Key Factors Affecting Thai Passengers to Select Low Cost ...

Soochow University

Global Business Program, School of Business

Thesis

Key Factors Affecting Thai Passengers to

Select Low Cost Airline

Student：MANANYA SRIWORRARAT 徐雅玲

Advisor：Dr. Chih-Ming Lee (李智明)

July 2016

Key Factors Affecting Thai Passengers to

Select Low Cost Airline

A Thesis

Submitted to

Soochow University

in partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Business Administration

In

Global Business Program

By

MANANYA SRIWORRARAT (徐雅玲)

Global Business program, School of business, Soochow University

July, 2016

i

Abstract

In the past few years, global airline industry has grown dramatically, and low cost

airline obviously become prosperous and gains enormous market shares of the airline

travelling. Furthermore, low cost airline in Thailand has increased their competitiveness

rapidly and earned significant market share from full service airline. The purpose of this

study is to find the key factors affecting Thai passengers to select low cost airlines, and we

hope that the results of this study could serve as a guideline for the managers of Thai low cost

airline to effectively develop their marketing strategies in order to gain the competitive

advantage and meet passenger’s satisfaction. A framework with four dimensions and 19

factors influencing passenger’s selection of low cost airlines were derived by literature

review. Then, a questionnaire of AHP was designed and a questionnaire survey of Thai

passengers was done. Next, AHP methodology was applied to obtain the priority of

importance of these dimensions and factors. We found that the rank of importance of

dimensions is: airline corporate, service quality, flight management, and airline aircraft. As

for the rank of importance of 19 factors is: price, punctuality, safety record, reliability,

responsiveness, flight availability, comfort, cleanliness, brand image, promotion and

advertising, empathy, flight announcement, service supply chain, tangible, assurance,

facilities, flight compensation, alliance, and entertainment, respectively. Further, we

compared our results with those of other papers. Finally, we make suggestions to both Thai

low cost airlines and Thai government.

Keywords: Low Cost Airline, LCA, Low Cost Carrier, LCC, Budget Airline, No-Frill Airline,

Analytical Hierarchy Process, AHP, Decision Making Model.

ii

Acknowledgement

This master thesis has been written for global business program, in the department of

business administration of Soochow University, Taiwan. It will not be completed and

perfected if there are no assists from these important people.

First of all, I would like to raise the full credit and give thanks to my thesis advisor

Dr. Chih-Ming Lee (李智明), who is the most important person that has been supporting me

at large with the fully good suggestions from his various qualified ability and his greatly

patience throughout this thesis process for more than a half past year long. In addition, I

would also like to acknowledge the defense committee members, including, Dr. Jin-Shyang

Roan (阮金祥) and Dr. Ji-Chyuan Liou (劉基全), the two important persons who are willing

to dedicate their valuable time participating in my oral defense examination so as to listen

and provide me the precious opinions and good suggestions for making my work done

completely.

Secondly, I want to give thanks for 中華扶輪教育基金會 (Chung Hwa Rotary

Educational Foundation), 雙連扶輪社 (Shuanglian Rotary Club), Rose Wu, and C.T. Wu,

who have subsidized me a large number of educational scholarship, as well as, Dean of GBP

(詹乾隆教授) who offered me the good opportunity to get this fund. I also would like to give

thanks for global business program of Soochow University that offers and provides me the

qualified course arrangement, professional teachers, and lovely classmates. Moreover, I

intend to be thankful for Serena Chiang, the secretary of global business program, who

always stand by me with various kinds of supportive all every step during I have educated for

my graduate study here, as well as, thanks to all Taiwanese and Vietnamese friends who

make my days when I have stayed in Taiwan.

Lastly, I am grateful to Porntipa-Manu Sriworrarat, my super mother and father, the best

parents who never let me walk alone. They always stand besides, encourage, support,

subsidize, and give the worthy of love and care for me all the time of studying and living in

Taiwan, and all steps of my life. As well as, I would like to be thankful for my best younger

and elder brothers, Suppanai (the younger brother), Suppanan, and Supanart (the elder

iii

brothers) Sriworrarat, who also provide the great encouragements, great supports, and great

suggestions to me every time since we have been being brother and sister of full blood.

iv

Table of Contents

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. v

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... vi

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background and Motivation ....................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purposes of the Research ............................................................................................ 6

1.3 Research Process ........................................................................................................ 7

Chapter 2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Papers Related to Airline Service ............................................................................... 9

2.2 A Hierarchical Framework of Key Factors .............................................................. 18

2.3 Papers Related to the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) ........................................ 22

Chapter 3 Methodology of Analytic Hierarchy Process .......................................................... 26

3.1 The Principle of AHP ............................................................................................... 26

3.2 The Process of AHP ................................................................................................. 27

3.3 The Advantages of AHP ........................................................................................... 38

3.4 The Applications of AHP ......................................................................................... 38

Chapter 4 Results of Survey and Discussion ........................................................................... 41

4.1 Personal Information of Thai Passengers ................................................................. 41

4.2 Results of Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 47

4.3 The Comparisons of Results with Those of Other Papers ........................................ 72

5.1 The Summary of Results .......................................................................................... 82

5.2 Suggestions for Related Organizations ..................................................................... 83

5.3 Research Limits and Future Development ............................................................... 92

References ................................................................................................................................ 94

v

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Total Number of Passengers and LCA Passengers 2010-2014 ............................. 5

Table 1.2 LCA Market Shares by Passenger Volume (Fiscal Year 2013) ............................ 6

Table 2.1 Summary of Literature Review of Factors in LCA Selection ............................. 16

Table 2.2 The Definitions of Dimensions and Factors ........................................................ 20

Table 3.1 A Pair Wise Comparison Measurement Scale .................................................... 30

Table 3.2 The Pair Wise Comparison Table on 4 Elements................................................ 31

Table 3.3 The Result of Pair Wise Comparison Matrix ...................................................... 31

Table 3.4 Average Random Consistency Index (R.I. Value) .............................................. 36

Table 3.5 The Applications of AHP .................................................................................... 39

Table 4.1 Summary of Thai Passengers’ Demographic Characteristics ............................. 42

Table 4.2 The Weights and Ranks of Dimensions and Factors ........................................... 48

Table 4.3 Score and Rank for Factors in the Review Papers .............................................. 72

Table 4.4 The Results of Comparison with Those of Other Papers ................................... 76

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Air Passenger Movements 2008-2015 ................................................................. 3

Figure 1.2 Research Process………………………………………………………………..8

Figure 2.1 A Hierarchical Framework of Key Factors Affecting Thai Passengers to Select

LCA ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 3.1 Decision Hierarchy (Saaty, 1980) ...................................................................... 29

Figure 4.1 The Frequency of Catching Air Transportation ................................................. 45

Figure 4.2 The Main Purpose of Taking Flight ................................................................... 46

Figure 4.3 The Number of Passengers Who Travel on LCA .............................................. 47

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background and Motivation

Undoubtedly, transportation plays an important role in human daily lives. In

particular, air transportation is already necessary in travelling whether for leisure or for

business, in terms of convenience, timeliness, and safety.

Airline industry is considered as an important branch of air transportation. It is a

typical service industry, being a part of aviation industry and focusing on moving people and

cargo from one location to another. Airline industry is divided into three main sections: Full

Service Airline (FSA), Low Cost Airline (LCA), and Charter Airline (CA) (Keyne, 2009).

In former times, airline industry has gone through a significant remodeling in its

structure. The competition in the airline industry is very intense. Currently, this strong

competition forces the whole industry to rethink their marketing strategy to meet the demand

of customers. Therefore, all airlines need to try hard to increase profit.

The airline industry in Thailand has continuously grown. However, it is controlled by

government’s regulations and policies. The beginning of airline industry in Thailand can be

traced back to the year of 1933, since KLM airline, a foreign commercial airline from

Netherland, first flew and transited to Don Mueang International Airport, the previous main

airfield of Thailand. The current main airfield is Suvarnabhumi International Airport, because

the limitation of space in Don Mueang area.

Later on, Thai government established Thai Airways Company (TAC) as the first

domestic flag airline in 1947, registered capital of 20 million THB. Moreover, in 1960, Thai

Airways International Public Company Limited (THAI), was established as a joint venture

between TAC and Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS). Scandinavian carrier provided

capital of two million THB and owned 30% share of THAI. However, in 1977, TAC

purchased 30% share from SAS with Thai government consensus, therefore THAI has

become a national flagship airline of Thailand since then.

Nowadays, there are 28 domestic airports and 6 international airports in Thailand.

Furthermore, there are more than 500 airlines serviced in Thailand. In 2014, Airports of

2

Thailand (AOT) served a total of 11 domestic airlines and 126 international airlines, and 126

passenger airlines and 11 cargo airlines. The main carriers serving in Thailand are THAI,

Thai Air Asia, and Nok Air. THAI dominated as the lead player of airline industry in

Thailand, by gaining 35% market share in 2015.

Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) of Thailand indicated that the total number of

registered commercial aircrafts in Thailand was 288 trunks. Moreover, the data from AOT in

2014 reported that there were 624,169 aircrafts movement, increasing 7.17% compared with

last year.

Thailand is known as one of the world’s top travel destinations. Thai government has

thoroughly realized that airline industry has been an important infrastructure of travel

industry sector, as it brings a tremendous amount of money into Thailand annually.

In 2014, the Minister of Tourism and Sports stated that even though Thailand had to

face an anti-government conflict in the first half year, and the toppled government of Prime

Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, the revenue from tourism was 1.13 trillion THB. Both the data

from DOT and Thailand Transport Portal in the same year showed that the number of air

passengers reached more than 90 million persons, including 52 million international

passengers and 38 million domestic passengers, respectively. The average number of

passenger movements was approximately 70 million, which increased every year, shown in

Figure 1.1. Thailand is considered as one of the largest countries in the Asian and one of the

fast growing markets globally (Qin, 2012).

3

Figure 1.1 Air Passenger Movements 2008-2015

Source: Airport of Thailand (AOT), 2015

In the same year, data from Board of Investment (BOI) in Thailand indicated that

airline and aviation related industries contributed 1.5% of GDP. Data from State Enterprise

Policy Office (SEPO) of Thailand also supported that the revenue from airline industry

counted as 33% of transportation industry, and the main player was THAI.

Therefore, Thai government has been continuously promoting and supporting the

domestic airline industry especially in the deregulation of airline industry and the opening

sky policy in 1988, its purpose is to encourage the competition in airline industry since more

local airlines and foreign airlines have been allowed to fly in Thailand than before. However,

Thai government still supports national airlines by restricting the domestic airline business

for local air carriers and subsidizing fund to Thai airline industry sector.

The data from Bureau of the Budget of Thailand in 2015 showed that Thai

government invested a lot money in airline industry and related field for almost 2 billion

THB, in which 0.3 billion THB for promoting the air transportation, 1.4 billion THB and 0.2

billion THB for developing airports and employees, respectively, and it aims to increase the

number of new airline employees up to 1,196 persons. According to BOI, in 2014, the

average employee of air services generated 1,321,883 THB in GVA (gross value added),

which was 5.5 times more productive than the average employee of service industry in

Thailand.

4

Because of that, airline industry in Thailand has grown in the good trend every year,

in particularly, the emerging of new airline business model, Low Cost Airline (LCA).

Low Cost Airline (LCA) is an airline that differentiates itself in the market through

reduced ticket price (Civil Aviation Authority, 2006), lower than competitors through a

variety of strategies such as fuel efficiency, and careful management of revenue and yield.

The LCA business model is a new business model, which comes from the general business

model of airlines (Sabre, 2010), Full Service Airline (FSA) business model. The difference

between LCA and FSA includes fare structure, distribution channel, limited service levels,

and difference types of flight aircrafts and passengers. However, the LCA has been proven to

be a strong competitor against the FSA.

LCA was first introduced by Southwest Airline (SWA) in the United States in 1971.

The success of SWA led to the spread of the model to Europe and then to Asia. It competed

by offering lower fares than those of full service airline (Qin, 2012).

Due to the deregulation of domestic airline industry in 2001, Thailand government

allowed local LCAs to operate in the country. In December 2003, low-cost airlines started

coming out in Thailand, e.g., One-Two-Go was the first LCA, rebranded as Orient Thai

Airline in July 2010. Just one year later, three Thai LCAs emerged in the same year. Solar

Air head office is in Bangkok. Its base was in Don Mueang International Airport. Thai Air

Asia, a joint venture between Air Asia (Malaysia) and Shin Corp (Thailand), flew in February

later on. Nok Air, the budget airline of Thai Airways, started the operation in July. Moreover,

in May 2015, Nok Air, and Singapore based Scoot, affiliated the joint venture to launch

NokScoot, a low-cost medium to long-haul airline started commercial flights out of Don

Mueang International Airport in May 2015. Nowadays, there were about 30 LCAs serving in

Thailand, in which regional LCAs were 10 players. Besides, in October 2012, AOT moved

most of the LCA from Suvarnabhumi Airport to Don Mueang International Airport.

The data from IATA in 2012 showed that airline industry in Asia was striving and

forecasted to face deficit of 3 billion dollars. However, some LCA could survive in this

situation. The data from Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) in 2014

showed that despite air traffic in Thailand was suffered from the worldwide economy and

political confusion, which exploring since October, 2013, the economy was recovered by the

5

booming of low cost airlines. Besides, LCA in Thailand has become as a popular choice for

domestic travelling, hence this pushed demand for domestic leisure travel to increase sharply.

Moreover, LCA in Thailand dramatically increased their competitiveness, gaining

significant market share from FSA. According to the IATA 2014, Thai airlines have become

competitive during 2009 to 2013, in line with global trends, with 9% revenue growth of all

Thai airlines, which 31.5% of revenue growth came from LCA while 6.9% from FSA, 61.6%

from other airline services, and it proved that the LCAs has increased their market share of

Thailand.

The growing rate in the number of passengers who flew with LCA was faster than the

growth rate in the number of all passengers. In 2013, passengers on LCA grew by 29%

compared with a 16% growth in the total number of passengers transported by all airlines in

Thailand (TRIS, 2014).

Furthermore, in the first 10 months of 2014, the total number of passengers of LCA in

the six international airports in Thailand reached 28.3 million. Moreover, passenger of LCAs

increased from 25.2% of all passengers in 2010 to 38.8% in 2014 shown in Table 1.1. From

the fact above, FSA faced a significant challenge as they compete with the LCAs.

Table 1.1 Total Number of Passengers and LCA Passengers 2010-2014

Source: TRIS, 2014

For LCA sector, Thai Air Asia is the biggest airline, gained a half of market share of

LCA market, followed by Nok Air with 33.98 % market share. Moreover, the player from

Malaysia based airline, Air Asia Berhad, gained 3.07 % market share shown in Table 1.2.

Moreover, the top 3 LCA in the year of 2015 are the same as the data from Center for (Asia

Pacific) Aviator (CAPA).

6

Table 1.2 LCA Market Shares by Passenger Volume (Fiscal Year 2013)

Source: TRIS 2014

Market segmentation of LCA is different from FSA, and among LCA in foreign

country and Thailand. Each LCAs in Thailand focuses on different sub-market segmentation.

Air Asia targets at price-sensitive passengers. Nok Air focuses on higher segment. One-Two

Go occupies the lowest segment (Komsan, 2006).

However, the main target group is the price sensitive passengers. The strategy of the

lower fare allows lower income people to fly more frequently, especially, for the company

employee group, and short length route traveler group, e.g., businessmen and leisure

travelers.

Recently, ASEAN Open Sky policy comes into force and airlines are free to set up

operations within the 10-member group countries in 2015. This policy is likely to create

greater competition and even more financial challenges for local airlines and attracted more

LCAs to come to Thailand (Qin, 2012). Therefore, the competition among airlines will

become more intense, and it is important to find the key factors affecting customer’s choice

of LCAs.

1.2 Purposes of the Research

Nowadays, air transportation is essential in human daily lives since it is convenience,

timeliness, and safety. In the previous time, air transportation was an expensive alternative of

travelling because of high price. However, air transportation carriers have already changed

their marketing strategies and have been trying to moderate the costs to touch consumer

needs.

7

Low Cost Airline, LCA, has become popular and started gaining market shares in the

airline business. LCA business in Asia has rapidly grown recent year. Despite significant

development of some airlines, overall situation of business was not promising due to

economic crisis that affects both domestic and international transportation (Nochais, 2014).

However, According to the ASEAN Open Sky policy in 2015, this policy will attract

more LCAs to come to Thailand and compete with local Thai airlines (Qin, 2012). Hence,

Thai low cost airline players are no longer able to use only low price strategies to maintain

their profitability and gain the competitive advantage. Therefore, they need to determinedly

find other effective strategies to win this competition.

The main focus of this research is to investigate the key factors affecting Thai

passengers to select low cost airline. We hope the outcomes of this research could help LCA

in Thailand to develop their marketing strategies effectively.

The purposes of this research are as follows:

1. What are the key factors affecting passengers to select LCA?

2. What are the weights (priorities) of the key factors affecting passengers?

3. How to use the outcome to help LCA in Thailand to develop their marketing strategies?

4. Compare the outcome of this research with those of other papers.

1.3 Research Process

1. Background and motivation of this study: Describe the background of the development of

airline industry and low cost airline business in Thailand.

2. Literature review: Two kinds of papers are discussed. One is related to the factors affecting

passenger to select LCA, the other is related to the applications of AHP.

3. AHP framework: Investigate the key factors affecting Thai passengers to select LCA, and

build the hierarchical framework of factors.

8

4. Questionnaire design and survey: According to AHP framework of factors, we design a

suitable questionnaire, then do the questionnaire survey.

5. Data processing and analysis: After the questionnaire has been distributed and collected,

AHP will be applied to analyze the results of questionnaire.

6. Conclusion: Summarize the results of questionnaire, and make suggestions to Thai low

cost airline industry and government.

The research process is as follows.

Define the Problem

Literature Review

Build a Hierarchy of Factors

of AHP

Design Questionnaire

Distribute Questionnaire and

Collect Data

Analyze Data

Draw Conclusions

Figure 1.2 Research Process

9

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Papers Related to Airline Service

From the data of Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS, 2014)

described that the number of passengers in Thailand has increased from 2010 with 58.2

million people to 2014 with 72.8 million, about 10 million people annually. Moreover, the

number of low cost airline passengers increased quite rapid, with 14.7 million people to 28.3

million people, and the growth rate was in double digit in only a few years. For these four

years, the proportion of low cost airline which rose from 25.2%, about the quarter of total

passengers, to 38.8%, about more than 1/3 of total passengers. From the facts above, it could

be explained that airline industry, especially, the low cost airline in Thailand has been in the

good trend.

Qin (2012) studied the passengers of low cost airline, in Bangkok to find the factors

influencing passenger’s satisfaction and loyalty. The data was collected by distributing

questionnaire to the LCA passengers in Don Mueang International Airport and used Multiple

Regression Analysis to analyze the results. The result founded that service marketing mix

dimensions (7P’s: product, price, place, promotion, people, process, and physical evidence)

and service quality dimensions (tangible, assurance, empathy, responsiveness, and reliability)

affect customer satisfaction. They showed that six of the service marketing mix dimensions,

including product, price, people, promotion, physical evidence, and process, and four of the

service quality dimensions, including reliability, responsiveness, tangible, and empathy, are

important. Moreover, customer satisfaction also affected customer loyalty.

Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013) studied the attitude and needs of Thai passengers

when selecting domestic low-cost airlines. Their research methodology included Random

Convenience Sampling Technique using questionnaire to gather data, and T-test, One way

Analysis of Variance, and Turkey’s Multiple Comparison Method. They investigated

demographic dimensions (gender, age, education level, monthly income, and occupation) and

the dimensions of 7P’s. The results showed that demographic dimensions do not affect the

selection. However, the dimensions of 7P’s affect customer’s attitude and needs in selecting

domestic LCA. The rank of dimensions is place, product, physical evidence, people, process,

10

price, and promotion. They further described the 22 factors under the dimensions of 7P’s.

Under the dimension of place, 3 important factors are convenience in term of ticket

availability and payment, call center for providing advices and 24-hour reservation, and

sufficient distributor. Under the dimension of product, 2 important factors are reliability of

airlines aviation background in term of safety, and availability of flight schedules. The 5

important factors under dimension of physical evidence focused on politeness and

friendliness of check-in staff, accuracy and speed of check-in process, well-arranged and

comfortable seats on board, well-organized, convenient, and quick documentation, and

sufficient and easy-to-use shelf space for baggage. The 3 important factors under people

dimension are friendly cabin crews, service-minded cabin crews, and the problem-solving

ability of cabin crews. For process dimension, the rank of 3 important factors is convenience

and speed of check-in process, convenience of luggage claim, and delivery of service quality.

While 3 factors under the price dimension are reasonable fare compared with service, various

levels of fare, and affordable fare compared with other airlines. The 3 important factors in the

promotion dimension are special fare on continuous basis, promotion such as privilege,

mileage program, transportation service, and advertising through various media.

In the same year, they also studied Thai LCA passengers’ satisfaction by using the

same demographic and 7P’s dimensions. A Random Convenience Sampling Technique with

questionnaire surveys was used to collect data. Two Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA),

and Multiple Comparison of Duncan were used to analyze data. The result implied that both

of the dimensions affect passenger satisfaction. While two most influencing factors of the

demographic dimensions are gender (male is higher than female) and education (bachelor is

higher), while the priority of important dimensions on 7P’s is place, product (are the top two

similar to the previous study), following by process, people, physical evidence, price, and

promotion (the two bottom ranking factors similar to the previous study), which affected

passenger satisfaction. In addition, they also described 10 factors under the 4P’s (place,

product, promotion, and process): a call center for providing advice and 24-hour reservation,

convenience in terms of ticket availability and payment, easy to find and convenient to

contact location of the ticket office, the overall performance of on the ground service, the

safety aircraft, promotion such as privilege, mileage program, to load more baggage, sales

techniques with a wide variety of formats, convenience and speed of check-in process,

convenience and speed of baggage claim, and convenience and speed of preparing for flight

departure.

11

Nochais (2014) studied 390 Thai LCA passengers. The methodology of this paper

consisted of, questionnaire survey to collect data, and Logistic Regression Analysis to find

important factors under 7P’s. There are 30 factors under 7P’s: (1) airline’s reputation, (2)

comfortable, safety, and secure, (3) available flights schedule, (4) available routes and

destinations, (5) suitable ticket prices and fares, (6) cheaper ticket prices and fares, (7) clarity

of ticket price and fares Information, (8) no additional charges, (9) various ticket channel

distributions, (10) ease of ticket purchase, (11) ease of reservation via website, (12) various

payment methods, (13) attractive sale promotion campaign, (14) advertising and public

relation, (15) website for providing information, (16) call center for providing advices, (17)

friendliness of cabin crew, (18) friendliness of ground staffs, (19) cabin crew/staffs presence

through flight, (20) professionalism of captain, (21) speed of check-in process, (22) flight’s

punctuality, (23) speed of baggage delivery, (24) assistance during boarding, (25) new

modern aircraft, (26) beautiful interior cabin/aircraft, (27) cabin cleanliness, (28) cabin seat

comfort, (29) toilet cleanliness, (30) staff grooming. However, only 9 important factors affect

passengers in selecting LCA, and the rank of these factors is advertising and public relation

(under the dimension of promotion), friendliness of cabin crew (under the dimension of

people), call center for providing advices (under the dimension of promotion), no additional

charges (under the dimension of price), new modern aircraft (under the dimension of physical

evidence), cheaper ticket prices and fares (under the dimension of price), airline’s reputation

(under the dimension of product), cabin seat comfort (under the dimension of physical

evidence), and attractive promotion campaign (under the dimension of promotion).

Nejati et al. (2008) wanted to review and rank service quality factors for the airline

industry in Iranian society. Fuzzy TOPSIS approach was used and information was obtained

through questionnaire. The results showed the rank of 21 factors is flight safety, good

appearance of flight crew, and offering highest possible quality services to customers 24

hours a day (which above are the three most important factors), friendly and helping

behavior of flight crew toward passengers, proper transfer and delivery of luggage and cargo,

availability of enough flight staffs and crew, comfortable chairs with sufficient space for

sitting, proper food services during the flight, availability of an up-to-date internet web site

for responding to customers’ questions and requests, clean rest-rooms in the airplanes, the

possibility of booking and buying a ticket through internet, the speed of offering services by

flight crew, without delay flights, providing sufficient flight information during flight,

sufficient number of information and service offices in the cities, seriousness in solving

12

passengers’ problems and facilitating the process of meeting their need, avoiding flight

cancellation, providing up-to-date newspapers, magazines, and video films during the flight,

quick announcement of flight schedules and the availability of alternative flights in case of

delay or cancellation, quick response to passengers’ needs and requests during the flight by

flight crew and the possibility of checking flight schedule via telephone.

Saha (2009) examined the relationships among service quality, satisfaction, and

behavioral intentions. A sample of 1,212 passengers who had travelled on LCA in Thailand is

surveyed and using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyzed the data. The study

indicated that flight attendance, ground staff, word of mouth, repurchase intention, customer

satisfaction, feedback, tangible, and schedule are the favorable factors that affect LCA

passenger behavioral intention. In addition, the study found that the priority of factors under

service quality is flight schedules, flight attendants, tangibles, and ground staff, which also

have a strong capability of prediction in behavioral intention.

Ariffin et al. (2010) examined five dimensions of service quality (caring and tangible,

reliability, responsiveness, affordability, and visual attractiveness) to predict the passenger

satisfaction for LCA. A total number of 125 questionnaires were distributed and Multiple

Regression Analyses were performed to simultaneously investigate the influence of the

dimensions on passenger satisfaction. The results revealed that caring and tangible dimension

was the only significant dimension to predict passenger satisfaction of service quality.

Besides, the priority of nine factors under this dimension is the level of knowledge of

employees, in responding to passenger’s questions, the comfort of the airline’s seat, level of

communication regarding unusual circumstances, degree of kindness of employees,

flexibility of the tickets purchased, professionalism in handling the luggage, degree of trust

transmitted to the passengers, employee’s overall appearance, and the behavior of fellow

traveler.

