European Journal of Operational Research 140 (2002) 531–540

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Case Study

A network model for airline cabin crew scheduling

Shangyao Yan *, Yu-Ping Tu
Department of Civil Engineering, National Central University, Chungli 32054, Taiwan
Received 12 May 1999; accepted 23 May 2001

Abstract

Airline crew scheduling problems have been traditionally formulated as set covering problems or set partitioning
problems. When flight networks are extended, these problems become more complicated and thus more difficult to
solve. From the current practices of a Taiwan airline, whose work rules are relatively simple compared to many airlines
in other countries, we find that pure network models, in addition to traditional set covering (partitioning) problems, can
be used to formulate their crew scheduling problems. In this paper, we introduce a pure network model that can both
efficiently and effectively solve crew scheduling problems for a Taiwan airline using real constraints. To evaluate the
model, we perform computational tests concerning the international line operations of a Taiwan airline. Ó 2002
Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Airline crew scheduling; Set covering (partitioning) problem; Pure network problem; Network simplex; Flow decomposition

1. Introduction crew that satisfies the training, vacation, and

other requirements. Traditionally, the airline crew
The generation of work shifts for cabin at- scheduling problem has been formulated as a set
tendants in airline crew scheduling departments covering problem or a set partitioning problem as
is generally divided into two stages. First, a crew follows:
scheduling problem is generated to minimize the
cost of the pairings in conjunction with the flight X
NR

timetable, the official civil aviation regulations, Min cj yj

j¼1
the work conventions, and the personnel man-
agement’s principles. Second, for rostering prob- X
NR
s:t: aij yj P ð¼Þ1; i ¼ 1; . . . ; NF ; ð1Þ
lems, the above pairings are assigned to each j¼1

yj 2 f0; 1g; j ¼ 1; . . . ; NR;

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886-3-422-7151 ext. 4141;
fax: +886-3-425-2960.
E-mail address: t320002@cc.ncu.edu.tw (S. Yan).
where NR is the number of crew pairings, NF is the
number of flights (or duties), i is the ith flight (or
duty), j is the jth pairing, cj is the cost of the jth

