Analysis of Factors Affecting The Sustainable Success of Airlines During The COVID-19 Pandemic

Research Article
Transportation Research Record

1–30
Ó National Academy of Sciences:
Analysis of Factors Affecting the Transportation Research Board 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
Sustainable Success of Airlines During sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/03611981221104462
the COVID-19 Pandemic journals.sagepub.com/home/trr
Kasım Kiraci1 , Gökhan Tanriverdi2, and Ercan Akan3
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic increased the risk of financial distress, bankruptcy, or both, in the airline industry. Whether airlines
can survive or not during and/or after the pandemic is closely related to their decisions and actions which will enable their
success by increasing their resilience. In crisis periods such as COVID-19, the decisions taken by airlines are strategically
important for achieving sustainable success. Thus, it is critical to understand which factors are more important for airlines to
shape their actions and make correct decisions. This paper investigates the sustainable success factors on which airlines
should focus to provide resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. It provides a robust model using the interval type-2
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (IT2FAHP) and interval type-2 fuzzy Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory
(IT2FDEMATEL) to identify and rank success factors. The findings indicate that financial and operational factors are extremely
important to ensure resilience for airlines. In addition, the results of the study reveal that operational factors and information
sharing factors have an impact on financial factors and customer satisfaction.
Keywords
crisis management, organizational resilience, success factors, Covid-19, airline industry, AHP, DEMATEL, interval type
2 fuzzy sets.
The COVID-19 outbreak, which began in China in late industry will experience the impact of COVID-19 much
2019, has continued to have major negative effects span- more severely. In 2020, revenue passenger kilometers
ning the whole world. This crisis has dealt a deep blow (RPKs) were expected to decrease by around 50% com-
to the airline industry which is a sector of strategic pared with 2019. A return to normal conditions, the level
importance in global trade. First, the outbreak caused of 2019, is not expected to occur until 2023, taking
the closure of airspace and travel restrictions in many approximately two years longer than global GDP (2). In
countries. Second, as a result, the world economy and addition, scenarios for the effects of COVID-19 on civil
the airline industry experienced great financial loss which aviation forecast potential losses for airlines in gross
is clearly revealed in financial reports. Global gross operating revenue of between USD 186 and 217 billion.
domestic product (GDP) growth is expected to fall by
around 5% because of the pandemic. By way of compar-
ison, this is around four times larger than the losses of
1
the global financial crisis of 2008, when global GDP fell Department of Aviation Management, Faculty of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Iskenderun Technical University, Iskenderun, Hatay, Turkey
by 1.3%. Europe’s largest regional airline company, 2
Department of Aviation Management, Ali Cavit C xelebioğlu School of Civil
Flybe Airlines, went bankrupt, and Latin America’s Aviation, Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey
three major carriers, Avianca, LATAM Airlines Group, 3
Department of Maritime Transportation Management Engineering, Faculty
and Aeromexico, filed for bankruptcy protection in of Barbaros Hayrettin Naval Architecture and Maritime, Iskenderun
Technical University, Iskenderun, Hatay, Turkey
American courts (1). This provides a clear example of
the suffering felt in the airline industry from the global Corresponding Author:
financial crisis. However, it is expected that the airline Kasım Kiraci, kasim.kiraci@iste.edu.tr
2 Transportation Research Record 00(0)
Furthermore, a decline of total passengers globally rang- were determined, according to their level of
ing from 226% to 231% was forecast for 2022 (3). importance, by taking expert opinions. In this
There is widespread agreement that companies have way, it was determined which resilience factors
been confronted by an environment with high levels of should be considered by decision makers and
uncertainty, instability, and turbulence in these COVID- investors of airlines during the COVID-19 pan-
19 times (4). In such crisis or abnormal periods of time, demic. At the end of this stage, there were five
how companies decide and act is of great importance for main factors (financial factors, operational fac-
their sustainability. Companies need to take the correct tors, customer satisfaction factors, information
strategic actions to increase their resilience by consider- sharing factors, social resource factors), and 25
ing various decision factors during these periods when sub-factors.
they face great challenges and suffer devastating losses. 3. What is the relationship between the factors that
Thus, companies with a high level of resilience are able will ensure resilience in airlines in times of crisis
to overcome crisis periods more strongly (5). Ensuring and how do these factors affect each other?
this resilience depends on companies making decisions To answer the third question, the relationships
subject to multi-factor evaluations. Many studies have between the factors determined via the IT2FAHP
been conducted in which various factors affecting deci- from the factors pool were analyzed by using the
sions of companies have been examined. In this context, IT2FDEMATEL method. Thus, the analysis
companies have been evaluated for: financial factors (6– revealed the relationship between the factors that
8) operational factors (9–11), customer satisfaction fac- will provide the greatest resilience to airline com-
tors (12, 13), information sharing factors (14, 15), social panies in a crisis period.
resource factors (16, 17), internal stakeholder factors
(18–20), external stakeholder factors (21–23), and com- To answer these questions, the main factors and their
munication quality factors (24, 25). However, it is impor- sub-factors related to maximizing the resilience of airline
tant to determine which factors are more important in companies during the pandemic were determined. First,
times of crisis. If companies know which factor is vital seven main factors and 65 sub-factors were collected into
during such times, they will be able to overcome the bad the factors pool from the literature. Second, the
situation and gain competitive advantage by taking IT2FAHP was used to determine the best factors for
appropriate actions. achieving the aim of maximizing resilience during the
Strategic actions consist of strategic decisions. Airline pandemic period. At the end of this stage, there were five
companies can only overcome the negative impacts of the main factors, (financial factors, operational factors, cus-
COVID-19 pandemic by taking the correct strategic deci- tomer satisfaction factors, information sharing factors,
sions which will maximize their resilience. These decisions social resource factors) and these had 25 sub-factors in
will allow practical, safe, and effective actions, which will total. Third, this study examined and found which fac-
make airline companies more resilient to the pandemic. tors are the most effective for increasing the resilience of
To this end, the following critical questions need to be airline companies during the pandemic period by using
answered to ensure the sustainability of the airline indus- IT2FDEMATEL.
try, which is critical to the process of global trade in the The remainder of this article has been organized as
post-pandemic period. follows. The next section presents the literature review.
The second section considers organizational resilience
1. What factors have become critical for airlines to be and success factors for airline companies. The third sec-
resilient in the COVID-19 period? tion explains the methodology of the study. The fourth
To answer the first question, the main factors sections presents the application of the proposed model.
and their sub-factors related to maximizing the The findings and results of the study are discussed in the
resilience of airline companies during the pan- fifth section. Finally, the main conclusions and the lim-
demic were determined. Seven main factors and itations of the study are summarized, along with sugges-
65 sub-factors were found and added into the fac- tions for future research, in the sixth section.
tors pool from the literature. The goal was to
reveal the resilience factors for the air transporta-
tion industry.
Literature Review
2. What are the factors that decision makers should Many crises affect countries and the world negatively,
focus on to increase airline resilience in the such as financial crises, terrorist attacks, natural disas-
COVID-19 era? ters, and outbreaks of disease, causing turbulent and
To answer the second question, the resilience fac- uncertain environments. These crises lead to difficulties
tors in the factor pool through the IT2FAHP for individuals, policymakers, and organizations in their
Kiraci et al 3
decision-making processes (26). Air transportation is faster recovery period than its competitors and managed
quite sensitive to world affairs and crises. In this context, to avoid redundancies, whereas the competitors had
crisis management comes into prominence as a necessary much slower recovery and needed to lay off parts of their
topic for airline companies. Studies have been carried workforce during the crisis. Hätty and Hollmeier (33)
out on the relationship between the experiences of past analyzed the strategy followed by Lufthansa Airlines
crises and air transportation, a topic which has been seen during the crisis in 2001. They found that Lufthansa
as having considerable value and has gained the interest Airlines had deployed massive layoffs to cope with the
of researchers. crisis, like most U.S. carriers, and decreased its air ser-
Financial crises are the most researched topic in the vice capacity temporarily. In a study measuring the effect
context of the relationship between crises and air trans- of the 9/11 terrorist attack in 2001 on air passenger
portation. Bjelicic (27) examined the effects of the finan- demand, Lai and Lu (34) examined passenger demand in
cial crisis experienced between 2007 to 2008 on aviation the U.S. after the attack with the intervention model.
finance and underlined that access to capital is critical The findings revealed that U.S. airline passenger demand
for the development and sustainability of the aviation significantly decreased both domestically and interna-
industry. The study benefited from the regression analy- tionally, especially in the first two months after the
sis conducted by Dobruszkes and Van Hamme (28), who attack. In another study, Kim and Gu (35) investigated
researched the situation of air service dynamics during the changes in the stocks of U.S. airlines which were
the financial crisis in 2008. This study concluded that quoted on the stock exchange. The study compares
low-cost carriers, such as Southwest and Ryanair, were returns, total risks, and systematic risks on the shares by
less affected by the crisis than full service carriers. The analyzing the data of the 60 weeks before and after the
results also show that some major airports, such as attack. It was concluded that the weekly stock returns
London, Paris, and Amsterdam, with some exceptions, did not change significantly after the attack, however,
resisted the crisis better than most other European air- the total risk and systematic risk increased significantly
ports. In a study investigating the impact of the 2008 regardless of the airline size.
financial crisis on airline passenger transportation in Natural disasters are another type of crises which
Romania and Europe respectively, and indirectly on affect air transportation negatively. Volcanic eruptions,
tourism, Oprea (29) revealed that some Romanian and tsunamis, earthquakes, and hurricanes are the main
European airlines were adversely affected by the crisis, examples of these which have had major impacts on the
and they decreased the number of flights on some routes industry. Polater (36) systematically reviewed airport
and destinations. Additionally, it was concluded that the disaster management in his study dealing with the rela-
tourism industry was affected negatively by this circum- tionship between natural and manufactured disasters and
stance. Diaconu (30) considered the effects of economic airports. The author classified studies on non-aviation
crises on the European low-cost aviation market. The disasters as scheduling problems, stakeholder collabora-
findings highlighted that big low-cost carriers, such as tion, corporate social responsibility, infrastructure plan-
Ryanair and Easyjet, had successfully survived the crises ning, and medical preparedness at the end of the review.
by offering low prices and increasing their market shares In another study on the relationship between natural dis-
and thus profits, but that small and medium-sized low- asters and airports, Smith (37) conducted interviews on
cost carriers suffered more in the 2007 crisis than in the regional cooperation, coordination, and communication
2001 crisis. Pearce (31) focused on the condition of air- with representatives of airports, airlines, and other stake-
line transportation after the great recession of 2008. The holders at 20 U.S. airports. The study emphasized that
conclusion of that study pointed out that airlines can cooperation, communication, and coordination between
cope with demand shocks in such crises by adjusting airports is significantly important in ensuring the prepa-
their fleets in various ways, and that international air redness and sustainability of operations during times of
travel and air cargo transportation reached pre-recession disaster. Minato and Morimoto (38) underlined the
levels in less than 18 months after the recession ended. cooperation between stakeholders of regional air trans-
Another type of crisis that has adversely affected air portation after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in east-
transportation is as a result of terrorist attacks. While ern Japan. The results of interviews conducted at
terrorist attacks can be carried out by aircraft, they can Yamagata airport showed that the dissemination of sim-
also be carried out against the basic elements of aviation, plified information and the sense of responsibility for
such as aircraft or airports. Studies conducted in this transportation were preconditions of successful colla-
area mostly focus on the 9/11 attack in 2001, which borative management in the event of disasters. Alexander
affected air transportation the most. Gittell et al. (32) (39) addressed the Icelandic Eyjafjallajökull volcanic
revealed that Southwest Airlines, which has long-term eruption as a case study of risk management. The erup-
and strong employee relationships, underwent a much tion resulted in a decrease of flights across most of
Europe during the crisis after the eruption in 2010, which survival (84). In addition, the ability to act quickly, with
lasted for more than a week. In the study, the importance agility, and creativity are also required, along with holis-
of considering various scenarios involving eruptions and tic decisions to prevent deeper crises and achieve oppor-
how various stakeholders should prepare for possible tunities to use the crisis situations (85). The pandemic,
eruptions was emphasized as stand-out findings after caused by the spread of COVID-19, caused travel restric-
evaluating the risks related to civil aviation. tions, which had a negative impact on many sectors
The last type of crisis examined in crisis studies related worldwide. The airline industry especially has suffered a
to air transportation is outbreaks of disease and there is severe blow in this process with the weakening of
an important point to be noted here. With the first three demand, flight cancellations, and capacity reductions
crisis types examined above, air transportation is simply (26). In crisis management it is critical to have a vision
affected by the event. However, the relationship between that clearly shows how to approach the crisis before it
air transportation and outbreaks is interesting in that air happens. However, while discussions about the effect of
transportation is critical in both the spread and immedi- the pandemic on airline companies and when the airline
ate elimination of outbreaks. Accordingly, this relation- industry will recover remain fresh, there is still no study
ship has been examined from both perspectives in in the literature that clearly demonstrates success factors
previous studies on the Severe Acute Respiratory for the survival and recovery of airline companies and
Syndrome (SARS), swine flu (A/H1N1), and ebola out- the sustainability of the industry. This study reveals the
breaks. The first perspective is the ‘‘affecting role,’’ which most effective factors that should be considered for
argues that air transport triggers the geographic spread increasing resilience and thus the sustainability of airline
of outbreaks (40–47). These studies were conducted on companies during the pandemic crisis. In the study,
predicting the spread of global outbreaks based on the expert opinions were taken and the factors were evalu-
air transport network before the outbreak occurred, ated through IT2FAHP and IT2FDEMATEL multi-
measuring the impact of air transport during and after criteria decision-making methods.
the spread of the outbreak, and dealing with several mea-
sures for the protection of passengers on long-haul
flights. The second perspective is the ‘‘affected role,’’ Organizational Resilience in the Airline
which analyzes the effects of outbreaks on air transport Industry
(48–50). The studies here are on the strategic and opera- Organizational resilience is one of the first concepts that
tional responses of airlines to outbreaks, the effects of comes to mind for preparedness, and the survival and
outbreaks on the performance and risk profile of airline sustainability of organizations against unexpected local
stocks, and behavioral responses of airline passengers. and international disasters and outbreaks and likewise in
The COVID-19 pandemic naturally falls in this last the event of technological changes, depletion of
type of crisis. Many studies were published on COVID- resources, decreasing market confidence, and financial
19 in a short time in both civil aviation and other fields breakdown (85). Resilience is the state of organizations
since academic journals in various fields called for special having the ability to give robust reactive responses after
issues on the future effects of the pandemic, and this sub- these types of significant changes and substantial crises
ject attracted the attention of researchers. Considering (86). Lengnick-Hall et al. (87) stated that resilience pro-
the studies focusing on air transportation in the context tects organizations from devastating surprises in uncer-
of COVID-19, it can be seen that most of them are from tain and complex environments that threaten their
the second perspective (affected by the outbreak) men- existence, and this plays a key role in their sustainability.
tioned above. Studies have addressed the first angle Resilient organizations are able to maintain their stabi-
(affecting the outbreak) by examining passenger screen- lity in such environments with their flexibility (88).
ings at airports to prevent the spread of the outbreak and Resilient organizations benefit from financial, technical,
the spread of the outbreak through air transport (51–56). and social resources in times of crisis. Financial resources
The studies on the ‘‘affected role’’ consist of studies con- are required to fulfill financial responsibilities to internal
sidering the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on air and external partners. Technical resources are important
transportation and these have revealed the effects of the to ensure profitability by increasing the feasibility of
pandemic on passengers, employees, airlines, and the glo- operations, and thus to become sustainable. Finally,
bal airline industry (26, 57–65), responses to the pan- businesses use social resources to interact with their
demic (66–71), air transport recovery (72–74), and the internal and external stakeholders, and to access finan-
future of air transport after the pandemic (75–83). cial and technical resources through stakeholders (85).
The main point for managing crises successfully is in Most previous studies on organizational resilience
making critical decisions. Crisis periods are the periods have focused on topics such as how resilient organiza-
when organizations make choices critical for their tions are formed, what qualities these organizations
Kiraci et al 5
have, how organizational resilience can be developed in must meticulously determine the factors necessary for
time, and the dimensions of organizational resilience them and be aware of their priorities and to take actions
(89–94). Recently, with the advent of the pandemic, that will increase their resilience during the COVID-19
some publications on mitigation strategies of supply crisis. Therefore, this study is focused on the factors to
chains of various industries against bad conditions of which airline companies should give importance to be
devastating crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have resilient and sustainable during the COVID-19 pan-
been carried out (95–99). On the other hand, there are demic. These factors are presented in Table 1 with their
limited studies in the crisis management literature that references.
focus on the airline industry and address the relationship
between resilience and sustainability as well. Gössling Methodology
(62) drew attention to how the COVID-19 pandemic has
revealed that the airline industry does not have the resili- In this section, IT2FAHP and IT2FDEMATEL are
ence needed for its sustainability with the current system, defined as follows.
and he underlines that countries should take radical
structural steps in this sense. Bastug and Yercan (100), in Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets
their study on logistics companies, including air cargo
business, examined the competitive priorities of compa- This section briefly describes interval type-2 fuzzy sets.
nies that will increase their resilience by providing them Type-2 fuzzy sets were developed by Zadeh as an exten-
with a sustainable competitive advantage in the COVID- sion of type-1 fuzzy sets having membership degree as
’
19 period. The study states that companies make their type-1 fuzzy sets. A type-2 fuzzy set A in the universe of
operations more resilient so as not to weaken their sup- discourse X can be shown by a type-2 membership func-
ply chain performance during this time. In the research tion m ’ , viewed as presented in Equation 1 (152–154):
A
conducted on U.S. airlines after the 9/11 attacks, it was ’
revealed that the organizations of managers who care A =
n o
about the reciprocal relationship between financial and
(x, u), m ’ (x, u) 8x 2 X , 8u 2 Jx ½0, 1, 0 ł m ’ ðx, uÞ ł 1
relational resources before and after the crisis were the A A
most resilient (32). One study, examining the resilience ð1Þ

strategies of the automobile and airline industry’s supply ’
chain to mitigate the negative impacts of COVID-19, where Jx states an interval [0,1]. The type-2 fuzzy set A
highlighted the important role of big data analytics in can also be given as shown in Equation 2 (152):
providing real-time information to increase supply chain ð ð
’
resilience of two industries against the pandemic. The A¼ m ’ ðx; uÞ=ðx; uÞ
A
ð2Þ
study also underlined the necessity of the cooperation x2X u2JX
among supply chain stakeholders to mitigate the chal- Ð
lenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to speed up the where Jx ½0, 1 and state union over all admissible x
’
utilization of digital technologies (101). Migdadi (102) and u. Let A be IT2FSs in the universe of discourse X
explored the effective and resilient operational strategies shown by type-2 membership function m ’ . If all
’ A
for airlines during the COVID-19 pandemic and revealed m ’ ðx, uÞ = 1 after A it is called an IT2FSs (154, 155). An
A ’
strategy alternatives for international and regional airlines IT2FSs A can perform for specific situation of a type-2
separately. In another study, Suk and Kim (103) aimed to fuzzy set, introduced as presented in Equation 3 and
provide an understanding of internal and external airline Figure 1 (152).
response strategies comprehensively, considering the rela- ð ð
’
tionship between crisis management and resilience. A¼ 1=ðx; uÞ ð3Þ
The rapid recovery of the airline industry is critical
x2X u2JX
for world trade. Recovery is directly related to the level
of resilience of the airline companies, which are the main Trapezoidal interval
stakeholder of the industry, and have been highly type-2 fuzzy sets ;
are defined
;

’
U U U U U U
affected by the COVID-19 crisis. To this end, ICAO as Ai = ai1 , ai2 , ai3 , ai4 ; H1 Ai , H2 Ai ,
(104) suggested that national governments take an active ; ; ; ;
role to provide resilience to the industry and airline com- aLi1 , aLi2 , aLi3 , aLi4 ; H1 ALi , H2 ALi where AUi and Ai
L
panies against such crises. Of course, all stakeholders

are type-1 fuzzy sets, aU U U U L L L L
i1 , ai2 , ai3 , ai4 , ai1 , ai2 , ai3 , ai4 are
have the task of mitigating the devastating impact of the
the reference points
of the interval trapezoidal type-2
COVID-19 pandemic on the airline industry. However, ;
;
airline companies are at the center of this crisis. Airlines fuzzy sets Ai , Hj AU
i states the membership estimation
6
Table 1. Success Factors for Airline Crisis Management
Factor Sub-factors Measure Description References
F Financial F1 Creditworthiness Critical financial performance Measures the firm’s creditability, creditworthiness, (105)
factors (financial balance) factors of airlines and credibility.
F2 Earnings capacity Profit or cash generated per financial unit of capital (106)
employed.
F3 Earnings per share Used to measure the profitability of the company (107)
and the value of the stock.
F4 Equity/assets ratio Relates to the shareholder-owned portion of the (107)
firm’s total assets. It measures the level of leverage
used to finance the firm.
F5 Financial contracts and Related to the power of the company in financial (108)
economic rights contracts and its ability to use economic rights.
F6 Income stability About the change of operating incomes over time. (109)
A higher variance reduces the degree of income
stability.
F7 Liabilities Related to the leverage level of the company. (110)
F8 Liquid assets These assets include cash and cash equivalents, (111)
inventories, debtors (accounts receivable), stocks
(liquidity), and prepaid expenses.
F9 Market share Refers to the ratio of airlines’ revenues in the airline (112)
market to the total revenues of the market.
F10 Market value Calculated by multiplying the number of shares by (113)
the share price. It is about the total market value
of the company.
F11 Net income/Revenues Ratio of net income to assets. (114)
F12 Operating revenue Defined as the profit of airlines that includes all (115)
revenue and expenses except for interest
expenses and revenue tax expenses.
F13 ROE (Return on equity) Ratio of net income to equity. ROE is an indicator (116)
of the profitability of companies.
F14 Stock price volatility About the pricing behavior of the stock. It refers to (117)
the deviation or variance from the mean in the
stock price.
F15 Total capital Usually refers to the sum of long-term debt and (118)
total equity of the company.
(continued)
Table 1. (continued)
C Customer C1 Commitment to satisfy Customer loyalty The beliefs and attitudes of the airlines toward (119, 120)
satisfaction customers degree for airlines meeting the needs and expectations of its
customers.
C2 Corporate social Means that airlines should be sensitive to public (14, 119)
responsibility health at all flight stages during the pandemic and
adopt goals, policies, principles, and actions that
support the development of society.
C3 Determination of Refers to analyzing customer needs and wants (15, 120)
customers’ needs and during the pandemic crisis to recover quickly after
wants the pandemic to provide customer commitment.
C4 General customers’ The degree to which the airlines meets customer (15, 120, 121)
satisfaction needs and wants.
C5 New customer retention The retention of new customers by airlines by (122)
upholding their service quality and offering
promotions or rewards to their customers.
C6 Number of complaints The number of complaints that airlines received (12)
from their customers during the pandemic.
C7 Number of customers left The number of customers who are not satisfied (7)
the firm with the service quality of the airlines during the
pandemic.
C8 Recommendation of Defined as likelihood of customers recommending (15)
firm’s the airlines to others because of customer
product/service to satisfaction.
others
C9 Repurchase rate The percentage of airline customers who have (123)
purchased more than once in a certain time.
C10 Response to customer Whether the airlines meet customer standards in (15, 120, 121)
standards the products and services they offer during the
pandemic.
C11 Use of information from The design of products and services by airlines in (15)
customers in designing the light of customer feedback.
products and services
(continued)
7
8
O Operational O1 Temporarily stopped air Best operational Stopping air services temporarily by airlines’ own (15, 49)
factors services decision option decisions or through government intervention
for airlines because of reduced demand or travel restrictions
during periods of such great uncertainty.
O2 Reducing capacity Refers to airlines decreasing the number of (49)
employees and aircraft during the pandemic.
O3 Suspended the launch of Suspension of air services that have just started to (49, 124)
new air services be offered to customers by airlines as a result of
the pandemic.
O4 Halting direct flights Stopping direct flights to destinations, where the (49)
risk of pandemic is increased, or the demand is
significantly reduced.
O5 Postponed the launch of The postponement of the launch of new air services (49, 124)
new air services to be provided by airlines to another time because
of the pandemic.
O6 Reducing flight frequency Another strategy employed by airlines in (15, 49)
destinations where demand is decreasing during
periods of such great uncertainty.
O7 Product/service quality The degree of meeting the needs and expectations (125)
that airline customers have of the flight service
provided by the airline.
O8 Schedule flexibility The ability to continue operations allowing changes (49)
to flight schedules in line with customer needs and
wants.
O9 Number of employees The number of employees employed by the airline (126)
to run its operations.
(continued)
I Information I1 Announcement about Critical information The announcement to customers of any changes or (127)
sharing factors events or changes management options events to be organized by the airlines because of
of airlines the pandemic conditions.
I2 Online/face-to-face Combined use of online and face-to-face (93, 128)
planning/communication communication channels by airlines because of
pandemic conditions.
I3 Exchange of relevant Airlines having relevant information to manage the (93, 128)
information pandemic crisis successfully.
I4 Exchange of timely Acquiring information and informing stakeholders in (15)
information a timely way are important to overcome the crisis.
I5 Exchange of accurate Achievement and sharing of correct information are (14)
information critical as well as timely information sharing during
the pandemic.
I6 Exchange of complete Complete acquisition of information that is likely to (15)
information affect the course of the company during the crisis.
I7 Exchange of confidential Acquisition of critical information that concerns (129)
information airlines without leaking outside the company.
I8 Important information Refers to the sharing of critical information about (15)
transmission to the airlines’s decisions such as growth and
employees downsizing and its financial status with employees.
S Social resources S1 Followership and Critical relational Refers to the importance of the relations that (85)
relationships with resource of airlines airlines have with their employees’ unions when
unions laying off some personnel during the crisis.
S2 Customer relationships Refers to the policies of airlines toward their (130)
customers.
S3 Relationships with Refers to the importance of the relationships that (131, 132)
suppliers and partners airlines have with their suppliers and partners in
paying debts and stretching agreements during the
pandemic.
S4 Relationships with Refers to the importance of the relations with the (85)
owners and other company’s owner and financiers in creating
financiers resources for the airlines’s survival in the
pandemic process.
S5 Relationships with other Refers to other stakeholders with whom airlines (85)
stakeholders have relations, such as aviation authorities and
government.
(continued)
9
10
R Resilience factors R1 Adaptability Critical resilience Learning, absorbing change, and high variance, (133, 134)
components of airlines innovation and flexibility in companies.
R2 Agility The ability of the company to quickly change (134–136)
direction, speed/accelerate operations, adjust
tactics, scan the environment/anticipate, and
integrate processes within and across firms.
R3 Flexibility Businesses adapting effectively to (un)foreseen (134, 137)
changes, coping with high levels of uncertainty, and
responding effectively to disruptions.
R4 Improvisation The ability of the business to come up with (134, 138)
unexpected situations or solutions outside of the
routine.
R5 Recovery Internal and external coordination aspects of the (134, 139)
company, on the duration of business interruption,
and time to restart full operations.
R6 Redundancy A company’s ability still to perform a task or (134, 140)
function even if it fails or suffers disruption.
R7 Robustness The capability to maintain performance during (134, 141)
volatile phases, the degree of system sensitivity
when facing disruptions, and strength and
durability.
H Human resource H1 Empowerment Critical intangible It means that employees have power and control (142, 143)
management resources of airlines over their work to help the company.
(Employee H2 Promote of employee Promoting employee morale and motivation is one (144–146)
Satisfaction) motivation of the ways airlines can get through the crisis
more resiliently.
H3 Turn-over rate The percentage of employees leaving a company (121, 147, 148)
within a certain time.
H4 Investments in employees’ Provision of training opportunities to employees. (149)
development and
training
H5 Wages and rewards Refers to the wage and reward policies of the (144, 145)
policies airlines during the pandemic.
H6 Career plans Refers to the career plans that airlines offer for (146)
their employees in the post-pandemic period.
H7 Organizational climate Perception of the work environment and the (147, 150)
psychological atmosphere reflected by the
employees’ sentiments during the pandemic crisis
within airlines.
H8 General employees’ The degree to which airlines meet their employees’ (147, 150)
satisfaction needs and wants.
H9 Employee productivity The contribution of airline employees to airline (142, 145, 149)
flight operations in a certain period.
H10 Social capital Key human relationships that airline employees have (14, 151)
and which can potentially benefit the airline.
Kiraci et al 11
of the factor aUðj + 1Þ in the upper trapezoidal membership

; i ;
function AU i , 1 ł j ł 2, H j ALi ; also it states the
membership estimation of the factor aLiðj + 1Þ in the
;
lower trapezoidal membership function ALi ,
; ; ;
1 ł j ł 2, H1 AU
i 2 ½0, 1, H2 AU i 2 ½0, 1, H1 ALi 2
;
½0, 1, H2 ALi 2 ½0, 1 and 1 ł i ł n (156). The member-
ship function of a trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy set is Figure 1. Trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy numbers.
given in Figure 1.
The basic arithmetic operation
’ of interval
’ trapezoidal
type-2 fuzzy sets described as A1 and A2 are given below, ’ ’
A1 A2 = aU aU , aU U U U U U
12 a23 , a13 a22 , a14 a21 ;
Equations 12 to 19. ; 11 24 ; ; ;
’
; ; min H1 AU 1 ; H1 A 2
U
, min H2 AU 1 ; H2 A2
U
,
A1 = aU U U U
11 , a12 , a13 , a14 ; H1 A 1 , H2 A U
U
1 , L
a11 aL24 , aL12 aL23 , aL13 aL22 , aL14 aL21 ;
; ; ; ; ; ;
aL11 , aL12 , aL13 , aL14 ; H1 A1 , H2 AL1
L
min H1 AL1 ; H1 AL2 , min H2 AL1 ; H2 AL2 :
; ;
’ ð5Þ
A2 = aU , a U
, a
21 22 23 24
U
, a U
; H 1 AU
2 , H U
2 A2 ,
; ; Definition 3: The multiplication
’ operation
’ for the two
trapezoidal IT2FSs A1 and A2 is described in
a21 , a22 , a23 , a24 ; H1 A2 , H2 AL2
L L L L L
Equation 6 below.
Definition 1: The addition

’ ’operation for the two tra- ’ ’
pezoidal IT2FSs A1 and A2 is described in Equation A1 A2 = aU U U U U U U U
11 3 a21 , a12 3 a22 , a13 3 a23 , a14 3 a24 ;
4below. ; ; ; ;
min H1 AU 1 ; H1 A 2
U
, min H2 AU 1 ; H2 A2
U
,
L
’ ’ a11 3 aL21 , aL12 3 aL22 , aL13 3 aL23 , aL14 3 aL24 ;
A1 A2 = aU U U U U U U U
11 + a21 , a12 + a22 , a13 + a23 , a14 + a24 ;
; ; ; ;
; ; ; ; L L
min H1 A1 ; H1 A2 , min H2 A1 ; H2 AL2
L
:
min H1 AU 1 ; H1 A 2
U
, min H2 AU 1 ; H2 A2
U
,
L ð6Þ
a11 + aL21 , aL12 + aL22 , aL13 + aL23 , aL14 + aL24 ;
; ; ; ; Definition 4: The arithmetic operation for the trape-
min H1 AL1 ; H1 AL2 , min H2 AL1 ; H2 AL2 : ’
zoidal IT2FSs A1 and a crisp value k.0 is described
ð4Þ in Equations 7 and 8 below.
Definition 2: The subtraction operation for the two ; ;

’
’ ’ k A1 = k 3 aU11 , k 3 aU
12 , k 3 aU
13 , k 3 aU
14 ; H 1 A U
1 , H U
2 A1 ,
trapezoidal IT2FSs A1 and A2 is described in
; ;
Equation 5 below.
k 3 aL11 , k 3 aL12 , k 3 aL13 , k 3 aL14 ; H1 AL1 , H2 AL1 :
ð7Þ
’ ; ; Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process

