Route each tail's due check to a reachable, capable station before its limit, balance pairings and trips against your crew bases, and read a single weight-configurable efficiency score with deterministic, explainable swap and re-base suggestions. It surfaces the risk and ranks the options — it never blocks a dispatch, and it composes with the FAR 117 / 121.467 legality the scheduler already enforces.
Each tail's next-due check is matched against the stations that can actually perform it within reach and before its limit. When it won't fit, an at-risk chip surfaces on the board — advisory, never a dispatch block.
Deadhead legs and out-of-base overnights surface so pairings and trips can be built to return crew to their domicile. Part 121 reads fixed lines; Part 135 reads ad-hoc trips — same engine, different input.
A configurable weighted score (abstract points, lower = better) over deadhead, overnights, repositioning, and maintenance-fit slack. Swap and re-base suggestions are deterministic and explainable — each shows its reasoning, not a black box.
No. The maintenance-routing read is advisory — it surfaces an at-risk chip on the network board when a tail's due check won't reach a capable station before its limit, so the desk can re-route while there's still time. It flags the risk; it never blocks or prevents a dispatch. The hard duty/rest legality (FAR 117 / FAR 121.467) is enforced separately at assignment time — this feature composes with that, it doesn't replace it.
Neither. The efficiency score is a configurable weighted score in abstract points where lower is better — not a dollar figure and not a guaranteed optimum. It rolls up the soft factors (deadhead legs, out-of-base overnights, aircraft repositioning, and maintenance-fit slack) with weights you set per center, so you decide what matters most. It is a deterministic planning signal, not an AI prediction.
They are deterministic, explainable heuristics. When an aircraft swap or a re-base would lower the efficiency score without creating a maintenance-routing risk, the board proposes it and shows the reasoning behind it — what it changes and how many points it saves. The same inputs always produce the same proposals, and every suggestion traces back to its inputs. They are not AI and not a solver — they are ranked, transparent improvements you choose to apply.
Yes. Part 121 routes aircraft around maintenance windows and crew bases as you build pairings, feeding the bidding award run. Part 135 positions aircraft and crew for ad-hoc trip demand — the same engine, with trips as the input instead of fixed lines. Both keep each tail's maintenance reachable and score the schedule on the same weight-configurable factors.