Maintenance Planning Optimization 737NG PDF

Maintenance Planning
Optimisation for the

Boeing 737 Next
Generation
Masters Thesis
By
ir. Anthony K. Muchiri
Supervisors:
Prof. ir Klaas Smit
ing. Willem van Steenis
Delft/ Schiphol East, 30 May 2002

Colophon
Colophon
Final Report
Title: Maintenance Planning Optimisation for the Boeing 737 Next

Generation
Author: Anthony K. Muchiri
Date: Thursday, 30 May 2002
Board Of Examiners:
Prof. Ir. K. Smit - TU Delft (Coach)
Ir. B. Agusdinata - TU Delft
ing. W. van Steenis - Transavia Airlines (Supervisor)
Ir. R. Hol - Transavia Airlines
Delft University of Technology Transavia Airlines

Faculty of Aerospace Engineering Technical Department
Department of Industrial Engineering Maintenance Planning & Support
and Technical Management P.O. Box 7777, 1118 ZM Schiphol Airport
P.O. Box 5058, 2600 GB Delft The Netherlands
The Netherlands
i
Preface
Preface
This thesis represents the results of my graduation assignment, a research project

carried out to conclude the Master Phase of the Industrial Engineering Department,
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, of the Delft University of Technology.
The assignment was assigned and carried out at the Maintenance Planning and
Support (MP& S) department of Transavia Airlines Technical Department, and it
entails the optimisation of maintenance planning for the 737 Next Generation fleet of
the airline.
The report has been subdivided into five chapters, and it can be read as follows:
- For readers interested in the development of a new maintenance planning
strategy, Chapters 3 and 4.4 are recommended
- For readers interested in the analysis of the current situation and the
proposed situation, it is recommended that they read Chapter 4.4
- For readers interested in the conclusions and recommendations, they should
look at Chapter 5
- For readers interested in the development of the whole research, all chapters
and Appendix documents are recommended. A summary highlighting all
major items from the report has also been included
In all cases, some knowledge on aircraft maintenance is needed.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my professor, Prof. Ir. K. Smit of
the TU Delft, and my supervisor, Mr. W. van Steenis, Maintenance Manager
Transavia Airlines, for their coaching and encouragement. My thanks also go to all
staffers of the MP&S department for their assistance and for the good time they gave
me at the department, the head of Engineering, Mr. R. Hol, all maintenance engineers
- and especially the maintenance programme engineers, and all members of the
technical department for their corporation.
Anthony Muchiri
Delft, May 2002
iii
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
With the increasing need to reduce maintenance costs and increase aircraft
availability, the need to simplify the way maintenance is planned and executed has
become a major issue in the aircraft industry. Aircraft manufacturers continue to
develop aircraft with a low maintenance demand, while airlines strive to keep their
maintenance costs as low as possible.
The Boeing 737 Next Generation (737 NG) is an example of such an aircraft,
developed to demand less maintenance, as compared to previous versions of the
Boeing 737 series. This 737 NG aircraft has a Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)
document that is based on the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG)-3 philosophy.
This is a task-based maintenance philosophy that looks at maintenance more at a
task-level, as compared to previous philosophies, which were more focused on
maintenance processes. Transavia airlines currently possesses 13 737 NG aircraft, but
has a maintenance program that strongly borrows from other aircraft models in its
fleet (namely the B 757-200 and the B 737-300).
This assignment is aimed at developing a cost-effective maintenance planning and

packaging method that will lead to the reduction in direct maintenance costs, yet maintaining
the reliability of the 737 NG fleet.
Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Background
Maintenance at Transavia is broadly categorised into Line Maintenance (maintenance

performed within Transavia), and Base Maintenance (Maintenance work contracted
out). Line maintenance is performed at short intervals (given in weeks). Currently,
line maintenance is performed at a frequency of 5 weeks. Every line maintenance
visit is planned in a so-called hangar slot. A single hangar slot is 7.75 hours long and
it can produce 55 maintenance man-hours, while 2 slots produce 100 man-hours.
Three slots lead to 300 man-hours. Each aircraft receives 14 maintenance slots a year
for routine line maintenance. These slots have a repeating distribution rhythm of 1-1-
2-1-1-3-1-1-2-, and are also planned in this rhythm. However, the realisation of the
planning for these slots deviates from the pattern above. A reason for this may be
attributed to the dependence of maintenance on the utilisation of the aircraft,
unpredictable events, large work packages that are not executable within the
stipulated time, and aircraft operations.
Base maintenance is performed every 1-years (18 months). Transavia has an

