Havayolu Şirketleri Pazarlama Performanslarının AHP ve TOPSIS Yöntemleri ile Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3, 1275 - 1305, 30.09.2025

Mehmet Etlioğlu

https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1700893

Öz

Küresel rekabet ortamında havayolu şirketleri için pazarlama performansı sürdürülebilir karlılık ve rekabet avantajı elde etmede kritik bir başarı faktörüdür. Sektörde artan rekabet ve tüketici beklentilerinin çeşitlenmesi, pazarlama stratejilerinin etkinliğini sadece geleneksel ürün, fiyat, dağıtım ve tutundurma unsurlarına değil aynı zamanda dijital pazarlama, marka konumlandırma, teknoloji ve inovasyon yönetimi ve müşteri deneyimi gibi kapsamlı kriterlere de bağımlı hale getirmiştir. Ayrıca rekabet avantajı elde etmede dijitalleşmenin ve müşteri odaklı stratejilerin önemi giderek artmaktadır. Literatürde havayolu şirketlerinde çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri kullanılarak yapılan çalışmalar genellikle temel performans göstergeleri, finansal ve hizmet kalitesine odaklanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın havayolu şirketlerinin pazarlama performanslarını çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri, AHP ve TOPSIS ile değerlendirerek literatüre ve sektör uygulayıcılarına katkı sağlayacağı değerlendirilmektedir. Bu bağlamda havayolu şirketlerinin sürdürülebilir başarı için pazarlama stratejilerini çok boyutlu ve analitik yaklaşımlarla değerlendirmeleri zorunlu hale gelmiştir. Çalışmanın amacı, havayolu sektöründe pazarlama stratejilerinin önceliklendirilmesini çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile sistematik ve kapsamlı bir şekilde değerlendirmektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda literatürdeki kısıtlılıklar göz önünde bulundurularak temel pazarlama kriterlerinin ağırlıkları ve önem sıralamaları AHP yöntemi ile belirlenmiş; ardından Türkiye'de faaliyet gösteren dört havayolu işletmesinin pazarlama performansları TOPSIS yöntemi ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre en önemli kriterlerin fiyatlandırma (0,232), ürün/hizmet kalitesi (0,206) ve dijital pazarlama (0,113) olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Teknoloji ve inovasyon yönetimi (0,111) de rekabet stratejilerinde önemli bir yere sahiptir. TOPSIS analizinde Havayolu A, ürün, dağıtım, tutundurma, dijital pazarlama, marka konumlandırma, müşteri deneyimi ve teknoloji-inovasyon alanlarında en yüksek performansı göstermiştir. Havayolu B ikinci, Havayolu C ve D ise üçüncü sırada yer almıştır. Bu bulgular havayolu işletmelerinin pazarlama stratejilerini daha etkin ve verimli hale getirerek rekabet avantajı elde etmelerinde önemli katkılar sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Pazarlama Performansı , Havayolu Şirketleri , AHP , TOPSİS , Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri

The Evaluation of Marketing Performance of Airline Companies with AHP and TOPSIS Methods

