A Combined Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Improvement of Airlines’ Ground Operations Performance: A Case Study from Türkiye

Abstract

The airline sector is critical in today’s globalized society, supporting the efficient movement of people and products worldwide. Airlines continuously seek methods to enhance their operational performance to remain competitive in the face of increased competition. This study focuses on the application of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques to improve the ground operational performance of low-cost carriers (LCCs), also known as low-cost (budget) airlines. In recent years, MCDM techniques have gained considerable attention in addressing complex decision problems with complex goals. This research aims to bridge this gap by proposing a comprehensive framework combining MCDM techniques to enhance airline operational strategies and increase performance. The study utilizes qualitative and quantitative data, drawing on previously published materials on MCDM techniques in the aviation sector. It utilizes a fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and a fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methodologies. A case study is conducted to evaluate the ground operational performance of three airline companies based in Türkiye, considering five main criteria and eighteen sub-criteria. The findings of this research will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of operational performance in the airline sector. The study’s findings show that five primary criteria’s estimated weights are examined; it is seen that “Flight Schedule and Routes (FSR)” has the highest importance weight of 0.30. With a weight value of 0.26, “Counter Services (CS)” has the second most significant impact. “Ticketing (T)”, which ranks third in terms of its impact on the solution, has a weight value of 0.19. Upon reviewing the analysis’s findings, it can be seen that the third alternative is relatively prominent among the others. Airline_3 ranked first with a weight value of 0.361, while Airline_2 ranked second with a weight value of 0.331. Airline_1 ranked last with an actual weight of 0.308. The study provides highlights of the implications and limitations of the research and suggests future research directions.