## 3 Findings and Discussion
### Evaluation of Alternatives for Airport Transfer Center Selection
#### 3.3.3 Evaluation of Alternative Airport Terminals According to MOORA Method
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & **CRI2** & **CRI3** & **CRI4** & **CRI5** & **CRI6** & **CRI7** & **CRI1** \\
**Criteria Directions** & **Max** & **Max** & **Max** & **Max** & **Max** & **Max** & **Min** \\ \hline
**Importance Coefficients (wj)** & 0.167 & 0.112 & 0.079 & 0.122 & 0.078 & 0.037 & 0.406 \\ \hline
**AP1** & 0.0863 & 0.0714 & 0.0402 & 0.0712 & 0.0437 & 0.0185 & 0.1973 \\
**AP2** & 0.0986 & 0.0625 & 0.0452 & 0.0712 & 0.0437 & 0.0211 & 0.2537 \\
**AP3** & 0.0616 & 0.0357 & 0.0301 & 0.0316 & 0.0146 & 0.0079 & 0.0846 \\
**AP4** & 0.0370 & 0.0179 & 0.0201 & 0.0237 & 0.0243 & 0.0079 & 0.0564 \\
**AP5** & 0.0740 & 0.0447 & 0.0352 & 0.0554 & 0.0388 & 0.0211 & 0.2255 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 17: Weighted normalized decision matrix for alternatives. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & **CRI2** & **CRI3** & **CRI4** & **CRI5** & **CRI6** & **CRI7** & **CRI1** \\
**Criteria Directions** & **Max** & **Max** & **Max** & **Max** & **Max** & **Max** & **Max** & **Min** \\ \hline
**Airports** & **AP1** & 0.5175 & 0.6364 & 0.5101 & 0.5859 & 0.5582 & 0.5013 & 0.4865 \\
**AP2** & 0.5914 & 0.5569 & 0.5738 & 0.5859 & 0.5582 & 0.5729 & 0.6255 \\
**AP3** & 0.3696 & 0.3182 & 0.3825 & 0.2604 & 0.1861 & 0.2148 & 0.2085 \\
**AP4** & 0.2218 & 0.1591 & 0.2550 & 0.1953 & 0.3101 & 0.2148 & 0.1390 \\
**AP5** & 0.4435 & 0.3978 & 0.4463 & 0.4557 & 0.4961 & 0.5729 & 0.5560 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 15: Normalized decision matrix for airport hub selection. In the matrix from Table 19, the maximum values (\(\rm{p_{j}}\)) in each row, corresponding to each alternative, were identified and ranked from smallest to largest. The ranking is shown in Table 20.  
When arranging the obtained \(\rm{y_{j}}\) values in line with the Reference Point Approach, it becomes apparent that according to the MOORA Ratio Approach, Cukurova Airport is given priority, with Sivas Nuri Demirag Airport following in second place. Mugla Airport ranks third, Erzurum Airport ranks fourth and finally Antalya Airport ranks last. Ranking of Alternatives According to MOORA Full Multiplicative Form Approach  
Using this approach, the \(\rm{U_{j}}\) values were calculated based on the decision matrix presented in Table 15, as illustrated in Table 21. The alternative with the highest \(\rm{U_{j}}\) value was identified as both Cukurova Airport and Antalya Airport. Mugla Airport secured the third position, followed by Sivas Nuri Demirag Airport in fourth place. Erzurum Airport, with the smallest \(\rm{U_{j}}\) value, was ranked last. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline  & \(\rm{p_{j}}\) & **Ranking** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Airports**} & **AP1** & 0.3475 & 1 \\  & **AP2** & 0.4865 & 5 \\  & **AP3** & 0.3721 & 2 \\  & **AP4** & 0.4773 & 4 \\  & **AP5** & 0.4170 & 3 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 20: Ranking of airport hubs according to the MOORA Reference Point Approach. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & **CR12** & **CR13** & **CR14** & **CR15** & **CR16** & **CR17** & **CR11** \\
**Criteria Directions** & **Max** & **Max** & **Max** & **Max** & **Max** & **Max** & **Min** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**R\({}_{j}\) Values**} & 0.5914 & 0.6364 & 0.5738 & 0.5859 & 0.5582 & 0.5729 & 0.1390 \\ \cline{2-8}  & **AP1** & 0.0739 & 0.0000 & 0.0638 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0716 & 0.3475 \\ \cline{2-8}  & **AP2** & 0.0000 & 0.0796 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.04865 \\ \cline{2-8}  & **AP3** & 0.2218 & 0.3182 & 0.1913 & 0.3255 & 0.3721 & 0.3581 & 0.0695 \\ \cline{2-8}  & **AP4** & 0.3696 & 0.4773 & 0.3188 & 0.3906 & 0.2481 & 0.3581 & 0.0000 \\ \cline{2-8}  & **AP5** & 0.1478 & 0.2387 & 0.1275 & 0.1302 & 0.0620 & 0.0000 & 0.4170 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 19: Matrix of distances to the reference point for alternatives.