Document Type : Original Article


1 Associate Professor, University of Tehran.

2 M.A. Student, University of Tehran.

3 Ph.D Student, Allameh Tabataba’i University.


The quality of the services is one of the main factors in the competitiveness of the companies, and managers are keen to measure it accurately so that they can compare themselves with competitors. The purpose of this research is to rank the Iranian airlines in terms of the quality of services provided to travelers on domestic flights. Research previously conducted into service quality is examined in the first part of this study, and the service quality measurement attributes are determined and weighted by using the FAHP method. Then, using the FVIKOR method and based on the opinions of experts, the airlines are evaluated. The results of this study showed that the FAHP extent analysis method may lead to incorrect results. Hence, in this study, the Wang and Chen method is used to calculate the weight of attributes in FAHP. The results showed that responsiveness, compensation procedures, staff attitude and flight safety are more important in measuring service quality. The study showed that the top companies in terms of service quality include Ata, Zagros and Caspian.


1. Ameli, A., & Fakhimi, F. (2011). Analysis of factors affecting the loyalty of Iran Air’s Frequent Flyer passengers. Tourism Management Studies, 7(16), 163-178 (In Persian).
2. Asgharizadeh, E. (2006). Ranking Companies Based on EFQM and PROMETHEE. Human Sciences MODARES, 14(4), 59-84 (In Persian).
3. Asgharizadeh, E., Ahmadi, S. H., & Yousefi Dehbidi, Sh. (2012). Prioritizing Quality Aspects in Service Organizations: A Comparision between Compensatory and Noncompensatory Method. Industrial Management Perspective, 4(4), 107-122 (In Persian).
4. Azar, A., Zarei Mahmoodabadi, M., & Tahari Mehrjerdi, M. H. (2012). Prioritizing Factors Influencing Human Resources Productivity with Mix Aproach of MCDM and DEA. Industrial Management Perspective, 1(3), 9-25 (In Persian).
5. Chang, D. Y. (1996). Application of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649-655.
6. Chang, Y.-H; & Yeh, C.-H. (2002). A survey analysis of service quality for domestic airlines. European Journal of Operational Research. 139, 166-177.
7. Chang, Y.-H; & Yeh, C.-H. (2001). Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making. Omega, 29, 405-415.
8. Chen, C. T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy sets and systems, 114(1), 1-9.
9. Chen, F-Y., & Chang, Y-H. (2005). Examining airline service quality from a process perspective. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11, 79-87.
10. Chen, I. S. (2016). A combined MCDM model based on DEMATEL and ANP for the selection of airline service quality improvement criteria: A study based on the Taiwanese airline industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 57, 7-18.
11. Chen, J. K., & Chen, I. S. (2013). A theory of innovation resource synergy. Innovation, 15, 368-392.
12. Chen, S. J., Hwang, C. L., & Hwang, F. P. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Springer-VerlagNew York, Inc. Secaucus, NJ, USA.
13. Delbari, S. A. (2016). An investigation of key competitiveness indicators and drivers of fullservice airlines using Delphi and AHP techniques. Journal of Air Transport Management, 52, 23-34.
14. Deveci, M., Özcan, E., John, R., & Öner, S. C. (2018). Interval type-2 hesitant fuzzy set method for improving the service quality of domestic airlines in Turkey. Journal of Air Transport Management, 69, 83-98.
15. Fardanews, Statistics of Amazing Growth of Aviation in IRAN.18/11.2016. Access Date: 4/4/2017 from:
16. Farsijani, H., & Zandi, O. (2010). Explanation and Measuring Service Quality Strategic Model. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 1(1), 69-94 (In Persian).
17. Feizi, K., & Tatari, S. (2004). Service Quality Improvement in I.R. Iran Air Flights (A survey based On Serv. Qual. Model). Tourism Management Studies, 2(5), 53-85 (In Persian).
18. Ghodratian Kashan, S. A., & Rostami, A. A. (2004). Designing a Comprehensive Model for Companies Performance Evaluating and Ranking. Human Sciences MODARES, 8(36), 109-134 (In Persian).
19. Gupta, H. (2018). Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 35-47.
20. Habibi, A. (2004). Multi Criteria Decision Making. GIL publishing, Tehran (In Persian).
21. Haghighat, N. (2017). Proposing a framework for airline service quality evaluation using Type-2 Fuzzy TOPSIS and non-parametric analysis. Journal of Sustainable Development of Transport and Logistics, 2(2), 6-25.
22. Huang, C., Shyu, J. Z., & Tzeng, G. (2007). Reconfiguring the innovation policy portfolios for Taiwan's SIP mall industry. Technovation, 27, 744-765.
23. Iran Civil Aviation Organization. (2016). Statistic book of Country Aviation year 2015. Tehran (In Persian).
