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

net/publication/333079371

TRAVELLERS' CHOICE OF LOW-COST CARRIERS IN MALAYSIA

Article · November 2018

DOI: 10. 24924/ijabm/2018.11/v6.iss2/1.35

CITATIONS READS

0 262

2 authors, including:

Ismail Nizam
International University of Malaya-Wales
43 PUBLICATIONS   143 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Maqasid based Entrepreneurship View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ismail Nizam on 14 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Accounting & Business Management
Vol. 6 (No.2), Nov, 2018
ISSN: 2289-4519
DOI: 10. 24924/ijabm/2018.11/v6.iss2/1.35 www.ftms.edu.my/journals/index.php/journals/ijabm

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Research Paper

THE DETERMINANTS OF TRAVELLERS’ CHOICE OF LOW-COST

CARRIERS IN MALAYSIA
Kumaran Ramasamy
Lord Ashcroft International Business School,
Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK
kumaran.ramasamy@live.com

Ismail Nizam, PhD

FTMS College
nizam@ftms.edu.my

Abstract

The origin of the low-cost carrier (LCC) into Malaysian aviation in the mid 2003 has
reformed air travelling for travelers. The currently flooded short distance air travel finds
airlines are dynamically scheming of their plan of action, trying to additionally separate
their product contribution from their competitors. With a wide variety of airlines to
investigate, the passenger is looked with what from time to time can be an unpredictable
choice executing process regarding which airline to fly with, and the reason for selecting a
particular airline to travel. This study, through survey research investigation attempts to
perceive the main determinants of decision of airline (with particular accentuation upon
low-cost carriers) and the suggestions for decision-making process before travelling, in
Malaysia. The research was legitimized in light of the fast improvement of low-cost air
transport in Malaysia, especially in local and provincial travel. There is an absence of
fruitful clarification of the factors of decision of LCCs in Malaysia and following a broad
literature survey, the researcher used a theoretical framework in light of the Theory of
Planned Behavior (TPB) with a particular true objective to clarify passenger behavioral
intentions and to further investigate the repeat purchase intentions of travelers. This
context was accompanied via airline operative factors distinguished from the literature,
including Price, Service Quality, Airline Reputation, Safety, Route Accessibility and
Convenience, Frequent Flyer Programs and Seat Comfort. Organized questionnaires were
emailed to frequent travelers who were identified and chosen from the timeline of social
media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and etc. The final sample collected for
this study was 425 which was prevalently working-class, balanced sex distribution,
profoundly qualified, with fair family unit incomes and air travelled at a recurrence of at
least twice each year or more. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural
Equation Model (SEM) was utilized as a data analysis technique in this study. This
research was concluded with an outcome where Safety, Service Quality, Price and
Frequent Flyer Program was found to be significant and has a positive significant impact
on the purchasing decision of travelers of LCC in Malaysia. Further it was found that, the
determinants which forms the Purchasing Decision also has a positive significant influence
and impact on the Repeat Purchase Intention of travelers of LCC in Malaysia.

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 1
Key Terms: Purchasing Behavior, Repeat Purchase Intention, Price, Service Quality, Airline
Reputation, Safety, Route Accessibility and Convenience, Frequent Flyer Program, Seat Comfort.

1. Introduction

This examination concentrated on inspecting factors that impact a traveller’s

choice of a low-cost carrier (LCC). An LCC, is an airline that separates itself in the
market through lower ticket charges (Civil Aviation Authority, 2006). A full-service
airline ordinarily offers travellers in-flight entertainment, checked baggage, meals,
beverages and comfort, for example, covers and pillows in the ticket cost. The seats for
the most part have leaner back than a low-cost carrier and also more leg room. Low cost
carrier is impossible to be contrasted with full-service carrier as they provide a totally
unique item on commonly far shorter courses where the frills do not make a difference
to such an extent.
The aviation business in Malaysia is spearheaded by two airlines. These are
Malaysia Airlines (full-service carrier – FSC) and Air Asia (low-cost carrier – LCC).
Malaysia Airlines, the national carrier of Malaysia is servicing both worldwide and
household courses over 100 destinations around the world. It has one of the biggest
fleet sizes in South East Asia and is one of just six airlines to have been granted a 5-star
assessment by Skytrax in the year 2013 and for 5 years consecutively before that
(eGlobal, 2013).
Air Asia is the primary low-cost airline in the area, and it works planned local
and international flights to more than 75 destinations in 21 nations (Air Asia, 2017).
This incorporates Air Asia X, Thai Air Asia, and Indonesia Air Asia. Air Asia has been re-
engineered and made a wonderful improvement and transformed into a productive
airline in 2002. In 2006, the airline was selected as among the finest 3 Best Regional
airlines in the low-cost airline classification by Skytrax World Airline Award. Between
2009 to 2017, the airline has picked up the honor of the World's Best Low-Cost Airlines
from Skytrax (Zhang, 2017).
The rivalry between Malaysia Airlines and Air Asia has been vigorous specifically
as respects to the price factor. Air Asia has been compellingly progressing itself with the
slogan of "Now Everyone Can Fly". This has tested the marking spot of the established
Malaysia Airlines. The two airlines provide services to distinctive clients base and offer
distinctive services involvement. Nevertheless, it is normal that the consumer loyalty
standard for both airlines is diverse as the clients' recognition on full-service airlines
and low-cost airlines are extraordinary (O'Connel & Williams, 2005).
The fundamental goal of this investigation is to inspect the determining variables
among travelers in choosing low-cost carrier for their air travel - a case study of
Malaysia. This is accomplished by recognizing the void amongst perceptions and
expectations among travelers who have utilized the services of low-cost airlines.
This research examined the manner in which the travelers select low-cost carriers also
what features assume a part in that choice. The examination is intended to achieve an
objective in comprehension of the Asian and Malaysian LCC marketplace. Study on LCCs
in Southeast Asia is constrained to a couple of notable cases. Single investigation has
been led in Malaysia on determinant of decision amongst LCC and FSC (Sai, et al., 2011).
This examination attempts to choose the components that effect the selection of full-
service airline and low-cost carriers in Malaysia. Price, Safety, Customer loyalty,
Promotions, Strategic alliance, Service quality and Carrier decision was received as
independent variables with the end goal of this examination. The after effects of this
investigation demonstrated that 'Safety' is the most basic factor in choosing full service
airlines while explorers' tendency of choosing low-cost carrier is a direct result of the
low 'Price' offered by the carrier. This examination is useful in that it recognizes the

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 2
significance of key service factors for distinguishing the factor of decision amongst LCC
and FSC travelers. However, the data collection and the research were conducted 7
years ago and the research outcome may be obsolete for the current time and the data
may be outdated.
The current trends in this field especially in the context of Malaysia, is to examine the
determinant factor of travellers’ choice of airline, and latest publications in this field
dates back to 2011 (Sai, et al., 2011; Yeoh & Kim, 2011). Various variables are utilized in
these previous studies, however in the present study, the conceptual gap lies in the
introduction of Seat Comfort as a new variable which will be examined in the context of
Malaysian travellers for the first time. Moreover, utilizing Structural Equation Model
(SEM) as well as Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) also provides a methodological gap
in this study. Examining these gaps and the outcomes would enable the airline industry
to re-position themselves strategically to better suit their customers’ needs or to
improve their services better.
The objective of this examination was to explore factors affecting the choice of
low-cost carrier from the travellers’ perspective in light of research directed by means
of social media profiles of respondents in Malaysia. The specific objectives of the
research are as stated beneath;
 To explore the determinants that impact and influence travellers' purchasing
decision towards selection of low-cost carriers in Malaysia.

 To explore how these determinants impact and influence the repeat purchase
intention of travellers towards low-cost carriers in Malaysia.

The particular research questions incorporate:

 What is the impact of Price on travellers’ purchasing decision of LCC?

 What is the impact of Service Quality on travellers’ purchasing decision of LCC?

 What is the impact of Airline Reputation on travellers’ buying purchasing of LCC?

 What is the impact of Safety on travellers’ purchasing decision of LCC?

 What is the impact of Route Accessibility & Convenience on travellers’ purchasing decision
of LCC?

 What is the impact of Frequent Flyer Program on travellers’ purchasing decision of LCC?

 What is the impact of Seat Comfort on travellers’ purchasing decision of LCC?

 What is the impact of Purchasing Decision on travellers’ Repeat Purchase Intention of LCC?

2. Literature Review

Various empirical studies were conducted comparing FSC and LCC between 2004
- 2016. A total of 19 empirical studies were compared in this study out of which, 7
studies are conducted in Asia while 12 studies are conducted in Europe. Out of the 7
Asian studies, 3 studies were conducted in the Malaysian context.

2.1 Empirical Studies in the Malaysian Context

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 3
 The empirical study in the Malaysian context on the current research title is
however very much limited. A noteworthy study was carried out by Sai, et al. (2011) in
which their investigation endeavors to decide the elements that impact the decision of
full-service airline and low-cost carriers in Malaysia. Price, Safety, Customer loyalty,
Promotions, Strategic alliance, Service quality and Carrier choice was adopted as
independent variables for the purpose of this study. The researchers utilized an
organized questionnaire for information accumulation, focusing on 450 respondents
and convenience sampling was adopted to ensure easy and cheap data collection. The
results of this study indicated that 'Safety' is the most critical factor in deciding on full
service airlines while travelers' inclination of deciding on low-cost carrier is because of
the low ‘Price’ offered by the carrier (Sai, et al., 2011).

A similar study was conducted in the Malaysian context by Ong & Tan (2010) in
which the reseachers conducted an examination of the probability to select carriers
between low cost carrier, Air Asia and incumbent full service carrier, Malaysia Airlines.
Socio-demographic variables such as age group,ethnic categories, gender, employment
sector, monthly household income and educational level were examined against
behavioural variables such as, airfare, flight plan, strategy for booking, purpose of travel
and destination of travel. Face to face interviews were conducted based on a set of
questionnaire which was distributed to a sample size derived by way of convenience
sampling, to 316 respondents. The result firstly concluded that Malays were less likely
to travel by Air Asia compared to other races in Malaysia. Secondly it also found that
educated individuals show a preference to travel by Malaysia Airlines and finally
travelers tend to prefer to travel via Air Asia due to the usage of ICT in making airline
reservations which provides convenience of travel (Ong & Tan, 2010).

2.2 Empirical Studies on Repeat Purchase Intention

The third empirical study in the Malaysian context was conducted by Yeoh & Kim
(2011) in which a study was conducted to examine and analyze key administration
traits of low-cost carriers from the consumers' point of view and the key elements
affecting their repeat buying conduct. Price, Customer Satisfaction and Repeat Purchase
Intention was used as independent variables for the purposes of this study. A subjective
approach utilizing semi-structured interview was decided for information
accumulation. Purposive sampling method was utilised and an aggregate of 20
Malaysian recreation air voyagers who have gone on low-cost carriers to destinations
within Malaysia were met. The discoveries of this investigation uncovered that travelers
are all the more lenient towards any disagreeable service encounter experienced amid
movement, as the Price is observed to be the most persuasive criteria in repeat
purchase (Yeoh & Kim, 2011).

In MBA dissertation submitted by Qin (2012) an examination of passenger

satisfaction and loyalty was examined in the perspectives of low-cost airline passenger
in Thailand. In examining customer loyalty, repeat purchase intention was looked into
as the primary contributer in terms of customer loyalty. The independent variables
used in this research is the Marketing Mix. Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and
Customer loyalty were employed as the dependent variables. 384 samples were
collected via a structured questionnaire. The study found that the Marketing Mix
elements do have an influence on customer satisfaction. The result also showed that the
repeat purchase intention of customers are closely influenced by the customer
satisfaction of which eventually results in customer loyalty (Qin, 2012).

In a study conducted by Lee (1999), an examination of the repeat purchase

intention among cellphone users in France was conducted based on their customer

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 4
satisfaction. 256 respondents were used in this study who provided their responses in a
personalised interview. Price, Quality of Service, Coverage area and Precision billing
were used as variables to measure customer satisfaction against transactional, learning
and contractual costs.. The Price was found to be the 1st significant factor in customer
satisfaction, subsequently followed by Quality of Service. The study found that these
factor are significant factors in ensuring customer satisfaction which eventualy impacts
customer repeat purchase intention (Lee, 1999). The summary of the conducted
empirical studies and variables are further illustrated in Table 2.8 below;
Table 2.1 Summary of Empirical Studies & Variables

Author /
Title Variables Methodology Result
Source

 Price 1. Quantitative
Factors Determining the  Safety 2. Questionnaire Safety significant
Choice of Full Service  Customer loyalty 3. Explanatory determinant in the
Airlines and Low Cost  Promotions 4. 450 samples case of FSC. Price Sai, et al.
Carriers: Case of  Strategic alliance 5. Multiple significant (2011)
Malaysia  Service quality Regression determinant in the
Analysis Model case of LCC.
 Carrier choice
6. Covenience
Sampling The rest not
significant.

