Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Department of Aviation
Postgraduate Assignment Cover Sheet
Comments
Mark
AVIA 5005 – Airline Operations Management
2010 Semester 2
Assignment 2
2
Indunil M Weerasinghe – 3317993
Discuss aircraft maintenance and how it has changed over time. Discuss the impact which
aircraft maintenance can have on the airline’s operational performance, aircraft utilisation
and financial results.
ASSIGNMENT : 2
TH
DATE : 26 SEPTEMBER 2010
WORD COUNT: 4,700
Table of Contents
1. AIM .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 4
3. THE EVOLUTION OF AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................... 5
3.1 HARD-TIME MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 ON-CONDITION / CONDITION-BASED MONITORING MAINTENANCE .................................................................... 5
3.3 THE MAINTENANCE STEERING GROUP ................................................................................................................... 7
3.4 THE MSG-3 BASED APPROACH TO MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................. 8
3.5 THE EVOLUTION OF AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................... 9
4. IMPACT OF MAINTENANCE ON AIRLINE PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................ 9
4.1 OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................................. 10
4.2 AIRCRAFT AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................................................ 11
4.3 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................................................... 12
5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................. 12
6. ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 14
7. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................... 15
AVIA 5005 – Airline Operations Management
2010 Semester 2
Assignment 2
4
Indunil M Weerasinghe – 3317993
1. AIM
This report discusses the evolution of aircraft maintenance and its impact on airline performance. The report is structured
into two separate discussions:
1. An historical account of the evolution of maintenance and the philosophies that drove this process;
2. An investigation into the impact of aircraft maintenance operations on airline performance.
The two discussions culminate in demonstrating that improvements in maintenance cost and efficiency stemming from
the evolution maintenance philosophies have a beneficial impact on airline performance.
2. INTRODUCTION
In December of 1903, the Wright brothers’ Wright Flyer became “the first powered, heavier-than-air machine to achieve
1 2
controlled, sustained flight with a pilot aboard" . It flew a distance of 37m with a single pilot at its helm . In a little more
3
than a century, these humble beginnings have yielded a US$370 billion industry and facilitated socio-economic advances
that would have surpassed the wildest dreams of the Wright brothers. Consider for example the Airbus A380, an aircraft
with the technological capability to
transport 850 passengers over a distance
of 15,000km. In terms of modern day
aircraft performance metrics, this
equates to a capacity of almost 13 million
ASK’s as opposed to the Wright Flyer’s
37m, single pilot journey. This represents
a 350 billion percentage increase over a
single century. These advances (see
4
graph , left) have been accompanied by
developments in the maintenance
required to sustain these new
technologies. The first part of this report
will explore the evolution of the approach
taken to maintainance, that is, the
transition from traditional “hard-time”
philosophies to the current “reliability centred” approach.
The global socio-economic structure has become increasingly reliant on the aviation industry. The ability to traverse the
globe within a matter of hours has catalysed developments in trade, commerce, tourism and a multitude of other
industries. ICAO estimates from 1998 data indicate that the industry itself being worth US$370 billion contributed a
5
further US$1,360 billion to the world economy! Nonetheless, airlines themselves are facing a challenging economic
environment.
Regulation designed to protect the sovreignty of national airspaces yielded a highly regulated industry. However,
increasing liberalisation has been taking place, starting from US President Jimmy Carter’s Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.
6
This move towards free-market economics has increased competition and put downward pressures on yield.
Management of costs is therefore paramount to the survival of an airline. The maintenance cost of an airline is typically
1
Wikipedia; 2010; Wright Flyer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer viewed 25th September 2010
2
NASM website; 2010; Milestones of Flight; http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal100/wright1903.html viewed on 25th September
2010
3
Heracleous, Wirtz, and Pangarkar; 2006; Flying High in a Competitive Industry – Cost Effective Service Excellence at Singapore Airlines;
McGraw-Hill Education
4
Graph compiled based on data researched through http://en.wikipedia.org. Stats for passenger capacity and range used in the
calculation of ASK’s were based on the largest configuration (by passenger numbers) for that aircraft type.