Ha (2010) studied the best consumer choice model from 5 different models of no frill

airline industry, including general compensatory, general no compensatory, simple additive,

conjunctive, and disjunctive models. This paper used conjoint analysis methodology to

identify consumers’ choice models and separate logistic regression to run for each of the five

different choice models. A questionnaire survey of 124 post graduate students with

experience of no frill airline was performed. The research found that conjunctive model was

the most robust model. Furthermore, it also investigated 14 factors under this model, and

13

found that price, value for money, no delay, availability, refund, past experience, trust, safety,

advertising, brand reputation, loyalty program, comfort, WOM, and kindness of staff, were

the important factors influencing passenger’s choice in no frills airline.

Yeoh and Chan (2011) investigated the important factors under six dimensions of

service attributes, service delivery, the participation in service delivery, mood state, crowd,

and price, which may influence customer’s repeat purchase intension for Malaysian LCA.

They use semi-structured interview for data collection from 20 Malaysian leisure air travelers

who have travelled on LCA within the destinations in Malaysia. The result revealed that price

is the most significant influential factor. Moreover, on time departure and arrival (under the

service delivery dimension), cleanliness of cabin and washroom, and a comfortable seat

during the whole journey (under the service attribute dimension), are considered as the three

most important factors influencing repeat purchase behavior of LCA passengers. The authors

also considered that customers’ mood state and the crowd are essential factors influencing

repeat purchase behavioral in term of consumption experience.

Sarker et al. (2012) tried to forecast the sustainability and future growth of low cost

carriers. Split halves technique on piloting was used for research methodology and data was

collected by interview and questionnaire survey both in industry specialists and customers of

165 respondents. The result found that low fare was an important factor for success and

survival of LCA, branding and customer service was an important factor for sustainability,

unbundled cost model and outsourcing was the way to pass recession, and alliance with

networks was an advantageous to LCA for international passengers travelling on domestic

routes with a rise in market share for LCA.

Sokolovskyy (2012) investigated which factors impact students’ choice of either low

cost or full service airline. Questionnaire survey was used to collect data. Method used to

analyzed data including Factor Analysis, Multicollinearity Check, and Binary Logistic

Regression. The paper studied seven factors, including price, service reliability, flight

availability, quality of service, gender, citizen, and FFP (frequent flyer program). The

researcher found that the two most significant factors influencing passenger’s preference to

select LCC than FCC composed of service quality (seating comfort and seat space and

legroom) and citizen. Moreover, there are four significant factors that impact the selection of

low cost carrier, including service quality factor (for example seating comfort, seat space and

legroom, meal service, and in-flight entertainment services), flight availability factor (loyalty

14

program discounts/rewards, and convenient flight schedule), price factor (ticket prices, and

availability of nonstop flight), and FFP.

Hamidi et al. (2013) aimed to identify and prioritized the main dimensions and factors

that influence travelers in the choice of domestic flight. A total number of 145 individuals

from the travelers of Iranian domestic airlines on the route between Tehran and Mashhad,

were randomly selected to do the questionnaire survey. The One-sample T-test, Wilcoxon

Signed-Rank Test and the Kruskal-Wallis Test were used to analyze the data. The findings

suggested that all five studied dimensions affect the travelers' decision regarding airline

selection, and the priority of dimensions is flight safety, flight schedule, flight management,

on-board services, and airline’s company image. While the rank of 27 factors (under the 5

dimensions) include flight comfort, proper announcement about flight cancellations and

delays, crew's ability to handle unexpected situations, lost luggage returning and

compensation, modern fleet, special services for senior citizens and people with physical

disabilities, timely flights, the number of flight accidents recorded for the airline company,

proper flight times, aircraft type, crew's responsibility, direct and non-stop flight, easy and

convenient booking , proper service in case of delay, the possibility of learning about the

flight schedule through Interactive Voice Response (IVR), food and drink quality, seat

comfort, transportation services at the departing location and the destination, crew's delivery

speed, the number of flights per week , loyalty programs, crew's appearance, airline

company's image, the possibility of carrying more luggage, airline company's social

activities, personal interest, and in-flight entertainment.

Wen and Chi (2013) examined how customers’ justice judgment and consumption

emotions affecting customer satisfaction after service recovery. A questionnaires survey were

given out to more than 600 delayed flight passengers at Baiyun international airport, China.

SEM methodology was applied to test 5 important dimensions of justice and emotions areas,

including interactional justice dimension (airline personnel’s honesty, politeness,

respectfulness, patience, effort, and fair treatment of customers), procedural justice dimension

(the airline providing timely service recovery, flexible to customers’ needs, respecting

customers’ right to information, and providing accurate information, and customers’ overall

feeling of the service recovery process), distributive justice dimension (the airline sincerely

apologizing to customers, taking effective measures to minimize customer problems,

providing an adequate remedy and fair compensations to customers, and customers’ overall

15

feeling of the service recovery outcomes), positive emotions dimension (pleased, happy,

relaxed, and excited), negative emotions dimension (disappointed, angry, regretful and

annoyed). The findings showed that rank of dimensions affecting service recovery

satisfaction was procedural justice, interactional justice, distributive justice, positive

emotions, and negative emotions.

Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013) tried to find which factors have the greatest

potential to improve the performance of low-cost and full-service carriers. Data Envelopment

Analysis (DEA) was used to determine the most efficient airlines in transforming their

resources into good quality services. The result found that the top five most efficient factors

affecting LCA performance include (1) infrastructural quality factors, such as staff service

efficiency, staff language skills, staff enthusiasm, cabin presence through flight, and

consistency among staff, (2) service supply chain quality factors, such as check-in, arrival

service, and baggage delivery, (3) structural quality factors, such as seat comfort, in-flight

entertainment, meals, cabin cleanliness, and washroom cleanliness, (4) operation expense

factors, such as flight operations, maintenance, passenger service, aircraft service, promotion

and sales, and general administrative expenses, (5) labor cost factors, such as salaries of

pilots and co-pilots, trainees and instructors, ground personnel, and flight attendants, and

personnel benefits.

Khuong and Uyen (2014) studied the factors affecting passenger satisfaction toward

Vietnam airline. Quantitative method was carried out with a sample size of 300 respondents

who travelled with Vietnam Airlines. Pearson Product-moment Correlation and KMO

(Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) and Bartlett’s Test are used to test the suitability of current data for

Factor Analyses. The results indicated that eight priority factors are image, employee’s

service factor, service quality, baggage service, timeliness, ground service, safety, and

facility, and all have a strong relation with passenger’s satisfaction.

Lerrthaitrakul and Panjakajornsak (2014) wanted to identify and investigate channel

factors of electronic Word Of Mouth (eWOM), including one to one, one to many, and many

to many channel factors that affect consumer buying decision- making process in the LCA

market. The data was collected from participants who purchasing their LCA ticket. They used

online questionnaire and Regression Analysis to analyze data. The results from this study

indicated that the eWOM played an important role in consumer buying decision- making

process, and one to many and many to many channel are the two significant channel factors.

16

Buaphiban (2015) examined the factors that influencing the airline passengers to

select LCA in Thailand. A large scale of questionnaire was sent to 781 Thai LCA passengers

at major airports in Thailand. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was conducted. The nine

factors in this paper are airline reputation, attitude, subjective norm, perceive behavior

control, price, service quality, airline safety, route available and convenience, and FFP.

Factors like service quality, airline reputation, and subjective norms play a significant role in

the choice of LCAs over full service carriers (FSCs). Moreover, there are five priority factors

influencing passenger in LCA selection including subjective norm, perceive behavioral

control, price, airline service quality, and airline reputation.

Atalik and Ozdemir (2015) investigated factors affecting purchase decision of

domestic airline passenger. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was performed to specify the

factors. A sample of 387 domestic passengers in Turkey through online questionnaires was

conducted. The research founded that price, advertising and promotion activities

(advertisement, cooperate image, call center, FFP, and website), operational specialists

(schedule, flight connection, baggage, and punctuality), comfort issue (catering, cabin

technology, and shuttle) are prioritized that affect the purchase decision of domestic airline

passenger.

Table 2.1 Summary of Literature Review of Factors in LCA Selection

Factor Related papers

Brand image

Ha (2010), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nochais (2014), Saha (2009),

Ariffin et al. (2010), Hamidi et al. (2013), Khuong and Uyen (2014),

Lerrthaitrakul and Panjakajornsak (2014), Buaphiban (2015), Atalik and

Ozdemir (2015), Sarker et al. (2012)

Safety record

Ariffin et al. (2010), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nochais (2014),

Nejati et al. (2008), Sokolovskyy (2012), Hamidi et al. (2013), Khuong

and Uyen (2014), Buaphiban (2015)

Service supply

chain

Qin (2012), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nochais (2014), Nejati et al.

(2008), Ariffin et al. (2010), Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013), Khuong

and Uyen (2014), Atalik and Ozdemir (2015)

Price Qin (2012), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nochais (2014), Saha

17

Factor Related papers

(2009), Yeoh and Chan (2011), Sokolovskyy (2012), Buaphiban (2015),

Atalik and Ozdemir (2015), Sarker et al. (2012)

Alliance Sarker et al. (2012)

Promotion and

advertising

Qin (2012), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nochais (2014),

Sokolovskyy (2012), Hamidi et al. (2013), Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong

(2013), Buaphiban (2015), Atalik and Ozdemir (2015)

Reliability

Qin (2012), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nochais (2014), Nejati et al.

(2008), Saha (2009), Hamidi et al. (2013), Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong

(2013), Khuong and Uyen (2014), Wen and Chi (2013), Buaphiban (2015)

Tangible

Qin (2012), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nochais (2014), Nejati et

al. (2008), Saha (2009), Ariffin et al. (2010), Hamidi et al. (2013), Khuong

and Uyen (2014), Wen and Chi (2013)

Empathy Qin (2012), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nejati et al. (2008), Saha

(2009), Khuong and Uyen (2014), Wen and Chi (2013)

Responsiveness

Qin (2012), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nochais (2014), Nejati et al.

(2008), Saha (2009), Ariffin et al. (2010), Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong

(2013), Khuong and Uyen (2014), Sarker et al. (2012), Wen and Chi

(2013)

Assurance

Qin (2012), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nochais (2014), Nejati et al.

(2008), Saha (2009), Ariffin et al. (2010), Hamidi et al. (2013), Yayla-

Kullu and Tansitpong (2013), Khuong and Uyen (2014)

Punctuality

Qin (2012), Nochais (2014), Nejati et al. (2008), Saha (2009), Yeoh and

Chan (2011), Sokolovskyy (2012), Hamidi et al. (2013), Khuong and

Uyen (2014), Buaphiban (2015), Atalik and Ozdemir (2015),

Flight

availability Qin (2012), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nochais (2014), Nejati et al.

(2008), Saha (2009), Sokolovskyy (2012), Hamidi et al. (2013),

18

Factor Related papers

Buaphiban (2015), Atalik and Ozdemir (2015)

Flight

compensation Hamidi et al. (2013), Wen and Chi (2013)

Flight

announcement

Qin (2012), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nejati et al. (2008), Ariffin

et al. (2010), Hamidi et al. (2013),

Cleanliness Qin (2012), Nochais (2014), Nejati et al. (2008), Yeoh and Chan (2011),

Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013)

Comfort

Qin (2012), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nochais (2014), Nochais

(2014), Nejati et al. (2008), Saha (2009), Ariffin et al. (2010), Yeoh and

Chan (2011), Sokolovskyy (2012), Hamidi et al. (2013), Yayla-Kullu and

Tansitpong (2013)

Entertainment Qin (2012), Sokolovskyy (2012), Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013),

Khuong and Uyen (2014), Hamidi et al. (2013)

Facilities

Qin (2012), Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013), Nochais (2014), Nejati et al.

(2008), Saha (2009), Sokolovskyy (2012), Hamidi et al. (2013), Yayla-

Kullu and Tansitpong (2013), Khuong and Uyen (2014)

2.2 A Hierarchical Framework of Key Factors

Based on the results of the papers related to airline service in section 2.1, we build a

hierarchy framework of the factors.

According to AHP procedure, the goal must specific to decision problem which

properly evaluated by decision maker, then criteria of a decision problem will used to

evaluate the alternatives below with respect to the goal above. And each of alternatives will

be judged based on these criteria, to see the reaching goal of the problem.

The goal of this paper is to select the best low cost airline. Therefore, the goal is put in

to the apex of hierarchy. After that, the hierarchy goes down with dimensions in the second

19

level, as well as following by factors in the third level, which are presented in Figure 2.1.

Besides, the definitions of dimensions and factors are presented in Table 2.2.

Figure 2.1 A Hierarchical Framework of Key Factors Affecting

Thai Passengers to Select LCA

20

Table 2.2 The Definitions of Dimensions and Factors

Dimension Factor Definition of factors

A1. Airline Corporate

A1.1 Brand image The objective of the brand image is to gain

a competitive advantage which enable

passengers to select the brand.

A1.2 Safety record Safety records refer to all of condition

related, weather conditions, flight crashes,

terrorism, and even pilots own mistakes been

reported throughout the years.

A1.3 Service supply

chain

Service supply chain include how

passengers are assisted before and after the

actual flight such as check-in, proper transfer,

arrival service, baggage and cargo delivery.

A1.4 Price Price is the sum of value that consumers

are willing to pay or give in exchange for the

benefits.

A1.5 Alliance Alliance is two or more airlines agreeing

to cooperate on a unique organization entity.

Alliances may facilitate travelers making inter-

airline connections while travelers also benefit

from lower prices due to alliance.

A1.6 Promotion and

advertising

Promotion and advertising consist of sale

promotion, advertisement through various

media, public relation, call center for

providing advice, website for providing

information, Frequent Flyer Program (FFP),

and privilege.

A2.1 Reliability Reliability is the ability to perform the

promised service dependably and accurately

by staffs, including flight attendance, ground

staff and captain.

21

Dimension Factor Definition of factors

A2. Service Quality

A2.2 Tangible The components of tangible, in term of

personnel, include well dress, good

personality, and neat appearance.

A2.3 Empathy Service personnel have the ability to solve

passenger problem, understand customer

need, and toward facilitate the process of

meeting passenger demand.

A2.4 Responsiveness Responsiveness refers to enthusiasm as

well as willing to help passenger and listen to

passenger opinion with friendly.

A2.5 Assurance Assurance refers to staff training in the use

of tools and knowledge of service processes,

and the perception that the staffs is competent

and not going to harm anyone.

A3. Flight

Management

A3.1 Punctuality Punctuality is on time without delay flights.

A3.2 Flight availability Provide proper flight schedule and seats

available, and the availability of alternative

flights in case of delay or cancellation.

A3.3 Flight

compensation

Flight compensation will assist passengers

in the event of denied boarding, flight

cancellations, or long delays of flights, and

consists of such as financially compensation.

A3.4 Flight

announcement

Flight announcement informs passengers

about an event that has happened or is going

to happen such as quick announcement of

flight schedules, notify customers of the exact

time of flight when delay or cancellation

occur, and sufficient flight information during

22

Dimension Factor Definition of factors

flight.

A4. Airline Aircraft

A4.1 Cleanliness Cleanliness is the state of being clean and

free from dirt, and the process of achieving

and maintaining the state including clean

restrooms in the cabin.

A4.2 Comfort Comfort is a sense of physical or

psychological ease, for example provide air

condition, well arranged comfort seat, and

easy-to-use shelf space for baggage during the

whole journey.

A4.3 Entertainment Entertainment is a form of activity that

holds the attention and interest of an

audience, or gives pleasure and delight via

providing up-to-date newspapers, magazines,

and video films during the flight. It may not

be free.

A4.4 Facilities Facilities relate to the equipment which is

fashionable, up to date, and easy to use, for

example, new model of aircraft, Wi-Fi on the

airplane as well as air-conditioner and light.

2.3 Papers Related to the Analytic Hierarchy Process

(AHP)

Min (1994) suggested that Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) can effectively deal

with both qualitative and quantitative factors in multiple criteria decision environment, which

can help a regional airport official to create the airport location strategies. The researcher also

suggested that there were three main advantages of AHP to assess various airport location

strategies, for example, the ability of handling multiple conflict goal inherent in airport

23

location, enable the policy maker to evaluate “What-if” scenarios associated with changes in

the government policy, and capability to not only accommodate subjectivity and

inconsistency intrinsic to human judgments, but also convert a normative procedure to a

decision support system.

Triantaphyllou and Mann (1995) considered AHP as a favorable and effective method

for solving complex Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problems in engineering.

Nevertheless, the researcher suggested when applying AHP in engineering problems should

be careful because there was sufficient explanatory proof that the recommendations of AHP

should not be taken literally.

Chen (2006) applied AHP method to make an evaluation structure of convention site

selection in tourism industry. It was shown that AHP was benefit to support a decision in

convention site selection.

Yoo and Choi (2006) utilized the AHP method to analyze and identify three important

factors influencing the passenger screening capability so as to improve the security checks at

the airport. The analysis showed that the most important factors should be improved is the

human resources factor, and this outcome also agreed with other papers in international

aviation.

Berrittella et al. (2009) used AHP to compare the components of operating costs of

low cost airline (LCA) with these of full service airline (FSA) for strategic allocation of those

costs. The result indicated that rental, costs of office equipment and other supplies show the

highest importance in the ranks of both FCA and LCA, followed by outsourcing maintenance

costs which was considered as the second criteria by LCA while hanger cost by FSA. Then,

they concluded that AHP can be a suitable method used to obtain the rank of the components

of operating costs for both airline business models.

Chakraborty et al. (2011) used a novel heuristic procedure to solve vendor selection

problem of the Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem in the multi objective

environment, which the initial solution of the problem was achieved by using AHP approach

in the primary step then the quality of the solution was analyzed by using proposed heuristic

approach. The researcher concluded that result from using a novel heuristic method was

shown to be better than using only AHP method in the aspect of solution quality.

24

Huang et al. (2013) used AHP method to choose a suitable biological indicator from

several indicator candidates on a river restoration. The result showed that Periphyton was

selected as the most suitable biological indicator. Since using AHP method, they concluded

that indicator selection was quite truthful because the analysis process was performed

mathematically rather than qualitatively.

Badea et al. (2014) utilized AHP to obtain the 16 most important risk factors of

supply chain crisis that obstruct collaborative supply chain both vertical and horizontal

collaboration. They also created the AHP framework to evaluate the risk factors and

alternatives (including information sharing collaboration, decision synchronization

collaboration, incentive alignment collaboration, resource and skill sharing collaboration, and

knowledge management collaboration) for providing managers with the right concept of

collaboration in the future business enterprises.

Reddy et al. (2014) described how an AHP approach may be used to help National

Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to develop the public health guideline in the

promotion of good health and in the prevention and treatment of disease. The result showed

that fluoridation of water is the best topic while ‘Sickle Cell screening’ is the worst criteria.

However, the researchers commented that AHP does not provide the ‘right answer’ or assist

responsible decision makers to use suitable determination because AHP only provides an

initial construct of how the topics perform on key criteria. However, AHP may be used to

help decision maker to accept or reject topics easier and more consistently. Therefore, NICE

should be careful as any priorities produced by AHP must be refined.

Durbach et al. (2014) combined AHP with Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability

Analysis (SMAA) to allow the pairwise comparisons to be uncertain by evaluating simulated

problem about the consistency of judgements from ability of the SMAA-AHP model. The

results indicated that judgements probably remained consistent except uncertainty was

serious, but the uncertainty was sufficient to make the choice of best alternative unclear.

Mighty (2015) applied AHP to define the weights of several biophysical and

infrastructure factors so as to create the site suitability model on GIS (Geographical

Information Systems)-based MCDA (Multi Criteria Decision Analysis) incorporate with

viewpoint of local coffee stakeholder for growing coffee in Jamaica, and the results could be

served for agriculture enterprise to enhance competitive advantage in the future.

25

Goossens and Basten (2015) applied AHP to investigate the wider application of

Maintenance Policy Selection (MPS) for naval ship. They concluded AHP was suitable for

naval MPS in many ways. However, AHP for naval MPS can be considered less as an actual

decision method, and it was considered more as thought-structuring and insight-providing

discussion method which providing a structured and detailed approach for MPS. Moreover,

AHP also simplified discussions in many steps of the sessions, created a better

comprehending of the policy selection process.

Erdil and Erbryik (2015) applied AHP to serve milk factory to determine the best

SWOT strategy in the small business area. They concluded that AHP gives an impartial and

effective decision model for choosing the most suitable strategy. Moreover, AHP can help in

dealing with complicated decision making processes, as well as it can provide acceptable and

reasonable results for administrators and decision makers.

Reddy et al. (2015) found how AHP might create utilities of health state through the

investigation in national EuroQol five dimensional (European Quality of life five dimensions)

questionnaire survey instead the time trade-off approach (TTO). They suggested that AHP

was a good method in predicting the ranking of health state. It was able to transform ordinal

preferences into meaningful utilities which offered an easier approach to estimate the results

when comparing to original TTO method that commonly was used to elicit preferences.

Kalayci and Ozer (2016) applied AHP to select the most Suitable Site Specific

Vibration Attenuation (SSVA) equation from 11 SSVA equations for blasting processes in a

quarry located near settlements in Istanbul, Turkey, and SSVA which is a necessary approach

to amplify the charge magnitude on the excavation activity in a new practice. AHP was

conducted for using error percentages, the number of data, the effect of the years which the

equations were formed, and the parameters of equation, for example year, distance, charge,

and R square were used as criteria for AHP. The result showed that equation number 17

could be considered as the best estimating equation.

26

Chapter 3 Methodology of Analytic Hierarchy

Process

One of the most important obstacles on human nature for answering their questions or

dealing with their troubles, almost of them is related to the process of making decision. For a

long time, people have been encountering with many decision problems, which are difficult

and complicated for them to make and select the most preferable one. To compass these

cumbersome problems, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is considered as an effective

alternative methodology that can be assisted the evaluation of multi criteria decision making

process. So far as anyone knows, AHP approach has been widely used and popular since

there are a lot of evidences prove that this efficient method has been successfully applied in

the solution of many actually problems for over the past of decade and until now.

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a process providing a flexible model that allows

individual or groups to shape ideas and define problems by making their own assumptions

and deriving the desired solution from them. It also enables people to test the sensitivity of

the solution, or outcome. Designed to accommodate the human nature rather than force them

into a mode of thinking that may violate the better judgment. AHP incorporates judgments

and personal values in a logic way. It depends on imagination, experience and knowledge to

structure the hierarchy of problem and on logic, intuition and experience to provide

judgments. Once accepted and followed, AHP shows how to connect elements of one part of

the problem with those of another to obtain the combined outcome. It is a process for

identifying, understanding, and assessing the interactions of system as a whole.

Therefore, AHP is regarded as a powerful process for tackling complex problems that

helps decision makers to make decisions involving their experience, knowledge and intuition

(Saaty, 1980).

3.1 The Principle of AHP

When applying AHP, we must be careful about the principals of AHP (Satty, 1980):

1. There are three basic concepts of AHP, including:

27

a. Hierarchic representation and decomposition, which we call hierarchic structuring-

that is, breaking down the problem into separate elements.

b. Priority discrimination and synthesis, which we call priority setting- that is, ranking

the elements by relative importance.

c. Logic consistency- that is, ensuring that elements are grouped logically and ranked

consistently according to a logic criterion.

2. We cannot measure without a scale, but traditional scales such as time and money limit the

nature of ideas we can deal with. Thus we need a new scale for measuring intangible

qualities.

3. The analytical hierarchy process is a flexible model that allows us to make decisions by

combining judgment and personal values in a logical way.

3.2 The Process of AHP

AHP was developed by Saaty (1977, 1980, 1990) as a decision supportive tool taking

into account both tangible and intangible aspects. AHP is a mathematical method for

formulating and analyzing complex decisions through making structure of the complex

decision problems in the form of a simple hierarchy. Besides, AHP method can be applied to

estimate a large number of qualitative and quantitative factors in a methodically pattern under

conflicting multiple criteria.

A hierarchical decision structure was constructed to apply AHP method, begin with

breaking the decision problem down to its decision components and levels. Then, the critical

of the decision components are investigated through pair wise comparison in the hierarchy.

The apex of levels is the main problem or ultimate goal, following by the intermediate levels

(dimensions) which relate to the major components while the lowest levels (factors) relate to

sub-components. If each component of each level hinges on all the components criteria of

upper level, the hierarchy is complete. The components of each level are compared pair wise

with respect to a definite component in the level instantly above.

Yoo and Choi (2006) use AHP for identifying relative importance of factors to

improve passenger security checks at airport. As well as Berrittella et al. (2009) made a

28

ranking operating cost of low cost and full service airlines by AHP. They proposed the below

five major steps in AHP process.

Step 1: Define the decision problem and goal

In this stage, the general objective of the decision must be clearly defined which can

be broken down into three components:

1. Define a goal: The goal of the problem is main objective that drives the decision problem.

The goal should be a single and specific to the problem, that can be examined properly by

the decision makers.

2. Define Criteria: The criteria (dimensions) of a decision problem which used to evaluate

the alternatives regarding to the goal. We can go further to create sub-criteria (factors),

when more differentiation is required.

3. Define an alternative: The alternatives are the different options that are weighed in the

decision. Each alternative will be judged based on these criteria, to see how well they

meet the goal of the problem.

With these three components, we can construct a hierarchy for the problem, where

each level represents a different cut at the problem.

Step 2: Structure the hierarchy

This is the most imaginative and necessary section of decision-making. As structuring

the decision problem into a hierarchy is basically to the process of AHP.

In this stage, the hierarchical model is constructed in the form of a network that

modified tree structure is like a hierarchy which hierarchy shows a relationship between

elements of one level with other level immediately below, and every element of manner is

corresponded to every other, at least in an indirect manner.

29

The hierarchical model is structured from the top through the intermediate toward the

lowest level which usually holds a group of alternatives. Generally, the model composes of

four levels from the top to down, including the goal, criteria, sub criteria and alternatives,

shown in Figure 3.1.

(Level 1: Goal)

Figure 3.1 Decision Hierarchy (Saaty, 1980)

Saaty noted that a favorably way to structure the hierarchy is to work down from the

goal as long as one can. After that work up from the alternatives until the levels of the two

processes are connected in such a way as to make comparisons possible.

Step 3: Construct the pair wise comparison matrix

Pair wise comparison matrices are constructed so as to examine the important or

preferences of decision elements which presented into the elements in the hierarchy.