operational pattern that is strongly seasonal (high between April October, and low
between November - March). Base maintenance is preferably planned in the low
season, because it requires aircraft to be withdrawn from operations for multiple
days. However, a frequency of 18 months will always lead to maintenance due dates
that fall in the high season. This problem is solved by performing the maintenance in
advance (at 16 or 17 months), an undesired situation.
Maintenance Clusters Definition and Development
Clustering is the process of grouping maintenance tasks together into packages that
can be planned in for execution. Clustering can be done by following two
v
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG
approaches, namely the Top-Down approach (answering the questions When

maintenance and What maintenance), and the Bottom-Up approach (answering the
questions What maintenance and When maintenance).
The Bottom-Up approach begins by evaluation what maintenance has to be done. By
considering that the MPD document is a task-based maintenance document, a look is
taken into the properties of each maintenance task. Thereafter, all tasks requiring the
same fixed conditions/procedure/cost, and the same maintenance interval limit, are
grouped together to form Maintenance Task Packages. This applies to all
maintenance tasks intended for line maintenance (at Transavia). All other tasks are
grouped together based on their maintenance interval, and become Base
Maintenance Checks. This process is illustrated in Figure 0. 1 below.
OMP Maintenance Tasks
Line?
Base?
Line Maintenance Base Maintenance
Tasks Tasks
Transavia L/B
Classification Criteria
Set-up properties
Maintenance Intervals
(CT/FH/FC)
Maintenance Maintenance
Task Packages Checks
Figure 0. 1 Creation of Line Maintenance Task Packages and Base Maintenance Checks
The Transavia Line/Base classification criteria classifies all tasks, for which Transavia
is equipped to perform, has the certified personnel and materials needed, as line
maintenance tasks. All other tasks are base maintenance tasks.
The next step in the Bottom-Up approach is to determine when the Maintenance
Items (Maintenance Task Packages or Maintenance Checks) are due for performance.
This follows from combining the aircraft utilisation (flight hours and flight cycles)
and calendar with the maintenance interval limits of the various Maintenance Items.
The Top-Down approach begins by analysing the aircraft utilisation requirement at

an annual, weekly and daily level. The annual level reveals a seasonal pattern while
the weekly and the daily levels do not reveal specific patterns. Slot allocation follows
these patterns; fixed slots are allocated at an annual level (for line and base
maintenance). Ad-hoc slots can be located at a weekly and daily level (for base
maintenance).
Cluster Formation and Evaluation
Through the implementation of the Bottom-Up and the Top-Down approach,

Maintenance Task Packages and Maintenance Checks can be grouped together into
maintenance clusters. Such clusters can either be static (base maintenance clusters) or
dynamic (line maintenance clusters)
vi
Executive Summary
The clustering process is done using a computer model, developed in Visual Basic
and MS Excel. The model combines maintenance item intervals with simulated
aircraft utilisation scenarios (high, average and low utilisation) and maintenance
scenarios (such as low maintenance frequencies). From these, the Maintenance
Demand (in number of visits and maintenance man-hours) is calculated. Further, the
model also calculates losses following from maintenance performed before the
interval limits are reached.
Line Maintenance clusters are evaluated for frequencies ranging between 4-6 weeks,
for a period of 6 years (starting from 2001, where an assumption of aircraft
introduction is made). Frequencies above 6-weeks would lead to the escalation of
maintenance interval limits. It is observed that line maintenance is strongly
utilisation dependent (in terms of flight hours and flight cycles). The results of the
evaluation are tabulated in Table 0. 1 below. It follows that the maintenance demand
decreases with a decreasing maintenance frequency, as does the de-escalation.
Table 0. 1 Maintenance man-hour demand per aircraft by a varying maintenance frequency
Line Maintenance Man-hour demand De-escalation (in man-hours)

4-weeks 5-weeks 6-weeks 4-weeks 5-weeks 6-weeks
2001 440 409 362 27 11 17
2002 734 684 626 51 37 48
2003 821 705 606 60 31 33
2004 762 664 584 55 29 28
2005 634 687 677 52 31 26
2006 845 696 573 52 42 30
Total 4235.2 3845.9 3428.5 296.0 182.0 181.3
Base maintenance clusters are evaluated for an 18-month and a 24-month interval,
starting from April 2001, where an assumption of aircraft introduction is made.
Larger intervals would result in the escalation of maintenance interval limits. The
results of the evaluation are tabulated below.
Table 0. 2 Base Maintenance man-hour demand per aircraft: 10 yr period
Base Maintenance at an 18-Month Interval Base Maintenance at a 24-Month Interval

