Understanding the meaning of low airfare and satisfaction among leisure air travellers using Malaysian low-cost airlines

Abstract

This study is aimed at understanding the meaning of low airfare and satisfaction from the existing Malaysian low-cost airline travellers. It examines the extent to which low airfare and satisfaction influenced the positive purchase behaviour of travellers. Participant observation and in-depth interviewing were used as data collection methods at the low-cost airline terminals in Malaysia. The findings revealed that low airfare means ‘cheap price paid’, ‘low level of service and performance’ and ‘mode of transportation’ during non-price promotional periods and ‘value for money’ during promotional periods. Customer satisfaction means meeting low expectations toward service performance and positive mood and social connectedness attributed to satisfaction, and dissatisfaction is found to be non-durable. Crowd, seating space and cramped aircraft cabins negatively affect satisfaction. The finding implicates pricing and marketing strategies for low-cost airlines and adds to the existing literature on price promotion and satisfaction of low-cost airline travellers.

Keywords

Low airfare Malaysian low-cost airlines price promotion satisfaction with low-cost airlines

Introduction

Airline deregulation has significantly affected the airline operations and reshaped consumer purchase behaviour. It has allowed airlines to set prices and enter the industry upon meeting insurance and safety requirements in a liberalised market. This has led to the emergence of low-cost airlines with the ‘low costs, low airfares and no frills’ approach in which the airlines offer only limited services. This approach has been adopted by Malaysian home-grown, low-cost airlines, namely, AirAsia, AirAsia X and Firefly who commence their operations at the turn of the new millennium. These low-cost airlines particularly AirAsia and AirAsia X have adopted the no-frills service concept, while Firefly though being a low-cost airline does include light refreshment on board. Undeniably, the emergence of Malaysian home-grown, low-cost airlines has converted the previously non-customer group into potential customers and expanded the usage rate of the existing leisure air travellers, thus increasing the size and growth rate of Malaysia’s air travel market. Malaysians who could not afford air travel and who could afford travel only once a year could do so with the lower airfare charged by the home-grown, low-cost airlines. The low airfares charged by these airlines have had a significant effect because they encouraged leisure trips and modified travel behaviour (Mason and Alamdari, 2007). This has created a competitive business environment (Ariffin et al., 2010), and, therefore, such airlines require a high passenger load to cover their operating costs and to break-even (Jiang, 2007). Consequently, these airlines are caught between trying to satisfy customers who demand low prices, high-quality service and comfort while maintaining profitability (Hung et al., 2003). Hence, making the airline experience enjoyable and comfortable, and improving customer satisfaction and benefits have become critical for these airlines (Power and Associates, 2012).

Low airfare is the primary factor encouraging domestic leisure travellers to travel using Malaysian low-cost airlines (Anniah, 2002; Kok, 2008; Lee, 2008). Arguably, studies have revealed that lower airfares alone did not lead to positive repeat purchases (Hooper, 2005). Low-cost airline travellers may not repeat purchases based on the lower airfare if the market is saturated with many low-cost airlines competing on the basis of price (Kim and Lee, 2010). Furthermore, price is considered an ineffective competitive strategy (Poh and Mohayidin, 2011b) and an ineffective basis for low-cost airlines to position themselves (Campbell and Vigar-Ellis, 2012). Accordingly, service mix, product, price, accessibility, promotions, physical evidence, process and people are vital for airlines to position themselves, compete with others and enhance their reputation (Charoensettasilp and Wu, 2013).

Numerous studies have focused on low-cost airlines (Castillo-Manzano et al., 2011; Hess et al., 2007). Case studies have focused on no-frills airlines (Gilbert et al., 2001), customer satisfaction with airline services (Chitnis, 2006), customer perception of low-cost airlines (Czudar et al., 2007), purchase of low-cost airline services (Mardi and Sedlenieks, 2004), perceived price fairness (Friesen, 2005), passengers’ perceptions of low-cost airlines and full-service airlines (O'Connell and Williams, 2005), service quality and satisfaction with low-cost airlines (Ariffin et al., 2010) and competitive pricing strategies of low-cost airlines (Poh and Mohayidin, 2011a). However, limited empirical evidence is available for understanding the customers’ psychological reactions related to price judgment or pricing strategies of low-cost airlines (Poh and Mohayidin, 2011b); in particular, the meaning of low airfare and satisfaction from Malaysian low-cost leisure travellers’ perspectives is not well understood. Line and Runyan (2012) suggested that this issue should be explored further. There is inconclusive evidence about whether customer’s perceive lower price as ‘value for money’ and thus develop favourable behavioural intentions; or perceive lower price as fewer products or service attributes and lower product or service quality (Chang and Wildt, 1994).

The intense competition and frequent price promotions conducted by low-cost airlines justify the need to gain an insightful understanding of how passengers judge the price setting and their satisfaction.

The key research question addresses what low airfare and satisfaction mean within the context of low-cost airlines?