5
Heracleous, Wirtz, and Pangarkar; 2006; Flying High in a Competitive Industry – Cost Effective Service Excellence at Singapore Airlines;
McGraw-Hill Education
6
International Air Transport Association; 2009; Annual Report
AVIA 5005 – Airline Operations Management
2010 Semester 2
Assignment 2
5
Indunil M Weerasinghe – 3317993
7 8
estimated at 8% to 15% of the airline’s overall operating cost profile. The second part of this report will discuss how
maintenance operations can contribute to the airline’s bottom line through both cost efficiency of operations and as a
driver of airline operational performance
Early aircraft were technologically simple machines. Consider the Wright Flyer: a spruce, ash, and muslin construction
weighing in at just 274kg and powered by a four-cylinder, 12hp engine. The maintenance requirements derived for such
early aircraft were based on thorough knowledge of the design, intuition, and experience. The intuitive philosophy that
emerged as aviation quickly developed and commercialised was to consider ascertain the useful life of the various
components, and either replace, repair, or overhaul these items periodically. This approach could best be described as a
“hard-time” maintenance philosophy.
Hard-time maintenance could be best described as the “scheduled removal of all units of an item before some
9
specified maximum permissible age limit” . Any given component would have a useful life, constrained by its design
criteria and operational environment. Therefore, at some interval prior to the anticipated failure of a component, it is
replaced, repaired, or overhauled.
Although this maintenance philosophy makes intuitive sense, it makes the basic assumption that component failure is
predictable to a high degree of accuracy. In other words, the mortality rate of a design is dependent on its age (see
graph, right). However, this assumption was
Recommended
found to be simplistic, with only 6% of
components displaying such mortality rates (see Life Limit
10 Mortality
graph , below). A further 5% display a linear
Rate
relationship between age and mortality, but with
no “obvious” age at which component repair or
overhaul could be recommended.
The on-condition / condition-based monitoring (OCCM) maintenance philosophy emerged to address the 89% of
components that were inadequately addressed by hard-time based life limits. The basic premise is to monitor a
component and evaluate the need to replace, repair, or overhaul it based on its condition. A simple example would be
7
Heracleous, Wirtz, and Pangarkar; 2006; Flying High in a Competitive Industry – Cost Effective Service Excellence at Singapore Airlines;
McGraw-Hill Education
8
Transport Studies Group, University of Westminster, London; 2008; Dynamic Cost Indexing - Aircraft Maintenance – Marginal Delay
Cost; EUROCONTROL Programme CARE INO III
9 rd
Gdalevitch; 2008; MSG-3, The Intelligent Maintenance; http://www.amtonline.com/online/printer.jsp?id=1039 viewed 23
September 2010; Aircraft Maintenance Technology online
10
Robertson & Forsyth; 2010; Engineering and Maintenance Resources; AVIA5005 Course Notes; University of New South Wales
AVIA 5005 – Airline Operations Management
2010 Semester 2
Assignment 2
6
Indunil M Weerasinghe – 3317993
that of the brake assembly of a modern day commercial aircraft. Rather than replacing the brake assembly at a fixed
interval, it is typically inspected by maintenance crew during the pre-departure inspections. A wear indicator will
display the remaining useful life of the brake, which allows the maintenance crew to decide the optimum point at
which to replace the assembly and route the old unit to the workshop for a full overhaul.
This report treats on-condtion and condition-based monitoring as a single maintenance philosophy, in-line with
standard industry practice. However, it is important to note (for the purist at least) the subtle yet important
conceptual difference between the two. Strictly speaking, “on-condition” maintenance implies that a component is
simply allowed to operate until such time as it has failed. “Condition-based monitoring” calls for periodic testing and
inspection to be carried out to determine when a component has deteriorated such that failure is imminent. It is
intuitive that on-condition components are inevitably those whose failure has no direct impact on safety (for example,
most galley equipment like ovens, coffee makers, chillers etc would fall under this category). Nonetheless, the two
philosophies are in effect two sides of the same coin.
The advantages of the OCCM philosophy to the industry are several-fold. Primarily, it allows for more effective
maintenance to be carried out on the aircraft, providing a more concise, methodical means of ensuring the inherent
levels of safety. Effective maintenance also equates to less maintenance, and this enables airlines to minimise its
operational costs and increases the time available for revenue flights. The magnitude of cost saving is illustrated by
Hocking’s 1995 estimate that Qantas was saving
A$300 million in maintenance costs annually by
11
the use of OCCM maintenance practices .