 Price 1. Quantitative Strategy for booking,

A note on the  Flight plan 2. Questionnaire i.e. Use of ICT for
determinants of airline  Strategy for 3. Exploratory booking was a Ong & Tan
choice: The Case of Air booking 4. 316 samples significant factor for (2010)
Asia and Malaysia  Purpose of travel 5. Multiple decision on using LCC.
Airlines  Destination of Regression
travel. Analysis Model The rest not
6. Crude Sampling significant.

 Price 1.Quantitative Price is the

Passengers' perception of  Journey Purpose 2. Questionnaire determining factor for
Low Cost Airlines and  Booking Methods 3. Exploratory choice of LCC. O'Connel &
Full Service Carriers: A  Airline Connections 4. 247 samples Quality of service is Williams
Case Study involving  Quality of Service 5. Multiple the determining factor (2005)
Ryanair, Aer Lingus, Air Regression for choice of FSC.
Asia and Malaysia Analysis Model
Airlines 6. Convenience The rest not
Sampling significant.

 Price 1. Quantitative Price is not the only

Determination of Factors
That Influence
Passengers’ Airline
Selection: A Study of Low
Cost Carriers in Thailand
 Service Quality 2. Questionnaire significant factor.
 Airline Reputation 3. Explanatory Service Quality and
 Airline Safety 4. 736 samples Airline Reputation Thapanat
 Route Availability 5. Structural was found to be (2015)
 Frequent Flyer Equation Model equally significant in
Program 6. Convenience the choice of LCC.
Sampling
The rest not
significant.

 Seat comfort 1. Quantitative The business

 Schedule/ 2. Questionnaire travellers of both LCC
Frequency of 3. Exploratory and FSC found that
Flights 4. 100 samples Frequent Flyer
 Pre-Seating Options 5. Multiple Program,
 High Cancellation Regression
Schedule & Fourie &
Determinants of Selection Charges Analysis Model
Frequency of Flights, Lubbe (2006)
of full-service airlines  Airport Lounge 6. Convenience
and low-cost carriers - A Sampling Inflight
Facilities Enetrtainment and
note on business  Frequent Flyer 7. Stated
travellers in South Africa. Preference Airport Lounge
Program

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 5
  Business Class Methodology Facilities as a
Option significant
 In-Flight determining factor of
Refreshments choice of LCC or FSC.
 Method of Payment
 In-Flight The rest not
Entertainment significant.

 Price 1. Quantitative Quality of Service

 Service Reliability 2. Questionnaire was found to be the
Analyzing Factors  Flight Availability 3. Explanatory determining factor of
Impacting Students'  Quality of Service 4. 150 samples choice of LCC as Sokolovskyy
Choice between Low-Cost 5. Multiple opposed to FSC. (2012)
and Full-Fare Airlines Regression
Analysis Model
The rest not
6. Convenience
Sampling significant.

 Price 1. Quantitative Price and

What drives passenger  Airline Image 2. Questionnaire Airline Image
loyalty to both  Service Reliablity 3. Exploratory was found to be the Mikulic &
traditional and low-cost  Flight Experience 4. 100 samples significant factor for Prebezac
airlines? A formative  Airport Experience 5. Partial Least passenger loyalty to (2011)
partial least squares  Ticket Purchase Squares Model both FSC and LCC.
approach. Experience 6. Convenience
 Offer of Flights Sampling
The rest not
 Destinations significant.

 Price 1. Quantitative Price is the significant

 Safety 2. Questionnaire determining factor of
Consumer Choice Model  Value for Money 3. Explanatory choice of LCC.
in No-Frills Airline  Comfort 4. 120 samples Ha (2010)
Industry  Refund Availability 5. Multiple The rest not
 Brand Reputation Regression
significant.
 Frequent Flyer Analysis Model
Program 6. Convenience
Sampling
 Service Quality

 Price 1. Quantitative Frequent Flyer

 Flight Availability 2. Questionnaire Program was found
 Airline Allegiance 3. Explanatory to be a significant
Modelling airport and  Aircarft Type 4. 5,091 samples factor in all
airline choice behaviour  Frequent Flyer 5. Multiple respondents. Hess & Polak
with the use of stated Program Regression Price and Aircraft (2007)
preference survey data Analysis Model
Type was a significant
6. Convenience
factor in a group of
Sampling
respondents.

The rest not

significant.

 Price 1. Quantitative Price, Direct Flight

The Impact of Airline  Frequent Flyer 2. Questionnaire Availability
Service Failures on Program 3. Explanatory and Less Flight Miles
Travelers' Carrier Choice:  Flight Miles 4. 531 samples is found to be the Suzuki
A Case Study of Central  Service Frequency 5. Multiple determiing factor for (2004)
Iowa  Direct Flight Regression
success of airline
Availability. Analysis Model
service.
6. Convenience
Sampling
The rest not
significant.

 Price 1. Quantitative Price, Sevice Quality,

 Service Quality 2. Questionnaire In-Flight
Evaluating Service  In-Flight 3. Explanatory

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 6
Marketing in Airline Entertainment 4. 60 samples Entertainment and
Industry and Its Influence  Personnel Attitude 5. Multiple Personnel Attitude
on Student Passengers'  Comfort Regression was found to be Chen, et al.
Purchasing Behavior  Luggage Allowance Analysis Model imperative factors in (2008)
Using Taipei–London 6. Purposive the decision of
Route as an Example. Sampling carriers.

The rest not

significant.

 Value for Money 1. Quantitative Value for Money and

 Service Quality 2. Questionnaire Service Quality was
Role of Value for Money  Customer 3. Exploratory found to be significant
and Service Quality on Satisfaction 4. 445 samples factor on the choice of Rajaguru
Behavioural Intention: A  Behavioural 5. Multiple Regression FSC or LCC. (2016)
Study of full service and Intention Model
low-cost airlines. 6. Convenience
The rest not
Sampling
significant.

 Service quality 1. Quantitative Service Quality

 Airline image 2. Questionnaire is found to have a
Assessing how service  Customer value 3. Exploratory significant impact on
quality, airline image and 4. 482 samples behavioural Yang, et al.
customer value affect the 5. Structural intentions of LCC (2012)
intentions of passengers Equation Model
passsengers.
regarding low cost 6. Convenience
carriers. Sampling
The rest not
significant.

 Price 1. Quantitative Price and

 Servive Quality 2. Questionnaire Service Quality
Factors affecting  Efficient Check-In 3. Exploratory is an imperative factor Lin & Huang
passenger choice of low  Convenient Flight 4. 500 samples of choice of LCC. (2015)
cost carriers: An analytic Schedule 5. Analysis
network process  Convenient Booking Network
The rest not
approach Channel Process Model
significant.
6. Convenience
Sampling

 Price 1. Quantitative Price was found to be

 Passenger Trust 2. Questionnaire the significant factor
Key Determinants of  Passenger Loyalty 3. Exploratory in passenger loyalty.
Passenger loyalty in the  Service Recovery 4. 286 samples Akamavi, et
low-cost airline business.  Passenger 5. Structural The rest not al. (2015)
Satisfaction Equation Model
significant.
 Service Employee 6. Convenience
Self Efficacy Sampling

 Price 1. Quantitative & Price was the

 Product Qualitative ultimate deciding
 Place 2. Questionnaire factor,followed by
 Promotion 3. Explanatory Channel of
Market Factors  People 4. 400 samples & Purchasing Tickets Kuosuwan
Influencing the Decision  Process 15 interviews
and Promotion. (2015)
to Patronage Low Cost  Product Quality 5. Multiple
Carriers. Regression
Analysis Model The rest not
6. Convenience significant.
Sampling

Key Characteristics and  Price 1. Quantitative & Price was the

Attitudes of Airline  Comfort Qualitative significant factor in
passengers, with  In-Flight Dining 2. Questionnaire deciding the LCC and
particular emphasis upon  Airline Branding 3. Exploratory choice of airline. Edwards
the Low-Cost sector: 4. 419 samples & (2010)
Implications for pre-trip 9 interviews
The rest not
decision-making and 5. Correlation

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 7
airline choice Analysis Model significant.
6. Systematic
Sampling

 Price 1. Quantitative Price was found to be

 Reliability 2. Questionnaire the most significant
Passengers' Perception of  Flight Schedule 3. Explanatory deciding factor.
Low Cost Airlines and  Connections 4. 120 samples Mburu
Full Service Carriers: A  Quality 5. Multiple Other variables were (2009)
case Study of Fly 540 and  Comfort Regression
found to be
Kenya Airways Analysis Model
moderately
6. Covenience
Sampling significant.

 Price 1. Quantitative Price is the significant

 Customer 2. Questionnaire factor in Repeat
Malaysian Low Cost Satisfaction 3. Explanatory Purchase Intention.
Airlines: Key Influencing  Repeat Purchase 4. 20 samples Yeoh & Kim
Factors on Customers' Intention 5. Multiple The rest not (2011)
Repeat Purchase Regression
significant.
Intention Analysis Model
6. Purposive
Sampling

 Product 1. Qualitative Price is the significant

 Price 2. Questionnaire factor in Repeat
The Factors Influencing  Place 3. Exploratory Purchase Intention.
Low-Cost Airline  Promotion 4. 384 samples Qin (2012)
Passenger Satisfaction  People 5. Multiple The rest not
 Process Regression
significant.
 Physical Evidence Analysis Model
6. Convenience
Sampling

 Price 1. Qualitative Price and Quality of

The Influence of  Quality of Service 2. Interview Service is the
Switching Cost on  Coverage area 3. Exploratory significant factor in
Customer Retension: A  Precision billing 4. 256 samples Repeat Purchase Lee (1999)
Study of the Cellphone 5. Multiple Intention.
Market in France Regression
Analysis Model
The rest not
6. Convenience
Sampling significant.

In the wake of looking at different literature, the independent variables for the purpose
of this examination are Price, Service Quality, Airline Reputation, Safety, Route
Accessibility & Convenience, Frequent Flyer Program and Seat Comfort. The dependent
variable is Purchasing Decision and Repeat Purchase Intention. Upon close examination
of the different literatures, the independent and dependent variables explored are less
researched upon and looked into in the context of the Malaysian aviation industry.
Moreover, majority of the studies exploring these variables are done in the European
perspective of travelers as opposed to the Asian perspective. The conceptual gap is
evident in this study as significantly distinct variables are being examined in the present
study. Repeat Purchase Intention is also examined in this research, which is not evident
in many studies conducted in this field, thus creating a conceptual gap. Similar study in
the Malaysian context was conducted by Sai, et al.(2011), whereby there is evident of
time lapse of 7 years, which indicates a clear contextual gap, therefore requiring these
variables to be re-visited in for further examination. Along these lines, thus the choice
to embrace these variables. Methodological gap is also created in the present study as
most of the research utilizes Multiple Regression Model as data analysis technique,
while the present study employs the Structural Equation Model. In the current research,

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 8
the researcher would employ Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation
Model.

2.3 Conceptual Framework and Hypothesis

Following the literature review, a theoretical framework has been set up and an
arrangement of hypotheses that can be tried utilizing quantitative research has been
expressed in view of this framework. The theoretical framework is appeared in Figure
2.6 below. The method of reasoning of the theoretical framework is that it analyses the
components in thought that impacts the decision-making process of the travellers, of
the choice of airline. These components are the consumer perception of the airline
service offering (with different measurements distinguished through experimental
research as discussed earlier, including Price, Service Quality, Airline Reputation, Safety,
Route Accessibility & Convenience, Frequent Flyer Program and Seat Comfort).

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework

The primary airline feature considered is Price (Ticket price and cost of checked
luggage). H1 is identified with the cost of the ticket. Price is characteristically observed
to be one of the utmost critical features in airline and path choice (Dolnicar, et al., 2011;
Jou, et al., 2008; Loo, 2008; Park, 2007), however a few travelers do think that its more
imperative than others (Evangelho, et al., 2005; O'Connell and Williams, 2005).
Furthermore, price is essential for LCC travelers (Fourie & Lubbe, 2006). Therefore, H1
is expressed as:

H1: Price has a significant positive influence on travelers’ purchasing decision of

LCC.