The research objectives are:

to determine the meaning of low airfare to existing domestic leisure air travellers using Malaysian low-cost airlines;

to analyse the satisfaction of leisure travellers of Malaysian low-cost airlines; and

to examine the extent to which low airfare and satisfaction influence the air travellers’ positive buying behaviour

Malaysian low-cost airlines

Malaysian low-cost airlines employ a business model that is different from that of the full-service airlines, and they typically offer only basic services to ‘strive for cost and time efficiency’ (Goh, 2005: 150). They employ the lowest airfare model by offering only the core benefits and point-to-point service (Lehmann and Winer, 2005). A product unbundling pricing strategy is adopted (Williams, 2001) to allow passengers to select service benefits according to their likes. Increasingly, Malaysians are choosing low-cost airlines as an alternative mode of transport owing to the low airfare and frequent price promotions. The frequent launching of price promotional campaigns with low airfares is aimed at encouraging and maintaining the high rate of repeat purchase customers of Malaysian low-cost airlines. This has led to a growing threat of price competition among Malaysian low-cost airlines (Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, 2009). Low airfares have resulted in new and induced demand from passengers, attracting new users who previously could not afford air travel (Mansor et al., 2010), thus, increasing the travel frequency (Goh, 2005; Rizal, 2010). New market segments for leisure air travel have emerged, including visits to friends and family, long or short holiday breaks, students and pensioners (Goh, 2005; O'Connell and Williams, 2005; Rizal, 2010). Their behaviours are different from those in full-service airlines (Firoiu and Gheorghe, 2005; O'Connell and Williams, 2005). They are price conscious (Martinez-Gracia and Royo-Vela, 2010; O'Connell and Williams, 2005) and sensitive to the airfare (Martinez-Gracia and Royo-Vela, 2010).

Perceptions of price in low-cost airlines

Price is the only element of the marketing mix that produces revenue (Lovelock, 1996); furthermore, it is an important determinant for purchasing and post purchasing processes; finally, it directly influences customer satisfaction (Varki and Colgate, 2001). Rao and Monroe (1989) and Stevens (1992) demonstrated that price was the customers’ subjective reality, and as an indicator of a service level (Sweeney et al., 1999) or as a yardstick to evaluate service level (Varki and Colgate, 2001). Consumers perceive price as the monetary value of a product; they are likely to compare the value and price of a service and decide to make a purchase if the value exceeds the price. This implies that the price and price strategy need to be set so as to realise the consumer’s perception, judgment and satisfaction. Mason (2001) concluded that price is the most important purchase factor for travelling by low-cost airlines; in particular, in Thailand, the airfare strongly affected customers’ final decision on airline services (Charoensettasilp and Wu, 2013). Price sensitivity influences customers’ price satisfaction (Poh and Mohayidin, 2011b); Bieger and Wittmer (2006) stressed that customer value was no longer dependent on transport quality but was increasingly dependent on lower airfares.

Although price promotion induces customers' favourable repeat purchase, customers do not necessarily perceive it as a good deal if it does not reflect more benefits gained in comparison to the monetary cost incurred in the purchase of the service (Al-Sabbahy et al., 2004). Yeoh and Chan (2011) found that passengers tend to forgive any unpleasant service experiences encountered when flying with low-cost airlines as they value price or cost relative to the benefits. Similarly, the meaning of price can be related to the time, effort and search involved in the overall sacrifice made by customers in their consumption experience (Sanchez-Fernandez and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). Hence, low airfare must be clearly determined in relation to the service level so that customers can understand the difference and determine whether it satisfies or exceeds the price expectation. It is postulated that price strongly influences customers’ quality perceptions. Furthermore, there is inconclusive evidence on the impact of price on customers’ perceptions. The determination of prices often excludes a proper understanding of the customers’ perceptions of price (Lewis and Shoemaker, 1997). Customers’ perceptions of low-cost airlines have changed (Laura, 2007); in particular, the efficiency perspective in price dimension and satisfaction require more attention within the low-cost airline context (Poh and Mohayidin, 2011b).

Similarly, customers may encode the price of a product or service based on their prior purchases (Campo and Yague, 2007) and perceptions, or they ‘may not encode a price at all’ (Petrick and Backman, 2002: 39). Tourism studies indicated that a high price encoded as ‘expensive’ denotes ‘high quality’ (Chang and Wildt, 1994; Voss et al., 1998). Likewise, evidence suggests that how customers encode a high-priced product or service possessing high quality differs across products, services and markets (Murphy and Pritchard, 1997). Limited empirical evidence is available about how lower price is encoded by customers and the meaning of lower price in low-cost airlines (Graf and Maas, 2008).

Malaysian low-cost airlines claim that their service is value for money owing to the lower airfare and low level of services. Varki and Colgate (2001) and Stevens (1992: 48) noted that ‘the interaction of price and service level is significant to produce ‘value-for-money’’. There is a misconception that low-cost airlines have low airfares and poor service. In fact, low-cost airlines are perceived as focused, highly reliable and convenient despite offering a no-frills service with lower airfares (Franke, 2004). In this context, price offers the key insight regarding reasonable airfare compared with services, various airfare levels and affordable airfares offered by other airlines. Hence, it is vital to examine the extent of the effectiveness of low airfare and price promotion campaigns by Malaysian low-cost airlines and whether they actually attract and retain customers to fly.

Low-cost airline passengers’ satisfaction

Customer satisfaction is a subjective measurement; it is an antecedent of increased market share, profitability and customer retention, and it is explained better through customers’ purchase intention than through service quality (Baker, 2013). Studies have shown that satisfaction is strongly associated with repurchase intention (Yeoh and Chan, 2011) and influences the purchase intention more strongly than service quality (Cronin and Taylor, 1992). It depends on a variety of factors such as perceived service quality, mood, emotions, social interactions and other experience-specific subjective factors; product quality; price; situation factors; and personal factors (Rust and Oliver, 1994; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2001). This is vital to airlines that have a mix of tangibles and intangibles (Gursoy et al., 2005). Customer satisfaction with low-cost airlines is based on performance factors and the overall experience. For example, affordability, visual attractiveness and the ‘caring and tangible’ dimension contribute significantly to the prediction of satisfaction (Ariffin et al., 2010). Consumer attitude and needs differ significantly in term of the service marketing mix (Charoensettasilp and Wu, 2013), and an individual may focus differently on the service marketing mix. Hence, the service marketing mix – product, price, place, promotion, people/employee, process, physical evidence and presentation – can presumably enhance customer satisfaction. Similarly, customers may be consuming similar services from different low-cost airlines, but the degree of satisfaction and dissatisfaction varies among individuals. Customer satisfaction can be determined by identifying ‘the important service attributes and measure customer’s perception of those attributes and overall customer satisfaction’ (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2000: 76). Evidently, some customers may forgo certain service attributes for price, depending on the types of service and the significance of the service attribute. Factors such as convenience, price or availability may enhance satisfaction while not actually affecting consumer’s perception of service quality.