The matrix are constructed for each of the lower levels with one matrix for each

element in the level immediately above by using a pair wise comparison measurement scale

to weights the important or preference on a nine point scale number that allows the

conversion of qualitative judgments into cardinal values. Table 3.1 show the measurement

scale for pair wise comparison.

Goal

Criteria 1 Criteria 2

Sub Criteria

Sub Criteria

Sub Criteria

Sub Criteria

Alternative B Alternative A Alternative C

(Level 2: Criteria)

(Level 3: Sub Criteria)

(Level 4: Alternative)

30

Table 3.1 A Pair Wise Comparison Measurement Scale

Intensity

of

important

Definition Explanation

1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective

3 Weak importance of

one over another

Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity

over another

5 Essential or strong

importance

Experience and judgment strongly favor one activity

over another

7

Very strong or

demonstrated

importance

An activity is favored very strongly over another; its

dominance demonstrated in practice

9 Absolutely importance The evidence favoring one activity over another is of

the highest possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8

Intermediate values

between adjacent scale

values

A reasonable assumption

1:1-1:9

When two elements

are very close but

often one would be

guessing

Better, the elements are compared with other

contrasting elements using 1–9 and good answers are

obtained

First, in the pair wise comparison table with n elements of AHP, there are values

which equal to 1 along the diagonal or are the reciprocals values above and below the

diagonal, and the number of pair wise comparison equals to 𝑛 (𝑛−1)

2 . For instance, if there is

4 elements, the number of pair wise comparison is 4×3

2= 6. The pair wise comparison table

on 4 elements is shown in Table 3.2

31

Table 3.2 The Pair Wise Comparison Table on 4 Elements

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

E1 E2

E1 E3

E1 E4

E2 E3

E2 E4

E3 E4

The element on the left is more important The element on the right is more important

than the right than the left

The elements are equivalent for left and right

Table 3.3 The Result of Pair Wise Comparison Matrix

From Table 3.3

1. In term of above level, E1 is weak important than E2 and the strength is 3.

2. In term of above level, E2 is strong important than E3 and the strength is 5.

Element E1 E2 E3 E4

E1 1 3 7 9

E2 1/3 1 5 7

E3 1/7 1/5 1 3

E4 1/9 1/7 1/3 1

32

The above step will be created repeatedly until the judgment is constructed for each

criteria. Moreover, each element is equally important when compare to itself, thus the entries

in the main diagonal need to be 1.

Then, the comparison matrix are created for the size of n× n. Assume there are n

elements with weights w1, w2…, wn. Then, we have the following matrix.

w1/w1 w1/w2 … w1/wn

w2/w1 w2/w2 … w2/wn (1)

⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮

wn/w1 wn/w2 … wn/wn

The above matrix above is an example of a consistent matrix.

Step 4 Compute the eigenvalue

We denote aij the number indicating the strength of ith element (criteria) when

comparing with jth element. The matrix of these numbers aij is denoted A, or

A= [aij]

As aij = 1/ aij that is, the matrix A is a reciprocal matrix (a reciprocal matrix is one in

which for each entry aij, aij = 1/aji). If our judgment is perfect in all comparisons, then aij =

aij× ajk for all i, j, k and we call the matrix A consistent matrix, and matrix A contains no

errors (the weights are already known).

An obvious of a consistent matrix is one in which the comparisons are based on

extract measurements; that is, the weights w1,…,wn are already known. Then

A = [aij] =

33

aij =𝑤𝑖

𝑤𝑗 i ,j=1,…n (2)

Thus

aijajk = 𝑤𝑖

𝑤𝑗 𝑤𝑗

𝑤𝑘 =

𝑤𝑖

𝑤𝑘 = aik

∑ 𝑎𝑖𝑗𝑤𝑗𝑛𝑗=1 = nwi i, j=1,…n (3)

Then

Aw = nw (4)

In matrix theory, an eigenvector of a square matrix A is a vector w while an

eigenvalue is n (associated with an eigenvector w). Both eigenvectors and eigenvalues are

very important in AHP. The matrix equation is as follows.

𝑤1

𝑤1

𝑤1

𝑤2 …

𝑤1

𝑤𝑛 w1 w1

𝑤2

𝑤1

𝑤2

𝑤2 …

𝑤2

𝑤𝑛 w2 = n w2 (5)

⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮

𝑤𝑛

𝑤1

𝑤𝑛

𝑤2 …

𝑤𝑛

𝑤𝑛 wn wn

By making pair wise comparisons between alternatives, we can easily construct a

ratio matrix into (6).

34

1 a12 … a1n

1/a12 1 … a2n

⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ (6)

1/a1n 1/a2n … 1

From (4), Aw = nw, if the vector of weights is unknown, it can be evaluated from the

pair wise comparison of matrix A, generated from the principal eigenvalue which refers to

λmax (for a standard scale ratio matrix λmax = n, that is the largest eigenvalue of that matrix).

We could modify (4) into (7),

Aw = λmaxw (7)

Therefore, we will have reciprocal values under the diagonal (only inverting the ratio)

which all ones on the diagonal when compare the alternative itself. This matrix is called

reciprocal matrix. They are reciprocal stems from the fact that the ratio does not change

depending on which element you compare to another. The construct will be shown in (8).

A =

35

1 a12 … a1n w1 w1

1/a12 1 … a2n w2 = λmax w2 (8)

⋮ ⋮ ⋯ ⋱ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮

1/a1n 1/a2n … 1 wn wn

According to Saaty (1980), it was proved that the largest eigenvalue (λmax of a

reciprocal matrix A) is always greater than or equal to n.

If the pair wise comparisons consistency, λmax = n.

If the pair wise comparisons inconsistency, λmax > n

We need to check the consistency of pair wise comparison matrix.

Step 5 Analyze the consistency and consequence weight

To maintain rational consistency when deriving priorities from pair wise comparisons,

therefore, we have to measure the consistency of the judgment matrix which can be

determined from the consistency ratio (C.R.), the consistency ratio C.R. ≤ 10% is acceptable.

If the value is higher, the judgments may not be accepted and should be elicited again, the

consistency ratio (C.R.) is defined as (9)

C.R. = C.I.

R.I. (9)

36

C.I. is a consistency index and R.I. is a Random Index

C.I. measures the inconsistencies of pair wise comparisons calculated from (10):

C.I. = 𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥−𝑛

(𝑛−1) (10)

n is the matrix size, and

R.I. refers to average random C.I. in a large number of randomly generated matrices

from the Table 3.4 below (Saaty and Kearns, 1991).

Table 3.4 Average Random Consistency Index (R.I. Value)

Size of

matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

After the comparison matrix passing the consistency check, we will have to do

another process to test the overall consistency of the hierarchy so as to find the global

consistency ratio of AHP before acquiring the priority, by defining a Consistency Ratio of the

Hierarchy (C.R.H.).

C.R.H. was computed by the Consistency Ratio of Hierarchy (C.I.H.) and Random

Index of Hierarchy (R.I.H.) from (11), (12), and (13)

C.I.H. = ∑ ∑ 𝑊𝑖𝑗𝑈𝑖,𝑗+1𝑛𝑗

𝑖=1ℎ𝑗=1 (11)

R.I.H. =∑ ∑ 𝑊𝑖𝑗𝑅𝑖,𝑗+1𝑛𝑗

𝑖=1ℎ𝑗=1 (12)

nj is to the number of elements contained in j level,

Wij is the comprehensive weight value of i element in j level,

37

U i, j+1 is the C.I. of j+1 level toward the i element in j level

R i, j+1 is the R.I. of j+1 level toward the i element in j level.

Or in the form of easily equation below,

C.I.H. = 2nd level C.I. + vector of 2nd level Vector of 3rd level

priority weights consistency indices

R.I.H. = 2nd level R.I. + vector of 2nd level Vector of 3rd level

priority weights random indices

Then

C.R.H. = C.I.H.

R.I.H. (13)

When C.R.H. ≤0.1, it means the overall hierarchy of the developed comparison

evaluation is consistency.

And when the local priorities of elements (local weights) in different levels are

available, to obtain the final priorities (global weights) of the alternatives βi, the priorities

should be as (14)

T(βi) = ∑ 𝑤𝑘𝑇𝑘𝑘 (ai) (14)

×

×

38

wk is the local priority of element k and Tk(ai) is the priority of alternative βi with

respect to element k of the upper level. An alternative with the largest value of T(βi) is chosen

as the best alternative.

3.3 The Advantages of AHP

There are several advantages when applying AHP:

1. Unity: AHP provides a single, easily understood, flexible model for a wide range of

unstructured problems.

2. Complexity: AHP integrates deductive and systematic approaches in solving complex

problem.

3. Interdependence: AHP can deal with the interdependence of elements in a system and

does not insist on linear thinking.

4. Hierarchical Structuring: AHP reflects the natural tendency of the mind to sort elements

of a system into different levels and to group similar elements in each level.

5. Measurement: AHP provides a scale for measuring intangibles and a method for

establishing priorities.

6. Consistency: AHP tracks the logical consistency of judgments used in determining

priorities.

7. Synthesis: AHP leads to an overall estimate of the desirability of each alternative.

8. Tradeoffs: AHP takes into consideration the relative priorities of factors in a system and

enables people to select the best alternative based on their goals.

9. Judgment and Consensus: AHP does not insist on consensus but synthesizes a

representative outcome from diverse judgments.

10. Process Repetition: AHP enables people to refine their definition of a problem and to

improve their judgment and understanding through repetition.

3.4 The Applications of AHP

AHP can be applied to solve the problems in various kinds of daily activities and

almost every aspect of life, such as personal decision, business perspective, social and

economic areas. The examples of problem topics are described details in Table 3.5 below.

39

Table 3.5 The Applications of AHP

Problem Topics Problem Sections

Home or personal decisions Buying a car, choosing household appliances, getting

Ph.D. choosing the ideal investment, choosing a spouse,

deciding on how many children to have, selecting a

school, choosing a city in which to reside, purchasing a

house, etc.

Social or psychological issues Judging parental influence on overall psychological

well-being, predicting the number of children of an

average family, etc.

Corporate context Purchasing of urethane equipment, purchasing of word

processing equipment, buying or leasing equipment,

selecting a management position, etc.

Nonprofit agencies Assessing the benefit of crossing a river, developing a

programs for research and development of a research

institute, deciding on the capacity of a harbor, etc.

Public policy issues Selection of beverage container, evaluation of energy

storage systems, higher education, resource allocation

for juvenile correction, staggering industry hours for

energy conservation, likelihood of technical innovation

as related to forms of corporate control, analysis of the

school busing conflict, conflicts of interest in health

administration, planning for the steel industry, selection

of regional projects, site selection of combustion

turbines, resource allocation among research and

development projects in a bank, product-market

decisions, financial decision making, division

performance evaluation, normative backward planning

process, etc.

International context Economic strategy for an underdeveloped country,

mineral extraction, etc.

40

Problem Topics Problem Sections

Estimate or prediction Selection of music groups, prediction of elections, etc.

41

Chapter 4 Results of Survey and Discussion

Questionnaire survey is the main method to obtain and collect necessary data for

analysis in our study. In this study, the questionnaires are distributed to both of the arrival and

departure passengers, at Don Mueang International Airport, Thailand, for two weeks since

February 1, 2016. The questionnaire consists of two main parts: one is the basic information

part, in this part, the personal information will be used for obtaining the overall image of Thai

passengers; and another part, questions for pairwise comparison, the results of comparison

will be analyzed by AHP. The questionnaires are designed in English and Thai version.

4.1 Personal Information of Thai Passengers

Personal information part describes the facts of Thai passengers who are the target

group of this study. The demographic characteristics of Thai passengers may have an impact

on customer’s preference of brand determination toward low cost airline (Alam, 2012).

There are two sections in the personal information part: one is about the background

of Thai passengers, in which we ask subjects about gender, age, highest education level,

monthly income, and occupation; another is about airline experience, in which we ask

subjects about the experiences of traveling on airlines, by Full Service Airline (FSA) or Low

Cost Airline (LCA).

The Demographic Characteristics

We hand out 40 questionnaires to Thai passengers in different flights at the arrival

passenger gateway and departure passenger gateways in Don Mueang International Airport,

Thailand. However, there are only 35 questionnaires that pass the consistent test and could be

further analyzed, and the effective respond rate is 87.5%. Next, we will explore in more detail

about Thai passengers’ demographic background basing on the 35 effective questionnaires.

The summary of Thai passengers’ demographic background is shown on Table 4.1

42

Table 4.1 Summary of Thai Passengers’ Demographic Characteristics

Demographic characteristic Number of subjects Proportion

Gender

Female

Male

Total

25

10

35

71.4%

28.6%

100%

Age

Less than 15

15-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65 up

Total

Average Age 29.28

0

7

23

5

0

0

35

0

20%

65.7%

14.3%

0

0

100%

Education level

Lower than Bachelor degree

Bachelor’s degree

Master’s degree

Doctor’s degree

Total

5

17

13

0

35

14.3%

48.6%

37.1%

0

100%

Monthly income

Less than 14,000 THB

14,000-30,000 THB

30,001-60,000 THB

60,001-90,000 THB

90,001 THB up

Total

*Average Monthly income

25,676 THB

7

17

10

0

1

35

20

48.6

28.6

0

2.9

100

Occupation

Student

Government sector

Private sector

Others: Housewife, retired

Total

10

4

17

4

35

28.6

11.4

48.6

11.4

100

*Ignore the person who has the highest monthly income, 90,001 THB up.

Gender

From the data, it shows that the total number of effective respondents is 35, and 25

females and 10 males. Therefore, in our survey, 71.4% of respondents are females and 28.6%

are male. The proportion of gender is imbalance. Other studies on passenger satisfaction have

shown similar imbalances, for example, one study showed a 56% female participation rate

(Charoensettasilp & Wu, 2013). Buapibhan (2015) explains that there may exist a difference

between male and female passengers that make women more likely to respond.

43

Age

The range of age is divided into six groups including less than 15 years old, 15-24

years old, 25-34 years old, 35-49 years old, 50-64 years old, and equal or more than 65 years

old. From the data, it indicates that there is no respondent who is less than 15 years old and

above 50 years old. Moreover, there are 7 respondents who are 15-24 years old, 23

respondents who are 25-34 years old, which are the greatest group as well, and 5 respondents

who are 35-49 years old. Therefore, the proportions of three groups of age are 20%, 65.7%,

and 14.3 %, respectively. The average age of the respondents is 29 years old. It seems that

young Thai people tend to travel by low cost airline than the elder. Because in the views of

Thai senior tourists, they love to stay in the comfort zone, like home comfort zone, therefore,

Thai older people might not prefer to do any kinds of activity that may harm their security or

safety (Anantamongkolkul et al., 2014). Pipatchaisiri (2012) describes that although

travelling with air transportation has the least opportunity to happen mishap, the loss in

airline accident is concerned as the most damage than any other transportation losses.

Highest Education Level

The highest education level is divided into four groups including lower than

Bachelor’s degree, Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, and Doctor’s degree. From the data,

it shows that, there are 5 respondents who are lower than Bachelor’s degree, 17 respondents

who are Bachelor’s degree, which are the greatest group as well, and 13 respondents who are

Master’s degree while there is no one who is Doctor’s degree answered the questionnaire.

The proportions of three groups of highest education level are 14.3%, 48.6% and 37.1%,

respectively. Buapibhan (2015) also supports that the highest educational level of passengers

of low cost airline are in the bachelor or master degree. Moreover, according to the data from

BOT (Bank of Thailand, 2015) shows that the average salary of Thai people who are lower

than bachelor’s degree is 9,718.21 THB, which salary might be not enough to travel by

airline.

Monthly Income

The range of monthly income is divided into five groups including less than 14,000

THB, 14,000-30,000 THB, 30,001-60,000 THB, 60,001-90,000 THB, and equal or more than

90,001 THB. From the data, it shows that there are 7 respondents who earn less than 14,000

THB, 17 respondents who earn 14,000-30,000 THB, which are the greatest group as well, 10

44

respondents who earn 30,001-60,000 THB, and 1 respondent who earn equal or more than

90,001 THB. But, there is no one who earns 60,001-90,000 THB. The proportions of four

groups of monthly income are 20%, 48.6%, 28.6% and 2.9%, respectively. Moreover, the

average monthly income of the respondents is 25,676 THB, when the respondent who earns

equal or more than 90,001 THB is ignored. However, when we deeply examine the data of

this person, it is the passenger who works in private sector, having a bachelor degree and

taking airline for 6-14 times per year on the business and tourism purpose. Besides, the data

from National Statistic office in Thailand (2015) indicates that the average monthly income

per household is 25, 403 THB. Therefore, most of the passengers in our study belong to the

middle class in Thailand. They need to save money by taking LCA when they want to travel

by air.

Occupation

The types of occupations are divided into four groups including student, government

sector, private sector, and others (e.g. housewife and retired). From the data, it shows that

there are 10 respondents who are students, 4 respondents who are in government sector, 17

respondents who are in private sector, which are the greatest group as well, and 4 respondents

who are in others. The proportions of four groups of occupations are 28.6%, 11.4%, 48.6%,

11.4%, respectively. The reason that student group prefers to choose air transportation is that

most of Thai students are supported by family and no need to take responsibility of earning

family income which results in they may have more opportunities to travel (Kumsak, 2013).

Moreover, the private sector is concerned as the occupation that people could earn higher

incomes; therefore, this group has more opportunities to take the airline than any others

(Bunchoowong, 2015).

Airline Experience of Thai Passengers

We ask Thai passengers about their airline experience by three questions including the

frequency of catching air transportation, the main purpose of taking flight, and whether to fly

a LCA.

From the data about the frequency of catching air transportation, 25 respondents take

on air transportation for 1-5 times per year, which the proportion is counted as 71.4%, 8

respondents for 6-14 times per year is in the second group, which is counted as 22.9%, and 1

45

respondent for less than 1 time per year and 1 respondent for 15-29 times per year, which is

counted as 2.9%, the results are displayed in the Figure 4.1 below.

Figure 4.1 The Frequency of Catching Air Transportation

From a profoundly inspection on Figure 4.1, it shows that the frequency for Thai

passengers to take an airline is 5.07 times per year. Moreover, the passengers who fly for 1-5

times per year are the largest group. From the data of personal information, they are in the

private sector group, earning monthly income with 14,000-30,000 THB, owning bachelor

degree, and use the airline transportation for tourism purpose. Only one person in the

government sector group takes an airline for 15-29 times per year. While Thai passengers

taking an airline for less than 1 time per year are in the housewife or retired group whose

monthly income is less than 14,000 THB and their highest education level is lower than

bachelor degree. However, the passengers who take an airline 6-14 times is in different

groups of occupation. The respondents who take an airline in the range of 1-5 times per year

they fly for tourism purpose. Tainta (2012) explains that most of the Thai passengers who

take an airline for five times per year are for tourism. Muenhong (2006) also describes that

passengers who take low cost airline 1-5 times a year are for travelling, while passengers in

the government sector take more flights because they take flight for training, seminar, or

business (DOEB, 2014). The housewife or retired group with lowest income may need to

2.9%

71.4%

22.9%

2.9%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Frequency of catching air

transportation

<1 time 1-5 times 6-14 times 15-29 times

Persons

46

save the money; therefore, this group might not earn enough income for taking more air

transportation.

As for the main purpose of taking flight, 29 Thai passengers travelling for tourism, the

proportion is counted as 82.9% (including business + tourism 8.6%, and tourism + study

2.85% as well); the business purpose is the second group, which there is 5 respondents and

the proportion is calculated as 14.3% (including business + tourism 8.6% as well); the third

group is for study, there is 2 respondents, or the proportion is 5.7% (including tourism +

study 2.85%), further, visit family belong to the third group; and the last group is for seminar,

gain 1 respondents, the proportion is 2.85%. The results are displayed in Figure 4.2.

Homanan (2011) and Tainta (2012) support that the main purpose of Thai passengers taking

flight are for tourism, business, and family, respectively.

Figure 4.2 The Main Purpose of Taking Flight

Nowadays, most of the Thai passengers prefer to choose air transportation instead of

taking train or bus for domestic travelling because air transportation is more comfortable and

fast, and the price is not too expensive like the past (Homanan, 2011). Moreover, basing on

the data from MMO (Mobile Marketing Association, 2015) indicates that Thai people love

travelling life style more than people in APEC. Besides, the data from NSO (National

Statistics Office of Thailand, 2015) indicates that the most popular activity of Thai people is

tourism.

5.7% 8.6%

71.4%

2.85% 2.85% 5.7%2.85%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Business Bu+Tour Tourism Tour+stu Study Visit family Seminar

The main purpose of taking flight

47

Figure 4.3 The Number of Passengers Who Travel on LCA

From Figure 4.3, it is not surprising that all Thai passengers have experience on

taking low cost airline. The main reason may be that Thai passengers are price sensitive. In

our survey, most of Thai respondents, their monthly income is in the range of 14,000-30,000

THB, and in the private sector. These types of passengers are in the major market segment of

LCA. That is, the lower income group inclines to fly with LCA, as it provides the group a

chance to fly more frequent (Suriya, 2006, and Suriya, 2009). Moreover, the important point

is that most of switching passengers to LCA are sensitive to price (Tretheway and Oum,

1992).

4.2 Results of Questionnaire

One of the most important steps of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is to calculate

the global weights of dimensions and factors. In theory, the larger global weight, the more

important dimension and factor is.

35

0Yes No

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The number of passengers who traveled on LCA

48

Table 4.2 The Weights and Ranks of Dimensions and Factors

Dimension Global

weight

(%)

Rank Factor Local

weight

(%)

Rank Global

weight (%)

Rank

Airline

Corporate

34.734

1

Brand Image 13.968 3 4.852 9

Safety Record 27.687 2 9.617 3

Service Supply Chain 10.807 5 3.754 13

Price 29.117 1 10.114 1

Alliance 5.870 6 2.039 18

Promotion and Advertising 12.551 4 4.360 10

Service Quality

26.500

2

Reliability 28.990 1 7.683 4

Tangible 13.750 4 3.644 14

Empathy 16.288 3 4.316 11

Responsiveness 27.231 2 7.216 5

Assurance 13.741 5 3.641 15

Flight

Management

22.770

3

Punctuality 43.472 1 9.899 2

Flight Availability 26.599 2 6.057 6

Flight Compensation 13.315 4 3.032 17

Flight Announcement 16.614 3 3.783 12

Airline aircraft 15.994

4

Cleanliness 33.286 2 5.324 8

Comfort 34.999 1 5.598 7

Entertainment 10.372 4 1.659 19

Facilities 21.343 3 3.414 16

The Analysis of Importance of Dimensions

From Table 4.2, it shows that, the global weight of Airline Corporate is 0.347357, or

34.734%, the global weight of Service Quality is 0.265004, or 26.500%, while the global

weight of Flight Management is 0.227702, or 22.770%, and the global weight of Airline

Aircraft is 0.159937, or 15.994%. Therefore, the rank of dimensions affecting Thai

passengers to select low cost airline, is Airline Corporate, Service Quality, Flight

Management, and Airline Aircraft.

Airline Corporate

It is the most important dimension affecting Thai passengers on LCA selection. The six

factors under this dimension are price, safety record, brand image, promotion and advertising,

service supply chain, and alliance, respectively.

Airline corporate is able to represent and to reflect the overall image of the performance

of airline. It lets passengers have a better impression about the value of product, in term of

49

monetary worthiness, especially, focusing on the low fare, and non-monetary worthiness,

such as the safety condition, service supply chain, and branding, and it helps passengers to

make a purchasing decision easier. Moreover, airline corporate also enables to lead

passengers to obtain the perceived image of airline that influencing the satisfaction and need

of passengers, which makes them be trustful and loyal to the corporate brand, and let airline

gain competitive advantage.

Airline corporate is considered as significant criteria for Thai low cost airline passengers

because it reminds Thai passengers to be aware of the reputation of airline, For example, Air

Asia targets itself to the price-sensitive passengers while Nok Air focuses on middle class

passengers. Qin (2012) finds that airline corporate offers satisfactory value for what it prices.

However, Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013) find that perceiving the call center providing

advises, promotion and advertising, and safety from aviation background, all these affect the

attitude and needs of Thai passengers when selecting domestic low cost airline. Nochais

(2014) supports that advertising and public relation, cheaper ticket flight and fare, and

reputation of airline corporate influence Thai passengers on the decision of selecting towards

domestic low cost airlines. Furthermore, Buaphiban (2015) also finds that price and airline

reputation influence Thai passengers to select low cost airline.

Service Quality

It is the second important dimension. The five factors under this dimension are

reliability, responsiveness, empathy, tangible, and assurance, respectively.

Service quality apparently has relationship with costs, profitability, customer

satisfaction, customer retention, behavioral intention, and positive word- of- mouth. It is a

measure of how well the delivered service matches the customer expectation. Customers will

compare and judge an entity’s performance by a perceived service quality of overall activities

service (Lewis and Booms, 1983). Therefore, service quality influences the customer’s

buying judgment. The service quality of the airline industry depends on their staff, including

captains, flight attendances, ground staffs, and other employee in related field. The quality of

personal service is intimately connected to the relationship between passengers and service

persons. Customers can generate a good or bad attitude from the ability and skills of staffs.

The service quality is affected by whether the airline employees who are able to perform

the promised service without any mistake, moreover, it is considered as the significant point

50

that have an effect on the purchasing decisions of low cost airline passengers in Thailand

(Charoensettasilp and Wu, 2013).

Flight Management:

The third important dimension is flight management. The four factors under this

dimension are punctuality, flight availability, flight announcement, and flight compensation,

respectively.

Flight management can be described as the professional skills to manage and organize

all activities associated with air flight including, on-time schedule, flight availability, flight

announcement, the payment of compensation, and the service which will be delivered to

passengers before, during, and after flight. Thus, airline needs to demonstrate how competent

it is, in order to give passengers the assurance for satisfaction.

Hamidi et al. (2013) mentions that the major part of flight management, including

proper announcement about flight cancellations and delays, timely flight, and proper flight

time. Qin (2012) considers flight management significantly affecting low cost airline

passenger’s satisfaction and loyalty in Thailand, especially, by keeping passengers within the

schedules or appointment times.

Airline Aircraft:

It is the least important dimension. The four factors under this dimension are comfort,

cleanliness, facilities, and entertainment, respectively.