The second airline feature, Service Quality, is tested in H2. Numerous investigations
have been directed identified with service quality, the greater part of which exhibit that
service quality is a vital aspect in airline decision (Atalık & Özel, 2007; Fourie and
Lubbe, 2006; Huang, 2009; Park, 2007; Zhang, 2011). These investigations direct to
three kinds of services: Ground service (registration, luggage management,
embarkation/arrival and lounges), on-board services (comfort, entertainment,

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 9
refreshments, and overall service quality) and prompt procedures. Along these lines, H2
is expressed as:

H2: Service Quality has a significant positive influence on travelers purchasing

decision of LCC.

The third airline feature explored is Airline Reputation which is tried in H3. Airline
Reputation alludes the manner in which travelers and the general population’s
perception in terms of its economic solidity, safety, service quality, and different
perspectives (Graham & Bansal, 2007). Past investigations have demonstrated this as
one of the key elements identified with airline decision (Atalık & Özel, 2007; Bukhari et
al., 2012; Dolnicar, et al., 2011; Zhang, 2011). In this way, H3 is expressed as:

H3: Airline Reputation has a significant positive influence on travelers’ purchasing

decision of LCC.

Safety is the fourth airline feature explored in this investigation. This feature is
additionally recognized in the publications as being critical to the decision of airline,
and also being one of the key segments in airline reputation (Atalık & Özel, 2007;
Graham and Bansal, 2007; Zhang, 2011). Airline safety might be especially critical for
LCC travelers, since LCCs might be seen as less safe (Mikulic & Prebezac, 2011). This
makes it valuable considering as the fourth segment in this model. Thus, H4 is
expressed as:

H4: Safety has a significant positive influence on travelers’ purchasing decision of

LCC.

The fifth airline trademark explored is Route Accessibility and Convenience. This is a
two-phase feature: 1) regardless of whether the airline goes between the wanted
starting point/end point combine or a satisfactory elective path; and 2) the degree of
trouble the traveler will face with the timetable (for instance, dusk or dawn entry or
take-off or necessitating surge hour travel). This is a standout amongst the most crucial
parts of the travelers' choice since it will decide if the airline can satisfy the essential
needs of the travelers (Lantos, 2010). It is a standout amongst the most upheld features
in the literature encompassing selection of airlines (Atalık & Özel, 2007; Fourie and
Lubbe, 2006; Hess & Polak, 2007; Theis, et al., 2006; van Eggermond, 2007; Zhang,
2011). In view of this confirmation, H5 is expressed as:

H5: Route Accessibility & Convenience has a significant positive influence on

travelers’ purchasing decision of LCC.

The sixth airline feature tested in this study is the availability of a Frequent Flyer
Program. Frequent flyer programs propose impetuses, for example, free travel and
extraordinary admittance to services like traveler lounges relying upon how frequently
a traveler flies with the airline. Some confirmation shows that the obtainability of
frequent flyer programs is one element of LCC or FSC decision, especially for a few
classes of travellers, (for example, corporate travelers) (Carlsson & Löfgren, 2006;
Fourie and Lubbe, 2006; Hess & Polak, 2006; Park, 2010). While frequent flier programs
are not as usually explored for LCCs but rather it is tried in perspective of FSC, and they
may impact the market. Along these lines, the hypothesis is expressed as:

H6: Frequent Flyer Programs have a significant positive influence on travelers’

purchasing decision of LCC.

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 10
The last airline feature is the Seat Comfort. Seat comfort alludes to the comfort of the
seat, the separation between two seats, the level to which the seat could be leaned back
and the availability of choice to move up to a superior seat. Some proof demonstrates
that the seat comfort is one determinant of LCC (especially among business travelers)
(Runkle, 1994 ; Tan, et al., 2009 ; Lee & Luengo-Prado, 2004). While Seat Comfort are
seldom tested for LCCs, they may impact the choice of the travelers on the decision of
carrier. Therefore, the hypothesis is expressed as:

H7: Seat Comfort have a significant positive influence on travelers’ purchasing

decision of LCC.

Travellers who are content with a specific item or services will devour the item or
services over and over. This creates customer loyalty. Loyal customers will in the long
run increase productivity, profitability at the same time reducing costs. A few past
investigations have presumed that customer loyalty decidedly and altogether identifies
with repeat purchase intention (He, et al., 2008; Yang, 2009; Boonlertvanich, 2009).
Garbarino and Johnson (1999) be certain of that trust is decidedly and essentially
identified with customer satisfaction. Therefore, H8 hypothesis is:

H8: Purchasing decision has a significant positive influence on Repeat Purchase

Intention of travelers towards LCC.

Despite the fact that price might be a huge concern, plainly different elements might be
considered in carrier decision (O'Connel & Williams, 2005). This brings up the issue of
what different elements may impact the decision of carrier for passengers (Hussain,
2017). Airline choice components have been picked as the most fitting approach to
broaden the examination (Yeoh & Kim, 2011). Seven external variables were recognized
for consideration in this investigation and these variables were incorporated into the
investigation framework and hypotheses that are tried in this investigation. The
following chapter portrays the method utilized for primary exploration with a specific
end goal to test the hypotheses.

3. Research Design and Methodology

For this examination the researcher will utilize explanatory research strategy to
build up the connection between the dependent and independent variables (Saunders,
et al., 2009). This research is quantitative. Quantitative research strategies are reliable
with inferential research styles (Grix, 2010). They are likewise proper for hypothesis
testing, which is impossible qualitatively (Creswell, 2009). Quantitative investigation
utilizes institutionalized composition and data gathering practices and built up
statistical analysis devices to produce learning and make inferences (Rugg & Petre,
2006). This is reliable with the positivist philosophy (Grix, 2010). Quantitative research
is a superior way to deal with testing hypotheses than a qualitative approach (Vogt, et
al., 2012). The decision of quantitative research design has a few restrictions, yet it
additionally guaranteed the research could be ended within the timeframe.

This investigation utilized a survey exploration technique, both for viable reasons and in
light of the fact that it is not viable to create the experimental set for the research due
time and resource constraints. The researcher additionally needed a more extensive
and more summed up perspective of the elements associated with LCC choice, which
warranted a bigger sample than could be gathered utilizing an experiment. Most of the

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 11
current observed works on airline selection additionally upheld the utilization of a
survey as opposed to an experiment.

For this exploration, the questionnaire was planned utilizing close ended multiple-
choice questions in the initial segment of the questionnaire and 5-Point Likert scale
questions in the second part. The researcher utilized best practice rules in
questionnaire creation which were set out by Gillham (2008). There were numerous
contemplations which were considered and these were to ensure that the questions
were made utilizing language that was effectively comprehended by a standard
individual with a secondary school education. Moreover, the researcher guaranteed that
the questions were conveniently introduced in order to make the questionnaire
additionally engaging the respondents (Bernard, 2012). Additionally, the researcher
ensured that simpler questions were solicited in the initial segment from the
questionnaire and the troublesome questions were asked later on in the questionnaire
(Hair, et al., 2010). This was done to guarantee that the respondents do not get put off
effortlessly when they begin to answer the questionnaire. A duplicate of the
questionnaire utilized for this examination is joined to the appendix section of this
undertaking.

To ensure precise outcomes the sample size ought to be inside the anticipated
population parameter. As recommended by Cohen (1988), the bigger the sample size is
the smaller the margin of error and this will build the precision of the outcomes.
Utilizing the Krejcie & Morgan, (1970) sample size equation for limited population, the
sample size of 500 respondents to be gathered to sufficiently offer factual quality for
information examination. The questionnaires were sent to 500 respondents by means of
email and by hand and a sum of 425 finished responses was received.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is utilized by researchers when they have adequate
data with respect to latent variables structures of the examination (Byrne, 2010). Kline
(2011) stated that it is a centre method of the SEM technique. Amid CFA, the indicators
and observed variables are allotted to their particular constructs. This assignment of
observed variables is operationalized by the researchers in view of learning of the
theory, empirical research or both. Further, an earlier connection between observed
variables and latent variables is likewise hypothesized by the researcher amid CFA to
test them statistically (Byrne, 2010).

Respective CFA or estimation model is assessed in view of the fit indices, standardized
loading and critical ratio. There are various indices that ought to be seen to gauge the
CFA demonstrate fit such as Chi-square, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), normed fit index
(NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI) and Root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) (Byrne, 2010 ; Kline, 1998)

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was the statistical analysis procedure utilized for
this investigation. SEM was chosen since it is perfect for distinguishing and affirming
full models of connections between variables (Bollen, 1989). SEM is an arrangement of
techniques (counting factor analysis, path analysis, and different methodologies) that
depend on the general linear model (Ullman & Bentler, 2003). SEM was additionally
resolved to be suitable on the grounds that it distinguishes latent variables and reject
insignificant variables from the projected study (Bollen, 1989). Removal of latent
variables from observed variables implies that SEM can recognize the fundamental
construction of the exploration (Ullman & Bentler, 2003). This measurable approach
was more exceptional than most comparable investigations which basically utilized
single or Multiple Regression in order to test connections. Be that as it may, this gave a

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 12
more exhaustive scrutiny than the more straightforward analysis techniques by
thinking about every one of the factors in combination.

4. Results and Discussion

In terms of the purchase decision of travelers choosing low-cost airline, the

study revealed that Air Asia was the choice of low-cost carrier in Malaysia at 86.59% of
the respondents. Among the respondents, 97% have travelled using a low-cost airline
at least once making them the suitable target population for this study. In the
digitalization era, the airline website and mobile app contribute significantly towards
the mode of purchasing low-cost airline tickets at 72.24% and 22.12% respectively. The
study also revealed that majority of the travelers’ travel on leisure/vacation and
business travel which significantly accounts for 81.65% and 11.53% of the respondents
respectively. A moderate distribution of respondents is visible in terms of the mode of
information sought regarding the low-cost airline, in which the internet search engine
(36.94%), airline website (27.29%) and social media (18.12%) is utilized a source of
information on low-cost travel. These data are clearly illustrated below:

Table 4.1 Purchasing Decision Data

Questions Percentage %
Frequency

Air Asia 368 86.59

Firefly 33 7.76
Among the low-cost airlines
that is operating in Malaysia Jet Asia 5 1.18
which is your preferred Lion Air 10 2.35
choice of low-cost airline?
Tiger Air 9 2.12

2 - 3 times 115 27.06

At least once a year 121 28.47
How often do you
travel by low-cost airline? Less than once a year 89 20.94
More than 3 times a year 87 20.47
Going to be first time 13 3.06

Airline Company Website 116 27.29

Family and Friends 38 8.94
How do you get information Internet Search Engine 157 36.94
about the low-cost airline of your Mobile Apps 21 4.94
choice?
Social Media 77 18.12
Travel Agency 8 1.88
TV/Radio Announcement 8 1.88

How do you purchase your low- Airline Call Centre 1 0.24

cost airline ticket? Airline Office 5 1.18
Airline Website 307 72.24
Mobile Apps 94 22.12
Travel Agency 18 4.24

What is the main purpose Business 49 11.53

of travelling? Leisure/Vacation 347 81.65
Medical 2 0.47

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 13
 Seminar/Conference 16 3.76
Studies 11 2.59

4.1 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Reliability is gauged in this research by Cronbach's Alpha which is the most commonly
utilized gauge of reliability. Reliability is related to the nature of the measurement in
terms of consistence and repeatability. This indicator gauges inner consistency
reliability which is how much the replies are steady across the items inside a measure.
As a universal benchmark for the reliability score, Hair et al (2010) advocates that a
coefficient greater than 0.90 is excellent, values in the range of 0.80 to be good and
estimation in the range of 0.70 to be sufficient. The accompanying table shows the
Cronbach's Alpha coefficients for all variables and separate constructs;
Table 4.2 Reliability Coefficients

Reliability Measurement Cronbach Alpha

All Variables 37 items 0.961
Construct 1 Purchasing Decision (PD) 7 Items 0.842
Construct 2 Price (P) 3 Items 0.760
Construct 3 Service Quality (SQ) 3 Items 0.778
Construct 4 Airline Reputation (AR) 3 Items 0.864
Construct 5 Safety (SFT) 5 Items 0.868
Construct 6 Route Accessibility & Convenience (RAC) 4 Items 0.822
Construct 7 Frequent Flyer Program (FFP) 5 Items 0.864
Construct 8 Seat Comfort (SC) 3 Items 0.937
Construct 9 Repeat Purchase Intention (RPI) 4 Items 0.837

From the above reliability coefficients, it tends to be presumed that general inner
consistency reliability of the data is excellent, and the construct reliability has
additionally accomplished great outcomes.