0377-2217/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 1 5 - 6
532 S. Yan, Y.-P. Tu / European Journal of Operational Research 140 (2002) 531–540
pairing, aij ¼ 1 if flight (or duty) i is part of pairing
j; and 0 otherwise, and yj ¼ 1 if pairing j exists in
the crew schedule; and 0 otherwise.
The objective is to minimize the cost of the
pairings. The first constraint restricts one flight (or
duty) to be covered by at least (or exactly) one
pairing. The second constraint determines whether
a specific pairing is used.
There has already been much research on crew
scheduling. For example, Arabeyre et al. (1969)
have surveyed the older work on crew scheduling.
Etschmaier and Mathaisel (1985) and Ball et al.
(1995) have provided a more recent survey. Some
recent algorithms and practices have been pre-
sented by Crainic and Rousseau (1987), Lavoie
et al. (1988), Gershkoff (1989), Barutt and Hull
(1990), Anbil et al. (1991), Desrosiers et al. (1991),
Graves et al. (1993), Graves et al. (1993), Hoffman
and Padberg (1993), Barnhart et al. (1995), Chu
et al. (1997), Desaulniers et al. (1997), Vance et al.
(1997), Barnhart and Shenoi (1998), and Stojkovic
et al. (1998). Most of the research has been focused
on the improvement of models and algorithms to
solve crew-pairing problems with complicated
dispatching constraints.
In contrast to the airline operations dealt with
in past research, the international operations of
airlines in Taiwan are relatively simple. In partic-
ular, the international flight timetable is scheduled
weekly and the flight networks are rather sparse.
Moreover, due to current aviation policies and
regulations in Taiwan, the crew pairing constraints
are less complicated than those of many airlines in
other countries. For example, the dispatch regu-
lations for cabin attendants of the Taiwan’s China
Airlines are listed as follows:
A. General rules
1. The number of monthly flying hours should be
between 70 and 100.
2. The number of monthly working hours should
not be more than 190.
3. Every crew member should rest at least five
days a month in Taiwan.
4. The number of yearly rest days is at least 68 for
males and 69 for females.
5. The number of both take-offs and landings in a
duty should not be more than four.
B. Restrictions on flying hours and working
hours for a work duty
1. In any 24-hour time window, the number of
working hours should not be more than 14,
and the number of flying hours should not be
more than 9. A work duty composed of only
one long-haul flight can be released of the above
rule, but at least four seats must be reserved for
the rest of the cabin crew.
2. A cabin crew scheduled to a duty period of
more than 12 hours, must then immediately be
given a scheduled rest period of at least 24 con-
secutive hours.
3. A cabin crew scheduled to a duty period of
more than 8 hours, but no more than 12 hours,
must then immediately be given a scheduled rest
period of at least 12 consecutive hours.
4. A cabin crew scheduled to a duty period of less
than 8 hours, must then immediately be given a
scheduled rest period of at least 8 consecutive
hours.
5. The number of working hours in a duty can be
lengthened if there are incidents. However, ad-
justments for the irregularity should be reported
to the labor union within 24 hours after the
event. Suitable rest periods should be offered
for overtime after the duty period.
In general, the dispatch regulations to be con-
sidered in crew scheduling are point (5) in Item A
and points (1)–(4) in Item B; other regulations are
considered in crew rostering or real-time crew
adjustments. Note that although crew pairings are
commonly restricted to a maximum number of
duties and/or a maximum time for leaving home
base for many airlines in other countries, the work
rules for cabin crew scheduling for China Airlines
are not restricted to such constraints.
Referring to Lavoie et al. (1988), Yan and Lin
(1997) formulated the crew scheduling problem as
a set covering problem using real constraints of
China Airlines; the work duties were constructed
with at most two flights and each flight appeared
only once in a work duty. They constructed a
scheduling network, which formulated the dis-
patch regulations, to help generate all the feasible
pairings. The column generation method was em-
 S. Yan, Y.-P. Tu / European Journal of Operational Research 140 (2002) 531–540
ployed to solve the set covering problem. It was
decomposed into a master problem and a sub-
problem. The simplex method was used to solve
the master problem, while a label correcting al-
gorithm was used to find the shortest paths in the
sub-problem. The master problem and the sub-
problem were repeatedly solved until the optimal
solution was found. In the case study, when the
number of duties was over 650, the set covering
model yielded non-integer solutions. This shows
that the column generation method does not usu-
ally take an optimal integer solution when the
problem sizes (including both variables and con-
straints) are increased. Since the use of the column
generation method for the crew scheduling prob-
lem might yield a non-integer solution, further
methods are needed to improve on non-integer
solutions.
Although a column generation based approach
could efficiently optimize crew scheduling prob-
lems, when the problem size is increased, the
traditional set covering/partition model becomes