As deregulation has created intense competition among airlines, focusing on quality and customer satisfaction is becoming vital (Baker, 2013). How customers are served will also affect their service experience and mood state. Understanding and satisfying customers’ expectations and subsequently being different from competitors are important in the competitive low-cost business environment. It is imperative for low-cost airlines to emphasise satisfaction as it influences their customers’ behavioural intentions (Saha and Theingi, 2009) and to analyse the behaviour of existing and potential customers (Grigolon et al., 2012). In this context, the provision of excellent service quality and high customer satisfaction, especially what drives customer satisfaction and whether it influences the purchase intentions and induces repeat purchases, becomes the main issue and challenges facing low-cost airlines.

Research methodology

This study employs a qualitative framework. An inductive approach was adopted to address the research objectives that are subjective in nature and within an interpretative paradigm. Specifically, it focusses on the customer’s underlying meaning of low airfare and satisfaction, of which little is known. Thus, it requires a detailed, clear explanation and description from the informants. Qualitative research allows the collection of rich, in-depth and expressive data (Fodness and Murray, 2007; Walsh, 2003), to ‘understand the meaning people have constructed about their world and their experiences’, that is ‘how do people make sense of their experience?’ (Merriam & Associates, 2002: 5) and to explore ‘meanings, experiences, perceptions and feelings’ (Kumar, 2011: 20) by analysing how individuals describe social phenomenon occurring around them (Yin, 1994). Indeed, there has been an increasing interest in employing qualitative methods to investigate consumer behaviour and the experience of consumption (Beckman and Elliot, 2000). Interpretative analysis is appropriate ‘to explain and interpret the meaning of occurring social phenomena’ (Hussey and Hussey, 1997: 53) and to generate a deeper understanding of complicated behaviours.

In-depth interviews and participant observations on-site and on-board are deemed relevant research techniques and act as multidata source triangulation. This is vital to enhance the reliability of the qualitative data collected. The overdependence on one method has increasingly been questioned (Hartmann, 1988). There is a growing emphasis on the process of triangulation as a means of verifying results and eliminating methodological limitations or data and investigation bias (Decrop, 1999; Oppermann, 2000).

Arguably, multiple methods allow the researcher to achieve a fuller picture of the research. A holistic view to provide the ‘whole picture’ by viewing data drawn from different sources and the ‘true’ state of affairs can be achieved by cross-examination (Silverman, 2000). Thus, it enhances the validity and reliability of findings (Patton, 2002; Silverman, 2000), where cross validation of data is facilitated as well as combination of contextual and temporal observations with actors’ interpretations and social constructions from the interview responses (Chan, 2005). Likewise, it complements and supplements the strengths and weaknesses of in-depth interviewing and the participant observation techniques. Therefore, more credible and dependable information is gathered (Chan and Baum, 2007). A multimethod approach (observation, semi-structured interviews and document analysis) is adopted in the study of ecotourism and indigenous microenterprise formation in northern Australia (Fuller et al., 2004). Similar triangulated multiple qualitative data sources (interview and observation techniques) were adopted by Patton (2002) in his evaluation of educational and social service programmes.

Data collection and analysis

In-depth interviewing is used to understand the subjects through an oral assessment of human behavioural aspects in the process and experience of flying with low-cost airlines. A semi-structured interview protocol was employed to ensure sufficient flexibility and freedom for informants to respond; the same questions were asked. A single phrase or several significant statements grounded in the informants’own descriptions enhance the reliability and validity of the findings (Chan, 2009; Chan and Baum, 2007).

Participant observation provides a systematic approach for the description of human behaviours (verbal and non-verbal) during on-site experiences of low-cost airlines. Researchers can describe and reflect immediate events, activities, behaviours and interactions of participants at airports and in aircrafts, which shape and influence their meanings and satisfaction. This technique has been used in water rafting (Arnould and Price, 1993), visitor expectations and experiences of visiting a museum (Goulding, 2000) and observing conducted tours (Seaton, 2002); and in the consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction among tourists (Bowen, 2002).

A purposive sampling technique was adopted, and passengers waiting for their flights at the departure lounge at Malaysian low-cost airline hubs were chosen as interview informants. In-depth interviews lasting about 45 minutes were conducted using tape recordings with informed consent. Respondents were informed that they would be contacted again to validate the transcribed semi-structured interview. The key questions concerned the perception and meaning of low airfares during non-price and price promotional periods, satisfaction with flying with Malaysian low-cost airlines and positive repurchase and flying with low-cost airlines.

Multiple observations were obtained from similar service exchange sites, including the airport terminal entrance, check-in counter, departure lounge, departure hall to aircraft and arrival hall at different airport terminals and on-board different flights. On-board observations were conducted on AirAsia flights to Penang, Kota Kinabalu and Kuala Lumpur and Firefly flights to Penang, Johor Bahru and Kota Kinabalu at different dates, times, flights and airports to ensure reliability and dependability of data. The observation data sheet was used to record verbal and non-verbal behaviour of passengers’ reaction to events, group behaviour and tangible environment at the selected airport terminals and on-board flights. Descriptive and reflective field notes were written during each observation session. The in-depth interview audio tapes were transcribed verbatim prior to and to ensure the authenticity and richness of data. The conceptual-driven data were analysed using qualitative analysis techniques. The observation field notes and transcribed interviews were read and reread carefully to familiarise with and ‘immerse’ in the collected data until a set of comprehensive categories and themes emerged about the meaning of low airfare and satisfaction. The coding unit was mostly based on a single phrase or several significant statements that generate themes related to the research objectives. Key themes of meanings of low airfare and satisfaction emerged from the data were linked to theoretical constructs of low airfare, price promotions and satisfaction. Observations and in-depth interview data were cross-examined to achieve credibility and confirmability of the findings and to complement and supplement each other. Triangulation allows cross validation of verbal and visual data that subjectively describe the feelings of informants. Hence, the findings were rich, comprehensive and reflective of the respondents and the inquiry (Chan, 2005; Malterud, 2001).