Öz

Marketing performance is a critical success factor in achieving sustainable profitability and competitive advantage for airline companies in the global competitive environment. Increasing competition in the sector and diversification of consumer expectations have made the effectiveness of marketing strategies dependent not only on traditional product/service, price, place and promotion elements but also on comprehensive criteria such as digital marketing, brand positioning, technology and innovation management and customer experience. In addition, the importance of digitalization and customer-oriented strategies in achieving competitive advantage is gradually increasing. In the literature, studies conducted using multi-criteria decision-making techniques in airline companies generally focus on basic performance indicators, financial and service quality. In this context, it is evaluated that the study will contribute to the literature and sector practitioners by evaluating the marketing performances of airline companies with multi-criteria decision-making techniques, AHP and TOPSIS. In this context, it has become mandatory for airline companies to evaluate their marketing strategies with multi-dimensional and analytical approaches for sustainable success. The aim of the study is to evaluate the prioritization of marketing strategies in the airline sector systematically and comprehensively with multi-criteria decision-making methods. In line with this purpose, considering the limitations in the literature, the weights and importance rankings of basic marketing criteria were determined with the AHP method; Then, the marketing performances of four airline companies operating in Türkiye were compared using the TOPSIS method. The analysis results revealed that pricing (0.232), product/service quality (0.206) and digital marketing (0.113) were the most critical criteria. Technology and innovation management (0.111) also has an important place in competitive strategies. In the TOPSIS analysis, Airline A showed the highest performance in the areas of product/service, place, promotion, digital marketing, brand positioning, customer experience and technology-innovation. Airline B ranked second, and Airlines C and D ranked third. These findings provide significant contributions to airline companies in making their marketing strategies more effective and efficient and thus achieving competitive advantage.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Marketing Performance , Airline Companies , AHP , TOPSIS , Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods

Etik Beyan

The study was carried out by the Konya Food and Agriculture University Ethics Committee with the decision numbered 2025/03-5 dated 28.03.2025. I declare that I comply with scientific publication ethics.

Destekleyen Kurum

I declared that I received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Teşekkür

No names were listed in the acknowledgments section since no funding and technical assistance, writing and editing support, or general support was received from individuals who were not authors. I express their sincere gratitude to the Editors-in-Chief and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions throughout the review process.