11
Hocking; 1995; Condition Based Monitoring; Qantas
12 rd
Gdalevitch; 2008; MSG-3, The Intelligent Maintenance; http://www.amtonline.com/online/printer.jsp?id=1039 viewed 23
September 2010; Aircraft Maintenance Technology online
AVIA 5005 – Airline Operations Management
2010 Semester 2
Assignment 2
7
Indunil M Weerasinghe – 3317993
The design of the Boeing 747 in the 1960’s proved to be an industry game-changer, not just in terms of what its
payload-range capabilities would facilitate commercially, but in terms of how the industry would approach aircraft
maintenance in years to come. Given the unprecedented scale of technology on the 747, industry players realised that
a systematic approach needed to be adopted in designing an effective maintenance program. This need was further
underscored by the application of OCCM philosophies which had reduced the number of hard-time components on
the 747 to just 10.
The FAA, Boeing, and other major industry players such as the US Navy and several operators entered into a
consultive, collaborative process to design a systemic, methodical approach to the design of the 747 maintenance
program. This group, known as the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) yielded a “decision-logic process for
14
determining by reliability principles the initial scheduled maintenance requirements for new aircraft and/or engines” .
Following the conceptual success of the MSG process, several revisions have followed, with the current version being
15
MSG-3, which though adopted in the 1980’s has itself been revised several times, most recently in 2007 (see
16
timeline , below).
1960 1968 1970 1972 1978 1980 1988 1993 ... 2007
13 rd
Gdalevitch; 2008; MSG-3, The Intelligent Maintenance; http://www.amtonline.com/online/printer.jsp?id=1039 viewed 23
September 2010; Aircraft Maintenance Technology online
14
Aviation Glossary; Maintenance Steering Group; http://aviationglossary.com/airline-definition/maintenance-steering-group-3-msg-3/
rd
viewed 23 September 2010
15
Aviation Glossary; Maintenance Steering Group; http://aviationglossary.com/airline-definition/maintenance-steering-group-3-msg-3/
rd
viewed 23 September 2010
16
Diagram adapted from: Gdalevitch; 2008; MSG-3, The Intelligent Maintenance;
rd
http://www.amtonline.com/online/printer.jsp?id=1039 viewed 23 September 2010; Aircraft Maintenance Technology online
AVIA 5005 – Airline Operations Management
2010 Semester 2
Assignment 2
8
Indunil M Weerasinghe – 3317993
MSG-3 (as with its predecessors) provides a decision-logic that provides for a systemic approach to aircraft
maintenance programs. It is important to consider MSG-3 in the context of OCCM maintenance as the program
provides for a schedule of testing and inspections that are designed to detect failures (on-condition) and monitor
deterioration (condition-based monitoring).
Perhaps the most fundamental change in conceptual thinking brought about by the MSG-3 process was a top-down,
functional approach to maintenance. The decision logic looks at aircraft systems and their functions rather than
components and raises the question of functional failure as opposed to component failure. The functional failure is
then addressed by a maintenance task at the highest level possible. This approach enables a leaner but nonetheless
more effective maintenance program than even the OCCM approach yielded.
The MSG-3 process therefore begins at the design level of the aircraft. Each significant sub-system is identified, being
either a Maintenance Significant Item (MSI) for aircraft systems or Structurally Significant Item (SSI) for aircraft
structure. The functional purpose of each MSI and SSI is then identified, and the failure of this function is located at
the highest possible level in the system. Based on the failure mode (see below for further discussion) a task is selected
to be incorporated into the maintenance program which will address the potential failure. The process inherently
identifies that any maintenance done on sub-assemblies would not provide further protection against the failure of
this particular function and therefore would be redundant.
