Not only are we all somewhat different in terms of how we sleep and recover, but we may also have different family situations, hobbies, commute times, etc. affecting our needs outside of working hours. For these reasons, it is wise for operators to provide crew with influence over their rosters in terms of both work-content and distribution of spare time. Most operators have mechanisms in place for allowing crew to influence their rosters - but there are many different ways of doing so. We interviewed Lars Söderqvist, product manager for the Jeppesen Crew Rostering product, to learn a bit more about the different concepts in use.
What are the most common approaches for allowing crew to influence their rosters?
- The most basic ones are of course providing for different work contracts such as part-time contracts, but also movement between short-haul, long-haul and cargo operation, which are all typically quite different in nature. Looking instead at short-term influence of rosters for the coming weeks, the simplest concept is to promise crew certain production, or time off, based on a priority order that may be seniority, first-come-first served, or a combination. These 'requests' are then pre-assigned to the rosters before the optimization process, which will then try to cover all remaining production on the free time still available for the crew. This approach typically results in either an overall low level of crew influence, or the operator experiencing problems in covering all production, since too much has been 'given away'. On the other hand, it is a very transparent process for the crew.
So what other options exists?
- Two common concepts for preferential bidding are 'fair share', and 'strict seniority'. Strict seniority is the dominating concept in North America and is based on crew picking their desired production in seniority order - meaning that junior crew typically end up with an unattractive part of the production, such as receiving low pay for many hours of work and time away from base. The 'fair share' concept, common in Europe for example, is normally based on crew placing 'bid points' to express the 'desirability' of having their different bids granted, and the optimizer then striving to bring everyone up to a similar 'bid ratio'; a ratio calculated for each crew as their granted bid points divided by the maximum bid points achievable.
- But there are plenty of hybrid solutions where bids and requests co-exist, and the prioritization for granting them may be based on both seniority and expressed 'desirability'. Another type of crew influence is also present after roster publication, referrred to as 'trip trading' where crew swap production with each other.
Can you give some examples of what crew may ask for?
- Bids could be placed for certain flights or trips, and all properties of those, such as 'starting after 10am', minimum credit time, or asking for one-day trips. Other examples are time-off bids and and flying together - so called 'buddy bids'. An interesting and increasingly popular concept now is 'lifestyle bids' with pre-cooked properties identified as suitable for commuters, crew with smaller children, morning people etc., making bidding easy and relevant. The idea behind all concepts is to provide maximum crew influence while protecting the operator's ability to efficiently cover all production. You can find more information about our solutions in this area on our web site here.
Lars Söderqvist is the Product Manager for the Jeppesen Crew Rostering product working in Gothenburg, Sweden. Lars first engaged in crew management and optimization in the late nineties and has since supported a large number of operators world-wide with implementing advanced solutions for the crew rostering process. In his spare time Lars performs in the Vocal Art Ensemble of Sweden, a choir appreciated for its commitment to contemporary music.