Base Mx Visit Base Man-hours De-escalation (Mhrs) Base Mx Visit Base Man-hours De-escalation (Mhrs)
BMV 1 [Sep-02] 211 17 BMV 1 [Mar-03] 107 22
BMV 2 [Mar-04] 236 20 BMV 2 [Mar-05] 199 53
BMV 3 [Sep-05] 303 25 BMV 3 [Mar-07] 119 26
BMV 4 [Mar-07] 244 21 BMV 4 [Mar-09] 515 142
BMV 5 [Sep-08] 303 18 BMV 5 [Mar-11] 348 98
BMV 6 [Mar-10] 557 49
Total Base Mhrs 1854 150 Total Base Mhrs 1288 341
It follows from Table 0. 2 that base man-hour demand decreases significantly when
the maintenance interval is raised to 24 months. The de-escalation does, however,
increase.
Further analysis reveals that by performing the first base maintenance visit a month
before it is due (initial de-escalation), more gains can be made in reducing the base
maintenance man-hour demand. The lowest man-hour demand follows from a 30-
day initial de-escalation. This is shown on Table 0. 3 below.
vii
Table 0. 3Base maintenance man-hour demand per aircraft: Before/After initial de-
escalation
First Base Maintenance at 24-Months First Base Maintenance at 23-Months

BMV 1 [Mar-03] 107 22 BMV 1 [Feb-03] 100 13
BMV 2 [Mar-05] 199 53 BMV 2 [Feb-05] 199 29
BMV 3 [Mar-07] 119 26 BMV 3 [Feb-07] 119 15
BMV 4 [Mar-09] 515 142 BMV 4 [Feb-09] 279 28
BMV 5 [Mar-11] 348 98 BMV 5 [Feb-11] 336 10
Conclusions and Recommendations

Optimising the clustering of line maintenance is achieved by utilising Maintenance
Task Packages (as developed in this report), and by minimising the number of times
the aircraft visits the hangar. This mainly reduces repetitive maintenance. By
performing line maintenance at a 6-week interval, the total de-escalation of man-
hours is brought down from as high as 29%, to as low as 10% of the exact
maintenance demand. This translates to an average annual reduction of about
12,691 per aircraft, in terms of cost reduction.
Base maintenance can be performed optimally at a frequency of 24 Months.

However, this optimum is achieved through the application of an initial de-
escalation, which schedules the performance of the first base visit at a date, not later
than 23 Months after the introduction of the aircraft into the fleet. A 30-day initial de-
escalation leads to the least total de-escalation on the maintenance man-hours (7%),
and consequently to the most optimum clusters for Base maintenance. The 7%
translates to 95 man-hours, as compared to 341 man-hours (23%) before the initial
de-escalation a reduction of losses by 248 man-hours. This, in turn, translates to an
average saving of 12,181 per aircraft, over a period of ten years.
In order to maximise the maintenance advantages that come along with the B737 NG,
the following is recommended:
- The application of Maintenance Task Packages for line maintenance, in place of

the current Line Maintenance Checks
- An annual review of the planning versus realisation. This should serve as a
gauge for the planning accuracy, and establish trends that should follow from the
application of Maintenance Task Packages
- The standardisation of Base Maintenance through the utilisation of base
maintenance phases
- The use of initial de-escalation at the first base maintenance visit. This should
serve as a tool to reduce the total maintenance man-hours contracted out, and the
total maintenance interval de-escalation resulting from maintenance clustering.
viii
Samenvatting
Samenvatting
Door de toenemende behoefte om onderhoudskosten te verlagen, en de

beschikbaarheid van vliegtuigen te verhogen, is er een behoefte om het plannen en
uitvoeren van onderhoud te vergemakkelijken. Vliegtuigfabrikanten blijven
vliegtuigen ontwikkelen met weinig behoefte aan onderhoud. Tegelijkertijd streven
vliegtuigmaatschappijen er naar om de onderhoudskosten zo laag mogelijk te
houden.
De Boeing 737 Next Generation (737NG) is een voorbeeld van zo'n vliegtuig,
ontwikkeld met een lage onderhoudsbehoefte, in vergelijking met voorgaande
versies van Boeing 737 Series. Dit 737NG-vliegtuig heeft een Onderhouds Plannig
document (MPD) dat gebaseerd is op het MSG-3 onderhoudsconcept. Dit is een
taakgericht onderhoudsconcept, dat het onderhoud bekijkt van een taakniveau,
vergeleken met voorgaande concepten, waar gekeken wordt naar
onderhoudsprocessen. Transavia Airlines heeft momenteel 13 vliegtuigen van het
type 737NG, met een onderhoudsprogramma dat sterk ontleend is aan andere
vliegtuig modellen in haar vloot (de B757-200 en de B737-300).
Deze opdracht is gericht op het ontwikkelen van een kosten-effectieve

onderhoudsplanning en pakketerrings methode, dat zal leiden tot het verminderen
van directe onderhoudskosten, en toch de betrouwbaarheid van de 737NG vloot
behouden.
Onderhoudsplanning en inplanningsachtergrond
Vliegtuigonderhoud binnen Transavia is verdeeld in lijn/hangar-onderhoud

