Category

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter presents results and discussion of primary research based on survey questionnaire. The chapter begins with survey results followed by regression and correlation analysis. Finally the chapter ends with a discussion if aims and objectives of the study and how they have been achieved using primary and secondary research.

Survey Questionnaire Results

The questionnaire asked customers to opine if their airline company offers competitive prices. 14% of the customers marked Highly disagree, 19% of the customers marked Disagree, 25% of the customers marked Neutral, 23% of the customers marked Agree , and 19% of the customers marked Highly  agree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 14 14.0 14.0 14.0
disagree 19 19 19 33.0
Neutral 25 25 25 58
Agree 23 23 23 81
Highly Agree 19 19 19 100
Total 100 100 100

In addition, surveyor also inquired whether customers think that their airline company provides competitive and comparable services. In response 14% of respondent opined highly disagree, 14% of respondent opined disagree, 34% of respondent remained neutral, 16% of respondent opined agree, and 22% of respondent opined highly disagree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 14 14.0 14.0 14.0
disagree 12 12 12 26
Neutral 34 34 34 60
Agree 24 24 24 84
Highly Agree 16 16 16 100
Total 100 100 100

In addition, surveyor also inquired whether customers think that their airline company ensures passengers safety. In response 13% of respondent opined highly disagree, 14% of respondent opined disagree, 25% of respondent remained neutral, 18% of respondent opined agree, and 30% of respondent opined highly disagree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 13 13 13 13
disagree 14 14 14 27
Neutral 25 25 25 52
Agree 18 18 18 70
Highly Agree 30 30 30 100
Total 100 100 100

The questionnaire asked customers to opine whether their airline service provides high level of security for passengers. 16% of the customers marked highly disagree, 12% of the customers marked Disagree, 30% of the customers marked Neutral, 15% of the customers marked Agree, and 27% of the customers marked Highly agree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly Disagree 16 16 16 16
Disagree 12 12 12 28.0
Neutral 30 30 30 58.0
Agree 15 15 15 73.0
Highly Agree 27 27 27 100.0
Total 76 100 100

In addition, surveyor also inquired whether customers think that their airline companies are punctual in terms of flight timings. In response 13% of respondent opined highly disagree, 13% of respondent opined disagree, 31% of respondent remained neutral, 23% of respondent opined agree, and 20% of respondent opined highly disagree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly Disagree 13 13 13 13
Disagree 13 13 13 26
Neutral 31 31 31 57
Agree 23 23 23 28
Highly Agree 20 20 20 100
Total 76 100 100

The questionnaire asked customers to opine about fluent check-in service of respective airline. 8% of the customers marked Highly disagree, 17% of the customers marked Disagree, 32% of the customers marked Neutral, 17% of the customers marked Agree, and 36% of the customers marked Highly agree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 8 8 8 8
Agree 17 17 17 25
Neutral 32 32 32 57
Disagree 17 17 17 74
Strongly disagree 26 26 26 100
Highly disagree 26 100 26 23
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 12 12 12 12
Disagree 10 10 10 22
Neutral 39 39 39 61
Agree 18 18 18 79.0
Highly Agree 21 21 21 100
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

The questionnaire asked customers to opine about the quality of food and beverages. 17% of the customers marked highly disagree, 8% of the customers marked Disagree, 31% of the customers marked Neutral, 22% of the customers marked Agree, and 22% of the customers marked highly agree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly Disagree 17 17 17 17
Disagree 8 8 8 25
Neutral 31 31 31 56
Agree 22 22 22 78
Highly Agree 22 22 22 100
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

In addition, surveyor also inquired whether customers think the seat were comfortable. In response 9% of respondent opined highly disagree, 21% of respondent opined disagree, 22% of respondent remained neutral, 23% of respondent opined agree, and 25% of respondent opined highly disagree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly Disagree 9 9 9 9
Disagree 21 21 21 30
Neutral 22 22 22 52
agree 23 23 23 75
highly agree 25 25 25 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

The questionnaire asked customers to opine about the cleanliness of cabin. 14% of the customers marked highly disagree, 17% of the customers marked Disagree, 22% of the customers marked Neutral, 19% of the customers marked Agree, and 28% of the customers marked highly agree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly Disagree 14 14 14 14
Disagree 17 17 17 31
Neutral 22 22 22 53
agree 19 19 19 72
highly agree 28 28 28 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

