Skip to content

Aviation operations

OCC crew recovery: multi-leg rebid with auditable hybrid alternates

How tail routing repair, CP-SAT crew assignment, and a bounded hybrid micro-solve help OCC controllers compare defensible recovery plans.

Operations control illustration with flight boards and crew recovery overlays.

Superposition

Compare feasible plans before you collapse to one.

Phase

Feasibility first, then rank against the operational objective.

Measurement

Ranked plan, short why, and the metric behind the call.

The 06:12 problem at KORD

When a tail goes on maintenance hold, the cascade is never one flight. Three downstream legs, twelve crew members, and a shrinking decision window are normal. OCC needs a plan that reassigns tails, re-bids crew across open legs, and stays inside FAR 117—not a single swap picked by gut feel.

The Qtangl airline demo models that cascade: N812JB unavailable at KORD, three legs at risk, and a recovery window measured in tens of minutes, not hours.

Classical first: routing + assignment

The pipeline starts with aircraft routing repair—reassigning affected legs to available tails—then a CP-SAT crew assignment over every open leg simultaneously. That is the right source of truth: deterministic, fast, and auditable.

Reserve call-up stays in the model as a high-cost feasible fallback so the solver never returns empty-handed.

Hybrid for diverse full plans

The hybrid pass operates on a bounded crew×leg micro-window. It does not claim to beat CP-SAT on speed. It surfaces up to three distinct full recovery plans with QUBO snapshots and QPU trace replay for compliance review.

When classical and hybrid tie on cost, the value is alternate crew mixes and FAR 117 evidence—not hype.

Continue the walkthrough

Open the airline OCC demo, review the methodology page, or request pilot access.