Scribd
Upload
78 views

Tail Assignment With Multiple Maintenance Locations Using Network Model

Only a very few practical discrete optimization problems could be solved to optimality in the available time. A pragmatic proposition to these problems is use of heuristic algorithms, which do not guarantee the optimality of the solution. But, it is possible to find nearly optimal solutions within a reasonable amount of computational time for many problems. Tail assignment, which comes in np-hard class of problems, is the allocation of individual aircraft to different flight legs with the consideration of maintenance schedule for each aircraft. The primary aim of tail assignment is making assignments in such way that all maintenance constraints are satisfied. The tail assignment is traditionally solved manually with the manager's intuitive skills and thus the solution will vary from person to person, providing sub-optimal solution. This paper indents to provide a graphical model for solving practical cases of tail assignment with multiple maintenance hub. The model is tested with instances extracted from real-world timetables of an airlines company in India. It is found that the model can be solved using standard type of computers in 3-4 seconds for single fleet airlines with 18 aircraft and 1050 flights.

Uploaded by

Ajyuk J Raj
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
78 views

Tail Assignment With Multiple Maintenance Locations Using Network Model

Only a very few practical discrete optimization problems could be solved to optimality in the available time. A pragmatic proposition to these problems is use of heuristic algorithms, which do not guarantee the optimality of the solution. But, it is possible to find nearly optimal solutions within a reasonable amount of computational time for many problems. Tail assignment, which comes in np-hard class of problems, is the allocation of individual aircraft to different flight legs with the consideration of maintenance schedule for each aircraft. The primary aim of tail assignment is making assignments in such way that all maintenance constraints are satisfied. The tail assignment is traditionally solved manually with the manager's intuitive skills and thus the solution will vary from person to person, providing sub-optimal solution. This paper indents to provide a graphical model for solving practical cases of tail assignment with multiple maintenance hub. The model is tested with instances extracted from real-world timetables of an airlines company in India. It is found that the model can be solved using standard type of computers in 3-4 seconds for single fleet airlines with 18 aircraft and 1050 flights.

Uploaded by

Ajyuk J Raj
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 21

Ajyuk J. Raj*, Vinay V.

Panicker, R.
Sridharan, V.
Madhusudanan Pillai

TAIL ASSIGNMENT WITH


MULTIPLE MAINTENANCE
LOCATIONS USING NETWORK
MODEL

Presentation Agenda
o Airline Scheduling Overview
o Tail Assignment Process
o Problem Defined
o Generic Model
o Data Used
o System Analyzed
o Illustration
o Results & Conclusions

Terminologies
Familiarized

Airline Scheduling
Modules

Tail Assignment
Tail Assignment :

Construction of routes for


individual aircraft in order to cover the legs of a flight
schedule and satisfy maintenance constraints.

Ground Check :

Currently done manually with


the manager's intuitive skills, consuming considerable
amount of time and energy.

Target :

Automated system which provides a


holistic solution for tail assignment module.

Process at Airline
Release of
SSIM
file/Schedul
e
information

Correct
Overlaps
and
constraint
violations

Identify
Overlaps
and
constraint
violations

Schedule
Generatio
n

Cross
validating
completion
of
maintenanc
e plans

Correcting
cross over
flights

TAIL
ASSIGNMENT

Assign
LOF to
Aircraft

Build
Lines of
flying
(LOF)

Segregate
the flights
based on
aircraft
types

Segregate
based on
seating
requiremen
ts

Identify the
line of flying
based on
onward flight
information

From Literature
Aircraft
Maintenance
as
Aircraft
Maintenance
as
mandated
by
the
FAA:
mandated by the FAA:
A-Check
A-Check
Visual
Visual inspection
inspection of
of major
major
systems.
systems.
Performed
approximately
Performed
approximately
every
60
flight
hours.
every 60 flight hours.
B-Check
B-Check
Thorough
Thoroughvisual
visualinspection
inspectionand
and
lubricating
of
all
moving
parts.
lubricating of all moving parts.
Performed
Performed every
every 300
300 to
to 600
600
hours
of
flight
hours of flight
C-Check
C-Check&&D-Check
D-Check
Involve
taking
Involve taking the
the aircraft
aircraft out
out
of
service
Performed
every
one
of service Performed every one
to
tofour
fouryears
years

Rules & Constraints

Aircraft Type matching


Geographical Continuity
Ground Time
Respect Maintenance Slot
Scheduling Preferences

Scheduling Preferences
Maintain Connection Time
Onward Flight Adherence

Changes from Airline to Airline


Changes within an airline depending on the time of running the assignment
Users switch on and off rules due to dynamicity of business environment

Interval Graph
6

8
7

1
2

5
9
4
(a)
I6

I3

I9

I4

I1

I7

I2
I5
(b)

I8

System Inputs

FLIGHT ID

FLIGHT_DAT DEPARTUR
E
E

STD

ARRIVAL

STA

MIN
GND
TIME

ONWARD AIRCRAFT
FLIGHT
TYPE

TOTAL
SEATS

XX3319

26-NOV-13

TLV

26/11/2013
04:10

XXS

26/11/2013
09:45

00:45

XX3142/26NOV-13

31B

141

XX3142

26-NOV-13

XXS

26/11/2013
15:15

DME

26/11/2013
20:10

00:50

XX3143/27NOV-13

31B

141

XX3143

27-NOV-13

DME

27/11/2013
03:55

XXS

27/11/2013
09:15

00:45

XX3324/27NOV-13

31B

141

XX3324

27-NOV-13

XXS

27/11/2013
15:50

SSG

27/11/2013
21:50

00:50

XX3325/27NOV-13

31B

141

XX3325

27-NOV-13

SSG

27/11/2013
23:01

XXS

28/11/2013
05:15

00:45

XX3464/28NOV-13

31B

141

System
PRE PROCESSING MODULE
Airline Fleet
Assignment Data from
Commercial
Department

Maintenance Data from


Operations Department
Data Retrieval

Data Warehouse

FORMULATION MODULE
LOF-Aircraft
Assignment
Rule Engine
Flight Coupling
Flight-Couple Timeline
Formation
Data Warehouse
Flight Reallocation
SOLUTION MODULE
Data Conversion
Re-allocated FlightAircraft Pair Output

Data Warehouse

LOF-Aircraft Assignment
Inputs

Maintenance
Parameters

Aircraft Parameters

Iterations

Check Location of
LOF and Aircraft
If matched
Check the Aircraft
Available Time and
LOF Start Flight Time
If matched
Check the Overlap
count of LOF Aircraft
Pair
Select the Pair with
minimum Overlap Count
Select the LOF-Aircraft
Pair with full Assignment
& minimum Overlap Count

LOF Details

Flight Coupling & Timeline


Formation
Inputs

Maintenance
Parameters

LOF Details

Iterations

LOF Timeline
Formation

Flight Sorting

Flight Coupling

Coupled Flight
Timeline Formation

Final Timeline

Rule Engine
Inputs

Maintenance Parameters

Aircraft Parameters

LOF Details

Iterations

Check for
Maintenance
Yes
Check for
Flight
Overlap
Yes
Check for free
slots in the
remaining LOF
Yes
Re-assign flight

Update Flight Matrix

Final Assignment

Primary
Mutual Swap

Secondary Swap

Yes
Re-assign flight

Re-assign flight

An Illustrative Case
AIRCRAFT
321

HUH
5600009

ITN
5600008

JGS

5600006

JMR

xxs 3314

FCO

80 LIN 81
8
3

3315

xxs

xxs 851 VCE 867

65 LHR
673
4

xxs

682

xxs 325 VCE 325


6

5600003

08:00 09:00

331 TFS 331


6
7

xxs

893

MAINTENAN
CE
TFS 686 xxs

xxs

xxs

FCO

693

3258

PRG

3318

895

xxs

899

PRG 734

xxs

LIN

xxs 3260

3258

10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00


Saturday, November 29, 2014

16:00

787

17:00

An Illustrative Case
AIRCRAFT
321

HUH

xxs 3314

ITN

80 LIN
8

5600009

5600008

JGS

5600006

JMR

5600003

FCO
81
3

3315

xxs

xxs 851 VCE 867

65 LHR
673 xxs
4

682

xxs 3256 VCE 3257

08:00 09:00

331
6

xxs

TFS 331

xxs

893

MAINTENAN
CE
TFS 686
xxs

FCO

693

xxs 3258

PRG

3318

895

xxs

899

PRG 734

xxs

LIN

xxs 3260

3258

10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00


14:00
15:00
Saturday, November 29, 2014

16:00

787

17:00

Results Set 1
INPUT
INPUTSUMMARY
SUMMARY

PERIOD
PERIOD 26th
26thNovember,
November,2013
2013- -14
14
December,
December,2013
2013
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
FLIGHT
TOTAL NUMBER OF FLIGHT 314
314
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
AIRCRAFT
TOTAL NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT 66
TOTAL
TOTALNUMBER
NUMBEROF
OFMAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE 33
TOTAL
TOTALNUMBER
NUMBEROF
OFCONSTRAINTS
CONSTRAINTS 55