In addition, surveyor also inquired whether customers think that whether luggage services were adequate to meet their needs. In response 11% of respondent opined highly disagree, 12% of respondent opined disagree, 35% of respondent remained neutral, 21% of respondent opined agree, and 21% of respondent opined highly disagree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 11 11 11 11
DisAgree 12 12 12 23
Neutral 35 35 35 58
agree 21 21 21 79
Highly Agree 21 21 21 100
Total 100 100.0 100.0

The questionnaire asked customers to opine whether their airline service meets their expectations. 18% of the customers marked Highly disagree, 9% of the customers marked Disagree, 40% of the customers marked Neutral, 20% of the customers marked Agree , and 13% of the customers marked highly agree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 18 18 18 18
DisAgree 9 9 9 27
Neutral 40 40 40 67
agree 20 20 20 87
Highly Agree 13 13 13 100
Total 100 100.0 100.0

In addition, surveyor also inquired whether customers think that their airline company meets their travelling needs. In response 15% of respondent opined highly disagree, 13% of respondent opined disagree, 30% of respondent remained neutral, 20% of respondent opined agree, and 22% of respondent opined highly disagree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 15 15 15 15
DisAgree 13 13 13 28
Neutral 30 30 30 58
agree 20 20 20 78
Highly Agree 22 22 22 100
Total 100 100.0 100.0

The questionnaire asked customers to opine whether their airline company provides better services as compared to competitors. 10% of the customers marked highly disagree, 15% of the customers marked Disagree, 29% of the customers marked Neutral, 23% of the customers marked Agree, and 23% of the customers marked highly agree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 10 10 10 10
DisAgree 15 15 15 25
Neutral 29 29 29 54
agree 23 23 23 77
Highly Agree 23 23 23 100
Total 100 100.0 100.0

In addition, surveyor also inquired whether pricing policy of their airline service is better than competitors. In response 14% of respondent opined highly disagree, 12% of respondent opined disagree, 32% of respondent remained neutral, 19% of respondent opined agree, and 23% of respondent opined highly disagree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 14 14 14 14
DisAgree 12 12 12 26
Neutral 32 32 32 58
agree 19 19 19 77
Highly Agree 23 23 23 100
Total 100 100.0 100.0

The questionnaire asked customers to opine whether they had better flight experience in their airline service as compared to their experience in other airline company. 8% of the customers marked highly disagree, 13% of the customers marked Disagree, 42% of the customers marked Neutral, 19% of the customers marked Agree, and 18% of the customers marked highly agree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 8 8 8 8
DisAgree 13 13 13 21
Neutral 42 42 42 63
agree 19 19 19 82
Highly Agree 18 18 18 100
Total 100 100.0 100.0

In addition, surveyor also inquired whether customers were searching for another airline service or thinking to switch. In response 13% of respondent opined highly disagree, 12% of respondent opined disagree, 35% of respondent remained neutral, 21% of respondent opined agree, and 19% of respondent opined highly disagree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 13 13 13 13
DisAgree 12 12 12 25
Neutral 35 35 35 60
agree 21 21 21 81
Highly Agree 19 19 19 100
Total 100 100.0 100.0

The questionnaire asked customers to rate the overall performance of their airline service on a scale of 1 star to 5 stars. 16% of the customers marked 1 star, 8% of the customers marked 2 star, 35% of the customers marked 3 star, 16% of the customers marked r star, and 25% of the customers marked 5 star.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 16 16 16 16
DisAgree 8 8 8 24
Neutral 35 35 35 59
agree 16 16 16 75
Highly Agree 25 25 25 100
Total 100 100.0 100.0

In addition, surveyor also inquired whether customers give ratings on the basis of price and service quality. In response 9% of respondent opined highly disagree, 12% of respondent opined disagree, 40% of respondent remained neutral, 20% of respondent opined agree, and 19% of respondent opined highly disagree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 9 9 9 9
DisAgree 12 12 12 21
Neutral 40 40 40 61
agree 20 20 20 81
Highly Agree 19 19 19 100
Total 100 100.0 100.0

The questionnaire asked customers if they make repeat selection of airline on the basis of ratings. 11% of the customers marked highly disagree, 10% of the customers marked Disagree, 41% of the customers marked Neutral, 20% of the customers marked Agree, and 18% of the customers marked highly agree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 11 11 11 11
DisAgree 10 10 10 21
Neutral 41 41 41 62
agree 20 20 20 82
Highly Agree 18 18 18 100
Total 100 100.0 100.0