Airline aircraft is referred to everything relates to the aircraft including the tangible,

such as machine, engine, amusement and accommodation equipment, and the intangible, such

as cleanliness and comfort.

The Airline aircraft is in the last ranking of dimensions, however, most of Thai

passengers still concern with the commodious of the cabin seat on board since it enables them

to be relaxed and comfortable. Thai passengers desire for comfort (Neher, 1979). Qin (2012)

describes that the attractive and suitable physical facilities, both at the airport and on the

airplane affect Thai low cost airline passenger’s satisfaction and loyalty. Charoensettasilp and

Wu (2013) find the comfortable factors related to seat on board, and easy to use shelf space

for baggage, which affect the attitude and need of Thai passengers when selecting domestic

51

low cost airline. Nochais (2014) explains that new modern aircraft and comfortable cabin seat

could influence Thai passengers on selecting decision towards domestic low cost airlines.

Therefore, it cannot be neglected for marketing manager, and it may regard as an additional

option by passengers to choose a LCA.

The Analysis of Important of Factors under Each Dimension

The Rank of Factors under Airline Corporate Dimension

From Table 4.2, the rank of factors under airline corporate dimension by local weight is

(1) price, which is the most important factor accounting for 29.117%, (2) safety record,

27.687%, (3) brand image, 13.968%, while, (4) promotion and advertising, 12.551%, (5)

service supply chain, 10.807%, and (6) alliance, which is the least important factor,

accounting for 5.870%, respectively.

Price

Price is the most important factor under airline corporate dimension for Thai passengers

when they make a decision to select a low cost airline.

Examining the passenger’s demographic data, we find that the average monthly income

of Thai passengers is between 14,000-30,000 THB, and they take the flight for traveling

purpose, who are considered as a middle class of salary in Thailand since the value of GDP

(per capita) from National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand in 2016, is

16, 778.57 THB (SCB EIC, 2011). Therefore, the salary of this class is difficult for them to

take the full service airline, because the full airfare ticket is more expensive and

approximately two times than the ticket of low cost airline (Lawton, 2002; O’Connell and

Williams, 2005). Moreover, passengers in this study travelling with airline average 5 times

per year, this means that they need to spend at least 8,500 THB per year for air transportation

since the average airfare of low cost airline is 1,617 THB (Suriya, 2009), and 8,500 THB is a

big amount for them. Besides, The Center for Economic and Business Forecasting in

Thailand (2015) indicates that the costs such as oil, energy, electricity, and transportation are

increasing, and this leads to cost of living continuously to increase in Thailand.

Therefore, most of Thai passengers would like to purchase product or service with an

attitude to spend less, in other words, they try everything to save money. Thai low cost

52

passengers prefer to select the low fare rather than the suitable of flight time, and most of

them have less concern about punctuality than attractive low ticket fare (Thanasupsin et al.,

2010).

Safety Record

For the safety record, it is the second important factor under airline corporate

dimension. First Thai passengers particularly concern with the safety report for airplane

transportation because the air transportation is considered as the most safety mode compare

to other transportations. However, when accident occurs, it will cause a lot of casualties than

other transportations. Low cost airlines need to cut down the low fare of ticket, which may

result in the carriers may ignore the safety issue (Pipatchaisiri, 2012). Therefore, Thai

passengers consider the safety record as one of the important factor for them to select low

cost airline.

Second, there are a lot of airline accidents in recent years. From the safety record of

IATA during 2010 to 2014 shows that the number of passenger airline accidents has reached

323 accidents, divided into 58 fatal accidents and 265 non-fatal accidents. Moreover, the

accident rate, relating to the damage to aircraft and the medical/injury component pertaining

to accidents with serious or fatal injuries to persons, increase 0.36, from 0.33 in 2013 to 0.69

in 2014.

Third, Thai passengers are concerned about the health status of airline staffs. The

staffs usually need to work in different tasks, as well as, work in day shift and night shift, or

sometimes with the delayed aircraft, and it may result in many staffs need to work for very

long hours of flight. These situations may influence the health status of staffs; therefore, they

are not able to manage the quality of safety well enough. For example, if the cabin crews

catch a cold, the contamination can directly be distributed to the passengers, or in case of the

captains do not take a rest sufficiently, which may lead them to perform a lower efficiency of

controlling airplane as well (Ratanakomut and Kitcharoen, 2013).

Finally, airlines of Thailand have to face the higher international safety standard.

According to the data from ICAO (2015), no new charter flights operating by airlines

registered in Thailand would be allowed to fly to Japanese airports because of the concerns

that these carriers may not meet the international safety standards. Thai passengers may hope

53

the domestic LCAs could meet the international safety standard soon, thus they consider

safety record is important.

Brand Image

Brand image is the perception about a brand as reflected by the brand association held

in consumers’ memory (Keller, 1993). The third important factor under airline corporate

dimension is brand image.

The reason may be that Thai passengers perceive brand image through personal

service quality of staffs, for example, passengers perceive Nok Air with “a smile on every

flights” since “Nok” means “bird” in Thai language and it symbolizes friendship and freedom

to travel (Vongthai, 2013). Thus, Nok Air provides customers satisfaction through friendly

and caring service delivered by staffs, and passengers are treated as if they are unique and

special (N Ayutthaya, 2013). While Air Asia positions their brand with the slogan of “now

everyone can fly”, offering the best price and safety among airline service providers (Yasin

and David 2014), and One-Two-Go airline, uniquely distinguishes as itself as the Asia’s only

low cost carrier offering the “one-price policy” to all destinations (Realrangsutthar, 2007).

Therefore, if the airline carrier has an effective strategy toward branding which will enhance

staff service quality, as well as create the differentiation. A positive brand image is important,

because trusting in brand image significantly predicts the brand loyalty of Thai passengers,

and affects the intention of Thai passengers in making decision on purchase and repurchase

purpose of low cost airline (Anuwichanont, 2011; N Ayutthaya, 2013).

Promotion and Advertising

Promotion and advertising is the fourth important factor under airline corporate

dimension. Promotion and advertising is related to the activities persuading consumers to buy

product or service, and communicate the product or service to customers via various kinds of

distribution channels, therefore, it much concerns with how to change passenger’s attitude

toward airline.

Promotion and advertising is essential for Thai passengers to select low cost airline, by

through the message from website, TVC (Television Commercial), magazine, newspaper

print, application, billboard, and social network. Website is the most important marketing

distribution channel for low cost airline (Agsorndee, 2011). Receiving flight notification from

54

smartphone is also important, because the public relation is effectively established and it is a

convenient way that connects product or service information, such as the latest news of ticket

price, to Thai passengers promptly (Nochai, 2014).

Moreover, price is the most influencing factor in buying decision, therefore, sale

promotion is necessary for Thai passengers, especially, the discounted ticket fare on

promotion activities that many low cost airlines frequently launch to reach the passengers

demand (Pipatchaisiri, 2012). Nok Air always provides the sale promotion on “midnight

sale”, reserving the discounted ticket only between 9:00 am-9:00 pm, while Air Asia

continuously offers the “big sale campaign” with 0 baht ticket promotion to grasp the price-

sensitive passengers. Other promotion activities include the privileges for special passengers,

and the frequent flyer program that can create the loyalty of members. For example, Air Asia

offers “Big” program for members, who can earn points by taking Air Asia flight, then use

the points to redeem flights to over 100 destinations in Air Asia's network, have priority

access to sale promotion, or redeem hotel stay (airasiabig.com, 2015). In contrast, Nok Air

provides “Nok fanclub” for members to redeem the flight, increase the loading baggage, free

premium seat selection, priority to access promotion, and priority check in from notification

calling (nokfanclub.com, 2015).

Providing the attractive promotion to boost up the pricing strategy is also useful, for

example, the co-promotion between airlines and hotels or rental car companies. Or else,

launch promotion activities to the targeted group, for example, Thai government officers, the

most frequent flyer group under this study, so as to give them extra privileges such as free

extra baggage allowance for sport equipment, free premium seat, or free changing of travel

itinerary 24 hours before departure. Use promotion activities during low demand months. In

addition to the free seats promotion, which is usually held in January and November, provide

attractive discount in other months. Or penetrate to the social media channels which account

for hard-core sales.

Service Supply Chain

Service supply chain is the fifth important factor under airline corporate dimension.

Service supply chain is concerned with the planning and management of activities from

support functions to the delivery of end-user services (Voudouris et al., 2008). It is a

55

significant feature of low cost airlines that they strive to obtain operational efficiency and

economies of scale to lessen costs significantly then to reduce price.

The interesting point is that Thai passengers concern about the procedure carrying them

to keep flight on time without missing the plane, therefore, in the check in process, there

should have enough time for staffs to handle any congestion situations, in particularly, during

the rush hour with crowded passengers (Klamsaengsai, 2014).

However, in Thailand, the proper position of check-in counters, the number and location

of baggage claiming belts, and the number of connecting gates are not yet sufficient for all

flights at the airports, and the allocation of the gates is also not consistency (Klamsaengsai

and Choibamroong, 2015).

Alliance

Alliance is the least important factor under the airline corporate dimension. Some of the

low-cost carriers would like to expand their network to whichever routes they can continue

operating with extra returns on investment. The low costs airline will use alliances tactic to

improve its profit by attract more transfer passengers. Moreover, alliance allows the airline to

reduce ticket price and flight frequency, but provides more destinations within easy reach, or

shorter travel times (Bilotkach and Hüschelrath, 2011).

However, Thai passengers less concern the factor of alliance since nowadays there is

only Thai airways, the full service airline, participants in the star alliance, one of the three

global alliance (Lopez, 2013).

The Rank of Factors under Service Quality Dimensions

From Table 4.2, the rank of factors under service quality dimension by local weight is

(1) reliability, which is the most important factor accounting for 28.990%, (2) responsiveness,

accounting for 27.231%, (3) empathy, 16.288%, while, (4) tangible, 13.750%, and (5)

assurance, which is the least important, accounting for 13.741%, respectively.

Reliability

Reliability is the most important factor under service quality dimension. It denotes an

ability to perform the service dependably and accurately. Reliability is perceived through the

56

eyes of Thai passengers from the personal performance of staffs, because reliability means

that staffs perform the promise of service accurately, without any mistake, and ultimately the

history of accident reports (Qin, 2012; Klamsaengsai, 2014).

The staffs have competency to manage the check-in process and the boarding process

on-time, as well as, the time of arrival and departure, are important as it influences the

satisfaction and loyalty of Thai passengers (Qin, 2012; Ratanakomut and Kitcharoen, 2013).

However, if reliability is poor, it will cause the complaint that will lead to negative

influence on the image and survival of airline (Campbell et al., 2011; Boshoff & Staude,

2003), but when service reliability improved, it will achieve sustained customer satisfaction

and loyalty (Jones and Sasser, 1995). Especially, all airlines in fact were perceived relatively

poor on the attribute of punctual reliable flights (Campbell and Ellis, 2012). Guangming et al.

(2015) describes that one of the problem of poor service reliability causing delayed flights is

unforeseen service interruptions due to technical failures. Therefore, the airline maintenance

staffs need to sustain the effectiveness of aircrafts by the development of time standard,

interchangeability and modified fleet structure, TPM (Total Productive Maintenance)

implementation, and lean manufacturing application for process improvement.

Responsiveness

Responsiveness is the second important factor under service quality dimension.

Responsiveness is a willingness to help passengers as well as promptly response to service

request.

Thai low cost passenger’s concern about whether staffs have the eagerness as well as

willingness to assist service request. Low cost airline has to save the cabin crew cost

(Doganis, 2010). Therefore, the airline employees need to do a lot of works, since the number

of employees is limited, it may result in that the staffs are busy, and they are reluctance to

solve passengers’ problems (Qin, 2012). Moreover, the staffs may have unfriendly manners

to provide the service, and this point is possible to affect the repeat purchase decisions of

passengers (Techarattanased, 2014).

Snyder and Tai (2014) suggest that the airline staffs should improve unfriendly attitude

so as to improve passenger’s satisfaction. Low cost airline should pay attention on in front

airline staffs to equip them with customer service skills, and train staffs to be patient when

57

solving problems with passengers, having calm and cheerful attitudes with customers when

facing work pressure. Witchayakawin (2015) suggests that airline should be more efficient in

fast and on time handling of passengers’ requirement as responsiveness affects the future use

and recommendation of passengers.

Empathy

The third important factor under the service quality dimension is empathy. Empathy

means that the staffs take care of the passengers with heart. Staffs have the ability to figure

out passenger minds, understand passengers problem with interested, as well as listen and pay

attention to passengers.

The empathy is important for passenger perception on the expectation and behavioral

intention (Ratanakomut and Kitcharoen, 2013). Thai passengers perceive the empathy

through the tenderness, caring and helpfulness of airline staffs who could demonstrate or give

sincerity to each passenger during their works, such as leading passenger to their seat,

introducing dishes on board, online booking, and frequent flyer schemes to passengers.

Furthermore, staffs pay attention on providing the wheelchair service to sick passengers, as

well as to the handicapped persons (Lerrthaitrakul and Panjakajornsak, 2014).

However, if there is no perceived empathy, service quality will not meet the passengers’

expectation. Therefore, low cost airline should improve the service skills of check-in staffs,

otherwise, the availability of the service personnel in the counter is meaningless if they

cannot attentively comprehend to solve the customers’ complaints or problems (Ratanakomut

and Kitcharoen, 2013; Amiruddi, 2013).

Tangible

The fourth important factor under the service quality dimension is tangible. Tangible

generally shows in the physical characteristics of staffs such as neat and appropriate uniform.

Low cost airline staffs usually wear very casual and proactive. Most of the check-in

staffs just wear the polo shirt with jeans on weekends since most of the low cost airlines

concentrate on the saving issue with lowest price (Ratanakomut and Kitcharoen, 2013).

Therefore, low cost airline will usually save the cost of staff uniform. However, the

58

appropriate attire of staffs is necessary because it influences the expectations and satisfaction

of Thai low cost passengers (Charoensettasilp and Wu, 2014).

Assurance

The fifth important factor under the service quality dimension is assurance. Assurance

refers to the knowledge and courtesy of team staffs, so as to give trust and confidence to

passengers.

It is the least important factor because Thai low cost passengers usually perceive that the

cabin crew’s job knowledge and courtesy is not sufficiently for performing their tasks. Thai

passengers concern the language and communication skill, such as instill speaking with the

confidence of their language proficiency, polite questions and sentences providing to

passengers since it is important to passenger satisfaction (Vongthai, 2013). Moreover, in term

of courtesy, Thai passengers still have no confidence and trust in the cabin crews of low cost

airline comparing with the full service airline (Mankongvanichkul, 2010).

The Ranks of Factors under Flight Management Dimension

From Table 4.2, the rank of factors under flight management dimension is (1)

punctuality, which is the most important factor, and accounting for 43.472%, (2) flight

availability, 26.599%, (3) flight announcement, 16.614%, and (4) flight compensation, which

is the least important, and accounting for 13.315%, respectively.

Punctuality

Punctuality is the most important factor under the flight management dimension.

Punctuality means to manage things at the designated or appointed time and it is a key

attribute of satisfaction for many air passengers (Cook et al., 2009).

The on time performance is considered as one of the most important criteria for Thai

passengers. Thai passengers prefer to choose full service airline as the punctuality of full

service airline, in comparison with that of low cost airline, is much better (Thanasupsin et al.,

2010). The average punctuality from statistic of the Air Travel Intelligence (2015) indicated

that the average on time performance (OTP) of full service is approximately 88.6% while low

cost airline is 83.1%.

59

The delayed flights usually occur with low cost airline in Thailand (Pipatchaisiri, 2012).

That effect of poor punctuality costs passengers, airports, and airlines a considerable amount

of moneys (Wu and Cave, 2003). Especially, the damages of passengers consist of loss of

time, money, business opportunity, and quality of life (Embraer, 2009).

The main reasons of delayed flight can be classified into two types, controllable and

uncontrollable reasons. For example, the weather condition belongs to the uncontrollable

reasons, as the weather may be not proper for aircraft to fly up (FAA, 2008). In 2013, due to

Typhoon USAGI and severe weather conditions caused Air Asia to delay or cancel flights

(Air Asia, 2013).

On the other hand, the controllable reasons may result from the operations of airline. For

example, the delayed flights of Nok Air on Mother’s day of Thailand, August 8, 2015, which

are caused from the troubled check-in systems.

The controllable reasons may also result from the way of time allocation. Since the low

cost airline needs to reduce the operation cost, to have the maximum utilization of aircraft

(Ratanakomut and Kitcharoen, 2013), the turnaround time of aircraft is rather fast, about 25–

35 minutes, comparing to full service carriers about 45 to 60 minute (Postorino, 2010). In

addition, the performance of service supply chain of Thai low cost airline has not been

operated well enough, e.g., the number of connecting gates is not yet sufficient, the allocation

at the gates is not consistency, as well as the aerobridge provided and transfer bus service

from bay is still lacking (Klamsaengsai and Choibamroong, 2015). Therefore, it can cause the

low cost passengers unable to catch the flight on time, or else, it possibly affects the

connected flight passengers (Assawaphisarnboon and Prachayanipon, 2010).

Because of the above, poor performance of punctuality causes the offensive feeling of

Thai low cost airline passengers (Assawaphisarnboon and Prachayanipon, 2010).

Flight Availability

The second important factor under flight management is flight availability. Flight

available is significant for Thai low cost passengers because the convenient flight schedule

will affect the behavioral intention and passenger satisfaction (Saha, 2009). However, the

convenience of flight of low cost airline is worse than full service airline because full service

60

airline offers more frequent flights, from higher routes, especially in the peak time, than low

cost airline (Gillen and Morrison, 2003).

Most of the tickets of low cost airline can be sold in advance, particularly, in the special

occasions of promotion activities, therefore, low cost airlines need to efficiently manage the

flight schedules and attempt to minimize the risk of empty seats (Charoensettasilp and Wu,

2013). Therefore, when there is no available flight, it may cause the journey disturbance for

passengers with missing an important business meeting or being late to a close friend’s

wedding ceremony (Rose, 2014). As well as, when passengers encounter with unforeseen

schedule disruption from the original scheduled itinerary or booked service, it can cause

passengers with delays, cancellation, and diversion (Barnhart et al., 2014)

Thai low cost passengers would like to fly with cheaper and lesser congestion of aircraft,

and low cost airlines just provide the flights that are early in the morning or late in the

evening to avoid air traffic congestion and take advantage of lower landing fees

(Ratanakomut and Kitcharoen, 2013). However, the irregular flight time may affect the

decision of Thai passengers as they need to wake up early in the morning for catching the

airplane, or go to bed lately at night, therefore, passengers will be difficult to sleep and relax

on board, in particularly, for the passengers who suffer from insomnia condition.

Flight Announcement

The third important factor under flight management dimension is flight announcement.

Flight announcement includes declaring information before and on boarding, such as

announcement of flight schedules, properly notifying customers in case of flight delay or

flight cancellation, as well as sufficient flight information through the ground staffs, and

demonstrating the safety instruction on board from cabin crew, and the announcement from

captain.

The information that the cabin crew and captain announce influences Thai passenger’s

satisfaction (Charoensettasilp and Wu, 2014). However, if there is no airline flight

announcement or poor communication with passengers, such as the announcement of

boarding, door closure, safety demonstration, take off or ascent, turbulence encounter,

descent or final landing, it will lead to the passengers dissatisfaction and may even put

anxious fliers at increasing (Cail, 2016).

61

Flight Compensations

The least important factor under flight management dimension is flight compensation.

Though flight compensation is considered as the least important factor under flight

management dimension, passengers still concern as it directly affects the satisfaction of

passengers on service recovery (Wen and Chi, 2013).

In 2010, the ministry of transportation in Thailand announces that for the delayed

flights, both of the short delayed flights and the long delayed flights as well as flight

cancellation, passengers could obtain compensation from airline. If the flight delays between

2-3 hours, Thai airline needs to support passengers with free of meal, beverage and

communication equipment like mobile phone or email to contact with the airline, or return

full price of air ticket. However, if the flights delays between 3-5 hours, airline needs to

compensate passengers with the same as between 2-3 hours or change the flight, change to

other transportations as fast as possible; while flight delayed between 5-6 hours, airline needs

to redeem in the same way as between 3-5 hours, and redeem with 600 THB simultaneously.

In case of flight delays more than 6 hours, or flight cancellation, airline needs to support

passengers in the same way as delayed between 3-5 hours, and support passengers with

resting place, as well as redeem with 1,200 THB simultaneously. However, through the eyes

of Thai low cost passengers, these kinds of compensations may be not sufficient when

comparing to the risk and loss result from losing time, opportunity, money, and feeling.

The Rank of Factors under Airline Aircraft Dimensions

From Table 4.2, the rank of factors under airline aircraft dimension is (1) comfort, which

is the most important factor, accounting for 34.999%, (2) cleanliness, 33.286%, (3) facilities,

21.343%, and (4) entertainment, which is the least important factor, accounting for 10.372%,

respectively.

Comfort

The most important factor under the airline aircraft dimension is comfort. The term of

comfort might be used to describe a feeling of contentment, a sense of coziness, or a state of

physical and mental well-being (Bardwick, 1995; O’Toole, 1995). It affects passengers’

perception of low cost and full service airlines (O’Connell and Williams, 2005). The low cost

airlines mostly offer one class of seating to allow more seats per aircraft than full service

62

airline (Thanasupsin et al., 2010). Moreover, they do not serve the reservation of seat because

they want to encourage passengers to board the aircraft early and quickly (Štimac and Vince,

2013). However, they will sell some seats at higher price instead.

Low cost airlines have limited comfort during whole journey since there is higher

density of seats than full service airlines, for example, the size of cabin seats or legroom is

smaller. Area in which passengers could stretch their legs is narrow as the low cost aircraft is

a single type of aircraft, as well as only one class seating, so this is concerned as a seat

allocation problem (Charoensettasilp and Wu, 2013). The seating discomfort will cause

passengers with neck disturbance because of sitting after one hour (Tan et al., 2013). Besides,

the excessive stress may cause passengers to become aggressive and over-reaction, and even

dangerous to passenger’s health, therefore, seat in-trouble will affect Thai low cost

passengers on airline expectation (Tan et al., 2010).

Furthermore, the limitation of free baggage allowance, results in many passengers carry

some non-necessary stuffs onto the airplane which may disturb the area of sitting or the

overhead compartment, results in passengers do not meet their expectation because

passengers feel uncomfortable (Ratanakomut and Kitcharoen, 2013).

Cleanliness

The second important factor under flight management dimension is cleanliness.

Nowadays, the topic of cleanliness has become an increasingly important factor for

passengers to select low cost airline.

The cleanliness refers to the overall image of hygiene premise within the airplane, both

of the cabin cleanliness as well as toilet and the washroom cleanliness (Qin, 2012; Nochais,

2014). The employees of low cost airline need to work in multiple roles, for instance, flight

attendants need to clean the aircraft or work as gate agent (Ratanakomut and Kitcharoen,

2013). Therefore, the hygiene might not be good enough in the viewpoints of Thai low cost

passengers, especially, in the passengers who are worried about hygiene or the passengers

who have some health trouble that can be affected by the non-hygienic conditions. The poor

cabin hygiene will cause the risk of infectious diseases, particularly to vulnerable groups such

as the very young or elderly people suffering from diseases. Some unhappy passengers may

submit negative comments, and some passengers are more likely to stop using an airline with

poor cleanliness standards rather than registering a complaint (Skytrax.com). Therefore, the

63

items for personal passenger must be clean, as well as, washroom hygiene which can be a

factor across all cabin type (Jones, 2007).

Facility

The third important factor under airline aircraft dimension is facility. Facility is located

in the area of aircraft and cabin. However, some low cost airlines own the old model of

aircrafts (Cha, 2013), which the appearance of aircrafts is old and out of date and Thai

passengers do not like. Thai passengers feel satisfy with a new and modern design of aircraft,

and passengers feel convenient to use of a new aircraft (Charoensettasilp and Wu, 2013).

Moreover, in-flight catering and other “complimentary” services are usually eliminated since

low cost airlines offer optional paid instead, like fee charge for on board food and beverage

(Ratanakomut and Kitcharoen, 2013). Usually, low cost airline does not provide things like

pillow and blanket, or in some cases, there are lack of comfortable air conditioner and light

overhead (Štimac et al., 2012), Therefore, It will cause passengers feel unsatisfied.

In term of free in-flight Wi-Fi, this is still limited on Thai low cost carriers, and there is

only Nok Air offers free Wi-Fi for passengers during the trip. For example, Nok Thong

Chompoo, a Boeing 737-800 (NG), Nok Bussarakam, a Boeing 737-86J (WL), and Nok

Sanook, a Boeing 737-8AS (WL), free Wi-Fi service are limited only in these three models of

aircrafts (Annual report of Nok Air, 2015).

Entertainment

The least important factor under flight management dimension is entertainment. The

entertainment refers to in-flight entertainment system available for passengers during the

flight, such as magazines, newspapers, video games, and head phone, as well as the media on

aircraft such as radio, television screen, and cinemas (Lerrthaitrakul and Panjakajornsak,

2014). Since the electronic system installed in the cabin consumes a lot of fuel, therefore, low

cost airline will usually eliminate all forms of free on-board services (Vidović et al., 2013).

Low cost airlines have lots of short haul flights, less than 5 hours (IATA, 2012), which

passengers may not have enough time to obtain relaxation or enjoyment like they are on the

full service airlines. Or else, the flight schedule is in the midnight, the passengers need to

sleep thus they pay no attention to the on board entertainment. Moreover, Thai passengers do

64

not consider the entertainment service because it does not influence the post purchase

behavioral intention as well (Lerrthaitrakul and Panjakajornsak, 2014).

The Analysis of Important of Factors

From Table 4.2 via global weight analyses, we find the six most important factors as

well as the two least important factors. The sixth most important factors are (1) price, under

airline corporate dimension, accounting for 10.11%, (2) Punctuality, under flight

management dimension, 9.90%, (3) safety record, under airline corporate dimension, 9.62%,

(4) reliability, under service quality, 7.68%, (5) responsiveness, under service quality, 7.22%

and (6) flight availability, under flight management, accounting for 6.06%. While the two

least important factors are (18) Alliance, under airline corporate, 2.04%, and (19)

entertainment, the least important factor under airline aircraft, accounting for 1.66%

Price

In the views of Thai passengers the general consideration that driving Thai passengers

on purchasing behavior is price consciousness and reasonable price is considered as a crucial

factor for them (Napompech, 2014; Chatchotitham and Soponprapapon, 2011). Although,

Thai passengers perceive that there are other numerous advantages of products or service, it

has been found that price consciousness is concerned as the most important factor affecting

them to make purchase decisions than any other factors (Nopporn, 1998; Kingpayome, 2003).

