services Marketing,
Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi
 Venkatesh et al, Service Quality ... 125

APPENDIX 1
Service Quality of Domestic Airlines in India: An Empirical Study
Dr. Rajendra Nargundkar and Ms. Bhagyalakshmi Venkatesh of Dept. Of Management
Studies, PESIT Bangalore are conducting a study on the service quality of four Indian
domestic airline services. We request you to spare a few minutes to fill up the questions
below. Thank You.
Please circle the relevant response on the following questions for all airlines you have traveled.
(1=Always, 5=Never, and other responses are between these.)
1. The flights are on-time
a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
2. The airline informs you in advance if there is delay (through sms or call)
a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
3. If the flight is delayed, regular announcements are made
a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
4. In-flight service is good
a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
5. The in-flight food is good
a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
6. The waiting time for baggage arrival is reasonable
a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
126 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management

7. Baggage loss is a problem with

a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
8. The airline compensates for lost baggage if such a situation arises,
a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
9. The airline provides good check-in services
a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
10. The airline provides refreshments whenever there is a delay
a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
11. The airline provides accommodation if there is a very long delay
a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
12. The airline provides online booking services
a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
13. The airline offers discounted fare schemes
a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
14. The airline offers real benefits to frequent fliers
a. Jet Airways Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
b. Indian Airlines Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
c. Air Deccan Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never
d. King Fisher Always 1 2 3 4 5 Never