Gaps from the Literature

This literature review highlighted that there is a gap (No1) in the role that severity plays in service failure in the airline industry. According to the literature service recovery is usually poor (Keaveney, 1995) and a good service recovery process is good for building customer relationships (Maxham, 2001). Emphasis here has been placed on the severity of failure with the literature to reveal that when the severity is high there is greater failure perception of the customer (Smith et al., 1999; Tax et al., 1998; Weun Beatty and Jones 2004). However these research findings about severity took place in industries other than the airline and the researcher seeks to find out if the same circumstances or not exist in the airline industry sector about the impact of severity of failure. Also here the research has been extended to identify the role that the severity of failure plays not only right after the service failure (Post Failure Satisfaction – PFS) but also and after the service recovery action (Satisfaction with Recovery (SWR), Post Recovery Satisfaction – (PRS) and Loyalty.

93

H1: Failure Severity (FS) will have a direct impact on (a) Post Failure Satisfaction (PFS), (b) Satisfaction with Recovery (SWR), (c) Post Recovery Satisfaction (PRS) and (d) Loyalty.

Another gap (No2) that appears from the literature is that there are yet no clearly identified Failure Types that determine the service failure in the airline industry. There are a number of them which have been identified from other studies (even though quite few in number) but there is no general consensuses as to which are the more crucial ones. Due to this gap this research will try to identify those different Failure types that exist (before the activation of the recovery process) to see if there is homogeneity and consensus with previous research in the airline industry on that matter. Further the research after identifying the Failure types will try to see the impact that they have on Post Failure Satisfaction (PFS), Satisfaction with Recovery (SWR), Post Recovery Satisfaction (PRS) and Loyalty.

That gap formulates the second hypotheses (H2):

H2: Failure type (Basic, Performance, and Excitement) will have a significant impact on, (a) Post Failure Satisfaction (PFS), (b) Satisfaction with Recovery (SWR), (c) Post Recovery Satisfaction (PRS), and (d) Loyalty.

Another gap (No3) that has been identified is what is the impact that the recovery action (strategies) has on Satisfaction with Recovery (SWR), on Post Recovery Satisfaction (PRS) and on Loyalty? Does Post Recovery Satisfaction (PRS) explain more of the variance in Loyalty than Post Failure Satisfaction (PFS)?

That gap formulates the third hypotheses (H3):

H3: Post Recovery Satisfaction (PRS) explains more of the variance in Loyalty than Post Failure Satisfaction (PFS).

Another gap (No4) in the airline industry is that there are no clear recovery actions that need to be taken after a service failure occur. In service failure and recovery there are sixteen recovery strategies but the question remains as to which ones are the most effective particularly for the airline industry. So when the recovery action begins what kind of impact will be on Satisfaction with Recovery (SWR), on Post Recovery Satisfaction (PRS) and Loyalty? Which certain strategies (out of the sixteen in total) work more effectively for the airline industry?

That formed the basis for building the forth gap for the forth hypotheses (H4): H4: The Recovery Action has a differential impact on (a) Satisfaction with Recovery (SWR), (b) Post Recovery Satisfaction (PRS) and (c) Loyalty.

94

Another gap (No5) that has been identified is to what extend the factor of Emotion can play in the service failure in the airline industry as there is no previous research of their role with service encounter. More specific can Emotion act as mediator between the starting of the service recovery action and the Post Recovery Satisfaction level (PRS)?

This is because there is a lesser amount of knowledge that has been acquired as to how customers evaluate the response of a firm after their complaints (if there are any as additional research here shows that only 5-10% of people do complaint Tax and Brown 1998;) or to what extent these efforts impact their satisfaction level (Ambrose Hess and Ganesan 2007; Tax, Brown and Chandrashekaram 1998). Verbeke (1997) is talking about 4 emotional types (Charismatic – Empathetic – Expansive – Bland) and Gountas and Gountas (2007) argue about a direct relationship that exist between personality orientation of the customer and his/hers emotional features and self-reported satisfaction of the service experience. Will there be any specific trait or any of the positive (Calm – Contented – Pleased – Respected – Relaxed) and negative (Angry – Upset – Disappointed – Offended – Anxious) emotions that will influence customer’s perception about the service failure?

That gap formulates the fifth hypotheses (H5):

H5: Emotion will partially mediate the impact of Satisfaction with Recovery (SWR) on (a) Post Recovery Satisfaction (PRS), (b) Loyalty.

Another gap (No6) that has been identified is to what extend the factor of Justice can play in the service failure in the airline industry. More specific can Justice act as mediator between the starting of the service recovery action and the Post Recovery Satisfaction level (PRS)?

The literature argues that in all three areas of Justice (that is Distributive – Procedural – Interactional) if it is handled well customer satisfaction will increase. More particular in the case of Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice both play a big role in customer satisfaction with Distributive being the major one factor for customer satisfaction (Maxham and Netemeyer 2002; Smith et al., 1999; Smith and Bolton 1998) whereas Distributive justice assists as well to customer satisfaction when there is the case where customer’s perception see an improvement in procedural justice (Vazquez et al., 2010). Lastly in the case of Interactional justice again if the service recovery action process is handled well with fair personal action involved there is customer satisfaction (Davidow 2003; Homburg and Furst 2005; Karatepe 2006). Only one research found no positive link between this third factor (Interactional justice) and customer satisfaction (Maxham and Netemeyer 2003;)

95

That gap formulates the sixth hypotheses (H6):

H6: Justice will partially mediate the impact of Satisfaction with Recovery (SWR) on (a) Post Recovery Satisfaction (PRS), (b) Loyalty.

Finally at the beginning of the literature review there was identification with regards as to which service quality model fits best the airline industry as both generic and industry-based exist. It was suggested the use of the Hierarchical model together with the use of four industry-based ones as they were valid too. Further discussion on that took place on paragraph 2.3.10.