more complicated and more difficult to solve. For
the crew scheduling problem of China Airlines
formulated in Yan and Lin (1997), although there
were certain path constraints, interestingly en-
ough, we found that it can be reformulated as a
pure network problem, which can be more effi-
ciently solved than a set covering problem. In this
paper, we introduce a pure network model that
both efficiently and effectively solves China Air-
lines crew scheduling problem using real con-
straints. Note that the crew, in this paper, denotes
Fig. 1. The crew scheduling network.
533
the cabin attendants, whose work rules differ from
the pilot. The rest of the paper is organized as
follows. We first build a network model to con-
struct pairings that satisfy the dispatch regula-
tions. We then formulate the network model as an
integer linear program and develop solution al-
gorithms. Finally, we perform computational tests.
2. Modeling and solution algorithms
Taking into consideration the dispatching reg-
ulations for crew scheduling in China Airlines (i.e.
point (5) in Item A and points (1)–(4) in Item B in
Section 1), we construct a network that allows for
the drafted flight timetable, and the average cost
and number of cabin attendants required for each
flight, to formulate crew scheduling for a single
home base. The network is shown in Fig. 1.
In Fig. 1, the source node and the sink node
both represent the same home base. The other
nodes indicate the location and the time for a duty
departure and arrival. There are five types of arcs,
specifically starting or ending arcs, duty arcs,
deadhead arcs, rest arcs, and a cyclic arc.
1. Starting and ending arcs: starting arcs connect
the source node and all the duties that depart
from the home base, implying that feasible pair-
ings start from the home base. Ending arcs con-
nect duties that arrive at the home base to the
sink node, implying that all feasible pairings
end at the home base. The arc cost for a starting
534 S. Yan, Y.-P. Tu / European Journal of Operational Research 140 (2002) 531–540
or ending arc is zero. The lower bound of a start-
ing or ending arc flow is zero, implying that the
arc flow is nonnegative. The flow upper bound
of a starting or ending arc is infinite, indicating
that the number of crew can be very large.
2. Duty arcs: a duty arc represents a work duty
containing at most two flights, which are served
by the same crew. Note that each flight appears
only once in a work duty. The tail node and the
head node of a duty arc represent the origin and
the destination of that duty. The arc cost equals
the average flying-hour rate for a crew times the
associated number of flying hours. The arc low-
er bound or upper bound is equal to one, mean-
ing that exactly one crew serves this duty.
3. Deadhead arcs: a deadhead arc parallels a duty
arc, representing a deadheading crew on the as-
sociated duty. Deadhead arcs are designed so
that good pairings can be obtained by the suit-
able use of deadhead. The arc cost equals the
cost of deadheading a crew on the associated
duty. The arc lower bound equals zero, which
denotes that there can be no deadhead on this
duty. The arc upper bound equals infinity (or
the aircraft’s capacity), indicating that there
could be many deadheading crews on this duty.
Note that in reality the arc flow is usually zero,
unless there are pairings that need to use this
deadhead as a bridge.
4. Rest arcs: a rest arc connects two duties, repre-
senting a rest period between two connected
work duties. To ensure that the flying time, work
time and rest time for any pairing all satisfy the
dispatch regulations, we constructed our rest
arcs by referring to Yan and Lin (1997). For ex-
ample, for duties f1 and f3 in Fig. 1, the rest arc
between them has to satisfy the following condi-
tions: (1) f1 arrives at and f3 departs from the
same airport. (2) In order to satisfy point (1) in
Item B, f1 and f3 must fall within a 24 hour pe-
riod, and neither the total number of flying
hours nor the total number of working hours
may be longer than their limits, except when f1
or f3 composes a long-haul flight. (3) In order
to satisfy points (2)–(4) in Item B, one of the fol-
lowing conditions must be satisfied: (3.1) If the
number of working hours for f1 is more than
12, then the rest time from the end of f1 to the
start of f3 must be longer than 24 hours. (3.2)
If the number of working hours for f1 is between
8 and 12, then the rest time from the end of f1 to
the start of f3 must be longer than 12 hours. (3.3)
If the number of working hours for f1 is less than
8, then the rest time from the end of f1 to the
start of f3 must be longer than 8 hours. The arc
cost is equal to the lodging cost plus poc-
ket money during the crew’s rest time. The arc
lower bound is equal to zero. The arc upper
bound equals infinity, meaning that there could
be many crews taking this rest time. The arc flow
is usually equal to one, unless that there are
deadheading crews on the duty preceding this
rest arc.
5. Cyclic arc: a cyclic arc connects the sink node to
the source node, representing the cycling of
weekly flight timetables. The arc flow represents
the number of crews serving the drafted flight
timetable. The arc cost is equal to zero. The
arc lower bound is zero, meaning that the num-
ber of pairings is nonnegative. The arc upper
bound is infinite, indicating that the number
