An Optimization Model for Flight Rescheduling from an Airport’s Centralized Perspective for Better Management of Demand and Capacity Utilization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over-capacity flight scheduling by commercial airlines due to the surging demand in recent years creates congestion and significant delays at major airports. This attitude towards maximizing throughput calls for tactical flight rescheduling to comply with airports’ capacity limitations and distribute the peak hour demand over the course of a day. Such displacements of flights may cause significant problems and costs for airlines and some cancellations or missed connections for passengers. This paper presents an optimization model for flight rescheduling at a schedule-coordinated airport to minimize congestion and flight delays at peak hours. The optimization model is used to make better scheduling intervention decisions considering airport resource constraints and safety of operation. A simulation algorithm is also developed to replicate arrival and departure processes in such an airport. The simulation adheres to a first come first served (FCFS) discipline and enforces runway capacity constraints and minimum turnaround times. We compare the delays caused by an ad hoc FCFS operation with those of the optimization model. Computational results from a case study demonstrate that a reduction of 52.6% and 61% in total delay times for arrival and departure flights, respectively, can be achieved. The optimization model also facilitates the implementation of a collaborative decision-making system for better coordination of airport traffic flow management with commercial airlines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it