Data collection was conducted from May 2009 to March 2011, at the Low Cost Carrier Terminal at Sepang, SkyPark Terminal of Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport in Subang, Terminals One and Two of Kota Kinabalu International Airport, Penang International Airport and Kuala Lumpur International Airport. In all, 11 observations and 22 semi-structured interviews were conducted before data saturation was achieved. All the informants are Malaysians, being a mix of Malays, Chinese and Indians.

Findings and discussions

Meaning of low airfare during non-price and price promotional periods

A range of meanings of low airfare between non-price and price promotional periods emerged from the interview responses, as reported in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1.

Meaning of low airfare during non-price promotional period.

No.	Interview responses and informants	Themes	Previous studies
1	‘low fare means … price is cheap…’ (Informant no. 1)	Cheap	Forgas et al., (2010); Rao and Monroe (1989); Lehmann and Winer (2005); O'Connell and Williams (2005)
2	‘low fare? … it means cheap or to me’ (Informant no. 3)	Cheap
3	‘low fare to me is cheap’ (Informant no. 6)	Cheap
4	‘… end of this year we are going to Bali, when we booked the flights there is no promotion the low fare we brought is still consideredcheap …’ (Informant no. 4)	Cheap
5	‘Price is cheap means low quality of service. Because it is cheap, therefore the service is like that’ (Informant no. 13)	Cheap and low-quality services
6	‘During the aircraft landing, it is a rough landing. Sometimes service is fast and efficientbut sometimes service can be very slow, again, this lives up to the low fare connotation … it is understandable because of the lower fare …’ (Informant no. 20)	Inconsistency in service efficiencies
7	‘low fare means cheap and simple services … and less services attributes provided …’ (Informant no. 12) ‘… you pay lesser fare, you get less service … it is very natural’ (Informant no. 7) ‘For the low airfare paid, I do not require the extra treatment like the food and all that …’ (Informant no. 2)	Cheap, simple and less services
8	‘… you are not paying a big price, you have a place to sit and simple service and you reach your place’ (Informant no. 14)	Simple service, core product
9	‘when paying for the low fare … it means cheap but we do expectminimum safety standard … and on times services for depart and arrival’ (Informant no. 18)	Cheap, safe and on time	Franke (2004)
10	‘For the low airfare paid, as long as I can go to that place’ (Informant no. 2) ‘Other thingsdon’t matter. So long as they – it getme to the destination because I am not paying to enjoy on board experience. Paying to get to the destination’(Informant no. 17) ‘… I am not paying much airfare and I have already adjusted my mindset that, yes, I am just flying, I mean I am just taking a bus, a public transport – that kind of thing …’(Informant no. 9)	Mode of transportation	Jiang (2007)

Table 2.

Meaning of low airfare during price promotional period.

No.	Interview responses and informants	Themes	Previous studies
1	‘it is value for money if I can book at a very very cheap price, like zero fare … during price promotion’ (Informant no. 11)	‘Value for money’	Murphy and Prichard (1997); Stevens (1992)
2	‘low fare means value for money when I purchase during promotion’ (Informant no. 5)
3	‘during promotion, it is value for money. But if not promotion, it is not value for money’ (Informant no. 12)
4	‘it is value for money during the promotion period …’ (Informant no. 2)
5	‘to me, it is really good price and value for money to purchase and fly during the price promotion …’ (Informant no. 1)
6	‘for us as family, we fly Air Asia during the price promotion … because the fare paid is value for money …’ (Informant no. 18)

The meanings of low airfare include ‘cheap’, ‘low quality, simple and less services’, ‘on time and safe’ and ‘mode of transportation’ during the non-price promotions.

The data showed that the low airfare charged by Malaysian low-cost airlines is embedded in the informants’ minds to mean ‘cheap price’. The finding consisted of the studies by Forgas et al. (2010), Rao and Monroe (1989), Lehmann and Winer (2005) and O'Connell and Williams (2005). Cheap fare means a low level of and simple service, echoing the finding of Forgas et al. (2010). Despite the low airfare paid and less service attributes, informants do not want to compromise on the safety and punctuality of low-cost airlines; as Franke (2004) noted, low-cost airlines should provide reliable and safe flying. Some informants indicated that low airfare means only the purchase of a basic transport service – an exchange of the core benefit of a point-to-point transport service as noted by Jiang (2007). Other informants expect a simple, straightforward and hassle-free air transport service and a basic, simple, consistent and smooth process to reach the intended destination; as one informant said, ‘for low fare paid…I just want to go in airline, land, come out from the airline. I board the airplane, seated, take off, serve…I am happy if consistency is there’ (Informant no. 5).

However, during the price promotional period, most informants interpret low airfare as ‘value for money’, as shown in Table 2.

Some informants interpreted the meaning of low airfare during the price promotional period as value for money if the air ticket is priced at zero airfare or at a promotional price. This finding consisted of studies by Murphy and Prichard (1997) and Stevens (1992).

