Advertisement

A Comparison of Recovery Strategies for Crew and Aircraft Schedules

  • Lucian IonescuEmail author
  • Natalia Kliewer
  • Torben Schramme
Conference paper
Part of the Operations Research Proceedings book series (ORP)

Abstract

On the day of operations delays frequently forces the operations control of an airline to recover resource schedules by mostly expensive recovery actions. Regarding this difficulty robust scheduling deals with the construction of schedules which are less affected by disruptions or provide possibilities for low-cost recovery actions. To measure the degree of robustness of schedules, a simulation framework with enabled recovery actions is needed. In this paper we present a comparison of re-optimization and rule-based recovery approaches.

Keywords

Recovery Action Recovery Strategy Crew Schedule Recovery Problem Disruption Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Y. Ageeva. Approaches to incorporating robustness into airline scheduling. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Clausen, A. Larsen, J. Larsen, and N. Rezanova. Disruption management in the airline industry – concepts, models and methods. Computers & Operations Research, 37: 809–821, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. Dück, T. Schramme, N. Kliewer, and L. Suhl. An iterative approach for recovery of airline crew and aircraft schedules. Technical report, Decision Support & Operations Research Lab, University of Paderborn, Warburger Straße 100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany, 2009.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    V. Dück, F. Wesselmann, and L. Suhl. A branch-and-price-and-cut framework for crew pairing optimization. Technical report, Decision Support & Operations Research Lab, University of Paderborn, Warburger Straße 100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany, 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. R. Birge and J. W. Yen. A stochastic programming approach to the airline crew scheduling problem. Transportation Science, 40(1): 3–14, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Lan, J.-P. Clarke, and C. Barnhart. Planning for robust airline operations: Optimizing aircraft routings and flight departure times to minimize passenger disruptions. Transportation Science, 40(1): 15–28, February 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Larsen, A. Ross, S. Tiourine, N. Kohl, and A. Larsen. Airline disruption management – perspectives, experiences and outlook. Journal of Air Transportation Management, 13: 149– 162, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Shebalov and D. Klabjan. Robust airline crew pairing: Move-up crews. Transportation Science, 40(3): 300–312, August 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oliver Weide, David Ryan, and Matthias Ehrgott. An iterative approach to robust and integrated aircraft routing and crew scheduling. Computers & Operations Research, 37(5): 833–844, May 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucian Ionescu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Natalia Kliewer
    • 1
  • Torben Schramme
    • 2
  1. 1.Information SystemsFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Decision Support & Operations Research LabUniversität PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations