.... Despite their suboptimal approach, the schedulers of the LEG carrier did some nice work with their synchronization approach.

**2SAT versus 3SAT**

There is a jump in decision complexity when moving from a two-body conflict resolution problem to three-body conflict-resolution. Intuitively, we can observe this in linear programming (LP) problems. LPs limited to two variables per constraint are easier to solve. The dual (two constraints per variable) is a generalized network flow problem that can be solved using purely combinatorial methods. Intuitively, one can adopt an alternating heuristic that iteratively fixes one variable and optimizes the resulting univariate problem. In computational complexity theory, SAT-2 is easier to manage compared to SAT-3.

Rather than trying to simultaneously juggle flight attendant (FA), pilot, and aircraft maintenance schedules, the LEG schedulers adopted an simplification. They combined the two human elements into a single 'crew' scheduling entity. This can be achieved via "co-pairing", i.e., by building common pairings (partial schedules) for FAs and pilots employing X = {X

_{PILOT}∪ X

_{FA}}, i.e., every pairing would be feasible to both pilot and FA contracts and FAA regulations. Column generation allows you incredible flexibility in accommodating such a change. This flexibility is invaluable when hit by a perfect storm. Now, they could work with a two-variable per constraint structure so that their telephonic "alternating heuristic" negotiations could converge in a timely manner. Unfortunately, such a beneficial reduction in complexity was accompanied by inefficiency. The approach erred inordinately on the conservative side. The resources were now too tightly integrated, resulting in a cost spike due to under-utilization of expensive resources. LEG's R&D team was invited to resolve this problem.

**Integrated Crew and Aircraft Routing (ICAR)**

The OR team quite naturally proposed an integrated scheduling approach that would reduce costs, improve reliability of operations, and also enable tactical synchronization of flight connections. However, the number of possible connections to be evaluated is O(

*n*

^{2}) for a

*n*-flight schedule. Methods in the literature are typically data-agnostic; sophisticated alternatives to the straightforward approach designed to perform an acceptable job even in the worst case. Luckily, LEG's OR team had to solve only LEG's problem and not that of every future airline and space shuttle.

**The Beauty and the Brute Force**

Given the problem size spread over a five-day period, there are a few million candidates to synchronize in the theoretical worst case. However, our focus is only on same and overnight connections, which reduces the candidate list to a few hundred thousand. When we recognize that we only have to focus on the set T of connections of the same sub-fleet type at the same airport (duh), and exploiting a few other contextual restrictions, this final number is data-driven. It turned out that there were no more than tens of thousands of synchronization possibilities to deal with, 99% less than the theoretical bound. This finding allowed the possibility of cheerfully discarding (as we found out a couple of years later when some of the first journal papers on ICAR came out) all the neat out-flanking theorems and approximations presented in the literature. The method chosen may score low on aesthetics but was effective and flexible in managing the full blown ICAR instances in context. There is a childlike joy in discovering that enumeration solves your practical business problem - akin to finding out that this emperor has very little clothes. This basic counting step gave the team a clear goal.

**Problem Statement (at last)**

Given a flight schedule, jointly construct feasible crew pairings and aircraft strings such that their scheduling intersection (elements within the connection set T) are optimally synchronized.

And, yes, there were a few TSP (Traveling Salesman Problem) instances to be managed within ICAR. To be continued....