The questionnaire asked customers whether their ratings about airline are affected by staff behaviour. 16% of the customers marked highly disagree, 14% of the customers marked Disagree, 30% of the customers marked Neutral, 16% of the customers marked Agree, and 24% of the customers marked highly agree.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Highly disagree 16 16 16 16
DisAgree 14 14 14 30
Neutral 30 30 30 60
agree 16 16 16 76
Highly Agree 24 24 24 100
Total 100 100.0 100.0

Correlation

The table below shows that the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between pre-flight expectations and ratings is .655 or 65.5% with a positive sign. A positive sign shows that there is positive relationship and therefore an increase score of pre-flight expectations is likely to cause an increase in ratings. Furthermore, since the coefficient is greater than 50% therefore it is categorised as strong positive relationship. Finally the significance level of correlation between pre-flight expectations and ratings is 0.000 (less than 0.05) and thus the correlation is statistically significant. Similarly, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between flight experience and ratings is .645or 64.5% with a positive sign. A positive sign shows that there is positive relationship and therefore an increase score of flight experience is likely to cause an increase in ratings. Furthermore, since the coefficient is greater than 50% therefore it is categorised as strong positive relationship. Finally the significance level of correlation between flight experience and ratings is 0.000 (less than 0.05) and thus the correlation is statistically significant. Finally, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between satisfaction and ratings is .645or 64.5% with a positive sign. A positive sign shows that there is positive relationship and therefore an increase score of satisfaction is likely to cause an increase in ratings. Furthermore, since the coefficient is greater than 50% therefore it is categorised as strong positive relationship. Finally the significance level of correlation between satisfaction and ratings is 0.000 (less than 0.05) and thus the correlation is statistically significant

Pre-flight expectation Flight Experience Satisfaction Ratings
pearson Collection 1 .622 589 655
Preflight Expectation sig (2-tailed) N 0.00 0.00 0.00
N 100 100 100 100
Pearson Correlation .622 1 554 645
Flight Experience Sig.(2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 100 100 100 100

Regression Analysis

The SPSS output for regression between pre-flight expectations and ratings shows that the coefficient of determination i.e. R-squared value is .429 or 42.9% which implies that the model explains 42.9% of variability in dependent variable i.e. ratings. Furthermore, the significance value is less than 0.05 which implies that the relationship between pre-flight expectations and ratings is statistically significant. Finally the beta value is .665 or 65.5% which implies that given a unit increase in the score of pre-flight expectations, it is likely that there will be a 65.5% increase in ratings. The model is statistically significant.  

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std error of the estimated
1 .655 .429 .424 .97038

a. Predictors : (Constant) , pre flight expectation 

Model Sum of squares df Mean Square F Sig
Regression 69.429 1 69.429 73.731 .000
1 Residual 92.281 98 .942
Total 161.710 99

a. Dependent Variable : Ratings

b. predictors: (Constant),pre flight expectation

Model Unstandarized coefficents Standardized Coefficients t Sig
1 (constant) B 1.155 std.Error .260 beta 4.438 .000
Pre flight expectation .654 .076 .655 8.587 .000

a.dependent variable Ratings

Similarly, the results for regression between flight experience and ratings shows that the coefficient of determination i.e. R-squared value is .416 or 41.6% which implies that the model explains 41.6% of variability in dependent variable i.e. ratings. Furthermore, the significance value is less than 0.05 which implies that the relationship between flight experience and ratings is statistically significant. Finally the beta value is .665 or 65.5% which implies that given a unit increase in the score of flight experience, it is likely that there will be a 65.5% increase in ratings. The model is statistically significant.

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std error of the estimated
1 .654 .416 .410 .98135

a.predictors (Constant) flight Experience 

Model Sum of squares df Mean Square F Sig
Regression 67.332 1 67.332 69.916 .000
1 Residual 94.378 98 .963
Total 161.710 99

a.predictors (Constant) flight Experience 

Discussion

a.Dependent Variable ratings

b.predictors (Constant), Flight experience 

Model Unstandarized coefficents Standardized Coefficients t Sig
1 (constant) B 1.326 std.Error .248 beta 5.347 .000
Pre flight expectation .624 .075 .645 8.362 .000

a.Dependent Variable ratings

 

Finally the results of regression analysis between satisfaction and ratings indicate that the coefficient of determination i.e. r-squared value is .408 or 40.8% which implies that the model explains 40.8% of variability in dependent variable i.e. ratings. Furthermore, the significance value is less than 0.05 which implies that the relationship between satisfaction and ratings is statistically significant. Finally the beta value is .638 or 63.8% which implies that given a unit increase in the score of satisfaction, it is likely that there will be a 63.8% increase in ratings. The model is statistically significant.