4.3 VALIDITY ANALYSIS

A wide range of score validity is incorporated under a more extensive idea - construct
validity. Construct validity estimates if scores measure the hypothetical construct the
researcher trusts they do. An arrangement of variables dared to quantify a same factor
indicate convergent validity if their intercorrelations are in any event direct in extent
(Kline, 2011). Hair et al (2010) recommend that if the factor loadings are beneath 0.50,
at that point the convergent validity can be disputed. Other than factor loadings,
variance-extracted measures should square with or surpass 50 percent. Another
essential type of validity is discriminant validity. Hair et al (2010) characterizes
discriminant validity as the degree to which a construct is really unmistakable from
different constructs both as far as its degree of connection with different constructs and
how particularly estimated variables speak to just this single construct. This can be seen
by concentrate the covariances between the constructs in the Confirmatory Factor
Analysis. Another approach to take a gander at this is by seeing whether there is
noteworthy cross-loadings of variables to in excess of one construct.
Table 4.3 Standardized Factor Loadings

Measurement SeatCom SafetyF AirRep ServQual RepeatIN RouteAC Price PDeci FFlyer Overall
Variables
FFP1 0.752
FFP2 0.811

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 14
FFP3 0.741
FFP4 0.719
FFP5 0.744
SC1 0.901
SC2 0.944
SC3 0.895
SFT1 0.712
SFT2 0.715
SFT3 0.724
SFT4 0.746
SFT5 0.786
AR1 0.867
AR2 0.849
AR3 0.765
SQ1 0.745
SQ2 0.782
SQ3 0.683
RPI5 0.716
RPI4 0.780
RPI3 0.736
RPI2 0.781
RAC5 0.785
RAC4 0.774
RAC3 0.623
RAC2 0.732
P4 0.615
P2 0.811
P1 0.769
PD9 0.679
PD5 0.844
PD4 0.793
PD3 0.649
PD2 0.598
AVE 0.835 0.543 0.686 0.544 0.568 0.535 0.543 0.516 0.569
Reliability 0.937 0.868 0.864 0.778 0.837 0.822 0.760 0.842 0.864 0.961

Table 4.3 above demonstrates the standardized factor loadings of the estimation
variables that have a place with each construct. Hair et al (2010) stated that the
standardized factor loading assessments ought to be no less than 0.50 or greater with a
specific end goal to set up construct validity. They additionally express that a perfect
gauge is 0.70 or greater. In the table above, all the loading gauges are not just greater
than 0.50, a large portion of the loading gauges are over 0.70, recommending
convergent validity. The AVE by the loadings of respective construct is figured by the
squared factor loadings separated by the quantity of items.

The AVE for all constructs is over 0.50 which Hair et al (2010) recommended to affirm
convergent validity. The construct reliability coefficients, estimated utilizing Cronbach
Alpha, are on the whole more prominent than 0.70, recommending great construct
reliability and offers sustenance for convergent validity.

Moreover, all the unstandardized factor loadings are statistically noteworthy at a

certainty level of 99 percent as appeared in Table 4.4 below;
Table 4.4 Regression Weights (Unstandardized Factor Loadings)
Construct Estimate S.E. C.R. P
PD1 <--- PurchDec 1
PD2 <--- PurchDec 1.905 0.204 9.319 ***
PD3 <--- PurchDec 1.956 0.205 9.536 ***
PD4 <--- PurchDec 2.174 0.240 9.047 ***
PD5 <--- PurchDec 2.239 0.243 9.221 ***
PD6 <--- PurchDec 1.546 0.189 8.183 ***
PD7 <--- PurchDec 1.656 0.196 8.441 ***
PD8 <--- PurchDec 1.070 0.148 7.244 ***
PD9 <--- PurchDec 2.188 0.251 8.716 ***
P1 <--- PriceP 1
P2 <--- PriceP 1.051 0.065 16.219 ***
P3 <--- PriceP 0.201 0.061 3.293 ***
P4 <--- PriceP 0.904 0.075 12 ***
P5 <--- PriceP 0.489 0.057 8.588 ***
FFP1 <--- FreqFlyer 1
FFP2 <--- FreqFlyer 1.059 0.071 14.915 ***
FFP3 <--- FreqFlyer 1.076 0.083 12.911 ***

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 15
 FFP4 <--- FreqFlyer 1.063 0.071 14.889 ***
FFP5 <--- FreqFlyer 1.135 0.075 15.217 ***
RAC5 <--- RouteAC 1
RAC4 <--- RouteAC 1.139 0.069 16.407 ***
RAC3 <--- RouteAC 1.103 0.080 13.747 ***
RAC2 <--- RouteAC 0.948 0.067 14.096 ***
RAC1 <--- RouteAC 0.823 0.097 8.49 ***
SFT5 <--- SafetyP 1
SFT4 <--- SafetyP 0.934 0.063 14.716 ***
SFT3 <--- SafetyP 0.851 0.059 14.491 ***
SFT2 <--- SafetyP 1.047 0.062 16.919 ***
SFT1 <--- SafetyP 0.974 0.058 16.899 ***
AR5 <--- AirlineRep 1
AR4 <--- AirlineRep 1.308 0.177 7.37 ***
AR3 <--- AirlineRep 2.006 0.219 9.165 ***
AR2 <--- AirlineRep 2.028 0.214 9.458 ***
AR1 <--- AirlineRep 2.253 0.236 9.537 ***
SQ5 <--- ServiceQ 1
SQ4 <--- ServiceQ 0.220 0.126 1.747 ***
SQ3 <--- ServiceQ 1.362 0.149 9.139 ***
SQ2 <--- ServiceQ 1.649 0.173 9.516 ***
SQ1 <--- ServiceQ 1.577 0.168 9.392 ***
SC5 <--- SeatCom 1
SC4 <--- SeatCom 1.795 0.450 3.986 ***
SC3 <--- SeatCom 5.624 1.151 4.885 ***
SC2 <--- SeatCom 5.802 1.184 4.900 ***
SC1 <--- SeatCom 5.423 1.110 4.887 ***
RPI1 <--- RepeatIN 1
RPI2 <--- RepeatIN 1.881 0.195 9.634 ***
RPI3 <--- RepeatIN 2.097 0.224 9.374 ***
RPI4 <--- RepeatIN 1.748 0.180 9.700 ***
RPI5 <--- RepeatIN 1.934 0.208 9.309 ***

Discriminant validity is investigated contrasting the variance extricated among two

constructs and the square of the correlation among those two constructs. Hair et al
(2010) recommends this tactic as the additionally thorough tactic where the rule
indicates that the variance extracted amid the constructs ought to be more prominent
than the square of the correlation. The accompanying table demonstrates the
discriminant validity of the constructs.
Table 4.5 Discriminant Validity
Two Constructs Compared Square of Discriminant Validity
AVE
Correlation Status
Between PDeci and Price$ 0.530 0.672 No
Between PDeci and RouteAC 0.526 0.339 Yes
Between PDeci and RepeatIN 0.542 0.572 No
Between PDeci and ServQual 0.530 0.641 No
Between PDeci and AirRep 0.601 0.546 Yes
Between PDeci and SafetyF 0.530 0.285 Yes
Between PDeci and SeatCom 0.676 0.402 Yes
Between PDeci and FFlyer 0.543 0.448 Yes
Between Price$ and RouteAC 0.539 0.461 Yes
Between Price$ and RepeatIN 0.555 0.506 Yes
Between Price$ and ServQual 0.544 0.726 No
Between Price$ and AirRep 0.615 0.605 Yes
Between Price$ and SafetyF 0.543 0.285 Yes
Between Price$ and SeatCom 0.689 0.438 Yes
Between Price$ and FFlyer 0.556 0.442 Yes
Between RouteAC and RepeatIN 0.552 0.476 Yes
Between RouteAC and ServQual 0.540 0.575 No
Between RouteAC and AirRep 0.611 0.508 Yes
Between RouteAC and SafetyF 0.539 0.542 No
Between RouteAC and SeatCom 0.685 0.291 Yes
Between Route AC and FFlyer 0.556 0.527 Yes
Between RepeatIN and ServQual 0.556 0.676 No
Between RepeatIN and AirRep 0.627 0.654 No
Between RepeatIN and SafetyF 0.555 0.285 Yes
Between RepeatIN and SeatCom 0.702 0.486 Yes
Between RepeatIN and FFlyer 0.569 0.473 Yes
Between ServQual and AirRep 0.615 0.728 No
Between ServQual and SafetyF 0.544 0.294 Yes
Between ServQual and SeatCom 0.690 0.469 Yes
Between ServQual and FFlyer 0.557 0.448 Yes
Between AirRep and SafetyF 0.615 0.335 Yes
Between AirRep and SeatCom 0.761 0.434 Yes
Between AirRep and FFlyer 0.628 0.483 Yes
Between Safety and SeatCom 0.689 0.132 Yes
Between Safety and FFlyer 0.556 0.350 Yes

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 16
Between FFlyer and SeatCom 0.702 0.403 Yes

As the above table demonstrates, there is a decent discriminant validity in the construct,
whereby 75% of the constructs show a variance extract more prominent than square of
correlation.

As per Hair et al (2010), constructs ought to have nomological and face validity. They
express that face validity ought to be built up prior to any hypothetical testing should be
possible utilizing CFA and face validity, consequently, is considered as the utmost
essential validity. Face validity alludes to the hypothetical comprehension of the
substance of every item in the construct and the construct itself. Nomological validity is
tried by looking at the correlation between the constructs. Nomological validity is set up
if the correlation among the constructs in the estimation bode well.
Table 4.6 Correlation among the Constructs

Construct Relation Construct Estimate

PDeci <--> Price$ 0.820
PDeci <--> RouteAC 0.582
PDeci <--> RepeatIN 0.756
PDeci <--> ServQual 0.801
PDeci <--> AirRep 0.739
PDeci <--> SafetyF 0.534
PDeci <--> SeatCom 0.634
PDeci <--> FFlyer 0.669
Price$ <--> RouteAC 0.679
Price$ <--> RepeatIN 0.711
Price$ <--> ServQual 0.852
Price$ <--> AirRep 0.778
Price$ <--> SafetyF 0.534
Price$ <--> SeatCom 0.662
Price$ <--> FFlyer 0.665
RouteAC <--> RepeatIN 0.690
RouteAC <--> ServQual 0.758
RouteAC <--> AirRep 0.713
RouteAC <--> SafetyF 0.736
RouteAC <--> SeatCom 0.540
RouteAC <--> FFlyer 0.726
RepeatIN <--> ServQual 0.822
RepeatIN <--> AirRep 0.809
RepeatIN <--> SafetyF 0.534
RepeatIN <--> SeatCom 0.697
RepeatIN <--> FFlyer 0.688
ServQual <--> AirRep 0.853
ServQual <--> SafetyF 0.542
ServQual <--> SeatCom 0.685
ServQual <--> FFlyer 0.669
AirRep <--> SafetyF 0.579
AirRep <--> SeatCom 0.659
AirRep <--> FFlyer 0.695
SafetyF <--> SeatCom 0.363

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 17
FFlyer <--> SafetyF 0.592
FFlyer <--> SeatCom 0.635

4.4 MEASUREMENT MODEL VALIDITY

So as to direct the evaluation of the measurement model validity, an examination of key

fit statistics is led. The SPSS and Amos CFA output, similar to some other statistical
software, for example, LISREL, EQS, Smart PLS, and so on, incorporates a few numbers
of fit indices. A portion of the key fit indices that are valuable incorporate the Chi-
square, Relative Chi-square, CFI and RMSEA.
Figure 4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Model

As per SPSS Amos outputs for CFA model as shown in Figure 4.5 above, the general
model chi-square is 1480.802, normed chi-square is 2.870 with a degree of freedom of
516. The normed chi-square between 0-3 is deemed by Hair et al (2010) as adequate fit,
which proposes great measurement model validity utilizing this index. The p-value
related with these chi-square indices is 0.000. Notwithstanding, the chi-square
goodness of fit statistics does not show that the observed covariance matrix coordinates
the estimate matrix inside sampling variance. Consequently, because of the problems
related with utilizing this statistic alone, there is a need to look at extra fit statistics as
well.