Satisfaction of low-cost airline passengers

Empirical findings show that the satisfaction of low-cost airline passengers is associated with meeting low or minimum expectations, delivering promises made and smooth flying experiences and that dissatisfaction is non-durable, as reported in Table 3.

Table 3.

Meaning of satisfaction.

No.	Interview responses and informants	Themes	Previous studies
1	‘I am satisfied. With the price paid, I do not expect much’ (Informant no. 2)	Low expectation	Chan, 2005; Chon, 1989
2	‘… my expectations are low. Ahh … I am pretty satisfied … My minimum expectations satisfied me … it just covers my basic expectations …’ (Informant no. 7)	Low expectation, meeting minimum expectations
3	‘… because of my expectations are low … I am quite satisfied’ (Informant no. 15)	Low expectation
4	‘Here I am paying half the price, so my expectation must also be lower you know. That means they have fulfilled my expectations’ (Informant no. 8)	Minimal expectation is fulfilled, low expectation
5	‘The services offered by AirAsia and Firefly are similar … I am satisfied because I have low expectation on these airlines’ (Informant no. 20)	Low expectation
6	‘With the price paid, I am satisfied because I do not expect much’ (Informant no. 11)	Low expectation
7	‘I do not expect much … satisfaction is the airline delivered what they have promised’ (Informant no. 3)	Deliver promise
8	‘I encountered a little frustration and dissatisfaction … butI would fly again because is only a short-term frustration … every flying experience is different to me …’ (Informant no. 7)	Not every air travel experience was unpleasant	Giese and Cote, 2000
9	‘The whole process I go and check in then wait at the departure hall then I depart up to the flight, the flight go, the whole process go smooth, I am satisfied already’ (Informant no. 16)	Smooth flying

Empirical evidence showed that informants are generally satisfied with low-cost airlines as they are conscious about the meaning of the ‘no-frills’ service concept. They tend to set no, low or minimum expectations, as reported in Table 3. Many mentioned that they were satisfied as they have low expectations because of the low airfare paid. This suggests that as the expectation level decreases, satisfaction inevitably increases.

Informants have consciously mentioned the word ‘expectation’ in their responses to satisfaction. This implies that expectation is an antecedent to informants’ satisfaction.

Interestingly, satisfaction is also associated with the aircraft’s physical features and the environment at the terminals. Both observation data and interview responses showed that the crowd, passenger seats, limited room between passenger seats and cramped aircraft cabin environment indeed influence customer satisfaction. Observation data indicated that crowd behaviour and crowd boarding at the Low Cost Carrier Terminal Subang Airport differs from that at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. They do things more spontaneously, walk faster, queue though it is unnecessary because their seats are confirmed, walk faster when boarding and disembarking, stand up even before the seat belt signs are off and prefer to come out quickly from the plane. The boarding process is like boarding a bus at a bus station (Observation nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5). These findings are reflected in the interview responses: ‘low-cost carrier terminal is like Puduraya (the main bus station in Kuala Lumpur)…very noisy, very haphazard, very chaotic’ (Informant no. 10); ‘… if we can cut queue we cut…enjoyment is there. They do things more spontaneous, faster, rush for seat, quickly come out from the plane’ (Informant no. 1); ‘I dislike…when you board the plane, people rushed to queue’ (Informant no. 13); and ‘On board aircraft, sometimes passengers get too noisy, that can be quite off-putting…most of the time, yes, the crowd affects me’.

At some check-in counters, many passengers who were travelling in groups did not line up properly in a straight line as a group.The crowd was large and was followed by several groups with four to five persons, and one could hardly see where the line was from the back (Observation nos. 1, 2, 4, 7 and 10). This is supported by the response ‘we are lining up there and then suddenly someone will just cut queue, so you feel frustrated’ (Informant no. 21).

Most informants noted that ‘an uncomfortable passenger seat affected their satisfaction as they had to bear with the feeling of being distressed because of small seating space on-board, as expressed by ‘I dislike the physical size of it, the seats are not so comfortable…the seats are not so adjustable so they are not so uncomfortable’ (Informant no. 5); ‘… I feel a bit cramped when seating, like too small the place to be comfortable …’ (Informant no. 11); ‘In the aircraft, the seat is too cramp, this is really unbearable. The environment in the aircraft no good …’ (Informant no. 12) and ‘I am not happy with the seat space…it is not comfortable for long distance and’ (Informant no. 20).

This seems to suggest that informants’ satisfaction are greatly affected by the seat, which is the core product. The comfort of the passenger seat is vital for low-cost airlines as a mode of transportation. Gountas and Gountas (2007) pointed out that these leisure travellers are on holiday and are in an easy-going mood, a positive mood influences their overall satisfaction (del Bosque and San Martin, 2008) with the flight experience.

Evidently, the new market segment created by Malaysian low-cost airlines comprises previous non-customer groups who are conscious about the meaning of the no-frills service concept and the low airfare paid. The findings of travellers’ satisfaction in the context of Malaysian low-cost airlines are interesting and novel. They tend to accept any service level from low-cost airlines and lower their expectations. Subsequently, satisfaction means meeting low or minimum expectations that are related to the low airfare paid. It is affirmed that in conditions of price–service performance consistency, customers were able to accept that ‘the delivered service performance is commensurate with the price charged’ (Voss et al., 1998: 56).

Interestingly, satisfaction is viewed as unimportant to price-sensitive customers as they would continue to travel on low-cost airlines owing to lower airfares and not because they were satisfied with their service performance. Numerous informants are satisfied with low-cost airlines and state that their dissatisfaction is non-durable. Every air travel experience on low-cost airlines is different, and it is contended that one unpleasant air travel experience does not represent subsequent experiences, as evidenced by ‘I did not expect much, disappointment is acceptable…Low-cost airline service is unpredictable. Every traveling experience is different …’ (Informant no. 1); ‘If I have a bad service experience, I think I will still buy because every flying experience is not the same’ (Informant no. 11) and ‘I would say I will still continue to travel with the low-cost airlines if I ever encountered a bad service experience. One experience could be due to human error. When I travel another time, the experience will be different’ (Informant no. 21).

