1 / 39

Robust Airline Crew Pairing Optimization

Robust Airline Crew Pairing Optimization. Diego Klabjan Sergei Chebalov University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Acknowledgment. NSF funded the project Collaboration with Sabre Inc., Southlake, TX. Flight Delays. Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 2000. Summer 2000 Collapse.

farrah
Download Presentation

Robust Airline Crew Pairing Optimization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Robust Airline Crew Pairing Optimization Diego Klabjan Sergei Chebalov University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  2. Acknowledgment • NSF funded the project • Collaboration with • Sabre Inc., Southlake, TX

  3. Flight Delays • Aviation Week & Space Technology, September 2000

  4. Summer 2000 Collapse • 11% increase • Flight delays • 1.7% delayed flights in 1995 • 2.3% delayed flights in 1999 • Summer 2000 the worst ever • In Summer 2000 Northwest the best on time performance • 75% on time arrival rate

  5. Sources of Delays • Weather, congestion • Unscheduled maintenance • Secondary delays • crew not available • plane not available • passengers not available

  6. Improve Performance • FAA • ATM • CDM • Airlines • Recovery procedures • Integrated recovery • Aircraft recovery • Crew recovery • Robust solutions • Robust aircraft routing • Robust crew scheduling

  7. ATL MIA JAX 8:00 17:00 10:00 13:00 Monday Tuesday Crew Pairing • Input: A schedule of a fleet • Objective: Find a set of crew itineraries (pairings) that partition all of the legs such that the airline incurs the least cost.

  8. Crew Pairing Model • Minimize crew cost • To every flight assign a unique pairing • Side constraints • Manpower constraints • Other constraints

  9. Robust Crew Pairing • A. Schaefer et. al. (2000) • Replace pairing cost with expected pairing cost • Pairings with long connection times • Stochastic approach by J. Yen and J. Birge (2000) • Deterministic variant by M. Ehrgott and D. Ryan (2001)

  10. Why Robustness? • `Excess cost/flying time’ for large fleets below 1% • Solutions use many tight, short connections. • Such connections are very vulnerable to disruptions. • 1% relative excess cost in planning for large fleets translates into 4% to 8% in operations. • Solutions • Better recovery procedures • Robust solutions

  11. Move-up Crews • Crews that are ready to cover a different flight. • At least • Ready to fly • Same crew base • Same number of days till the end of the pairing • Potentially in operations it yields crew swapping. • Choice of flight cancellation

  12. disrupted crew schedule move-up crew j’ i’ `min sit’or `min rest’ ready time j i disrupted flight Move-up Crews

  13. Objectives • Low crew cost • Maximize the number of move-up crews • Trade-off • Maximize the number of move-up crews subject to crew cost ≤ (1+r)Q

  14. Model • Given a flight, a crew base, and a day count • set of pairings (P ) • covering this flight • originating at a given crew base • a given number of days till the end, • set of pairings (R ) that yield a move crew to this flight • Variables • Pairing variables • Number of move up crews (z)

  15. Objective Function • More move-up crews for strategically important flights • Flights toward the end of the pairing more move-up crews • Maximize the number of move-up crews • Cost one for all flights cost of move-up crews · z(leg i, crew base cb, day d)

  16. Constraints • Standard partitioning constraints sum of pairings covering the leg = 1 • Count move-up crews for every leg departing from a hub sum of all pairings that yield a move-up crew ≥ move-up crew count variable z

  17. Constraints • Undesirable • N move-up crews for one flight • Zero move-up crews for many flights • Evenly distribute move-up crews M · sum of all pairings covering the leg ≥ move-up crew count variable z

  18. Small M • Objective value of 20 • 20 different legs with a single move-up crew • 1 leg with 20 move-up crews • Limit the maximum number of counted move-up crews per leg • M is this limit.

  19. Mathematical Model

  20. Enhancements • Both schedules produce an objective value of 2 • The bottom one preferable Pick me!

  21. Enhancement • Additional variables • v = the number of available move-up crews • Objective function • Additional constraints

  22. Enhancements • Both schedules produce the same objective value • The top one covers one disruption • The bottom one covers two disruptions Pick me!

  23. Enhancement • It can be done • Objective function • Additional constraints

  24. Methodology • Select a small subset of pairings • First solve traditional crew pairing problem. • Pick columns with low reduced cost at the root node. • Maximize the number of move-up crews • Over selected pairings • Keep cost in control

  25. Lagrangian Relaxation • Relaxations • Relax (P) • Relax (Q) • Relax (P) and (Q) • Result: It does not matter! • They all yield the same relaxation.

  26. Computational Experiments • United Airlines A320 • Daily problem with 123 legs • 3 move-up crews by just minimizing cost • Do not know how to find an optimal solution

  27. Computational Experiments • 10,000 pairings • Increasing M increases the number of move-up crews.

  28. Computational Experiments

  29. Crew Schedule Evaluation • What do the previous tables convey? Not much! • Are these crew schedules really robust? • It is a sound concept! • Agree? • Evaluate them

  30. Simulation? • On our wish list • Simulation available but unable to integrate it with the crew recovery module • Instead

  31. Crew Schedule Evaluation • Generate disruptions • Reduced capacity at a hub • Random block time distributions • For each disruption run crew recovery • Crew recovery module • Solves an optimization model • Change pairings only within a 24 hour time window • No crew swapping in advance

  32. Disruption Scenario Generation • Random block times • Distributions obtained from United • Disruptions at hubs • Reduced capacity • Shut down a hub for one hour • Numbers are averages over • Disruptions at each hub • 10 scenarios for each hub

  33. What are we Comparing? • Robust crew schedules (cost+robustness) vs. traditional crew schedules (cost) • + robust wins • - traditional wins

  34. Robust vs. Traditional

  35. And The Winner Is: I leave it up to you!

  36. Yearly Estimate • Savings around $1.5 million • Includes larger cost on ‘regular’ days • Not counting savings of deadheading, reserved crews, and cancellations • Savings per fleet

  37. What is Next? • An airline to use this approach • Science fiction • Perform within an alliance • Increase passenger demand

  38. Final Remark Diego, your approach won’t work as airlines put in place a DSS for crew recovery. • DSS used only for major disruptions • 10 a year • Minor disruptions recovered manually

  39. Thank you for your attention!

More Related