Tag: 737

OM in the News: Boeing’s Configuration Management Problem

An aerial photo shows 737s parked on the tarmac at the Boeing Factory in Renton, WA.

On page 178 of Chapter 5, Design of Goods and Services, we introduce Configuration Management, and define it as “the system by which a product’s planned and changing configurations are accurately identified and for which control and accountability of change are maintained.” The recent news of Boeing 737 wing components prone to cracking and the ability to trace them to the specific planes on which they are installed reminds us of just how important this OM technique is.

More than 300 Boeing 737 jets, including the Max, may have faulty wing parts that don’t meet strength and durability standards, reports CNBC.com (June 3, 2019). The FAA plans to order airlines to remove and replace the parts if their aircraft are affected. As many as 148 parts made by a Boeing supplier, Spirit AeroSystems, could be “susceptible to premature failure or cracks,” the FAA said. (Slats are pieces on the front of the wing and move along a track to create lift during take-off and landing.)

The requirement to remove the parts in question on certain 737s creates a new wrinkle for some airlines that are scrambling to ensure they have enough aircraft during the peak summer travel season. Airlines that fly the 737 Max have had to cancel thousands of flights through August as the planes remain grounded. Boeing said it is planning to provide replacement parts for its airline customers affected by the slat track issue “to help minimize aircraft downtime while the work is completed.” Boeing informed the FAA that leading edge slat tracks may not have been properly manufactured and pose a safety risk.

Classroom discussion questions:

  1. What suggestions do you have for Boeing avoiding this issue in the future?
  2. How is this a supply chain issue?

 

OM in the News: Boeing’s Latest Supply Chain Challenge

boeing in riverIt’s not every day that we see Boeing  737 fuselages partially submerged in a river, but as the photo shows, the aircraft were severely damaged when a freight train derailed in Montana on the way to the company’s plants in Washington state. “The derailment threatened to throw a wrench in the tightly choreographed, far-flung aerospace supply chain, which depends on just-in-time deliveries of giant parts by train, plane and boat to meet record demand for jetliners,” writes The Wall Street Journal (July 7, 2014).

The train, which derailed near Rivulet, Mont., was carrying components including complete fuselages of 6 single-aisle 737s, fuselage panels for a long-range 777 and wing parts for a 747 jumbo jet. Most of the damaged parts were manufactured by Spirit Aerospace, in Wichita, Kan., where the shipment originated. They were destined for Boeing’s Renton and Everett assembly lines, which piece together the majority of the company’s commercial aircraft.

Three 737 fuselages tumbled down an embankment, two of which were partly submerged in the Clark Fork River below the tracks. A fourth 737 fuselage was torn apart during the derailment and was resting next to the tracks. Boeing’s jetliner supply chain has been disrupted before. Two years ago a tornado struck Spirit’s Wichita factory, shutting down operations for a week. In 2011, a BNSF train traveling through Nebraska derailed when a tornado knocked cars from the track, damaging a 737 fuselage on board.

Major aircraft makers such as Boeing and Airbus spread their jetliner factories across regions and countries, requiring a finely tuned logistics network to move aircraft components around the world. Both also use cargo ships and specially modified cargo jets to speed the delivery of body, wing and tail sections to assembly lines in sites as far flung as China and Charleston, S.C.

Classroom discussion questions:

1. Why is Boeing shipping fuselages across the country by train?

2. Why doesn’t Boeing make the fuselages itself?

OM in the News: Boeing’s Self-Directed Work Teams Speed Up 737 Output

The Wall Street Journal (Feb.7, 2012) provides a great example of the self-directed work teams we discuss in Chapter 10 (Human Resources, Job Design, and Work Measurement). Boeing started emphasizing such employee groups in the late 1990’s, when its 737 plant in Renton, WA, began adopting lean manufacturing techniques from Japan’s auto industry.  Now Boeing is forming more of the teams as it attempts to make big gains in production (there is a backlog of 2,300 of the 737 model), while holding down costs. There are currently 1,300 teams in its commercial jet programs.

Employee teams meet once a week and are composed of 7-10 workers with varying backgrounds (mechanics to engineers)–and they tend to focus on a particular part of the jet (like bathrooms). A big issue at the plant is how to produce more aircraft without expanding the building.