This implies that informants are thus more forgiving toward any unpleasant service experiences as their dissatisfaction is non-durable and justify the same by airfare paid (Churchill and Peter, 1998: 298). Informants’expectations and their emphasis on the set of service attributes also vary over repeated service experiences, and this influences customer satisfaction (Mittal et al., 2001).

Evidently, positive mood leads to repeat purchase with Malaysian low-cost airlines because travellers enjoy the travelling experience with their family members and friends, as noted by ‘My trip to Kuching…my wife booked the low cost airline…you know…all of us wanted to go in a family’ (Informant no. 10); and ‘… I get to travel with my friends more often’(Informant no. 11). The informants’ responses revealed the importance of social connections with family, friends and colleagues. The term ‘social connectedness’, an emergent theme, means ‘the sense of belonging that requires interaction with others’ (Kopf and Wolf, 2007: 838), and it accurately depicts the meaning constructed by travellers of the value of low-cost air travel. In Malaysian low-cost airline context, many small social groups comprising family members or friends were happy to travel together while queuing at the check-in counter, waiting in the departure hall, boarding the aircraft and travelling in the aircraft. Individuals in these groups talked loudly and excitedly and often joked and laughed happily. This shows that positive mood influences their satisfaction. They usually travel with family members, friends and colleagues with whom they feel comfortable and can chat, joke and spend time. Families with young children tended to run after their children while walking toward the aircraft during boarding. They also liked to take photographs while walking toward the aircraft and inside the aircraft. This highlights the importance of social connectedness among leisure travellers as recorded in Observation nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. However, these scenarios may be different from other countries, such as an individualistic country like the United States, Germany or New Zealand.

Conclusions, limitations and future research

This study concludes that there is a difference in the meaning of lower airfare during non-price and price promotional periods. The meaning of low airfare is associated with low price paid, low-quality service and performance, simple and less services and a mode of transportation. The availability of improved services and customer service appears unimportant if the airfare is much lower than that of the full-service airlines. Service attributes or brand name are not important for passengers purchasing a basic transportation service to a destination. Low airfare during a price-promotion period means value for money if purchased at zero or lowest published airfare, suggesting that the airfare need only be much lower than the normal airfare. Greater attention to reliability, convenience, smooth flying, consistency of efficiency of services and safety is vital to low-cost airlines in the context of low airfare paid. The low expectation level set strongly determines the travellers’ satisfaction along with factors such as crowds and physical features of the aircraft. Social connectedness or being able to travel with friends and family emerged as an important factor influencing satisfaction, and it was attributed to the positive purchase behaviour of low-cost airlines. Existing travellers using Malaysian low-cost airlines weigh the perceived benefits against the perceived costs of travelling by such airlines. Hence, low airfare, price promotion or satisfaction alone is not an effective competitive strategy to attract positive repeat purchases. This seems to suggest that low-cost airlines need to revise and develop appropriate pricing, promotion and marketing strategies based on a service marketing mix that is relevant to attract, retain and satisfy customers in the long term. For example, Malaysian low-cost airlines should develop a continuous marketing communication campaign and adopt an emotional and fun positioning and themes to convey the perceived social connectedness value and pleasurable travel experience.

This study contributes to an understanding of what low airfare and satisfaction mean and to the theoretical perspective of pricing and satisfaction. It serves as valuable information to understand leisure travellers’ behaviour with regard to low-cost airlines and pricing strategies, which reflect customers’ expectation and operational realities. It also serves as useful information for developing effective pricing strategies in a holistic manner that meets or exceeds price expectations and passenger satisfaction. It adds to the existing literature on low-cost airlines and customer satisfaction in Malaysia.

The limitations of this study arise from the sample selection that was focused solely on repeat domestic leisure travellers and the fact that all the informants were Malaysians. Future research may widen the sample to include first-time travellers, corporate and business travellers and foreign tourists. It may also consider the willingness to pay for extra services and additional space between passenger seats to assist Malaysian low-cost airlines in their product bundling strategy.

Footnotes

Funding

This research is funded by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme, Ministry of Higher Education. The Project Code is FRG0226-SSK-2010.

References

Al-Sabbahy

Ekinchi

Riley

(2004) An investigation of perceived value dimensions: implications for hospitality research. Journal of Travel Research 42(3): 226–234.

Anniah

(2002) Marketing low cost airlines in Malaysia: An exploratory study. Master Thesis, University of Nottingham, 2007.

Ariffin

Salleh

AHM

Aziz

Asbudin

(2010) Service quality and satisfaction for low cost carriers. International Review of Business Research Papers 6(1): 47–56.

Arnould

Price

(1993) River magic: extraordinary experience and the extended service experience. Journal of Consumer Research 20(1): 24–45.

Baker

DMA

(2013) Service quality and customer satisfaction in the airline industry: a comparison between legacy airlines and low-cost airlines. American Journal of Tourism Research 2(1): 67–77.

Beckman

Elliot

(eds) (2000) Interpretive Consumer research, Paradigms, Methodologies and Application. Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Bieger

Wittmer

(2006) Air transport and tourism: perspectives and challenges for destinations, airlines and governments. Journal of Air Transport Management 12(1): 40–46.

Bowen

(2002) Research through participant observation in tourism: a creative solution to the measurement of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction (CS/D) among tourists. Journal of Travel Research 41: 4–14.

Campbell

Vigar-Ellis

(2012) The importance of choice attributes and the positions of the airline within the South African domestic passenger airline industry as perceived by passengers at Durban international airport. South African Business Review 16(2): 97–119.