OUTPUT
OUTPUTSUMMARY
SUMMARY-EXPECTED
EXPECTED

TOTAL
TOTALTIME
TIMETAKEN
TAKEN <<45
45Seconds
Seconds
TOTAL
TOTALNUMBER
NUMBEROF
OFFLIGHTS
FLIGHTSASSIGNED
ASSIGNED
314
314
TOTAL
TOTALNUMBER
NUMBEROF
OFONWARD
ONWARDFLIGHT
FLIGHTRULES
RULES
BROKEN
<
20
BROKEN <20

OUTPUT
OUTPUTSUMMARY
SUMMARY--ACTUAL
ACTUAL
TOTAL
TOTALTIME
TIMETAKEN
TAKEN ==0.45
0.45Seconds
Seconds
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
FLIGHTS
ASSIGNED
TOTAL NUMBER OF FLIGHTS ASSIGNED
314
314
TOTAL
TOTALNUMBER
NUMBEROF
OFONWARD
ONWARDFLIGHT
FLIGHT
RULES
BROKEN
=
13
RULES BROKEN = 13

Results Set 2
INPUT
INPUTSUMMARY
SUMMARY

PERIOD
PERIOD 26th
26thNovember,
November,2013
2013- -14
14
November,
2013
November, 2013
TOTAL
NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBEROF
OFFLIGHT
FLIGHT 1050
1050
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
AIRCRAFT
TOTAL NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT 18
18
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
MAINTENANCE
TOTAL NUMBER OF MAINTENANCE 19
19
TOTAL
TOTALNUMBER
NUMBEROF
OFCONSTRAINTS
CONSTRAINTS 55

OUTPUT
OUTPUTSUMMARY
SUMMARY-EXPECTED
EXPECTED

TOTAL
TOTALTIME
TIMETAKEN
TAKEN <<20
20Seconds
Seconds
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
FLIGHTS
TOTAL NUMBER OF FLIGHTSASSIGNED
ASSIGNED
1050
1050
TOTAL
TOTALNUMBER
NUMBEROF
OFONWARD
ONWARDFLIGHT
FLIGHTRULES
RULES
BROKEN
<
20
BROKEN <20

OUTPUT
OUTPUTSUMMARY
SUMMARY--ACTUAL
ACTUAL
TOTAL
TOTALTIME
TIMETAKEN
TAKEN ==3.34
3.34Seconds
Seconds
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
FLIGHTS
ASSIGNED
TOTAL NUMBER OF FLIGHTS ASSIGNED
1050
1050
TOTAL
TOTALNUMBER
NUMBEROF
OFONWARD
ONWARDFLIGHT
FLIGHT
RULES
BROKEN
=
17
RULES BROKEN = 17

Conclusions & Future Works


New paradigm for tail assignment, where routes and
pairings are generated based on the onward flight rule
rather than cost function.
Formulation based on a heuristic approach and solved in
MATLAB that results in a significant reduction in
computation time.
Solution for large data set with 1050 flights,
flights 20 stations
and 18 aircrafts,
aircrafts and multiple maintenance hubs.
Model with alternate solutions for flexibility.

References
[1] Nikolaos Papadakos, (2009) Integrated airline scheduling, Computers & Operations Research 36 (2009) 176 195.
[2] Karine Sinclair, Jean-Franois Cordeau, Gilbert Laporte, (2014) Improvements to a large neighborhood search heuristic
for an integrated aircraft and passenger recovery problem, European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2014) 234
245.
[3] Sebastian Ruther, Natashia Boland, Faramroze Engineer, (2013) Integrated aircraft routing, crew pairing, and tail
assignment: branch-and-price with many pricing problems, School of Mathematical and Physical Science, University of
Newcastle.
[4] Yanina V. Ageeva, John-Paul Clarke, (2000) Approaches to Incorporating Robustness into Airline Scheduling, MIT
International Center for Air Transportation.
[5] Mattias Grnkvist, (2005) The Tail Assignment Problem, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers
University of Technology.
[6] Lloyd Clarke, Ellis Johnson, George Nemhauser, Zhongxi Zhu, (1997) The aircraft rotation problem, Annals of
Operations Research 69(1997)33 46.
[7] Ibrahim Muter, S Ilker Birbil, Kerem Bulbul, Guvenc Sahin, Husnu Yenigun, Duygu Tas, Dilek Tuzun (2013) Solving a
robust airline crew pairing problem with column generation Computers & Operations Research 40 (2013) 815830.
[8] www.enerjet.ca
[9] noukousoku.air-nifty.com
[10] commons.wikimedia.org
[11] www.airportimprovement.com
[12] hsimonis.wordpress.com

THANK YOU
[email protected]

You might also like