IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v45y2015i5p409-424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Airline Crew Augmentation: Decades of Improvements from Sabre

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaodong Luo

    (Sabre Corporation, Southlake, Texas 76092)

  • Yogesh Dashora

    (Sabre Corporation, Southlake, Texas 76092)

  • Tina Shaw

    (Sabre Corporation, Southlake, Texas 76092)

Abstract

The objectives of the airline crew-planning process are to allocate crews to flights and create work schedules for crew members. Most airlines solve their crew-planning problem in two steps. The first step, crew pairing, is to generate optimized, anonymous pairings that cover given flight schedules. In the second step, the resulting pairings are assigned to crew members. The general pairing problem is complex because flights may require an augmented crew for safety reasons. A flight’s crew-augmentation requirement varies, depending on the characteristics of the pairings that cover it. Furthermore, airlines often impose rules to govern the coverage of a flight by different pairings. Common approaches to the problem either fix the crew-augmentation requirement a priori, or add restrictions on how the augmentation requirement is satisfied. Crew augmentation is often overlooked from an optimization perspective because of the complexities involved. The Sabre ® long-haul pairing optimizer explicitly models many types of crew-augmentation processes and simultaneously considers the relevant ranks of all members within the cockpit crew. It uses state-of-the-art large-scale optimization techniques, such as branch and price, to solve the problem. In this article, we introduce the long-haul pairing optimizer that Sabre developed in the mid-1990s, and share the evolution of the models and solution algorithms for the general crew-pairing problem with augmentation. We also compare our approach with four conventional approaches to show that we can effectively solve the general crew-augmentation problem and provide significant crew cost savings to airlines.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaodong Luo & Yogesh Dashora & Tina Shaw, 2015. "Airline Crew Augmentation: Decades of Improvements from Sabre," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 45(5), pages 409-424, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:45:y:2015:i:5:p:409-424
    DOI: 10.1287/inte.2015.0803
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.2015.0803
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/inte.2015.0803?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ranga Anbil & Eric Gelman & Bruce Patty & Rajan Tanga, 1991. "Recent Advances in Crew-Pairing Optimization at American Airlines," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 62-74, February.
    2. Yan, Shangyao & Chang, Jei-Chi, 2002. "Airline cockpit crew scheduling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(3), pages 501-511, February.
    3. Joyce W. Yen & John R. Birge, 2006. "A Stochastic Programming Approach to the Airline Crew Scheduling Problem," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(1), pages 3-14, February.
    4. Diego Klabjan & Yu-Ching Lee & Goran Stojković, 2012. "Crew Management Information Systems," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Cynthia Barnhart & Barry Smith (ed.), Quantitative Problem Solving Methods in the Airline Industry, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 237-282, Springer.
    5. Pamela H. Vance & Cynthia Barnhart & Ellis L. Johnson & George L. Nemhauser, 1997. "Airline Crew Scheduling: A New Formulation and Decomposition Algorithm," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 45(2), pages 188-200, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cynthia Barnhart & Amy Cohn, 2004. "Airline Schedule Planning: Accomplishments and Opportunities," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 3-22, November.
    2. Mohamed Haouari & Farah Zeghal Mansour & Hanif D. Sherali, 2019. "A New Compact Formulation for the Daily Crew Pairing Problem," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 811-828, May.
    3. Maenhout, Broos & Vanhoucke, Mario, 2010. "A hybrid scatter search heuristic for personalized crew rostering in the airline industry," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 155-167, October.
    4. Ladislav Lettovský & Ellis L. Johnson & George L. Nemhauser, 2000. "Airline Crew Recovery," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 337-348, November.
    5. Okan Örsan Özener & Melda Örmeci Matoğlu & Güneş Erdoğan & Mohamed Haouari & Hasan Sözer, 2017. "Solving a large-scale integrated fleet assignment and crew pairing problem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(1), pages 477-500, June.
    6. David Antunes & Vikrant Vaze & António Pais Antunes, 2019. "A Robust Pairing Model for Airline Crew Scheduling," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(6), pages 1751-1771, November.
    7. Yan, Shangyao & Tu, Yu-Ping, 2002. "A network model for airline cabin crew scheduling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(3), pages 531-540, August.
    8. Sai Ho Chung & Hoi Lam Ma & Hing Kai Chan, 2017. "Cascading Delay Risk of Airline Workforce Deployments with Crew Pairing and Schedule Optimization," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1443-1458, August.
    9. Atoosa Kasirzadeh & Mohammed Saddoune & François Soumis, 2017. "Airline crew scheduling: models, algorithms, and data sets," EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 6(2), pages 111-137, June.
    10. Cynthia Barnhart & Peter Belobaba & Amedeo R. Odoni, 2003. "Applications of Operations Research in the Air Transport Industry," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(4), pages 368-391, November.
    11. Yan, Shangyao & Chang, Jei-Chi, 2002. "Airline cockpit crew scheduling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(3), pages 501-511, February.
    12. Vahid Zeighami & François Soumis, 2019. "Combining Benders’ Decomposition and Column Generation for Integrated Crew Pairing and Personalized Crew Assignment Problems," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(5), pages 1479-1499, September.
    13. A. Mingozzi & M. A. Boschetti & S. Ricciardelli & L. Bianco, 1999. "A Set Partitioning Approach to the Crew Scheduling Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 47(6), pages 873-888, December.
    14. Chunhua Gao & Ellis Johnson & Barry Smith, 2009. "Integrated Airline Fleet and Crew Robust Planning," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 2-16, February.
    15. Amy Mainville Cohn & Cynthia Barnhart, 2003. "Improving Crew Scheduling by Incorporating Key Maintenance Routing Decisions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 387-396, June.
    16. Huisman, Dennis & Wagelmans, Albert P.M., 2006. "A solution approach for dynamic vehicle and crew scheduling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 453-471, July.
    17. Shangyao Yan & Chun-Ying Chen & Chuan-Che Wu, 2012. "Solution methods for the taxi pooling problem," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 723-748, May.
    18. Gamvros, Ioannis & Raghavan, S., 2012. "Multi-period traffic routing in satellite networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 738-750.
    19. A H Ahmed & C A Poojari, 2008. "An overview of the issues in the airline industry and the role of optimization models and algorithms," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(3), pages 267-277, March.
    20. Sriram, Chellappan & Haghani, Ali, 2003. "An optimization model for aircraft maintenance scheduling and re-assignment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 29-48, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:45:y:2015:i:5:p:409-424. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.