Discussion

The first aim of the study was to study the concept of high and low rating of airline services. This objective was achieved through secondary research in which this study explored the concepts in detail. According to secondary research findings lower rated airline companies could be regarded as low cost airline on the basis of their charging cost and provided services. Low cost airlines often have low budget as they have fixed priced on tickets and charging low fares for their services and provide less comfort to their customers and charge extra for providing complementary services like allocation of seats, boarding, and food priority (Graham, 2013). As mentioned in the study conducted by Liou et al (2011:1381), all these factors play essential role in making those airlines lower rated. Lower rated airlines are low cost carriers are competing on the basis of low price and use smaller and secondary airports, providingminimum services and have low seating capacity in the aircraft (Pearson 2016). Although, lower rated airline company’s charges low fares for their services, customers usually prefer highly rated airlines over lower rated airlines as they perceived that highly rated airlines provides all necessary and comfortable services to their customers. 

To study the relationship between rating and customer’s expectation, perceived performance, and satisfaction. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient between pre-flight expectations and ratings is .655 or 65.5%. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient between flight experience and ratings is .645or 64.5%. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient between satisfaction and ratings is .645or 64.5%. The correlation analysis clearly indicates that there are string positive relationship between dependent and independent variables. Furthermore, the regression analysis shows that a unit increase in the score of pre-flight expectations, it is likely that there will be a 65.5% increase in ratings. Furthermore, implies that given a unit increase in the score of flight experience, it is likely that there will be a 65.5% increase in ratings. Finally, a unit increase in the score of satisfaction, it is likely that there will be a 63.8% increase in ratings. The last objective of the study was to provide recommendation to the managers for increasing their service quality in order to achieve customers’ retention and satisfaction. a set of recommendations have been provide in the next chapter.

References

Aleksieva, N. M. (2011). Service quality perception analysis to define loyalty in the airline industry.

Baker, D. M. A. (2013). Service quality and customer satisfaction in the airline industry: a comparison between legacy airlines and low-cost airlines. American Journal of Tourism Research2(1), 67-77.

Baker, D. M. A. (2013). Service quality and customer satisfaction in the airline industry: a comparison between legacy airlines and low-cost airlines. American Journal of Tourism Research2(1), 67-77.

Baker, R., Brick, J. M., Bates, N. A., Battaglia, M., Couper, M. P., Dever, J. A., …andTourangeau, R. (2013). Summary report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, smt008.

Baltar, F., and Brunet, I. (2012). Social research 2.0: virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. internet Research22(1), 57-74.

Basfirinci, C., andMitra, A. (2015).A cross cultural investigation of airlines service quality through integration of Servqual and the Kano model. Journal of Air Transport Management42, 239-248.

Belobaba, P., Odoni, A., and Barnhart, C. (2015). The global airline industry.John Wiley and Sons.

Bogicevic, V., Yang, W., Bilgihan, A., andBujisic, M. (2013).Airport service quality drivers of passenger satisfaction. Tourism Review, 68(4), 3-18.

Bölke, S. (2014).Strategic Marketing Approaches Within Airline Management: How the Passenger Market Causes the Business Concepts of Full Service Network Carriers, Low Cost Carriers, Regional Carriers and Leisure Carriers to Overlap. Anchor Academic Publishing (aap_verlag).

Chen, C. F., and Chen, F. S. (2010).Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism management31(1), 29-35.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Dabholkar, P. A., and Sheng, X. (2012). Consumer participation in using online recommendation agents: effects on satisfaction, trust, and purchase intentions. The Service Industries Journal32(9), 1433-1449.

Diaconu, L. (2012). The Evolution of the European Low-cost Airlines ‘Business Models.Ryanair Case Study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences62, 342-346.

Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial marketing management39(1), 118-128.

Erdil, S. T., andYıldız, O. (2011).Measuring service quality and a comparative analysis in the passenger carriage of airline industry. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences24, 1232-1242.

Ernst, H., Hoyer, W. D., Krafft, M., and Krieger, K. (2011).Customer relationship management and company performance—the mediating role of new product performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science39(2), 290-306.

