Calle Jershed is a well-known face for many of the Jeppesen Crew Solution customers. In his communication/marketing role he has been involved in most of our crew conferences since he began back in 2006. As Calle will leave Jeppesen in October, to embark on new adventures within communication in the healthcare domain, we asked him to do one last interview for us. Calle chose to sit down with Mattias Lindqvist and Tomas Klemets to talk about cargo operations:
Mattias, we have recently seen quite a few Cargo operators begin to use the Jeppesen Crew Pairing solution, and also FRM, why is that?
- Cargo operations have historically been a challenging problem to solve and optimize efficiently. There are several complicating factors behind that. Cargo operators typically have complex networks that span across the globe which require long trips, augmented work duties and greater consideration to the fatigue risk for the pilots. They also have demand mechanisms that differ from passenger operators, in that the flight schedule is more volatile - leading to greater variation in the working patterns from one week to another, even day to day. The cargo aircrafts can also impose more limitations in terms of the amount of deadheading crew, and the operation often uses less frequented airports or terminals. This puts higher demand on 'creativity' in the positioning of crew, using other commercial carrier but also more ground transports like bus, train and taxi. Sometimes two, or even three, consecutive positioning flights or transports are necessary for producing efficient pairings. Recent research and development in the products enables us to address these factors significantly better than just a couple of years ago - both for smaller and really big operators. This recent development is, in my opinion, the main reason why we've seen operators appear in this News Flash such as Cathay, AirBridge Cargo, Lufthansa Cargo, Kalitta and I hope soon another US-based cargo operator.
Can you explain more about the improvements in the system?
- The algorithms for the deadhead search is one area that I would highlight. We can now import and use a vast number of electronic flight schedule information and other time tables, allowing for very accurately identifying the best transport options. Of course while considering all constraints and using pricing information for the itineraries. And this done very quickly, as it is used during the optimization in real-time. Other improvements relate to the augmentation algorithms, general performance improvements and the enhancements to BAM that Tomas works with.
Thank you Mattias. Tomas - what makes cargo operations special when it comes to the fatigue risk perspective? I know that many cargo operators also use BAM with the pairing optimizer.
- Several things. Different to normal point-to-point long haul operation, the cargo pilots have much more challenging time zone transitions. They often operate patterns where they cannot rely on previous experience - as the pairings often vary quite a bit from month to month. Flying with two pilots, they also cannot use controlled rest as a mitigation as there's no cabin crew present to check up on them. In addition, cargo operation normally means more late changes to the flying program which makes it tougher for the crew to prepare.
So how does a fatigue model like BAM assist in producing better cargo pairings?
- In the same way actually as for other operators, actually. BAM is hooked in to the optimizer’s objective function and makes the optimizer experience a penalty when flights are predicted to be too fatiguing on the crew. The more fatiguing, the higher the penalty. This makes the optimizer avoid placing challenging flights in a poor context, as they would then be seen as ’expensive’. The result may be that a challenging flight is instead flown by crew from another base, or flown later into a pairing when crew are better acclimatized to cover it. It is all done automatically in runtime while the pairings are constructed and all other objectives are considered.
And the result of what you both said, if I got this right, is more efficient pairings but also lower fatigue risk? Mattias?
- Yes. Plus, normally a much shorter planning process. Many operators are coming from either a manual process or a process that involves several time-consuming sequential steps. Doing it all in one run, in just a few hours, saves lead time. It also saves effort that instead can be spent on 'planning analytics', evaluating and proposing modifications to the flight schedule.
Thanks. And now a question to you both. Mattias first, - is there any improvement potential remaining for these problems? - There is! We can improve even more on performance and even further on the accuracy of ticket prices for the deadhead candidates. Ticket prices can, as you know, vary significantly over time and between operators, and the deadhead cost is often prevalent for these cargo operstors.
And for FRM, Tomas?
- Definitely! Fatigue prediction models sometimes struggle with these patterns. There is a shortage of data on how crew are sleeping and their experienced sleepiness levels, since these patterns look so different from time to time. The models can definitely become better. One example for is the prediction of acclimatization: models today rely too much on time zone difference, when in reality the timing of light exposure is what mainly drives the physiology. We are taking important steps regarding that in the next version of BAM, but there will be more to do in the future.
It was good talking to you both. Thank you. [Mattias & Tomas] - Thank you Calle for your contributions here at Jeppesen and best of luck in your new role. You will be missed!
Thanks. And I would like to take the chance from my side to thank all the fantastic airline representatives I've met during my time here at Jeppesen. I wish you all the best, starting with pulling through the current pandemic. I'm certain that 'this too shall pass' and that a prosperous and exciting future lies ahead for the industry. Take care, and hope to see you around!
Comments