Category: Chapter 17

Posts related to Chapter 17

OM in the News: Maintenance at Southwest Airlines

Maintenance may not be the most exciting of all the topics we teach in OM (see Ch.17), but when it’s not done right, it certainly is the most critical. Southwest Airlines found this out–and barely dodged a bullet–when a 5-foot hole ripped through the roof of one of its Boeing 737-300 jets on April 1st. The near tragedy occurred at 35,000 feet during a flight from Phoenix to Sacramento. At least 2 people passed out and a few were injured with the explosive incident, which caused a loss of cabin pressure.

According to the FAA, the airline found and fixed 21 cracks in the fuselage of the same plane 11 months ago during a weeklong inspection. (The 15 year-old plane is part of an old fleet of 288 Boeing 737-300s flying at Southwest–out of 931 worldwide). Today’s New York Times (April 4, 2011) reports that Southwest has cancelled 100’s of flights and found identical cracks in two other 737s.  “It’s amazing it didn’t rip open further”, says a plane maintenance expert.

Southwest has a history of maintenance problems. In 2008, the FAA set a $10.2 million penalty for the airline’s failure to check for fuselage fatigue cracking. In July, 2009, a football-sized hole blew during a flight over West Virginia. Details of the FAA settlement for improved maintenance are considered proprietary. Southwest plans to phase out the older models over the coming years but would be “putting those aircraft that had ‘no findings’ back into immediate service”.

As we wrote in Ch.17, “Maintenance can improve quality, reduce costs, and win orders. It can also be a matter of life and death”.

Discussion questions:

1. What can Southwest, and other airlines, do to prevent such incidents?

2. Why does finding these cracks cost so much and take so long?

OM in the News: How Reliable is the Engine on Your Jet?

It was hard to miss the front-page headlines in almost every paper around the world last week when a massive engine exploded on a Qantas Airways A380 superjumbo jet. Early in my career, I worked on the design team for the GE CF-6 engine, also an immense device. So the news blasts caught my attention for 2 reasons: (1) I wanted to make sure the plane landed safely, and (2) I wanted to make sure it wasn’t an engine I had somehow touched.

The Qantas issue raises the question of just how reliable jet engines are (Ch.17). This particular engine, the Trent 900, made by Rolls-Royce was developed for the Airbus double-decker A380. But is is still what we call an “immature engine”, which has yet to meet expected levels of reliability. It is installed in only 21 planes (meaning 84 engines are in use). Other A380s use the GV7000 engine, jointly developed in the US by GE and Pratt & Whitney. Just for background, an A380 retails for about $300 million, of which $50 million is the cost of engines.

Qantas immediately grounded its A380 fleet for engine testing by Rolls-Royce experts. Rolls, according to the linked WSJ article has “been buffeted by a series of design  and reliability issues affecting engines it supplies for other jetliner types”.

That brings up another related reliability issue. Later in my career, I worked at  NASA headquarters and wrote a series of case studies on the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle has a reliability of 0.98 overall. This, of course, translates to a major disaster in 1 out of every 50 flights….which has indeed been the reality, with Challenger and Columbia exploding during 130 or so flights to date. You may want to discuss the Ethical Dilemma in Ch.17 that relates to such a 98% reliability.

Discussion questions:

1. What has taken place since this article was published?

2. Compare the reliability of a jet engine or plane to a Shuttle flight.

OM in the News: Detroit Moves Up in Auto Reliability, But Asia Still Rules

People buy cars for all sorts of reasons: styling, prestige, safety, and even color. But a reputation for quality and reliability is the one constant to almost every consumer, according to The Wall Street Journal (Oct.27,2010). With this week’s  release of Consumer Reports’  rankings of new auto reliability, there is some good news for Detroit.

Ford and GM have greatly improved the reliability of their vehicles, and in some sectors are ranked better than their Asian counterparts. The Ford Fusion, for example, is now tops in the “family car” segment–bettering  the Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, and Nissan Altima. Ford is the top American company overall.

Chrysler, sadly, has still not taken off and is dead last in the rankings. Toyota’s once sterling reputation was also dinged;  its Prius hybrid fell to “average” from its once high-rating because of recalls and brake problems. BMW ranked only 24 out of 27 brands, underlining how luxury car makers face quality challenges as they insert advanced technologies (that don’t always work perfectly) into their vehicles.

Good quality, as we in OM all know, creates an upward circle: the more reliable the car, the more people are willing to pay, and then the  less discounts are needed. “It doesn’t take very long to lose a good  reputation, but it takes 5 or 10 years to gain one”, says a Consumer Reports director.

Discussion questions:

1. Give some examples of products (cars included) where it took years to rebuild a damaged quality reputation.

2. Why is the Honda family of vehicles ranked consistently high?

3. Ford is now ranked 10th out of the 27 auto makers. What will it take to move to the top of the pack?