A1 1 1 U 1 U 1
= 3 aU
11 , 3 a 12 , 3 a 13 , 3 a U
;
14 1H AU
1 , H U
2 A1 ,
k k k k k The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a Multi Criteria
; ;
1 1 1 1 Decision Making (MCDM) technique developed by
3 aL11 , 3 aL12 , 3 aL13 , 3 aL14 ;H1 AL1 , H2 AL1 :
k k k k Saaty (157) in the 1980s as a structured approach used for
ð8Þ decision making for both qualitative and quantitative
characteristics. The AHP method comprises an objective,
Definition 5: The division operation for the two trape- alternatives, and a hierarchical structure in MCDM prob-
’ ’
zoidal IT2FSs A1 and A2 is described in Equation 9 lems (157). The AHP evaluates a quantifying relative pri-
below. ority of the problem based on decision makers’ judgments
with crisp numbers. AHP also stresses the consistency of
the comparison of alternatives and has the ability to detect
’ ; ; and incorporate inconsistencies inherent in the decision-
A1 aU U U
11 a12 a13 a14
U
U U making process. However, decision makers may not evalu-
’ ffi U , U , U , U ; min H1 A1 ; H1 A2 ,
ate judgments as crisp values in real life as evaluation con-
A2 a 24 a 23 a 22 a 21
; ; tains some uncertainty and subjectivity. Fuzzy sets help
min H2 AU 1 ; H 2 A2
U
, decision making by increasing accuracy. Furthermore,
L ; ; since IT2Fs were introduced, they give better solutions
a11 aL12 aL13 aL14 than IT1Fs as IT2Fs have flexible membership functions.
, , , ; min H1 A1 ; H1 AL2
L
,
aL24 aL23 aL22 aL21 IT2FAHP has been applied to many problems since it was
; ; introduced to the literature (158). The IT2FAHP method
min H2 AL1 ; H2 AL2 : ð9Þ has been widely employed in the current literature, for
instance: the aircraft selection problem (159), locating
environmentally-friendly grain processing plants (160), site
Definition’ 6: The inverse operation of the trapezoidal
selection of nursing homes in the field of health (161), and
IT2FSs A1 is described in Equation 10 below.
portfolio selection problem in finance theory (162).
The IT2Fs’ linguistic variables are presented in Table 2.
; ; The IT2FAHP method (163) is represented step by
1 1 1 1 1 step as follows:
’ = U
, U , U , U ; H1 A1 ; H1 AU
U
2 ,
A1 a 14 a13 a12 a11
; ;
1 1 1 1 Step 1: The problem is defined with a goal. The struc-
, , , ; H1 A1 ; H1 AL2
L
: ture of the hierarchy is built up along with its main
aL14 aL13 aL12 aL11
factors and sub-factors at all levels.
ð10Þ
Step 2: Building
’
up the IT2Fs pairwise comparison
matrix as A and the average decision matrix. In
Definition’ 7: the nth root operation of the trapezoidal Equations 12 and 13, the pairwise comparison matrix
IT2FSs A1 is described in Equation 11 below. is presented as below.
’ ’
qffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ; Ak = ( akij )nxn =
n ’
=A1
n
a11 , a12 , a13 , a14 ; H1 A1 ; H1 AU
U n U n U n U U
, 2 ’ ’
3 2 ’ ’
3
2
qffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ; 6 1 ak12 ::: akin
7 6 1 ak12 ::: ak1n 7
6 ’ 7 6 ’
’ ’ 7
n
aL11 , aL12 , aL13 , aL14 ; H1 AL1 ; H1 AL2
n n n
: 6 ak 1 ::: 7 6 1=ak
ak2n 1 ::: ak2n 7
6 21 7=6 12 7 ð12Þ
6 . .. . . .. 7 6 . .. . . .. 7
6 .. . . . 7 6 .. . . . 7
ð11Þ 4 ’ ’
5 4 ’ ’
5
akn1 akn2 ::: 1 1=ak1n 1=ak2n ::: 1
Table 2. IT2FSs’ Linguistic Variables (163)
Linguistic variable Interval type-2 fuzzy sets
AS Absolutely strong ((7, 8,9, 9; 1, 1) (7.2, 8.2, 8.8, 9.0; 0.8, 0.8))
VS Very strong ((5, 6,8, 9; 1, 1) (5.2, 6.2, 7.8, 8.8; 0.8, 0.8))
FS Fairly strong ((3, 4,6, 7; 1, 1) (3.2, 4.2, 5.8, 6.8; 0.8, 0.8))
SS Slightly strong ((1, 2,4, 5; 1, 1) (1.2, 2.2, 3.8, 4.8; 0.8, 0.8))
E Exactly strong ((1, 1, 1, 1; 1, 1) (1, 1, 1, 1; 1, 1))
If parameter i has one of the linguistic variables appointed to it when matched Reciprocals of the above
with parameter j, then j has the mutual value when matched with I
Kiraci et al 13
’ qffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ;

’ n ’
A = ( aij )nxn ð13Þ n U n U n U n U U U
aij = aij1 , aij2 , aij3 , aij4 ; H1 (aij ), H2 (aij ), ,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where L
;
L
;
n L n L n L n L
aij1 , aij2 , aij3 , aij4 ; H1 (aij ), H2 (aij ), :
’

1 1 1 1 U U
1=a = , U , U , U , H1 (a12 ), H2 (a13 ) ,
aU
14 a13 a12 a11 Step 5: The IT2Fs weight ith criterion is computed by

1 1 1 1 L L applying Equation 16, below.
, , , , H1 (a22 ), H 2 (a23 ) :
aL24 aL23 aL22 aL21
The geometric means of k IT2Fs are evaluated for kth ’ ’

h’ ’
i
’ 1
decision makers. In Table 2, the linguistic variables are wi = ri r1 ri rn ð16Þ
represented for evaluation. The decision makers’ deci-
sions in the pairwise comparison matrices are aggregated where
by means of the geometric mean method in Equation 14. ’
a aU U U
1 a2 a3 a4
U
U ; U
;
U ; U
;
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi = a a
U , U , U , U , min (H1 ( ), H1 ( b ), min (H2 ( ), H2 ( b )) ,
’ ’ ’
1=k ’ ’ ’
’
b b4 b3 b2 b1
’ k L L L L
aij = a1ij a2ij akij = a1ij a2ij akij a1 a2 a3 a4 ; ; ; ;
L , L , L , L , min (H1L ( a ), H1L ( b ), min (H2L ( a ), H2L ( b )) :
b4 b3 b2 b1
ð14Þ
Step 6: The ranking of the results obtained through
where
defuzzification is consistent with the expected order
qffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ;
of trapezoidal type-2 fuzzy sets (DTraT) as in
n ’ U U
n U n U n U n U
aij = aij1 , aij2 , aij3 , aij4 ; H1 (aij ), H2 (aij ), , Equation 17 (163).
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
; ;
n L n L n L n L L L
aij1 , aij2 , aij3 , aij4 ; H1 (aij ), H2 (aij ), : h i
ðuU lU Þ + ðbU m1U lU Þ + ðaU m2U lU Þ
4 + lU
h i
ðuL lL Þ + ðbL m1L lL Þ + ðaL m2L lL Þ
Step 3: Analyze the consistency of the IT2Fs pairwise + 4 + lL
DTraT = ð17Þ
comparison matrices. When considering A = aij as a 2
’
h’i
positive reciprocal matrix, A = aij is supposed as a

positive reciprocal matrix. As a result, A = aij is Interval Type-2 Fuzzy DEMATEL
’
h ’
i
consistent, so A = aij is also consistent (155). The DEMATEL method is utilized for determining the
’ cause and effect relationships among the factors, so the
Step 4: is computed by means of Equation 15 based
ri
relationships of factors are turned into local preferences.
on theh IT2Fs
i weight’s geometric mean of each row of
’ ’ This method is able to visualize the complex cause and
A = aij for applying each criterion as below.
effect relationships of sub-systems in an understandable
way. The method can also be used to construct a struc-
h’ i tural model for analyzing complex interrelationships
’ ’ ’ 1=n
ri = ai1 ai2 ain ð15Þ among criteria and confirm the relation that reflects the
characteristics with an essential system.
where IT2FDEMATEL merits receiving more comprehensive
Table 3. IT2FSs Linguistic Variables (168)
Linguistic variables Interval type-2 fuzzy sets
VH Very high influence ((0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 1.0; 1, 1), (0.85, 0.9, 0.9, 0.95; 0.9, 0.9))
H High influence ((0.6, 0.7, 0.7, 0.8; 1, 1), (0.65, 0.7, 0.7, 0.75; 0.9, 0.9))
L Low influence ((0.4, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6; 1, 1), (0.45, 0.5, 0.5, 0.55; 0.9, 0.9))
VL Very low influence ((0.2, 0.3, 0.3, 0.4; 1, 1), (0.25, 0.3, 0.3, 0.35; 0.9, 0.9))
No No influence ((0, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1; 1, 1), (0, 0.1, 0.1, 0.05; 0.9, 0.9))
2 0 0
3
evaluation because of the flexibility of spaces represent- 0 a12 a1m
ing uncertainties, more so than they do with T1FSs. 6 0 0 7
’ 6 a21 0 a2m 7
Moreover, IT2FSs can provide us with more degrees of 6 7
Za0 =6 . .. .. .. 7 ,
freedom to represent the uncertainty and the vagueness of 6 .. . . . 7
4 5
the real world. Therefore, it is impeccable to integrate the 0
am1
0
am2 0
extra flexibility of IT2FSs and the unique causal relation- 2 0 0
3
ship of DEMATEL. In this section, the IT2FDEMATEL 0 b21 b1m
6 0 0 7
method is briefly described step by step as follows (164– ’ 6 b 0 b2m 7
6 21 7
167). Zb0 = 6 . .. .. .. 7 , , ð20Þ
6 .. . . . 7
IT2FSs linguistic variables for IT2FDEMATEL are 4 5
0 0
taken into consideration in Table 3 (168). bm1 bm2 0
2 0 0
3
0 h21 h1m
Step 1: Obtaining the evaluation of decision makers. 6 0 0 7
’ 6 h21 0 h2m 7
The group of decision makers can be needed to aggre- 6 7
Zh0 = 6 . .. .. .. 7
gate the IT2F influence matrices so,’ with a total of k 6 .. . . . 7
’ ’ 4 5
influence matrices, Z (1), Z (2), , Z (k) are evaluated 0 0
hm1 hm2 0
by each decision maker.
Step 2: Computing the average of the IT2F influence Therefore, Zd 0 comprises the greatest value of element
matrices. The arithmetic mean of the IT2F influence
which is issued to compute the normalization of coeffi-
matrices is computed as in Equation 18.
cient. The normalized direct-relation matrix is given
through Equation 21.
’(1) ’ (2) ’(k) 2 ’ ’ ’ 3
’ Z Z Z X11 X12 X1m
Z= ð18Þ 6 ’ ’ ’ 7
k ’ 6 X21 X22 X2m 7
’
X =6
6 .. .. . . ..
7
7 ð21Þ
where Z denotes the initial direct-relation matrix. The 4 . . . . 5
’ ’ ’
initial direct relation is shown in Equation 19. Xm1 Xm2 Xmm
2 ’ ’ 3
0 Z12 Z1m The elements of the normalized direct-relation matrix are
6’ ’ 7 calculated through Equation 22.
’ 6 Z21 0 Z2m 7
Z = 6 7 ð19Þ
6 .. .. .. .. 7 00 ’ ’ ’ ’
1
4 . . . . 5 ’
Za0 ij Zb0 ij Zc0 ij Zd 0 ij
’ Zij ; ;
’ ’ =
xij = @@ , , , ; H 1 z U , H2 z U A ,
Zm1 Zm2 0 s s s s s ij ij
0 ’ ’ ’ ’ 1 1
where Z 0 Zf 0 Zg 0 Z 0 L L
@ e ij , ij , ij , h ij ; H1 ;z , H2 ;z AA:
ij ij
’ ; ; ; ; s s s s
Zij = aij , bij , cij , dij ; H1 ( zU
ij ), H 2 ( z U
ij ), e ij , fij , g ij , h ij ; H 1 ( zL
ij ), H 2 ( z L
ij )
ð22Þ
Step 3: Obtaining the normalized direct-relation where the normalization coefficient s is computed as in
matrix. According to the membership functions, the Equation 23.
trapezoidal IT2F initial direct-relation matrix is rear- !
X
m ’ X
m ’
ranged to compute the normalized direct-relation s = max max Zd 0 ij , max Zd 0 ij ð23Þ
matrix. The heights of the IT2FNs are omitted from 1łiłm
j=1
1łjłm
i=1
the following representations as the calculations are
not affected. A total of eight m 3 m matrices are Step 4: Computing the total-relation matrix contains
therefore built up through Equation 20: similar procedures as in Step 3, the normalized direct-
Kiraci et al 15
’ ’
relation matrix can be presented by means of eight matrix, denoted as Di and Rj , can be obtained by
crisp matrices as in Equation 24: using Equations 27 and 28.
2 3
0
00
a12 a1m
00
’ X
m
’
6 00 00 7 Di = tij , ði = 1, 2, :::, mÞ ð27Þ
’ 6 a21 0 a2m 7 j=1
6 7
Xa00 =6 . .. .. .. 7 ,
6 .. . . . 7 ’ X
m
4 5 ’
00 00 Rj = tij , ðj = 1, 2, :::, mÞ ð28Þ
am1 am2 0 i=1
2 00 00
3
0 b21 b1m To acquire a causal
6 00
6 b21
00 7 diagram, theexpected values of the
’ 0 b2m 7 ’ ’ ’ ’
6 7 ordered pairs Di Ri , Di Ri are computed. The
Xb00 =6 . .. .. .. 7 , ð24Þ
6 .. . . . 7
4 5 ’ ’ ’ ’
00 00
bm1 bm2 0 expected value of the Di Ri is denoted by E Di Ri
2 0 00
3
0 h21 h1m and
is termed
an expected prominence. Likewise,
6 00 00 7 ’ ’
’ 6 h21 0 h2m 7 E Di Ri is termed an expected relation.
6 7
Xh00 =6 . .. .. .. 7
6 .. . . . 7
4 5
00 00
hm1 hm2 0 Step 6: Calculating the weights of factors. When the
’ expected prominence and relation values are calcu-
The total-relation matrix is presented by T as in lated, the importance of each criterion is calculated
Equation 25. by Equation 29.
2 ’ ’ ’
3
t11 t12 t1m sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
6
6 ’ ’ ’ 7
7 2 ffi 2
6 t21 t22 t2m 7 ’ ’ ’ ’
’
T =6 7 ð25Þ wi = E Di Ri + E Di R i , ðj = 1, 2, :::, mÞ
6 . .. . . .. 7
6 .. . . . 7
4 5 ð29Þ
’ ’ ’
tm1 tm2 tmm
Calculating expected value
’
as E(A). The expected val-
’ ; ;
where tij = a000ij , b000ij , c000ij , d 000ij ; H1 ( tijU ), H2 ( tijU ), e000ij , f 000ij , ues of trapezoidal IT2F A, EðDi + Ri Þ, and EðDi Ri Þ
are calculated through Equation 30 (169).
; ;
000 000 L L
g ij , h ij ; H1 ( tij ), H2 ( tij ) . The elements of the total- ! !
1 1X 4
U L
1 X 2
U
L
E ð AÞ = a + a1 x H i Ai + H i Ai
relation matrix are computed as in Equation 26: 2 4 i=1 1 4 i=1
h i 1 ð30Þ
’ ’
a000ij = Xa00 x I Xa00
where
h i 1
’ ’ ; ;
b000ij = Xa00 x I Xb0 , ð26Þ ’
A = aUi , a U
i , a U
i , a U
i ; H 1 A U
i , H U
2 Ai ,
h i 1 ; ;
’ ’
h000ij = Xa00 x I Xh00 aLi , aLi , aLi , aLi ; H1 ALi , H2 ALi
The heights of the IT2FNs are considered as the same

Step 7: Finally, after having calculated expected value,
for each entry in the total-relation matrix; that is,
; ; the normalized prominence degree of each criterion is
H1 ( tijU ) = H1 ( xU
ij ).
then computed through Equation 31:
Step 5: Carrying out structural correlation analysis.

’ wi
The elements of the total-relation matrix tij are used nwi = P
m ð31Þ
to carry out structural correlation analysis. The sum’
wi
of the rows and the sum of the columns of the T i=1
resilience and achieving sustainable success during the

COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Second, this study aimed to
determine the relationship of these factors to each other.
Determination of the importance weights and ranking
of the decision factors was computed by IT2FAHP at
that phase. Moreover, IT2FDEMATEL analyzed the
factors and their sub-factors to determine how to they
were had relationship each other as cause and effect in
the final phase.
First Section
Second Stage, Determining the Factor Pool. In this stage, a
comprehensive list of factors which were obtained in the
scope of this study and could help airline companies to
succeed in crisis environments is presented. The factors
were adapted from studies dealing with the subject of
measuring the performance of firms in crisis periods.
First, a factor pool was created by combining the factors
collected from the literature by the authors of this study.
Then, some of the factors were eliminated, considering
the relationship between the airline companies and the
pandemic crisis. As a result of this stage, the remaining
65 sub-factors were classified into seven main factors:
Financial (F) having 15 sub-factors, Operational (O)
having nine sub-factors, Human Resource Management
(H) having 10 sub-factors, Customer Satisfaction (C)
having 11 sub-factors, Information Sharing (I) having
Figure 2. Proposed methodology. eight sub-factors, Resilience (R) having seven sub-factors
and Social Resources (S) having five sub-factors.
Application Third Stage, Determining the Sub-Factors. In this stage, the