From the analysis of Thai passenger’s personal data, most of them take flight for non-

business purpose, which price is important for them as this market segment is a price-

sensitive group (Mason, 2000; Buapiban, 2015), as well as, the range of monthly income of

Thai passengers is 14,000-30,000 THB, who live in the low to medium level in Thailand

(SCB EIC, 2011). In addition, from the data of BOT (Bank of Thailand), regarding to

Thailand economic performance in Jan 2016, which shows that the export to ASEAN is slow

down, resulting from the economic slowdown in major trading partner’s economy, it

indicates that the overall economic performance in Thailand is locating in the negative trend,

therefore, Thai passengers, particularly in the low income group, will consider much more in

the price issue.

Furthermore, Yeoh and Chan (2011) find that price is the most influential criteria for the

repeat purchase in Malaysian low cost airline passengers even they expressed strongly

65

dissatisfaction towards the low cost airlines service quality, and this point means that they

mainly concern price factor more than other factors. Atalik and Ozdemir (2015) also claim

that price is already known to be important for domestic passengers.

Punctuality

The second important factor is punctuality. Punctuality is an important factor affecting

passenger satisfaction (Khuong and Uyen, 2014). Low cost airline can help to lessen

congested airports comparing with the full service airline since low cost airline is able to

reduce the average flight times and delay incidents. Thus, low cost airline started to attract

business travelers who value both punctuality and frequency (Daraban, 2012). However, from

2006 to 2012, on time performance was considered as the biggest progression topic for many

low cost airline carriers, e.g., AirTran Airways, Southwest, and JetBlue, because they

perceive that delayed flights will cause a lot of complaints from passengers, and the

punctuality can decrease these complaints to improve customer satisfaction (Baker, 2014).

For the low cost airlines in Thailand, flight delay occurs regularly since flight delay is on

the top ten risks that passengers perceive when they fly with low cost airline in Thailand

(Corbitt and Canh, 2004). Flight delay may cause the poor performance of service of low cost

airlines in Thailand. It has not been administrated well enough as there are inefficient process

in many areas, e.g., poor in allocation and lacking of the necessary things to catch up with the

important tasks (Klamsaengsai and Choibamroong, 2015). It is obviously seen in Nok Air,

flight delay constantly happened in Mother’s day, in August 2015, and February 2016,

because of the troubled operation system and there were a lot of pilots making strike.

However, the concept of punctuality in airline industry has gradually developed, from the

statistic, the most punctual low cost carriers worldwide in 2014-2015, especially, in Asia, is

Thai Air Asia.

In our research, price is more important than punctuality. The main reason is that most

of Thai passengers less concern about punctuality than low fares, and there are still several

complaints about the punctuality of low cost airline (Department of Civil Aviation, 2008).

Moreover, Yeoh and Chan (2011) mention that on-time departure and arrival is important for

passengers of Malaysian low cost carrier even they perceive that delay is not a pleasant

experience, but they much delight with lowest price ticket fare.

66

Safety Record

The third important factor affecting Thai passengers to select low cost airline is safety

record. Chang and Hung (2013) find that the safety standard of low cost airline is much

concerned by passengers than full service airline since it can reduce the intention to select

low cost carrier.

Passengers evaluate the safety record of low cost airline basing on the perception of

individual believed in safety standard, as well as the perception of airline safety procedures,

and publicly available safety information (Macário et al., 2007; Buapiban, 2015). Low cost

airline is considered to have lower investment in aircraft maintenance, fleet technology, and

the ability of captain (Macário et al., 2007). Flight accidents have occurred recently years,

especially, about plane crash of low cost airline, e g., Air Asia Flight 8501 in December

2014.

Airline safety is significant, since low cost passengers may perceived that the low cost

carrier is less safe, lower than traditional airline (Mikulic & Prebezak, 2011; Macário et al.,

2007). However, a lot of low cost airlines have flawless safety report (Sokolovskyy, 2012)

and no evidence claimed that low cost airline has lower standards of safety than full service

airlines (Macário et al., 2007).

However, safety issues have not been considered as the major problems for the Thai

airline industry during the last two decades even if there are an increasing number of low cost

airlines (Manvichien, 2015). These facts are consistent with the results of this research that

safety record is only concerned as the third factor impacting Thai passengers to select low

cost airline, followed price, and punctuality. The reason might be that passengers routinely

rated airlines as being less safe than their actual safety records and this suggests that

passengers overlook of accurate information about airline safety. Thus, passenger perception

of safety may differ substantially from the actual safety of the airline (Buaphiban, 2015). The

second reason might be that the communications of cabin crews have not met the satisfaction

of Thai passengers, especially, the speed on announcement during in-flight safety

demonstration (Witchayakawin, 2015). Ariffin et al. (2013) describe that the safety procedure

issues affect the satisfaction of low cost airline passengers, in particular, the level of

communications regarding unusual circumstances. For example, turbulence in the sky is

related to convection, mechanical, mountains-wave, wake and clear air, these might be the

67

leading causes of in-flight injury to passengers and airline employees (Golding, 2002). Quick

announcement of turbulence can avoid damages.

Reliability

The fourth important factor is reliability. Service reliability is a crucial issue in the air

transportation as it is one of the most important reasons for airline selection, especially

between low cost airline and full service airline, which most of the low cost passengers will

prefer to choose low cost airline from their perception of service reliability (Sokolovskyy,

2012).

The reliability in low cost airline mainly concentrates on the point of ensuring

passengers to trust regarding safeness and timeliness (Brady and Conin, 2001). Reliability

represents the overall performance of competent staffs who can meet the passengers need

before, during, and after the flight, in other words, staffs are able to maintain a good

performance under the scheduled time without any mistake, such as, accurately manage

airline process, punctuality to the final destination, and sustain the safety. However, service

reliability of low cost airline is generally evaluated to be underperformed by passengers.

However, there is no evidence that low cost airline has lower standard of safety than full

service airline, furthermore, for the on-time performance record of low cost airlines is often

higher than full service ones (Macário et al., 2007; Sokolovskyy, 2012).

Thai passengers recognize service reliability through the staffs who perform their

service. The competency of speed and accurate operation, timing, and securement, are crucial

for passenger satisfaction and loyalty in low cost airline. In particular, the waiting time for

check-in, on-time flight, security condition such as baggage state, and safety confidence are

important (Ratanakomut and Kitcharoen, 2013; Qin, 2012). Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013)

claim that overall performance of speed in cabin crew and ground service affects attitude,

need, and satisfaction of Thai passengers in selecting low cost airline. Although, reliability is

somewhat significant, it is not considered as much satisfaction enough (Sokolovskyy, 2012).

The reason might be that even reliability plays an important role in the aspect of service

quality, passengers view it as the intermediate procedure for taking them to reach the final

intention, such as safety and punctuality, due to the service reliability that they experienced is

less visible than safety and punctuality issue.

68

Responsiveness

The fifth important factor is responsiveness. Responsiveness relates to the capability of

service operation from all airline staffs that provided and delivered through the heartily

responding toward the individual passenger with the effective and qualified performance in

any situation (Khuong and Uyen, 2014). Or else, the airline staffs are able to sincerely present

their enthusiasm and readiness, as well as, willingness and friendliness to assist airline

passengers reaching their requirements (Qin, 2012). The responsiveness refers to all of the

activities including prompt in handling complaints, prompt in service delivery, efficient

guidance to assist passengers, and friendliness to help passengers (Jensen, 2009; Chen and

Chang, 2005). Huang (2010) suggests that responsiveness is the most important factor for

passenger’s airline selection. The reason might be that responsiveness is one of the most

necessary factors from passenger satisfaction influencing airline performance (Yayla-Kullu

and Tansitpong, 2013).

In term of low cost airline, responsiveness is majorly concentrated on the ability of

airline staffs to be willingness to assist passengers, specifying delivery times, altering aspects

of the delivery process, and ensuring that passengers remain involved during the service

attribute (Qin, 2012). Low cost airline passengers have a high expectation on responsiveness

towards staffs taking charge of the troubles. When problems are aroused, the staffs do not

perform the professional arrangement to make sure all passengers understand the current

situation (Amiruddin, 2013), then passenger become unsatisfied.

From the viewpoint of Thai low cost passengers, responsiveness is one of the most

important factor affecting Thai passengers to select low cost airline, however, it is not

enormously significant to affect passengers on purchase behavioral intention (Lerrthaitrakul

and Panjakajornsak, 2014). Thai low cost passengers perceive that staffs help passengers to

cancel their flight, to assist or response to the losing luggage, or to provide promptly help in

any emergency cases, and these jobs do not be performed well. Passengers concern that

responsiveness, in the term of promptly service, is regarded as an important factor of

passenger’s expectation (Kholthanasep, 2001). In contrast, dissatisfaction occurred when

passengers did not receive promptly service as they need (Mankongvanichkul, 2010). The

reason might be that staffs are too busy to provide prompt and good services to passengers.

69

Flight Availability

The sixth important factor is flight availability. Basically, flight availability is regarding

to that airlines could provide available seat, convenient flight schedules, high frequent flight,

as well as offering the accessible flights from given routes to passengers, and the well

sequenced flight (Park, 2007; Kon 1999). Flight availability is concerned as an important

issue that it is one of the primary factor influencing passengers on airline selection. Full

service airlines attempt to gain more passengers than their competitors from offering more

flexible flights because passengers value the convenience of a flight schedule with multiple

departure and arrival times which they are much able to find a flight that is closer to their

desired departure and arrival time (Richard, 2003). Moreover, the available seats and

frequency of flights of full service airline are better (Kee, 2015; Fourie and Lubbe, 2006;

Castillo-Manzano & Marchena-Gómez, 2010). In addition, the flight availability has a

significant impact on reducing delayed flights. The reason is that the increasing number of

fights is able to reduce the density in traffic flow of routes (Richard, 2003). Furthermore, in

term of airline carriers, flight availability is considered as an important issue that the greater

flight frequency allows the airline to charge a higher fare to the passengers (Brueckner and

Zhang, 2001).

In term of the low cost airline, flight availability is one of the important factors that have

an effect on the low cost airline selection (Ha, 2010). The interesting reason might be that

non-stop flight option is considered as one of the essential factor since passengers are highly

risk averse and try to avoid transfers and connections if possible (Theis et al., 2006). Low

cost airline provide the direct point to point flights without transferring flight (Castillo-

Manzano & Marchena-Gómez, 2010; Štimac et al., 2011). Sarker (2010) also describes that

flight availability is one of the crucial factor affecting the sustainable and growth of low cost

airlines, it is because that the increasing frequency on certain routes could help the low cost

airlines to generate the maximum yield and capacity on each flight and meet passenger

expectations. Besides, Snyder (2014) claims that low cost airlines should improve the flight

availability, in particularly, providing reasonable flight schedules which ought to have a

suitable flight times.

For Thai low cost passengers, flight availability is concerned as the important factor

affecting Thai passengers to select low cost airline. According to the personal characteristics

of passengers, most of the respondents are in the tourism group which the flight availability is

70

more essential for this kind of leisure travelers group (Sokolovskyy, 2012). However, the

flight availability is rated in the moderately important factor in this study. The possible

reasons come from the insufficient seat available as a result of immediately sold out

(Charoensettasilp and Wu, 2013). As well as Thai low cost passengers might perceive that the

number of routes, the access of routes and the schedule of flights have not reached passenger

expectation and satisfaction (Buapiban, 2015). Another unsurprisingly reason is that Thai low

cost passengers have a tendency to be price-sensitive, therefore, they are willing to accept the

original routes or destination routes with lesser convenient of the departure and arrival times

in the replacement for obtaining cheaper ticket airfares (Davison & Ryley, 2010).

Alliance

The second least important factor is alliance. Airline alliances emerged from demand

related conditions, i.e., the economic globalization has created demand for intercontinental

flights, and supply-related conditions, i.e., long intercontinental flights need one or more

stops and require an interline journey provided by different airlines (Keyne, 2009). One of the

reasons that low cost airlines make an alliance is to expand their successful business model to

international operations by expanding their network to whichever routes they can continue

operating with similar returns on investment (Goh and Uncle, 2003). However, no Thai low

cost airline has become a member under any of the three global alliances, Star Alliance,

Oneworld, and SkyTeam in 2015. Central for Aviation (2011) points out that it is lack of

compatibility of product (seamlessness) and IT connectivity, moreover, there are few

successful examples of strategic alliances among low cost airlines.

In Thailand, there is still no Thai low cost carrier becoming a member of worldwide

alliances so far. It is only one full service carrier, Thai airways, has been a member of star

alliance in 1997. Furthermore, from reviewed papers, there is no one mentioned the alliance

factor.

However, in 2010, low cost airline industry decided to cooperate together to create a low

cost airline alliance. Air Asia, low cost airline of Malaysian base, merged with Jet Star, low

cost airline of Australian base, to reduce cost by sharing expertise and procurement

procedures (Jetstarairway, 2010) like the corporation of JetBlue and Aer Lingus, the first low

cost airline alliance. Furthermore, in January 2016, U-Fly alliance also emerged, the first

forming of four Asian low cost airlines, presenting passengers with flexible and affordable

71

routes that are safe and secure (Uflyalliance, 2016). Sarker et al. (2012), mentions that

alliance and mergers by network carriers is an opportunity for low cost airline. Alliance with

networks is advantageous to low cost airline to attract international passengers travelling on

domestic routes and to increase market share for low cost airline.

Entertainment

Entertainment is the least important factor. When travelling by air transportation,

especially sitting during the long haul-flight, the entertainment of on board environment is

considered as one of the effective factor affect passenger’s purchasing behavior

(Sokolovskyy, 2012), as it can lessen the stress and nerves, as well as get leisurely. On the

contrary, in term of the low cost airline business model, costs are reduced with a “no-frills”

service, many free value-added in-flight services (such as catering, magazine, and

entertainment during the flight) which are routinely offered by full-service carriers, replaced

by optional paid-for them instead (Yeoh and Chan 2011; Vidović, 2013; Ratanakomut and

Kitcharoen, 2013). Fourie and Lubbe (2006) identify the factors that cause business travelers

choose between low-cost and full service South-African airlines, in-flight entertainment was

shown to be the least important factor. Buapiban (2015) also find that for low cost passenger

preferences, on board entertainment was explored in the least important.

Hamidi et al. (2013) claims that in-flight entertainment is the least effective factor

influencing the decision-making process of Iranian air travelers in their choice of airline for

domestic flights. On the other hands, Thai low cost passengers will give a preference to the

comfortable issue more than the entertainment issue. Thanasupsin et al. (2010) explain that

Thai passengers will concern much about the comfort and convenience than entertainment on

the flight. Furthermore, the flight time for passengers in short-medium haul is rather short,

three to six hours average, whereas the price is concerned as the most important factor

affecting Thai passengers for low cost airline selection, therefore, they doubtlessly are not

willing to spend money in entertainment for a short travelling time. Supposing they will pay

for on board service, the entertainment issue will certainly be as the last option for them to

concern (Buapiban, 2015).

72

4.3 The Comparisons of Results with Those of Other

Papers

After analyzing the importance of factors, we will compare our results with those of

the reviewed papers in Table 4.3.

First, we use the method of Erdal (2009). The six point scale is given for each factor. If

the factor is the most important factor in the paper, the factor will score six points, the second

most important then the factor will score five points, the third important then the factor will

score four points, the fourth important then the factor will score three points, the fifth

important then the factor will score two points, and the sixth important then the factor will be

score one point, however, if the rank of factor is less than sixth, it will score zero point. The

calculation of sores and rank for the 19 factors are in Table 4.3

Table 4.3 Score and Rank for Factors in the Review Papers

Factor Priority in the Reviewed papers Score Rank

Brand Image The most important in: 1Qin (2012)

The second important in: 2Atalik and

Ozdemir (2015)

The third important in: 3Charoensettasilp

and Wu (2013)

The fifth important in: 5Buaphiban (2015)

17 10

Safety Record The most important in: 1Nejati et al.

(2008), 1Hamidi et al. (2013)

The third important in: 3Qin (2012), 3Ariffin et al. (2010)

The fourth important in: 4Charoensettasilp

and Wu (2013)

23 6

73

Factor Priority in the Reviewed papers Score Rank

Service Supply Chain The second important in: 2Yayla-Kullu and

Tansitpong (2013)

The third important in: 3Atalik and

Ozdemir (2015)

The fourth important in: 4Buaphiban

(2015)

The fifth important in: 5Nejati et al. (2008)

The sixth important in: 6Ariffin et al.

(2010)

15 12

Price The most important in: 1Ha (2010), 1Yeoh

and Chan (2011), 1Atalik and Ozdemir

(2015)

The second important in: 2Qin (2012), 2Sarker et al. (2012)

The third important in: 3Buaphiban (2015)

The fourth important in: 4Nochais (2014)

35 1

Alliance The third important in: 3Sarker et al.

(2012)

4 19

Promotion and

Advertising The most important in: 1Nochais (2014)

The second important in: 2Charoensettasilp

and Wu (2013), 2Atalik and Ozdemir

(2015)

The fourth important in: 4Qin (2012), 4Sarker et al. (2012), 4Yayla-Kullu and

Tansitpong (2013)

25 5

Reliability The most important in: 1Yayla-Kullu and

Tansitpong (2013), 1Wen and Chi (2013)

The third important in: 3Qin (2012), 3Ariffin et al. (2010), 3Hamidi et al. (2013)

The fourth important in: 4Charoensettasilp

and Wu (2013)

The sixth important in: 6Nejati et al.

(2008)

28 3

74

Factor Priority in the Reviewed papers Score Rank

Tangible The second important in: 2Nejati et al.

(2008), 2Saha (2009)

10 14

Empathy The third important in: 3Wen and Chi

(2013)

The fourth important in: 4Nejati et al.

(2008), 4Ariffin et al. (2010)

The sixth important in: 6Qin (2012),

6Hamidi et al. (2013)

12 13

Responsiveness The most important in: 1Yayla-Kullu and

Tansitpong (2013)

The second important in: 2Nochais (2014),

2Saha (2009)

The third important in: 3Qin (2012), 3Wen

and Chi (2013)

The fourth important in: 4Nejati et al.

(2008)

The sixth important in: 6Charoensettasilp

and Wu (2013)

28 3

Assurance The most important in: 1Ariffin et al.

(2010), 1Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong

(2013)

The second important in: 2Saha (2009),

2Wen and Chi (2013)

The sixth important in: 6Charoensettasilp

and Wu (2013)

23 6

Punctuality The most important in: 1Saha (2009)

The second important in: 2Yeoh and Chan

(2011)

The third important in: 3Atalik and

Ozdemir (2015), 3Sarker et al. (2012), 3Ha

(2010)

The fourth important in: 4Buaphiban

(2015), 4Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong

29 2

75

Factor Priority in the Reviewed papers Score Rank

(2013)

Flight Availability The most important in: 1Charoensettasilp

and Wu (2013), 1Saha (2009)

The third important in: 3Atalik and

Ozdemir (2015)

The fourth important in: 4Ha (2010)

The fifth important in: 5Sarker et al.

(2012), 5Ariffin et al. (2010)

23 6

Flight Compensation The third important in: 3Wen and Chi

(2013)

The fourth important in: 4Hamidi et al.

(2013)

The fifth important in: 5Ha (2010)

9 15

Flight Announcement The second important in: 2Hamidi et al.

(2013)

The third important in: 3Ariffin et al.

(2010)

9 15

Cleanliness The third important in: 3Yeoh and Chan

(2011), 3Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong

(2013)

8 17

Comfort The second important in: 2Ariffin et al.

(2010)

The third important in: 3Saha (2009),

3Yayla-Kullu and Tansitpong (2013)

The fourth important in: 4Yeoh and Chan

(2011), 4Buaphiban (2015), 4Atalik and

Ozdemir (2015)

22 9

Entertainment The third important in: 3Yayla-Kullu and

Tansitpong (2013)

The fourth important in: 4Buaphiban

(2015)

7 18

76

Factor Priority in the Reviewed papers Score Rank

Facilities The third important in: 3Saha (2009)

The fourth important in: 4Yayla-Kullu and

Tansitpong (2013), 4Atalik and Ozdemir

(2015)

The fifth important in: 5Qin (2012), 5Nochais (2014), 5Hamidi et al. (2013)

16 11

According to Table 4.3, we find that in the reviewed papers the six most important

factors are price (score = 35), punctuality (score = 29), reliability and responsiveness (the

same score = 28), followed by promotion (score = 25), as well as, the three factors of safety,

flight availability, and assurance (the same score = 23), and comfort (score = 22). Moreover,

two least important factors are entertainment (score = 7) and alliance (score = 4).

Table 4.4 The Results of Comparison with Those of Other Papers

The six most important factors The two least important factors

Our Study Price, Punctuality, Safety Record,

Reliability, Responsiveness, Flight

Availability

Alliance, Entertainment

Other Studies Price, Punctuality, Reliability

*(Responsiveness), Promotion and

Advertising, Safety Record

**(Flight Availability, Assurance)

Entertainment, Alliance

* Reliability and Responsiveness have the same score.

**Safety Record, Flight availability, and Assurance have the same score.

The above data indicates that price and punctuality are regarded as the two most

important factors in our research that affect Thai passengers to select low cost airlines, as

well as, in the reviewed papers. Yeoh and Chan (2011) also support that price is the most

significant influential factor to purchase intention of low cost airline. Low cost airline

passengers are much concerned with low price in order to save money because the passengers

have experienced that service quality of low cost airline is unpredictable in every flight of

journeys, and this results in that the on time performance is different too, therefore,

punctuality is not so much important as price. Atalik and Ozdemir (2015) show that price

77

overcomes punctuality that affecting the purchase decision of domestic low cost airlines.

Saker et al. (2012) support that low and competitive pricing is the most important factor

followed by on time performance that low cost airlines could retain their customers and

ensure repeat purchase intention. Ha (2010) also claims that price is more important than no-

delay for consumer’s choice in no-frill airline.

The third importance factor under this research is safety record while reviewed papers

rank safety record as the fifth important factor but give much value to reliability and

responsiveness. Safety record is concerned as the third most important factor for Thai

passengers to select low cost airlines. From the records of accidents occurred in Thailand,

especially, in road traffic, WHO (World Health Organization, 2014) exposes that Thailand

was ranked at the number two of road fatalities in the world, with 44 road deaths per 100,000

people. Fatalities of road accidents made up 5.1% of Thailand’s overall deaths. Therefore, the

high number of fatality related to road transportation accidents in Thailand may cause Thai

passengers to pay more attentions to the safety record of air transportation. Besides, In

Thailand, many companies fail to create the effective safety culture (Vongvitayapirom,

2013). However, Thai people consider that, to reduce the rate of accidents and improve safety

performance, safety culture must be concerned.

Moreover, Safety record in our study is the factor under airline corporate dimension,

which is regarded as the most important dimension affecting Thai passengers to select low

cost airline. In other words, Thai passengers consider that safety record, a reflection of airline

corporate, is more important than reliability and responsiveness, a reflection of service

quality. Graham and Bansal (2007) indicate that safety record is one of the major components

of airline reputation. Pipatchaisiri (2012) describes that the airline accidents cause more

damage than any other transportation losses. As well as, Buapiban (2015) supports that non-

safety of airline is one of the inhibiting factors for Thai passengers in choice of airline since

passengers may perceive the safety standard of LCA to be less ideal than full service airline.

Therefore, un-safety can reduce the intention to select low cost airline (Chang and Hung,

2013). Hamidi et al. (2013) also claim that any change in flight safety, especially in high-

competition routes, will result in changes in the travelers' purchase behavior and a very likely

change of airline for domestic flights.

Reliability and responsiveness provided by airline staffs are ranked the third (with the

same score) in the reviewed papers, while, in our study, they are ranked in the fourth and fifth

78

factors, respectively. According to Thai people’s characteristics, most Thai people are more

tolerant than American people since Thais enjoy “Jai yen” or “cool heart” in their lifestyle, it

means they are likely to accept most things with grace and calm (Goodman, 2004). However,

most American people are dynamic, energetic, impatient, and restless (Picon and Ponte,

2003). This can be implied that, Thai people are less promptly than people of other countries

(Kromadit, 2008). Most Thai people think themselves as Thai Buddhists. Japanese and the

other culture in South East Asian are more energetic, and Thai culture is less active and more

easygoing (Burnard and Gill, 2009). Therefore, Thai people consider reliability and

responsiveness to be less important.

In fact, the reliability and responsiveness is not much different in comparison. It might

be that people perceive reliability and responsiveness are the two important factors

influencing the consumer’s expectation of the service provider in the long term relationship

(Furrer et al., 2000). Moreover, service quality is concerned as the most crucial point that

passengers accept low cost airlines and ensure repeat business. Sarker (2012) explains that

the most important thing that passengers require low cost airline to provide is good customer

service through a broad of functions.

However, Thai passengers are more concerned with safety record than reliability and

responsiveness of service quality. Suhartanto and Noor (2012) claims that improving the

service quality would let low cost airline be able to provide better airline safety.

Charoensettasilp and Wu (2013) support that safety record of airline is much necessary than

friendliness and accuracy performed by airline staffs for Thai passengers to select low cost

airline.

The fourth and fifth important factors in our study are reliability and responsiveness, but

the reviewed papers give much value to them and rank them as the third, while rank

promotion and advertising factor as the fifth. However, in our study promotion and

advertising are ranked as the tenth. In fact, Indonesians are more concerned on price in their

purchasing decision (Kurabayashi et al., 2013). Therefore, Air Asia releases more frequency

of discount promotion to Indonesia Air Asia than Thai Air Asia (Airasia, 2013). Moreover, in

term of the consumer behavior, Thai are less preferred on promotion than Vietnamese,

Malaysian, and Taiwanese (Neilsan, 2011).