The general guideline recommended by Hair et al (2010) is that a researcher ought to

depend on no less than one absolute fit index and one incremental fit index,
notwithstanding the chi-square statistics. The most usually alluded absolute fit index is
the Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The index for this situation is
0.066 which is inside the rules of under 0.10 recommended by Engel et al. (2003) and
0.08 proposed by Hair et al (2010). Consequently, RMSEA measurement offers extra

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 18
backing for the model fit. The comparative fit index (CFI) is 0.905, which is greater than
the edge proposed by Hair et al (2010), which is 0.90. The accompanying table
condenses the measurement model fit indices results to validate the figures;

Table 4.7 Measurement Model Fit Indices

Chi Square Statistics Results
Chi-Square 1480.802
P-Value 0.000
Degrees of Freedom 516
Absolute Fit Indices
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) 0.066
Normed Chi-Square 2.870
Incremental Fit Indices
Normed Fit Indices (NFI) 0.862
Comparative Fit Indices (CFI) 0.905
Relative Fit Index (RFI) 0.841
TLI 0.890
IFI 0.906
Parsimony Fit Indices
Parsimony Comparative Fit Index (PCFI) 0.785
Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) 0.748

4.5 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL VALIDITY

The initial phase in the evaluation of SEM model validity is the foundation of validity of
the structural model (Hair, et al., 2010; Kline, 2011). As revealed in the past segment,
the measurement model fitness has been settled. Detailing chi-square is suggested by
most researchers as a fitness index of the model under Maximum Likelihood Estimation
(MLE).
Figure 4.2 Structural Equation Model (SEM)

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 19
As per the SPSS Amos yield for the SEM model, the chi-square of the model is 1638.697
with a degree of freedom of 524 with a related p-value of 0.000. This proposes the
fitness of the model is adequate in light of the fact that the p-value is noteworthy at type
1 error rate of 1 percent. The relative chi-square of the model is 3.138, which is slightly
above the suitable range of fitness in the range of 0 and 3 as proposed by Hair et al
(2010).
Table 4.8 SEM Model Fit Indices
Chi Square Statistics Results
Chi-Square 1638.697
P-Value 0.000
Degrees of Freedom 524
Absolute Fit Indices
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) 0.071
Normed Chi-Square 3.127
Incremental Fit Indices
Normed Fit Indices (NFI) 0.847
Comparative Fit Indices (CFI) 0.890
Relative Fit Index (RFI) 0.827
TLI 0.875
IFI 0.891
Parsimony Fit Indices
Parsimony Comparative Fit Index (PCFI) 0.784
Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) 0.746

The table above condenses the measurement model fit indices results to validate the
figures. However, other fit indices, for example, RMSEA, CFI, GFI and NFI will likewise
be utilized to evaluate the model validity. The RMSEA record is 0.071 which is under
0.08 which is considered by numerous researchers as worthy. The estimations of NFI,
RFI and TLI are more prominent than 0.80 which affirms fitness of the model. Although
the CFI and IFI value of the SEM model in this study indicate a value below 0.90 (which
is deemed to be suggest goodness of fit) at 0.890 and 0.891 respectively, several authors
have suggested that a value between 0 and 1 and a value near to 1 indicates great fitness
(Lacobucci, 2010 ; Li‐tze & Bentler, 1999). The CFI and IFI value do satisfy this
exception to the general rule of model fit, and the proposed SEM model is a satisfactory
model in light of the above discussion.

4.6 RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE VARIABLES IN THE PROPOSED SEM MODEL.

In the wake of establishing the model fitness of the SEM model, the investigation
continues to decipher the parameters assessed by the SEM model. The regression
weights evaluated by SPSS Amos are accounted for in the accompanying table; The
results of the standardized regression coefficients are illustrated by Table 4.9 below:

Table 4.9 Estimated Regression Coefficients

Construct Estimate S.E. C.R. P

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 20
PurchDec <--- Price$ 0.264 0.088 3.003 0.003
PurchDec <--- RouteAC - 0.323 0.114 -2.826 0.005
PurchDec <--- ServQ 0.455 0.146 3.049 0.002
PurchDec <--- AirRep 0.091 0.079 1.147 0.257
PurchDec <--- FFlyer 0.184 0.061 2.993 0.003
PurchDec <--- SeatCM 0.061 0.035 1.710 0.087
PurchDec <--- SafetyF 0.182 0.056 3.230 0.001
RepeatIN <--- PurchDec 0.924 0.079 11.738 ***
P1 <--- Price$ 1.000
P2 <--- Price$ 0.987 0.060 16.498 ***
P4 <--- Price$ 0.867 0.071 12.266 ***
RAC2 <--- RouteAC 1.000 ***
RAC3 <--- RouteAC 1.001 0.085 11.766 ***
RAC4 <--- RouteAC 1.093 0.074 14.800 ***
RAC5 <--- RouteAC 1.051 0.069 15.258 ***
SQ1 <--- ServQ 1.000 ***
SQ2 <--- ServQ 1.069 0.067 15.855 ***
SQ3 <--- ServQ 0.841 0.062 13.645 ***
AR1 <--- AirRep 1.000 ***
AR2 <--- AirRep 0.904 0.041 21.850 ***
AR3 <--- AirRep 0.879 0.047 18.542 ***
FFP1 <--- FFlyer 1.000 ***
FFP2 <--- FFlyer 1.010 0.063 16.163 ***
FFP3 <--- FFlyer 1.097 0.075 14.618 ***
FFP4 <--- FFlyer 0.898 0.061 14.645 ***
FFP5 <--- FFlyer 0.970 0.064 15.224 ***
SC1 <--- SeatCM 1.000 ***
SC2 <--- SeatCM 1.076 0.034 31.743 ***
SC3 <--- SeatCM 1.037 0.037 28.213 ***
SFT1 <--- SafetyF 1.000 ***
SFT2 <--- SafetyF 1.074 0.058 18.450 ***
SFT3 <--- SafetyF 0.816 0.057 14.247 ***
SFT4 <--- SafetyF 0.901 0.062 14.593 ***
SFT5 <--- SafetyF 0.998 0.058 17.195 ***
PD9 <--- PurchDec 1.000 ***
PD5 <--- PurchDec 1.057 0.084 12.616 ***
PD4 <--- PurchDec 1.022 0.077 13.192 ***
PD3 <--- PurchDec 0.755 0.061 12.415 ***
PD2 <--- PurchDec 0.722 0.062 11.635 ***
RPI5 <--- RepeatIN 1.000 ***
RPI4 <--- RepeatIN 0.890 0.060 14.891 ***
RPI3 <--- RepeatIN 1.059 0.078 13.527 ***
RPI2 <--- RepeatIN 0.961 0.065 14.895 ***
Note: *** significant at 99 percent confidence level.

By and large, the regression model is noteworthy and important because of their
significant p-value at 5 percent alpha and estimated regression coefficients for tested
path diagram are more prominent than 0.20. These would give the accompanying
hypothesis test results;

Table 4.10 Path Model Hypotheses Result

Hypothesis βStandardized βUnstandardized Estimate p-Value Results

H1: Price has a significant positive
influence on travelers’ purchasing 0.300 0.264 0.264 0.003 Supported
decision of LCC.
H2: Service Quality has a significant 0.460 0.455 0.455 0.02 Supported

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 21
positive influence on travelers
purchasing decision of LCC.
H3: Airline Reputation has a
Not
significant positive influence on 0.105 0.091 0.091 0.257
Supported
travelers’ purchasing decision of LCC.
H4: Safety has a significant positive
influence on travelers’ purchasing 0.177 0.182 0.056 0.001 Supported
decision of LCC.
H5: Route Accessibility &
Convenience has a significant positive Not
- 0.269 - 0.323 - 0.323 0.005
influence on travelers’ purchasing Supported
decision of LCC.
H6: Frequent Flyer Programs have a
significant positive influence on 0.194 0.184 0.061 0.003 Supported
travelers’ purchasing decision of LCC.
H7: Seat Comfort have a significant
Not
positive influence on travelers’ 0.088 0.061 0.035 0.087
Supported
purchasing decision of LCC.
H8: Purchasing decision has a
significant positive influence on
Repeat Purchase Intention of travelers
0.855 0.924 0.924 *** Supported
towards LCC.

From the above table, several hypotheses have been accepted and some have been
rejected. It can be concluded that Safety has a significant positive influence (βStandardized =
0.177, βunstandardized = 0.182) on consumer purchasing decision of low-cost carrier.
Service quality is established to have a significant positive influence (βStandardized = 0.46,
βUnstandardized = 0.455) on consumer purchasing decision of low-cost carrier. Thirdly, it
has been concluded that Price has a significant positive influence (βStandardized = 0.300,
βUnstandardized = 0.264) on consumer purchasing decision of low-cost carrier. Next, it was
also found that the availability of Frequent Flyer Program has significant positive
influence (βStandardized = 0.194, βUnstandardized = 0.184) on consumer purchasing decision of
low-cost carrier. Route Accessibility & Convenience, even though it is significant, was
found to have a negative influence (βStandardized = - 0.269, βUnstandardized = - 0.323) on
consumer purchasing decision of low-cost carrier. Finally, the Purchasing Decision of
consumers is established to have a significant positive influence (βStandardized = 0.855,
βUnstandardized = 0.924) on the Repeat Purchase Intention of low-cost carrier.
On the contrary, Airline Reputation was established not to have a significant
positive influence (βStandardized = 0.105, βUnstandardized = 0.091) on consumer purchasing
decision of low-cost carrier. Similarly, Seat Comfort was also found not to have any
significant positive influence (βStandardized = 0.088, βUnstandardized = 0.061) on consumer
purchasing decision of low-cost carrier.

The R² value indicates the predictive capability of the SEM model. The R² values for all
endogenous variables (Purchasing Decision and Repeat Purchasing Decision) are
condensed in the accompanying table;
Table 4.11 Coefficients of Determinants
Endogenous Variables Exogenous Variables R²
Purchasing Decision Price, Service Quality, Airline Reputation,
Safety, Route Accessibility & Convenience, 0.875
Frequent Flyer Program, Seat Comfort
Repeat Purchase Intention Purchasing Decision 0.732

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 22
The R² Purchasing Decision is 0.875, which implies that 87.5 percent of varieties in
Purchasing Decision can be clarified by the eight independent variables (Price, Service
Quality, Airline Reputation, Safety, Route Accessibility & Convenience, Frequent Flyer
Program, Seat Comfort). The R² for Repeat Purchase Intention, at 0.732, demonstrates
that 73.2 percent of varieties in Repeat Purchase Intention can be clarified by
Purchasing Decision.

4.8 DISCUSSION OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF SEM RESULTS

The proposed SEM model accomplished adequate integrity of fit and acknowledgment
of the hypothesized connections. The coefficient of determination (R²) of the
endogenous variables shows high illustrative power. The hypotheses consequent from
the writings and from standard airline practices were tried in the SEM model. The
hypotheses that were at first tried incorporated the accompanying connections:

H1: Price (P) and Purchasing Decision (PD).


H2: Service Quality (SQ) and Purchasing Decision (PD).

H3: Airline Reputation and Purchasing Decision (PD).

H4: Safety (SFT) and Purchasing Decision (PD).

H5: Route Accessibility & Convenience (RAC) and Purchasing Decision (PD).

H6: Frequent Flyer Program (FFP) and Purchasing Decision (PD).

H7: Seat Comfort (SC) and Purchasing Decision (PD).

H8: Purchasing Decision (PD) and Repeat Purchase Intention (RPI).


Price
Testing of H1 demonstrated a generally moderate, however positive, path coefficient for
the connection among Price and Purchasing Decision (β = 0.300). Be that as it may, the
significance tests of the variable indicated worthiness (p = 0.003); therefore, H1 was
supported. Various literatures discussed below provides support for H1 that Price is a
significant and impactful influence in the decision-making process of travelers on the
choice of carrier.