Kaynakça

• Akman, G., Özcan, B., Başlı, H., & Gündüz, E. B. (2018). Çok kriterli karar vermede AHP ve TOPSIS yöntemleriyle uçuş noktası seçimi. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 34(3), 45-57.
• Alp, M. (2023). Airline Marketing. In: Yılmaztürk, Y. & Akdoğan, Ç. (eds.), Selected Topics in Marketing: Concepts and Studies. Özgür Publications. https://doi.org/10.58830/ozgur.pub199.c916
• Altexsoft (2024). Airline Marketing and Advertising Use Cases from American Airlines, Ryanair, Air France, and Others. https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/airline-marketing-advertising/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Accessed Date: 20.07.2025.
• Avcı, T., & Çınaroğlu, E. (2018). AHP Temelli Topsıs Yaklaşımı ile Havayolu İşletmelerinin Finansal Performans Değerlemesi. Cumhuriyet University Journal of Economics & Administrative Sciences/Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 19(1), 316-335.
• Bakır, M., & Atalık, Ö. (2018). Entropi ve Aras yöntemleriyle havayolu işletmelerinde hizmet kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(1), 617-638.
• Barney, J. (1991). Special theory forum the resource-based model of the firm: origins, implications, and prospects. Journal of management, 17(1), 97-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700601
• Buhalis, D., & Foerste, M. (2015). SoCoMo marketing for travel and tourism: Empowering co-creation of value. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.04.001
• Chaffey, D., Smith, P. R., & Smith, P. R. (2013). eMarketing eXcellence: Planning and optimizing your digital marketing. Routledge.
• Chang, Y. H., & Yeh, C. H. (2002). A survey analysis of service quality for domestic airlines. European journal of operational research, 139(1), 166-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00148-5
• Chien‐Chang, C. (2012). Evaluating the quality of airport service using the fuzzy multi‐criteria decision‐making method: a case study of Taiwanese airports. Expert Systems, 29(3), 246-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0394.2010.00574.x
• Chuang, M. L., Chen, W. M., & Liou, J. J. (2007). A fuzzy MCDM Approach for evaluating Corporate Image and Reputation in the Airline Market. NN Aan, and F. Farry.
• Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Sage.
• Ferrell, O.C. & Hartline, M.D. (2011). Marketing Management Strategies (5.Edition) Canada: South Western Cengage Learning.
• Flypgs (2016). Türkiye’nin En Dijital Ulaştırma Şirketi: Pegasus Hava Yolları. https://www.flypgs.com/basin-bultenleri/turkiyenin-en-dijital-ulastirma-sirketi Accessed Date: 25.04.2025.
• Fragomeni, G. (2024). A Flight Among Branding Strategies: EasyJet, WizzAir, and the Giant RyanAir Positioning. https://gianluigifragomeni.medium.com/a-flight-among-branding-strategies-easyjet-wizzair-and-the-giant-ryanair-positioning-37d564cb615a Accessed Date: 22.04.2025.
• Garg, C. P., & Agrawal, V. (2023). Evaluation of key performance indicators of Indian airlines using fuzzy AHP method. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 24(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2023.127509
• Grosche, T., Rothlauf, F., & Heinzl, A. (2007). Gravity models for airline passenger volume estimation. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(4), 175-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2007.02.001
• Gürsoy, N. C., Karaman, F., & Akınet, M. (2022). Evaluation of the airline business strategic marketing performance: The Asia-Pacific Region Case. Journal of Aviation, 6(2), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.30518/jav.1063368
• Halpern, N., Budd, T., Suau-Sanchez, P., Bråthen, S., & Mwesiumo, D. (2021). Conceptualising airport digital maturity and dimensions of technological and organisational transformation. Journal of Airport Management, 15(2), 182-203. https://doi.org/10.69554/MZJB2664
• Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey, 58-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3
• Işılar, H. B. (2021). Havayolu endüstrisinde dijital pazarlama uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi. Havacılık ve Uzay Çalışmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 42-63.
• Karaağaoğlu, N. & Ülger, G. (2020). Havayolu şirketlerinin dijital pazarlama iletişiminin yolcu satın alma kararına etkisi. Maltepe Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 176-206.
• Karaağaoğlu, N., & Çiçek, M. (2019). An evaluation of digital marketing applications in airline sector. Journal of Human Sciences, 16(2), 606-619. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v16i2.5661
• Keke, M. (2024) Digital Ascension: Digital Marketing Strategies of Skytrax 5 Star Airlines. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 12, 57-74. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2024.125005.
• Kiracı, K., & Bakır, M. (2018). Using the multi criteria decision making methods in aircraft selection problems and an application. Journal of Transportation and Logistics, 3(1), 13-24. . https://doi.org/10.26650/JTL.2018.03.01.02
• Kotler, P.A. & Armstrong, G. (2021). Principles of marketing: Scandinavian edition. Pearson Higher Ed.
• Kotler, P., Keller, K. L., & Chernev, A. (2022). Marketing management 16ed.(16). Harlow: Pearson.
• Krasnikov, A., & Jayachandran, S. (2008). The relative impact of marketing, research-and-development, and operations capabilities on firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.4.001
• Kuo, M.S. (2011). A novel interval-valued fuzzy MCDM method for improving airlines’ service quality in Chinese cross-strait airlines. Transportation Research Part E, 47(6), 1177-1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.05.007
• Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
• Mahmoodzadeh, S., Shahrabi, J., Pariazar, M. & Zaeri, M. S. (2007). Project Selection by Using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS Technique. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3), 135-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11328-9_9
