FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1958
1958 - 0767.PDF
FLIGHT, 6 June 1958 CIVIL AVIATION . . . 783 Planned Air Transport Production THE price-fixing activities of I.A.T.A. have been responsibleof late for stimulating a rising crescendo of criticism againstthat body. It is timely to recall the valuable service which I.A.T.A.'s officials are continually rendering the airline industry:the recently concluded four-day conference on Production Planning is a case in point. This was held at I.A.T.A.'s Technical Liaison Office in Londonon May 19-22 and was the first occasion on which the Production Planning and Control Group was convened. Last March a ques-tionnaire was distributed to member airlines in which replies were sought to 29 questions: the first asking what were considered to bethe "objectives" for Production Planning and Control (P.P.C.), the remaining questions seeking to establish the "scope" of P.P.C.within each airline. Eleven carriers—Aer Lingus, Aero O/Y, B.E.A., C.P.A.L., J.A.L., K.L.M., Pakistan International. Sabena,S.A.S., T.C.A.j and T.W.A.—replied in detail, their comments being compiled by I.A.T.A. arid distributed at the conferencetogether with a paper by B.O.A.C. on the philosophy and prin- ciples of P.P.C. Representing 15 member airlines were delegatesfrom Canada, Europe, Asia and Africa. United States airlines did not attend as the subjects under discussion were already beingexamined by the Air Transport Association. In addition to discussion arising out of replies to the question-naire, the meeting listened to and commented on papers presented by airline experts on manpower-planning, incentive-schemes,budgeting, cost analysis, materials-provisioning, operations- research and automation. This airing of views on various aspectsof production planning threw light upon the legitimate differences in approach followed by different operators: the ideal course fora large airline with high labour costs probably being quite unlike that for a small carrier paying low average wages. Another problemwhich soon became apparent was that of definition. Not only do terms such as Queueing Theory, Monte Carlo Method and E.D.P.understandably need explanation, but even such straightforward expressions as "material standards" require elucidation. Never-theless, within these limits, a wide area of agreement was voiced concerning the purpose of P.P.C., perhaps the neatest definitionbeing that provided by B.E.A.: "to relate the maintenance and overhaul requirements to the operational requirements ' aseconomically as possible." The course of discussions fell into five sections: forecasts, pro-cesses, technical-analysis, organization and general. All airlines appear to maintain formal operating plans, fre-quently covering as long a period as five years, in addition to which half-yearly programmes are usually drawn up on the basis ofindividual aircraft types (or, in the case of smaller carriers, indivi- dual aircraft). The operations plan is normally the basic foundationfor the technical plan, this in turn being usually in the form of a production forecast showing a timetable for aircraft checks, over-hauls and modification. Airlines showed less agreement on the processes involved inP.P.C. As regards methodization of technical procedures the usual aim was 100 per cent coverage, although different operatorsvaried in the degree to which this goal had been approached. Those with incentive schemes have made the greatest progresswith methodization and with measurement of work content. In certain cases labour standards have been implemented in work-shops only and not yet introduced into the hangars. Standards were usually drawn up by supervisory staff, although in a fewcases they were evolved from time and motion study. The mea- surement of material standards—in the sense of establishedmaterial consumption rates for given jobs—was surprisingly varied. Again the larger airlines tended to have developed thistechnique furthest, although there was a noticeable trend towards its more widespread adoption. Nevertheless, a few large airlinesstill appeared to have no system for measuring either the labour or the material content of particular jobs. The procedure forspares provisioning (this was the subject of a separate paper by B.E.A.) varied considerably, in some cases responsibility for thisbeing centralized, in others distinction being made between initial purchase of spares for new aircraft, and subsequent pur-chase either of "rotable" spares or of aircraft overhaul spares. Procedure for handling of modifications, although formalized,were even more varied. Maintenance and overhaul is invariably scheduled in advance, responsibility for progress-checks and job- 'ormating over Mt. Rainier, familiar backcloth to Boeing's air-to-air oictures, are the first and third production 707-120s. Certification target date of this 707 series is now July 18, five months ahead or the Boeing schedule published a year ago. IT can too easily be forgotten that, among other things, airlines areengineering units concerned with the large-scale production of seat- miles and ton-miles. Production planning and control developed inother fields of engineering are as appropriate to the air transport industry as to any other. allocation resting either on supervisory or on planning staff.Analyses of current production are normally published monthly or weekly, frequently in graphic form, and give details on suchmatters as employment, distribution of man-hours, productivity indices and variations from standards. This information is relatedto costs of labour and material and measured against the technical budget. As a general rule, cost-statements are distributed withinthe organization to those individuals and groups bearing a respon- sibility for the particular costs involved.There appeared to be no set pattern for the organization of P.P.C. within each airline. Among most of the larger carriers, aP.P.C. section functions as a separate part of the engineering division. K.L.M. and S.A.S. are exceptions with scattered planningand control units attached to various departments. Necessary as P.P.C. departments might be to the larger, more complex airlines,their organization appears impossible to "miniaturize" without a loss of function. Consequently the small carriers find need for a"jack of all trades" capable of co-ordinating the various production activities!.A surprising feature arising out of the discussion was the small number of airEnes employing specialist techniques such as timeand motion study, operations research and automation. Punch card equipment (installed primarily for accounting purposes) is infairly general use, while electronic data processing (E.D.P.) is being increasingly adopted. However, as a Canadian Pacificrepresentative pointed out in a paper on this subject, "an E.D.P. installation of any appreciable size can only be profitably employedwhen a volume of 30,000 bits of information per day is available." Of those airlines present, only S.A.S., K.L.M. and B.E.A. operatedincentive bonus schemes. In a paper presented by S.A.S. on such schemes it was shown that, contrary to popular belief, thesegenerally result in improved quality. An indirect but important further gain is the mass of data made available. This permitseven more accurate work-standards to be evolved and greatly facilitates forward planning. An important point that emerged towards the end of the con-ference was the need for a "fully integrated approach" to airline planning problems, particularly if the full potential of new air-craft types was to be successfully exploited. The jet era calls for a "totality concept" of planning which embraces every aspect of anairline's activity. Before adjourning, it was agreed that the Group would meetagain next January.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