Price is one of the determinants of choice for travelers of low-cost carrier and
has a noteworthy positive impact in the purchasing decision of travelers of low-cost
carrier. The ticket price of the LCC is viewed as a standout amongst the most essential
elements – or surely the main influence – in the decision of non-corporate travelers.
(Chan, 2014; Davison & Ryley, 2010; Dolnicar, et al., 2011; Evangelho, et al., 2005;
Fourie & Lubbe, 2006; Hess & Polak, 2007; Jou, et al., 2008; O'Connel & Williams, 2005).
Therefore, H1 was supported in this research. Different analysts offer some profundity
to some degree of evident finding that price matters to LCC travelers. From a financial
point of view, plainly price is the principle aspect in the decision of LCCs against full-
service carriers (Jou, et al., 2008). This is on the grounds that LCC service standards are
considerably inferior than full-service contributions, which is regarded to be less
desirable (Jou, et al., 2008). A few investigations have upheld price as the most critical
feature (Dolnicar, et al., 2011; Park, 2007). One intriguing discovery is that LCC
travelers are price-conscious and prone to change starting point/end point and
acknowledge less helpful flight and entry times in return for less expensive ticket
(Davison & Ryley, 2010). Investigations of Malaysian travelers found that service quality
and comfort, were of primary importance in comparison with price (Fourie & Lubbe,
2006; O'Connel & Williams, 2005). These examinations demonstrate that while price is
essential to travelers, it is not the main thought, and it may not be sufficient to lure non-
LCC travelers to attempt to travel with an LCC. In the present examination, price was

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 23
again not by any means the absolute thought, despite the fact that it was significant.
Consequently, in the present research, Price was resolved as one of the basic
components for a Malaysian traveler to consider before settling on the decision of
carrier within Malaysia. In taking note of the exploration question genuinely, Price has a
significant positive impact on consumer purchasing decision of LCC in Malaysia.

Service Quality

Secondly, testing of H2 demonstrated a strong and positive path coefficient for

the connection among Service Quality and Purchasing Decision (β = 0.465). The
significance tests of the variable indicated worthiness (p = 0.002); therefore, H2 was
supported. Service Quality is one of the determinants of choice for travelers of low-cost
carrier and has a noteworthy positive impact in the purchasing decision of travelers of
low-cost carrier. In a view to provide support for this finding, the accompanying
literature reinforces H2 and the finding that Service Quality is impactful and influences
that decision-making of travelers on the choice of their carrier.

Service quality is characterized as the traveler's impression of the service quality

rendered to them (Zeithaml, et al., 2010). Components of service quality incorporate
service expediency, ground facilities, and on-board services and well-being (Atalık &
Özel, 2007). A standout amongst the most squeezing common-sense inquiries is the
manner by which airlines can adjust price and service quality, since expanded service
quality additionally elevates costs. Service quality is an unpredictable contribution, and
culmination of the service contribution has been observed to be essential to travelers
(Jou, et al., 2008). In any case, it ought not be accepted that service quality is a settled or
target element. Despite that, H2 was supported in this investigation. LCC travelers may
have a lesser desire for service quality. The low prices of LCC tickets had an optional
impact of changing the service quality desires down, bringing about enhanced service
quality appraisals. This is a critical ramification for service suppliers, since it implies
that LCCs are definitely not anticipated that would meet indistinguishable standard of
excellence as a full-service carrier (Chan, 2014). Rather, it must achieve service quality
desires that are conventional considering its service offering guarantee and price stages.
Past investigation led among Malaysian travelers found that Malaysian LCC travelers
have been appeared to be more sensitive about service quality than price of ticket
(O'Connel & Williams, 2005). Besides, airlines practice adaptability in planning their
service rendition. Studies demonstrate that, generally, travelers do expect as ordinary
punctual operation and precise luggage administration (Park, 2007; Zhang, 2011). Be
that as it may, travelers were eager to pay for services, for example, in on-board
refreshments and beverages, enhanced seating, booking adaptability, and
entertainment (Balcolme, et al., 2009; Chen & Wu, 2009). In this way, despite the fact
that service quality is essential, LCCs can deal with their service contributions to adjust
apparent service quality and base ticket prices. Subsequently, it is not astounding that
Service Quality was determined as an imperative feature for a Malaysian traveler to
consider before settling on the decision of carrier within Malaysia in this investigation.
In noting the research question certifiably, Service Quality has a significant positive
impact on consumer purchasing decision of LCC in Malaysia.

Airline Reputation

In testing H3, where a connection between Airline Reputation and Purchasing

Decision was sought, the path coefficient obtained was weak but positive (β = 0.105).
The significance test also indicated unworthiness (p = 0.257); therefore, it is concluded
that H3 was not supported in this study. Airline Reputation is not a determinant of
choice for travelers of low-cost carrier and does not have a noteworthy impact in the

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 24
purchasing decision of travelers of low-cost carrier. Even though Airline Reputation was
not an important criterion in the decision-making process of choice of LCC in this study,
travelers should be concerned with the airline reputation especially in terms of its
safety credentials and endorsements, and the following literature provides a better
illustration of the same.

Airline reputation is the traveler's perception of the airline in view of social

information and data, for example, its safety credentials and media reports (Atalık &
Özel, 2007; Bukhari, et al., 2012; Dolnicar, et al., 2011; Graham & Bansal, 2007; Zhang,
2011). Unfortunately, H3 was not supported in this examination. Airline reputation is
noteworthy for the examination on the grounds that, dissimilar to alternate elements
examined beneath, it is beyond the immediate grasp of the airline and cannot be
straightforwardly controlled. The airline's reputation depends on various distinctive
variables, for example, money related execution, safety commendations, safety
credentials, and size and age of the fleet (Graham & Bansal, 2007). A portion of these
elements can be relieved via airline operational practices. For instance, airlines can deal
with their upkeep programs keeping in mind the end goal to keep up endorsements and
safety credentials. In any case, size and age, and to some degree money related
execution, cannot be specifically controlled. Airline reputation could be especially
inconvenient for LCCs, since more seasoned, bigger, and national and worldwide (as
opposed to local) airlines are probably going to have a superior reputation (Dolnicar, et
al., 2011). Be that as it may, different examinations have proposed this is not so vital.
For instance, Chinese travelers are much more worried about punctual execution of
operation than airline reputation (Zhang, 2011). By and large, the potential effect of
airline reputation is blended. Obviously, travelers in the present examination were not
focusing on it, but rather in the meantime it could be a standout amongst the most
essential factor. When all is said and done, airline reputation likely cannot be
overlooked as a feature in traveler decision of airline regardless of whether it is the
most noteworthy feature. Along these lines, the aftereffects of this examination, Airline
Reputation was determined as not a basic component for a Malaysian traveler to
consider before settling on the decision of carrier within Malaysia in this investigation.
In noting the exploration question authentically, Airline Reputation does not have a
significant positive impact on consumer purchasing decision of LCC in Malaysia.

Safety

H4 was found to be the most significant determinant of choice of air travelers in

this study. Testing of H4 demonstrated a generally moderate, however positive, path
coefficient for the connection among Safety and Purchasing Decision (β = 0.177).
However, the significance tests of the variable indicated the worthiness (p = 0.001);
therefore, H4 was supported. It can be concluded that Safety is one of the determinants
of choice for travelers of low-cost carrier and has a noteworthy positive impact in the
purchasing decision of travelers of low-cost carrier. The accompanying literature
provides further support for H4 and the importance of Safety in travelers decision
making process in the choice of carrier for air travel.

Professed airline safety can be characterized as the traveler's impression of the

airline safety credentials; for instance, the degree of episodes and the airline's upkeep
record. Various past investigations have upheld airline safety as one of the elements
related to a decision on an airline (Atalık & Özel, 2007; Barros, et al., 2010; Cunningham,
et al., 2004; Graham & Bansal, 2007; Jou, et al., 2008). A few examinations have even

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 25
recommended that airline safety could be significantly more essential for low-cost
carrier travelers than customary full-service carriers, since LCCs might be seen as
dangerous or less protected than different carriers (Mikulic & Prebezac, 2011).
Therefore, H4 was supported in this research. With a wide range of choices available for
domestic travel within Malaysia and with the booming low-cost industry within
Malaysia, perceptions of airline safety are deemed of primary importance to air
travelers be it low-cost travelers of full-service travelers. Many travelers are still
plagued by the aftermath of MH17 on 17th July 2014 (The Star, 2014), crash of QZ8501
on 28th December 2014 (Avineshwaran, 2014) and the vanishing of MH370 on 3rd
March 2014 (The Star, 2014), to the extent that the safety credentials of the airlines
(IATA, 2018) and safety of air travel are constantly questioned by the travelers within
Malaysia and globally (Stewart, 2018). Therefore, it is not surprising that Safety was
concluded as the most important criteria for a Malaysian traveler to consider before
deciding on the choice of airline within Malaysia in this study. In answering the research
question affirmatively, Safety does have a significant positive impact on consumer
buying decision of LCC in Malaysia.

Route Accessibility and Convenience

H5 was found to have a negative impact in this study. In testing H5, where a
connection between Route Accessibility and Convenience and Purchasing Decision was
sought, the path coefficient obtained was moderate but negative (β = -0.269). The
significance test however indicated worthiness (p = 0.005); This indicates that even
though Route Accessibility & Convenience is significant, it has a negative impact on the
purchasing decision of air travelers. Therefore, it is concluded that H5 was not
supported in this study. Route Accessibility & Convenience is a determinant of choice
for travelers of low-cost carrier but it has a noteworthy negative impact in the
purchasing decision of travelers of low-cost carrier.

Route accessibility and convenience estimated the degree to which the airline's
forecast and course maps matched the traveler's needs. This feature was examined by
various past creators and recognized as being of centrality in the movement decision
(Atalık & Özel, 2007; Castillo-Manzano & Marchena-Gómez, 2010; Hess & Polak, 2006;
Fourie & Lubbe, 2006; Zhang, 2011). Despite the fact that it may appear that route
accessibility and convenience would be fundamental for travelers, the writing really
proposes this may not be the situation for a wide range of travelers. In principle, the
airline is chosen in light of a dual-phase choice procedure, with travelers first
determining the end point and then choosing airlines from a range of airlines that can
fly them there (Hess & Polak, 2006). Various investigations on airline decision have
demonstrated that convenient routes and flight times do have any kind of effect in the
selection of a specific airline (van Eggermond, 2007). Be that as it may, not all travelers
demonstrate a similar degree of concern with particular routings or timings. An
examination in South Africa demonstrated that LCC travelers are regularly complacent
with exact flight timings or destinations, and they are prepared to trade off on these
necessities as opposed to fulfil them (Fourie & Lubbe, 2006). An investigation of Spanish
travelers demonstrated that travelers who required particular flight times or routes, or
who had a complex routing or a long-distant route, will probably pick a full-service
carrier as opposed to an LCC in any case (Castillo-Manzano & Marchena-Gómez, 2010).
In a nutshell, while LCC travelers might be relied upon to appreciate convenient flight
times or destinations, they are likewise prepared to acknowledge less convenience in
return for a lesser cost of travel, therefore H5 was not supported in this study.
Malaysian LCC travelers seem to take after this general pattern, with no significant
relationship between route accessibility and purchasing decision of LCC. In conclusion,

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 26
Route Accessibility and Convenience does not have a significant positive impact on
consumer buying decision of LCC in Malaysia.

Frequent Flyer Program

Testing of H6 demonstrated a generally weak but positive path coefficient for the
connection among Frequent Flyer Program and Purchasing Decision (β = 0.194). The
significance tests of the variable indicated worthiness (p = 0.003); therefore, H6 was
supported in this study. Frequent Flyer Program is one of the determinants of choice for
travelers of low-cost carrier and has a noteworthy positive impact in the purchasing
decision of travelers of low-cost carrier.

Frequent flier programs will be plans that provide incentives for allegiance in
flight and repeat purchases, for instance "miles" that can be utilized to buy flights or free
promotions (Carlsson & Löfgren, 2006). Frequent flier programs are not normally
utilized by LCCs but rather have been appeared to be an aspect in airline decision in
different investigations (Carlsson & Löfgren, 2006; Fourie & Lubbe, 2006; Hess & Polak,
2006; Park, 2007). Therefore, there was a question regarding whether the existence of a
frequent flier program would influence the airline decision for the LCC. Frequent flier
programs may not be as critical to LCC travelers as to other people. The frequent flier
program is intended to elevate swapping costs and guarantee repetitive travel from
similar clients, yet it additionally surges the expense to the airline per traveler (Carlsson
& Löfgren, 2006). As a result of surged costs, LCCs don't commonly work frequent flier
programs, despite the fact that occasionally they do (Vidovic, et al., 2013).
Consequently, travelers that habitually picked LCCs may not desire or esteem the
advantages of the frequent flier program. In addition, there are proofs that while
individuals from frequent flier programs are inclined by the program's contributions in
their airline decision non-individuals are not inclined by these contributions (Park,
2007). Finally, the key traveler fragments that are inclined by frequent flier programs
are corporate travelers, who fly frequently and commonly price oblivious and care more
about convenience and service quality (Dolnicar, et al., 2011; Fourie & Lubbe, 2006).
Not many of the travelers included in this examination were routinely traveling for
business, and instead a large portion of them were traveling for recreation or different
objectives. In rundown, the travelers involved in this review are probably going to be
price delicate, traveling for recreation or to visit loved ones, and do not subscribe to
frequent flier programs as of now. To the contrary, it was astounding that frequent flier
program was a significant aspect in their decision of LCC in this study. Therefore, it can
be concluded that Frequent Flyer Programs does have a significant positive impact on
consumer buying decision of LCC in Malaysia, and H6 was supported in this study.

