Chapter 4 Results of Survey and Discussion
4.3 The Comparisons of Results with Those of Other Papers
After analyzing the importance of factors, we will compare our results with those of the reviewed papers in Table 4.3.
First, we use the method of Erdal (2009). The six point scale is given for each factor. If the factor is the most important factor in the paper, the factor will score six points, the second most important then the factor will score five points, the third important then the factor will score four points, the fourth important then the factor will score three points, the fifth important then the factor will score two points, and the sixth important then the factor will be score one point, however, if the rank of factor is less than sixth, it will score zero point. The calculation of sores and rank for the 19 factors are in Table 4.3
Table 4.3 Score and Rank for Factors in the Review Papers
Factor Priority in the Reviewed papers Score Rank
Brand Image The most important in: 1Qin (2012) The second important in: 2Atalik and Ozdemir (2015) The third important in: 3Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013) The fifth important in: 5Buaphiban (2015)
17 10
Safety Record
The most important in: 1Nejati et al.
(2008), 1Hamidi et al. (2013) The third important in: 3Qin (2012),
3Ariffin et al. (2010) The fourth important in: 4Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013)
23 6
73
Factor Priority in the Reviewed papers Score Rank
Service Supply Chain
The second important in: 2Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013)
The third important in: 3Atalik and Ozdemir (2015) The fourth important in: 4Buaphiban (2015)
The fifth important in: 5Nejati et al. (2008) The sixth important in: 6Ariffin et al.
(2010)
15 12
Price
The most important in: 1Ha (2010), 1Yeoh and Chan (2011), 1Atalik and Ozdemir (2015) The second important in: 2Qin (2012),
2Sarker et al. (2012) The third important in: 3Buaphiban (2015) The fourth important in: 4Nochais (2014)
35 1
Alliance
The third important in: 3Sarker et al.
(2012)
4 19
Promotion and
Advertising The most important in: 1Nochais (2014) The second important in: 2Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), 2Atalik and Ozdemir (2015) The fourth important in: 4Qin (2012),
4Sarker et al. (2012), 4Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013)
25 5
Reliability
The most important in: 1Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013), 1Wen and Chi (2013) The third important in: 3Qin (2012),
3Ariffin et al. (2010), 3Hamidi et al. (2013) The fourth important in: 4Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013) The sixth important in: 6Nejati et al.
(2008)
28 3
74
Factor Priority in the Reviewed papers Score Rank
Tangible The sixth important in: 6Qin (2012),
6Hamidi et al. (2013)
12 13
Responsiveness
The most important in: 1Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013) The second important in: 2Nochais (2014),
2Saha (2009) The third important in: 3Qin (2012), 3Wen and Chi (2013) The fourth important in: 4Nejati et al.
(2008) The sixth important in: 6Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013)
28 3
Assurance
The most important in: 1Ariffin et al.
(2010), 1Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013) The second important in: 2Saha (2009),
2Wen and Chi (2013) The sixth important in: 6Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013)
23 6
Punctuality
The most important in: 1Saha (2009) The second important in: 2Yeoh and Chan (2011) The third important in: 3Atalik and
Ozdemir (2015), 3Sarker et al. (2012), 3Ha (2010) The fourth important in: 4Buaphiban (2015), 4Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong
29 2
75
Factor Priority in the Reviewed papers Score Rank
(2013) Flight Availability
The most important in: 1Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), 1Saha (2009) The third important in: 3Atalik and Ozdemir (2015) The fourth important in: 4Ha (2010) The fifth important in: 5Sarker et al.
(2012), 5Ariffin et al. (2010)
23 6
Flight Compensation
The third important in: 3Wen and Chi (2013) The fourth important in: 4Hamidi et al.
(2013) The fifth important in: 5Ha (2010)
9 15
Flight Announcement
The second important in: 2Hamidi et al.
(2013) The third important in: 3Ariffin et al.
(2010)
9 15
Cleanliness
The third important in: 3Yeoh and Chan (2011), 3Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013)
8 17
Comfort
The second important in: 2Ariffin et al.