of pairings can be very large.
Due to the above network construction, we
claim that a unit flow, from the source node to the
sink node (called a source–sink path), will form a
feasible pairing. That is, any source–sink path is
a feasible pairing. The reasons are as follows.
Since a feasible pairing satisfies point (5) in Item
A and points (1)–(4) in Item B, we have to prove
that any source–sink path also satisfies these con-
straints.
First, in China Airlines’ operations, any work
duty does not contain more than two flights;
otherwise, the flying hours or the work hours
would exceed the limit. Therefore, the total num-
ber of both take-offs and landings in a duty is
not more than 4, meaning that point (5) in Item
A is always satisfied for any source–sink path.
Second, points (1)–(4) in Item B can be classi-
fied into two types. One type is called the path
constraints, for point (1); the other is called the
arc-connection constraints, including points (2)–
(4). As for the arc-connection constraints, when a
rest arc connecting two duty arcs is designed, the
constraints on points (2)–(4) are all considered and
 S. Yan, Y.-P. Tu / European Journal of Operational Research 140 (2002) 531–540
are therefore satisfied. For path constraints when
we design rest arcs, although we only ensure that
the number of flying hours and the number of
working hours for any two connected work duties
will satisfy the constraints within 24 hours, inter-
estingly, we actually found that for any, 24-hour
window in a source–sink path, point (1) is always
satisfied.
The reasons are as follows. Given any 24-hour
time window, if it contains at least two complete
rest period, then the number of flying hours or
working hours in the time window should be less
than or equal to 8, which is equal to 24 minus 8
minus 8. Note that one complete rest period will
contain at least 8 hours. If it contains one complete
and two fractional rest periods, one complete and
one fractional rest period, or one complete rest
period, then the time window contains at most two
duty arcs. Since point (1) is considered when
building any rest arc between two duties, all of
these cases satisfy point (1). If it contains two
fractional rest periods, one fractional rest period
or no rest period, then the time window contains at
most one duty arc, which obviously satisfies point
(1) by duty constructions. As a result, any source–
sink path is a feasible pairing.
Since the network is a circulation network, all
flows cycle to and from the source node (and the
sink node). Using the flow decomposition theory
(Ahuja et al., 1993), we can decompose all cycles
with a unit flow that starts from the source node,
moving to the sink node and then back to the
source via the cyclic arc. A cycle with a unit flow
can then be used to find a feasible pairing. In
particular, the arc chain in a cycle, from the source
node to the sink node, represents one feasible
pairing. As a result, the cyclic arc flows indicate
the number of total pairings that can service all the
duties.
The objective is to ‘‘flow’’ all the crews cycling
within the network at the minimum cost. In other
words, given all feasible pairings, (that is, given all
possible paths from the source node to the sink
node), the network model chooses a set of pair-
ings, and assigns a crew to each pairing, to cover
each duty at a minimum cost. The model can be
formulated as an integer linear program as shown
in Formula (2):
535
X
Min cij xij
ij2A
X X
s:t: xij  xki ¼ 0 8i 2 N ;
j2OðiÞ k2IðiÞ
1 P xij P 1 8ði; jÞ 2 F ; ð2Þ
xij P 0 8ði; jÞ 2 A n F ;
xij 2 I 8ði; jÞ 2 A;
where xij is the number of crews assigned to arc
ði; jÞ, which represents a work duty, a deadhead on
a work duty, a rest time, a starting arc, an ending
arc, or a cyclic arc; cij is the cost of arc ði; jÞ; N is
the set of all nodes; A is the set of all arcs; F is the
set of all work duties; OðiÞ is the set of head nodes
for arcs emanating from node i and IðiÞ is the set
of tail nodes for arcs pointing to node i.
The objective of this model is to ‘‘flow’’ the
crews that cycle within the network at the mini-
mum cost. The first constraint is the flow con-
servation constraint for all nodes. The second
constraint ensures that a work duty is served
exactly once by a crew. The third and fourth con-
straints ensure that all the arc flows are non-
negative and integers. The problem is thus a
minimum-cost pure network flow problem. The
network simplex method is employed to solve the
problem, and the flow decomposition method
(Ahuja et al., 1993) is then used to generate pairings
that cover all the duties.
To show that the set covering problem, as em-
ployed by Yan and Lin (1997), can be completely
transferred to a network flow problem, we first
focus on the decision variables for Formulas (1)
and (2). The flow xij in the network flow problem
on arc ði; jÞ equals the sum of f ðwÞ for all cycles
(w 2 W ) containing this arc (i; j), where W is the
set of all cycles in the network. Note that the crew
scheduling network in Fig. 1 is a circulation net-
work, that is, there is no node with supply/de-
mand. We formalize the observation by defining
some new notations: dij ðwÞ equals 1 if arc (i; j) is
contained in cycle w, and is 0 otherwise. Then,
X X
NF
xij ¼ dij ðwÞf ðwÞ ¼ aij yj : ð3Þ
w2W j¼1
536 S. Yan, Y.-P. Tu / European Journal of Operational Research 140 (2002) 531–540