24. Irvani, T., Atashgar, K. (2105). Review and Evaluating of Service Quality Measuring Models. Annual Confrence on management and Business Economy (In Persian).
25. Kuo, M. S. et al. (2011). A novel interval-valued fuzzy MCDM method for improving airlines service quality in Chinese cross-strait airlines. Transportation Research Part, E 47, 1177-1193.
26. Kurtulmusoglu, F. B. et al. (2016). A voice in the skies: Listening to airline passenger preferences. Journal of Air Transport Management, 57, 130-137.
27. Li, W., Yu, S., Pei, H., Zhao, C., & Tian, B. (2017). A hybrid approach based on fuzzy AHP and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic method for evaluation in-flight service quality. Journal of Air Transport Management, 60, 49-64.
28. Lim, S. S., & Tkaczynski, A. (2017). Origin and money matter: The airline service quality expectations of international students. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 31, 244-252.
29. Liou, J.J.H., & Tzeng, G. (2007). A non-additive model for evaluating airline service quality. J. Air Transp. Manag. 13, 131-138.
30. Mashayekh, Sh., & Shahrokhi, S. S. (2015). The Worldwide System of Corporate Credit Rating.Journal of "Accounting Research", 5(1), 131-148 (In Persian).
31. Nayeb, A., Jabari, S., & Yousefi Nejad Attari, M. (2014). A Combination of Factor Analysis and Combined Approach Techniques (AHP-TOPSIS) For Ranking Criteria and Evaluating the Factors Affecting Brand. Journal Management Systems, 10(33), 1-14 (In Persian).
32. Noorvash, I., Zakeri, H., & Salami, H. (2010). Ranking Creterias of Evluating successful Companies (Presenting AN Aproach in Choosing MCDM Method). Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 3(1), 171-163 (In Persian).
33. Opricovic, S. (2000). Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 12983-12990.
34. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European journal of operational research, 156(2), 445-455.
35. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for measuring consumer perception of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 11(1), 12-17.
36. Parasureman, A. (1998). Customer service in business-to- business markets: an ageneda for research. Journal os business and industrial marketing, 13(4/5), 309-321.
37. Perçin, S. (2018). Evaluating airline service quality using a combined fuzzy decision-making approach. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 48-60.
38. Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, ISBN 0-07-054371-2, McGraw-Hil.
39. Shahbandzadeh, H., & Paykam, A. R. (2015). Employment of a Weighted Fuzzy Multi-Objective Programming Model to Determine the Amount of Optimum Purchasing from Suppliers. Industrial Management Perspective. 5(2), 129-152.
40. Singh, A. K. (2016). Competitive service quality benchmarking in airline industry using AHP. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(4), 768-791.
41. Taghizadeh Yazdi, M. R., Bagheri, F., & Dehghan Naser Abdi, A. R. (2015). Identification and prioritization of the tourism industry's target markets using Multi Attribute Decision Making Approach in a fuzzy environment.Journal of Business Managemen, 7(2), 281-306 (In Persian).
42. Tavassoli, M. et al. (2016). Performance assessment of airlines using range-adjusted measure strong complementary slackness condition, and discriminant analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 54, 42-46.
43. Tolouei Ashlaghi, A., & Biglari, E. (2010). Presented a dynamic Model to simulate the Balanced Score Card with the goal of efficient Strategies (Case study: Mahan air). IAU Journal of Management Acountanting, 3(30), 89-103 (In Persian).
44. Tsaur, S. H. et al. (2002). The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management, 23, 107-115.
45. Tzeng, G., Chiang, C., & Li, C. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Syst. Appl. 32, 1028-1044.
46. Wang, R. (2011). Evaluation of customer perceptions on airline service quality in uncertainty. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 25, 419-437.
47. Wang, T. C. & Chen, Y. H. (2008). Applying fuzzy linguistic preference relations to the improvement of consistency of fuzzy AHP. Information Sciences, 178(19), 3755-3765.
48. Wang, Y. M., Luo, Y. & Hua, Z. (2008). On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(2), 735-747.
49. Wu, H. Y., Chen, J. K., & Chen, I. S. )2012(. Performance evaluation of aircraft maintenance staff using a fuzzy MCDM approach. Int. J. Innov. Comput. Inf. Contr. 8, 3919-3937.
50. Yari, J. (2011). Evaluating and Ranking Insurance Companies in Iran: Visions andChallenges.Insurance World Updates, 144. 33-51 (In Persian).
51. Zhu, K. J. (2014). Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: Fallacy of the popular methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 236, 209-217.
52. Zhu, K. J., Jing, Y., & Chang, D. Y. (1999). A discussion on extent analysis method and applications of fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 116(2), 450-456.