(2010) The third important in: 3Saha (2009),
3Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013) The fourth important in: 4Yeoh and Chan (2011), 4Buaphiban (2015), 4Atalik and Ozdemir (2015)
22 9
Entertainment
The third important in: 3Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013) The fourth important in: 4Buaphiban (2015)
7 18
76
Factor Priority in the Reviewed papers Score Rank
Facilities
The third important in: 3Saha (2009) The fourth important in: 4Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013), 4Atalik and Ozdemir (2015) The fifth important in: 5Qin (2012),
5Nochais (2014), 5Hamidi et al. (2013)
16 11
According to Table 4.3, we find that in the reviewed papers the six most important factors are price (score = 35), punctuality (score = 29), reliability and responsiveness (the same score = 28), followed by promotion (score = 25), as well as, the three factors of safety, flight availability, and assurance (the same score = 23), and comfort (score = 22). Moreover, two least important factors are entertainment (score = 7) and alliance (score = 4).
Table 4.4 The Results of Comparison with Those of Other Papers
The six most important factors The two least important factors Our Study Price, Punctuality, Safety Record,
Reliability, Responsiveness, Flight
* Reliability and Responsiveness have the same score.
**Safety Record, Flight availability, and Assurance have the same score.
The above data indicates that price and punctuality are regarded as the two most important factors in our research that affect Thai passengers to select low cost airlines, as well as, in the reviewed papers. Yeoh and Chan (2011) also support that price is the most significant influential factor to purchase intention of low cost airline. Low cost airline passengers are much concerned with low price in order to save money because the passengers have experienced that service quality of low cost airline is unpredictable in every flight of journeys, and this results in that the on time performance is different too, therefore, punctuality is not so much important as price. Atalik and Ozdemir (2015) show that price
77
overcomes punctuality that affecting the purchase decision of domestic low cost airlines.
Saker et al. (2012) support that low and competitive pricing is the most important factor followed by on time performance that low cost airlines could retain their customers and ensure repeat purchase intention. Ha (2010) also claims that price is more important than no-delay for consumer’s choice in no-frill airline.
The third importance factor under this research is safety record while reviewed papers rank safety record as the fifth important factor but give much value to reliability and responsiveness. Safety record is concerned as the third most important factor for Thai passengers to select low cost airlines. From the records of accidents occurred in Thailand, especially, in road traffic, WHO (World Health Organization, 2014) exposes that Thailand was ranked at the number two of road fatalities in the world, with 44 road deaths per 100,000 people. Fatalities of road accidents made up 5.1% of Thailand’s overall deaths. Therefore, the high number of fatality related to road transportation accidents in Thailand may cause Thai passengers to pay more attentions to the safety record of air transportation. Besides, In Thailand, many companies fail to create the effective safety culture (Vongvitayapirom, 2013). However, Thai people consider that, to reduce the rate of accidents and improve safety performance, safety culture must be concerned.
Moreover, Safety record in our study is the factor under airline corporate dimension, which is regarded as the most important dimension affecting Thai passengers to select low cost airline. In other words, Thai passengers consider that safety record, a reflection of airline corporate, is more important than reliability and responsiveness, a reflection of service quality. Graham and Bansal (2007) indicate that safety record is one of the major components of airline reputation. Pipatchaisiri (2012) describes that the airline accidents cause more damage than any other transportation losses. As well as, Buapiban (2015) supports that non-safety of airline is one of the inhibiting factors for Thai passengers in choice of airline since passengers may perceive the safety standard of LCA to be less ideal than full service airline.
Therefore, un-safety can reduce the intention to select low cost airline (Chang and Hung, 2013). Hamidi et al. (2013) also claim that any change in flight safety, especially in high-competition routes, will result in changes in the travelers' purchase behavior and a very likely change of airline for domestic flights.