This section proposes a model for the analysis of factors aim was to determine the five principal sub-factors for
affecting the sustainable success of the airline industry each main factor listed above except for S, because S
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The model consists of already had five sub-factors. With this aim, first, five
IT2FAHP and IT2FDEMATEL methods. A flowchart decision makers, who had at least five years’ experience
is presented for the proposed model in Figure 2. The in the airline industry, evaluated all sub-factors of the six
study consists of three analysis sections. In the first sec- main factors using IT2AHP to determine the five sub-
tion, there are seven main factors having a total of 65 factors of each of the main factors. There are several rea-
sub-factors. The main factors and sub-factors were eval- sons why the decision makers involved in the study were
chosen. First of all, in this study, a factor pool was cre-
uated by IT2FAHP to reduce the number of main fac-
ated by bringing together the factors collected from the
tors to five and the number of sub-factors for each main
literature. In this context, seven main factors were identi-
factor to five as well. In the second section, five main fac-
fied and 65 sub-factors related to them were classified.
tors and their total of 25 sub-factors were evaluated by
The decision makers ranked the seven main criteria and
IT2FAHP again, to determine the most important main
65 sub-criteria in the criteria pool according to their
and sub-factors. In the last section, IT2FDEMATEL
importance. At this stage of the study, the decision mak-
evaluates the relationship of sub-factors to determine
ers were asked to answer 311 questions (comparisons).
which factors are cause and which factors are effect.
In line with the answers given by the decision makers,
five main criteria and 25 sub-criteria were included in the
study. In the second stage of the study, the decision mak-
First Stage, Determining the Problem
ers ranked the five main criteria and their 25 sub-criteria
In the first stage, the problem was defined as factors according to the level of importance. At this stage of the
affecting decisions of airline companies related to study, the decision makers were asked to answer 60
Kiraci et al 17
questions. In the third phase of the study, the decision Second Section
makers answered the cause–effect relationship question-
Fifth Stage, Calculating Weights of the Main Factors. In this
naire for the IT2FDEMATEL analysis. At this stage of
stage, the aim was to determine the weights of the five
the study, the decision makers were asked 600 questions.
main factors. With this aim, first, the five decision mak-
In this long-term analysis phase, it is important for the
ers evaluated the five main factors through IT2AHP to
decision makers to give consistent answers to the ques-
determine the five main factors. The computing process
tions. Therefore, the authors collaborated with the deci-
was applied by IT2FAHP.
sion makers who consented. One of the most important
The linguistic variables are presented Table 2. The ele-
characteristics of the decision makers included in the
ments of the pairwise comparison matrices are aggre-
study was their consent to long-term cooperation. The
gated by means of the geometric mean method. A
decision makers were selected from among academics
linguistic variable decision matrix is presented in Table
who have expertise of airline management and held
A8. The main factors of the proposed method are calcu-
bachelor, master, and PhD degrees in the field of avia- ’
lated by Equation 14 for a12 as follows:
tion management. Evaluations were made by the deci-
sion makers for the main factors. The computing process ’
’ ’ 1=5
was applied by IT2FAHP. ’
a12 = a112 a212 a55 according to Equation
The linguistic variables of the pairwise comparison
matrix were evaluated by decision makers by applying 14 also, the opinions of the five decision makers.
the seven main factors of the study, as listed above.
’
Interval type-2 fuzzy pairwise aggregated comparison a12 = ½ðð5:00, 6:00, 8:00, 9:00; 1, 1Þ, ð5:20, 6:20, 7:80, 8:80; 0:80, 0:80ÞÞ
matrices were evaluated by the decision makers by apply- ðð3:00, 4:00, 6:00, 7:00; 1, 1Þ, ð3:20, 4:20, 5:80, 6:80; 0:80, 0:80ÞÞ
ing these seven main factors with Equation 14. ðð5:00, 6:00, 8:00, 9:00; 1, 1Þ, ð5:20, 6:20, 7:80, 8:80; 0:80, 0:80ÞÞ
After building up the comparison decision matrix, ðð5:00, 6:00, 8:00, 9:00; 1, 1Þ, ð5:20, 6:20, 7:80, 8:80; 0:80, 0:80ÞÞ
IT2FAHP methodology was applied to these decision ðð0:11, 8:00, 9:00, 9:00; 1, 1Þ, ð7:20, 8:20, 8:80, 9:00; 0:80, 0:80ÞÞ
1=5
matrices by Equations 15 and 16 to determine the fuzzy ðð0:11, 8:00, 9:00, 9:00; 1, 1Þ, ð7:20, 8:20, 8:80, 9:00; 0:80, 0:80ÞÞ
weights of the factors. These results of the factors are pre- = ðð2:11, 5:86, 7:73, 8:56; 1, 1Þ, ð5:04, 6:07, 7:53, 8:40; 0:8, 0:8ÞÞ
sented for F in Table A1, O in Table A2, H in Table A3,
C in Table A4, I in Table A5, and R in Table A6. Finally,
defuzzification and normalization of factors were com- As the result of evaluation by the decision makers, the
puted by Equation 17. linguistic variables were aggregated through using the
geometric mean method in the decision matrix, as pre-
sented in Table A9 in the Appendix. In the next stage,
Fourth Stage, Determining the Main Factors. In this stage, the
according to the type-2 fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix
aim was to determine the first five main factors among
in the IT2FAHP, the type-2 fuzzy weights of factors were
the seven main factors abovementioned. Thus, with this
carried out by calculation procedures as follows:
aim, first, the linguistic variables of the pairwise compar-
ison matrix for the seven main factors was evaluated by ’
h’ ’ ’
i1=5
five decision makers to determine the five main factors. ri ¼ ai1 ai2 ai5 according to Equation 15
The computing process was applied by IT2FAHP. ’
r1 = ½ðð1, 1, 1, 1; 1, 1Þ, ð1, 1, 1, 1; 1, 1ÞÞ
Interval type-2 fuzzy pairwise aggregated comparison
ðð2:11, 5:86, 7:73, 8:56; 1, 1Þ, ð5:04, 6:07, 7:53, 8:40; 0:8, 0:8ÞÞ
matrix was evaluated by decision makers by applying the
main factors with Equation 14 for the seven main ðð1:25, 1:74, 2:49, 2:81; 1, 1Þ, ð1:36, 1:83, 2:42, 2:75; 0:8, 0:8ÞÞ
factors. ðð1:72, 2:86, 4:98, 6:02; 1, 1Þ, ð1:96, 3:08, 4:78, 5:81; 0:8, 0:8ÞÞ
After building up the comparison decision matrix, the ðð2:67, 3:78, 5:86, 6:88; 1, 1Þ, ð2:90, 3:99, 5:65, 6:68; 0:8, 0:8ÞÞ1=5
IT2FAHP methodology was applied to these decision = ðð1, 64, 2, 56, 3, 55, 3, 98; 1, 1Þ, ð2, 08, 2, 67, 3, 46, 3, 89; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ
matrices by Equations 15 and 16 to determine the fuzzy
weights of the factors. These results of factors were pre-
sented as for the main factors in Table A7 in the ’
The remaining ri were calculated in the same way, as
Appendix. Finally, defuzzification and normalization of shown below:
factors were computed by Equation 17. After the evalua-
tion, the five main factors selected by the decision mak- ’
r2 = ðð0, 27, 0, 30, 0, 42, 0, 65; 1, 1Þ, ð0, 28, 0, 31, 0, 40,
ers were: F, O, C, I and S. H and R were therefore 0, 51; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ
ignored by the decision makers. ’
r3 = ðð1, 02, 1, 35, 1, 98, 2, 41; 1, 1Þ, ð1, 09, 1, 41, 1, 91,
2, 31; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ
’
r4 = ðð0, 55, 0, 69, 1, 04, 1, 40; 1, 1Þ, ð0, 58, 0, 72, 0, 99, aim, first, five decision makers evaluated all the sub-
1, 30; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ factors of the main factors through IT2AHP to deter-
’
r5 = ðð0, 43, 0, 55, 0, 82, 1, 05; 1, 1Þ, ð0, 46, 0, 58, 0, 79, mine the five main factors. The computing process was
0, 99; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ applied by IT2FAHP.
The linguistic variables of the pairwise comparison
The type-2 fuzzy weights were computed by normaliza- matrix was evaluated by the decision makers by applying
tion, as shown below: the sub-factors for F, O, C, I, and S. Interval type-2 fuzzy
h’ ’ i pairwise aggregated comparison matrix was evaluated by
’ ’ ’ 1
wi = ri r1 r2 r5 according to Equation 16 the decision makers by applying the sub-factors of the
same five factors with Equation 14.
’
w1 = ðð1, 64, 2, 56, 3, 55, 3, 98; 1, 1Þ, ð2, 08, 2, 67, 3, 46, 3, 89; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ After building up the comparison decision matrix,
½ðð1, 64, 2, 56, 3, 55, 3, 98; 1, 1Þ, ð2, 08, 2, 67, 3, 46, 3, 89; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ IT2FAHP methodology was applied to these decision
ðð0, 27, 0, 30, 0, 42, 0, 65; 1, 1Þ, ð0, 28, 0, 31, 0, 40, 0, 51; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ matrices by Equations 15 and 16 to determine the weights
ðð1, 02, 1, 35, 1, 98, 2, 41; 1, 1Þ, ð1, 09, 1, 41, 1, 91, 2, 31; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ of the sub-factors. These results for the sub-factors are
ðð0, 55, 0, 69, 1, 04, 1, 40; 1, 1Þ, ð0, 58, 0, 72, 0, 99, 1, 30; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ presented in the Appendix as: F in Table A11, O in Table
ðð0, 43, 0, 55, 0, 82, 1, 05; 1, 1Þ, ð0, 46, 0, 58, 0, 79, 0, 99; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ1 A12, C in Table A13, I in Table A14, and S in Table
= ðð0, 17, 0, 33, 0, 65, 1, 01; 1, 1Þ, ð0, 23, 0, 35, 0, 61, 0, 87; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ A15. Finally, defuzzification and normalization of sub-
factors were computed by Equation 17.
’
The remaining w1 were obtained as follows: In Table 4, the calculations for the main factors and
sub-factors are presented, consisting of a total of five
’
w2 = ðð0, 03, 0, 04, 0, 08, 0, 17; 1, 1Þ, ð0, 03, 0, 04, 0, 07, main factors and 25 sub-factors. The most weighted main
0, 11; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ factor is F and the most weighted sub-factor is F8, the
’
w3 = ðð0, 11, 0, 17, 0, 36, 0, 61; 1, 1Þ, ð0, 12, 0, 19, 0, 34, liquid assets criterion.
0, 51; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ
’
w4 = ðð0, 06, 0, 09, 0, 19, 0, 36; 1, 1Þ, ð0, 06, 0, 10, 0, 17, Third Section
0, 29; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ
’ Seventh Stage, Cause–Effect Relationship of Sub-Factors. In this
w5 = ðð0, 05, 0, 07, 0, 15, 0, 27; 1, 1Þ, ð0, 05, 0, 08, 0, 14,
0, 22; 0, 8, 0, 8ÞÞ stage, selected factors were evaluated which were evalu-
ated in the early stages by IT2FAHP as well. They are
Interval type-2 fuzzy weights were defuzzied by DTraT presented in Table 4. At this stage, the aim was to ana-
method as in Equation 17. This was calculated for F fac- lyze the factors to determine how to they have been rela-
tors as shown below: tionship each other as cause and effect.
The degrees of causal dependencies among the selected
DTraT = factors are evaluated by decision makers to be solved by
h i IT2FDEMATEL method. The evaluations by decision
ð1:010:17Þ + ð1x0:330:17Þ + ð1x0:650:17Þ
4 + 0:17 + makers are given for DM1 in Table A16, DM2 in Table
h i A17, DM3 in Table A18, DM4 in Table A19 and DM5 in
ð0:170:03Þ + ð0:8x0:040:03Þ + ð0:8x0:080:03Þ
4 + 0:03
= 0:504 Table A20 in the Appendix.
2 The degrees of causal dependencies of the matrices
evaluated by decision makers to be solved by
Accordingly, to calculate the remaining crisp values of IT2FDEMATEL method, were computed by using the
weight for the remaining factors, it was applied the same arithmetic mean method. The evaluations by decision ’
way as in Table A9. The IT2FSs factor weights in Table makers were computed through Equation 18 for Z12 as
4 were defuzzied by DTraT method as in Equation 17 in the initial direct-relation matrix.
IT2FAHP. As a result, the weights of the main factors
’ ’(1) ’ (5)
(F, C, O, I, S) were calculated, as shown in Table A10 in Z12 = Z Z according to Equation 18 and three
5
the Appendix. Finally, the weights of all factors were decision makers.
normalized.
The same calculation with IT2FAHP was applied for ’
Z12 = ½ðð0:80, 0:90, 0:90, 1:00; 1, 1Þ, ð0:85, 0:90, 0:90, 0:95; 0:90, 0:90ÞÞ
the weights of all factors.
ðð0:40, 0:50, 0:50, 0:60; 1, 1Þ, ð0:45, 0:50, 0:50, 0:55; 0:90, 0:90ÞÞ
ðð0:60, 0:70, 0:70, 0:80; 1, 1Þ, ð0:65, 0:70, 0:70, 0:75; 0:90, 0:90ÞÞ
Sixth Stage, Calculating Weights of the Sub-Factors of the Main
ðð0:00, 0:10, 0:10, 0:10; 1, 1Þ, ð0:00, 0:10, 0:10, 0:05; 0:90, 0:90ÞÞ
Factors. In this stage, the aim was to calculate the weights
ðð0:40, 0:50, 0:50, 0:60; 1, 1Þ, ð0:45, 0:50, 0:50, 0:55; 0:90, 0:90ÞÞ=5
of the sub-factors of the main factors. Thus, with this
= ðð0:44, 0:54, 0:54, 0:62; 1, 1Þ, ð0:48, 0:54, 0:54, 0:57; 0:90, 0:90ÞÞ
Kiraci et al 19
The remaining direct-relation matrices were computed The remaining normalized direct-relation matrices are
by the same process as the comparison matrix shown in computed the same way as the comparison matrix shown
Table A21 in the Appendix. in Table A22. The total-relation matrix was calculated by
The normalized initial direct-relation matrix was com- applying Equations 24 to 26, so the total-relation matrix
puted by means of Equations 21 to Equations23. The has been represented in Table A23 in the Appendix.
normalization coefficient was calculated through According to the total-relation matrix acquired in the
Equation 23 as s = 15:46 from Table A21. In Table A22, previous step, the structural correlation analysis is
the normalized
’
initial direct-relation matrix is shown. applied. The row and column sums in the total-relation ’
Moreover, Z12 the initial direct-relation matrix to nor- matrix were computed by means of Equation ’
27 for D
malize by applying Equation 16 is as follows: (IT2FSs rows sums) and Equation 28 for ’
R (IT2FSs
’
col-
umns sums). In Table 5, the calculated D and R are rep-
’
Z12 = ðð0:44, 0:54, 0:54, 0:62; 1, 1Þ, ð0:48, 0:54, 0:54, resented for each factor. Additionally, IT2F importance
0:57; 0:90, 0:90ÞÞ and
’
relation’ values
’ ’
were computed for each factor. The
s = 15:46 D R and D R values were computed by IT2F arith-
metic operation Equations 4 and 5 given ’
in’ Table ’5. In
’
’
’ Z12
the next stage, the expected values of D R and D R
x12 = were computed by using Equation 30 for D R and D R
00 s 1 values for factor. Then related defuzzied values of the fac-
’ ’ ’ ’
Z a 0 Z b0 Zc 0 Z d 0 ; ;
tors are given in Table 6; the normalized importance degree
= @@ 12 , 12 , 12 , 12
; H1 z U , H 2 z U A ,
s s s s 12 12
of each criterion is calculated by Equation 31.
0 ’ 1 1 Consequently, after having calculated the expected
’ ’ ’
Ze 0 Z f 0 Z g 0 Z h 0 ; ;
@ 12 , 12 , 12 , 12 ; H1 z L , H2 z L AA: value, the importance degree for each factor was normal-
s s s s 12 12
ized through Equation 31 in Table 6. The causal diagram
= ðð0:03, 0:03, 0:03, 0:04; 1, 1Þ, ð0:03, 0:03, 0:03, 0:04; 0:90, 0:90ÞÞ of the factors is represented in Figure 3.
Table 4. Weights of Main Factors and Sub-Factors
Factor Wm Sub-factor Wi Wi (global) Rank
Financial (F) 0.442 F2 0.207 0.091 2