Evans, N., Stonehouse, G., and Campbell, D. (2012). Strategic management for travel and tourism.Taylor and Francis.

Freathy, P., and O’Connell, F. (2012).Spending time, spending money: passenger segmentation in an international airport. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research22(4), 397-416.

Gnanlet, A., andYayla-Kullu, H. M. (2013).Impact of International Presence on Service Supply Chain Quality. International Journal of Supply Chain Management2(3).

Goedeking, P. (2010). Networks in aviation: strategies and structures. Springer Science and Business Media.

Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems21(2), 135-146.

Graham, A. (2013). Understanding the low cost carrier and airport relationship: A critical analysis of the salient issues. Tourism Management36, 66-76.

Hsu, C. L., and Wu, C. C. (2011). Understanding users’ continuance of Facebook: An integrated model with the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, Expectation disconfirmation model, and flow theory. International Journal of virtual communities and social networking (IJVCSN)3(2), 1-16.

Jahn, D. (2011). Conceptualizing Left and Right in comparative politics: Towards a deductive approach. Party Politics17(6), 745-765.

Kärnä, S. (2014).Analysing customer satisfaction and quality in construction–the case of public and private customers. Nordic journal of surveying and real estate research2.

Kassim, N., andAsiah Abdullah, N. (2010). The effect of perceived service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty in e-commerce settings: A cross cultural analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics22(3), 351-371.

Kim, D. J. (2012).An investigation of the effect of online consumer trust on expectation, satisfaction, and post-expectation. Information Systems and E-Business Management10(2), 219-240.

Kim, Y. K., and Lee, H. R. (2011).Customer satisfaction using low cost carriers. Tourism Management32(2), 235-243.

Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage

Loïc, P. L. É., Lecocq, X., andAngot, J. (2010). Customer-integrated business models: a theoretical framework. [email protected] [email protected] gement13(4), 226-265.

Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage publications.

Meng, S. M., Liang, G. S., and Yang, S. H. (2011). The relationships of cruise image, perceived value, satisfaction, and post-purchase behavioral intention on Taiwanese tourists. African Journal of Business Management5(1), 19.

Monroe, C. (2012). Challenging in Delivering Quality Services: Balancing Customer Expectations and Perceptions in Airline Industry.

Oliver, R. L. (2014). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Routledge.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice, 23-33.

Pearson, J. (2016). The competitive strength of Asian network airlines in competing with low-cost carriers and the use of low-cost subsidiaries (Doctoral dissertation, © James Pearson).

Robinson, O. C. (2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology11(1), 25-41.

Romani, S., Grappi, S., andDalli, D. (2012). Emotions that drive consumers away from brands: Measuring negative emotions toward brands and their behavioral effects. International Journal of Research in Marketing29(1), 55-67.

Sadler, G. R., Lee, H. C., Lim, R. S. H., and Fullerton, J. (2010).Recruitment of hard‐to‐reach population subgroups via adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy. Business Research12(3), 369-374.

Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., andSaaeidi, S. A. (2015). How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Business Research68(2), 341-350.

Saunders, M. N. (2011). Research methods for business students, 5/e. Pearson Education.

Siddiqi, K. O. (2011). Interrelations between service quality attributes, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in the retail banking sector in Bangladesh. International Journal of Business and Management6(3), 12.

Smith, J. A. (Ed.). (2015). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. Sage.

Tam, J. L. M. (2011). The moderating effects of purchase importance in customer satisfaction process: An empirical investigation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour10(4), 205-215.

Taylor, P. C., and Medina, M. N. D. (2013). Educational research paradigms: From positivism to multiparadigmatic. The Journal of Meaning-Centered Education1(2), 1-13.

Thanasupsin, K., Chaichana, S., andPliankarom, S. (2010). Factors influencing mode selections of low-cost carriers and a full-service airline in Thailand. Transportation Journal, 35-47.

Tolpa, E. (2012). Measuring customer expectations of service quality: Case airline industry.

Turner III, D. W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. The qualitative report15(3), 754.

Udo, G. J., Bagchi, K. K., andKirs, P. J. (2010).An assessment of customers’e-service quality perception, satisfaction and intention. International Journal of Information Management30(6), 481-492.

Williams, C. (2011). Research methods. Journal of Business and Economics Research (JBER)5(3).

Yee, R. W., Yeung, A. C., and Cheng, T. E. (2010).An empirical study of employee loyalty, service quality and firm performance in the service industry. International Journal of Production Economics124(1), 109-120.