Reliability and responsiveness provided by airline staffs are ranked the third (with the same score) in the reviewed papers, while, in our study, they are ranked in the fourth and fifth
78
factors, respectively. According to Thai people’s characteristics, most Thai people are more tolerant than American people since Thais enjoy “Jai yen” or “cool heart” in their lifestyle, it means they are likely to accept most things with grace and calm (Goodman, 2004). However, most American people are dynamic, energetic, impatient, and restless (Picon and Ponte, 2003). This can be implied that, Thai people are less promptly than people of other countries (Kromadit, 2008). Most Thai people think themselves as Thai Buddhists. Japanese and the other culture in South East Asian are more energetic, and Thai culture is less active and more easygoing (Burnard and Gill, 2009). Therefore, Thai people consider reliability and responsiveness to be less important.
In fact, the reliability and responsiveness is not much different in comparison. It might be that people perceive reliability and responsiveness are the two important factors influencing the consumer’s expectation of the service provider in the long term relationship (Furrer et al., 2000). Moreover, service quality is concerned as the most crucial point that passengers accept low cost airlines and ensure repeat business. Sarker (2012) explains that the most important thing that passengers require low cost airline to provide is good customer service through a broad of functions.
However, Thai passengers are more concerned with safety record than reliability and responsiveness of service quality. Suhartanto and Noor (2012) claims that improving the service quality would let low cost airline be able to provide better airline safety.
Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013) support that safety record of airline is much necessary than friendliness and accuracy performed by airline staffs for Thai passengers to select low cost airline.
The fourth and fifth important factors in our study are reliability and responsiveness, but the reviewed papers give much value to them and rank them as the third, while rank promotion and advertising factor as the fifth. However, in our study promotion and advertising are ranked as the tenth. In fact, Indonesians are more concerned on price in their purchasing decision (Kurabayashi et al., 2013). Therefore, Air Asia releases more frequency of discount promotion to Indonesia Air Asia than Thai Air Asia (Airasia, 2013). Moreover, in term of the consumer behavior, Thai are less preferred on promotion than Vietnamese, Malaysian, and Taiwanese (Neilsan, 2011).
79
Moreover, Thai passengers consider that the public relation of Thai low cost airline is relatively poor. From the data of DCA (Department of Civil Aviation, Thailand, 2015) indicates that Thai passengers always complain for problems when booking the ticket during the sale promotion period. Moreover, by regulation, all of Thai low cost carriers are not allowed to sell ticket fare too low in pricing promotion, while foreign low cost carriers launching a lot of heavy low price promotion assaults on Thai low cost airline market (MOT, Ministry of Transport in Thailand, 2015). Therefore, this might result in Thai low cost carriers are weaker in the frequency of promotion campaigns, the advertising and public relation channels, especially, on social media, as well as, the attractive quality of promotion and advertising distributed to passengers (Sokolovskyy, 2012).
It is customary for the low cost airline to use ticket promotion to induce passenger demand and motivate the sales (Lim and Mohayidin, 2011). Since price is the most important factor influencing Thai passengers when selecting low cost airline in our study, Thai passengers always make a buying decision on airfare promotion to obtain the low price ticket with less concern with other important factors (Thanasupsin et al., 2010). Chan (2014) claims that price promotion alone, is not an effective competitive strategy to increase low cost passenger purchases intention. Usually, low cost airline business model is away from frequent flyer program (FFP), and low cost airline rarely offers FFP despite it has been a very successful way to build brand loyalty of passengers for full service airline (Nissenberg, 1994;
Boer and Browning, 2013). Sripromnil (2008) suggests that the changeable flight schedules with no charge of fees is an alternative in sale promotion that influencing final decision of Thai passengers. Sarker et al. (2012) suggest that innovative promotion, offering for student passengers segment is interesting since this type of group is more likely to be attracted owing to their budget limit. In term of the advertising, Nochais (2014) also claims that low cost airline should use a lot of advertising channels to communicate with passengers, and it should promote the image of country and the scenic beauty to attract more tourists.
