Dynamic tail re-assignment model for optimal line-of-flight breakages

Abstract

The literature in aircraft routing focuses on cyclic rotation with the planned maintenance being assigned to the aircraft at the end of every rotation. The rotations are a set of flights provided with sufficient Maintenance Opportunity (MO) such that the planned maintenance could be carried out for the aircraft. In this research, a novel mathematical model has been introduced to the operational aircraft route assignment which considers both planned and ad hoc maintenances of the aircraft. A line-of-flight is defined as the set of geographic and time feasible flights being assigned to the hypothetical aircraft without any actual operational constraints. The model is formulated for the scenario where commercial planning department independently makes the line-of-flights and the maintenances have to be incorporated in those line-of-flights with minimal perturbations. In addition to the exact solution, the problem has also been solved using two heuristic solution approaches for the tailored module which is called the Tail Re-assignment, a problem dealt with by many airlines. The Tail Re-assignment problem can be considered as an optimization as well as feasibility problem. The objective of this research is to provide a quick solution that is feasible and near-optimal which can help in the managerial decisions in the tactical horizon. The model is tested with eight schedules with flights varying from 45 to 314, and additionally with multiple maintenance hubs and planning horizon of 20 days. The solution has all the hard constraints satisfied with the total number of onward flight rule breakages difference being minimal. The computation result shows that heuristic solutions solve the schedule for a medium-sized airline in quick time with less than 2% deviation from the exact solution.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

References

  1. 1

    Barnhart C, Farahat A and Lohatepanont M 2009 Airline Fleet Assignment with Enhanced Revenue Modeling. Operations Research 57(1): 231–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Brio M 1992 Aircraft and Maintenance Scheduling Support, Mathematical Insights and a Proposed Interactive System. Journal of Advanced Transportation 26:121–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Cordeau J F, Stojkovic G, Soumis F and Desrosiers J 2001 Benders Decomposition for Simultaneous Aircraft Routing and Crew Scheduling. Transportation Science 35(4): 375–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Gopalan R and Talluri K T 1998a Mathematical Models in Airline Schedule Planning: A Survey. Annals of Operations Research 76:155–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Díaz-Ramírez J, Huertas J I and Trigos F 2013 Simultaneous Schedule Design & Routing With Maintenance Constraints for Single Fleet Airlines. International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2 (2): 23–35

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Gopalan R and Talluri K T 1998b The Aircraft Maintenance Routing Problem. Operations Research 46(2): 260–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Desaulniers G, Desrosiers J, Dumas Y, Solomon M M and Soumis F 1997 Daily Aircraft Routing and Scheduling. Management Science 43(6):841–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Barnhart C, Boland N L, Clarke L W, Johnson E L, Nemhauser G L and Shenoi R G 1998 Flight String Models for Aircraft Fleeting and Routing. Transportation Science 32(3): 208–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Cohn A M and Barnhart C 2003 Improving Crew Scheduling by Incorporating Key Maintenance Routing Decisions. Operations Research 51(3):343–507

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Zeghal F M, Haouari M, Sherali H D and Aissaoui N 2011 Flexible aircraft fleeting and routing at TunisAir. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62(2): 368–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Karaoglan A D, Gonen D and Ucmus E 2011 Aircraft Routing and Scheduling: A Case Study in an Airline Company. An International Journal of Optimization and Control: Theories & Applications 1(1): 27–43

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Liang Z, Chaovalitwongse W A, Huang H C and Johnson E L 2011 On a New Rotation Tour Network Model for Aircraft Maintenance Routing Problem. Transportation Science 45:109–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Liang Z and Chaovalitwongse W A 2013 A Network-Based Model for the Integrated Weekly Aircraft Maintenance Routing and Fleet Assignment Problem. Transportation Science 47:493–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Feo T A and Bard J F 1989 Flight Scheduling and Maintenance Base Planning. Management Science 35(12).:1415–1432

  15. 15

    Kabbani N M and Patty B W 1992 Aircraft Routing at American Airlines. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Symposium of AGIFORS

  16. 16

    Grönskvist M 2005 The Tail Assignment Problem. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

  17. 17

    Ageeva Y and Clarke J P 2000 Approaches to Incorporating Robustness into Airline Scheduling. MIT International Center for Air Transportation Report ICAT-2000-6, Cambridge, MA

  18. 18

    Clarke L W, Johnson E L, Nemhauser G L and Zhu Z 1997 The aircraft rotation problem Ann. Oper. Res. 69:33–46

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Liang Z, Feng Y, Zhang X, Wu T and Chaovalitwongse WA 2015 Robust weekly aircraft maintenance routing problem and the extension to the tail assignment problem. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 78: 238–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Liang Z and Chaovalitwongse WA 2012 A Network-Based Model for the Integrated Weekly Aircraft Maintenance Routing and Fleet Assignment Problem. Transportation Science 47(4): 455–628

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Haouari M, Shao S and Sherali HD 2013 A Lifted compact formulation for the daily aircraft maintenance routing problem. Transportation Science 47(4): 508–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Sriram C and Haghani A 2003 An Optimization Model for Aircraft Maintenance Scheduling and Re-assignment. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 37(1): 29–48

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Ruther S, Boland N, Engineer F G and Evans I 2016 Integrated Aircraft Routing, Crew Pairing, and Tail Assignment: Branch-and-Price with Many Pricing Problems. Transportation Science, Articles in Advance, 1–19

  24. 24

    Jarrah, A I, Goodstein J and Narasimhan R 2000 An Efficient Airline Re-Fleeting Model for the Incremental Modification of Planned Fleet Assignments. Transportation Science 34: 349–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Winterer T J 2004 Requested Resource Reallocation with Retiming: An Algorithm for Finding Non-Dominated Solutions with Minimal Changes. PhD thesis, Centre for Planning and Resource Control (IC-PARC), Imperial College London, UK

  26. 26

    Fishburn P C 1985 Interval orders and interval graphs: A study of partially ordered sets. Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics, New York: John Wiley & Sons

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vinay V Panicker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jayaraj, A., Sridharan, R. & Panicker, V.V. Dynamic tail re-assignment model for optimal line-of-flight breakages. Sādhanā 45, 16 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-019-1256-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Aircraft routing
  • line-of-flights
  • tail Re-assignment
  • multiple maintenance hubs