The task selection considers the failure mode of the function. For example, for MSI’s five failure effect categories
17
(FEC’s) are identified in MSG-3 :
i. FEC 5: Evident Safety Effects
ii. FEC 6: Evident Operational Effects
iii. FEC 7: Evident Economic Effects
iv. FEC 8: Hidden Function Safety Effects
v. FEC 9: Hidden Function Non-Safety Effects
A critical analysis of the failure and its related FEC would yield a series of applicable maintenance tasks, typically one
18
of :
1. Lubrication/Servicing Task: to maintain inherent operating levels
2. Operational/Visual Check: failure finding for hidden (safety and non-safety) FEC’s
3. Inspection/Functional Check: to detect potential and/or actual failures
4. Restoration: repair or overhaul on or before a specified age limit
5. Discard: on or before a specified life limit
The tasks above are listed in increasing order of cost to the operator. Thus the
selection of an applicable task based on the MSG-3 decision logic (see
19
illustration , right) yields not only an effective, lean program in terms of
maintenance activity but one that is also optimised for cost.
17
Airbus; March 2009; Maintenance Review Board Report – Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321; Revision 14
18 rd
Gdalevitch; 2008; MSG-3, The Intelligent Maintenance; http://www.amtonline.com/online/printer.jsp?id=1039 viewed 23
September 2010; Aircraft Maintenance Technology online
19 rd
Gdalevitch; 2008; MSG-3, The Intelligent Maintenance; http://www.amtonline.com/online/printer.jsp?id=1039 viewed 23
September 2010; Aircraft Maintenance Technology online
20
Airbus; March 2009; Maintenance Review Board Report – Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321; Revision 14
AVIA 5005 – Airline Operations Management
2010 Semester 2
Assignment 2
9
Indunil M Weerasinghe – 3317993
for non-metallic structures. Combined with an analysis of material properties and operational parameters, the MSG-3
process identifies an inspection program to detect early failures of SSI’s due to any of the above causes of
21
deterioration. The inspection program will typically consist of :
1. General Visual Inspection (GVI)
2. Detailed Inspection (DI)
3. Special Detailed Inspection (SDI)
As with the MSI tasks, the above are listed in increasing order of cost to the operator, allowing the maintenance
program to be, once again, optimised for efficiency in both maintenance and cost.
The MSG-3 methodology further provides for Zonal Inspections, Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs, and
Sampling. The fundamental philosophical approach to each of these is similar to that of the analysis and selection of
MSI and SSI tasks.
The above discussions give an overview the evolutionary process through which aircraft maintenance philosophies
and practices have developed. Fundamentally, the hard-time approach adopted by aviation pioneers was found to fall
short in context of the technological advances made since the Wright Flyer’s first flight of just 37m. This led to the
development of on-condition and condition-based monitoring during the 1960’s which culminated in the
establishment and development of the Maintenance Steering Group. The cumulative effect has been, in the words of
Gdalevitch (2008): “higher reliability and safety, and above all, tremendous savings to the operators”. Having
established these advantages, the next section of this report will discuss their relevance to the operational and
financial performance of an airline.
21
Airbus; March 2009; Maintenance Review Board Report – Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321; Revision 14
22
Heracleous, Wirtz, and Pangarkar; 2006; Flying High in a Competitive Industry – Cost Effective Service Excellence at Singapore Airlines;
McGraw-Hill Education
23
Transport Studies Group, University of Westminster, London; 2008; Dynamic Cost Indexing - Aircraft Maintenance – Marginal Delay
Cost; EUROCONTROL Programme CARE INO III
AVIA 5005 – Airline Operations Management
2010 Semester 2
Assignment 2
10
Indunil M Weerasinghe – 3317993
The maintenance operations therefore impact on several aspects of the airline’s performance, namely:
1. Operational performance – being the punctual departure of flights
2. Aircraft availability – being the provision of airworthy aircraft to meet the commercial schedule
3. Financial performance – being the cost efficient provision of maintenance services
This report will now explore the impact of the maintenance operations on each aspect.
The key metric of operational performance for an airline operating scheduled flights is punctuality, typically referred
to as “dispatch” or “operational” reliability. Passengers expect on-time departures, so much so that for some –
especially those high-yield business travellers – departure times are a key driver in deciding what airline / flight to fly
on. Poor punctuality can therefore erode an airline’s customer base over a period of time and threaten future
revenues and yields, a dangerous situation for any airline to be in, especially as competition increases in the face of
industry de-regulation.
24
Niehues et al; Punctuality: How Airlines can Improve On-Time Performance; 2001; Booz-Allen & Hamilton
25
Niehues et al; Punctuality: How Airlines can Improve On-Time Performance; 2001; Booz-Allen & Hamilton
26
Compiled based on data from Airbus World Online
AVIA 5005 – Airline Operations Management
2010 Semester 2
Assignment 2
11
Indunil M Weerasinghe – 3317993
It is interesting to note that although clear clusters of data are apparent, there is no linear correlation between the
parameters. It has to be noted however that there are no airlines with poor punctuality at the lower end of both the
DAU and AFD scales. However, those operators with poor punctuality are by no means outliers, with many airlines
achieving near perfect dispatch reliabilities whilst maintaining similar or even higher utilisation and flight durations
(illustrated in red).
The differences in operations of the technical dispatch reliabilities could be due to commercial scheduling flexibilities,
inherent design reliabilities, or efficiency in maintenance operations. However, the first two can be ruled out. Given
that operators with high DAU’s and AFD’s achieve high technical dispatch reliabilities, this implies that diminished
commercial scheduling flexibilities can be overcome, at least to some extent. Given that the above data is based on a
single family of aircraft, differences in reliability due to aircraft design and maintenance philosophies can also be
eliminated.
The above analysis therefore suggests that efficiency in maintenance operations is a key driver of technical dispatch
reliability. On this particular family of aircraft, a difference of almost 6% is noted between the highest and lowest
performing operators. As already discussed earlier, this difference in operational performance can provide the more
punctual airlines with a competitive edge that translates directly into higher profit margins.
Aircraft availability is measured in terms of average fleet utilisation, usually expressed in either flying or block hours
(FH or BH) per aircraft per day (DAU). Improved availability provides the airline increased opportunity to generate
revenues or conversely, meet its scheduling requirements with fewer aircraft. Given the high ownership cost of a
modern day commercial aircraft, even incremental improvements in aircraft availability can yield a direct impact on an
airline’s financial performance. Let us consider a hypothetical airline to illustrate this:
Airline X operates a fleet of Airbus A320’s with a list price of US$81.4 million each. The airline’s commercial
schedule requires a utilization of 110 FH per day across the fleet. At 10 FH per day per aircraft, the airline requires
a fleet of 11 aircraft.
However, if the DAU could be increased by a single FH per day per aircraft, the airline would require just 10
aircraft.
An intuitive assumption would be that with increased maintenance efficiency, aircraft would spend less time on the
ground, thereby driving up aircraft availability. Empirical evidence can be found to support this. Consider the data
presented below, compiled from US DOT Form 41 data from 2005 – 2009 as published by the MIT’s Airline Data
27
Project . The analysis utilises “maintenance employees per aircraft” (adjusted to account for outsourced
maintenance) as an indicator of the efficiency of maintenance operations, the basic premise being that fewer
employees indicate better efficiencies. This indicator is then plotted against the DAU for the following 14 carriers
28
operating in the USA: American, Continental, Delta, Northwest , United, US Airways, America West, Southwest,
jetBlue, AirTran, Frontier, Virgin America, Alaska, Hawaiian, and Allegiant.
27
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Airline Data Project; http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/default.html viewed on 22nd
September 2010
28
Northwest and Delta are considered as a combined fleet in 2009
AVIA 5005 – Airline Operations Management
2010 Semester 2
Assignment 2
12
Indunil M Weerasinghe – 3317993
Although there does not appear to be a linear correlation between the two variables, it is interesting to note that
there appears to be an upper bound to the DAU for any given maintenance efficiency. As this efficiency decreases
(that is, increase in maintenance employees per aircraft) this upper bound decreases, suggesting the presence of a
Pareto optimal curve (indicated in red).
It is necessary to be cautious in assuming causality between such variables. Efficient maintenance operations do not
themselves “cause” high DAU’s. However, it is reasonable to assume that those airlines with efficient maintenance
operations would have the confidence to schedule higher DAU’s, and the suggested Pareto optimality provides some
basis of support to this assumption.
The above discussions on the operational performance and aircraft availability indicate the impact of maintenance
operations on the airline’s overall performance. An efficient maintenance operation assists airline profitability by
contributing to punctual departures and ensuring aircraft availability. In addition to these basic functions, the
maintenance operations themselves are a significant cost to the airline. In the 1960’s, maintenance amounted to 30%
of the operating cost and this has seen industry-wide reductions as a result of maintenance philosophies such as
29 30
OCCM and MSG-driven maintenance programs . Today, maintenance costs are estimated to be in the region of 8%
31
to 15% of an airline’s overall operating cost profile.