• Moghadas, N.S., & Mokhles, A.F. (2021). Price sensitivity as a moderating factor between the effects of airline service quality and passenger satisfaction on passenger loyalty in the airline industry. International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management (IJBCRM), 11(3), 114-125. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBCRM.2021.116274
• Morgan, N. A., Clark, B. H., & Gooner, R. A. (2002). Marketing productivity, marketing audits, and systems for marketing performance assessment: Integrating multiple perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 55(5), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00161-4
• Morosan, C. (2010). Theoretical and empirical considerations of guests’ perceptions of biometric systems in hotels: Extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(1), 52-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348010380601
• Nam, K., & Schaefer, T. (1995). Forecasting international airline passenger traffic using neural networks. The Logistics and Transportation Review, 31(3), 239-252. https://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2020.1063.1084
• Özdemir, M., (2015). Operasyonel, Yönetsel ve Stratejik Problemlerin Çözümünde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri, (Ed. Bahadır Fatih Yıldırım& Emrah Önder), Dora Basım Yayın Dağıtım, Bursa: 133-146.
• Öztürk, D., & Onurlubaş, E. (2019). Havayolu taşımacılığında hizmet kalitesinin AHP ve TOPSIS yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10, 81-97.
• Park, S., Lee, J. S., & Nicolau, J. L. (2020). Understanding the dynamics of the quality of airline service attributes: Satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Tourism management, 81, 104163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104163
• Pearson, A. (2013). Integrating social media with mobile, online and other marketing channels. Journal of Digital & Social Media Marketing, 1(2), 192-200. https://doi.org/10.69554/MUTN8836
• Pegasus (2025). Dünden Bugüne Pegasus. https://www.pegasusyatirimciiliskileri.com/tr/hakkimizda/dunden-bugune-pegasus Accessed Date: 16.05.2025.
• Pineda, P. J., Liou, J. J., Hsu, C.C., & Chuang, Y.-C. (2018). An integrated MCDM model for improving airline operational and financial performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 103-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.06.003
• Rao, R. V. (2008). Evaluation of environmentally conscious manufacturing programs using multiple attribute decision-making methods. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 222(3), 441-451. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544054JEM981
• Raza, H., Ali, J. K., & Gregory, M. L. (2025). The Impact of Brand Experience on Brand Consciousness of Customers in the Airline Industry. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8, 3885-3898.
• Rezaei, J., Fahim, P. B., & Tavasszy, L. (2014). Supplier selection in the airline retail industry using a funnel methodology: Conjunctive screening method and fuzzy AHP. Expert systems with applications, 41(18), 8165-8179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.07.005
• Rust, R. T., Ambler, T., Carpenter, G. S., Kumar, V., & Srivastava, R. K. (2004). Measuring marketing productivity: Current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.76.42721
• Saaty, T.L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology, 15(3), 234-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
• Saaty T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, A.B.D.
• Shaw, S. (2016). Airline marketing and management. Routledge.
• SHGM (2020). Havayolu Taşımacılığı ve Ekonomik Düzenlemeler Teori ve Türkiye Uygulaması. https://web.shgm.gov.tr/documents/sivilhavacilik/files/pdf/kurumsal/yayin lari Accessed Date: 16.05.2025.
• SunExpress (2025). Şirket Profili. https://www.sunexpress.com/tr-tr/sirket/sunexpress-duenyasi/sirket-profili/? Accessed Date: 16.05.2025.
• Suryani, E., Chou, S. Y., & Chen, C. H. (2010). Air passenger demand forecasting and passenger terminal capacity expansion: A system dynamics framework. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3), 2324-2339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.07.041
• Talluri, K. T., & Van Ryzin, G. J. (2006). The theory and practice of revenue management (Vol. 68). Springer Science & Business Media.
• Tarn, J. L. (1999). The effects of service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 6(4), 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J150v06n04_04
• THY (2023a). Butikten Zirveye. https://investor.turkishairlines.com/documents/turk-hava-yollari-2023-2033-stratejisi.pdf
• THY (2023b). 2023 Sürdürülebilirlik Raporu. https://investor.turkishairlines.com/documents/surdurulebilirlik/thy_2023_surdurulebilirlik_raporu.pdf
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00050-4
• Tzeng, G. H., Huang, J. J. (2011). Multiple Attribute Decision Making, CRC Press.
• Van Ryzin, G., & McGill, J. (2000). Revenue management without forecasting or optimization: An adaptive algorithm for determining airline seat protection levels. Management Science, 46(6), 760-775. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.6.760.11936
• Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan, N. A. (2005). Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.1.80.55505
• Wang, Y. M., & Elhag, T. M. (2006). Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment. Expert systems with applications, 31(2), 309-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2005.09.040
• Wensveen, J. (2023). Air transportation: A global management perspective. Routledge.
• Zhang, D., & Cooper, W. L. (2005). Revenue management for parallel flights with customer-choice behavior. Operations Research, 53(3), 415-431. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1050.0194