BOEING 767

From Concept to Production

 In Boeing Timely delivery is the utmost priority

Introduction The commercial airplane division consist of the 717, 737, 747, 757,
767 and 777 families of jetliners and the Boeing business jet. Building
family of planes by developing on same platform

Availability of more varians and options including standard, long

range, freighter, flexible design with inherent growth potential

Common family of plane produced on a common assembly line result

in ealier reaching of breakeven point

Expertise in global marketing, technological leadership, customer

suppor and production skills

Having centralised coupled with manufacturing systems and tools for

project management
Company History
• Founded in 1916 by William A Boeing in Seattle
• 1920’s – 30’s market expansion
• Manufactured entire planes
• 1955 families of planes
• Late 1970’s early 1980’s risk-sharing
• 1973 new airplane study 7x7
Background
• In 1969 a New Airplane Program
(NAP) study group was formed
• Motive was to learn good things
from prior programs & not to repeat
mistakes done in past
• 7X7 (later named as 767) was
finalized to expand Boeing's Market
growth and to be next aircraft for
next 20-30 years
• New aircraft would be :
• Superior to other planes in market
• Incorporated with latest technologies
• Fuel efficient, could carry 200-300
passengers
• Fitted with 2 person cockpit
• Built with new Wings and Tail
configuration
• Used composite materials
• Able to cater longer range flights
 Problem Statement

Should the building of 30 planes Should the changes be made in

Thorton knew that the planes
had to be converted to models
with two person cockpits. But
what was the best way to
proceed?
be done as originally planned & line inserting new cockpits into
then retrofitting them with two 30 planes without removing
person cockpit in a separate from flow of production?
rework area?

Two viable options were:

Before 11 months of first scheduled
In August 1981, Federal Aviation Make changes in-line without removing planes
delivery of 767 aircraft Boeing had to take
Administration rendered 2 person from original flow of production or Make
a decision for changing cockpits from 3
cockpit as safe as 3 person cockpit changes off-line, by retrofitting 2 person
person to 2 person for 30 planes which
for wide bodied aircraft cockpits in separate area once original
were in advanced stage of production
production was completed
Analytic Hierarchy Process
• Comparison Matrix for Parameters
Performance Parameters
for Best Alternative Delivery Time Learning Curve Hidden Risk Technical Difficulties Labor Hours
Assessment

Delivery Time 1 2 3 4 5
Learning Curve 0.5 1 2 4 5
Hidden risk 0.33 0.5 1 3 2
Technical difficulties 0.25 0.25 0.33 1 3
Labor Hours 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.33 1
Analytic Hierarchy Process
• Geometric Mean, Weightage & Eigen Value
Geometric Mean Weightage Eigen value
Delivery Time 2.6051 0.409169 5.460602
Learning Curve 1.8205 0.285936 5.307808
Hidden risk 0.9999 0.157049 5.388546
Technical difficulties 0.5743 0.090202 4.891815
Labor Hours 0.367 0.057643 5.210682

• Calculating Consistency Ration

Power of matrix n 6
Mean Eigen value 5.251890737
Consistency index CI 0.06297
Random index RI for n 1.2479
Consistency ratio CR 0.056226
Analytic Hierarchy Process
• Final weights & Ranking
Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Delivery Time 4 3.5

Learning Curve 3.8 3
Hidden risk 3.6 3.2
Technical difficulties 3.8 3.4
Labor Hours 4 2
Final Weights 3.8619 3.2144
Ranking 1 2

We choose Alternative 1 as the Final Solution to this as per AHP.

 Reasoning for Assigned Priorities in AHP

Delivery Time Learning Curves Hidden Risk Labor Hours

• Delivery time is • Disruption • Higher and • Least value is

important cause huge loss unidentifiable desirable from
• Penalty for late both time and risk is not Cost and time
delivery time labor acceptable frame

• Identification
and correction
of Risk most
Important
 Process Flow

Generation of
Calculation of
Purchase Design Retrofitting Of Final
Labor Hours Delivering for
Orders of Modification Two Person Functional
required for Flight Test
Electronics Programs Cock-Pit Testing
Retrofitting
equipment
 Parametric Estimates For Retrofitting
• Labour hours required for Completion of retrofitting- 10,00,000
• Permissible Delay Period – 1 month
• No. of Shifts – 3 Shifts
• Orders & Purchase of Newly required Electronic Equipments –
Assume 3 days
• Time for establishing new Workstation for Retrofitting – Assume 5
days
Learning Curve For Retrofitting
 Retrofitting
Arrangement of Parking Lots for Planes waiting for Retrofitting

Equip the Parking Lot with Safety Precautions

Removal of existing Three Cock Pit Crew

Modification & Repairing from Three Crew to Two Crew Cock Pit

Functional Testing of newly installed Two Crew Cock pit

Conclusion
From above analysis following points are favorable for choosing completion
of production & subsequent modification:
• Less number of Labor Hours are required
• Neither learning curves nor schedules would be disrupted
• Functional Analysis of flaps, ailerons, landing gears would be done while
final assembly
• No problems will be hidden by system
Mr Thornton should go with offline retrofitting with two person cockpit in
separate rework area