10.

Campo

Yague

(2007) Effects of price promotions on the perceived price. International Journal of Service Industry Management 18(3): 269–286.

11.

Castillo-Manzano

Lopez-Valpuesta

Gonzalez-Laxe

(2011) The effects of the LCC boom on urban tourism fabric: the viewpoint of tourism managers. Tourism Management 32(5): 1085–1095.

12.

Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation (2009) Global LCC Outlook Report 2009.

13.

Chan

JKL

(2005) Guest satisfaction dimension in the ecolodge context. PhD Thesis, The Scottish Hotel School, University of Strathclyde, UK, 2005.

14.

Chan

JKL

(2009) The consumption of museum service experiences: the benefit and value of museum experiences. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 18 (2 & 3): 173–196.

15.

Chan

JKL

Baum

(2007) Ecotourists’ perception of ecotourism experience in lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(5): 574–590.

16.

Chang

Wildt

(1994) Price, product information and purchase intention: an empirical study. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 22(1): 16–27.

17.

Charoensettasilp

(2013) Attitude and needs of Thai people in selecting domestic low-cost airlines. International Journal of Information, Business and Management 3: 178–184.

18.

Chitnis

(2006) Satisfaction formation process for Iranian airline passenger. Master Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, 2006.

19.

Chon

(1989) The role of destination image in tourism: a review and discussion. The Tourist Review 45(2): 2–9.

20.

Churchill

Jr Peter

(1998) Marketing. Creating Value for Customers. 2nd ed. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.

21.

Cronin

Taylor

(1992) Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing 56: 55–68.

22.

Czudar

Ruwinska

Ruck

(2007) Customers’ perception of Wizz Air: the largest low fare low cost airline in Central Eastern Europe. Bachelor Dissertation in Strategic Marketing, University of Halmstad. Available at: dspace.hh.se/dspace/bitstream/2082/1213/1/Corrected_version_of_dissertation.pdf (accessed 25 November 2007)

23.

del Bosque

San Martin

(2008) Tourist satisfaction. A cognitive-affective model. Annals of Tourism Research 35(2): 551–573.

24.

Decrop

(1999) Triangulation in qualitative tourism research. Tourism Management 20: 157–161.

25.

Fodness

Murray

(2007) Passengers’ expectations of airport service quality. Journal of Services Marketing 21(7): 492–506.

26.

Forgas

Moliner

Sanchez

Palau

(2010) Antecedents of airline passenger loyalty: low-cost versus traditional airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management 16(4): 229–233.

27.

Firoiu

Gheorghe

(2005) Airline business models and leisure travel in Europe. Available at: http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:mlT8EEtnT1EJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 (accessed 26 August 2010)

28.

Franke

(2004) Competition between network carriers and low-cost carriers retreat battle or breakthrough to a new level of efficiency? Journal of Air Transport Management 10(1): 15–21.

29.

Friesen

(2005) Perceived price fairness in the airline industry: a customer perspective. SiB Kongress Aviation Student Research Workshop. Available at: http://www.garsonline.de/Downloads/050609/Friesen_paper.pdf (accessed 5 December 2007)

30.

Fuller

Buultjens

Cummings

(2004) Ecotourism and indigenous micro-enterprise formation in northern Australia opportunities and constraints. Tourism Management 26: 891–904.

31.

Giese

Cote

(2000) Defining customer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science Review 2000(1): 1–24. Available at: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/giese01-2000.pdf. (accessed 23 September 2009)

32.

Gilbert

Child

Bennett

(2001) A qualitative study of the current practices of “no frills” airlines operating in the UK. Journal of Vacation Marketing 7(4): 302–315.

33.

Goh

(2005) Low cost carriers in Southeast Asia: a preliminary analysis. In: Delfmann

Baum

Auerbach

Albers

(eds) Strategic Management in the Aviation Industry. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, pp. 143–116.

34.

Gountas

(2007) Personality orientations, emotional states, customer satisfaction and intention to repurchase. Journal of Business Research 60(1): 72–75.

35.

Graf

Maas

(2008) Customer value from a customer perspective: a comprehensive review. Journal fur Betriebswirtschaft 58(1): 1–20.

36.

Grigolon

Kemperman

ADAM

Timmermans

HJP

(2012) The influence of low-fare airlines on vacation choices of students: results of a stated portfolio choice experiment. Tourism Management 33: 1174–1184.

37.

Goulding

(2000) The museum environment and the visitor experience. European Journal of Marketing 34 (3/4): 261–273.

38.

Gursoy

Chen

Kim

(2005) The US airlines relative positioning based on attributes of service quality. Tourism Management 26(1): 57–67.

39.

Hartmann

(1988) Combining field methods in tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research 15: 88–105.

40.

Hess

Adler

Polak

(2007) Modelling airport and airline choice behaviour with the use of stated preference survey data. Transportation Research Part E 43: 221–233.

41.

Hooper

(2005) The environment for Southeast Asia's new and evolving airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management 11(5): 335–347.

42.

Hung

Huang

Chen

(2003) Service quality evaluationby service quality performance matrix. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 14(1): 79–89.

43.

Hussey

(1997) Business Research. A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. New York, NY: Palgrave.

44.

Jiang

(2007) Competitive strategy for low cost airlines. In: Arnott

(ed) 13th Asia Pacific Management Conference, MonashUniversity, Melbourne, Australia,18-20 November 2007, pp. 431–436.

45.

Kim

Lee

(2010) Customer satisfaction using low cost carriers. Tourism Management 32(2): 235–243.

46.

Kok

(2008) AirAsia unleashes its X-factor. Star, 27 September: BW8-9.

47.