F8 0.369 0.163 1
F9 0.109 0.048 8
F11 0.153 0.068 5
F12 0.162 0.072 4
Customer satisfaction (C) 0.060 C3 0.361 0.022 15
C4 0.130 0.008 25
C7 0.142 0.008 24
C8 0.191 0.011 21
C11 0.176 0.010 22
Operational (O) 0.253 O1 0.131 0.033 10
O2 0.326 0.082 3
O4 0.079 0.020 16
O6 0.261 0.066 6
O8 0.203 0.051 7
Information sharing (I) 0.139 I4 0.123 0.017 18
I5 0.299 0.041 9
I6 0.226 0.031 13
I7 0.233 0.032 11
I8 0.119 0.016 20
Social resources (S) 0.107 S1 0.095 0.010 23
S2 0.182 0.019 17
S3 0.298 0.032 12
S4 0.269 0.029 14
S5 0.155 0.017 19
– 1.000 – – 1.000 –
Note: Wm = weight of main criteria, wi = local weigth of sub criteria, wi (gloabal) = global weigth of sub criteria.
’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
Table 5. D, R, D R, D R values
’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
Sub-factor D R DR DR
F2 ((0.89, 1.59, 1.59, 2.41;1, 1), ((1.26, 2.08, 2.08, 3.17;1, 1), ((2.15, 3.67, 3.67, 5.58;1, 1), ((–2.28, –0.50, –0.50, 1.15;1, 1),
(1.08, 1.59, 1.59, 1.75;0.9, 0.9)) (1.51, 2.08, 2.08, 2.37;0.9, 0.9)) (2.59, 3.67, 3.67, 4.11;0.9, 0.9)) (–1.29, –0.50, –0.50, 0.24;0.9, 0.9))
F8 ((0.46, 1.00, 1.00, 1.52;1, 1), ((0.75, 1.40, 1.40, 2.14;1, 1), ((1.21, 2.40, 2.40, 3.66;1, 1), ((–1.68, –0.40, –0.40, 0.77;1, 1),
(0.57, 1.00, 1.00, 1.03;0.9, 0.9)) (0.92, 1.40, 1.40, 1.53;0.9, 0.9)) (1.49, 2.40, 2.40, 2.56;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.96, –0.40, –0.40, 0.11;0.9, 0.9))
F9 ((1.04, 1.78, 1.78, 2.71;1, 1), ((1.07, 1.82, 1.82, 2.81;1, 1), ((2.10, 3.61, 3.61, 5.52;1, 1), ((–1.77, –0.04, –0.04, 1.65;1, 1),
(1.25, 1.78, 1.78, 2.00;0.9, 0.9)) (1.30, 1.82, 1.82, 2.07;0.9, 0.9)) (2.55, 3.61, 3.61, 4.07;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.82, –0.04, –0.04, 0.70;0.9, 0.9))
F11 ((0.78, 1.43, 1.43, 2.18;1, 1), ((1.22, 2.03, 2.03, 3.09;1, 1), ((2.00, 3.46, 3.46, 5.28;1, 1), ((–2.32, –0.61, –0.61, 0.96;1, 1),
(0.95, 1.43, 1.43, 1.57;0.9, 0.9)) (1.47, 2.03, 2.03, 2.30;0.9, 0.9)) (2.42, 3.46, 3.46, 3.87;0.9, 0.9)) (–1.36, –0.61, –0.61, 0.10;0.9, 0.9))
F12 ((0.87, 1.55, 1.55, 2.37;1, 1), ((1.10, 1.87, 1.87, 2.85;1, 1), ((1.96, 3.42, 3.42, 5.22;1, 1), ((–1.98, –0.32, –0.32, 1.27;1, 1),
(1.05, 1.55, 1.55, 1.72;0.9, 0.9)) (1.33, 1.87, 1.87, 2.11;0.9, 0.9)) (2.38, 3.42, 3.42, 3.82;0.9, 0.9)) (–1.06, –0.32, –0.32, 0.39;0.9, 0.9))
C3 ((0.62, 1.22, 1.22, 1.85;1, 1), ((0.58, 1.17, 1.17, 1.80;1, 1), ((1.21, 2.39, 2.39, 3.65;1, 1), ((–1.18, 0.05, 0.05, 1.27;1, 1),
(0.76, 1.22, 1.22, 1.30;0.9, 0.9)) (0.72, 1.17, 1.17, 1.26;0.9, 0.9)) (1.48, 2.39, 2.39, 2.56;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.50, 0.05, 0.05, 0.58;0.9, 0.9))
C4 ((0.65, 1.26, 1.26, 1.87;1, 1), ((0.94, 1.65, 1.65, 2.53;1, 1), ((1.60, 2.92, 2.92, 4.40;1, 1), ((–1.88, –0.39, –0.39, 0.93;1, 1),
(0.78, 1.26, 1.26, 1.31;0.9, 0.9)) (1.15, 1.65, 1.65, 1.85;0.9, 0.9)) (1.93, 2.92, 2.92, 3.16;0.9, 0.9)) (–1.07, –0.39, –0.39, 0.17;0.9, 0.9))
C7 ((0.71, 1.33, 1.33, 1.99;1, 1), ((0.82, 1.49, 1.49, 2.27;1, 1), ((1.53, 2.82, 2.82, 4.26;1, 1), ((–1.56, –0.15, –0.15, 1.17;1, 1),
(0.85, 1.33, 1.33, 1.41;0.9, 0.9)) (1.00, 1.49, 1.49, 1.64;0.9, 0.9)) (1.84, 2.82, 2.82, 3.05;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.79, –0.15, –0.15, 0.41;0.9, 0.9))
C8 ((0.46, 1.00, 1.00, 1.53;1, 1), ((0.78, 1.44, 1.44, 2.19;1, 1), ((1.25, 2.44, 2.44, 3.72;1, 1), ((–1.73, –0.44, –0.44, 0.74;1, 1),
(0.57, 1.00, 1.00, 1.04;0.9, 0.9)) (0.95, 1.44, 1.44, 1.57;0.9, 0.9)) (1.53, 2.44, 2.44, 2.61;0.9, 0.9)) (–1.00, –0.44, –0.44, 0.08;0.9, 0.9))
C11 ((0.58, 1.16, 1.16, 1.77;1, 1), ((0.57, 1.14, 1.14, 1.77;1, 1), ((1.15, 2.30, 2.30, 3.54;1, 1), ((–1.19, 0.02, 0.02, 1.20;1, 1),
(0.71, 1.16, 1.16, 1.23;0.9, 0.9)) (0.70, 1.14, 1.14, 1.23;0.9, 0.9)) (1.41, 2.30, 2.30, 2.46;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.52, 0.02, 0.02, 0.53;0.9, 0.9))
O1 ((1.15, 1.94, 1.94, 2.92;1, 1), ((0.68, 1.29, 1.29, 2.00;1, 1), ((1.83, 3.23, 3.23, 4.91;1, 1), ((–0.84, 0.65, 0.65, 2.24;1, 1),
(1.38, 1.94, 1.94, 2.16;0.9, 0.9)) (0.83, 1.29, 1.29, 1.42;0.9, 0.9)) (2.21, 3.23, 3.23, 3.58;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.04, 0.65, 0.65, 1.33;0.9, 0.9))
O2 ((1.04, 1.78, 1.78, 2.69;1, 1), ((0.83, 1.50, 1.50, 2.31;1, 1), ((1.87, 3.28, 3.28, 5.01;1, 1), ((–1.27, 0.28, 0.28, 1.86;1, 1),
(1.25, 1.78, 1.78, 1.98;0.9, 0.9)) (1.02, 1.50, 1.50, 1.67;0.9, 0.9)) (2.26, 3.28, 3.28, 3.65;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.43, 0.28, 0.28, 0.96;0.9, 0.9))
O4 ((1.02, 1.76, 1.76, 2.66;1, 1), ((0.78, 1.43, 1.43, 2.22;1, 1), ((1.80, 3.19, 3.19, 4.88;1, 1), ((–1.20, 0.33, 0.33, 1.88;1, 1),
(1.23, 1.76, 1.76, 1.95;0.9, 0.9)) (0.96, 1.43, 1.43, 1.60;0.9, 0.9)) (2.19, 3.19, 3.19, 3.55;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.37, 0.33, 0.33, 0.99;0.9, 0.9))
O6 ((0.96, 1.67, 1.67, 2.53;1, 1), ((0.80, 1.46, 1.46, 2.26;1, 1), ((1.76, 3.13, 3.13, 4.79;1, 1), ((–1.30, 0.21, 0.21, 1.73;1, 1),
(1.15, 1.67, 1.67, 1.85;0.9, 0.9)) (0.98, 1.46, 1.46, 1.63;0.9, 0.9)) (2.14, 3.13, 3.13, 3.48;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.48, 0.21, 0.21, 0.87;0.9, 0.9))
O8 ((0.68, 1.29, 1.29, 2.00;1, 1), ((0.61, 1.20, 1.20, 1.87;1, 1), ((1.29, 2.50, 2.50, 3.87;1, 1), ((–1.19, 0.09, 0.09, 1.39;1, 1),
(0.84, 1.29, 1.29, 1.42;0.9, 0.9)) (0.76, 1.20, 1.20, 1.31;0.9, 0.9)) (1.59, 2.50, 2.50, 2.73;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.48, 0.09, 0.09, 0.66;0.9, 0.9))
I4 ((0.68, 1.30, 1.30, 2.03;1, 1), ((0.26, 0.72, 0.72, 1.10;1, 1), ((0.94, 2.02, 2.02, 3.13;1, 1), ((–0.42, 0.58, 0.58, 1.77;1, 1),
(0.85, 1.30, 1.30, 1.44;0.9, 0.9)) (0.33, 0.72, 0.72, 0.69;0.9, 0.9)) (1.18, 2.02, 2.02, 2.13;0.9, 0.9)) (0.16, 0.58, 0.58, 1.11;0.9, 0.9))
I5 ((0.70, 1.32, 1.32, 2.06;1, 1), ((0.28, 0.76, 0.76, 1.15;1, 1), ((0.98, 2.08, 2.08, 3.21;1, 1), ((–0.45, 0.57, 0.57, 1.77;1, 1),
(0.86, 1.32, 1.32, 1.46;0.9, 0.9)) (0.36, 0.76, 0.76, 0.73;0.9, 0.9)) (1.22, 2.08, 2.08, 2.20;0.9, 0.9)) (0.13, 0.57, 0.57, 1.11;0.9, 0.9))
I6 ((0.65, 1.26, 1.26, 1.96;1, 1), ((0.30, 0.79, 0.79, 1.20;1, 1), ((0.96, 2.05, 2.05, 3.16;1, 1), ((–0.55, 0.47, 0.47, 1.65;1, 1),
(0.81, 1.26, 1.26, 1.39;0.9, 0.9)) (0.39, 0.79, 0.79, 0.77;0.9, 0.9)) (1.19, 2.05, 2.05, 2.16;0.9, 0.9)) (0.04, 0.47, 0.47, 1.00;0.9, 0.9))
I7 ((0.57, 1.14, 1.14, 1.82;1, 1), ((0.25, 0.71, 0.71, 1.06;1, 1), ((0.82, 1.85, 1.85, 2.88;1, 1), ((–0.50, 0.43, 0.43, 1.57;1, 1),
(0.72, 1.14, 1.14, 1.27;0.9, 0.9)) (0.31, 0.71, 0.71, 0.66;0.9, 0.9)) (1.03, 1.85, 1.85, 1.94;0.9, 0.9)) (0.06, 0.43, 0.43, 0.96;0.9, 0.9))
I8 ((0.31, 0.79, 0.79, 1.22;1, 1), ((0.26, 0.73, 0.73, 1.11;1, 1), ((0.57, 1.52, 1.52, 2.33;1, 1), ((–0.80, 0.06, 0.06, 0.96;1, 1),
(0.39, 0.79, 0.79, 0.79;0.9, 0.9)) (0.33, 0.73, 0.73, 0.70;0.9, 0.9)) (0.73, 1.52, 1.52, 1.49;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.30, 0.06, 0.06, 0.46;0.9, 0.9))
S1 ((0.40, 0.92, 0.92, 1.41;1, 1), ((0.42, 0.94, 0.94, 1.42;1, 1), ((0.82, 1.86, 1.86, 2.83;1, 1), ((–1.02, –0.03, –0.03, 1.00;1, 1),
(0.50, 0.92, 0.92, 0.95;0.9, 0.9)) (0.52, 0.94, 0.94, 0.95;0.9, 0.9)) (1.02, 1.86, 1.86, 1.90;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.45, –0.03, –0.03, 0.43;0.9, 0.9))
S2 ((0.82, 1.49, 1.49, 2.27;1, 1), ((0.82, 1.49, 1.49, 2.27;1, 1), ((1.74, 3.11, 3.11, 4.73;1, 1), ((–1.36, 0.12, 0.12, 1.64;1, 1),
(1.00, 1.49, 1.49, 1.64;0.9, 0.9)) (1.00, 1.49, 1.49, 1.64;0.9, 0.9)) (2.11, 3.11, 3.11, 3.43;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.53, 0.12, 0.12, 0.79;0.9, 0.9))
S3 ((0.92, 1.62, 1.62, 2.46;1, 1), ((0.92, 1.62, 1.62, 2.46;1, 1), ((1.71, 3.06, 3.06, 4.71;1, 1), ((–1.68, –0.18, –0.18, 1.33;1, 1),
(1.11, 1.62, 1.62, 1.79;0.9, 0.9)) (1.11, 1.62, 1.62, 1.79;0.9, 0.9)) (2.08, 3.06, 3.06, 3.41;0.9, 0.9)) (–0.82, –0.18, –0.18, 0.51;0.9, 0.9))
S4 ((1.15, 1.93, 1.93, 2.93;1, 1), ((1.15, 1.93, 1.93, 2.93;1, 1), ((2.09, 3.58, 3.58, 5.48;1, 1), ((–1.99, –0.28, –0.28, 1.40;1, 1),
(1.38, 1.93, 1.93, 2.17;0.9, 0.9)) (1.38, 1.93, 1.93, 2.17;0.9, 0.9)) (2.53, 3.58, 3.58, 4.03;0.9, 0.9)) (–1.02, –0.28, –0.28, 0.48;0.9, 0.9))
S5 ((0.82, 1.49, 1.49, 2.30;1, 1), ((0.82, 1.49, 1.49, 2.30;1, 1), ((1.25, 2.44, 2.44, 3.83;1, 1), ((–1.87, –0.54, –0.54, 0.71;1, 1),
(1.01, 1.49, 1.49, 1.66;0.9, 0.9)) (1.01, 1.49, 1.49, 1.66;0.9, 0.9)) (1.56, 2.44, 2.44, 2.70;0.9, 0.9)) (–1.11, –0.54, –0.54, 0.04;0.9, 0.9))
Results and Discussion 19 period. The findings indicate that financial factors (F)
are the most important criteria to maximize the resilience
The airline industry has experienced the biggest crisis in needed for the survival of airline companies. According
its history with the COVID-19 pandemic, with RPKs to the literature, financial factors are both the most criti-
decreasing by over 90% (2). This study focused on the cal and the most important criteria that ensure the com-
critical resilience factors for airlines during the COVID- mercial stability of airlines (11). Accordingly, F was
Kiraci et al 21
Table 6. D + R, D2R, wi, Wi crisp values decline significantly. The level of liquidity and ‘‘daily
cash burn’’ is closely related to how long airlines can
Sub-factor D+R D2R wi Wi Rank Identify endure the crisis, as they continue to bear various fixed
F2 3.46 0.49 3.49 0.05 1 Effect costs (employee wages, leasing payments, loan payments,
F8 2.20 0.40 2.23 0.03 17 Effect etc.). Therefore, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the
F9 3.40 0.05 3.40 0.05 2 Effect amount of cash that airlines need to remain in operation
F11 3.26 0.60 3.31 0.05 4 Effect has become critical. Airline cash holdings also show how
F12 3.21 0.31 3.23 0.05 5 Effect
C3 2.19 0.05 2.19 0.03 18 Cause
long airlines can stay in operation with their current
C4 2.70 0.41 2.73 0.04 12 Effect liquidity before running out of money (170). The find-
C7 2.61 0.16 2.61 0.04 13 Effect ings of this study indicate that liquid assets (F8) is the
C8 2.24 0.43 2.28 0.04 16 Effect most weighted sub-factor among the financial factors.
C11 2.11 0.01 2.11 0.03 19 Cause Whether an airline will remain in operation in times of
O1 3.02 0.63 3.09 0.05 7 Cause
O2 3.08 0.27 3.09 0.05 6 Cause crisis, such as during COVID-19, depends on its level of
O4 2.99 0.31 3.01 0.05 8 Cause liquid assets. Consequently, these findings demonstrate
O6 2.93 0.20 2.94 0.05 9 Cause that liquid assets are the most critical variable for airline
O8 2.31 0.09 2.31 0.04 15 Cause survival.
I4 1.84 0.59 1.93 0.03 21 Cause The COVID-19 pandemic led to the closure of flight
I5 1.89 0.57 1.98 0.03 20 Cause
I6 1.86 0.48 1.92 0.03 22 Cause operations and the depletion of income sources for air-
I7 1.67 0.45 1.73 0.03 23 Cause lines. This situation resulted in the capability of airlines
I8 1.33 0.07 1.33 0.02 25 Cause to acquire money being decreased significantly. ICAO
S1 1.66 0.02 1.66 0.03 24 Effect (104) announced airline revenue losses of approximately
S2 2.90 0.12 2.90 0.05 10 Cause
S3 2.87 0.16 2.87 0.04 11 Effect
372 billion USD for 2020. In the COVID-19 process, the
S4 3.38 0.27 3.39 0.05 3 Effect operating revenues and cash flow of the airlines almost
S5 2.27 0.52 2.33 0.04 14 Effect stopped completely. In addition, during the pandemic
period, it became difficult for airlines to predict passen-
ger demand and operating income. Airline revenue man-
agement includes specific algorithms and is based on
traditional historical demand patterns for estimation. In
this way, airlines determine ticket prices, estimating
potential demand and revenue. However, with COVID-
19 it became impossible for airlines to effectively imple-
ment revenue management systems. Therefore, the finan-
cial indicators of airlines’ earnings and revenues became
important in this pandemic period. The findings indicate
that earnings capacity (F2), operating revenue (F12), and
net income/revenues (F11) are important factors for air-
lines to achieve resilience. Therefore, the financial vari-
ables about earnings and revenues will determine
whether airlines will survive the COVID-19 process.
The volume of air traffic decreased because of the
impact of the pandemic. Airlines departures decreased
by 71.5% in May 2020 compared with May 2019 (171).
During this process, it was realized that the operational
skills of airlines are important in providing resilience.
The findings of this study reveal that, during the
COVID-19 process, the operational factors of airlines
are the second most important of the main factors. The
Figure 3. Causal diagram developed with Di + Ri and Di2Ri operational factors determined in this study are related
values. to the control power of the airlines over the flight and
operation activities in the pandemic period. According to
the findings, operational sub-factors of reducing capacity
revealed to be the highest weighted criterion (0.442). (O2) and reducing flight frequency (O6) have become
Financial factors are important to the survival of airlines highly critical for airlines. This finding of the analysis
in times of crisis because commercial passenger revenues provides significant information that airlines with more
operational capabilities and flexibility will be more suc- accurate information (I5), exchange of complete informa-
cessful than others during the COVID-19 pandemic. tion (I6), and the exchange of confidential information
(I7) affect the relationships with other stakeholders (S5),
relationships with owners and other financiers (S4), and
Cause and Effect Analysis relationships with suppliers and partners (S3), which are
The findings of this study should be handled separately the affected social resources factors.
as cause factors and effect factors. Cause factors demon-
strate the success factors that have a significant effect on
other factors. The high D2R value indicates that the suc- Validation of Results
cess factor has an important effect on other factors. The To ensure the robustness of the results, the authors
findings of the study reveal that operational factors are received confirmation from a team of academics and an
the cause of financial factors. In other words, the opera- airline industry expert about the consistency of the fac-
tional decisions taken by airlines affected their financial tors. The confirmation from this expert team, who were
indicators. These findings are reasonable because opera- not involved in the previous stages of the study, is about
tional decisions made by airlines, such as temporarily whether the weights of the factors were significant or not.
stopping air services, have an impact on financial indica- The airline industry expert has worked in many airline
tors, such as operating revenue. The findings of the study companies as a senior manager at the operational level,
also indicate that the operational decisions of airlines, such vice president of sales and marketing, trade director,
as temporarily stopping air services (O1), halting direct director, deputy general manager and consultant to the
flights (O4), reducing capacity (O2), and reducing flight fre- CEO for more than 20 years. The opinions of this expert
quency (O6), significantly affect financial indicators, were taken since they have long-term experience in the
namely net income/revenues (F11), earnings capacity (F2), airline industry and the ability to analyze the airline
and operating revenue (F12). In addition, the operational industry in all its dimensions. In addition, the authors
decisions taken during the COVID-19 process have also have taken the opinion of an expert from academia who
had an impact on the general customer satisfaction (C4) holds bachelor, master and PhD degrees in the field of
and the recommendation of the firm’s products/services to aviation management and has carried out academic stud-
others (C8). In other words, operational decisions made by ies in the field of airline management. Therefore, this
airlines, such as temporarily stopping air services, had an expert’s opinion was sought since they have competence
impact on the customers’ satisfaction factor. According to in the relationship between COVID-19 and the airline
the findings, operational decisions made by airlines also industry. In addition, the authors obtained opinions from
had an impact on the relationships with other stakeholders, the expert team on the consistency of the causal relation-
and relationships with owners and other financiers. ships between variables in the IT2FDEMATEL analysis
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the communication results. The expert team agreed that the financial and
strategy used by the airlines during the crisis has signifi- operational factors have become more critical for the air-
cantly affected both financial factors and customer satis- line industry during the COVID-19 process. In addition,
faction. The findings of this study demonstrate that the they confirmed that operational factors and information
information sharing sub-factors of: exchange of timely sharing factors affect both financial and customer satis-
information (I4), exchange of accurate information (I5), faction factors in the COVID-19 era.
exchange of complete information (I6), and exchange of During the validation meeting with the expert team,
confidential information (I7) have an impact on net they stated that airline companies have begun a ‘‘contin-
income (or revenues) (F11), earnings capacity (F2), and uous operation period’’ during the COVID-19 time.
operating revenue (F12). This reveals that the communi- During the continuous operation period, airlines have
cation mistakes made by airlines in their management of focused on operational factors, such as temporarily stop-
COVID-19 have had financial consequences. The find- ping air services, reducing capacity, halting direct flights,
ings also show that information sharing factors also reducing flights and flight frequency since it had become
influence customer satisfaction factors, such as general difficult to continue operations with the past routines. In
customer satisfaction (C4) and the recommendation of addition, because of developments in the outbreak, there
the firm’s products/services to others (C8). In other were last-minute changes to operational processes. Both
words, the communication strategy preferred by airlines financial and information sharing factors have become
about flight operations has an effect on customer satis- critical. Therefore, changes related to the operational
faction factors. Finally, the findings reveal that the infor- process (e.g., reducing capacity) have financially affected
mation sharing factors affect the stakeholders of the airline companies. At the same time, sharing information
airline. For example, information sharing factors, such accurately and in a timely manner has been effective dur-
as the exchange of timely information (I4), exchange of ing the COVID-19 pandemic for crisis management.
Kiraci et al 23
At the validation meeting, experts indicated that it is essential to use operational resources effectively and
‘‘early bird’’ reservations decreased during the COVID- efficiently. Airlines should be able to balance customer
19 period and this has had a significant impact on finan- satisfaction with profitability. To do this, low-
cial factors. In addition, airlines’ business and corporate profitability flight points should be abandoned, and
traffic decreased significantly. Decreases in passenger flight frequency should be regulated by taking passenger
demand have caused airlines to make various operational circulation into consideration. In addition, it would be a
decisions, such as temporarily stopping air services, good decision to design connecting flights rather than
reducing capacity, halting direct flights, and reducing direct flights for some destinations.
flight frequency. As a result, operational decisions have
led to a decrease in the airlines’ cash flows. These deci-
sions also affected the customer satisfaction level and Conclusion, Limitations, and Future
social resources. Research
Considering the study findings, the expert team were The COVID-19 pandemic has caused the airline industry
asked what actions airline decision makers could make to experience uncertainty and turbulence. In crises like
in the upcoming stages of the pandemic. The expert team COVID-19, airlines need an action plan that leads them
recommended that airlines should re-evaluate their fleets to make correct decisions. Through strategic actions, air-
to avoid overcapacity problems. They emphasized that it lines can better manage crisis processes and survive the
is critical to modify passenger aircraft to carry more crisis with minimal damage. In this context, determining
cargo. In addition, they expressed that the retirement of the factors that will affect the success of airlines in crisis
aircraft with high maintenance and operational costs will periods, and revealing the relationship between these suc-
contribute financially. cess factors, is critical. By examining the literature in
detail, this study first determined the success factors
(seven main factors and 65 sub-factors) that may be
Managerial Implications
effective for the maximization of airlines’ resilience during
Airlines are looking for ways to be resilient, first to sur- crisis periods. In the second stage, the number of main
vive and then to be sustainable in a highly uncertain cri- and sub-factors obtained in the literature was decreased to
sis environment, such as COVID-19. At this point, this five main factors (financial factors, operational factors,
study presents a robust proposed model that guides air- customer satisfaction factors, information sharing factors,
line executives in how to direct their strategic actions for social resource factors) and 25 sub-factors using the
their companies to be resilient during the pandemic cri- IT2FAHP technique. In the third stage, these success fac-
sis. To achieve this aim, it would be beneficial for airline tors were analyzed with the IT2FDEMATEL technique to
executives to consider the decision factors in the model determine which of these factors are significantly impor-
proposed in this study. tant for airlines in the COVID-19 period and to reveal the
Accordingly, this research provides several managerial relationship between these success factors. Thus, a robust
implications. The findings of this study reveal that opera- proposed model was created that enables an objective eva-
tional factors and information sharing factors affect luation process and could facilitate critical decision stages
financial and customer satisfaction factors. In addition, for airline decision makers in times of crisis. Airlines can
it can be seen that information sharing factors also affect determine the strategic actions that will enable their suc-
relations with stakeholders. Financial resources/supports cess by increasing their resilience in the crisis period by
are the first aspects that airline companies need in times comparing the factors in the proposed model, and the rela-
of such devastating crisis. To achieve these resources/ tionship between them, with their own values.
supports, airlines should use their relationships with the This study focused on the relationship between organi-
owner and financiers, and other stakeholders, such as zational resilience, crisis management, and sustainability.
governments. At the same time, for airline companies, Some limitations of the study should be considered when
customer satisfaction is very important in these COVID- interpreting the results. The study examined the decision
19 days when airline transportation has been interrupted, factors that affect the strategic actions of airlines that will
both to benefit from the current market share and to increase their resilience in the period after the pandemic
obtain a larger share of the market in the future. crisis starts. Therefore, first, the work is limited to the
Therefore, airline executives must, on the one hand, strategic actions to be taken after the crisis period begins.
attach importance to customer relations and, on the Later studies may focus on how airlines should be pre-
other hand, design a product that their customers desire pared for such crises before a crisis occurs. Second, the
to convince their customers to fly in the COVID-19 envi- study is limited by the factors and sub-factors that were
ronment. Achieving this is critical for airline businesses taken from the factor pool in the context of COVID-19
to maintain the flow of financial resources. In addition, by the experts who contributed to the study. Factors and
sub-factors may vary in studies conducted in different mic-reports/recovery-in-air-travel-expected-to-lag-economic-