Here are some of the worker-led improvements: (1) canvas covers for landing gear tires as  the planes come down the assembly line (stray metal fasteners on the factory floor used to puncture the $10,000 tires)–saving $250,000/year; (2) rearranging work cells to prep 4 engines at a time (instead of 3) for attachment to the planes; (3) revamping the paint shop work routines to cut 10-15 minutes off each job; and (4) taking the 650 tubes going into a wheel-well and have easier-to-install subassemblies prepared in advance at another plant instead.

The result: workers recently boosted output from 31.5 Boeing 737s a month to 35/month, with an aim to make 42/ month by 2014–all in the same sized plant. The company now takes  11 days for final assembly, down from 22 days a decade ago.

Discussion questions:

1. Why doesn’t every company use such teams?

2. Why is Boeing trying to increase throughput so quickly?

OM in the News: Boeing Wants Production Faster, Faster, Faster

There are not many businesses in which the next 6 years’ worth of customers form an orderly queue, put down fat deposits, and make futher installments as they wait for delivery. But Boeing, reports The Economist (Jan.28,2012), has such a backlog (and 2011 profits of $4 billion). The key to continued success, though, is ramping up production to meet the soaring demand–an operations issue if there ever was one.

At its Renton factory (near Seattle), 737s are being churned out at a record rate of 35/month after a recent speeding up of the 2 assembly lines. The plan is to increase to 42/month by 2014, squeezing a 3rd line into the giant hangar. Likewise, at Boeing’s nearby Everett  factory and at a 2nd plant in South Carolina, plans are to turn out 10 giant 787 Dreamliners/month by the end of 2013.

These assembly plants are the final stage in a long and hugely complex global supply chain that we describe in the Global Company Profile in Chapter 2. Boeing has about 1,200 tier one suppliers, providing parts coming in from 5,400 factories in 40 countries. These in turn are fed by thousnads more tier 2 suppliers, which themselves receive parts from countless others.

Boeing is the first to admit that it outsourced too much work on the 787, leading to 2 years of delays and 40 unfinished jets parked on runways in several states awaiting final parts. Some work has been brought back in-house, and a “war room” has been set up to constantly monitor the world’s supply of parts and raw materials. Boeing just signed a long term contract with the Russians to ensure a steady stream of titanium. It has also hired 100’s of “examiners” to visit suppliers to check that they are building production to meet Boeing’s rush to expansion.

Discussion questions:

1. Why is Boeing working more closely with suppliers now?

2.What is the danger in ramping up production dramatically?

OM in the News: Making the 737 a Better Product

The hottest fashion sensation on the runway this spring  is a new design from the house of aluminum couture, Boeing. Rather than a major redesign of its all-time best-seller, the 737, Boeing has chosen the route of product enhancement (which we discuss in Ch.5). The Wall Street Journal (Feb.24,2011) reports that airlines have been pushing for an update on the plane, which has been around since 1967.

But what makes Boeing’s action to redesign the jet more interesting is that for the first time, it went directly to passengers, not the airline buyers, for direct feedback. Focus groups around the world were put in different mockups of cabin interiors to get their reactions. (This reminds me of how Arnold Palmer Hospital mocked up  rooms in a warehouse to see what future patients thought would be a good layout...see our video case in Ch.9). In the past Boeing’s primary design goal was function, not passenger psychology.

In the new design/layout, which does not impact the 737’s exterior or performance, or even interior seat width or leg room, overhead bins have been reshaped to fit into the ceiling at an angle. This dramatically opens up headroom so tall passengers can stand up straight under the bins.  Because the bins are flat before takeoff, then angle up when loaded, they also have a power motor to make the flight attendant’s job easier. Boeing also redesigned the window shades and side walls to make the cabin look roomier. Fancy lighting systems also make the ceiling appear to be higher. All these changes, by the way, were developed for the long-delayed 787, and intended to make flying more comfortable.

Sixty airlines have opted for this new interior and 1,700 of the 2,200 737s slated for production have been ordered with this more expensive option.

Discussion questions:

1. Why did Boeing choose product enhancement of the 737 over product migration (making a new plane)?

2. Why are the vast majority of customers opting for the new layout?