79

Moreover, Thai passengers consider that the public relation of Thai low cost airline is

relatively poor. From the data of DCA (Department of Civil Aviation, Thailand, 2015)

indicates that Thai passengers always complain for problems when booking the ticket during

the sale promotion period. Moreover, by regulation, all of Thai low cost carriers are not

allowed to sell ticket fare too low in pricing promotion, while foreign low cost carriers

launching a lot of heavy low price promotion assaults on Thai low cost airline market (MOT,

Ministry of Transport in Thailand, 2015). Therefore, this might result in Thai low cost

carriers are weaker in the frequency of promotion campaigns, the advertising and public

relation channels, especially, on social media, as well as, the attractive quality of promotion

and advertising distributed to passengers (Sokolovskyy, 2012).

It is customary for the low cost airline to use ticket promotion to induce passenger

demand and motivate the sales (Lim and Mohayidin, 2011). Since price is the most important

factor influencing Thai passengers when selecting low cost airline in our study, Thai

passengers always make a buying decision on airfare promotion to obtain the low price ticket

with less concern with other important factors (Thanasupsin et al., 2010). Chan (2014) claims

that price promotion alone, is not an effective competitive strategy to increase low cost

passenger purchases intention. Usually, low cost airline business model is away from

frequent flyer program (FFP), and low cost airline rarely offers FFP despite it has been a very

successful way to build brand loyalty of passengers for full service airline (Nissenberg, 1994;

Boer and Browning, 2013). Sripromnil (2008) suggests that the changeable flight schedules

with no charge of fees is an alternative in sale promotion that influencing final decision of

Thai passengers. Sarker et al. (2012) suggest that innovative promotion, offering for student

passengers segment is interesting since this type of group is more likely to be attracted owing

to their budget limit. In term of the advertising, Nochais (2014) also claims that low cost

airline should use a lot of advertising channels to communicate with passengers, and it should

promote the image of country and the scenic beauty to attract more tourists.

The flight availability is the sixth important factor in our paper and other studies. Most

Thai people attempt to avoid high uncertainty. According to Hofstede (1983), when people

feel threatened by uncertain and ambiguity, they will try to create security and avoid risk

taking. Monthienvichienchai et al. (2002) state that this cultural behavior could enforce

conformity. Another prominent illustration has been provided by Roongrengsuke and

Chansuthus (1998). They noted that, when there was an absence of a specific job description,

80

individuals in Thai organizations will feel anxious and uncertain. Thus, it can be concluded

that most members of Thai organization will try to avoid situations that are high in

uncertainty, especially during an organizational change (Lertdechdecha, 2008).

As for assurance, although the other papers rank assurance as sixth important factor

influencing the selection of low cost airline, but Thai passengers are less concerned in

assurance. It might be explained by the distinction of Thai culture that basically Thais are

collectivistic people who engage in the amicability relationship, and associate with the

hierarchical roles, in term of dependence on gender, and family background (Mujtaba, 2008).

Therefore, Thai people usually are not necessary to learn a lot of ability, since the seniority

system of society leads to create only one way communication that all of the thoughts depend

on higher commanders. Besides, this system is not able to bring about the knowledge sharing,

exchange any opinion, and new fresh idea in the organization (Mongkolchai Wiriyapinit,

2010). It is apparently seen in the data of Federation of Thai industry (2002), which claims

that Thai people are less in seeking for the knowledge and skills to improve their talents

guaranteeing the works success, because traditionally they will follow the orders from upper

level managers. On the other hand, in American, they are associated with egalitarian

relationships and flexibility in roles (e.g., upward mobility), and they emphasize more on the

ability to assure their performance for their success (Gorodnichenko and Roland, 2011).

Alliance and entertainment are ranked as the second least and least important factors in

this study, respectively; moreover, in the reviewed papers, entertainment is ranked as the

second least important while alliance is the least important factor. The reason maybe that so

far, there is no low cost airlines join the global alliance (Lopez, 2013). Moreover, in recent

years, tourism industry in Thailand has become more important, it is not only attracts more

foreigners to take a flight to Thailand, but Thai people also are gradually taking domestic

journey. From the data of TAT (Tourism Authority of Thailand) and NSO (National

Statistical Office of Thailand) (2015), indicate that the number of Thai people travelling in

Thailand since 2010 to 2014 has increased every year from 50.1% to 64.9%, and this

situation might cause Thai passengers are less concerned on the airline alliance since it is not

necessary to use the strategy of alliance to expand domestic flights to international flights.

The data from the Office of the Ombudsman Thailand (2014) indicate although Thai people

like social harmony, many conflicts have happened in Thai Society recently. Moreover, the

loose social structure makes Thai people be too individualistic, and they do not like to work

81

in group. From the child moment, Thai people are independent, individual, not satisfied with

force, and without discipline, this situation might influence them in the term of cooperation

(Embree, 1950; Phillips, 1967). However, the merging within low cost airline alliance seems

to be in the good trend, JetBlue and Aer Lingus, form the first low cost airline alliance, and

recently the forming of four low cost airlines in Asian, U-Fly alliance. Goh and Uncle (2003)

indicate that the benefits for passengers from airline alliance are cheaper pricing, more route

options in case of itinerary changing, transferable priority status, extended lounge access, and

participating in the alliance’s Frequent Flyer Program (FFP). Therefore, alliance might

encourage Thai passengers gradually considering about the importance of alliance which

serving the values of their individual needs.

The least important factor for Thai passengers is entertainment. Thai passengers are less

concerned on entertainment which may be accounted by the shorter leisure time of Thai

people. Saksiriruthai (2013) describes that the average time per day spent for entertainment

for Thai people is relatively short, which is about 1 hour a day, comparing with the data from

the Bureau of Labor Statistics (American Time Use Survey, 2014) is about 5 hours per day.

Moreover, the amusement activities that Thai people prefer are related to the personal care,

developing health, and physical appearance, especially in the activities of sleeping, personal

hygiene and health, than consuming the mass media. Therefore, Thai passengers may feel

that it is not necessary to spend time on the on-board entertainment. Nejati et al. (2008) also

support that through the eyes of Iran passengers the comfortable chairs with sufficient space

for sitting, and clean rest-rooms in the airplanes are more important than providing up-to-date

newspapers, magazines, and video films during the flight.

82

Chapter 5 Conclusions

5.1 The Summary of Results

The global airline industry has grown rapidly in recent years. Moreover, much of this

growth could be attributed to the growth in low cost airline business model. The data from

IATA shows that low cost airline business gained almost 25% of the worldwide market in

2014. Low cost airline will unceasingly continue to grow around the world so as to satisfy the

strong demand on diverse air transportation (Ko, 2016). The airlines of Asia, especially the

countries in Southeast Asia, are some of the first in the region to employ the low cost airline

business. The data from Central Aviation showed that the total number of low cost fleet in

Southeast Asia is over 600 aircrafts in 2015, and it has grown by over 50% since the

beginning of 2013, when it consisted of about 400 aircrafts. In addition, nowadays,

Thailand’s domestic airline market has become a major battleground for Southeast Asia’s

leading low cost airlines, and Thailand’s domestic low cost airline sector recorded passenger

growth of over 30% in 2014 (CAPA, Center for Aviation, 2015).

Therefore, this intense competition exists not only within the full service airline

business sector, which they have to establish their own subsidiary low cost airlines, but also

within the low cost airline business sector. Price is regarded as the most important strategy

that it is able to neutralize the dominance of competitors, so as to maintain the market share

against the rivals. However, low cost airlines may not make profits if the market is saturated

with too many low cost airlines competing on the basis of price (Kim and Lee, 2010). Thus, it

is necessary for the airlines to find the other effective strategies to gain the competitive

advantages beyond the price war.

The objective of this research is to investigate the key factors affecting Thai

passengers to select low cost airlines, and we hope the results could serve as a guideline for

the local low cost airline managers in Thailand to meet passenger’s satisfactions. Thus, Thai

low cost airline managers are able to develop effective marketing plans to compete with full

service airline, as well as, increase the profits of their companies eventually. Therefore, it is

important for Thai low cost carriers to understand what key factors could affect passenger’s

decision to maintain their dominant positions in Thailand airline industry.

83

The method of this study is Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology. It is one

of the effective multi criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. After defining the

dimensions and factors affecting Thai passengers to select low cost airlines from reviewed

literatures, we designed questionnaires, and distributed the questionnaire to more than 30

Thai low cost airline passengers, then AHP was applied to analyze the questionnaire for

obtaining the rank of dimensions and factors.

From the analysis of data in Chapter 4, we find that the rank of dimensions is as

follow: airline corporate, service quality, flight management, and airline aircraft. As well as,

we find that the rank of 19 factors is price, punctuality, safety record, reliability,

responsiveness, comfort, cleanliness, brand image, promotion and advertising, empathy,

flight announcement, service supply chain, tangible, assurance, facilities, flight

compensation, alliance, and entertainment, respectively. Then, we compare our results with

other papers. The results of comparison are in Table 4.4.

5.2 Suggestions for Related Organizations

Suggestions for Thai Low Cost Airlines

Because of the rapid growth and intense competition of low cost airlines in Thailand,

Thai low cost airlines need to develop themselves so as to gain the competitive advantage and

be the first choice of low cost airlines for passengers.

Basing on the results of this study, we propose the following suggestions for Thai low

cost airlines:

1. Price

Thai low cost airlines should concentrate on attractive pricing strategy such as, the

first come with lowest price, one price strategy, and period of discounted, ladder-like manner

price that many successful Thai low cost airlines have thoroughly presented (Anuchatanon et

al., 2013).

Focus on targeted groups, for example, offering lower price ticket for women since in

our study women are the main travelling group of air transportation. As well as, passengers in

the government sector, they are concerned as the most frequently fliers. Besides, the student

84

group, who should be not overlooked because they do not only book the trips for studying,

but also go back home to visit family each year. Moreover, in term of “flash-packer” group,

the hi-technology and socially connected travelers, is becoming a new target of the travelling

market, who are concerned as a growing segment of the global travel industry (ITB, 2014).

Therefore, this targeted group may give a change for Thai low cost airlines to gain more

market share.

In addition, according to the data from TAT (Tourism Authority of Thailand) and

NSO (National Statistical Office of Thailand, 2015) indicate that Thai people like to make a

domestic journey and this allows Thai low cost airlines to make a price strategy which let

Thai travelers control their expenditure to meet their demands. The cost of travelling should

be approximately 2,600 THB for one time per person. For example, offer special price on the

routes that enable them to reach beautiful tourist destinations in Thailand.

Aside from local Thai citizens, foreigners, particularly, in East Asia, such as Chinese,

Malaysian, and Korean people like to have a trip to Thailand as well (MOTS, 2015).

Therefore, the concept of airline alliance may bring benefits to Thai low cost airlines, since

the alliance would increase competition advantages in the international market by allowing

the lower price, and providing the variety of routes. However, Thai low cost airlines should

not use overcharging strategy that exploits the passengers which will causes passengers

dissatisfaction in the long run (Pothasin et al., 2010).

2. Punctuality

Thai low cost airlines need to increase the number of auxiliary aircrafts, since

unscheduled maintenance reduces aircraft availability rates, and results in affecting the

punctuality performance of airline. It is important to deploy them cautiously and not in a

sweeping fashion. Avoid the tendency to simply use them as a buffer for maintenance

requirements.

To solve the delayed flight caused by traffic congestion requires the airlines explore

new ways to share the air-space, co-location, either in concerted actions with other airlines,

air traffic providers, ATC, as well as airport operators who are responsible for slot allocation.

Slot allocation is the management on scheduled times of arrival or departure, or the aircraft

movement, on a specific date at an airport for delay sensitive traffic support (Allen and

Hamilton, 2001; ICAO, Vidhyashankar et al., 2005) Solve the delayed flights is important,

85

especially, between the coordinated airports, for example, Suvarnabhumi International

Airport and Don Mueang International Airport, which are the two most busiest airports in

Thailand (IATA, 2016).

Solving the schedule perturbations problem from the perspective of minimizing

customer dissatisfaction is a good opportunity for Thai low cost airlines to improve on time

performance. Schedule perturbation management is designed for schedule development,

especially caused by the ground delay problem (Luo and Yu, 1998). Schaefer and Nemhauser

(2006) indicate that the crew schedule with the perturbed flight timetable can have a

noticeable punctuality improvement than the original flight timetable. Schedule perturbation

management does not only enhance the on-time percentage that is able to develop the

passenger’s satisfaction, but also improve the operational cost, as well as, reduce the loss of

profit in rescheduling in competitive airline markets (Yan and Yang, 1996).

3. Safety Record

Low cost airlines try to let aircrafts fly more frequently so as to maximize the

utilization of aircraft. However, this kind of operation might cause aircrafts easily

weatherworn and lead to aircraft varying load superimposed on a constant load, getting worse

from metal fatigue, result in aircraft structural damage eventually (Bhat and Patibandla,

2011).

The data from the Civil Aviation Authority indicate that global jet accident rate is

decreasing, that in 2014 was 0.23, which is less than the five-year rate (2009-2013) of 0.58

hull loss accidents per million flights. Moreover, taking airline transportation is the most

safety transportation compared to other kinds of transportation since that the fatality rate per

billion kilometers travelled by plane is 0.003 compared to 0.27 by rail and 2.57 by car.

Registering and strictly conforming to the global safety standard organization is

important, such as take part in IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA), IATA Standard

Safety Assessment (ISSA), IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operations (ISAGO), and Global

Aviation Data Management (GADM), these international organizations will monitor whether

airlines are operating to the highest global standards for safety.

Most controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents happen in the approaching and

landing phase and are associated with the problem of imprecise approaches. The number of

86

CFIT could be reduced by development and enhancement of the training materials guarding

against runway excursion accidents.

In addition, Thai low cost airlines must be concerned with safety issue of outsourced

maintenance. Before the deregulation of air transportation, airlines conducted their

maintenance in-house. After the deregulation, the outsourced maintenance became more

prevalent (McFadden and Worrells, 2012). Outsourced maintenance has been a tool that air

carriers have used in recent years to reduce costs, improve efficiencies, and hopefully

increase profitability (Rutner and Brown, 1999). Especially, in the low cost airline business,

an airline with a relatively small fleet may not have the capital or desire, to establish a multi-

level maintenance program. However, poor outsourced maintenance might cause ValuJet 592

crashed in 1996 (Gerber and Jensen, 2007). Therefore, Thai low cost airlines should pay

much attention on the service quality of outsourced maintenance.

Besides, Thai low cost airline should eliminate the chance of engine failure by

introduction digital instrument “glass cockpit”, and “fly-by-wire” technology, which could

lead to safety improvements. As well as, improvements in sensors, navigation equipment, and

air traffic control technology, such as anti-collision control systems, could play an important

role on safety issue.

Pilots not understanding the technical systems in the modern airplanes, and

inadequate training appear more times in accident investigation reports. It seems that pilots

with inadequate airmanship skills will heavily rely on the autopilot system; it also seems that

crews are not trained to ensure that FMS (Flight Management System) should be right before

executing them. Therefore, the educated pilots and crews with their knowledge and skills

promptly prepare for emergency situations is necessary and this can limit the influence of

human errors on flight safety (Soekkha, 1997).

4. Reliability

Thai low cost airlines should demonstrate the commitment to service reliability to all

airline employees, by frequent discussion with staffs about reliability, important of striving

for zero service error, and every aspects related to service reliability.

Thai low cost airline should establish comprehensive SOP, the Standard Operating

Procedure, in training programs and in manuals provided to all airline staffs in order to create

87

consistency and reliability service (FAA, 2000). Moreover, SOP is also able to ensure that

aircraft is operated in the most safe, efficient, and on-time manner (Giles, 2013).

Moreover, low cost airline should continuously reevaluate service quality and use

feedbacks from employees to improve service quality. Low cost airline should have a system

in place for systemically capturing and analyzing passenger complaints about the service

(Berry and Parasuraman, 1992).

Thai low cost airlines should monitor individual employee service behavior and use

the results in coaching, training, performance evaluation, recognition and rewards; identify

systemic strengths and weaknesses in customer service. As well as, track employee’s morale

and attitudes.

Thai low cost airlines should motivate, and encourage the aim of zero service error,

especially in the process of recruiting to guarantee that new staffs are competent and

committed to service excellence.

Thai low cost airlines should encourage, facilitate, and require teamwork and

communication across functional units. For example, establish passenger-focused inter-

functional teams in charge of ensuring the reliable service, foster inter-functional cohesion by

implementing formal communication system, and provide programs to cross train employees

to help them appreciate one another’s job (Berry and Parasuraman, 1992).

5. Responsiveness

Employee must be competent and possess good attitudes to respond to customers,

with problem-solving skill, be creative and able to bring value to the organization of airline

(Charoensettasilp and Wu, 2013).

Thai low cost airlines should educate employees on how to deal with angry customers

and how to help customers solve service problems quickly. In some cases, they need access

to information systems that will tell them more about the passengers, the situation causing the

problem, and possible solutions (Leonard et al., 1994). As well as, low cost airline should

stimulate staffs to respond customer complaints quickly and personally because quick

response demonstrates that the customer's concern is the company's concern. For example,

offer the available customer call center for providing advices 24-hours.

88

Thai low cost airline should provide sufficient number of backup staffs when key

airline staffs are absent (Alberta, 2012). As well as, provide effective cross training staffs,

who are able to do more than one task, in order to increase the responsiveness to demand

variability and to satisfy Thai passengers with high service quality (Qin and Nembhard, 2005;

Büke et al., 2015).

Besides, Thai low cost airlines should know what passengers really want and whether

these meet their needs or not (Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons, 2006; Sasser et al., 1978;

Wakefield & Blodgett, 1999), so that low cost airlines can train employees to respond

appropriately.

Teamwork cohesion refers to the teamwork attitude and cooperation in cross-

departments and the acceptance of different opinions. Management support service

responsiveness in internal environment and team work can enhance airline employee

cohesion, thus improve passenger service (Deeter-Schmelz and Kennedy, 2003).

6. Flight Availability

Thai low cost airlines should take a consideration on forming airline alliance that it

may benefit for flight availability, because airline alliance is able to overcome restrictions

over routes by providing a greater network access, increase the flight frequency by offering

wider routes and more itinerary choices to passengers than non-alliance airlines of similar

size (IATA, 2011). Moreover, it may provide the seamless travel that passengers want when

them transferring from one airline to another (Bissessur and Alamdari 1998) since the

alliance offers extensive codeshare flight options for its consumers, promising quick

transfers, and few stopovers. Besides, if the passengers decide to change flight plans at the

last moment, they have the alternative of transferring to a variety of routes, airlines, and

flexible flight schedules of the alliance network (Goh and Uncle, 2003).

To minimize the risk of seat unavailability, especially during the high seasons and the

promotional periods that the airline tickets will be sold out immediately (Charoensettasilp &

Wu, 2013), by increasing the number of fleet is concerned as one of the choices to

sufficiently support such a huge number of passengers for Thai low cost airlines. According

to the data from CAPA, 2014, indicates that low cost carriers in Asia-Pacific region operating

a combined fleet nearly 1,000 aircrafts, besides, it also orders over 1,500 aircrafts in place. In

addition, boosting aircraft capacity could enhance the seat capacity through adding seats on

89

existing jets while removing some galley, lavatory and trim legroom, and could balance or

cut down the additional expenditures (Carey and Nicas, 2015).

Thai low cost airlines should purchase the airport slot from slot holders, and this is

able to improve the network and flight schedules, especially the increasing of flight frequency

on existing routes (Babic and Kalic, 2011). From Council Regulation No 95/93, slot is

defined as a permission to use the full range of airport infrastructure necessary to operate an

air service at a coordinated airport on a specific date and time for the purpose of landing or

take-off as allocated by a coordinator at the airport. Therefore, the airline that possesses slot

will have the right to operate at that airport at that time (Babic and Kalic, 2011). In the other

word, it can explained why the airport in which regard as the slot constrained on the route,

results in a drop of nearly one flight per day compared to routes without constrained airports

(Pai, 2010).

Presenting the long-haul might be a way to improve the flight availability, especially

in term of the extending of destinations for the longer routes (Vermeij, 2014). From the data

of Air Travel Intelligence (2015) show that the full service airlines gain 97% of scheduled

departing seats on long-haul flights during June 2014 to June 2015, while low cost airline

accounting for the remaining 3%. Moreover, full service airlines rule the 10 busiest long-haul

routes in the world, while low cost airline only compete on 4 of the 10 routes, particularly, if

the route is characterized by a large number of business travelers and frequent flyers who are

accustomed to a certain level of service (Perry and Williams, 2015). Long haul low cost

airlines could not only select the core prolonged distance, but also have advantages to offer a

cheaper airfare, more fuel-efficient aircraft, and higher density seating (Morrell, 2008).

Furthermore, long haul low cost airlines are able to benefit for the connecting passengers who

prevail in the short-haul and long haul point to point markets (Shaw, 2011). As a result of the

combined application of low cost airline business model with long routes, it is no interlining

or transfer for the long distance, but directly to the destination from point to point operation,

instead of going through a central hub of the Hub-and-spoke (HS), multi-hub-and-spoke

(MHS) from full service airline network configuration (Yan, Fu & Oum, 2008; Lordan,

2013).

Thai low cost airlines should take a notice on the aircraft type selection, in particular,

the aircraft providing noise reduction technology (Dickson, 2014). Because some airports

restrict the night flights, or curfew, because of the rules imposed by some states on the

90

aircraft operators that prohibit the aircraft taking off and/or landing during the specific period

of time to reduce the aircraft noise problem (ICAO, 2013). Besides, the night flight restriction

may apply to all aircrafts or only a certain aircraft according to their noise performance.

In addition, Thai low cost airlines should have good relation with regional carrier’s

owners. Forbes and Lederman (2005) shows that the major airlines that own regional carriers

may have a greater ability to dictate flight schedules and aircraft usage than carriers that rely

on contract partners. This effect would suggest that major ownership of a regional carrier

would allow greater flight frequency and the use of smaller planes (Pai, 2010).

Suggestions for Thai Government

The deregulation and liberalization of airlines industry in ASEAN has stimulated the

growth in airline industry recently. Moreover, the rapid growth was driven by an existence of

low cost airline, and low cost airline accounts for more than a half of the short-haul market in

Southeast Asia (Damuri and Anas, 2005).

Therefore, Thai government should be prompt to assist low cost airlines, since the

number of low cost airline passengers in Thailand grows very fast, both in the domestic and

international travel (Buaphiban, 2015). Basing on the results of this study, we propose the

following suggestions for Thai government.

1. Thai government should alleviate the fee for airport parking, which is considered as

the highest fee in Southeast Asia area (Karivate, 2003). As well as, Thai government stop

increasing the taxes or charges of low cost airlines for improving the competitiveness in

transport and tourism (IATA, 2016).

2. Thai government should encourage the BOI (Board of Investment of Thailand), which

has sufficient fund, to subsidize low cost airline business segment for the reliable

maintenance operations. As well as authorize the Ministry of Finance of Thailand, in order to

provide budgets backing up the extended constructions of transportation direct to airports,

since the aviation industry is critical to Thailand’s economic success (IATA, 2016). For

example, expand the railway system connecting airports, particularly, a railway connecting

Don Mueang International Airport.

91

3. Thai government should actively promote the regional tourism industry so as to attract

domestic and the international tourists. Especially, attract the group of flash-packer travelers,

which is a new market and regarded as a growing segment of the global travel industry.

Tourism industry is a major industry in Thailand; moreover, airline sector in Thailand is

concern as the backbone of tourism sector (TRIS, 2014).

4. Thai government should improve on time performance of low cost airlines.

Particularly, improve the management of service supply chain in airports to keep abreast of

short turnaround time, by increasing the number of connecting gates and simultaneously

improving the allocation of gates, increasing number of boarding bridges, shuttle bus, and

transfer bus service from bay to deliver passengers to the airplane, besides, expanding the

space of parking lots, increasing the number of baggage claiming belts, allocating the

location of check-in counters efficiently, improving the condition of check-in counters and

feeding belts, slots, as well as, better congestion management (Klamsaengsai and

Choibamroong, 2015).

5. Thai government should develop the ATC, upgrade the air traffic automatically

control system and establish the Air Traffic Network Management Centre, with the aim of

improving operational efficiency in airspace management, air traffic control and capacity

control (HKTDC, Hong Kong Trade Development Council, 2015).

6. Thai government must address the importance of international safety standard under

the evaluation of ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) and US FAA (Federal

Aviation Administration), so as to push Thai low cost airline to meet the world class safety

standard. Moreover, by this way Thai government is able to promote the good image of Thai

low cost airlines.

7. Thai government should coordinate with foreign organizations, as it will benefit for,

especially, in term of the expansion of the airport and its related facilities. Foreign

construction and aviation services providers may look after to collaborate with Thai airports

and airlines in the supply of related engineering and aviation technologies, equipment, and

technical advice to upgrade the nationwide air traffic management system (HKTDC, 2015).

8. Thai government should implement plans for constrained airports to build new

infrastructures such as new terminals in order to increase capacity of constrained airports for

dealing with a soaring passenger circulation, especially in Don Mueang International Airport

92

which has become the world's largest low cost airline’s airport. Furthermore, plan to build

new airports. Regulatory barriers to airport expansion should be loosened to encourage more

low cost airline players in the airline industry (Karivate, 2003). Besides, Thai government

should motivate airports to provide unconstrained slots because routes on which airports are

slot constrained and with more competing airports nearby having lower flight frequency (Pai,

2010).

9. Thai government should encourage Thai low cost airlines to enter into alliance with

each other as this would increase competitiveness of Thai low cost airlines in the

international area beyond domestic front (Sarker et al., 2012).

5.3 Research Limits and Future Development

Research Limits

The methodology in this research is AHP, a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)

method that can assist decision-makers who encounter with a complex problem with multiple

conflicting and subjective criteria (Ishizaka and Labib, 2009). However, AHP also have

some limitations such as the assumption of independence between criteria and alternatives, if

the assumption is violated, it can lead to inconsistencies between judgments and ranking

criteria, and is susceptible of rank reversal, as well as, the method cannot reflect the fuzzy of

opinions. Therefore, future study should solve the weakness of the conventional AHP.

Future Development

We suggest ANP, MAHP, and FAHP could be applied to improve our research.