The set covering constraints, ticular, different sets of optimal integer solutions
will provide airlines with more flexibility in crew
X
NR
aij yj ¼ 1; i ¼ 1; . . . ; NF ; rostering, which is usually complicated in prac-
j¼1 tice.
Note that, when crew scheduling is formulated
yj 2 f0; 1g; j ¼ 1; . . . ; NR; as a traditional set covering problem, the opti-
mal solutions obtained using the column genera-
can be transferred into the following: tion approach could be a non-integer solution, if
X X the master problems are solved using the simplex
xij  xki ¼ 0 8i 2 N ;
j2OðiÞ k2IðiÞ
method. For example, non-integer solutions ap-
peared in eight cases of Yan and Lin (1997). Thus,
1 P xij P 1 8ði; jÞ 2 F ; other methods (for example, the branch-and-price
technique by Barnhart et al., 1998) must then
xij P 0 8ði; jÞ 2 A n F ; necessarily be incorporated, to improve non-inte-
xij 2 I 8ði; jÞ 2 A: ger solutions, leading to integer solutions. As a
result, compared to our model column generation
The objective function can also be revised as fol- based algorithms could be inefficient.
lows: Intuitively, Yan and Lin (1997) found optimal
" # solutions which were fractional combination of
XNR X X
NR X some pairings, which did not assure that they were
ck yk ¼ cij aik yk ¼ cij xij :
integer solutions. Our model can find an optimal
k¼1 ði;jÞ2A k¼1 ði;jÞ2A
integer solution that is an extreme flow in a pure
Note that the network model is formulated as a network. From this, with the network model,
pure network flow problem with an integrality we can also prove that optimal integer solutions
property (Ahuja et al., 1993). In other words, if all exist for the problems solved by Yan and Lin
the parameters are integers, then the network (1997). Therefore, for their non-integer cases, there
model will be solved as an optimal integer solution. should be multiple optimal solutions. In other
Moreover, a pure network problem is already very words, Yan and Lin (1997) ‘‘unfortunately’’ only
efficient to solve in practice, for example, by using solved for non-integer solutions, instead of integer
the network simplex method (see Yan and Yang, ones.
1996). Technically, our network design prevents pos-
Since the solutions mentioned above are crew sible path constraints from arising due to China
flows and are incapable of expressing the pairings Airlines dispatch regulations (that is, point (5) in
for each crew, we suggest using a flow decompo- Item A and points (1)– (4) in Item B). All the paths
sition method (Ahuja et al., 1993) to decompose (arc chains) obtained via the decomposition algo-
the arc flows into arc chains, with each arc chain rithm are feasible in the crew scheduling problem.
representing one path from the source node to the Therefore, we can formulate the crew scheduling
sink node. Note that the arc chains may not be problem as a previously undeveloped pure net-
unique. The user can choose several solutions, work flow model.
each an integer solution, to form input into the
later crew rostering problem. Thus, a satisfactory
solution should be relatively easy to find. Surely, 3. Computational tests
more practical arc chains can be studied in the
future. Note that, unlike the single solution ob- To compare the efficiency and effectiveness of
tained by the set covering model (Yan and Lin, algorithms for finding different crew scheduling
1997), such a generation of multiple integer so- models, we refer to data used by Yan and Lin
lutions will be beneficial to the airlines. In par- (1997) in their case study. Their weekly flight time-
 S. Yan, Y.-P. Tu / European Journal of Operational Research 140 (2002) 531–540
table is divided into five lines: Taipei–Japan, Taipei–
America/Canada, Taipei–Europe/South Africa,
Taipei/Hong Kong and Taipei/Southeast Asia.
There are 84, 69, 40, 112 and 150 duties respec-
tively, operating in these five lines, in one week.
Consequently, there are a total of 455 duties in all
lines, for China Airlines. The airline owns seven
types of aircraft, including A300-600R’s, A300’s,
B737-400’s, B747-200’s, B747-400’s, B747-SP’s
