- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
The quality of service monitoring forms a key element of the current light-handed regulation at Australian airports. The ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) evaluates and publicly reports the quality of service levels of the four largest airports on a yearly basis to pressure airports to maintain an acceptable service performance. This article aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the methodology used by the ACCC. This analysis includes a critical review of the methodology based on secondary information in combination with primary research (i.e., data from 21 semi-structured interviews) that considers the current perception of the methodology among key stakeholder groups. The research finds that the methodology used by the ACCC is underpinned by some limitations, putting in question its effectiveness, reliability and validity. Particularly, its weak design does not allow for a comprehensive interpretation of the reported results or a reliable comparison across monitored airports, thus reduces transparency. Stakeholders pointed out that it is not possible to evaluate whether an airport undertakes infrastructure investments that ensure both the efficiency of ongoing airport operations and appropriate levels of service quality. These limitations add to the perception that the ACCC in its current function is not a ‘credible threat’ to airports with market power. Recommendations and future research directions are provided to address the identified limitations.
This article investigated quality of service monitoring as a central element of the current LHR at Australian airports. The investigation included a critical analysis of the methodology used by the ACCC to monitor and report the quality of airport services. Also, the perception of the monitoring approach among key stakeholder groups was incorporated to generate a more holistic perspective. Based on the findings of this investigation, this article concludes that the monitoring approach is underpinned by some limitations restricting its effectiveness, reliability and validity. In fact, considering the perception and limitations of the current format, one might well ask whether the quality of service monitoring is effective and therefore necessary. Asking this question is important when considering the administration costs involved in service monitoring process. Future research will be required to test the validity and reliability of the current quality of service measure, and to explore alternative measures that might be applied. For example, many airports apply the ASQ survey to measure and compare their performance against industry best practices. Also, future research should investigate to what extent airports would consider intentionally letting the quality of service standards deteriorate. Airports are increasingly required to diversify their revenue streams by relying not only on aeronautical charges but also on non-aeronautical charges derived from, for example, real estate and retailing. It might well be argued that airports as service businesses do understand that higher customer spending and ultimately the profitability of a firm is based on a positive perception of service quality and customer satisfaction. However, given the market power possessed by Australia's monitored airports, this argument is only speculative and requires further investigation.