Seat Comfort

H7 (Seat Comfort) was unsupported and rejected in this study. Testing of H7

demonstrated a generally weak and positive path coefficient for the connection among
Seat Comfort and Purchasing Decision (β = 0.088). However, the significance tests of the
variable indicated unworthiness (p = 0.087); therefore, H7 was unsupported. This
outcome goes to show that Seat Comfort is not a significant determinant of choice of
low-cost carrier for air travelers, and does not have positive impact on the purchasing
decision of air travelers travelling on low-cost carriers. Thus, it is concluded that Seat
Comfort is not one of the determinants of choice for travelers of low-cost carrier and
does not have a noteworthy positive impact in the purchasing decision of travelers of
low-cost carrier. Some literature discussed below supports the rejection of this

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 27
hypothesis, while some have paved the way that Seat Comfort should be looked into in a
broader perspective, especially for a low-cost carrier.

Seat Comfort refers to various qualifications such as the seat pit, i.e. the distance
between one seat and another, the width of the hand rest, the texture of the seat
cushion, the material in which the seat is made of and the size of the seat itself. Similar
to the outcome of this examination, Seat Comfort was not supported as a determining
factor of travelers’ choice. A study conducted by Wang, et al., (2011) on 145 air
travellers in China, as a means of discovering the impact of Seat Comfort as a criteria for
carrier selection was rejected by the respondents. This variable was also rejected in
another study conducted by (Huňak & Kolář, 2016) in which a more specific study was
conducted in connecting Seat Comfort with respect to low-cost carrier and full-service
carrier. Lee & Luengo-Pradob (2004) examined if travellers were willing to pay
additional fare for an added leg room and it was concluded to the contrary in their study
that additional legroom, which contributes to seat comfort, was not an imperative
requirement for travellers warranting additional fare. Seat Comfort was found to be
insignificant in this study in determining the choice of low-cost carrier, however in the
contratry it was found to be significant in the choice of full-service carrier. In the
contrary, many researchers are indeed examining the significance of Seat Comfort in the
evolution of air travel and in view of heavy competition among airlines in the aviation
industry. Various authors have provided support for reviewing the importance of Seat
Comfort during the decision-making process in the selection of carrier (Lu & Tsai,
20014; Curtis, et al., 2012; Okeudo & Chikwendu , 2013).

Repeat Purchase Intention

Finally, in testing H8, where a connection between Purchasing Decision and

Repeat Purchase Intention was sought, the path coefficient obtained was strong and
positive (β = 0.855). The significance test also indicated 99% worthiness (p = ***);
therefore, it is concluded that H8 was supported in this study. Purchasing Decision does
have a significant positive influence on the Repeat Purchase Intention of travelers of
low-cost carrier and does not have a noteworthy impact in the Repeat Purchase
Intention of travelers of low-cost carrier.

In conclusion, this study has segregated the most prominent determinants of choice of
air travelers of low-cost carriers from the other in the order of significance of Safety,
Service Quality, Price and Frequent Flyer Program. In support of the above hypothesis,
the following paragraph illustrates further.

In the Malaysian context, Yeoh & Kim (2011) provided a clear support for this
hypothesis in which the study indicated that Purchasing Decision consists of various
contributing factors such as Price, Service Quality, Safety and etc, and these factors does
influence the Repeat Purchasing Intention of low-cost travellers in Malaysia. However,
the study also provided that the travellers’ reasonable expectation of satisfactory
execution of the above contributing factors are sufficient to ensure repeat purchase
intention In another study conducted by Al-Refaie, et al.(2014), it was found that
Repeat Purchase Intention of travelers are established when the dimensions of Price,
Service Quality and other airline selection criterias which forms the purchasing decision
is improved by the airlines. Law (2017) also provides support for the above hypothesis
in which the research carried out in Thailand concluded that factors of Purchasing
Decision is a significant influence in the Repeat Purchase Intention of travellers in
Thailand.

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 28
5. Conclusion

The researcher clearly stated at the outset that the objectives of this research are
two-fold. Firstly, was to explore the determinants that impact and influence travelers'
purchasing decision towards selection of low-cost carriers in Malaysia. Seven variables
were considered in this examination to establish the correlation between these
variables and travelers’ purchasing decision, out of which Price, Safety, Service Quality
and Frequent Flyer Program was established as the most significant determinants of
travelers’ choice of low-cost carrier in Malaysia. The second objective was to explore
how these determinants impact and influence the repeat purchase intention of travelers
towards low-cost carriers in Malaysia and it was concluded that Price, Safety, Service
Quality and Frequent Flyer Program influences the Purchasing Decision of traveler
which has significant positive impact on the Repeat Purchase Intention of travelers of
low-cost carriers. Therefore, it can be concluded that the objectives of this research
have been successfully achieved.

The finding that Price is the most significant determinant in the choice of low-cost
carrier is established in many researches prior to this examination (Jou, et al., 2008;
Dolnicar, et al., 2011; Loo, 2008). However, in the context of Malaysian aviation
industry, the price of the fare is very much determined by the economies of scale of each
airline companies operating in Malaysia. The larger companies such as Air Asia are able
to spread their operating cost more efficiently as compared to smaller airlines such as
Firefly, due to the size of the company as well as their respective fleet size, thus making
the fare more affordable. In the Malaysian consumer perspective, Price is the utmost
significant factor of choice of airline, where travelers were found to have compromised
on other factors, but not Price (Yeoh & Kim, 2011). Attempts by the Malaysian Aviation
Commission (MAVCOM) to regulate the fare of domestic air travel to ensure level
playing field for all airline companies were rejected by most airline companies in
Malaysia (Bernama, 2018). Therefore, it is imperative for airline companies to capitalize
on the findings of this research and strive to provide better fare to stay in competition
in the Malaysian airline industry.

Secondly, it is concluded in this study that Safety is also one of the significant
determinants of travelers’ choice of low-cost carrier in Malaysia. The importance given
to Safety by the Malaysian travelers is somewhat different from Western countries,
where Safety is more prominently significant in Western countries (Barros, et al., 2010;
Jou, et al., 2008; Graham & Bansal, 2007). The outcome of this research is also quite
alarming in the context of the importance given to Safety, especially after the country
was hit with three air crashes in 2014 (The Star, 2014; Avineshwaran, 2014; The Star,
2014). In the absence of a strong consumer law to provide an avenue for travelers to
address their grievances in terms of safety and other airline related matters would have
also contributed to Safety not being the utmost significant determinant factor in
Malaysia (Ong & Ahmad-Yusof, 2016).

The third conclusion derived from this study is that Service Quality is one of the
determinants in travelers’ choice of low-cost carrier in Malaysia. The difficulty lies here
to balance the expectation of service quality with the fare charged by low-cost carriers
to its customers. It is a reasonable expectation of full-service carrier travelers that
service quality has to be impeccable for the price that is paid for the flight tickets.
However, such level of service quality may not be feasible in the context of low-cost
carriers in Malaysia, even though in the Western countries, travelers were willing to pay
more for an upgrade in service quality (Atalık & Özel, 2007; Balcolme, et al., 2009;
Fourie & Lubbe, 2006; Park, 2007). The finding of this study goes to suggest that, low-

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 29
cost airline companies should strive to give the best service quality possible for the fare
that is being paid by the travelers, so as not to tax the travelers with additional price
hikes as it will not be in conformity with the low-cost business model.

The final conclusion derived in this study is that Frequent Flyer Program has a
significant influence on the travelers in the choice of low-cost cost carrier in Malaysia.
This outcome is somewhat peculiar bearing in mind that the survey was done among
leisure travelers in Malaysia, who may be travelling on holiday probably not more than
three times a year. The true benefit of the Frequent Flyer Program can only be derived if
a traveler is constantly travelling and air “miles” are earned for the distance travelled,
which can be converted to various redemption benefits accorded to the traveler by the
airline. The frequent flyer program may be beneficial to corporate travelers, who may
be traveling on business trips several times a year, and the low-cost airlines can look
into introducing Frequent Flyer programs or enhancing their benefits to lure more
corporate travelers to fly low-cost.

5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS.

Several recommendations are deduced as a result of this investigation which is

addressed to the airline industry, future researches and the Malaysian Aviation
Commission (MAVCOM), the Malaysian aviation regulatory body. These
recommendations can be looked at, analyzed and implemented if it could improve the
low-cost industry.

Firstly, due to the rapid change in the airline industry as well as the perceived value of
travelers over time, it is recommended that the low-cost airline companies in Malaysia
utilize the outcome of this study as well as the studies conducted in the future, to
analyze the variables of these studies to be used as their market study in order to better
understand the reasonable expectations of travelers over time. It is also recommended
to the airlines to improve their value in terms of Price, Safety, Service Quality and
Frequent Flyer Program to give themselves a competitive edge against their
competitors as clearly established in this study.

Secondly, future researchers who mean to explore this area further is recommended to
incorporate different factors of decision of LCC which are not considered in this
examination to exploit the theme in a more extensive viewpoints, for example a
comparison between the purchasing decision of an LCC and FSC can be directed. Seat
Comfort which was examined in this research to determine its influence on the decision
of low-cost carrier but was found to be insignificant, and eventually unsupported in the
decision of LCC in Malaysia. Seat Comfort was excluded in any other research on LCC,
and future researchers could investigate this factor further which indirectly adds to
service quality. A more extensive sample could be engaged for future research with the
goal that a superior outcome of a generalized assessment can be reached. Future
researchers can explore the same investigation in the context of corporate travelers as
this study was centered only on leisure travelers. Bearing in mind that this examination
and other examinations on this subject in Malaysia is conducted utilizing primary data
and quantitative method of data collection, it is also recommended that future
researchers on this topic would explore into secondary data collection and a qualitative
method of data collection, or a combination of both.

Finally, as a recommendation to MAVCOM, it should be noted that the airline industry is

a cash intensive business and the economy of scale plays an important part in the
success of each airline. Therefore, regulating the price of domestic or international air
travel will be detrimental to smaller companies and advantageous to bigger companies.

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 30
Moreover, in the context of low-cost industry, many taxes have been imposed upon the
flight fare, resulting in low-cost travel to be as expensive as full-service carrier in certain
instances and destinations. Thus, it is recommended to MAVCOM that a reduction in the
taxes will help boost the industry and the country’s economy. It is also recommended to
MAVCOM to encourage new players into the Malaysian low-cost market to increase
competition among airlines and to provide wider choices for the travelers.

5.2 LIMITATIONS.

There were a few limitations to the investigation that could either not be dispensed
with from the examination plan or wound up evident amid the exploration procedure.
Generally speaking, these limitations do not lessen the commitment of the examination
to the writing. In any case, they do impact how far the examination can be summed up,
either to the Malaysian populace or to other people.

This exploration other than being far reaching and tending to, is qualified for specific
limitations and shortcomings; basically, the data gathered for this examination just
speaks to a specific industry (aviation) which is not relevant to be used for different
enterprises of various nature, for example, automobiles and banking. Besides, only
leisure travelers were surveyed in this study, which has limited the researcher to
distinguish the shortcomings of the determinants and improve it to achieve persuading
results by including corporate travel. Adding to it, the data set just includes 425
respondents because of time requirements of data gathering, which could be more to
make the discoveries of the examination more universal.

Reference

Air Asia, 2017. Air Asia Group Berhad Annual Report, Kuala Lumpur: Air Asia Berhad.

Akamavi, R., Mohamed, E., Pellmann, K. & Xu, Y., 2015. Key Determinants of Passenger loyalty in the
low-cost airline business. Tourism Management, Volume 46, pp. 528-545.

Atalık, Ö. & Özel, E., 2007. Passenger expectations and factors affecting their choice of low-cost carriers:
Pegasus Airlines., Proceedings of the Northeast Business and Economics Association.

Avineshwaran, T., 2014. AirAsia Flight QZ8501 loses contact with Indonesian air traffic. The Star, 28
December.

Balcolme, K., Fraser, I. & Harris, L., 2009. Consumer willingness to pay for in-flight service and
comfort levels: A choice experiment. Journal of Air Transport Management, 15(5), pp.
221-226.