and MD-11’s. We classified these into four aircraft
types, according to the number of crew members
required on a flight, as follows: (1) A type: B737-
400, 5 crew members; (2) B type: B747-SP, A300
and A300-600R, 12 crew members; (3) C type:
MD-11, 14 crew members; and (4) D type: B747-
200 and B747-400, 19 crew members. The cost
data are calculated according to data provided by
China Airlines.
Note that Yan and Lin used FORTRAN,
coupled with an XMP linear programming solver
to develop all the necessary programs. Their tests
were performed on an HP735 workstation. In our
research, we use the C computer language to de-
velop programs and then use the aforementioned
data as input to perform the tests, on the same
HP735 workstation. The results, coupled with Yan
and Lin’s, are shown in Table 1.
For this network size, the number of nodes in
our network is the same as in Yan and Lin’s sub-
problem. The number of arcs in our model is
slightly more than in Yan and Lin’s. In particular,
we have additional deadhead arcs and a cyclic arc
in our network. The master problem sizes in Yan
and Lin (1997) had up to 1194 variables and 455
constraints for all cases. For current operations,
Yan and Lin’s model yielded integer solutions
for each line and for the entire network, as did
our models. The objective values for the two
models were the same for each line, or for the entire
network, verifying the correctness of our model.
In both models the computation times are a few
seconds, meaning that both models are efficient in
terms of crew scheduling under current operations.
For example, for network optimization (model
solving and flow decomposition) in our model, the
computation time is less than 0.18 seconds for each
line and is less than 1.37 seconds for the entire
537
network. Although our model utilizes less compu-
tation time than Yan and Lin’s model for each line,
or the entire network, a comparison between the
two models might not reflect their relative effi-
ciency, especially when problem sizes are not sig-
nificantly large, because they were implemented
using different computer languages.
To evaluate the performance of both models for
larger-size problems, that may be faced in the fu-
ture, we modify the flight timetable, adding a
number of duties arbitrarily chosen from the
original timetable, as Yan and Lin (1997) also did.
As a result, we tested 11 more scenarios, including
500, 550, 600, 650, 700, 750, 800, 850, 900, 950
and 1000 duties, respectively. We found that the
problem size increased significantly when the num-
ber of duties is increased. For example, Yan and
Lin’s network size increased substantially to 2002
nodes and 14 332 arcs, while ours increased to
2002 nodes and 15 333 arcs. Yan and Lin’s master
problem size increased to 3016 variables and 1000
constraints. When the number of duties is less than
650, the set covering model yields only integer
solutions. When the number of duties is over 650,
for our case study, the set covering model yields
only non-integer solutions, showing that the col-
umn generation method does not usually take an
optimal integer solution when problem sizes (in-
cluding both variables and constraints) are in-
creased. This also indicates that there may be
multiple optimal solutions when the number of
duties is over 650. In particular, Yan and Lin’s
model yields non-integer solutions instead of the
optimal integer solutions found in our model. It
may be time-consuming to use Yan and Lin’s
model coupled with other methods (for example,
the branch-and-price technique) to solve for an
optimal integer solution. Note that the objective
values of non-integer solutions for the set covering
problem and those of integer solutions for the
network flow model are the same when the number
of duties is over 650.
Although the computation times were only
required by Yan and Lin (1997) for linear opti-
mization, the difference in computation times be-
tween the two models increases when the number
of duties is increased. For example, in the scenario
 538
Table 1
Test results for the set covering model and the network flow model
Results Lines