contexts. activity/.
The results of the study provide valuable information 3. ICAO. Effects of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) on Civil
on maximization survival resilience for both airline deci- Aviation: Economic Impact Analysis. International Civil
sion makers and investors. In addition, the study is Aviation Organization, 2022. https://www.icao.int/sustain
ability/Documents/Covid-19/ICAO_coronavirus_Econ_Im
expected to inspire researchers for other future studies.
pact.pdf. Accessed January 30, 2022.
Research on evaluating the crisis performance of airlines 4. Osiyevskyy, O., G. Shirokova, and P. Ritala. Exploration
by the factors in the proposed model of this study may and Exploitation in Crisis Environment: Implications for
be among these future studies. Finally, this study pro- Level and Variability of Firm Performance. Journal of
vides a framework for airline companies for successfully Business Research, Vol. 114, 2020, pp. 227–239.
managing crisis processes that occur by catastrophic 5. Sheu, J. B. Post-Disaster Relief-Service Centralized Logis-
events which adversely affect their work outputs. To this tics Distribution With Survivor Resilience Maximization.
end, the proposed model put forward in this study is a Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 68,
novel approach that can be taken into consideration by 2014, pp. 288–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2014.06.016.
the executives of airline companies when generating solu- 6. Endrikat, J., E. Guenther, and H. Hoppe. Making Sense
tions for, and coping with, other types of crisis times as of Conflicting Empirical Findings: A Meta-Analytic
Review of the Relationship Between Corporate Environ-
well as outbreak crises.
mental and Financial Performance. European Management
Journal, Vol. 32, No. 5, 2014, pp. 735–751.
Author Contributions 7. Karabulut, A. T. Effects of Innovation Types on Perfor-
mance of Manufacturing Firms in Turkey. Procedia - Social
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study
conception and design: K. Kiraci, G. Tanriverdi, E. Akan; data and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 195, 2015, pp. 1355–1364.
collection: K. Kiraci, G. Tanriverdi, E. Akan.; analysis and 8. Tan, S. H., M. S. Habibullah, S. K. Tan, and S. W.
interpretation of results: K. Kiraci, G. Tanriverdi, E. Akan; Choon. The Impact of the Dimensions of Environmental
draft manuscript preparation: K. Kiraci, G. Tanriverdi, E. Performance on Firm Performance in Travel and Tourism
Akan. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final Industry. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 203,
version of the manuscript. 2017, pp. 603–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2017.02.029.
9. Burger, N., M. Demartini, F. Tonelli, F. Bodendorf, and
Declaration of Conflicting Interests C. Testa. Investigating Flexibility as a Performance
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with Dimension of a Manufacturing Value Modeling Metho-
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this dology (MVMM): A Framework for Identifying Flexibility
article. Types in Manufacturing Systems. In Procedia CIRP (M.
M. Tseng, H.-Y. Tsai, and Y. Wang eds.), Elsevier B.V.,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2017, pp. 33–38.
Funding 10. Pineda, P. J. G., J. J. H. Liou, C. C. Hsu, and Y. C.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, Chuang. An Integrated MCDM Model for Improving Air-
authorship, and/or publication of this article. line Operational and Financial Performance. Journal of Air
Transport Management, Vol. 68, 2018, pp. 103–117.
11. Mahtani, U. S., and C. P. Garg. An Analysis of Key Fac-
ORCID iD tors of Financial Distress in Airline Companies in India
Kasım Kiraci https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2061-171X Using Fuzzy AHP Framework. Transportation Research
Ercan Akan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0383-8290 Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 117, 2018, pp. 87–102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.08.016.
12. Chow, C. K. W. Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality
Supplemental Material in the Chinese Airline Industry. Journal of Air Transport
Supplemental material for this article is available online. Management, Vol. 35, 2014, pp. 102–107.
13. Steven, A. B., Y. Dong, and M. Dresner. Linkages Between
Customer Service, Customer Satisfaction and Performance
References
in the Airline Industry: Investigation of Non-Linearities
1. Dunn, G.. Which Airlines Launched, Failed or Merged and Moderating Effects. Transportation Research Part E:
During 2020. FlightGlobal, 2021. https://www.flightglobal. Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2012,
com/strategy/which-airlines-launched-failed-or-merged-- pp. 743–754.
during-2020/141574.article. 14. Lins, K. V., H. Servaes, and A. Tamayo. Social Capital,
2. IATA. IATA Economics’ Chart of the Week: Recovery in Trust, and Firm Performance: The Value of Corporate
Air Travel Expected to Lag Economic Activity. 2020. Social Responsibility During the Financial Crisis. Journal
https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/econo of Finance, Vol. 72, No. 4, 2017, pp. 1785–1824.
Kiraci et al 25
15. Quang, H. T., P. Sampaio, M. S. Carvalho, A. C. Fer- Volumes: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Transport Geo-
nandes, D. T. B. An, and E. Vilhenac. An Extensive Struc- graphy, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1387–1398.
tural Model of Supply Chain Quality Management and 29. Oprea, M. G. The Effects of Global Economic Crisis on
Firm Performance. International Journal of Quality & the Air Transport of Passengers in Europe and in Roma-
Reliability Management, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2016, pp. 444–464. nia. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, Vol. 5, No. 1,
16. Claus, L. Similarities and Differences in Human Resource 2010, pp. 52–61.
Management in the European Union. Thunderbird Interna- 30. Diaconu (Maxim), L. The Impact of the Economic Crises
tional Business Review, Vol. 45, No. 6, 2003, pp. 729–755. From the XXIst Century on the European Low-Cost Air-
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tie.10100. lines’ Market. USV Annals of Economics and Public Admin-
Accessed January 29, 2022. istration, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2013, pp. 91–98.
17. Hu, Y. C., and C. C. F. Wang. Collectivism, Corporate 31. Pearce, B. The State of Air Transport Markets and the
Social Responsibility, and Resource Advantages in Retail- Airline Industry After the Great Recession. Journal of Air
ing. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 86, No. 1, 2008, Transport Management, Vol. 21, 2012, pp. 3–9.
pp. 1–13. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551- 32. Gittell, J. H., K. Cameron, S. Lim, and V. Rivas. Relation-
008-9789-x. Accessed January 29, 2022. ships, Layoffs, and Organizational Resilience: Airline
18. Agustia, D., N. P. A. Muhammad, and Y. Permatasari. Industry Responses to September 11. Journal of Applied
Earnings Management, Business Strategy, and Bankruptcy Behavioral Science, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2006, pp. 300–329.
Risk: Evidence From Indonesia. Heliyon, Vol. 6, No. 2, 33. Hätty, H., and S. Hollmeier. Airline Strategy in the 2001/
2020, p. e03317. 2002 Crisis—The Lufthansa Example. Journal of Air Trans-
19. Gupta, A. K., and N. Gupta. Effect of Corporate Environ- port Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2003, pp. 51–55.
mental Sustainability on Dimensions of Firm Performance 34. Lai, S. L., and W. L. Lu. Impact Analysis of September 11
– Towards Sustainable Development: Evidence From on Air Travel Demand in the USA. Journal of Air Trans-
India. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 253, 2020, P. port Management, Vol. 11, No. 6, 2005, pp. 455–458.
119948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119948. 35. Kim, H., and Z. Gu. Impact of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks
20. Wagner, M. Corporate Performance Implications of on the Return and Risk of Airline Stocks. Tourism and
Extended Stakeholder Management: New Insights on Hospitality Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2004, pp. 150–163.
Mediation and Moderation Effects. Ecological Economics, 36. Polater, A. Managing Airports in Non-Aviation Related
Vol. 70, No. 5, 2011, pp. 942–950. Disasters: A Systematic Literature Review. International
21. Gianni, M., K. Gotzamani, and G. Tsiotras. Multiple Per- Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 31, 2018,
spectives on Integrated Management Systems and Corpo- pp. 367–380.
rate Sustainability Performance. Journal of Cleaner 37. Smith, J. F. Regional Cooperation, Coordination, and
Production, Vol. 168, 2017, pp. 1297–1311. Communication Between Airports During Disasters.
22. Huq, F. A., I. N. Chowdhury, and R. D. Klassen. Social Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
Management Capabilities of Multinational Buying Firms tion Research Board, 2010. 2177: 132–140.
and Their Emerging Market Suppliers: An Exploratory 38. Minato, N., and R. Morimoto. Collaborative Management
Study of the Clothing Industry. Journal of Operations Man- of Regional Air Transport During Natural Disasters: Case
agement, Vol. 46, 2016, pp. 19–37. of the 2011 East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Research
23. Kannan, D. Role of Multiple Stakeholders and the Critical in Transportation Business & Management, Vol. 4, 2012,
Success Factor Theory for the Sustainable Supplier Selec- pp. 13–21.
tion Process. International Journal of Production Econom- 39. Alexander, D. Volcanic Ash in the Atmosphere and Risks
ics, Vol. 195, 2018, pp. 391–418. for Civil Aviation: A Study in European Crisis Manage-
24. Chavez, R., W. Yu, C. Gimenez, B. Fynes, and F. Wiengar- ment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, Vol.
ten. Customer Integration and Operational Performance: 4, No. 1, 2013, pp. 9–19.
The Mediating Role of Information Quality. Decision Sup- 40. Brownstein, J. S., C. J. Wolfe, and K. D. Mandl. Empirical
port Systems, Vol. 80, 2015, pp. 83–95. Evidence for the Effect of Airline Travel on Inter-Regional
25. d’Angella, F., and F. M. Go. Tale of Two Cities’ Colla- Influenza Spread in the United States. PLoS Medicine, Vol.
borative Tourism Marketing: Towards a Theory of Desti- 3, No. 10, 2006, p. e401.
nation Stakeholder Assessment. Tourism Management, 41. Grais, R. F., J. H. Ellis, A. Kress, and G. E. Glass. Model-
Vol. 30, No. 3, 2009, pp. 429–440. ing the Spread of Annual Influenza Epidemics in the U.S.:
26. Sobieralski, J. B. COVID-19 and Airline Employment: The Potential Role of Air Travel. Health Care Management
Insights From Historical Uncertainty Shocks to the Indus- Science, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2004, pp. 127–134.
try. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 42. Grais, R. F., J. H. Ellis, and G. E. Glass. Assessing the
Vol. 5, 2020, p. 100123. Impact of Airline Travel on the Geographic Spread of Pan-
27. Bjelicic, B. Financing Airlines in the Wake of the Financial demic Influenza. European Journal of Epidemiology, Vol.
Markets Crisis. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 18, No. 11, 2003, pp. 1065–1072.
21, 2012, pp. 10–16. 43. Webster, C. H. Airline Operating Realities and the Global
28. Dobruszkes, F., and G. Van Hamme. The Impact of the Spread of Infectious Diseases. Asia-Pacific Journal of Pub-
Current Economic Crisis on the Geography of Air Traffic lic Health, Vol. 22, Supplement 3, 2010, pp. 137S–143S.
44. Bowen, J. T., and C. Laroe. Airline Networks and the Approach. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 89,
International Diffusion of Severe Acute Respiratory Syn- 2020, p. 101920.
drome (SARS). Geographical Journal, Vol. 172, No. 2, 59. Sun, X., S. Wandelt, and A. Zhang. How Did COVID-19
2006, pp. 130–144. Impact Air Transportation? A First Peek Through the Lens
45. Grout, A., N. Howard, R. Coker, and E. M. Speakman. of Complex Networks. Journal of Air Transport Manage-
Guidelines, Law, and Governance: Disconnects in the Glo- ment, Vol. 89, 2020, p. 101928.
bal Control of Airline-Associated Infectious Diseases. The 60. Suau-Sanchez, P., A. Voltes-Dorta, and N. Cugueró-Esco-
Lancet Infectious Diseases, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2017, pp. fet. An Early Assessment of the Impact of COVID-19 on
e118–e122. Air Transport: Just Another Crisis or the End of Aviation
46. Colizza, V., A. Barrat, M. Barthélemy, and A. Vespignani. as we Know It? Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 86,
The Role of the Airline Transportation Network in the Pre- 2020, p. 102749.
diction and Predictability of Global Epidemics. Proceedings 61. Graham, A., F. Kremarik, and W. Kruse. Attitudes of
of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 103, No. 7, Ageing Passengers to Air Travel Since the Coronavirus
2006, pp. 2015–2020. Pandemic. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 87,
47. Cheng, S. W. Improvement of Protection and Comfort for 2020, p. 101865.
Long-Range Airliner Passenger in the Post-SARS Age. 62. Gössling, S. Risks, Resilience, and Pathways to Sustainable
Proc., IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, IEEE, Aviation: A COVID-19 Perspective. Journal of Air Trans-
New York, 2005. port Management, Vol. 89, 2020, p. 101933.
48. Fenichel, E. P., N. V. Kuminoff, and G. Chowell. Skip the 63. Forsyth, P., C. Guiomard, and H. M. Niemeier. Covid-19,
Trip: Air Travelers’ Behavioral Responses to Pandemic the Collapse in Passenger Demand and Airport Charges.
Influenza. PLoS One, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2013, p. e58249. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 89, 2020, p.
49. Amankwah-Amoah, J. Ebola and Global Airline Business: 101932.
An Integrated Framework of Companies’ Responses to 64. Lamb, T. L., S. R. Winter, S. Rice, K. J. Ruskin, and A.
Adverse Environmental Shock. Thunderbird International Vaughn. Factors That Predict Passengers’ Willingness to
Business Review, Vol. 58, No. 5, 2016, pp. 385–397. Fly During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of
50. Loh, E. The Impact of SARS on the Performance and Risk Air Transport Management, Vol. 89, 2020, p. 101897.
Profile of Airline Stocks. International Journal of Transport 65. Naboush, E., and R. Alnimer. Air Carrier’s Liability for
Economics, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2006, pp. 401–422. the Safety of Passengers During COVID-19 Pandemic.
51. Kierzkowski, A., and T. Kisiel. Simulation Model of Secu- Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 89, 2020, p.
rity Control Lane Operation in the State of the COVID-19 101896.
Epidemic. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 88, 66. Amankwah-Amoah, J. Note: Mayday, Mayday, Mayday!
2020, p. 101868. Responding to Environmental Shocks: Insights on Global
52. Nakamura, H., and S. Managi. Airport Risk of Importa- Airlines’ Responses to COVID-19. Transportation Research
tion and Exportation of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Trans- Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 143,
port Policy, Vol. 96, 2020, pp. 40–47. 2020, p. 102098.
53. Nikolaou, P., and L. Dimitriou. Identification of Critical 67. Albers, S., and V. Rundshagen. European Airlines’ Strate-
Airports for Controlling Global Infectious Disease Out- gic Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic (January–May,
breaks: Stress-Tests Focusing in Europe. Journal of Air 2020). Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 87, 2020,
Transport Management, Vol. 85, 2020, p. 101819. p. 101863.
54. Sokadjo, Y. M., and M. N. Atchadé. The Influence of Pas- 68. Akbar, Y. H., and M. Kisilowski. To Bargain or not to
senger Air Traffic on the Spread of COVID-19 in the Bargain: Airlines, Legitimacy and Nonmarket Strategy in a
World. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspec- COVID-19 World. Journal of Air Transport Management,
tives, Vol. 8, 2020, p. 100213. Vol. 88, 2020, p. 101867.
55. Zhang, L., H. Yang, K. Wang, Y. Zhan, and L. Bian. Mea- 69. Abate, M., P. Christidis, and A. J. Purwanto. Government
suring Imported Case Risk of COVID-19 From Inbound Support to Airlines in the Aftermath of the COVID-19
International Flights - A Case Study on China. Journal of Pandemic. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 89,
Air Transport Management, Vol. 89, 2020, p. 101918. 2020, p. 101931.
56. Tabares, D. A. An Airport Operations Proposal for a Pan- 70. Salari, M., R. J. Milne, C. Delcea, L. Kattan, and L. A.
demic-Free Air Travel. Journal of Air Transport Manage- Cotfas. Social Distancing in Airplane Seat Assignments.
ment, Vol. 90, 2021, p. 101943. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 89, 2020, p.
57. Monmousseau, P., A. Marzuoli, E. Feron, and D. Dela- 101915.
haye. Impact of Covid-19 on Passengers and Airlines From 71. Choi, T. M. Risk Analysis in Logistics Systems: A
Passenger Measurements: Managing Customer Satisfaction Research Agenda During and After the COVID-19 Pan-
While Putting the US Air Transportation System to Sleep. demic. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. Transportation Review, Vol. 145, 2021, p. 102190.
7, 2020, p. 100179. 72. Gudmundsson, S. V., M. Cattaneo, and R. Redondi. Fore-
58. Maneenop, S., and S. Kotcharin. The Impacts of COVID- casting Recovery Time in Air Transport Markets in the
19 on the Global Airline Industry: An Event Study Presence of Large Economic Shocks: COVID-19. SSRN
Kiraci et al 27
Electronic Journal, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. (L. Robin, S. Sörlin, and P. Warde, eds.), Yale University
3623040. Press, New Haven, CT, 2013.
73. Czerny, A. I., X. Fu, Z. Lei, and T. H. Oum. Post Pan- 87. Lengnick-Hall, C. A., T. E. Beck, and M. L. Lengnick-
demic Aviation Market Recovery: Experience and Lessons Hall. Developing a Capacity for Organizational Resilience
From China. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. Through Strategic Human Resource Management. Human
90, 2021, p. 101971. Resource Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2010,
74. Dube, K., G. Nhamo, and D. Chikodzi. COVID-19 Pan- pp. 243–255.
demic and Prospects for Recovery of the Global Aviation 88. DesJardine, M., P. Bansal, and Y. Yang. Bouncing Back:
Industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 92, Building Resilience Through Social and Environmental Prac-
2021, p. 102022. tices in the Context of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Jour-
75. Tanrıverdi, G., M. Bakır, and R. Merkert. What Can we nal of Management, Vol. 45, No. 4, 2019, pp. 1434–1460.
Learn From the JATM Literature for the Future of Avia- 89. Home, J. F., and J. E. Orr. Assessing Behaviors That Cre-
tion Post Covid-19? - A Bibliometric and Visualization ate Resilient Organizations. Employment Relations Today,
Analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 89, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1997, pp. 29–39.
2020, p. 101916. 90. Tierney, K. J. Conceptualizing and Measuring Organiza-
76. Schultz, M., J. Evler, E. Asadi, H. Preis, H. Fricke, and C. tional and Community Resilience: Lessons From the Emer-
L. Wu. Future Aircraft Turnaround Operations Consider- gency Response Following the September 11, 2001 Attack on
ing Post-Pandemic Requirements. Journal of Air Transport the World Trade Center. Preliminary Papers 329. Disaster
Management, Vol. 89, 2020, p. 101886. Research Center, Newark, DE, 2003.
77. Macilree, J., and D. T. Duval. Aeropolitics in a Post- 91. Jafari, M. J., R. J. Nodoushan, G. A. Shirali, S. Khoda-
COVID-19 World. Journal of Air Transport Management, karim, and H. K. Zare. Indicators of Organizational Resili-
Vol. 88, 2020, p. 101864. ence in Critical Sociotechnical Systems: A Qualitative
78. Tisdall, L., and Y. Zhang. Preparing for ‘‘COVID-27’’: Les- Study for the Refinery Complex. Health Scope, Vol. 7, No.
sons in Management Focus – An Australian General Avia- 3, 2018, p. e14134.
tion Perspective. Journal of Air Transport Management, 92. Sawalha, I. H. S. Managing Adversity: Understanding
Vol. 89, 2020, p. 101922. Some Dimensions of Organizational Resilience. Management
79. Serrano, F., and A. Kazda. The Future of Airport Post Research Review, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2015, pp. 346–366.
COVID-19. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 89, 93. McManus, S., E. Seville, J. Vargo, and D. Brunsdon.
2020, p. 101901. Facilitated Process for Improving Organizational Resili-
80. Bauer, L. B., D. Bloch, and R. Merkert. Ultra Long-Haul: ence. Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2008,
An Emerging Business Model Accelerated by COVID-19. pp. 81–90.
Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 89, 2020, p. 94. Hosseini, S., D. Ivanov, and A. Dolgui. Review of Quanti-
101901. tative Methods for Supply Chain Resilience Analysis.
81. Li, T. A SWOT Analysis of China’s Air Cargo Sector in Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transporta-
the Context of COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Air Trans- tion Review, Vol. 125, 2019, pp. 285–307.
port Management, Vol. 88, 2020, p. 101875. 95. Butt, A. S. Strategies to Mitigate the Impact of COVID-19
82. Linden, E. Pandemics and Environmental Shocks: What on Supply Chain Disruptions: A Multiple Case Analysis of
Aviation Managers Should Learn From COVID-19 for Buyers and Distributors. International Journal of Logistics
Long-Term Planning. Journal of Air Transport Manage- Management, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2020-
ment, Vol. 90, 2021, p. 101944. 0455.
83. Samanci, S., K. D. Atalay, and F. B. Isin. Focusing on the 96. Modgil, S., S. Gupta, R. Stekelorum, and I. Laguir. AI
Big Picture While Observing the Concerns of Both Manag- Technologies and Their Impact on Supply Chain Resili-
ers and Passengers in the Post-Covid Era. Journal of Air ence During COVID-19. International Journal of Physical
Transport Management, Vol. 90, 2021, p. 101970. Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 52, No. 2, 2022,
84. Ray, S. J. Strategic Communication in Crisis Management: pp. 130–149.
Lessons From the Airline Industry. Praeger, 1999. https:// 97. El Baz, J., and S. Ruel. Can Supply Chain Risk Manage-
books.google.com.tr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=x8SDs-SFw ment Practices Mitigate the Disruption Impacts on Supply
8UC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=organizations + survival + Chains’ Resilience and Robustness? Evidence From an
%2B + Ray, + 1999&ots=jkpMCXEUj6&sig=REnHSN4 Empirical Survey in a COVID-19 Outbreak Era. Interna-
UkkzUPP-dAz1sDB231LU&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q= tional Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 233, 2021, p.
organizations survival %2B Ray%2C 1999&f=false. 107972.
Accessed February 1, 2022. 98. Sarma, P. R. S., A. Kumar, N. A. Choudhary, and S. K.
85. Tengblad, S., and M. Oudhuis. The Resilience Framework: Mangla. Modelling Resilient Fashion Retail Supply Chain
Organizing for Sustained Viability. In Work, Organization, Strategies to Mitigate the COVID-19 Impact. International
and Employment (T. Dundon, and A. Wilkinson, eds.), Journal of Logistics Management, 2021. https://doi.org/10.
Springer, Singapore, 2018. 1108/IJLM-03-2021-0170.
86. Holling, C. S. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Sys- 99. Sharma, R., A. Shishodia, S. Kamble, A. Gunasekaran,
tems. In The Future of Nature: Documents of Global Change and A. Belhadi. Agriculture Supply Chain Risks and
COVID-19: Mitigation Strategies and Implications for the 113. Palmi, P., D. Morrone, P. P. Miglietta, and G. Fusco.
Practitioners. International Journal of Logistics Research How Did Organizational Resilience Work Before and
and Applications, 2020, pp. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/ After the Financial Crisis? An Empirical Study. Interna-
13675567.2020.1830049. tional Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 13, No.
100. Bastug, S., and F. Yercan. An Explanatory Approach to 10, 2018, pp. 54–62. https://bia.unibz.it/esploro/outputs/
Assess Resilience: An Evaluation of Competitive Priorities journalArticle/How-Did-Organizational-Resilience-Work-
for Logistics Organizations. Transport Policy, Vol. 103, Before/991005772493601241. Accessed January 31, 2022.
2021, pp. 156–166. 114. Moon, H., and D. Min. A DEA Approach for Evaluating
101. Belhadi, A., S. Kamble, C. J. C. Jabbour, A. Gunase- the Relationship Between Energy Efficiency and Financial
karan, N. O. Ndubisi, and M. Venkatesh. Manufacturing Performance for Energy-Intensive Firms in Korea. Jour-
and Service Supply Chain Resilience to the COVID-19 nal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 255, 2020, p. 120283.
Outbreak: Lessons Learned From the Automobile and 115. Behn, B. K., and R. A. Riley. Using Nonfinancial Infor-
Airline Industries. Technological Forecasting and Social mation to Predict Financial Performance: The Case of the
Change, Vol. 163, 2021, p. 120447. U.S. Airline Industry. Journal of Accounting, Auditing &
102. Migdadi, Y. K. A. A. Airline Effective Operations Strat- Finance, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1999, pp. 29–56.
egy During COVID-19 Pandemic: Across Regional 116. de Carvalho, A. O., I. Ribeiro, C. B. S. Cirani, and R. F.
Worldwide Survey. Review of International Business and Cintra. Organizational Resilience: A Comparative Study
Strategy, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2022, pp. 10–38. Between Innovative and Non-Innovative Companies
103. Suk, M., and W. Kim. COVID-19 and the Airline Indus- Based on the Financial Performance Analysis. Interna-
try: Crisis Management and Resilience. Tourism Review, tional Journal of Innovation, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2016,
Vol. 76, 2021, pp. 984–998. pp. 58–69. https://periodicos.uninove.br/innovation/arti-
104. ICAO. Effects of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) on cle/view/10024/4717. Accessed January 31, 2022.
Civil Aviation: Economic Impact Analysis. 2020. https:// 117. Yun, X., and S. M. Yoon. Impact of Oil Price Change on
www.icao.int/sustainability/Documents/COVID-19/ Airline’s Stock Price and Volatility: Evidence From China
ICAO_Coronavirus_Econ_Impact.pdf. and South Korea. Energy Economics,Vol. 78, 2019,
105. Rashidi, K., M. Stadelmann, and A. Patt. Creditworthi- pp. 668–679.
ness and Climate: Identifying a Hidden Financial Co-Ben- 118. Capobianco, H. M. P., and E. Fernandes. Capital Struc-
efit of Municipal Climate Adaptation and Mitigation ture in the World Airline Industry. Transportation
Policies. Energy Research & Social Science, Vol. 48, 2019, Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 38, No. 6,
pp. 131–138. 2004, pp. 421–434.
106. Andersson, T., C. Haslam, E. Lee, G. Katechos, and N. 119. Bouslah, K., L. Kryzanowski, and B. M’Zali. Social Per-
Tsitsianis. Corporate Strategy Financialized: Conjuncture, formance and Firm Risk: Impact of the Financial Crisis.
Arbitrage and Earnings Capacity in the S&P500. Account- Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 149, No. 3, 2018,
ing Forum, Vol. 34, No. 3–4, 2010, pp. 211–221. pp. 643–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3017-x.
107. Cheema-Fox, A., B. R. LaPerla, G. Serafeim, and H. S. 120. Rodrigues, J., P. Ruivo, and T. Oliveira. Mediation Role
Wang. Corporate Resilience and Response to COVID-19. of Business Value and Strategy in Firm Performance of
Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 33, No. 2, Organizations Using Software-as-a-Service Enterprise
2021, pp. 24–40. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract= Applications. Information & Management, Vol. 58, No. 1,
3578167. Accessed January 30, 2022. 2021, p. 103289.
108. Kaplan, S. N., F. Martel, and P. Strömberg. How Do 121. Ittner, C. D., D. F. Larcker, and T. Randall. Performance
Legal Differences and Experience Affect Financial Con- Implications of Strategic Performance Measurement in
tracts? Journal of Financial Intermediation, Vol. 16, No. 3, Financial Services Firms. Accounting, Organizations and
2007, pp. 273–311. Society, Vol. 28, No. 7–8, 2003, pp. 715–741.
109. Adger, W. N. Social and Ecological Resilience: Are They 122. Climis, R. Factors Affecting Customer Retention in the
Related? Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 24, No. 3, Airline Industry. Journal of Management and Business
2016, pp. 347–364. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/ Administration Central Europe, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2016,
10.1191/030913200701540465. Accessed January 31, 2022. pp. 49–69.
110. Anand, K., P. Gai, S. Kapadia, S. Brennan, and M. Willi- 123. Saleem, M. A., S. Zahra, and A. Yaseen. Impact of Ser-
son. A Network Model of Financial System Resilience. vice Quality and Trust on Repurchase Intentions – The
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 85, Case of Pakistan Airline Industry. Asia Pacific Journal of
No. 1, 2013, pp. 219–235. Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 29, No. 5, 2017, pp. 1136–1159.
111. Ozkan, A., and N. Ozkan. Corporate Cash Holdings: An https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-10-2016-0192.
Empirical Investigation of UK Companies. Journal of 124. Budd, L., S. Ison, and N. Adrienne. European Airline
Banking & Finance, Vol. 28, No. 9, 2004, pp. 2103–2134. Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic -Contraction, Con-
112. Choo, Y. Y., L. Corbo, and K. Wang. Joint Impact of solidation and Future considerations for Airline Business
Airline Market Structure and Airport Ownership on Air- and Management. Research in Transportation Business &
port Market Power and Profit Margin. Transport Policy, Management, Vol. 37, 2020, p. 100578. https://doi.org/
Vol. 72, 2018, pp. 67–78. 10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100578
Kiraci et al 29
125. Rajaguru, R. Role of Value for Money and Service Qual- 137. Scholten, K., and S. Schilder. The Role of Collaboration
ity on Behavioural Intention: A Study of Full Service and in Supply Chain Resilience. Supply Chain Management,
Low Cost Airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2015, pp. 471–484.
Vol. 53, 2016, pp. 114–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. 138. Limon, I, _ and Ü. Dilekcxi. Organizational Improvisation
jairtraman.2016.02.008. Capability of Schools: A Study of Scale Adaptation and
126. Zou, B., and M. Hansen. Impact of Operational Perfor- Level Determination. Pegem Journal of Education and
mance on Air Carrier Cost Structure: Evidence From US Instruction, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2020, pp. 1147–1182. https://
Airlines. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and www.pegegog.net/index.php/pegegog/article/view/941.
Transportation Review, Vol. 48, No. 5, 2012, pp. 1032–1048. Accessed February 1, 2022.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2012.03.006. 139. Rose, A., and E. Krausmann. An Economic Framework
127. Lau, C. M. Nonfinancial and Financial Performance for the Development of a Resilience Index for Business
Measures: How Do They Affect Employee Role Clarity Recovery. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduc-
and Performance? Advances in Accounting, Vol. 27, No. 2, tion, Vol. 5, 2013, pp. 73–83.
2011, pp. 286–293. 140. Nowell, B., C. P. Bodkin, and D. Bayoumi. Redundancy
128. McManus, S., E. Seville, D. Brunsdon, and J. Vargo. as a Strategy in Disaster Response Systems: A Pathway
Resilience Management: A Framework for Assessing and to Resilience or a Recipe for Disaster? Journal of Contin-
Improving the Resilience of Organisations. Resilient Orga- gencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2017,
nisations Research Report 2007/01. University of Canter- pp. 123–135. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.
bury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2007, p. 79. http://ir. 1111/1468-5973.12178. Accessed February 1, 2022.
canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/2808. 141. Mackay, J., A. Munoz, and M. Pepper. Conceptualising
129. Martı́n-Fernández, F., P. Caballero-Gil, and C. Cabal- Redundancy and Flexibility Towards Supply Chain
lero-Gil. Non-Interactive Authentication and Confiden- Robustness and Resilience. Journal of Risk Research, Vol.
tial Information Exchange for Mobile Environments. 23, No. 12, 2020, pp. 1541–1561. https://www.tandfonline.
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 369, com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669877.2019.1694964. Accessed
2015, pp. 261–271. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10. February 1, 2022.
1007/978-3-319-19713-5_23. Accessed January 30, 2022. 142. Bose, I., and U. A. Emirates. Employee Empowerment
130. Liang, C. J., and H. J. Chen. A Study of the Impacts of and Employee Performance: An Empirical Study on
Website Quality on Customer Relationship Performance. Selected Banks in UAE. Journal of Applied Management
Total Quality Management, Vol. 20, No. 9, 2009, and Investments, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2018, pp. 71–82.
pp. 971–988. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. 143. Mazzei, A., J. N. Kim, G. Togni, Y. Lee, and A. Lovari.
1080/14783360903181784. Accessed January 30, 2022. Employees as Advocates or Adversaries During a Corpo-
131. Chen, M. J., and D. Miller. Reconceptualizing Competi- rate Crisis. The Role of Perceived Authenticity and
tive Dynamics: A Multidimensional Framework. Strategic Employee Empowerment. Sinergie Italian Journal of
Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2015, pp. 758–775. Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, 2019, pp. 195–212.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smj.2245. 144. Arokiasamy, A. R. A., H. H. Tat, and A. G. K. bin
Accessed January 30, 2022. Abdullah. The Effects of Reward System and Motivation
132. Edvardsson, B., B. Enquist, and M. Hay. Values-Based on Job Satisfaction: Evidence From the Education Indus-
Service Brands: Narratives From IKEA. Managing Ser- try in Malaysia. World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 24,
vice Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, No. 12, 2013, pp. 1597–1604.
2006, pp. 230–246. 145. Alam, M. N., M. M. Hassan, D. Bowyer, and M. Reaz.
133. Folke, C., S. R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. The Effects of Wages and Welfare Facilities on Employee
Chapin, and J. Rockström. Resilience Thinking: Integrat- Productivity: Mediating Role of Employee Work Motiva-
ing Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecol- tion. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Jour-
ogy and Society, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2010, pp. 1–9. https:// nal, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2020, pp. 38–60.
www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26268226.pdf. Accessed January 146. Langovic, M. A., T. Cvetkovski, and V. Tomasevic.
31, 2022. Employee Motivation During the Global Economic Cri-
134. Ma, Z., L. Xiao, and J. Yin. Toward a Dynamic Model of sis. Actual Problems of Economics, Vol. 10, 2014,
Organizational Resilience. Nankai Business Review Inter- pp. 1291–1301.
national, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2018, pp. 246–263. 147. Jyoti, J. Impact of Organizational Climate on Job Satis-
135. Gligor, D., N. Gligor, M. Holcomb, and S. Bozkurt. Dis- faction, Job Commitment and Intention to Leave: An
tinguishing Between the Concepts of Supply Chain Agility Empirical Model. Journal of Business Theory and Practice,
and Resilience: A Multidisciplinary Literature Review. Vol. 1, No. 1, 2013, p. 66.
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 30, 148. Lee, A. V., J. Vargo, and E. Seville. Developing a Tool to
No. 2, 2019, pp. 467–487. Measure and Compare Organizations’ Resilience. Natural
136. Lotfi, M., and S. Saghiri. Disentangling Resilience, Agi- Hazards Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2013, pp. 29–41.
lity and Leanness Conceptual Development and Empirical 149. Nda, M. M., and R. Y. Fard. The Impact of Employee
Analysis. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Manage- Training and Development on Employee Productivity.
ment, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2018, pp. 168–197. Global Journal of Commerce and Management Perspective,
Vol. 2, No. 6, 2013, pp. 91–93. http://www.researchgate. 161. Zhang, H., X. Bai, and X. Hong. Site Selection of Nursing
net/profile/Dr_Rashad_Yazdanifard/publication/2602190 Homes Based on Interval Type-2 Fuzzy AHP, CRITIC
97_THE_IMPACT_OF_EMPLOYEE_TRAINING_ and Improved TOPSIS Methods. Journal of Intelligent &
AND_DEVELOPMENT_ON_EMPLOYEE_PRODU Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 42, No. 4, 2021, pp. 3789–3804.
CTIVITY/links/00b4953030e52c7e4a000000.pdf. 162. Meniz, B., S. A. Bas, B. A. Ozkok, and F. Tiryaki. Multi-
150. Meitisari, N., A. Hanafi, and Z. Wahab. Analysis on the level AHP Approach With Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets to
Effects of Organizational Communication Climate and Portfolio Selection Problem. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy
Career Development Toward Employee Performance With Systems, Vol. 40, No. 5, 2021, pp. 8819–8829.
Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Scientific and 163. Kahraman, C., B. Öztaysxi, I. U. Sari, and E. TuranoúÏlu.
Research Publications, Vol. 8, No. 8, 2018, pp. 444–449. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process With Interval Type-2
151. Andrevski, G., W. J. Ferrier, and D. J. Brass. Social Capi- Fuzzy Sets. Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 59, 2014,
tal and Competitive Behavior: A Study of Interfirm Net- pp. 48–57.
works and Rivalry Among Automakers. Presented at 164. Zhang, Z., and S. Zhang. A Novel Approach to Multi
Academy of Management 2007 Annual Meeting: Doing Attribute Group Decision Making Based on Trapezoidal
Well by Doing Good, Briarcliff Manor, NY, 2007. Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Soft Sets. Applied Mathematical
152. Mendel, J. M., R. I. John, and F. Liu. Interval Type-2 Modelling, Vol. 37, No. 7, 2013, pp. 4948–4971. http://dx.
Fuzzy Logic Systems Made Simple. IEEE Transactions on doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2012.10.006.
Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 14, No. 6, 2006, pp. 808–821. 165. Baykasoğlu, A., and I._ Gölcük. Development of an Inter-
153. Zeng, J., M. An, and N. J. Smith. Application of a Fuzzy val Type-2 Fuzzy Sets Based Hierarchical MADM Model
Based Decision Making Methodology to Construction by Combining DEMATEL and TOPSIS. Expert Systems
Project Risk Assessment. International Journal of Project With Applications, Vol. 70, 2017, pp. 37–51.
Management, Vol. 25, No. 6, 2007, pp. 589–600. 166. Abdullah, L., and N. Zulkifli. Integration of Fuzzy AHP
154. Zadeh, L. A. The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and its and Interval Type-2 Fuzzy DEMATEL: An Application
Application to Approximate Reasoning—I. Information to Human Resource Management. Expert Systems With
Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1975, pp. 199–249. Applications, Vol. 42, No. 9, 2015, pp. 4397–4409.
155. Buckley, J. J. Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis. Fuzzy Sets and 167. Abdullah, L., and N. Zulkifli. A New DEMATEL
Systems, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1985, pp. 233–247. Method Based on Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets for Devel-
156. Chen, S. M., and L. W. Lee. Fuzzy Multiple Attributes oping Causal Relationship of Knowledge Management
Group Decision-Making Based on the Interval Type-2 Criteria. Neural Computing and Applications, Vol. 31, No.
TOPSIS Method. Expert Systems With Applications, Vol. 8, 2019, pp. 4095–4111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-
37, No. 4, 2010, pp. 2790–2798. 017-3304-1.
157. Saaty, T. L. The Analytical Hierarchy Process, Planning, 168. Abdullah, L., and L. Najib. A New Type-2 Fuzzy Set of
Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. Mcgraw-Hill, New Linguistic Variables for the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy
York, NY, 1980. Process. Expert Systems With Applications, Vol. 41, No.
158. Kahraman, C., A. Beskese, and I. Kaya. Selection Among 7, 2014, pp. 3297–3305.
ERP Outsourcing Alternatives Using a Fuzzy Multi-Cri- 169. Hu, J., Y. Zhang, X. Chen, and Y. Liu. Multi-Criteria
teria Decision Making Methodology. International Jour- Decision Making Method Based on Possibility Degree of
nal of Production Research, Vol. 48, No. 2, 2010, Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Number. Knowledge-Based Sys-
pp. 547–566. tems, Vol. 43, 2013, pp. 21–29.
159. Kiracı, K., and E. Akan. Aircraft Selection by Applying 170. S&P Global. Amid Pandemic, Airlines Forge a New Sur-
AHP and TOPSIS in Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets. Journal vival Metric: Daily Cash Burn. Market Intelligence, 2020.
of Air Transport Management, Vol. 89, 2020, p. 101924. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-in-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101924. sights/blog/amid-pandemic-airlines-forge-a-new-survival--
160. Cxetinkaya, C., B. Özkan, E. Özceylan, and S. Haffar. An metric-daily-cash-burn. Accessed February 1, 2022.
Eco-Friendly Evaluation for Locating Wheat Processing 171. Hotle, S., and S. Mumbower. The Impact of COVID-19
Plants: An Integrated Approach Based on Interval Type-2 on Domestic U.S. Air Travel Operations and Commercial
Fuzzy AHP and COPRAS. Soft Computing, Vol. 26, No. Airport Service. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary
9, 2022, pp. 4081–4102. Perspectives, Vol. 9, 2021, p. 100277.