Kopf

Wolf

(2007) Nostalgia and the need for social connectedness: implications for marketing management. Proceedings of the Southwest Decision Sciences Institute 38th Annual Conference. Southwest Decision Sciences Institute. pp. 837–846.

48.

Kumar

(2011) Research Methodology. A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. 3rd ed. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.

49.

Laura

(2007) Low cost strategies in the context of global market dynamic. Journal of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University Lasi.

50.

Lee

AHO

(2008) Understanding consumer preference between low cost airlines and full service carriers: a study on consumer choice and decisions. Master Thesis, University of Nottingham, 2008.

51.

Lehmann

Winer

(2005) Product management (4th ed). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

52.

Lewis

Shoemaker

(1997) Price-sensitivity measurement: a tool for the hospitalityindustry. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly 38(2): 44–54.

53.

Line

Runyan

(2012) Hospitality marketing research: recent trends and future directions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31: 477–488.

54.

Lovelock

(1996) Services marketing. 3rd ed. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

55.

Malterud

(2001) Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet 358(9280): 483–488.

56.

Mansor

Muhammad

Khalid

(2010) Future of air travel industry: relation of growth and consumer satisfaction. International Journal of Economics Research 1(1): 19–37.

57.

Mardi

Sedlenieks

(2004) Would the current travellers choose to try low cost airlines? Application of the Kelvin Lancaster model on Riga/Tallinn – Stockholm transportation market. SSE Riga Working Papers, 4(59). Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm School of Economics, Rigas Ekonomikas Augstskola.

58.

Martinez-Gracia

Royo-Vela

(2010) Segmentation of low cost flights users at secondary airports. Journal of Air Transport Management 16(4): 234–237.

59.

Mason

(2001) Marketing low cost airline service to business travellers. Journal of Air Transport Management 7(2): 103–109.

60.

Mason

Alamdari

(2007) EU network carriers, low cost carriers and consumer behaviour: a Delphi study of future trends. Journal of Air Transport Management 13(5): 299–310.

61.

Merriam

and Associates (2002) Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

62.

Mittal

Katrichis

Kumar

(2001) Attribute performance and customer satisfaction over time: evidence from two field studies. Journal of Services Marketing 15(5): 343–356.

63.

Murphy

Pritchard

(1997) Destination price-value perception: an examination of origin and seasonal influences. Journal of Travel Research 35(3): 16–22.

64.

O'Connell

Williams

(2005) Passengers’ perceptions of low cost airlines and full service carriers: a case study involving Ryanair, Aer Lingus, Air Asia and Malaysia Airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management 11(4): 259–272.

65.

Oppermann

(2000) Triangulation: a methodological discussion. International Journal of Tourism Research 2: 141–146.

66.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Saga Publication.

67.

Petrick

Backman

(2002) An examination of the construct of perceived value for the prediction of golf travelers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel Research 41(1): 38–45.

68.

Poh

Mohayidin

(2011a) Competitive pricing strategies of low cost airlines in the perspective of game theory. International Conference on Socially and Economics Development 10: 490–494.

69.

Poh

Mohayidin

(2011b) Dimensions of price satisfaction: a study in the low cost airlines industry. In: 2nd International Conference on Business and Economics Research- ICBER Proceeding, Conference Master Resources (SA0162468-A), Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia, pp. 1806–1812.

70.

Power

and Associates (2012) North America airline satisfaction study. Available at: http://www.travelagentcentral.com/trends-research/low-cost-airlines-improve-passenger-satisfaction-35739. (accessed 2 August 2013).

71.

Rao

Monroe

(1989) The effect of price, brand name and store name on buyers' perception on product quality: an integrative review. Journal of Marketing Research 26(3): 351–357.

72.

Rizal

(2010) AirAsia: indeed the sky's the limit! Asian Journal of Management Cases 7(1): 7–31.

73.

Rust

Oliver

(1994) Service quality: Insights and implications from the frontier. In RT Rust and RL Oliver (eds.) Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, pp 1–19.

74.

Saha

Theingi

(2009) Service quality, satisfaction, and behavioural intentions. A study of low-cost airline carriers in Thailand. Managing Service Quality 19(3): 350–372.

75.

Sanchez-Fernandez

Iniesta-Bonillo

(2007) The concept of perceivedvalue: a systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory 7(4): 427–451.

76.

Seaton

(2002) Observing conducted tours: the ethnographic context in tourist research. Journal of Vacation Marketing 8(4): 309–319.

77.

Silverman

(2000) Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London, UK: Sage Publication.

78.

Stevens

(1992) Price value perception of travellers. Journal of Travel Research 31(2): 44–48.

79.

Sweeney

Soutar

Johnson

(1999) The role of perceived risk in the quality-value relationship: a study in a retail environment. Journal of Retailing 75(1): 77–105.

80.

Varki

Colgate

(2001) The role of price perceptions in an integrated model of behavioral intentions. Journal of Service Research 3(3): 232–240.

81.

Voss

Parasuraman

Grewal

(1998) The roles of price, performance and expectations in determining satisfaction in service exchanges. Journal of Marketing 62: 46–61.

82.

Walsh

(2003) Qualitative research: advancing the science and practice of hospitality. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 44: 66–74.

83.

Williams

(2001) Will Europe’s charter carriers be replaced by “no-frills” scheduled airlines? Air Transport Management 7(5): 77–286.

84.

Yeoh

Chan

JKL

(2011) Malaysian low cost airlines: key influencing factors on customers’ repeat purchase intention. World Applied Sciences Journal 12, 35–43.

85.

Yin

(1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

86.

Zeithaml

Bitner

(2000) Services Marketing. Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm. Boston, USA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

87.

Zeithaml

Bitner

(2001) Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firms. Boston, MA: Tata-McGraw Hill.