S. Yan, Y.-P. Tu / European Journal of Operational Research 140 (2002) 531–540

Taipei–Japan Taipei–America/ Taipei–Europe/ Taipei–Hong Taipei–South- The entire
Canada South Africa Kong east Asia network
Number of duties 84 69 40 112 150 455
Column generation Computation Model solving 0.289 0.211 0.105 0.765 0.570 4
method for set time (second)
covering model
(Yan and Lin, Sub-problem net- No. of nodes 170 140 82 226 302 912
work size No. of arcs 601 317 167 1583 841 3509
1997)
No. of all var 433 203 314 1359 541 2850
Master problem No. of variables 227 186 106 281 398 1194
size No. of constraints 84 69 40 112 150 455
Final solution No. of integer var 42 30 9 56 77 214
No. of non-integer 0 0 0 0 0 0
var
Objective value 3,178,851 13,263,703 7,075,180 1,606,947 7,517,911 32,642,592

Network simplex Computation Model solving 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.17 1.36
for network flow time (second) Flow decomposi- 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
model tion

Network size No. of nodes 170 140 82 226 302 912

No. of arcs 686 387 208 1696 992 3965

Final solution No. of pairings 42 30 9 56 77 214

Objective value 3,178,851 13,263,703 7,075,180 1,606,947 7,517,911 32,642,592
 S. Yan, Y.-P. Tu / European Journal of Operational Research 140 (2002) 531–540
containing 1000 duties, Yan and Lin’s computa-
tion time increased to 49 seconds, while ours in-
creased to 9.73 seconds. We expect the difference
to be significantly enlarged if optimal integer so-
lutions are to be solved for by Yan and Lin’s
model (1997) coupled with the branch-and-price
technique. It should be noted that if the linear
optimal solutions are simply rounded off to form
integers, then the resultant errors could be signif-
icant (for example, the rounding error for a sce-
nario containing 1000 duties is 30.38%). This also
implies that when the problem sizes are signifi-
cantly increased, then Yan and Lin’s (1997) col-
umn generation approach must be improved by
the use of other methods, in order to find integer
solutions and to prevent significant errors.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, we introduced a new network
model to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of solving China Airlines crew scheduling prob-
lems using real-life constraints. The model was
formulated as a pure network flow problem. The
network simplex method was used to solve the
problem, and a flow decomposition algorithm was
applied to obtain the pairings, from the optimal
integer solutions. To evaluate the performance of
the network model in the real world, computa-
tional tests concerning the international opera-
tions of China Airlines were performed using the
C computer language on an HP735 workstation.
All problem instances had optimal integer solu-
tions, with the longest computation time being
only 9.73 seconds, showing this network model is
very efficient. As well, we compared test results
from Yan and Lin’s model. These showed the
network model to be both efficient and effective,
and should thus be useful to China Airlines for
solving crew scheduling problems. We note that,
for other airlines, this pure network model may
not be able to formulate all their dispatching
constraints (for example, a maximum number
of duties or a maximum time for leaving home
base). Nevertheless, in such a case, our network
model may still be useful to efficiently generate
good (but possibly infeasible) pairings, which
539
