KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Journal of Aviation / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 3

A Comparative MCDM Analysis of Airline Service Ratings of Low Cost Airlines

Güler Yalvaç(GÜMÜŞHANE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER YÜKSEKOKULU, HAVACILIK YÖNETİMİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0003-3284-6396
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-10-25
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The findings describe the recorded score matrix and the aggregation rules; they do not demonstrate actual performance equality, external model validity, or the overall superiority of any method.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study compares the profiles of nine low-cost airlines based on five airline service quality scores.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Rankings are compared using RADAR-2, TOPSIS, and VIKOR.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The findings describe the recorded score matrix and the aggregation rules; they do not demonstrate actual performance equality, external model validity, or the overall superiority of any method.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:MCDM · Airline industry · Airline service quality

Abstract

This study compares the profiles of nine low-cost airlines based on five airline service quality scores. All criteria, including the baggage delivery score, are benefit-oriented. Criterion weights are derived using PSI, LODECI, CRISUS, and a hybrid rule based on their normalized direct product. Rankings are compared using RADAR-2, TOPSIS, and VIKOR. Ranking consistency is measured via Spearman’s ρ and Kendall’s τ-b. While RADAR-2, using the hybrid weights, places Eurowings, Norwegian, and EasyJet in the top three spots, TOPSIS and VIKOR reverse the top two positions. VIKOR identifies Eurowings and Norwegian as a compromise set rather than selecting a single winner. Four airlines share a RADAR-2 score of 0.0579 because distinct raw profiles map onto the same relative relationship plateau. Weight simulations demonstrate that the leader and the entire ranking can change while the plateau equality persists. The findings describe the recorded score matrix and the aggregation rules; they do not demonstrate actual performance equality, external model validity, or the overall superiority of any method.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Yalvaç, G. (2026). A Comparative MCDM Analysis of Airline Service Ratings of Low Cost Airlines. Journal of Aviation, Volume: 10 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.30518/jav.2005053

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (33)

  1. Adalar, I., & Işık, Ö. (2025). CRiterion Importance Based on SUm of Squares (CRISUS): A Novel Objective Weighting Method and Its Implementation in Multidimensional Sustainability Performance Measurement. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 59(2), 205-221.
  2. An, M., & Noh, Y. (2009). Airline customer satisfaction and loyalty: impact of in-flight service quality. Service Business, 3(3), 293-307.
  3. Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2011). A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Computers in Industry, 62(2), 164-174.
  4. Chen, F. Y., & Chang, Y. H. (2005). Examining airline service quality from a process perspective. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11(2), 79-87.
  5. Chen, I. S. (2016). A combined MCDM model based on DEMATEL and ANP for the selection of airline service quality improvement criteria: A study based on the Taiwanese airline industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 57, 7-18.
  6. Forgas, S., Moliner, M. A., Sánchez, J., & Palau, R. (2010). Antecedents of airline passenger loyalty: Low-cost versus traditional airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 16(4), 229-233.
  7. Francis, G., Humphreys, I., Ison, S., & Aicken, M. (2006). Where next for low cost airlines? A spatial and temporal comparative study. Journal of Transport Geography, 14(2), 83-94.
  8. Gilbert, D., & Wong, R. K. (2003). Passenger expectations and airline services: a Hong Kong based study. Tourism Management, 24(5), 519-532.
  9. Kendall, M. G. (1945). The treatment of ties in ranking problems. Biometrika, 33(3), 239-251.
  10. Komatina, N. (2024). A compromise-based MADM approach for prioritizing failures: Integrating the RADAR method within the FMEA framework. Journal system and management of industries.
  11. Komatina, N. (2025). A novel BWM-RADAR approach for multi-attribute selection of equipment in the automotive industry. Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research, 2(1), 104-120.
  12. Komatina, N., Marinkovic, D., & Babič, M. (2026). Fundamental characteristics and applicability of the RADAR method: Proof of ranking consistency. Spectrum of Operational Research, 3(1), 63-80.
  13. Liou, J. J. H., & Tzeng, G. H. (2007). A non-additive model for evaluating airline service quality. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(3), 131-138.
  14. Maniya, K., & Bhatt, M. G. (2010). A selection of material using a novel type decision-making method: Preference selection index method. Materials & Design, 31(4), 1785-1789.
  15. Nhan, L. T., & Hang, T. T. (2026). Expanding the scope of the LODECI method for criteria weight determination. Matéria (Rio de Janeiro), 31, e20250970.
  16. O’Connell, J. F., & Williams, G. (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.
  17. Obeidat, M. S., Al Sliti, H., & Obeidat, A. (2025). The Preference Selection Index (PSI) in multi-criteria decision- making: A systematic and critical review of applications, integrations, and future directions. Mathematical and Computational Applications, 30(6), 124.
  18. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445-455.
  19. Pakdil, F., & Aydın, Ö. (2007). Expectations and perceptions in airline services: An analysis using weighted SERVQUAL scores. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(4), 229-237.
  20. Pala, O. (2024). Assessment of the social progress on European Union by logarithmic decomposition of criteria importance. Expert Systems with Applications, 238, 121846.
  21. Parasuraman, A. B. L. L., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. 1988, 64(1), 12-40.
  22. Park, J.-W., Robertson, R., & Wu, C.-L. (2006). Modelling the impact of airline service quality and marketing variables on passengers’ future behavioural intentions. Transportation Planning and Technology, 29(5), 359- 381.
  23. Perçin, S. (2018). Evaluating airline service quality using a combined fuzzy decision-making approach. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 48-60.
  24. Rao, R. V., & Patel, B. K. (2010). A subjective and objective integrated multiple attribute decision making method for material selection. Materials & Design, 31(10), 4738-4747.
  25. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal, 27(3), 379-423.
  26. Skytrax. (n.d.-a). About Airline Star Rating. https://skytraxratings.com/about-airline-rating (accessed 6 October 2026).
  27. Skytrax. (n.d.-b). Eurowings airline rating. https://skytraxratings.com/airlines/eurowings-rating (accessed 6 October 2026).
  28. Spearman, C. (1961). The Proof and Measurement of Association Between Two Things. In J. J. Jenkins & D. G. Paterson (Eds.), Studies in individual differences: The search for intelligence (pp. 45-58). Appleton-Century- Crofts.
  29. Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. In: Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Applied Optimization, vol 44. Springer, Boston, MA.
  30. Tsaur, S. H., Chang, T. Y., & Yen, C. H. (2002). The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management, 23(2), 107-115.
  31. Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, J. J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. CRC Press.
  32. Ulutaş, A., Popovic, G., Radanov, P., Stanujkic, D., & Karabasevic, D. (2021). A new hybrid fuzzy PSI-PIPRECIA- CoCoSo MCDM based approach to solving the transportation company selection problem. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 27(5), 1227-1249.
  33. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165-179.