IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v252y2017i2d10.1007_s10479-016-2174-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A simulation scenario based mixed integer programming approach to airline reserve crew scheduling under uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Bayliss

    (ASAP, University of Southampton)

  • Geert Maere

    (ASAP, University of Southampton)

  • Jason A. D. Atkin

    (ASAP, University of Southampton)

  • Marc Paelinck

    (KLM Royal Dutch Airlines)

Abstract

The environment in which airlines operate is uncertain for many reasons, for example due to the effects of weather, traffic or crew unavailability (due to delay or sickness). This work focuses on airline reserve crew scheduling under crew absence uncertainty and delay for an airline operating a single hub and spoke network. Reserve crew can be used to cover absent crew or delayed connecting crew. A fixed number of reserve crew are available for scheduling and each requires a daily standby duty start time. This work proposes a mixed integer programming approach to scheduling the airline’s reserve crew. A simulation of the airline’s operations with stochastic journey time and crew absence inputs (without reserve crew) is used to generate input disruption scenarios for the mixed integer programming simulation scenario model (MIPSSM) formulation. Each disruption scenario corresponds to a record of all of the disruptions that may occur on the day of operation which are solvable by using reserve crew. A set of disruption scenarios form the input of the MIPSSM formulation, which has the objective of finding the reserve crew schedule that minimises the overall level of disruption over the set of input scenarios. Additionally, modifications of the MIPSSM are explored, a heuristic solution approach and a reserve use policy derived from the MIPSSM are introduced. A heuristic based on the proposed MIPSSM outperforms a range of alternative approaches. The heuristic solution approach suggests that including the right disruption scenarios is as important as the quantity of disruption scenarios that are added to the MIPSSM. An investigation into what makes a good set of scenarios is also presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Bayliss & Geert Maere & Jason A. D. Atkin & Marc Paelinck, 2017. "A simulation scenario based mixed integer programming approach to airline reserve crew scheduling under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 252(2), pages 335-363, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:252:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10479-016-2174-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-016-2174-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-016-2174-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-016-2174-8?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ahmed Abdelghany & Goutham Ekollu & Ram Narasimhan & Khaled Abdelghany, 2004. "A Proactive Crew Recovery Decision Support Tool for Commercial Airlines During Irregular Operations," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 309-331, March.
    2. Jeffrey E. Dillon & Spyros Kontogiorgis, 1999. "US Airways Optimizes the Scheduling of Reserve Flight Crews," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 123-131, October.
    3. Milind Sohoni & Yu-Ching Lee & Diego Klabjan, 2011. "Robust Airline Scheduling Under Block-Time Uncertainty," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(4), pages 451-464, November.
    4. Sergey Shebalov & Diego Klabjan, 2006. "Robust Airline Crew Pairing: Move-up Crews," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 300-312, August.
    5. Michelle Dunbar & Gary Froyland & Cheng-Lung Wu, 2012. "Robust Airline Schedule Planning: Minimizing Propagated Delay in an Integrated Routing and Crewing Framework," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 204-216, May.
    6. Jay M. Rosenberger & Andrew J. Schaefer & David Goldsman & Ellis L. Johnson & Anton J. Kleywegt & George L. Nemhauser, 2002. "A Stochastic Model of Airline Operations," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 357-377, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Choi, Tsan-Ming & Wen, Xin & Sun, Xuting & Chung, Sai-Ho, 2019. "The mean-variance approach for global supply chain risk analysis with air logistics in the blockchain technology era," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 178-191.
    2. Jacob D. Maywald & Adam D. Reiman & Robert E. Overstreet & Alan W. Johnson, 2019. "Aircraft selection modeling: a multi-step heuristic to enumerate airlift alternatives," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 274(1), pages 425-445, March.
    3. Nianyi Wang & Huiling Wang & Shan Pei & Boyu Zhang, 2023. "A Data-Driven Heuristic Method for Irregular Flight Recovery," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Vojtech Graf & Dusan Teichmann & Michal Dorda & Lenka Kontrikova, 2021. "Dynamic Model of Contingency Flight Crew Planning Extending to Crew Formation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(17), pages 1-28, September.

    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. Jonas Ingels & Broos Maenhout, 2017. "Employee substitutability as a tool to improve the robustness in personnel scheduling," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 623-658, July.
    2. Ingels, Jonas & Maenhout, Broos, 2019. "Optimised buffer allocation to construct stable personnel shift rosters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 102-117.
    3. Jane Lee & Lavanya Marla & Alexandre Jacquillat, 2020. "Dynamic Disruption Management in Airline Networks Under Airport Operating Uncertainty," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 973-997, July.
    4. Keji Wei & Vikrant Vaze, 2018. "Modeling Crew Itineraries and Delays in the National Air Transportation System," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(5), pages 1276-1296, October.
    5. Liang, Zhe & Feng, Yuan & Zhang, Xiaoning & Wu, Tao & Chaovalitwongse, Wanpracha Art, 2015. "Robust weekly aircraft maintenance routing problem and the extension to the tail assignment problem," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 238-259.
    6. Da Lu & Fatma Gzara, 2015. "The robust crew pairing problem: model and solution methodology," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 29-54, May.
    7. Xu, Yifan & Wandelt, Sebastian & Sun, Xiaoqian, 2021. "Airline integrated robust scheduling with a variable neighborhood search based heuristic," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 181-203.
    8. Choi, Tsan-Ming & Wen, Xin & Sun, Xuting & Chung, Sai-Ho, 2019. "The mean-variance approach for global supply chain risk analysis with air logistics in the blockchain technology era," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 178-191.
    9. Jonas Ingels & Broos Maenhout, 2018. "The impact of overtime as a time-based proactive scheduling and reactive allocation strategy on the robustness of a personnel shift roster," Journal of Scheduling, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 143-165, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Milind Sohoni & Yu-Ching Lee & Diego Klabjan, 2011. "Robust Airline Scheduling Under Block-Time Uncertainty," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(4), pages 451-464, November.
    12. He, Yonghuan & Ma, Hoi-Lam & Park, Woo-Yong & Liu, Shi Qiang & Chung, Sai-Ho, 2023. "Maximizing robustness of aircraft routing with heterogeneous maintenance tasks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Sujeevraja Sanjeevi & Saravanan Venkatachalam, 2021. "Robust flight schedules with stochastic programming," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 305(1), pages 403-421, October.
    15. Chiwei Yan & Jerry Kung, 2018. "Robust Aircraft Routing," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 118-133, January.
    16. Andrew G. Clark & Susan Cholette & Ozgur Ozluk, 2011. "UCSF Increases Consumer Value Through Optimal Vendor-Show Scheduling," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 41(4), pages 327-337, August.
    17. Maher, Stephen J. & Desaulniers, Guy & Soumis, François, 2018. "The daily tail assignment problem under operational uncertainty using look-ahead maintenance constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 534-547.
    18. Wu, Cheng-Lung & Truong, Tiffany, 2014. "Improving the IATA delay data coding system for enhanced data analytics," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 78-85.
    19. Valentina Cacchiani & Juan-José Salazar-González, 2017. "Optimal Solutions to a Real-World Integrated Airline Scheduling Problem," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(1), pages 250-268, February.
    20. Jon D. Petersen & Gustaf Sölveling & John-Paul Clarke & Ellis L. Johnson & Sergey Shebalov, 2012. "An Optimization Approach to Airline Integrated Recovery," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(4), pages 482-500, November.

    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:spr:annopr:v:252:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10479-016-2174-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.