5. CONCLUSION
th
Aviation has come a long way since the initial 37m flight of the Wright Flyer on 17 December, 1903. The modern day
commercial aircraft flies ever longer with more people on board, as evidenced by the Airbus A380, capable of carrying
850 passengers over a distance of 15,000km. With such radical advances in technology, simple hard-time maintenance
was found to be no longer satisfactory. Catalysed by the design and entry-into-service of the Boeing 747, the 1960’s saw
the emergence of OCCM maintenance and the establishment of the MSG. Together, these provided new maintenance
philosophies that reduced maintenance requirements by eliminating un-necessary and/or counter-productive hard-time
maintenance requirements and drove up reliability and availability by introducing a systemic, top-down, and task-
oriented approaches to establishing maintenance programs. These changes in maintenance philosophy have provided
29 rd
Gdalevitch; 2008; MSG-3, The Intelligent Maintenance; http://www.amtonline.com/online/printer.jsp?id=1039 viewed 23
September 2010; Aircraft Maintenance Technology online
30
Heracleous, Wirtz, and Pangarkar; 2006; Flying High in a Competitive Industry – Cost Effective Service Excellence at Singapore Airlines;
McGraw-Hill Education
31
Transport Studies Group, University of Westminster, London; 2008; Dynamic Cost Indexing - Aircraft Maintenance – Marginal Delay
Cost; EUROCONTROL Programme CARE INO III
AVIA 5005 – Airline Operations Management
2010 Semester 2
Assignment 2
13
Indunil M Weerasinghe – 3317993
significant benefits to the industry, simultaneously improving maintenance efficiency and reducing maintenance costs
32
from 30% to 16% of operating costs .
Whilst the impact of cost on financial performance is intuitive to understand, the impact of maintenance efficiency on
airline performance in general was then investigated. Performance was determined to mean operational performance
(punctuality) and aircraft availability, as well as financial performance. Empirical evidence (based on in-service data of the
Airbus A330 / A340 family) was provided to support the assumption that maintenance efficiency is the key driver of
technical dispatch reliability, with variations as much as 6% observed between operators.
Aircraft availability is measured in terms of DAU which is a direct product of the airline’s commercial schedule. However,
empirical evidence based on the operations of 14 carriers in the USA between 2005 and 2009 suggest that an efficient
maintenance operation is a (pre-) requisite for the commercial scheduling of high DAU’s.
The two discussions culminate in demonstrating that the evolution of maintenance philosophies has driven
improvements in maintenance cost and efficiency, which in turn have a beneficial impact on airline performance. Thus, it
is not merely the technological advances but the conceptual approach to maintenance that enables airlines to leverage
improved performance in today’s increasingly competitive environment.
** * ** END ** * **
32 rd
Gdalevitch; 2008; MSG-3, The Intelligent Maintenance; http://www.amtonline.com/online/printer.jsp?id=1039 viewed 23
September 2010; Aircraft Maintenance Technology online
AVIA 5005 – Airline Operations Management
2010 Semester 2
Assignment 2
14
Indunil M Weerasinghe – 3317993
6. ABBREVIATIONS
747 Boeing 747
AD Accidental Damage
BH Block Hour
DI Detailed Inspection
ED Environmental Deterioration
FD Fatigue Damage
FH Flying Hour
7. REFERENCES
1. Niehues, Belin, Hansonn, Hauser, Mostajo, & Richter; Punctuality: How Airlines can Improve On-Time
Performance; 2001; Booz-Allen & Hamilton
4. Heracleous, Wirtz, and Pangarkar; 2006; Flying High in a Competitive Industry – Cost Effective Service Excellence
at Singapore Airlines; McGraw-Hill Education
6. Transport Studies Group, University of Westminster, London; 2008; Dynamic Cost Indexing - Aircraft
Maintenance – Marginal Delay Cost; EUROCONTROL Programme CARE INO III
8. Robertson & Forsyth; 2010; Engineering and Maintenance Resources; AVIA5005 Course Notes; University of New
South Wales
11. Airbus; March 2009; Maintenance Review Board Report – Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321; Revision 14