The flight availability is the sixth important factor in our paper and other studies. Most Thai people attempt to avoid high uncertainty. According to Hofstede (1983), when people feel threatened by uncertain and ambiguity, they will try to create security and avoid risk taking. Monthienvichienchai et al. (2002) state that this cultural behavior could enforce conformity. Another prominent illustration has been provided by Roongrengsuke and Chansuthus (1998). They noted that, when there was an absence of a specific job description,
80
individuals in Thai organizations will feel anxious and uncertain. Thus, it can be concluded that most members of Thai organization will try to avoid situations that are high in uncertainty, especially during an organizational change (Lertdechdecha, 2008).
As for assurance, although the other papers rank assurance as sixth important factor influencing the selection of low cost airline, but Thai passengers are less concerned in assurance. It might be explained by the distinction of Thai culture that basically Thais are collectivistic people who engage in the amicability relationship, and associate with the hierarchical roles, in term of dependence on gender, and family background (Mujtaba, 2008).
Therefore, Thai people usually are not necessary to learn a lot of ability, since the seniority system of society leads to create only one way communication that all of the thoughts depend on higher commanders. Besides, this system is not able to bring about the knowledge sharing, exchange any opinion, and new fresh idea in the organization (Mongkolchai Wiriyapinit, 2010). It is apparently seen in the data of Federation of Thai industry (2002), which claims that Thai people are less in seeking for the knowledge and skills to improve their talents guaranteeing the works success, because traditionally they will follow the orders from upper level managers. On the other hand, in American, they are associated with egalitarian relationships and flexibility in roles (e.g., upward mobility), and they emphasize more on the ability to assure their performance for their success (Gorodnichenko and Roland, 2011).
Alliance and entertainment are ranked as the second least and least important factors in this study, respectively; moreover, in the reviewed papers, entertainment is ranked as the second least important while alliance is the least important factor. The reason maybe that so far, there is no low cost airlines join the global alliance (Lopez, 2013). Moreover, in recent years, tourism industry in Thailand has become more important, it is not only attracts more foreigners to take a flight to Thailand, but Thai people also are gradually taking domestic journey. From the data of TAT (Tourism Authority of Thailand) and NSO (National Statistical Office of Thailand) (2015), indicate that the number of Thai people travelling in Thailand since 2010 to 2014 has increased every year from 50.1% to 64.9%, and this situation might cause Thai passengers are less concerned on the airline alliance since it is not necessary to use the strategy of alliance to expand domestic flights to international flights.
The data from the Office of the Ombudsman Thailand (2014) indicate although Thai people like social harmony, many conflicts have happened in Thai Society recently. Moreover, the loose social structure makes Thai people be too individualistic, and they do not like to work
81
in group. From the child moment, Thai people are independent, individual, not satisfied with force, and without discipline, this situation might influence them in the term of cooperation (Embree, 1950; Phillips, 1967). However, the merging within low cost airline alliance seems to be in the good trend, JetBlue and Aer Lingus, form the first low cost airline alliance, and recently the forming of four low cost airlines in Asian, U-Fly alliance. Goh and Uncle (2003) indicate that the benefits for passengers from airline alliance are cheaper pricing, more route options in case of itinerary changing, transferable priority status, extended lounge access, and participating in the alliance’s Frequent Flyer Program (FFP). Therefore, alliance might encourage Thai passengers gradually considering about the importance of alliance which serving the values of their individual needs.
The least important factor for Thai passengers is entertainment. Thai passengers are less concerned on entertainment which may be accounted by the shorter leisure time of Thai people. Saksiriruthai (2013) describes that the average time per day spent for entertainment for Thai people is relatively short, which is about 1 hour a day, comparing with the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (American Time Use Survey, 2014) is about 5 hours per day.
Moreover, the amusement activities that Thai people prefer are related to the personal care, developing health, and physical appearance, especially in the activities of sleeping, personal hygiene and health, than consuming the mass media. Therefore, Thai passengers may feel that it is not necessary to spend time on the on-board entertainment. Nejati et al. (2008) also support that through the eyes of Iran passengers the comfortable chairs with sufficient space for sitting, and clean rest-rooms in the airplanes are more important than providing up-to-date newspapers, magazines, and video films during the flight.
82