could then be suitably modified to form feasible
pairings.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant (NSC-
87-2211-E-008-013) from the National Science
Council of Taiwan. We thank China Airlines for
providing the test data and their valuable opin-
ions. We also thank the anonymous referees for
their helpful comments and suggestions on the
presentation of the paper.
References
Ahuja, R.K., Magnanti, T.L., Orlin, J.B., 1993. Network
Flows, Theory, Algorithms and Applications. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Anbil, R., Gelman, E., Patty, B., Tanga, R., 1991. Recent
advances in crew-pairing optimization at American airlines.
Interfaces 21, 62–74.
Arabeyre, J.P., Feranley, J., Steiger, F.C., Teather, W., 1969.
The airline crew scheduling problem: A survey. Transpor-
tation Science 3, 140–163.
Ball, M.O., Magnati, T.L., Monma, C.L. and Nemhauser,
G.L., 1995. Network routing. Handbooks in Operations
Research and Management, vol. 8. North-Holland, Am-
sterdam.
Barnhart, C., Hatay, L., Johnson, E.L., 1995. Deadhead
selection for the long-haul crew pairing problem. Opera-
tions Research 43 (3), 491–499.
Barnhart, C., Johnson, E.L., Nemhauser, L.G., Savelsbergh,
M.W.P., Vance, P.H., 1998. Branch-and-price: Column
generation for solving huge integer programs. Operations
Research 46 (3), 316–329.
Barnhart, C., Shenoi, R.G., 1998. An approximate model and
solution approach for the long-haul crew pairing problem.
Transportation Science 32 (3), 221–231.
Barutt, J., Hull, T., 1990. Airline crew scheduling: Supercom-
puters and algorithms. SIAM News 23, 19–22.
Crainic, T.G., Rousseau, J., 1987. The column generation
principle and the airline crew scheduling problem. INFOR
25, 136–151.
Chu, H.D., Gelman, E., Johnson, E.L., 1997. Solving large
scale crew scheduling problems. European Journal of
Operational Research 97, 260–268.
Desaulniers, G., Desrosiers, J., Dumas, Y., Marc, S., Rioux, B.,
Solomon, M.M., Soumis, F., 1997. Crew pairing at air
France. European Journal of Operational Research 97, 245–
259.
Desrosiers, J., Dumas, Y., Desrochers, M., Soumis, F., Sanso,
B., Trudeau, P., 1991. A breakthrough in airline crew
scheduling, Cahiers du GERAD G-91-11.
540 S. Yan, Y.-P. Tu / European Journal of Operational Research 140 (2002) 531–540
Etschmaier, M.M., Mathaisel, D.F.X., 1985. Airline schedul-
ing: An overview. Transportation Science 19, 127–138.
Gershkoff, I., 1989. Optimizing flight crew schedules. Interfaces
19, 29–43.
Graves, G.W., McBride, R.D., Gershkoff, I., 1993. Flight crew
scheduling. Management Science 39, 736–745.
Hoffman, K.L., Padberg, M., 1993. Solving airline crew-
scheduling problem by branch-and-cut. Management Sci-
ence 39, 657–682.
Lavoie, S., Minoux, M., Odier, E., 1988. A new approach
for crew pairing problems by column generation with
an application to air transportation. European Journal of
Operational Research 35, 45–58.
Stojkovic, M., Soumis, F., Desrosiers, J., 1998. The operational
airline crew scheduling problem. Transportation Science 32,
232–245.
Vance, P.H., Barnhart, C., Johnson, E.L., Nemhauser, G.L.,
1997. Airline crew scheduling: A new formulation and
decomposition algorithm. Operations Research 45, 188–
200.
Yan, S., Lin, C.I., 1997. Optimization of airline crew pairings.
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Civil and Hydraulic
Engineering 9, 303–313, Taiwan.
Yan, S., Yang, D.H., 1996. A decision support framework for
handling schedule perturbation. Transportation Research
30B, 405–419.