4.3 Article

Flight rescheduling of an airline underground delay program considering delay propagation in multiple airports

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21680566.2023.2254939

关键词

Mixed-integer linear programming; stochastic programming; rescheduling; ground delay program; air traffic control

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study is to adjust flight schedules in response to changes in airport capacity in order to maximize airline profits. A mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model was formulated to reschedule flights, considering uncertainty in future conditions. The optimal model provides solutions for different scenarios of capacity changes, while the stochastic model minimizes the expected cost across all scenarios. The study also considers delay propagation between airports and incorporates costs associated with airline resources.
The purpose of this study is to reschedule flights for an airline's profit to correspond to the airport's changed capacity. In the event of a ground delay program (GDP), the number of flights the airport can accommodate is reduced. We formulated a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model to reschedule flights. The MILP models were divided into two versions to handle the uncertainty of the future. In scenarios in which the GDP is changed again, an optimal model obtains solutions for each scenario. The stochastic model solution obtains a minimizing expectation cost of all scenarios. All flights are connected to both the origin and destination airports, and one aircraft may be used for more than one flight. Therefore, we considered delay propagation not only within the same airport but from other airports by extending the setup to include several airports at once. Because the objective of this study is to minimize the operation cost of airline, we also considered costs associated with airline resources such as aircrafts and crews. Related experiments were conducted including comparison between two suggested versions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据