## 3 Findings and Discussion
### Evaluation of Alternatives for Airport Transfer Center Selection
#### 3.3.2 Evaluation of Alternative Airport Terminals According to ELECTRE Method  
The decision matrix created for the evaluation of airport terminals according to the identified criteria is shown in Table 9. In the practical implementation, experts provided scores ranging from 1 to 10 for each criterion of every alternative. Figure 4: Airports terminals evaluated. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Symbol** & **Airport Terminals Evaluated** \\ \hline
**AP1** & New Cukurova Airport \\
**AP2** & Antalya Airport \\
**AP3** & Sivas Nuri Demirag Airport \\
**AP4** & Erzurum Airport \\
**AP5** & Mugla Airport \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Alternative airports for new airport hub selection. The values in the decision matrix presented in Table 9 represent the criteria to be maximized, as all criteria are assessed based on their importance values and then normalized according to the formula outlined in Equation (9). The normalized decision matrix is shown in Table 10.  
Subsequently, the weighted normalized decision matrix was derived by multiplying the values in each criterion's column of the normalized decision matrix by the respective weights of the criteria calculated using the AHP method, as outlined in Table 6. The weighted normalized decision matrix is shown in Table 11.  
Following the establishment of the weighted normalized decision matrix, pairwise comparisons of the alternatives were conducted to form concordance and discordance sets. Once the concordance (C (X,Y)) and discordance (D (X,Y)) sets were identified, concordance (C) and discordance (D) indexes were computed. Subsequently, outranking comparisons were made for all pairs of alternative airports based on these indexes. The results of the concordance and discordance indexes and outranking matrices are shown in Table 12. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **CR11** & **CR12** & **CR13** & **CR14** & **CR15** & **CR16** & **CR17** \\ \hline
**AP1** & 0.4865 & 0.5175 & 0.6364 & 0.5101 & 0.5859 & 0.5582 & 0.5013 \\
**AP2** & 0.6255 & 0.5914 & 0.5569 & 0.5738 & 0.5859 & 0.5582 & 0.5729 \\
**AP3** & 0.2085 & 0.3696 & 0.3182 & 0.3825 & 0.2604 & 0.1861 & 0.2148 \\
**AP4** & 0.1390 & 0.2218 & 0.1591 & 0.2550 & 0.1953 & 0.3101 & 0.2148 \\
**AP5** & 0.5560 & 0.4435 & 0.3978 & 0.4463 & 0.4557 & 0.4961 & 0.5729 \\ \hline
**Weights** & **0.406** & **0.167** & **0.112** & **0.079** & **0.122** & **0.078** & **0.037** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Normalized decision matrix created for the evaluated airports. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **CR11** & **CR12** & **CR13** & **CR14** & **CR15** & **CR16** & **CR17** \\ \hline
**AP1** & 0.1975 & 0.0864 & 0.0713 & 0.0403 & 0.0715 & 0.0435 & 0.0185 \\
**AP2** & 0.2540 & 0.0988 & 0.0624 & 0.0453 & 0.0715 & 0.0435 & 0.0212 \\
**AP3** & 0.0847 & 0.0617 & 0.0356 & 0.0302 & 0.0318 & 0.0145 & 0.0079 \\
**AP4** & 0.0564 & 0.0370 & 0.0178 & 0.0201 & 0.0238 & 0.0242 & 0.0079 \\
**AP5** & 0.2258 & 0.0741 & 0.0446 & 0.0353 & 0.0556 & 0.0387 & 0.0212 \\ \hline
**Weights** & **0.406** & **0.167** & **0.112** & **0.079** & **0.122** & **0.078** & **0.037** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Weighted normalized decision matrix created for the evaluated airports. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline C (X,Y) & **C** & **C > CAVG** & **D (X,Y)** & **D** & **D < DAVG** & **RESULT** \\ \hline
**1,2** & 0.312 & 0 & **1,2** & 0.8956 & 0 & 0 & NO \\
**1,3** & 1.001 & 1 & **1,3** & 0.0000 & 1 & 1 & YES \\
**1,4** & 1.001 & 1 & **1,4** & 0.0000 & 1 & 1 & YES \\
**1,5** & 0.558 & 1 & **1,5** & 0.3226 & 1 & 1 & YES \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Comparison of the outrankings for the evaluated airports.