Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

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

Exploring different airport users’ service quality satisfaction between service T

providers and air travelers
⁎
Seock-Jin Honga, , Dongho Choib, Junjae Chaeb
a
University of North Texas, G. Brint Ryan College of Business, 1155 Union Circle #311396, Denton, TX, 76203-5017, USA
b
Korea Aerospace University, Deokyang-gu, Hanggongdaehang-ro, Gyeonggi-do, Goyang-si, South Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study investigates appropriate attributes— physical environment, outcome, and interactional quality—to
Airport services quality measure users' satisfaction that influences airport users' satisfaction level. With these three attributes and users’
Users' satisfaction perspectives for air travelers and service providers, we generate a conceptual model of airport service quality
Interaction service and satisfaction. The findings indicate that different perceptions exist between airport service providers and air
Outcome service
travelers. Air travelers are more concerned with interaction and outcome (convenience) quality attributes, while
Servicescape
Air traveler
services providers reflect on interaction and physical environment (servicescape) quality attributes. The airport
Service provider service quality is found to be significantly related to airport reuse, and destination revisits. An appropriate
service-training program is needed to reduce the gap in the level of satisfaction.

1. Introduction business, including airport services. However, the quality of service

Airports face many issues regarding service quality that contribute
to increased profits and business expansion. Passengers often do not
have a choice between airports, regardless of the price and quality le-
vels of airport services (Yeh and Kuo, 2003). Particularly, passenger
demand for airport services is likely to be relatively inelastic (Doganis,
1992). However, the airport industry is changing rapidly due to ac-
celerating travel demands and integrated (integrating) regional mar-
kets. Airports are an increasingly competitive environment as more
competitors enter the market and offer the airlines or air travelers a
choice to operate or use services from elsewhere. Service quality at the
airport passenger terminal is a significant performance indicator for
airport operations and management (Yeh and Kuo, 2003); therefore, it
should be treated with the same level of importance as profitability
(Merkert and Assaf, 2015) and consideration to achieve competitive
advantage (Hong and Lee, 2007; Lee-Mortimer, 1993; Pantouvakis and
Renzi, 2016), to improve service levels (Yeh and Kuo, 2003), to prior-
itize investments (Correia et al., 2008), to attract passengers, and to
generate non-aeronautical revenue (Jiang and Zhang, 2016).
To yield the desired results, the service quality of airports must be
defined by and measured from passengers themselves and not by or
from others (Fodness and Murray, 2007). The customers' satisfaction is
becoming an integral part of the thought processes of every type of
cannot be separated from the service provider as an internal customer
because only motivated employees can satisfy their customers. Airport
users vary from air travelers to service providers and includes airport
authority and airlines’ employees, concessionaires, tenants, civil ser-
vants, safety and security-related personnel, and others. The service
provider must empower all levels of airport organization to deliver
quality services, improve existing services, and create innovative ideas.
Thus, this study focuses not only on air travelers,1 the end-users of
airport facilities, and services, but also investigates the gap between air
travelers and service providers, the decision-makers of airport facilities
and services, on a short- and long-term basis.
Only a few researchers have investigated the service quality of
airports from the viewpoint of passengers, airlines, and airport opera-
tors (Hong and Jun 2006; Jun and Hong, 2004 for the air cargo in-
dustry; Lemer, 1992; Seneviratne and Martel, 1994) as well as including
internal and external stakeholders to measure airport performance
along with service quality (Paraschi et al., 2019). Some researchers
posit that air travelers' overall satisfaction to use the airport terminal
may be influenced by a wide range of factors—such as walking dis-
tance, visual information, availability of space, changes in level,
availability and comfort of seating, waiting time, and color sche-
me—that are measured for other reasons or derivable from basic fa-
cilities, design and operating information (Bezerra and Gomes, 2016;

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: seock.hong@unt.edu, seockjin.hong@gmail.com (S.-J. Hong), donghchoi@koreanair.com (D. Choi), jchae@kau.ac.kr (J. Chae).
1
Also known as customer or passenger. Hereafter, we refer to air travelers who use airline services to travel via airports. However, when we cite, we use the same
word that the authors use.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101917
Received 4 April 2019; Received in revised form 19 July 2019; Accepted 12 August 2019
0969-6989/ Published by Elsevier Ltd.
S.-J. Hong, et al.
Lemer, 1992; Tsai et al., 2011; Yeh and Kuo, 2003). However, very few
researchers reveal the intangible (psychological attributes with cogni-
tive and affective (Nghiêm-Phú and Suter, 2018) and servicescape at-
tributes (Fodness and Murray, 2007; Pantouvakis and Renzi, 2016; Park
and Park, 2018) that contribute to airport user's satisfaction with the
passenger terminal services.
Within the academic literature, there is limited coverage of the
servicescape attribute as a physical environment at airports that utilize
air travelers and service providers to measure service quality at airport
passenger terminals. There is no generally accepted conceptual frame-
work of what constitutes an adequate service quality measure with the
users’ overall satisfaction at airports. However, the continuing growth
in air traveler demand and the evolution of airports make it likely that
interest in common service quality measures and evaluation frame-
works will increase. Hence, the overall aim of this research is to fill this
gap using a structural equation model to get a conceptual framework to
find the relationship between service quality and user satisfaction at
airports. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
presents a literature review of the service quality and theoretical
background. Section 3 describes the data, methodology, and research
attributes and hypotheses, focusing on the service factors for airport
passenger terminals. Section 4 presents the results of analysis and dis-
cussion. Section 5 concludes with limitations and future research di-
rections.
2. Literature review of service quality measures
The service quality (SERVQUAL) is evaluated by the gap of custo-
mers’ perception of service and service promises with past experiences,
personal needs, and word-of-mouth for expected quality (Parasuraman
et al., 1985) using a multi-attribute scale (Cronin and Taylor, 1992;
Parasuraman et al., 1988). Despite the validation for the concept of
SERVQUAL (=Performance-Expectations), the model may have in-
herent problems in actually measuring perceived quality (Yeh and Kuo,
2003). Gronroos (1984) suggests measuring customer expectations of
service quality by providing a close approximation to service perfor-
mance (SERVPERF=Performance [Cronin and Taylor, 1992]) that uses
two-factor, technical, and functional quality attributes. Since the in-
ception of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF, there have been lots of discus-
sions to clarify conceptualization of service quality (Cronin and Taylor,
1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988) that is applied very widely to various
industries to measure the service quality using the five attributes of
assurance, empathy, reliability, responsiveness, and tangible. Rust and
Oliver (1994) proposed that the service quality is composed of product,
delivery, and the environment. Brady and Cronin (2001) used three
dimensions: the customer-employee interaction, the service environ-
ment (also known as servicescape [Bitner, 1992]), and the outcome.
We trace back the conceptual framework for evaluating the gap
(SERVQUAL, differences of performance and expectations) based on
perception, performance (SERVPERF), Rust and Oliver (1994) and
Brady and Cronin (2001) models, or any other models regarding the
airport service quality. To the best of our knowledge, Lemer (1992) and
Seneviratne and Martel (1994) were at nearly the beginning stage of
using research to measure the perceptions and expectations of service
quality at airport passenger terminals. The literature on service quality
at the airports is rich enough to provide a concept from academic
journals (Bezerra and Gomes, 2016; Fodness and Murray, 2007; Hong
and Lee, 2007; Jiang and Zhang, 2016), an industry organization report
(ASQ2: Airport Service Quality; Airports Council International, 2018),
and a newspaper survey report (The Wall Street Journal,3 2018). All of
2
ASQ has been developed and implemented by ACI to survey airport custo-
mers' experiences since 2007.
3
The Wall Street Journal (2018) has ranked the 20 largest U.S. airports after
weighing 15 key factors. The rankings are designed to reflect what matters most
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917
the service-related air travel was done at airports including curb-, land-,
and air-side except ticketing and in-flight services offered by airlines.
Fig. 1 depicts the process of airline/airport-related services from tick-
eting to arrival to the destination including ground access to the airport,
check-in, baggage handling, security and immigration at the origin
airport, shopping and dining, boarding, in-flight services, immigration
at the destination airport, and baggage claim.
Researchers on airport service quality have focused more on the
physical environment (Bitner, 1992; Fodness and Murray, 2007; Jiang
and Zhang, 2016; Park and Park, 2018) as tangible attributes. Others
have extended the research to the psychological attributes such as
cognitive (visible, functional attributes; Lemer, 1992; Nghiêm-Phú and
Suter, 2018; Tsai et al., 2011) and affective attributes (feeling;
Pantouvakis and Renzi, 2016) as intangible attributes from the user's
psychological perception. Ambiance, design, and social factors have
also been applied to measure consumers' perceptions of service inter-
action (Baker, 1987) as well as the facility's exterior and interior en-
vironment (Zeithaml et al., 2006). However, we find that the attributes
of airport service quality are different from that of other service in-
dustries. Other service industries, such as hotels, banks, restaurants,
retail shops, and hospitals, used abstract terminology with reliability,
responsiveness, empathy, assurance, convenience, affective, and tan-
gible. For the airport industry, researchers have applied process-based
terminology, such as access, check-in, passport control, security, navi-
gation, facilities, environment, and arrival (ACI, 2018), service area
focus (Correia et al., 2008), mixed processes, and areas with detailed
service times (Bezerra and Gomes, 2016). Researchers have also used
five attributes given by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988), three attri-
butes from Brady and Cronin (2001), or combined some attributes of
Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988) and some process (or area) based at-
tributes.
There is no universal framework or concept of measurement that
covers mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive attributes that
include pleasure and displeasure based on performance. Based on the
existing literature for airport service quality, attributes, and compo-
nents (or construct), the literature is either academic research (Brady
and Cronin, 2001; Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988; Rust and Oliver,
1994) or practical surveys (ACI, 2018; WSJ, 2018) or mixed (see Fig. 2).
Therefore, we attempt to find a hierarchical classification for all of the
attributes on airport service quality with three levels—large, medium,
and small categories—to establish a better framework. All of the com-
ponents were applied to find the relationships with airport service
quality, and we find that they are positively associated (Bezerra and
Gomes, 2016; Correia et al., 2008; Nghiêm-Phú and Suter, 2018 [see
Table 1];).
Based on the review of literature (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988;
Brady and Cronin, 2001; Airports Council International, 2018), we
chose three attributes for this research that comprehensively cover all
of the services and same level of words, such as interaction quality
(Brady and Cronin, 2001 used the terminology with services;
Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988 with empathy); outcome quality (Brady
and Cronin, 2001 with convenience; Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988
with assurance, reliability, and responsiveness), and physical environ-
ment quality (Brady and Cronin, 2001 with servicescape; Parasuraman
et al., 1985, 1988 with tangible).
(footnote continued)
to travelers, including categories like security-line wait times, Wi-Fi speed,
average Yelp scores for restaurants, average fares, Uber traveling cost to local
convention centers, rental-car taxes and fees, number of non-stop destinations
and market dominance of the largest airline. The survey of over 4800 readers
with the groups of measurements were labeled most reliable, best value and
most comfortable.
S.-J. Hong, et al.
Fig. 1. Types of airline/airport services based on who performs actions.
Fig. 2. Attributes for service quality and airport service quality (Airports Council International, 2018; Parasuraman et al., 1985).
3. Methodology and hypotheses
The following procedures were used to develop our theory: 1) re-
view literature on service attributes for airport service quality, 2) spe-
cify survey questionnaire items based on the literature review, 3) col-
lect data at passenger terminals at the Incheon International Airport
(IIA), 4) normality, homoscedastic, and non-response bias test, 5) apply
exploratory factor analysis and reliability test, 6) set hypotheses and
research model, 7) apply confirmatory factor analysis (structural
equation model), and 8) verify hypotheses.
Questionnaire and data collection: The design of the ques-
tionnaire for this study follows Cronin and Taylor (1992), Gronroos
(1984), and Parasuraman et al. (1985) for service quality perception
results by comparing customer expectations with the actual service
performance and using a performance-based measure of service quality.
Based on the literature review, we have service quality items in five
service categories—assurance, empathy, reliability, responsiveness, and
tangibles (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988)—from academia, eight
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917
categories of airport service quality (ACI, 2018) from international
airport agencies such as access, check-in, passport control, security,
navigation, facilities, environment, and arrival, and the Wall Street
Journal ([WSJ], 2018). We applied these service attributes for this
survey, adopting it for passenger terminals at international airports
with two languages (Korean and English) with the references of Fodness
and Murray (2007) and Lemer (1992). The constructs of the ques-
tionnaire are modified for operational and spatial measures of service
quality at airport passenger terminals with the users' perspective. The
questionnaire consists of three segments with respondents’ socio-de-
mographic traits including gender, the purpose of the trip, and fre-
quency of international travel for airport users; and gender, affiliation,
and work experience in years for airport service providers. The second
segment is for overall service quality of IIA (B20). The third segment
has 34 service quality constructs from C01 to C34 (see Table 2). The
questionnaire is tested using a five-point Likert scale where
1 = strongly disagree, and 5 = strongly agree. The survey was con-
ducted during February and March 2018. The respondents were chosen
S.-J. Hong, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

randomly at passenger terminals including departure, arrival, shopping,

Passport control
and a hotel in Seoul who were going to take or use an airline, such as

Environment
Korean Airlines, Asiana Airlines, Air China, China Airlines, Malaysia

Navigation
attributesc
ACI's ASQ

Facilities
Check-in

Security
Airlines, Air France, and KLM. The survey of employees was conducted

Arrival
Access
at the airport who provided direct service to air travelers using the
snowballing method. The response rate for passengers is only 7%–8%,
but for that of employees is over 70%. A total of 138 arrival and de-
Parasuraman et al.’s

parture passengersgave their responses including business purposes

Responsiveness
(22), leisure (104), visit friend-relative ([VFR], 12), and service pro-
vider, which (110) included airport corporations (33), airlines (56), and
attributesb

Reliability
Assurance

Empathy
Tangible

commercial employees (11) as well as civil servants (10) who work in

airports regarding safety and security (see Table 3).
Normality, homoscedastic, and non-response bias test. All
analyses have been subject to bootstrap analysis with 5000 bootstrap
This research attributes

Physical environmental

(Delivery; Functionald)
quality (Servicescape)

samples because of the non-normality of data sets (all of the variables,

Interactional quality

[based on Shapiro-Wilk's test]) and heteroscedastic (standardized re-

Outcome quality
(Convenience;

sidual variables between B20 and attributes, [based on Levene's test]).

Technicald)

To test non-response bias, we used an extrapolation method using dif-

ferent waves of respondents which are assumed to be more similar to
non-respondents between respondents of different time waves
(Armstrong and Overton, 1977). We received the samples from two
Murray (2007); Lemer (1992); Nghiêm-Phú and Suter
(2018); Pantouvakis and Renzi (2016); Park and Park

(2007); Lee et al. (2009); Lemer (1992); Nghiêm-Phú

Renzi (2016); Tsai et al. (2011); Yeh and Kuo (2003)

Bogicevic et al. (2013); Fodness and Murray (2007);

Bezerra and Gomes (2016); Bitner (1992); Bogicevic

different time waves with three-week differences; the first wave was
Nghiêm-Phú and Suter (2018); Oliver (1993); Tsai
and Suter (2018); Oliver (1993); Pantouvakis and
Bezerra and Gomes (2016); Fodness and Murray
et al. (2013); Correia et al. (2008); Fodness and

collected with 114 samples, and the second wave 134 samples through
(2018); Tsai et al. (2011); Yeh and Kuo (2003)

et al. (2011); Pantouvakis and Renzi (2016);

face-to-face interviews at the passenger terminal or office of the em-

ployees. The t-test bootstrap (5000 samples) results show that there
were no statistically significant differences between the two groups
because all of the items from the variable B20 to C34 had a p level of
0.05, which means that non-response bias does not exist in our data.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability test. We ex-
tracted the component using EFA. Based on the principal component
analysis and principal axis factoring, 66.6% of the total variance in the
items can be explained by the three extracted principal components,
which have at least three items using the equamax rotated component
matrix. We applied several rotation methods such as varimax, equamax,
Source

quartimax, direct oblimin, and promax. Among the methods, the

equamax was suitable to get the appropriate model for this research.
Signage, cleanliness, lighting condition, congestion level,

effectiveness, flexibility, efficiency and speed of check-in

The KMO and Bartlett's test (0.964 and Approx. χ2: 7389.59
Processing time, delays, convenience, service reliability
compactness, sound, temperature, diversion, physical

and baggage delivery service, comfort to use, safety,

security, immigration procedure, the convenience of

[sig. = 0.000]) are significant statistically (see Table 4). Cronbach's

public transportation, airport circulation planning
the overall ambiance of the airport, information

alpha (α) is above 0.700, which is statistically significant.

Courtesy of staff, airport receptionist's attitude,
visibility, safety measures and security facility,

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The selected constructs were

& reasonableness, functionality, operational

evaluated through confirmatory analysis using SPSS AMOS (Analysis of

Moment Structures). We applied the traditional CFA using each item as
Airport Council International (ACI_2018) – Airport Service Quality (ASQ).

a separate indicator of the relevant construct, thus providing a detailed

level of analysis. The CFA combined data with air travelers and service
providers ([see Table 5], Cmin/df (χ2/df) = 2.075 [statistical sig-
nificance of χ2: 0.000], CFI = 0.967, SRMR = 0.036, RMSEA = 0.066,
Attributes of service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988).

PClose = 0.011), the model for air travelers (χ2/df = 1.740 [statistical
interaction, image
Hierarchical structure of the airport service quality attributes.

significance of χ2: 0.000], CFI = 0.953, SRMR = 0.055,

environment
Components

RMSEA = 0.073), and the model for service providers (χ2/df = 1.651
[statistical significance of χ2: 0.000], CFI = 0.964, SRMR = 0.037,
RMSEA = 0.077, PClose = 0.013) evaluated the model as an excellent
fit for χ2/df, CFI, and SRMR and acceptable fit for RMSEA and PClose
Middle categorya

based on Hu and Bentler (1999). Therefore, the model of this research is

Outcome quality

acceptable to deploy the structural equation model (see Fig. 3).

environment

Based on Brady and Cronin (2001).

Interaction

Based on the literature review, using EFA and CFA, we use three
Physical

quality

research attributes—interactional quality (Delivery), outcome quality

(Convenience), and physical environment quality (Servicescape).
Rust and Oliver (1994).

Interactional quality (Delivery). The airport service activities

consist of three types4—self-service, interpersonal services, and remote
Intangible (Psychological)
Tangible quality
Large category

4
If the servicescape needs less employee involvement and the level of cus-
quality

tomer activity is lower, Bitner (1992) categorizes the service type as “self-ser-
vice” actions. If the actions need little or no customer involvement, it is “remote
Table 1

service.” Both customers and employees are present and performing actions
d
b
a

within servicescape, the service positioned “interpersonal services.”

4
S.-J. Hong, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

Table 2
Descriptive statistics for determinants of service quality at incheon international airport (IIA).
Item no. Service Quality Constructs n Avg. Std. Dev. Mean

Provider Traveler

B20 The overall service quality of passenger terminals at IIA. 244 3.92 0.95 3.84 3.99
C01 At IIA, the aircraft arrives on time and departs on time. 230 3.55 0.92 3.45 3.63
C02 Employees understand and reassure air travelers when problems arise. 235 3.66 0.89 3.62 3.69
C03 Employees always give their users faith. 237 3.66 0.88 3.62 3.71
C04 Employees explain service inquiries in a kind manner. 241 3.94 0.87 3.89 3.98
C05 Employees immediately provide the services that air travelers require. 240 3.85 0.87 3.76 3.93
C06 Employees seem to be willing to help users. 242 3.87 0.86 3.80 3.91
C07 Employees are courteous and polite. 242 3.96 0.87 3.85 4.05
C08 Services for money exchanges, purchases of goods, and foods are reliable. 237 3.87 0.92 3.89 3.84
C09 Employees have enough knowledge about airports. 244 3.88 0.85 3.77 3.95
C10 Employees know what air travelers' needs are. 241 3.76 0.83 3.77 3.76
C11 IIA is sincerely interested in its air travelers. 239 3.77 0.86 3.80 3.75
C12 Public transportation (buses, railways and taxis) are convenient. 235 3.94 0.96 3.69 4.14
C13 Public transport personnel are kind and helpful 240 3.86 0.90 3.79 3.91
C14 Parking facilities and valet service are excellent and satisfactory. 222 3.44 1.01 3.34 3.53
C15 Convenient and easy to find guiding signs at the airport. 240 3.86 0.92 3.76 3.96
C16 Convenient to be informed about flight information in the terminals. 237 3.86 0.94 3.80 3.92
C17 Convenient to carry baggage. 234 3.77 0.91 3.62 3.90
C18 Close and convenient to go to connecting gate. 226 3.53 1.02 3.50 3.57
C19 Restaurants, cafeteria and bar facilities at an airport. 235 3.82 0.93 3.81 3.83
C20 Retail outlet (souvenir and duty-free shops) at an airport. 242 3.91 0.87 3.83 3.98
C21 Internet connection and rental service for mobile phones. 225 3.61 1.01 3.45 3.73
C22 The restroom is close and clean. 243 4.09 0.87 4.09 4.13
C23 The speed of baggage retrieval is fast. 224 3.69 1.07 3.64 3.75
C24 The restaurant, cafeteria and duty-free shops' staff at the airport are friendly. 236 3.82 0.91 3.86 3.80
C25 Passport and visa screening are fast and accurate, and the staff is friendly. 234 3.78 0.94 3.75 3.82
C26 Security search agents are kind and flexible. 229 3.57 1.01 3.54 3.57
C27 Responds to emergency requests such as lost or stolen baggage. 235 3.77 0.88 3.74 3.82
C28 There is no fear of terrorism, and crime prevention is good. 241 4.03 0.89 4.01 4.05
C29 It is convenient to use the airport terminals in general. 243 3.92 0.93 3.79 4.03
C30 The overall terminal atmosphere (lighting, comfort, and seating). 245 4.15 0.81 3.99 4.27
C31 Pleasant air and humidity at terminal. 240 4.03 0.89 3.83 4.18
C32 In the surrounding environment, the scenery is beautiful. 235 3.78 0.96 3.61 3.94
C33 During stopovers, it is easy to travel around the city at any time. 226 3.51 1.03 3.38 3.66
C34 IIA contributes greatly to the development of the community. 233 3.92 1.00 3.89 3.98
Total mean (C01–C34) 3.77 3.88

*** Significant at 0.001; ** Significant at 0.01; * Significant at 0.05.

Table 3
Descriptive statistics for respondents of airport service quality questionnaire.
Male Female Sub-total Job at Airport (only for the service provider)

Airport Airlines Commercial Civil servanta No response Sub-total

Service provider 56 54 110 (44.4%) 33 (30.0%) 56 (50.9%) 11 (10.0%) 10 (9.1%) 0 (0%) 110 (100%)
How many years worked? (only for the service provider)
< 5 years 6–10 years 11–15 years > 16 tears No response Sub-total
39 (35.5%) 28 (25.5%) 22 (20.0%) 19 (17.3%) 2 (1.8%) 110 (100%)
Air traveler 77 61 138 (55.6%) Travel Purpose (only for the air traveler)
Business Leisure VFR No response Sub-Total
22 (15.9%) 104 (75.4%) 12 (8.7%) 0 (0%) 138 (100%)
How many international trips per year on average? (only for the air traveler)
< 5 times 6-10 times 11 to 15 times > 16 times No response Sub-Total
Total 133 (53.6%) 115 (46.4%) 248 (100%) 124 (89.9%) 10 (7.2%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.4%) 1 (0.7%) 138 (100%)

a
Airport safety and security-related persons.

service (Bitner, 1992). The airline/airport-related services require a
high level of employee involvement (Bitner, 1992). However, modern
technology enables higher levels of customer service with less in-
volvement by airlines or airport employees, including ticketing through
an online website, self-check-in and baggage, and self-security and
immigration checks using kiosks. Therefore, the interpersonal services
are diminishing in the aviation industry, while airports increase in non-
aviation related activities such as shopping, dining, and other activities.
A large number of customers interact with technology to create service
outcomes instead of interacting with a service firm employee (Meuter
et al., 2000). Under these circumstances, we ask, “Do services of
employees still have an influence on service quality? Each particular
service step has a goal or purpose that may be aided or hindered by the
setting and employees’ ability to do his or her work” (Bitner, 1992). The
service quality could be related to airport staff, such as courtesy,
helpfulness and competence (Liou et al., 2011; Yeh and Kuo, 2003),
proper training of staff (Correia et al., 2008), and politeness of the se-
curity check employees for transfer passengers (de Barros and Tomber,
2007). Thus, the first dimension in our model of airport service quality
expectation is the interactional services offered by the airport. We posit:
H1. Interactional service quality has a positive effect on overall airport
service quality satisfaction.

5
S.-J. Hong, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

Table 4
Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis for All Respondents (customers and service providers).
Item No. Research Selected Service Quality Constructs Components Reliability Test
Attributes
1 2 3

C02 Interactional quality (Delivery) Employees understand and reassure all air travelers when problems arise. .750 .213 .275 Cronbach's α = 0.964
C03 Employees always give their users faith. .768 .200 .323
C04 Employees explain service inquiries in a kind manner. .790 .307 .213
C05 Employees immediately provide the services that air travelers require. .761 .308 .228
C06 Employees seem to be willing to help users. .757 .242 .239
C07 Employees are courteous and polite. .768 .357 .193
C09 Employees have enough knowledge about airports. .730 .344 .282
C10 Employees know what their users' individual needs are. .677 .197 .270
C11 IIA is sincerely interested in its air travelers. .654 .173 .267
C20 Physical environment quality (Servicescape) Retail outlets (souvenir and duty-free shops) at an airport. .281 .608 .374 α = 0.894
C22 The restroom is close and clean. .204 .668 .300
C30 The overall terminal atmosphere (lighting, comfort, and seating). .212 .745 .254
C31 Temperature and humidity at terminal. .258 .735 .295
C32 In the surrounding environment, the scenery is beautiful. .224 .671 .240
C15 Outcome quality (Convenience) Convenient and easy to find guiding signs at the airport. .195 .380 .738 α = 0.900
C16 Convenient to be informed about flight information in the terminals. .272 .344 .686
C17 Convenient to carry baggage. .187 .330 .710
C18 Close and convenient to go to connecting gate. .228 .246 .727
Extraction sums of squared loading (%) 57.1 6.2 3.3 66.6a
KMO and Bartlett's test 0.964 and χ2: 7389.59 (0.000b)

a
Total extraction sums of squared loading (%).
b
Significant at 0.001.

This paper discusses the conceptual framework to measure the
service quality as it may be viewed by the various groups who are in-
terested in airport terminals. Airport passenger terminals generally
provide services for moving travelers, airport employees, and their
baggage between aircraft and ground transportation. Airport users have
different perceptions of the service quality at airports, and air travelers’
views are the primary source to measure service quality. However,
travelers, airlines, airport operators, and other users of the terminals
have subjective ideas about comfort, convenience, costs, and ambiance
that should accompany the movement of users and baggage (Lemer,
1992). The service quality has to be balanced among these user groups
(Paraschi et al., 2019), not only for air travelers but also service pro-
viders and other related persons at the airport, to address service
quality performance at airport passenger terminals (see Fig. 4), because
airports can attribute to the tourism destination and tourist experience
by taking the role of an experienced provider (Wattanacharoensil et al.,
2016). Even though air travelers and service providers are a mixed
group (nationality, gender, age, job) that have different perceptions
(Bezerra and Gomes, 2015), a variety of concerns about service, and
different reasons to travel (business, leisure, visit friend-relative) and
use airport terminals, we grouped air travelers into one group and
service providers who provide service directly or indirectly to air tra-
velers into another group; we propose that their perception of service
quality is different. Thus we have subcategories of H1 as follows:
H1-a. The air traveler perceives that interactional service quality has a
positive effect on the airport's overall service quality satisfaction.
H1-b. The service provider perceives that interactional service quality
has a positive effect on the airport's overall service quality satisfaction.
Physical environmental quality (Servicescape). At the airport,
passengers encounter a bundle of tangible and intangible services in a
physical setting that might be characterized as an elaborate servi-
cescape (Bitner, 1992). The human behavior that is influenced by the
physical environment represents a subset of social rules, conventions,
and expectations in force in a given behavior setting, serving to define
the nature of social interaction (Baker, 1987; Bitner, 1992; Forgas,
1980). The environmental variables are propinquity, seating arrange-
ments, size, and flexibility that can define the possibilities and limits of
social episodes, such as those between and among customers and em-
ployees (Forgas, 1980). The physical evidence including terminal
amenities is used by customers to evaluate the service before purchase
and to evaluate the outcomes of service during and after service con-
sumption (Farooq et al., 2018; Zeithaml et al., 2006). Bitner (1992)
defined the physical environment as a servicescape to render services.
The servicescape influences the nature of social interactions between
and among customers and employees (Bitner, 1992). The components

Table 5
Results of confirmatory factor analysis for airport service quality.
Airport usersa (Hx) Air travelers (Hx-a) Service providers (Hx-b) Threshold for Excellentb

Estimate Interpretationb Estimate Interpretationb Estimate Interpretationb

Good of fits χb/df 2.075 Excellent 1.740 Excellent 1.651 Excellent –

CFI 0.967 Excellent 0.953 Excellent 0.964 Excellent –
SRMR 0.036 Excellent 0.055 Excellent 0.037 Excellent –
RMSEA 0.066 Acceptable 0.073 Acceptable 0.077 Acceptable < 0.06
PClose 0.011 Acceptable 0.012 Acceptable 0.013 Acceptable > 0.05

CFI: Comparative Fit Index.

SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.
RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
PClose: p of Close Fit.
a
Airport users include air travelers and service customers.
b
Source: Hu and Bentler (1999).

6
S.-J. Hong, et al.
Fig. 3. Research model for airport service quality.
of a servicescape vary with the nature of service or service industries.
Bitner (1992) composes ambient factors, spatial layout and function-
ality, signs, symbols, and artifacts. The servicescape dimension relates
to who is performing actions—the customer, the employee, or both
(Bitner, 1992). The relative level of involvement of customers and
employees determines whose needs should be consulted in the design of
the environment. The variety of physical environmental factors in ser-
vice organizations are perceived by both customers and employees, and
both groups may respond cognitively, emotionally, and physiologically
to the environment (Bitner, 1992). Even the importance of the quality
of the physical environment may reduce the interpersonal service; very
few researchers have studied the servicescape for airport passenger
terminals (Fodness and Murray, 2007; Park and Park, 2018). The
physical characteristics of the airport passenger terminals reflect more
on the service quality than before. Thus we hypothesize:
H2. Physical environmental quality (servicescape) has a positive effect
on the airport's overall service quality satisfaction.
H2-a. The air traveler perceives that physical environmental quality
(servicescape) has a positive effect on the airport's overall service
quality satisfaction.
Fig. 4. Research model for airport service quality and users' satisfaction.
7
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917
H2-b. The service provider perceives that physical environmental quality
(servicescape) has a positive effect on the airport's overall service
quality satisfaction.
Outcome Quality (Convenience). Time delays and crowding are
the two most widely recognized indicators of poor service quality
(Lemer, 1992). Air travelers have a greater concern regarding reaching
the aircraft with ease, connecting to other transit, connecting with
transfers, and finding alternate flights when there are airline delays.
The uncertainty of connecting or alternating times may be more im-
portant than the trip time itself in evaluating service quality. Up-to-date
flight information and guiding signs are important for moving passen-
gers and their baggage and influences the judgments made by air tra-
velers, airlines, and airport operators about the airport's service quality.
Convenience denotes an environment where customers can receive
services rendered with ease and comfort. This includes the furniture
and equipment of the service facilities, their accessibility, the methods
by which transfer ports are arranged, and the spatial relationship of
these elements (Bitner, 1992) as well as availability and quality of
convenient facilities and services (Bezerra and Gomes, 2016). Thus we
hypothesize:
H3. Outcome quality (Convenience) has a positive effect on the
airport's overall service quality satisfaction.
H3-a. The air traveler perceives that outcome quality (Convenience) has
a positive effect on the airport's overall service quality satisfaction.
H3-b. The service provider perceives that outcome quality
(Convenience) has a positive effect on the airport's overall service
quality satisfaction.
Based on the above three hypotheses, we build up the research
models for combined data with 1) air travelers and service providers,
and 2) only for air travelers and service providers as shown in Fig. 5.
4. Results and discussion
Our findings indicate that the interactional service (delivery)
quality attribute (H1), physical environment quality (servicescape
[H2]), and outcome quality (convenience [H3]) for the service quality of
passenger terminals at the Incheon International Airport are supported
(see Table 6). However, when we separate the samples into two groups,
such as air travelers and airport service providers, we have slightly
different results for the outcome quality (Hx-a) and physical environ-
ment quality attributes (Hx-b). The attribute of interactional service
quality (H1) containing courtesy and attitude of employees at the In-
cheon International Airport supports air travelers (H1-a) and service
providers (H1-b) overall satisfaction. For physical environment quality
(H2), which includes servicescape, such as restrooms, lighting, hu-
midity, and temperature, it is supported by only service providers (H2-b)
but is not supported by air traveler (H2-a). Conversely, the outcome
quality (H3) composed of convenience and easy to find signs, flight
information, baggage, and access to the gate, is supported by air tra-
velers (H3-a), but not by service providers (H3-b).
S.-J. Hong, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917

Fig. 5. Structural equation model and hypotheses for airport service quality (Standardized regression weight of each item and covariance of research attributes from
combined data with air travelers and service providers).

The analysis shows that all three attributes (interactional service,
outcome, and physical environment quality) are acceptable to measure
the service quality of passenger terminals at IIA. A gap exists between
air travelers and service providers who frequently interact at airports.
Service providers place more emphasis on physical environment quality
(servicescape) and interactional service quality. This indicates that
service providers put more emphasis on interactional quality (delivery)
and products (physical environmental quality) and air travelers place
more emphasis on interactional quality (delivery) and outcome (con-
venience). Air travelers consider more intangible attributes with the
outcome, or technical quality and interactional or functional quality.
Although airlines and airport services are changing from interpersonal
to self-service, air travelers recognize that the services from face-to-face
(interpersonal) contact are still important for their overall airport ser-
vice satisfaction. Because service is not a physical item, but an
experience, interactional quality is strictly linked to customer satisfac-
tion (Brady and Cronin, 2001). For transport services, reliability (one of
the components of convenience) becomes the core of the airport's ser-
vice quality (Martín-Cejas, 2006). The judgment of service quality and
satisfaction appear to follow the evaluation of service providers' per-
formance (Cronin and Taylor, 1992). Air travelers may raise or lower
their performance beliefs based on how closely they measure the per-
formance of service providers psychologically. Thus, air travelers cap-
ture the performance of service quality offered by a specific service
provider instead of the physical environment quality even though some
researchers (Park and Park, 2018) posit that the perceived servicescape
has a positive effect on emotional responses and customer satisfaction.
The servicescape that Park and Park (2018) applied is a broad range of
concepts including not only tangible attributes (physical environment
quality) but also intangible (psychological) attributes, such as

Table 6
Results of structural equation model for airport service quality and satisfaction.
Research path Coefficients and hypotheses

Airport users (Hx) Air travelers (Hx-a) Service providers (Hx-b)

Delivery → SAT (2)

0.463*** H1: Supported 0.458*** H1-a: Supported 0.488*** H1-b: Supported
Servicescape → SAT 0.242* H2: Supported 0.118 H2-a: Not supported 0.399** H2-b: Supported
Convenience → SAT 0.219** H3: Supported 0.303** H3-a: Supported 0.063 H3-b: Not supported
Good of fits Estimate Interpretation Estimate Interpretation Estimate Interpretation
χ2/df 2.032 Excellent 1.686 Excellent 1.587 Excellent
CFI 0.966 Excellent 0.955 Excellent 0.965 Excellent
SRMR 0.036 Excellent 0.053 Excellent 0.037 Excellent
RMSEA 0.065 Acceptable(2) 0.071 Acceptable 0.073 Acceptable
PClose 0.013 Acceptable 0.020 Acceptable 0.024 Acceptable

1 SAT: Overall airport users' satisfaction.

2 See Table 5 for the threshold for excellent.

8
S.-J. Hong, et al.
convenience, attractiveness, and pleasantness. They also used the at-
tributes with a causal-effect relationship:
servicescape - > service quality - > customer satisfaction
- > purchase intentions (revisit, recommend to use).
However, we define and use the servicescape with only physical
environment constructs based on Brady and Cronin (2001). Moreover,
we measure the relationship with users’ overall satisfaction not in-
cluding purchase intention because airports have different perspectives
than other industries, which means that air travelers rely more on
carriers and certainty in the relationship between satisfaction and
purchase intentions (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Martín-Cejas, 2006).
One of the important purposes of this research is to avoid mis-
interpretation of the air traveler's demand for service quality. Positive
perceptions of service quality create favorable behavioral intentions to
repurchase/reuse, engage in positive word of mouth, endorse the pro-
ducts/services, price sensitivity, and ultimately, become loyal towards
the firm (Prentice and Kadan, 2019) and destination choice. Air
transport has played an important role in facilitating increased desti-
nation access and has paved the way for entirely new routes to operate,
thus, expanding the scope of the tourism sector (Prentice and Kadan,
2019). However, the finding of this study shows that service providers
have a different perception than their customers. The service provider
recognizes the service quality as a view of themselves at first (em-
ployees' services) and the physical environment as a service product.
Even though the physical environment and terminal amenities had a
positive direct effect on air traveler satisfaction, and service providers
at IIA have a prowess for the state-of-the-art amenities at the airport
based on our interviews, air travelers put more priority on interpersonal
service.
5. Conclusion with limitations and future research directions
While the various concerns and points of view that define the ser-
vice quality are expressed through the actions of market, regulatory,
and political forces, observers with different points of view often can
agree upon which passenger terminals perform very well or very poorly
(Lemer, 1992). The United States' top three airports, Denver, Orlando,
and Phoenix, have one major factor in common: strong competition
among airlines (WSJ, 2018). Decision-makers concerned with pas-
senger terminals need specific models for measuring and predicting
how existing and proposed terminals respond to air travelers' demands
and airline operations (Lemer, 1992). However, service quality is an
elusive and abstract construct that is difficult to define and measure
(Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1985). Thus, interest in
the measurement of service quality is high, and the delivery of higher
levels of service quality is the strategy that is increasingly being offered
as a key benefit to service providers’ efforts to position themselves more
effectively in the marketplace (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman
et al., 1985). In this context, this current research provides the con-
ceptual framework of service quality, including the need for service
providers to fill gaps, design services, and operate airport passenger
terminals more efficiently.
This study conceptualizes airport service quality using three-di-
mensions—interactional, physical environmental, and outcome qual-
ity—and finds the gaps between service providers and air travelers'
perception of service quality. Service providers place more emphasis on
interactional service quality and physical environment quality (servi-
cescape) while air travelers place more emphasis on interactional ser-
vice quality and outcome quality (convenience). The evaluation of
passenger satisfaction levels on airport services has become an im-
portant issue for airport management (Yeh and Kuo, 2003;
Wattanacharoensil et al., 2016). Air travelers' choices among airports
are increasing. Airports are the first point of contact when visitors ar-
rive at a destination. Thus, an airport introduces the first images of a
destination to visitors (Martín-Cejas, 2006; Paraschi et al., 2019). The
objective of this study was to investigate the conceptualization and
9
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917
measurement of service quality and the relationship between service
quality and users’ satisfaction at airports. This research includes service
providers because the interaction with service providers leads to the
satisfaction of air travelers, reuse, and destination choice.
Furthermore, the service providers at the airport have an important
role in satisfying the customer for the airport in the front line. We find
the gap between service providers and air travelers at the airport
terminal. Air travelers tend to value the attributes of interactional
services (delivery) and outcome while service providers value the at-
tributes of the product (physical environment) and delivery even
though a high level of airport terminal facilities are important (lighting,
comfort, seating, humidity, scenery, etcetera) at IIA. With these find-
ings, the implementation of service-training programs for airport ser-
vice personnel is recommendable (Chiu et al., 2016; Correia et al.,
2008). The findings of this study can help airport authorities better
recognize needed improvements in face-to-face service and strategies.
The research studies on the conceptualization of service quality at
the airport are abundant. This study contributes to the ongoing exten-
sion of the research to define a global performance construct. The
common service quality measures that reflect several points of view for
airport terminal operations will yield benefits in improved operations,
decision-making, and a better quality of life for air travelers (Lemer,
1992). Additional research is needed to examine the implications that
arise from the characteristics of self-service technologies. Technology
has become an integral part of the marketplace. Customers are in-
creasingly given the option to use self-service technologies, which is
changing the way customers interact with firms to create better service
outcomes (Meuter et al., 2000), and allows them more recreational time
while traveling (Ku and Chen, 2013). Airports continue to apply more
innovative self-service technologies, such as mobile check-in, kiosks for
self-check-in, baggage drop, security, and immigration checks. The
growing importance of self-service is changing the nature of services
fundamentally at the airport. Further research should consider air tra-
veler's trip purpose, income, nationality, airport ownership, and the
degree of regulation to conceptualize the framework of service quality.
Additionally, the sample used in this study reflects departure passen-
gers only. Because of this limitation, the framework of this research is
cautioned.
References
Airports Council International, 2018. Airport Service Quality (ASQ). Retrieved from.
http://www.aci.aero/Customer-Experience-ASQ/Homepage 6/8/2018.
Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J.
Mark. Res. 14 (3), 396–402.
Baker, J., 1987. The role of the environment in marketing services: the consumer per-
spective,. In: The Services Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage.
American Marketing Association xx-xx.
Bezerra, G.C.L., Gomes, C.F., 2015. The effects of service quality dimensions and pas-
senger characteristics on passenger's overall satisfaction with an airport. J. Air Transp.
Manag. 44–45, 77–81.
Bezerra, G.C.L., Gomes, C.F., 2016. Measuring airport service quality: a multidimensional
approach. J. Air Transp. Manag. 53, 85–93.
Bitner, M.J., 1992. Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. J. Mark. 56 (2), 57–71.
Bogicevic, V., Yang, W., Bilgihan, A., Bujisic, M., 2013. Airport service quality drivers of
passenger satisfaction. Tour. Rev. 68 (4), 3–18.
Brady, M.K., Cronin, J.J., 2001. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
quality: a hierarchical approach. J. Mark. 65 (3), 34–49.
Chiu, S.-C., Liu, C.-H., Tu, J.-H., 2016. The influence of tourists' expectations on purchase
intention: linking marketing strategy for low-cost airlines. J. Air Transp. Manag. 53,
226–234.
Correia, A.R., Wirasinghe, S.C., de Barros, A.G., 2008. A global Index for level of service
evaluation at airport passenger terminals. Transp. Res. E Logist. Transp. Rev. 44 (4),
607–620.
Cronin, J.J., Taylor, S.A., 1992. Measuring service quality: a reexamination and exten-
sion. J. Mark. 56 (3), 55–68.
de Barros, A.G., Tomber, D.D., 2007. Quantitative analysis of passenger and baggage
security screening at airports. J. Adv. Transp. 41 (2), 171–193.
Doganis, R., 1992. The Airport Business. Routledge, London.
Farooq, M.S., Salam, M., Fayollec, A., Jaafard, N., Ayuppd, K., 2018. Impact of service
quality on customer satisfaction in Malaysia airlines: a PLS-SEM approach. J. Air
Transp. Manag. 67, 169–180.
S.-J. Hong, et al.
Fodness, D., Murray, B., 2007. Passengers' expectations of airport service quality. J. Serv.
Mark. 21 (7), 492–506.
Forgas, J.P., 1980. Social Episodes: the Study of Interaction Routines. Academic Press,
London.
Gronroos, C., 1984. A service quality model and its marketing implication. Eur. J. Market.
18 (4), 38–39.
Hong, S.-J., Jun, I., 2006. An evaluation of the service quality priorities of air cargo
service providers and customers. World Rev. Intermodal Transp. Res. 1 (1), 55–68.
Hong, S.-J., Lee, J., 2007. A study of measuring service quality in Incheon international
airport focusing on the passenger terminal. Journal of Korean Society of
Transportation 25 (1), 81–91.
Hu, L.-T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1), 1–55.
Jiang, H., Zhang, Y., 2016. An assessment of passenger experience at melbourne airport.
J. Air Transp. Manag. 54, 88–92.
Jun, I., Hong, S.-J., 2004. An evaluation of the service quality priorities of air cargo
service providers and customers. Journal of Korean Society of Transportation 22 (5),
35–45.
Ku, E.C.S., Chen, C.-D., 2013. Fitting facilities to self-service technology usage: evidence
from kiosks in taiwan airport. J. Air Transp. Manag. 32, 87–94.
Lee, J., Hong, S.-J., Leem, C., 2009. A study on efficiency of major airports in asia-using
DEA and super efficiency. Journal of the Aviation Management Society of Korea 7 (3),
3–12.
Lee-Mortimer, A., 1993. Customer focus takes off. TQM Mag. 5 (3), 37–41. Retrieved
from. https://libproxy.library.unt.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/
docview/227565932?accountid=7113.
Lemer, A., 1992. Measuring performance of airport passenger terminals. Transp. Res. A
Policy Pract. 26A (1), 37–45.
Liou, J.J.H., Tang, C.-H., Yeh, W.-C., Tsai, C.-Y., 2011. A decision rules approach for
improvement of airport service quality. Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (11), 13723–13730.
Martín-Cejas, R.R., 2006. Tourism service quality begins at the airport. Tour. Manag. 27
(5), 874–877.
Merkert, R., Assaf, A.G., 2015. Using DEA models to jointly estimate service quality
perception and profitability–evidence from international airports. Transp. Res. A
Policy Pract. 75, 42–50.
10
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101917
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I., Bitner, M.J., 2000. Self-service technologies:
understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters. J.
Mark. 64, 50–64.
Nghiêm-Phú, B., Suter, J.R., 2018. Airport image: an exploratory study of McCarran in-
ternational airport. J. Air Transp. Manag. 67, 72–84.
Oliver, R.L., 1993. Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. J.
Consum. Res. 20 (3), 418–430.
Pantouvakis, A., Renzi, M.F., 2016. Exploring different nationality perceptions of airport
service quality. J. Air Transp. Manag. 52, 90–98.
Paraschi, E.P., Georgopoulos, A., Kaldis, P., 2019. Airport business excellence model: a
holistic performance management system. Tour. Manag. 72, 352–372.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research. J. Mark. 49 (4), 41–50.
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), 12–40.
Park, K., Park, J.-M., 2018. The effects of the servicescape of airport transfer amenities on
the behavioral intentions of transfer passengers: a case study on Incheon interna-
tional airport. J. Air Transp. Manag. 72, 68–76.
Prentice, C., Kadan, M., 2019. The role of airport service quality in airport and destination
choice. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 47, 40–48.
Rust, R.T., Oliver, R.L., 1994. Service quality: insights and managerial implications from
the frontier. In: Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Rust and Oliver.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1–19.
Seneviratne, P.N., Martel, N., 1994. Criteria for evaluating quality of service in air
terminal. Transp. Res. Rec. 1461, 24–30.
Tsai, W.H., Hsu, W., Chou, W.C., 2011. A gap analysis model for improving airport service
quality. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 22 (10), 1025–1040.
Wall Street Journal, 2018. The Best of the Biggest U.S. Airports: the First WSJ U.S. Airport
Rankings Uses 15 Metrics to Determine Which of the 20 Largest Airports Treat
Travelers Better. The. 14 November.
Wattanacharoensil, W., Schuckert, M., Graham, A., 2016. An airport experience frame-
work from a tourism perspective. Transp. Rev. 36 (3), 318–340.
Yeh, C.H., Kuo, Y.L., 2003. Evaluating passenger services of asia-pacific international
airports. Transp. Res. E Logist. Transp. Rev. 39 (1), 35–48.
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J., Gremler, D.D., 2006. Services Marketing: Integrating
Customer Focus across the Firm, fourth ed. McGraw-Hill, New York (Irwin).