Barros, C., Faria, J. & Gil-Alana, L., 2010. Persistence of airline accidents. Disasters, 34(4), pp. 1123-1138.

Bernama, 2018. Gov’t to impose fare ceiling for domestic flights, says Aziz Kaprawi. MalaysiaKini, 19
March.

Bernard, H. R., 2012. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 2 nd ed.
London: SAGE Publications.

Bollen, K., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. 1 ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Boonlertvanich, K., 2009. A conceptual model for the repurchase intentions in the automobile
service industry: the role of switching barriers in satisfaction-repurchase intention
relationship. International Journal of Business Research, Volume 9, pp. 1-19.

Bukhari, S., Ghoneim, A. & Dennis, C., 2012. Understanding the factors that attract travellers to buy
airline tickets online in Saudi Arabia. [Online] Available at:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Saleh_Bukhari/publication/234842291_UNDERS

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 31
 TANDIN
G_THE_FACTORS_THAT_ATTRACT_TRAVELLERS_TO_BUY_AIRLINE_TICKETS_ONLINE_I
N_SAUDI _ARABIA/links/0fcfd51025ac3a0a6000000.pdf [Accessed 29 May 2018].

Byrne, B. M., 2010. Structural equation modelling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and
programming. 2 ed. New York: Routledge.

Carlsson, F. & Löfgren, A., 2006. Airline choice, switching costs and frequent flier programmes.
Journal of Applied Economics, 38(13), pp. 1469-1475.

Castillo-Manzano, J. & Marchena-Gómez, M., 2010. Analysis of determinants of airline choice: Profiling the
LCC passenger. Applied Economics Letters, 18(1), pp. 49-53.

Chan, J., 2014. Understanding the meaning of low airfare and satisfaction among leisure air travellers
using Malaysian low-cost airlines. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 20(3), pp. 211-223.

Chen, A., Peng, N. & Hackley, C., 2008. Evaluating Service Marketing in Airline Industry and Its
Influence on Student Passengers' Purchasing Behaviour Using Taipei–London Route as
an Example. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25(2), pp. 149-160.

Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia, 2006 [Online] Available at: http://www.dca.gov.my/sectors-

divisions/legal-advisor/act-2/

Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. 2 ed. New York: Academic
Press.

Creswell, J., 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4 th ed.:
SAGE Publishing.

Cunningham, L., Young, C. & Lee, M., 2004. Perceptions of airline service quality pre- and post-
9/11. Public Works Management Policy, 9(1), pp. 10-25.

Curtis, T., Rhoades, D. & Waguespack Jr., B., 2012. Satisfaction with Airline Service Quality: Familiarity
Breeds Contempt. International Journal of Aviation Management, 1(4), pp. 1-25.

Davison, L. & Ryley, T., 2010. Tourism destination preferences of low-cost airline users in the East
Midlands. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3), pp. 458-465.

Dolnicar, S., Grabler, K., Grun, B. & Kulnig, A., 2011. Key drivers of airline loyalty. Journal of Tourism
Management, 32(5), pp. 1020-1026.

Edwards, J., 2010. Key Characteristics and Attitudes of Airline passengers, with particular emphasis
upon the Low-Cost sector: Implications for pre-trip decision-making and airline choice,
London: University of Westminster.

eGlobal, 2013. eGlobal Travel Media, Australia / New Zealand / India / Asia / Japan / Americas.
[Online] Available at: http://www.eglobaltravelmedia.com.au/ malaysia-airlines-
honoured-5- star-airline-certification-at-the-skytrax-awards/ [Accessed 11 May 2018].

Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. & Muller, H., 2003. Evaluating the fit of Structural Equation Models: Test
of Significance and descriptive goodness-of- fit measures. Measures of Psychological
Research Online, 8(2), pp. 23-74.

Evangelho, F., Huse, C. & Linhares, A., 2005. Market entry of a low-cost airline and impacts on the
Brazilian business travellers. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11(2), pp. 99-105.

Fourie, C. & Lubbe, B., 2006. Determinants of Selection of full-service airlines and low-cost carriers - A
note on business travellers in South Africa. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(2), pp.
98-102.

Garbarino, E. & Johnson, M. S., 1999. The different roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment in
customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, Volume 63, pp. 70-87

Gillham, B., 2008. Developing a Questionnaire. 2 ed. London: Bloomsbury.

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 32
Graham, M. & Bansal, P., 2007. Consumers' willingness to pay for corporate reputation: The context of
airline companies. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), pp. 189-200.

Grix, J., 2010. The foundations of research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ha, H., 2010. Consumer Choice Model in No-Frills Airline Industry.

Hair, J., Black, W. & Babin, B., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. 7 th ed.: Pearson
Education.

Hess, S. & Polak, J., 2006. Airport, airline and access mode choice in the San Francisco Bay area.
Papers in Regional Science, 85(4), pp. 543-567.

He, Y., Chan, L. K. & Tse, S. K., 2008. From consumer satisfaction to repurchase intention: the role of
price tolerance in competitive service market. Total Quality Management, Volume 19, pp. 949-
961.

Huang, Y., 2009. The effect of airline service quality on passengers' behavioural intentions using
SERVQUAL scores: A Taiwan case study., Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for
Transportation Studies

Huňak, J. & Kolář, P., 2016. Heterogeneity of Business Passengers in Air Transport. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 11(4), pp. 39-46.

Hussain, M., 2017. The Determinants of Repeat Purchase Intention for Luxury Brands among
Generation Y Consumers in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, Volume 13, pp. 125-136.

IATA, 2018. SAFETY REPORT 2017, Montreal, Canada: International Air Transport Association
(IATA).

Jou, R. et al., 2008. The effect of service quality and price on international airline competition.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(4), pp. 580-
592.

Kline, R. B., 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling. New York: The Guilford
Press.

Krejcie, R. & Morgan, D., 1970. Determining Sample Size for Research. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Volume 30, pp. 607-610.

Kuosuwan, B., 2015. Market Factors Influencing the Decision to Patronage Low Cost Carriers.
Journal of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Volume 197, pp. 2097-2102.

Lacobucci, D., 2010. Structural equations modelling: Fit Indices, sample size, and advanced topics.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Volume 20, pp. 90-98.

Lantos, G., 2010. Consumer behaviour in action: Real-life applications for marketing. New York: M.E.
Sharpe.

Lee, D. & Luengo-Prado, M.J, 2004. Are passengers willing to pay more for additional legroom?
Journal of Air Transport Management, Volume 10, pp. 377-383.

Lee, J., 1999. The Influence of Switching Cost on Customer Retention: A Study of the Cell-phone
Market in France. European Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 4, pp. 277-283.

Li‐tze, H. & Bentler, P., 1999. Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modelling. A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), pp. 1-55.

Lin, H.F., Huang, Y.W., 2015. Using analytic network process to measure the determinants of low- cost
carriers purchase intentions: a comparison of potential and current customers. Journal of Air
Transport Management. (49), pp. 9-16

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 33
Loo, B., 2008. Passengers’ airport choice within multi-airport regions (MARs): Some insights from a
stated preference survey at Hong Kong International Airport. Journal of Transport Geography,
16(2), pp. 117-125.

Lu, J. & Tsai, L., 20014. Modelling the Effect of Enlarged Seating Room on Passenger Preferences in
Domestic Airlines in Taiwan. Journal of Air Transportation, 9(2), pp. 83-96.

Mburu, S. N. (2009). Passengers’ Perceptions of Low-Cost Airlines and Full-Service Carriers: A

Case Study Of Fly540 and Kenya Airways. Master thesis, University of Nairobi, Kenya.

Mikulic, J. & Prebezac, D., 2011. What drives passenger loyalty to both traditional and low-cost
airlines? A formative partial least squares approach. Journal of Air Transport
Management, Volume 17, pp. 237-240.

O'Connel, J. & Williams, G., 2005. Passengers' perception of Low-Cost Airlines and Full-Service
Carriers: A Case Study involving Ryanair, Aer Lingus, Air Asia and Malaysia Airlines.
Journal of Air Transport Management, Volume 11, pp. 259-272.

Okeudo, G. & Chikwendu, D.U., C., 2013. Effects of airline service quality on airline image and passengers’
loyalty: Findings from Arik Air Nigeria passengers. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 4(2), pp. 19-28.

Ong, T. & Ahmad-Yusof, S., 2016. Remedy as of Right for Consumer Protection. Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), pp. 142-148.

Ong, W. & Tan, A., 2010. A note on the determinants of airline choice: The Case of Air Asia and
Malaysia Airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, Volume 16, pp. 209-2112.

Park, J., 2007. Passenger perceptions of service quality: Korean and Australian case studies. Journal of
Air Transport Management, 13(4), pp. 238-242.

Qin, Z., 2012. The Factors Influencing Low-Cost Airline Passenger Satisfaction, Bangkok: University of
the Thai Chamber of Commerce.

Rajaguru, R., 2016. Role of Value for Money and Service Quality on Behavioural Intention: A Study of
full service and low-cost airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, Volume 53, pp. 114- 122.

Rugg, G. & Petre, M., 2006. A Gentle guide to Research Methods. New York: Open University Press.

Runkle, V., 1994. Benchmarking seat comfort: SAE Technical Paper, No. 940217.

Sai, B., Ekiz, E. & Kamarulzaman, Y., 2011. Factors Determining the Choice of Full-Service Airlines and
Low-Cost Carriers: Case of Malaysia. Hong Kong, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., 2009. Research Methods for Business Students. 5 ed: Prentice-
Hall.

Sokolovskyy, A., 2012. Analysing Factors Impacting Students' Choice between Low-Cost and Full- Fare
Airlines, Kristiansand S, Norway: University of Agder.

Stewart, A., 2018. Air safety in 2018: should we be concerned about flying? The National, 14 March.

Suzuki, Y. (2004), The impact of airline service failures on travellers’ carrier choice: A case study of
Central lowa. Transportation Journal, 43(2), 26-37

Tan, C., Chen, W. & Rauterberg, M., 2009. Development of Adaptive Aircraft Passenger Seat System for
Comfort Improvement, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: 2009 International Conference for Technical
Postgraduates.

Thapanat, B., 2015. Determination of Factors That Influence Passengers’ Airline Selection: A Study of
Low-Cost Carriers in Thailand. Dissertation and Theses: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

The Star, 2014. Flight MH370 bound for Beijing goes missing. The Star, 8 March.

The Star, 2014. MH17 crash: MAS plane crashes in Ukraine. The Star, 14 July.

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 34
 Theis, G., Adler, T., Clarke, J. & Ben-Akiva, M., 2006. Risk aversion to short connections in airline itinerary
choice. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
1951(1), pp. 28-36.

Ullman, J. B. & Bentler, P. M., 2003. Structural Equation Modelling. In Handbook of Psychology.
doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei0224 ed.: I.B. Weiner.

van Eggermond, M., 2007. Consumer choice behaviour and strategies of air transportation service
providers, Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.\

Vidovic, A., Stimac, I. & Vince, D., 2013. Development of business models of low-cost airlines. International
Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering, 3(1), pp. 69-81.

Vogt, W., Gardner, D. & Haeffele, L., 2012. When to Use What Research Design. New York: Guilford Press.

Wang, R., Shu-Li, H., Yuan, H. & Ming-Lang, T., 2011. Evaluation of customer perceptions on airline
service quality in uncertainty. Journal of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Volume 25, pp.
419-437.

Yang, C., 2009. The study of repurchase intention in experiential marketing-an empirical study of the
franchise restaurant. The International Journal of Organization Innovation, Volume 2, pp.
245-261.

Yang, K., Hsieh, T., Li, H. & Yang, C., 2012. Assessing how service quality, airline image and customer
value affect the intentions of passengers regarding low cost carriers. Journal of Air Transport
Management, Volume 20, pp. 52-53.

Yeoh, E. & Kim, J., 2011. Malaysian Low-Cost Airlines: Key Influencing Factors on Customers' Repeat
Purchase Intention. World Applied Sciences Journal, Volume 12, pp. 35-43.

Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L., 2010. Delivering quality service: Balancing customer
perceptions and expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Zhang, B., 2017. The 10 Best Low-Cost Airlines in the World. The Business Insider, 24 June.

Zhang, Y., 2011. What do Chinese passengers expect from domestic airlines, Sydney, Australia:
ATRS 2011: 15th Annual Air Transport Research Society Conference.

IJABM is a FTMS Publishing Journal

ISSN: 2289-4519
Page 35

View publication stats