Analysis of Factors Affecting The Sustainable Success of Airlines During The COVID-19 Pandemic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Factors Affecting The Sustainable Success of Airlines During The COVID-19 Pandemic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Factors Affecting The Sustainable Success of Airlines During The COVID-19 Pandemic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Article

Transportation Research Record

the COVID-19 Pandemic journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

Kasım Kiraci1 , Gökhan Tanriverdi2, and Ercan Akan3

most resilient (32). One study, examining the resilience ð1Þ

panies against such crises. Of course, all stakeholders

Factor Sub-factors Measure Description References

Factor Sub-factors Measure Description References

Factor Sub-factors Measure Description References

Factor Sub-factors Measure Description References

Factor Sub-factors Measure Description References

of the factor aUðj + 1Þ in the upper trapezoidal membership

Definition 1: The addition

Definition 2: The subtraction operation for the two  ;  ; 

’  ; ; Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process

Table 2. IT2FSs’ Linguistic Variables (163)

Linguistic variable Interval type-2 fuzzy sets

’ qffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ;

The geometric means of k IT2Fs are evaluated for kth ’ ’

Table 3. IT2FSs Linguistic Variables (168)

Linguistic variables Interval type-2 fuzzy sets

The heights of the IT2FNs are considered as the same

Step 5: Carrying out structural correlation analysis.

resilience and achieving sustainable success during the

Application Third Stage, Determining the Sub-Factors. In this stage, the

Table 4. Weights of Main Factors and Sub-Factors

Factor Wm Sub-factor Wi Wi (global) Rank

Financial (F) 0.442 F2 0.207 0.091 2

sub-factors may vary in studies conducted in different mic-reports/recovery-in-air-travel-expected-to-lag-economic-

You might also like

Definition 2: The subtraction operation for the two ; ;

’ ; ; Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process

’ qffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ;