Key Determinants of Airline Loyalty Modeling in Thailand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, I recommend double checking English language and style. Second, I appreciate the scientific methodology used to prove the hypothesis in the paper and the usefulness of the research for the aviation industry. As a recommendation, I think the authors should better highlight the novelty and originality of their work and maybe the impact of these results on the market.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I am pleased to review this manuscript for publication consideration. This study develops a research model to identify effective factors to improve airline loyalty. As the authors point, this study could give insightful implications to the growing airline industry as well as the researchers who have interests. Though the data volume and the diversity of the constructs posed in this study are notable, the quality of theoretical discussion is not sufficient and new contributions are not displayed clearly. I would like to provide the authors with several comments and suggestions to improve this manuscript.
Introduction
[1]
In this chapter, the authors highlight the growth of some airports in the country. This makes readers confused if this study measures the service quality of airports or airlines. Even though airline companies provide customer services in the airport area as well, this study should avoid confusion.
In addition, in the last paragraph. The justification of why this study should pay attention to the additional airports does not make sense because of this concern.
[2]
No citation is inserted to support the market growth.
[3]
I think Table 1 should be included in the Literature Review.
Also, I do not know if this table can include “This study.” The labels already show what constructs this study examines.
[4]
Why did the authors limit to search articles published between 2004 and 2019? Was it because there are many articles related to the investigation of airline service loyalty?
I would suggest the authors to more emphasize the value of this research on proving the effects of trust, perceived risk, and switching cost on loyalty.
In Table 1, the authors presented research articles referred to in order to develop the constructs. However, no article is provided to explain ‘Commitment’ and ‘Attractiveness of competitor.’
Literature Review
[5]
This chapter only contains hypothesis development. Before defining each construct and developing hypotheses of the relationships between constructs, this research must provide a comprehensive discussion (literature review) regarding major theories and the relationships developed previous research.
Method
[6]
Was it a face-to-face survey or interview? The data sample looks like gathering responses with a questionnaire. Please clarify the method.
[7]
One of the important questions about this research. Did people participate in this survey/interview after arriving after their flight experience? What if they have not completed their airline experience before this survey? I wonder if they can answer some questions (ex. Items of Perceived service quality, value, satisfaction) before their flight. The authors must provide details about the time point of this survey/interview. Please explain how the participants can rate their experience at the airports.
[8]
Why did you consider the separation of regions? What does it mean?
Result
[9]
I think the bullet point style in the subchapter [4.3. Measurement model] is inappropriate for writing.
Conclusion and discussion
[10]
Some results of this research are different from previous studies (e.g., Jen, Tu, & Lu, 2011; Wen, Lan, & Cheng, 2005). To show the unique finding of this research, the authors should discuss compared with previous research. The current interpretation of the analysis results has mainly developed with the author’s thoughts related to the new airport’s characteristics. As I commented earlier, the airport services and airline services should be clearly separated in the discussion.
[11]
Practical implications are not organized well. As the authors mentioned in Introduction, this study would develop insightful suggestions for the industry.
[12]
This sentence should be proofread: “… and reasonable with the provided services Lee, Ng, Chan, Choy, Tai and Choi [7],Hussain, Al Nasser and Hussain [13].”
I hope these comments are useful for further steps.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper deals with the important topic of identifying and prioritizing passenger satisfaction attributes along with passenger characteritics, mainly loyalty and expected or perceived value of service in air transport. For the analysis, the authors selected the SEM methodology, which is undoubtedly one of the most popular methods for this purpose.
In the Introduction, some sentences definitely should be written about the current pandemic sitaution and its expected impact on air transport. Certainly, the short time could not have been sufficient to react on the crisis but some cautious thoughts are expected from the authors about the aussumingly negative impact of COVID-19.
The literature review definitely should be amended by the other large approach toward passenger satisfaction and preference analysis. Besides SEM, the another great group of techniques applied in satisfaction measurement is the multi-criteria decision making methods (MCDM). In comparison with SEM, the MCDM techniques contain consistency measure of responses by examining the intention of respondents and the given scores. This is not a tool in SEM. On the contrary, SEM provides a faster and easier survey process (just as the authors stated that the process took only 15 minutes at airports) and by using the latent and observed variable approach, positive and negative impacts can be both considered, which is not possible in MCDM. (please cite Hassan et al, 2013; Duleba et al, 2013; Ghorbanzadeh et al, 2019; Moslem et al, 2019; Alkharabsheh et al, 2019)
In Results section it must be emphasized that the results can be consiered consistent only by using the measuring tools of SEM, the Chronbach alpha and variance explanaition. It is acceptable but the real intentions of respondents cannot be measured directly in SEM.
Also, Table 3 should be reorganized by demonstrating the priority rank from the highest weight to the lowest, the table would be more understandable.
In the Conclusion, it has to be noted that improving serice quality cannot be done limitless, cost-benefit analysis is required before deciding the development of certain attributes of service quality.
Strongly recommended citations:
Duleba, S., Shimazaki, Y., Mishina, T.: An analysis on the connections of factors in a public transport system by AHP-ISM. Transport, 28(4), 404-412 (2013)
Hassan, M.N., Hawas, Y.E., Ahmed, K.: A multi-dimensional framework for evaluating the transit service performance. Transportation Research Part A. 50, 47-61 (2013)
Ghorbanzadeh, O., Moslem, S., Blaschke, T., Duleba, S.: Sustainable urban transport planning considering different stakeholder groups by an Interval-AHP decision support model. Sustainability 11(1), 9 (2019)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors
This is a very important issue relating to the loyalty of tourists to airlines. However, the article needs to be amended.
The layout should be changed, and certain sections should be extended.
Section 1 should be an introduction to the subject under consideration, without presenting Table 1. This table should be moved to Section 2.
Section 2, 'Materials and Methods', needs to be extended and to include the test sample selection, the description of the test tool, the rationale for the selection of variables. Here too, the variables should be described, and their selection justified. The statements taken into account and the manner of their verification should also be presented here.
Only then can the structure of the research sample be described here.
Section 5 conclusion and discussion should be separated, and the discussion of results should be presented first, only then the conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the efforts in revising the manuscript. I think several concerns were resolved, but I have some problems in terms of the quality of the literature review and discussion. Here are my comments on this revised manuscript.
[1]
This study targets the Thailand airline survey and examines the antecedents to customer loyalty. This research could provide better insights if the market has any special issues (not just growth since the industry has internationally grown in general.) to be researched for loyalty management. The authors would consider the more meaningful justification for this research in Introduction.
[2]
Introduction and Table 2 explain the previous studies using the Commitment and Attractiveness of Competitor, but Table 1 does not indicate the studies.
In addition, the authors newly added Table 2. Since the new table presents what constructs were tested in previous literature, Table 1 is not necessary anymore. I would suggest the authors check if Table 2 includes all papers of Table 1 and delete Table 1.
[3]
I think this sentence is not relevant to this study:
“Despite the Covid-19 pandemic, which has had an impact on airline service users, the situation is likely to recover shortly.”
If you think this is necessary, what is the justification?
It should also be “COVID.”
[3]
I still concern the quality of the literature review (as the authors responded to Point 8). What I pointed out was that the previous literature review only described definitions of the constructs and tested relationships in the previous study. I believe that a comprehensive summary of the airline customer behavior research stream and marketing research trends to address the importance of the investigation related to loyalty before listing the specific subchapters of describing them. I would the authors to consider the importance of the basic literature review.
[4]
Regarding your response 10, it is not enough to guarantee that the samples collected accurately reflect the airline services and passenger’s experiences with the THAILAND AIRLINES. The authors newly added this sentence: “The survey was conducted at the Arrival Terminal building with participants who qualified as passengers with traveling experience by plane” in data collection. However, as the authors mentioned this data was collected at two international airports (line 60: “Suvarnabhumi International Airport and Don Mueang International Airport”). First, just saying “experience by plan” does not guarantee that the respondent means he/she had experiences with Thailand airlines. What if the respondents assumed any flight service experiences like non-Thailand airlines? Second, when they used Thailand airlines would have influences in answering the questionnaire or interview. What if they flew a long time ago? I think this is a very important point for publication consideration.
[5]
Discussion mainly summarized the results and the revised manuscript tried to link the findings of this study with previous findings. However, several interpretations seem subjective. For example, lines 344-345 “For H12 (Perceived risk), this was because passengers trusted that traveling by air achieved greater convenience and safety compared weighted against the risk to body and mind” does not look valid to explain the hypothesis rejection. For the interpretation, the authors need to find reliable reasons to support your claims.
[6]
In Introduction, the authors aimed to provide insights for marketing strategies (lines 53-54, “Furthermore, the results can be utilized as a road map for developing marketing strategies, increasing customers, and efficiently developing new campaigns according to consumer demands.”) from this research outcome. Even though the authors changed the conclusion part (response 14). However, no new implication was provided in Conclusion. The current suggestion in Conclusion is some kind of cliché in existing research. What are the unique outcomes and takeaways in this study differentiated from previous studies?
I hope these comments are useful for further steps.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has significantly improved. I recommend the paper for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors
The manuscript has been substantially improved, but I have one more comment.
The third section describing the methodology should include a table with all statements in 11 dimensions. This table should also indicate where the individual statements have been quoted from.
Then only abbreviations, e.g. item 1, item 2, etc., should be included in Table 4.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
