1 / 13

SCHEDULING AIRCRAFT LANDING

SCHEDULING AIRCRAFT LANDING. Mike Gerson Albina Shapiro. Background. Air traffic has been on the rise for decades, but there has not been a corresponding increase in the number of airports and runways Airlines are forced to improve their efficiency

julianna
Download Presentation

SCHEDULING AIRCRAFT LANDING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. SCHEDULINGAIRCRAFT LANDING Mike Gerson Albina Shapiro

  2. Background • Air traffic has been on the rise for decades, but there has not been a corresponding increase in the number of airports and runways • Airlines are forced to improve their efficiency • High capital investments and operational costs • Heightened security • Increased competition due to low-cost airlines • Little tactical planning is currently done – sequence is approximately FCFS • Planning allows delays to be assigned before departure: delays on the ground are half as costly as in the air • Allows for different objectives to be met (besides just getting all the planes on the ground)

  3. Potential Objectives • Punctuality • Minimize average lateness or number of late planes • Efficiency • Maximize airport capacity (similar to minimizing makespan) • Costs • Minimize costs

  4. The Decision Problem An airport's Air Traffic Control (ATC) is responsible for creating a schedule of plane landings • Separation Times • Mandatory inter-landing time between planes (wake vortex), determined by plane size and visibility • Time window • Bounded by earliest time a plane can land (flying at maximum speed) and by latest a plane can land (flying at most fuel-efficient speed while circling for maximum possible time) • Plane’s cruise speed • A plane’s most economical speed. A cost is incurred if the plane is forced to deviate from this speed.

  5. Job Shop Model Early research (late 1970s) modeled problem as a job shop Runways = machines Planes = jobs Earliest feasible landing time = release date • Sequence-dependent processing times • Maintains separation time • Typical objective function: minimize makespan • And the problem becomes np-hard!

  6. Prioritizing Flights Allows airlines to set their own preferences • Size of plane or number of passengers • Connecting flights (passengers and cargo) • Fuel capacity considerations • 1998 – Carr, et al • Priority ranking system per airline • Objective: minimize deviations from preferred order

  7. Prioritizing Flights • 1995 – Abela, et al, 2000 – Beasley, et al • Simple cost function, linearly tied to deviation from a target arrival time • Objective: Minimize weighted deviations from scheduled time

  8. Prioritizing Flights • 2008 – Soomer and Franx • More complex linear cost function more accurately accounts for airline preferences • Includes scaling procedure to normalize costs between airlines (prevents one airline from receiving priority for a higher cost structure) • Objective:Minimize total scaled cost

  9. Solution Methods • Simulation • Genetic algorithms • Population heuristics • Formulate mixed-integer programming model • Branch and bound • Use an upper bound heuristic, then LP-based tree search • Local search heuristic

  10. Local Search Heuristic Swap neighborhood Shift neighborhood

  11. Results • Soomer, et al: Local Search Heuristic • Significant cost savings over FCFS • Average savings per flight: 33% of FCFS costs • Total savings: 81% of scaled costs

  12. Advantages over FCFS • Cost Savings • Consistent Performance • Automated system vs human judgment • Allows active scheduling • Computations run quickly enough to allow updated schedules to be calculated as circumstances change (departure delays, weather conditions, etc)

  13. References • J. Abela, D. Abramson, M. Krishnamoorthy, A. De Silva, and G. Mills, “Computing Optimal Schedules for Landing Aircraft,” in Proceedings of the 12th National ASOR Conference, Adelaide, Australia, (1993) 71-90. • G.C. Carr, H. Erzberger, F. Neuman. “Airline Arrival Prioritization in Sequencing and Scheduling,” in Proceedings of the 2nd USA/EUROPE Air Traffic Management R&D Seminar (1998). • J.E. Beasley, M. Krishnamoorthy, Y.M. Sharaiha, D. Abramson, “Scheduling Aircraft Landings – The Static Case,” in Transportation Science 34 (2000) 180–197. • J.E. Beasley, J. Sonander, P. Havelock, “Scheduling Aircraft Landings at London Heathrow using a Population Heuristic,” in Journal of the Operational Research Society 52 (2001) 483–493. • M.J. Soomer, G.J. Franx, “Scheduling Aircraft Landings using Airlines’ Preferences,” in European Journal of Operational Research 190 (2008) 277-291.

More Related