ANP (Analytical Network Process) approach is developed to take the

interdependencies between factors into consideration. However ANP is more concerned with

network structure that allows for dependence. There is a capacity to prioritize groups or

clusters of elements which are interdependence. Thus, ANP is always applied to solve the

problem of dependence among alternative or criteria of AHP (Chan and Wang, 2013).

The derivable rankings of alternatives from traditional AHP cannot be tested for

statistical significance and it shorts of a systematic method that addresses managerial/soft

aspects. To overcome the above limitations, the modified analytic hierarchy process

93

(MAHP), which incorporates the probabilistic distributions to include uncertainty in the

judgments. The final rankings are analyzed for rank reversal using analysis of variance, and

managerial aspects are introduced systematically (Banuelas and Antony, 2004).

The fuzziness and vagueness are general characteristics in decision making problems,

moreover, the conventional AHP method may not completely reflect a pattern of people

thinking because the decision makers regularly have more confident to give interval

judgments rather than revealing their judgments in the form of single numeric values, so

fuzzy modification of AHP, FAHP, is able to take a people’s assessment of vagueness when

complicated multi-attribute decision making problems are concerned (Erensal et al., 2006).

94

References

Journal Articles

Alam, M.R. (2012). Demographic influence on brand preference towards budget airline in

UAE. International Journal of Applied Research & Studies, 1(2), 1-8.

Alessio, I.A., & Labib, A. (2009). Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice:

Benefits and limitations. OR Insight, 22(4), 221-220.

Amiruddin, N.H. (2013). Price, service quality and customer loyalty: A case of

Air Asia.

South East Asia Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, 2(1),

34-40.

Anuwichanont, J. (2011). The impact of price perception on customer loyalty in

the airline

Context. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9(9), 37-50. Ariffin, A.A.M., Salleh, A.H.M., Aziz, N.A., & Asbudin, A.A. (2010). Service quality and

satisfaction for low cost carriers. International Review of Business Research

Papers, 6(1), 47-56.

Atalik, O., & Ozdemir, E. (2015). A hybrid method using factor analysis and

AHP on

passenger purchase decision: the case of domestic airlines in Turkey.

International

Business Research, 8(1), 14-23. Babic, D., & Kalic, M. (2011). Modeling the estimation of the airline profit in case of

purchasing new slots for increasing flight frequency. Procedia-Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 20, 1069–1079.

Badea, A., Prostean, G., Goncalves, G., & Allaoui, H. (2014). Assessing risk factors in

collaborative supply chain with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Procedia-

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 124, 114 – 123.

Baker, D. (2014). Low-cost airlines management model and customer

satisfaction.

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 2(9), 1-17. Banuelas, R., & Antony, J. (2004). Modified analytic hierarchy process to incorporate

uncertainty and managerial aspects. International Journal of Production Research, 42(18),

3851–3872.

Barnhart, C., Fearing, D., & Vaze, V. (2014). Modeling passenger travel and delays in the

national air transportation system. Operation Research, 580-601.

Berrittella, M., Franca, L.L., & Zito, P. (2009). An analytic hierarchy process for ranking

operating costs of low cost and full service airlines. Journal of Air Transport

Management, 15(5), 249-255.

Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1992). Marketing services: Competing through quality.

Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 132-134.

Bissessur, A. & Alamdari, F. (1998). Factors affecting the operational success of strategic

airline alliances. Transportation, 25, 331-355.

95

Boshoff, C., & Staude, G. (2003). Satisfaction with service recovery: Its

measurement and

its outcomes. South African Journal of Business Management, 34 (3), 9-16.

Brady, M.K., & Cronin, J.J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing

perceived

service quality a hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65, 34-49.

Brueckner, J.K., & Zhang, Y. (2001). A model of scheduling in airline networks:

How a

hub-and-spoke system affects flight frequency, fares and welfare. Journal of

Transport Economics and Policy, 35(2), 195-222. Bunchoowong, D. (2015). Work motivation in public vs private sector case

study of

department of highway Thailand. Integrative Business and Economic Research,

4(3), 216-221. Büke, B., Araz, Ö ., & Fowler, J.W. (2015). Cross-training with imperfect training

schemes. Production and Operations Management, 1-16.

Campbell, B., & Ellis, D.V. (2012). The importance of choice attributes and the

positions

of the airlines within the South African domestic passenger airline industry as

perceived by passengers at Durban International Airport. Southern African

Business Review, 16(2), 97-119.

Castillo-Manzano, J.I., & Marchena-Gómez, M. (2010). Analysis of

determinants of airline

choice: Profiling the LCC passenger. Applied Economics Letters, 18(1), 49-53. Chakraborty, T., Ghosh, T., & Dan, P.K. (2011). Application of analytic hierarchy process

and heuristic algorithm in solving vendor selection problem. Business Intelligence

Journal, 4(1), 167-177.

Chan, J.K.L. (2014). Understanding the meaning of low airfare and satisfaction among

leisure air travellers using Malaysian low-cost airlines. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 20(3),

211–223.

Chang, L., & Hung, S. (2013). Adoption and loyalty toward low cost carriers:

The case of

Taipei-Singapore passengers. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and

Transportation Review, 50, 29-36.

Charoensettasilp, S., & Wu, C. (2013). Attitude and needs of Thai people in

selecting

domestic low-cost airlines. American Journal of Industrial and Business

Management, (3), 178-184.

Charoensettasilp, S., & Wu, C. (2013). Thai passengers’ satisfaction after

receiving

services from Thailand's domestic low cost airline. International Journal of u-

and

e- Service, Science and Technology, 6(6), 107-120. Chen, C.F. (2006). Applying the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach to

96

convention site selection. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 167-174.

Chen, F.Y., & Chang, Y.H. (2005). Examining airline service quality from a process

Perspective. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11, 79-87.

Cook, A., Tanner, G., & Lawes, A. (2009). The hidden cost of airline

unpunctuality.

Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 46(2), 157-173.

Daraban, B. (2012). The low cost carrier revolution continues: Evidence from

the US

airline industry. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 10(1), 37-44.

Davison, L., & Ryley, T. (2010). Tourism destination preferences of low-cost

airline

users in the East Midlands. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3), 458-

465. Deeter-Schmelz, D.R., & Kennedy, K.N. (2003). Patient care teams and customer

satisfaction: The role of team cohesion. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(6/7), 666-682.

Durbach, I., Lahdelma, L., & Salminen, P. (2014). The analytic hierarchy process with

stochastic judgements. European Journal of Operational Research, 238(2), 552–559.

Embree, J.F. (1950). Thailand - a loosely structured social system

American anthropologist. American Anthropological Association, 52(2), 181-

193. Erdil, A., & Erbryik, H. (2015). Selection strategy via analytic hierarchy process: An

application for a small enterprise in milk sector. Procedia-Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 195, 2618–2628.

Erensal, Y.C., Oncan, T., & Demircan, M.L. (2006). Determining key capabilities in

technology management using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: A case study of Turkey.

Information Sciences, 176(18), 2755–2770.

Fourie, C., & Lubbe, B. (2006). Determinants of selection of full-service

airlines and low-

cost carriers: A note on business travelers in South Africa", Journal of Air

Transport Management, 12, 98-102.

Furrer, O., Liu, B.S., & Sudharshan, D. (2000). The relationships between

culture and

service quality perceptions: basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and

resource allocation. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 355-371. Giles, C.N. (2013). Modern airline pilots’ quandary: standard operating procedures-to

comply or not to comply. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, 2(2), 2-12.

Gillen, D., & Morrison, G. (2005). Regulation, competition, and network

evolution in

Aviation. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11, 161-174.

Goh, K., & Uncles, M. (2003). The benefits of airline global alliances: An

empirical

assessment of the perceptions of business travelers. Transportation Research

Part A, 37(6), 479-497.

Golding, W.L. (2012). Turbulence and its impact on commercial aviation.

Journal of

97

Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 11(2), 1-12. Goossens, A.J.M., & Basten, R.J.I. (2015). Exploring maintenance policy selection using

the analytic hierarchy process; an application for naval ships. Reliability Engineering and

System Safety, 142, 31–41.

Graham, M.E., & Bansal, P. (2007). Consumers' willingness to pay for

corporate

reputation: The context of airline companies. Corporate Reputation Review,

10(3), 189-200.

Ha, H. (2010). Consumer choice model in no-frills airline industry. Asia Pacific

Business

Studies, 1(2), 23-46.

Hamidi, N., Niareki, F.R., & Madrekian, H. (2013). Study of the effective

factors influencing

the decision-making process of Iranian air travelers in their choice of airline for

domestic flights. Technical Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 3(S),

3792-3798. HKTDC. (2015). Thailand: Infrastructure and construction services opportunities,

Economic Research, Hong Kong Trade Development Council, Hong Kong.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and

theories.

Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89. Huang, W., Yano, S., Zhang, J., & Wang, Y. (2013). Application of analytic hierarchy

process in selecting a biological indicator for a river flow restoration. Ecological

Indicators, 25, 180-183.

Huang, Y.K. (2010). The effect of airline service quality on passengers’

behavioural

intentions using servqual scores: A Taiwan case study. Journal of the Eastern

Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 8, 2330-2343. Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2009). Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: Benefits

and limitations. Operation Research, 22(4), 201–220.

Jones, T.O., & Sasser, J.R.W.E. (1995). Why satisfied customers defect.

Harvard

Business Review, 88-99. Kalayci, U., & Ozer, U. (2016). Selection of site specific vibration equation by using

analytic hierarchy process in a quarry. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,

56, 50–59.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand

Equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(1), 1-22.

Khuong, M. N., & Uyen, L.T.M. (2014). The factors affecting Vietnam airlines service

quality and passenger satisfaction-a mediation analysis of service quality.

International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 5(5), 327-333.

Kim, Y.K., & Lee, H.R. (2010). Customer satisfaction using low cost carriers.

Tourism

Management, 32(2), 235–243.

98

Klamsaengsai, S., & Choibamroong, T. (2015). Operational efficiencies of Thai

airports

from the perspective of low-cost carriers. Pertanika Journal Social Science and

Humanities, 23(4), 1053 -1068.

Ko, Y.D. (2016). An airline's management strategies in a competitive air

transport market.

Journal of Air Transport Management, 50, 53–61. Leonard, L., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., & Zeithaml, V.A. (1994). Improving service

quality in America: Lessons learned. Journal of Retailing, 8(2), 32-52.

Lerrthaitrakul, W., & Panjakajornsak, V. (2014). Channel of electronic word-of-mouth

affecting consumer’s buying decision-making process in the low cost carriers

(LCCs). Research Journal of Business Management, 8(4), 367-378.

Lerrthaitrakul, W., & Panjakajornsak, V. (2014). The airline service quality

affecting post

purchase behavioral intention: empirical evidence from the low cost airline

industry. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 5(2), 155-

158.

Lewis, R.C., & Booms, B. (1983). The marketing aspects of service quality.

AMA

Proceeding, American Marketing Association Chicago, 99-104.

Lim, S.P., & Mohayidin, M.G. (2011). The sustainability of low cost airlines in

Malaysia. World Review of Business Research, 1(4), 44-52.

Lordan, O. (2013). Study of the full-service and low-cost carriers network

Configuration. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 7(5), 1112-

1123. Lou, S., & Yu, G. (1997). On the airline schedule perturbation problem caused by the

ground delay program. Transportation Science, 31(4), 298-311.

Luo S., & Yu, G. (1998). Airline schedule perturbation problem: Landing and takeoff with

nonsplitable resource for the ground delay program. Operations Research in the Airline

Industry, 9, 404-432.

Manvichien, C. (2015). Vitality of safety factors: a case study of Thai airways

Passengers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2103 – 2109.

Mason, K.J. (2000). The propensity of business travellers to use low cost airline.

Journal of

Transport Geography, 8(2), 107-119. McFadden, M., & Worrells, D.S. (2012). Global outsourcing of aircraft maintenance.

Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, 1(2), 63–73.

Mighty, M.A. (2015). Site suitability and the analytic hierarchy process: How GIS analysis

can improve the competitive advantage of the Jamaican coffee industry. Applied

Geography, 58, 84-93.

Mikulic, J., & Prebezak, D. (2011). What drives passenger loyalty to traditional

and

lowcost airlines? a formative partial least squares approach. Journal of Air

Transport Management, 17(4), 237-240.

99

Min, H. (1994). Location planning of airport facilities using the analytic

hierarchy

Process. Logistics and Transportation Review, 30(1), 79-94.

Monthienvichienchai, C., Bhibulbhanuwat, S., Kasemsuk, C., & Speece, M.

(2002). Cultural

awareness, communication apprehension, and communication competence: A

case study of Saint John’s International School. International Journal of

Educational Management, 16(6), 288-296. Morrell, P. (2008). Can long-haul low-cost airlines be successful?. Research in

Transportation Economics, 24(1), 61-67.

Mujtaba, B.G. (2008). Task and relationship orientations of Thai and American

business

students' based on cultural contexts. Research in Higher Education Journal,

1(1), 38-57.

N Ayutthaya, S.S. (2013). Impact of perceived service on brand image and

repurchase

intentions of Thai passengers towards low cost carriers. AU Journal of

Management, 11(2), 46-56.

Napompech, K. (2014). Factors driving consumers to purchase clothes through

e-

commerce in social networks. Journal of Applied Sciences, 14(17), 1936-1943.

Nejati, M., Nejati, N., & Shafaei, A. (2008). Ranking airlines’ service quality

factors using a fuzzy approach: Study of the Iranian society. International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management, 26(3), 247-260.

O’ Connell, J. F., & Williams, G. (2005). Passengers’ perceptions of low cost

airlines an

full service carriers: A case study involving Ryanair, Aer Lingus, Air Asia an

Malaysia Airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11(4), 259-272.

Pai, V. (2010). On the factors that affect airline flight frequency and aircraft size.

Journal of Air Transport Management, 16(4), 169-177. Park, J.W. (2007). Passenger perceptions of service quality: Korean and Australian case

studies. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(4), 238–242.

Phillips, H. (1967). Thai peasant personality: The Patterning of Interpersonal

Behavior in

the village of Bang Chan. Journal of Asian Studies, 26(4), 683-686.

Pipatchaisiri, S. (2012). Influence factors for choosing low-cost airline in

domestic route

of Thai passengers. KKU Research Journal, 11(2), 154-167. Ratanakomut, S., & Kitcharoen, N. (2013). A study of factors that affecting service quality

of passenger service department in airlines (Air Asia, Thailand). Innovative Journal of

Business and Management, 2(1), 9-18.

Reddy, B.P., Adams, R., Walsh, C., & Barry, M. (2015). Using the analytic hierarchy

process to derive health state utilities from ordinal preference data. Value in Health,

100

18(6), 841–845.

Reddy, B.P., Kelly, M.P., Thokala, P., Walters, S.J., & Duenas, A. (2014). Prioritising public

health guidance topics in the national institute for health and care excellence using

the analytic hierarchy process. Public Health, 128(10), 896-903.

Richard, O. (2003). Flight frequency and mergers in airline markets.

International

Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(6), 907-922.

Rutner, S.M., & Brown, J.H. (1999). Outsourcing as an airline strategy. Journal

of Air

Transportation World Wild, 4(2), 22-31. Saaty, T.L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of

Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234–281.

Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European

Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9–26.

Saaty, T. (2006). Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic

hierarchy/network processes. European Journal of Operational Research, 168(2), 557-570.

Saha, G.C., & Theingi. (2009). Service quality, satisfaction, and behavioural intentions.

Managing Service Quality, 19(3), 350-372.

Saksiriruthai, S. (2013). Does leisure time use contribute to a wage increase of

the Thai

people. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 7(5), 590-593. Sarker, M., Hossan, C., & Zaman, L. (2012). Sustainability and growth of low cost airlines:

an industry analysis in global perspective. American Journal of Business and

Management, 1(3), 162-171.

Schaefer, A.J., & Nemhauser, G.L. (2006). Improving airline operational performance

through schedule perturbation. Operations Research, 144(1), 3-16.

Suriya, K. (2009). The impact of low cost airlines to airline industry: An

experience of

Thailand. Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, 43, 3-25.

Tan, C.F., Chen, W., Kimman, F., & Rauterberg, M. (2010). Sleeping in sitting

posture

analysis of economy class aircraft passenger. Electronic Engineering and

Computing Technology, 60, 703-713.

Tan, C.F., Chen, W., Rauterberg, G.W.M., & Said, M.R. (2013). The self-

reported seat

discomfort survey on economy class aircraft passenger in the Netherland.

Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(6), 563-570.

Thanasupsin, K., Chaichana, S., & Pliankarom, S. (2010). Factors influencing

mode

selections of low-cost carriers and a full-service airline in Thailand.

Transportation Journal, 49(1), 35-47.

Theis, G., Adler, T., Clarke, J.P., & Ben, A.M. (2006). Risk aversion to short

connections in

airline itinerary choice. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the

Transportation Research Board, 1951(1), 28-36.

101

Techarattanased, N. (1999). Determinants of service quality on Thai passengers’

repeated

purchase of domestic flight service with Thai airways international.

International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, 8(6),

1856-1859.

Triantaphyllou, E., & Mann, S.H. (1995). Using the analytic hierarchy process

for decision

making in engineering applications: some challenges. International Journal of

Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, 2(1), 35-44. TRIS. (2014). Airline industry. Industry Research, TRIS Rating, Thailand.

Velasquez, M., & Hester, P.T. (2013). An analysis of multi-criteria decision making

Methods. International Journal of Operations Research, 10(2), 56-66.

Vidhyashankar, V., Manoj, B.S., & Murthy, C.S.R. (2005). Slot allocation schemes for

delay sensitive traffic support in asynchronous wireless mesh networks. Computer Networks,

50(15), 2595–2613.

Vidović, A., Štimac, I., & Vince, D. (2013). Development of business models of

low-cost

airlines. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering, 3(1), 69-

81. Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1999). Customer response to intangible and tangible

service factors. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 51-68.

Wen, B., & Chi, C. (2013). Examine the cognitive and affective antecedents to service

recovery satisfaction: A field study of delayed airline passengers. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(3), 306-327.

Witchayakawin, P. (2015). SMART quality of low cost airlines in Thailand: the

comparison of northern & southern flight services. International Journal of

Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 5(6), 220-225.

Wu, C.L., & Cave, R.E. (2003). Flight schedule punctuality control and

management: A

stochastic approach. Transportation Planning and Technology, 26(4), 313-330. Yan, S., & Yang, D.H. (1996). A decision support framework for handling schedule

Perturbation. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 30(6), 405-419.

Yasin, A.S., & David, L.G., (2014). An impact of advertising and pricing on consumers

online ticket purchasing. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology,

5(5), 383-387.

Yayla-Kullu, H.M., & Tansitpong, P. (2013). A Critical evaluation of U.S.

airlines’

service quality efficiency: Lower costs vs. satisfied customers. Journal of

Management and Strategy, 4(4), 1-15. Yeoh, E., & Chan, J.K.L. (2011). Malaysian low cost airlines: Key influencing

factors on customers' repeat purchase intention. World Applied Sciences Journal, 35-43.

Yoo, K.E., & Choi, Y.C. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process approach for identifying

relative importance of factors to improve passenger security checks at airports.

Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(3), 135-142.

Wu, C.L. (2006). Improving airline network robustness and operational reliability by

sequential optimisation algorithms. Journal of Networks and Spatial Economics,

102

6(3), 235-251.

Conference Papers

Anantamongkolkul, C. (2014). Understanding acculturation in the senior

tourist long stay

experience. Paper presented at TTRA 2014 International Conference, Brugge,

Belgium.

Boer, E.D., & Browning, R. (2013). Rethink loyalty for low-cost carriers. Paper

presented

at Aimia Inc, Canada.

Corbitt, B., & Canh, N.G. (2004). Assessing consumer risk in an internet driven

industry-

low cost airline in Thailand. Paper presented at The Pacis 2005, Bangkok,

Thailand.

Department of Energy Business. (2014). Good govern. Training conclusion of

internal

audit division. Bangkok.

Guangming, C., Kale, N., Alimardani, M., & Zahrae, S. A., (2015).

Effectiveness of in

service reliability in aircrafts. Paper presented Hawaii University International

Conference, Hawaii. ICAO. (2013). Night flight restrictions. Paper presented at World Air Transport

Conference, Montreal, Canada.

Kumsak, P. (2013). Passenger’s satisfaction toward service quality on low cost

airline for

domestic flight. Paper presented at Bengamitra Network National and

International Conference, Thailand.

Macário, R., Viegas, J.M., & Reis, V. (2007). Impact of low cost operation in

the

development of airports and local economics. Paper presented at the 1st

Workshop APDR - Impacto Dos Aeroportos No Desenvolvimento Regional,

Lisbon, Portugal. Nochai, R., & Nochai, T. (2014). Impact of service marketing mix factors on Thai

passengers selecting decision towards domestic low cost airlines. Paper presented at Annual

Tokyo Business Research Conference, Japan.

Perry, L., & Williams, C. (2015). The viability of long-haul low-cost carrier service.

Paper presented at Leighfisher, California, U.S.A.

Qin, R., & Nembhard, D.A. (2005). Cross training for efficient and flexible service

system portfolios. Paper presented at Conference: International Conference Services

Systems and Services Management, 2005.

Rose, N. (2014). Passengers first: Re-thinking irregular operation. Paper

presented at

Amadeus IT group, Spain.

103

Snyder, D. J., Tai, P.A. (2014). Customer satisfaction at low cost airlines: A

case

study of Jetstar pacific airlines (JPA). Paper presented Clute Institute

International Academic Conference, U.S.A.

Suhartanto, D., & Noor, A.A. (2012). Customer satisfaction in the airline

industry. Paper

presented at The Role of Service Quality and Price. Asia Tourism. Forum

Conference, West-Java, Indonesia.

Suriya, K. (2006). Airline market segments after low cost airlines in Thailand: Passenger

classification using neural networks and logit model with selective learning.

Paper presented at Asia Pacific CHRIE Joint International Conference, Taiwan.

Štimac, I., Vince, D., & Vidović, A. (2012). Effect of economic crisis on the

changes of low-

cost carriers business models. In Proceedings of the15th International

Conference on Transport Science ICTS 2012.

Vongvitayapirom, B. (2013). Safety culture maturity in upstream: oil and gas

industry in

Thailand. Proceeding of 2013 International Conference on Technology

Innovation and Industrial Management 29-31 May, 2013, Phuket, Thailand.

Books Alberta Human Service. (2012). Succession planning: retaining skills and knowledge in your

workforce, Alberta human service. Canada: Government of Alberta.

Bardwick, J. (1995). Danger in the comfort zone: From boardroom to mailroom

- how to

break the entitlement habit that’s killing American business. New York:

AMACOM. Bhat, S., & Patibandla, R. (2011). Metal fatigue and basic theoretical models: A review,

alloy steel -properties and use. In: Morales, E.V. (Ed.), Alloy steel - properties and

use (pp. 203-236). Croatia: InTech.

Burnard P., & Gill, P. (2009). Culture, communication and nursing. New York:

Routledge.

Campbell, D., Edgar, D., & Stonehouse, G. (2011). Business strategy: an

introduction. China:

Palgrave Macmillan. Chan, H.K., & Wang, X. (2013). Fuzzy hierarchical model for risk assessment: Principles,

concepts, and practical application. London: Springer.

Civil Aviation Authority. (2006). No-frills carriers: revolution or evolution? a study by

the civil aviation authorit. London: Civil Aviation Authority.

Doganis, R. (2010). Flying off course Airline economics and marketing. (4th

Ed.). U.S.A. and

Canada: Routledge.

Economic Intelligence Center. (2011). Looking beyond Bangkok: the urban

consumer and

104

urbanization in Thailand. Bangkok: SCB EIC. Embraer. (2009). Latin America airline market: time to re-think, time to change, time to be

more efficient. Brazil: Commercial Aviation.

Federal Aviation Administration. (2008). Standard operating procedures for flight deck

crew members, Advisory circular. U.S.A: U.S. Department of Transportation.

Federal Aviation Administration. (2008). How to obtain a good weather briefing. U.S.A:

FAAS Team.

Fitzsimmons, J.A., & Fitzsimmons, M.J. (2006). Service management: Operations,

strategy, and information technology, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Gerber, J., & Jensen, E.L. (2007). Encyclopedia of white-collar crime. Conn: Greenwood

Press.

Goodman, J. (2004). Culture of the world Thailand. New York: Time Book

International.

Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G. (2012). Understanding the individualism-

collectivism

cleavage and its effects:lessons from cultural psychology. In: Aoki, M., Kuran,

T., &

Ronald, G. (Eds.), Institutions and comparative economic development (pp.

213-236). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jones, P. (2007). Flight-catering. In: Becker, H., & Grothues, U. (Eds.),

Catering

management: Portrait einer wachstumsbranche in theorie und praxis (pp. 39-

55). Geramany: Harald Becker. Keynes, J.M. (2009). The airline industry: challenges in the 21st century. Berlin: Physica-

Verlag Heidelberg. Kons, A. (1999). Understanding the chaos of airline pricing. In: David, R. (Ed.),

The

park place economist (pp. 15-29). U.S.A: Wesleyan University.

Kurabayashi, T., Niimi, Y., & Yatsunami, S. (2013). Understanding ASEAN

consumer markets through country-specific questionnaires: Based on results of

ASEAN family income and expenditure survey. Japan: Nomura Research

Institute. Lawton, T. (2002). Cleared for take-off-structure and strategy in the low fare airline

business. United Kindom: Ashgate Publishing.

Neher, C.D. (1979). Modern Thai politics: From village to nation. Cambridge: Schenkman

Publishing.

Niehues, A., Belin, S., Hansson, T., Hauser, R., Mostajo, M., & Richter, J.

(2001).

Punctuality: how airlines can improve on-time performance. U.S.A: Booz.

Allen & Hamilton.

O’Toole, J. (1995). Leading change: Overcoming the ideology of comfort and

the tyranny of

custom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Postorino, M.N. (2010). Development of regional airports: Theoretical analyses

and case

105

studies. United Kingdom: WIT Press.

Roongrengsuke, S., & Chansuthus, D. (1998). Conflict management in Thailand.

In: Leung,

K., & Tjosvold, D. (Eds.), Conflict management in the Asian Pacific:

Assumption and approaches in diverse culture (pp. 167-222). Singapore: John

Wiley & Sons. Sabre. (2010). The evolution of the airline business model. U.S.A: Sabre Airline Solutions.

Sasser, W.E., Olsen, R.P., & Wyckoff, D.D. (1978). Management of service operations:

Text, cases, and readings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Scott, F.D. (2003). A society in ferment, In: Picon, A., & Ponte, A. (Eds.),

Architecture and

the sciences: Exchanging metaphors (pp. 261-263). New York: Princeton

Architectural Press. Shaw, S. (2011). Airline business and marketing strategies. UK: Ashgate Publishing.

Soekkha, H.M. (1997). Aviation Safety. Netherland: Ridderprint.

Tretheway, M.W. & Oum, T.H. (1992). Airline economics: Foundations for

strategy and policy. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

Voudouris, C., Owusu, G., Dorne, R., & Lesaint, D. (2008). Defining and

understanding

service chain management. Heidelberg: Springer Publishing Company.

Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Saaty, T.L., & Kearns, K.P. (1991). Analytical planning the organization of system.

Pittsburgh: RWS.

Theses, Dissertations, Papers, and Reports Agsorndee, J. (2011). Marketing factor influencing passenger satisfaction on airline

selection in domestic routes of Thailand (Unpublished master thesis). Bangkok University,

Thailand.

Air Asia. (2013). Annual report 2013. Bangkok: Air Asia Berhad.

Assawaphisarnboon, K., & Prachayanipon, N. (2010). The study of delay causes

in aircraft

turnaround time and the guidelines for improvement (Bachelor of Science).

Kasetsart University, Thailand.

Bilotkach, V., & Hüschelrath, K. (2011). Balancing competition and

cooperation:

Evidence from transatlantic airline markets (Discussion Paper No. 15-059).

Germany: ZEW Centre for European Economic. Buaphiban, T. (2015). Determination of factors that influence passengers’ airline

selection: a study of low cost carriers in Thailand (Unpublished dissertations and theses),

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, U.S.A.

Chatchotitham, T., & Soponprapapon, V. (2011). Consumer behavior of Thai

people

toward hotel reservation online (Unpublished Master Thesis). Mälardalen

University, Sweden.

106

Ç akir, E. (2009). Logistics outsourcing and selection of third party logistics

service

provider (3PL) via fuzzy AHP (Unpublished Master Thesis). T.C Bahçeşehir

University, Turkey. Damuri, Y.R., & Anas, T. (2005). Strategic directions for ASEAN airlines in a globalizing

world: the emergence of low cost carriers in South East Asia (REPSF Project

No. 04/008). Australia: Australian Government.

Forbes, S.J., & Lederman, M. (2005). Control rights, network structure and vertical

integration: Evidence from regional airlines. Unpublished paper, University of California,

San Diego.

Homanan, P. (2011). Comparison of factors influencing passengers on airline

decision

between premium and low cost (Research Report). Chiangmai University:

Faculty of Economics. IATA. (2016). Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG) - annex 11.12 - contact list for level

2/3 airports. Canada: Officially Declared to IATA.

ITB. (2014). ITB world travel trends report the world’s leading travel trade show. Germany:

IPK International.

Jensen, R. (2009). Delivering excellent service quality in low cost aviation (Unpublished

Master Thesis). Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.

Karivate, S. (2003). Low-cost Carriers and Low Fares. Thailand: Bangkok Bank PCL.

Kee, W. (2015). Comparison of Shareholder value between full-service airlines (FSAs) and

low-cost carriers (LCCs) (Unpublished Honor Thesis). Western Michigan University, U.S.A.

Kholthanasep, G. (2001). A study of customer’s expectations and perceptions of service

quality delivery by first class hotels in Bangkok metropolitan area (Unpublished Master

Thesis). Assumption University, Thailand.

Kingpayome, J. (2003). Factors affecting consumers behavior in purchasing

vegetable oil

in mueang district, Samut Sakhon province (Unpublished Master Thesis).

Chiang Mai University, Thailand.

Klamsaengsai, S. (2014). Thailand airport operation model for the low cost

carriers

(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Graduate School of Tourism Management

National Institute of Development Administration, Thailand.

Lertdechdecha, B. (2008). Thai employee resistance to organizational chance

as influenced

by leadership styles, influence tactics, and information adequacy (Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation). Bangkok University, Thailand.

Lopez, J. (2013). Airline alliances and the threat of low-cost carriers

(Unpublished Master

Thesis). Erasmus University, Netherland.

Mankongvanichkul, W. (2010). Passenger’s satisfaction with service quality: A

case study

of Thai airways international’s domestic fights (Unpublished Master Thesis).

Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand.

107

MOTS. (2015). Conclusion of tourism situation on March 2015. Bangkok: Ministry of

Tourist and Sport.

Muenhong, K. (2006). Factors affecting consumer decision on selection of low

cost airline

in Bangkok Metropolitan (Unpublished Master Thesis). Chiangmai University,

Thailand.

Nissenberg, J.M. (1994). Competition between traditional and low-cost airlines

for local

hub traffic (Unpublished Master Thesis). University of California, U.S.A.

Nopporn, P. (1998). The Study of vegetable oil consumer's attitude and buying

behavior

in Bangkok (Unpublished Master Thesis). Thammasat University, Thailand.

Pothasin, N., Lobthong, S., Maneethorn, S., & Yakaew, S. (2010). Pricing

strategies

(Research Report). Thailand: Maejo University. Qin, Z. (2012). The factors influencing low-cost airline passenger satisfaction and loyalty

in Bangkok, Thailand (Unpublished Master Thesis). University of Thai Chamber of

Commerce, Thailand.

Realrangsutthar, T. (2007). The revitalization of brand image of low cost airline

in

Thailand (Unpublished Master Thesis). University of Thai Chamber of

Commerce, Thailand. Sokolovskyy, A. (2012). Analyzing factors impacting students’ choice between low-cost

and full-fare airlines (Unpublished Master Thesis). Agder University, Norway.

Sripromnil, M. (2008). Factors on marketing mix affecting customers’ final

decisions on

airline services of airport authority of Thailand cooperation in muang district

chiang mai province. Chiangrai Rajabhat University, Chiangrai.

Tainta, A. (2012). Factors affecting passengers to select low cost airline

(Research Report).

Thailand: Chiangmai University.

Vermeij, A. (2014). Innovating long-haul low-cost operations (Unpublished Master Thesis). University of Amsterdam, Netherland. Vongthai, W. (2013). The effectiveness of low cost airline’s service quality in Thailand

(Unpublished Master Thesis). Stamford International University, Thailand.

Yan, J., Fu, X., & Oum, T. (2008). Exploring network effects of point-to- point

networks: An investigation of the spatial entry patterns of Southwest Airlines (Working Paper

No. 200821). U.S.A: Washington State University.

Websites AirAsia. (2013). Cancelled flights due to typhoon USAGI and severe weather conditions.

Retrieved 22 March, 2016, from

http://www.airasia.com/hk/en/latest-news/news-typhon-usagi.page

AirAsia Big. (2015). Why be a AirAsia BIG member. Retrieved 26 March, 2016, from

http://www.airasiabig.com/global/en/?page=whyjoin

108

Cail, S. (2016). Inflight passenger announcements. Retrieved 8 April, 2016, from

https://www.scribd.com/doc/313688767/Announcements-for-Flight-Attendatns

Carey, S., & Nicas, J. (2015). Airlines’ new normal: more seats, fewer flights.

Retrieved 22 March, 2016, from

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-normal-for-airlines-more-seats-fewer-trips-1435874679

Cha. (2013). Don't laugh: Vanilla Air, Peach and other budget airlines mean business.

Retrieved 15 April, 2016, from

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/01/travel/asia-low-cost-carriers/

Department of Civil Aviation. (2008). Results Based Management (RBM).

Retrieved 26 March, 2016, from http://www.aviation.go.th/rbm/ index.html

IATA. (2012). IATA global passenger survey highlights. Retrieved 26 March, 2016, from

https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/passenger/gps/Documents/Highlights%202015-Global-

Passenger-Survey-Final.pdf

Jetstar. (2010). Jetstar and AirAsia form world first alliance. Retrieved 15 April, 2016, from

http://www.jetstar.com/~/_media/fbfd5fe2621e43bd981b4386dad855cb.pdf

Kromadit, V. (2008). Be a better man. Retrieved 15 April, 2016, from

http://www.vikrom.net/

Neilsan. (2011). Global convenience symposium growing demand, changing structures.

Retrieved 15 April, 2016, from

http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/uk/en/Insights/events-

%20webinars/Convenience%20Symposium-SESSION1_PETER%20GALE_sept14.pdf

Nok Air. (2015). About us: Nok fanclub. Retrieved 26 March, 2016, from

http://www.nokfanclub.com/aspx/nokfan.aspx

Skytrax. (2015). Cabin cleanliness is a competitive differentiator for airlines.

Retrieved 8 April, 2016, from

http://www.airlinequality.com/news/airline-cabin-cleanliness/

UFlyalliance. (2016). U-FLY Alliance launches as world’s first low-cost carrier

alliance four low-fare airlines celebrate with HKD/CNY118 fares.

Retrieved 15 April, 2016, from www.uflyalliance.com

PowerPoint slides and Newspapers

Anuchatanon, C., Noisuwan, C., Burabhatthamrongkul, R., Boonraksa, V., Amornsakdakul,

W., & Sornsuwan, S. Nokair strategy. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

http://www.slideshare.net/Raiinforest/nokair-strategy

Dickson, N. (2014). Aircraft noise technology and international noise standards [Power

Point slides]. Retrieved from

http://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/2014-ENV/3.2.Noise%20TechnologyV3_notes.pdf

Wiriyapinit, M. (2010, September 16). Barrier and problem of knowledge

management in Thailand. Prachachat, p. 34-36.

Appendices

109

Questionnaire: Key Factors Affecting Thai Passengers to Select Low Cost Airline

(LCA)

This is an academic questionnaire for the master thesis of Global Business Program,

Soochow University, Taiwan, the Republic of China (ROC). The purpose of this study is to

find and comprehend the important factors that affect passengers in LCA selection, in order

to be a beneficial guideline serving for airline industry in Thailand. However, all of surveyed

data that you provided are only used for the purpose of this study, as well as they will

certainly not be exposed to public.

Please feel free to answer these surveyed questions. If you have any suspicious topics

or problems during the survey, please do not hesitate to contact us directly.

Sincerely,

Thank you for your cooperation

Advisor: Chih-Ming Lee, Ph.D.

Department of Business Administration

Researcher: MS. Mananya Sriworrarat

Department of Global Business Program

SUBJECT I: A Hierarchical Framework of Key Factors Affecting Thai Passengers to Select

LCA

110

113

SUBJECT II: The definitions of dimensions and factors

Dimension Factor Definition of factors

A1. Airline Corporate B1. Brand image The objective of the brand image is to gain a competitive advantage which enable to lead

passenger trust to select the brand.

B2. Safety record Safety records refer to all of condition related, weather conditions, flight crashes, terrorism,

and even pilots own mistakes been reported throughout the years.

B3. Service supply

chain

Service supply chain include how passengers are assisted before and after the actual flight

experience such as check-in, proper transfer, arrival service, baggage and cargo delivery.

B4. Price Price is the sum of value that consumers are willing to pay or give in exchange for the

benefits.

B5. Alliance Alliance is two or more airlines agreeing to cooperate on a unique organization entity.

Alliances may facilitate travelers making inter-airline connections while travelers also benefit

from lower prices due to alliance.

B6. Promotion and

advertising

Promotion and advertising consist of sale promotion, advertisement through various media,

public relation, call center for providing advice, website for providing information, Frequent

Flyer Program (FFP), and privilege.

114

A2. Service Quality B7. Reliability Reliability is the ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately,

including flight attendance, ground staff and captain.

B8. Tangible The components of tangible, in term of personnel, include well dress, good personality and

neat appearance.

B9. Empathy Service personnel have the ability to solve passenger task, understand customer need, and

toward facilitate the process of meeting passenger demand.

B10. Responsiveness Responsiveness refers to enthusiasm as well as willing to help passenger and listen to

passenger opinion with friendly.

B11. Assurance Assurance refers to staff training in the use of tools and knowledge of service processes, and

the perception that the service is competent and not going to harm anyone.

A3. Flight Management B12. Punctuality Punctuality is on time without delay flight.

B13. Flight

availability

Provide the proper of flight schedule and enough seats available and the availability of

alternative flights in case of delay or cancellation.

B14. Flight

compensation

Flight compensation will assist passengers in the event of denied boarding, flight

cancellations, or long delays of flights and consists of such as financially compensation.

115

B15. Flight

announcement

Flight announcement informs passengers the information about an event that has happened

or is going to happen such as quick announcement of flight schedules, notify customers of the

exact time of flight when delay or cancellation occur, and sufficient flight information during

flight.

A4. Airline Aircraft B16. Cleanliness Cleanliness is the state of being clean and free from dirt, and the process of achieving and

maintaining the state including clean restrooms in the cabin.

B17. Comfort Comfort is a sense of physical or psychological ease, for example, provide air condition,

well arrange comfort seat, and easy-to-use shelf space for baggage during the whole journey.

B18. Entertainment Entertainment is a form of activity that holds the attention and interest of an audience, or

gives pleasure and delight via providing up-to-date newspapers, magazines, and video films

during the flight. It may not be free.

B19. Facilities Facilities relate to the equipment which is fashionable, up to date and easy to use, for

example, new model of aircraft, Wi-Fi on the airplane as well as air-conditioner and light.

116

SUBJECT III: Description and example of questionnaire form

The important level of comparison checkbox

Table 1 Pair wise comparison measurement scales

Implication Equal

importance

Weak

importance

Essential/Strong

importance

Very strong or

demonstrated

importance

Absolutely

importance

Intermediate

values between

adjacent scale

values

Intensity of

important

1 3 5 7 9 2,4,6,8

The important level of comparison is separated into 1 to 9 intensity score following the pair wise comparison measurement scales in the

Table 1. Supposing, decision maker think that the key factors to select LCA compose of Brand image and Safety record, thus the possibly

grading score that decision maker give to “Brand image” factor and “Safety record” factor will be divided into 3 patterns, from the example

below:

117

Example 1:

If decision maker give credit to “Brand image” = “Safety record” by the implication of “Equal importance”, the decision maker will

circle “1” in the middle of Brand image and Safety record area, for grading score to “Equal importance”, 1:1, on the important level of

comparison between 2 Factors checkbox, shown in Table 2:

Table 2 Brand image is equal importance to Safety record with 1:1 checkbox

The important level of comparison checkbox

Factors

9:1

8:1

7:1

6:1

5:1

4:1

3:1

2:1

1:1

1:2

1:3

1:4

1:5

1:6

1:7

1:8

1:9

Factors

Brand

image

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Safety

record

Equal

import

ance

Weak

importan

ce

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Very

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Abso

lutely

importan

ce

Wea

k

import

ance

Str

ong

import

ance

Ver

y S

trong

import

ance

Abso

lute

ly

import

ance

Im

pli

cati

on Im

plicatio

n

118

Example 2:

If decision maker give credit to “Brand image” ≥ “Safety record” by the implication of “Strong importance”, the decision maker will

circle “5” , in the left side on Brand image area, for grading score to “Strong importance”, 5:1, on the important level of comparison between 2

Factors checkbox, shown in Table 3:

Table 3 Brand image is strongly more importance than Safety record with 5:1 checkbox

The important level of comparison checkbox

Factors

9:1

8:1

7:1

6:1

5:1

4:1

3:1

2:1

1:1

1:2

1:3

1:4

1:5

1:6

1:7

1:8

1:9

Factors

Brand

image

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Safety

record

Equal

import

ance

Weak

importan

ce

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Very

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Abso

lutely

importan

ce

Wea

k

import

ance

Str

ong

import

ance

Ver

y S

trong

import

ance

Abso

lute

ly

import

ance

Im

pli

cati

on Im

plicatio

n

119

Example 3:

If decision maker give credit to “Safety record” ≥ “Brand image” by the implication of “Weak importance”, the decision maker will

circle “3” in the right side on Safety record area, for grading score to “Weak importance”, 3:1, on the important level of comparison between 2

Factors checkbox, shown in Table 4:

Table 4 Safety record is weakly more importance than Brand image with 3:1 checkbox

The important level of comparison checkbox

Factors

9:1

8:1

7:1

6:1

5:1

4:1

3:1

2:1

1:1

1:2

1:3

1:4

1:5

1:6

1:7

1:8

1:9

Factors

Brand

image

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Safety

record

Equal

import

ance

Weak

importan

ce

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Very

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Abso

lutely

importan

ce

Wea

k

import

ance

Str

ong

import

ance

Ver

y S

trong

import

ance

Abso

lute

ly

import

ance

Im

pli

cati

on Im

plicatio

n

120

SUBJECT IV: The questionnaire form

The questionnaire form has to be given credit for both dimension part and factor part comparison on selecting LCA

1. The analysis of the dimension part comparison on selecting LCA

There are 4 dimensions in this questionnaire form: for the definition of dimension please refer to subject II.

- A1: “Airline Corporate”

- A2: “Service Quality”

- A3: “Flight Management”

- A4: “Airline Aircraft”

Step 1 Please give the important priority of these 4 dimensions while selecting the LCA (by filling the code A1-A4, provided above)

____________________ ≥ ____________________ ≥ ____________________ ≥ ____________________

121

Step 2 Please circle the grading score on the important level of comparison checkbox, ground on pair wise comparison measurement

scales.

The important level of comparison checkbox

Dimensions

9:1

8:1

7:1

6:1

5:1

4:1

3:1

2:1

1:1

1:2

1:3

1:4

1:5

1:6

1:7

1:8

1:9

Dimensions

Airline

Corporate

(A1)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Service

Quality

(A2)

Airline

Corporate

(A1)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Flight

Management

(A3)

Airline

Corporate

(A1)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Airline

Aircraft

(A4)

Service

Quality

(A2)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Flight

Management

(A3)

Service

Quality

(A2)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Airline

Aircraft

(A4)

Flight

Management

(A3)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Airline

Aircraft

(A4)

Equal

import

ance

Weak

importan

ce

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Very

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Abso

lutely

importan

ce

Wea

k

import

ance

Str

ong

import

ance

Ver

y S

trong

import

ance

Abso

lute

ly

import

ance

Im

pli

cati

on Im

plicatio

n

122

2. The analysis of the factor part comparison on selecting LCA

There are 19 factors under 4 dimensions in this questionnaire form,

- Base on the A1: “Airline Corporate” dimension, it composes of 6 factors, including, B1: “Brand image”, B2: “Safety record”, B3:

“Service supply chain”, B4: “Price”, B5: “Alliance”, and B6: “Promotion and advertising”, moreover the other factors under those dimensions

are shown in table below, for the definition of factor please refer to subject II.

Dimensions and Factors

Airline Corporate (A1) Service Quality (A2) Flight Management (A3) Airline Aircraft (A4)

Brand image (B1) Reliability (B7) Punctuality (B12) Cleanliness (B16)

Safety record (B2) Tangible (B8) Flight availability (B13) Comfortable (B17)

Service supply chain (B3) Empathy (B9) Flight compensation (B14) Entertainment (B18)

Price (B4) Responsiveness (B10) Flight announcement (B15) Facilities (B19)

Alliance (B5) Assurance (B11)

Promotion and advertising (B6)

Fac

tors

123

2.1 The factor part comparison on selecting LCA considering the “Airline Corporate” dimension, are 6 factors including,

- B1: “Brand image”

- B2: “Safety record”

- B3: “Service supply chain”

- B4: “Price”

- B5: “Alliance”

- B6: “Promotion and advertising”

Step 1 Please give the important priority of these 6 factors while selecting the LCA (by filling the code B1-B6, provided above)

_______________ ≥ _______________ ≥ _______________ ≥ _______________ ≥ _______________ ≥ _______________

124

Step 2 Please fill the grading score on the important level of comparison checkbox, ground on pair wise comparison measurement scales.

The important level of comparison checkbox

Factors

9:1

8:1

7:1

6:1

5:1

4:1

3:1

2:1

1:1

1:2

1:3

1:4

1:5

1:6

1:7

1:8

1:9

Factors

Brand

image

(B1)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Safety

record

(B2)

Brand

image

(B1)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Service

supply chain

(B3)

Brand

image

(B1)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Price

(B4)

Brand

image

(B1)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alliance

(B5)

Brand

image

(B1)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Promotion

&advertising

(B6)

Equal

import

ance

Weak

impo

rtance

Stro

ng

impo

rtance

Very

Stro

ng

impo

rtance

Abso

lutely

impo

rtance

Wea

k

import

ance

Str

ong

import

ance

Ver

y S

trong

import

ance

Abso

lute

ly

import

ance

Im

pli

cati

on Im

plicatio

n

125

Safety

record

(B2)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Service

supply chain

(B3)

Safety

record

(B2)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Price

(B4)

Safety

record

(B2)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alliance

(B5)

Safety

record

(B2)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Promotion

&advertising

(B6)

Service

supply

chain (B3)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Price

(B4)

Service

supply

chain (B3)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alliance

(B5)

Service

supply

chain (B3)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Promotion

&advertising

(B6)

Price

(B4)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alliance

(B5)

Price

(B4)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Promotion

&advertising

(B6)

Alliance

(B5)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Promotion

&advertising

(B6)

126

2.2 The factor part comparison on selecting LCA considering the “Service Quality” dimension, are 5 dimension factors including,

- B7: “Reliability”

- B8: “Tangible”

- B9: “Empathy”

- B10: “Responsiveness”

- B11: “Assurance”

Step 1 Please give the important priority of these 6 factors while selecting the LCA (by filling the code B7-B11, provided above)

_______________ ≥ _______________ ≥ _______________ ≥ _______________ ≥ _______________

127

Step 2 Please fill the grading score on the important level of comparison checkbox, ground on pair wise comparison measurement scales.

The important level of comparison checkbox

Factors

9:1

8:1

7:1

6:1

5:1

4:1

3:1

2:1

1:1

1:2

1:3

1:4

1:5

1:6

1:7

1:8

1:9

Factors

Reliability

(B7)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Tangible

(B8)

Reliability

(B7)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Empathy

(B9)

Reliability

(B7)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Responsiveness

(B10)

Reliability

(B7)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Assurance

(B11)

Tangible

(B8)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Empathy

(B9)

Tangible

(B8)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Responsiveness

(B10)

Tangible

(B8)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Assurance

(B11)

Empathy

(B9)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Responsiveness

(B10)

Equal

import

ance

Weak

importan

ce

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Very

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Abso

lutely

importan

ce

Wea

k

import

ance

Str

ong

import

ance

Ver

y S

trong

import

ance

Abso

lute

ly

import

ance

Im

pli

cati

on Im

plicatio

n

128

Empathy

(B9)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Assurance

(B11)

Responsiveness

(B10)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Assurance

(B11)

129

2.3 The factor part comparison on selecting LCA considering the “Flight Management” dimension, are 4 factors including,

- B12: “Punctuality”

- B13: “Flight availability”

- B14: “Flight compensation”

- B15: “Flight announcement”

Step 1 Please give the important priority of these 6 factors while selecting the LCA (by filling the code B12-B15, provided above)

_______________ ≥ _______________ ≥ _______________ ≥ _______________

130

Step 2 Please fill the grading score on the important level of comparison checkbox, ground on pair wise comparison measurement scales.

The important level of comparison checkbox

Dimensions

9:1

8:1

7:1

6:1

5:1

4:1

3:1

2:1

1:1

1:2

1:3

1:4

1:5

1:6

1:7

1:8

1:9

Dimensions

Punctuality

(B12)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Flight

availability

(B13)

Punctuality

(B12)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Flight

compensation

(B14)

Punctuality

(B12)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Flight

announcement

(B15)

Flight

availability

(B13)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Flight

compensation

(B14)

Flight

availability

(B13)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Flight

announcement

(B15)

Flight

compensation

(B14)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Flight

announcement

(B15)

Equal

import

ance

Weak

importan

ce

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Very

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Abso

lutely

importan

ce

Wea

k

import

ance

Str

ong

import

ance

Ver

y S

trong

import

ance

Abso

lute

ly

import

ance

Im

pli

cati

on Im

plicatio

n

131

2.4 The factor part comparison on selecting LCA considering the “Airline Aircraft” dimension, are 4 factors including,

- B16: “Cleanliness”

- B17: “Comfortable”

- B18: “Entertainment”

- B19: “Facilities”

Step 1 Please give the important priority of these 6 factors while selecting the LCA (by filling the code B16-B19, provided above)

_______________ ≥ _______________ ≥ _______________ ≥ _______________

132

Step 2 Please fill the grading score on the important level of comparison checkbox, ground on pair wise comparison measurement scales.

The important level of comparison checkbox

Factors

9:1

8:1

7:1

6:1

5:1

4:1

3:1

2:1

1:1

1:2

1:3

1:4

1:5

1:6

1:7

1:8

1:9

Factors

Cleanliness

(B16)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Comfort

(B17)

Cleanliness

(B16)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Entertainment

(B18)

Cleanliness

(B16)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Facilities

(B19)

Comfort

(B17)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Entertainment

(B18)

Comfort

(B17)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Facilities

(B19)

Entertainment

(B18)

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Facilities

(B19)

Equal

import

ance

Weak

importan

ce

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Very

Stro

ng

importan

ce

Abso

lutely

importan

ce

Wea

k

import

ance

Str

ong

import

ance

Ver

y S

trong

import

ance

Abso

lute

ly

import

ance

Im

pli

cati

on Im

plicatio

n

133

SUBJECT V: Basic Information

1. Gender: Male Female

2. Age: Less than 15 15-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65 up

3. Education level: Low than Bachelor Bachelor’s degree

Master’s degree Doctor’s degree

4. Monthly income: Less than 14,000 THB 14,000-30,000 THB

30,001-60,000 THB 60,001-90,000 THB 90,001 THB up

5. Occupation: Student Government sector

Private sector Others: Housewife, retired

6. How often do you travel by air transportation per year?

Less than 1 time 1-5 times 6-14 times

15-29 times more than 30 times

7. What is the purpose of your flight?

Business Tourism Other_____________ (specified)

8. Have you ever traveled on the LCA?

Yes No

9. Suggestions

***All of your information will be not disclosed to public***

Thank you for your cooperation