(onderhoud uitgevoerd door Transavia zelf), en groot-onderhoud (onderhoud
uitbesteed aan derden).
Lijn-onderhoud wordt uitgevoerd binnen korte intervallen (beschreven in weken).
Momenteel is dit met een regelmaat van 5-weken. Elk hangarbezoek wordt gepland
in een zgn. "Hangar-slot". Een enkel slot duurt 7 uur, en zorgt voor 55 man-uren.
Twee slots leveren 100 man-uren op, terwij drie slots voor 300 man-uren zorgen. Elk
vliegtuig krijgt 14 hangar-slots toegewezen per jaar voor routine onderhoud. Deze
slots hebben een herhaaldelijk ritme van 1-1-2-1-1-3-1-1-2-, en worden met hetzelfde
ritme ingepland. In werkelijkheid, wijkt de realisatie van deze van de planning af
van het ritme hierboven. Oorzaken hiervan zijn: afhankelijkheid van het onderhoud
op vliegtuig utilisatie en operaties, onvoorziene gebeurtenissen, en werk-pakketten
die niet uitvoerbaar zijn binnen de aangegeven tijd.
Groot-onderhoud wordt uitgevoerd om de 18 maanden. Transavia heeft een

operationeel patroon dat sterk seizoen-gebonden is (met een hoog-seizoen van april
tot oktober, en een laag-seizoen van november tot maart). Groot onderhoud wordt bij
voorkeur gepland in het laag seizoen, want het vereist het weghalen van een
vliegtuig van de operatie. Een gevolg van een regelmaat van 18 maanden is dat
groot-onderhoud soms uitgevoerd moet worden in het hoog seizoen. Dit probleem
wordt opgelost door het onderhoud naar voren te schuiven (met een maand of twee),
een ongewenste situatie.
ix
Definite en ontwikkeling van Onderhoudsclusters
Clusteren is het proces om onderhoudstaken te groeperen in paketten die gepland

kunnen worden voor uitvoering.
Clusteren kan gedaan worden met behulp van twee benaderingen, namelijk de "Top-
Down"-benadering (geeft een antwoord op de vragen: wanneer en welk onderhoud)
en de "Bottom-Up" benadering (geeft antwoord op de vragen: welk onderhoud en
wanneer).
De "Bottom-Up"-benadering begint bij het evalueren wat voor onderhoud gedaan
moet worden. Aangezien het MPD een taakgericht onderhoud beschrift, wordt er
eerst gekeken naar de eigenschappen van elke taak. Alle taken met dezelfde vaste
condities/procedures/kosten, en dezelfde onderhoudslimiten, worden gegroepeerd
in zogenaamde Onderhoudstaken-Pakketten (Maintenance Task Packages). Dit geldt
alleen voor taken die bestemd zijn voor lijn onderhoud (bij Transavia). Alle andere
taken worden gegroepeerd op hun onderhoudslimieten, en worden
Onderhoudsinspecties (Maintenance Checks) genoemd. Zie figuur 0.1 hieronder
Line?
Base?
Tasks Tasks
Transavia L/B
Set-up properties
(CT/FH/FC)
Figuur 0.1 Ontwikkelen van Onderhoudstaken-Paketten en Onderhoudsinspecties
De Transavia L/B classificatie-criteria wordt gebruikt voor de identificatie van taken

waarvoor Transavia gecertificeerd is om uit te voeren (Lijn-onderhoudstaken). Alle
andere taken zijn groot-onderhoudstaken.
De volgende stap in de "Bottom-Up"-benadering is om te bepalen wanneer de
Onderhoudstaken-Pakketten en de onderhoudsinspecties uitgevoerd moeten
worden. Dit gebeurt door de vliegtuig-utilisatie te combineren met de
onderhoudslimieten van taken-pakketten die voortvloeien uit Figuur 0.1.
De "Top-Down" benadering begint met het analyseren van utilisatiebenodigdheden

van het vliegtuig op jaarbasis, wekelijkse basis en een dagelijkse basis. Utilisatie op
jaarbasis vertoont een seizoenspatroon, terwijl de wekelijkse en de dagelijkse basis
geen specifieke patronen vertonen. De verdeling van slots gebeurt dus op jaarlijkse
basis, voor zowel lijn- en groot onderhoud. Ad-hoc slots kunnen gelokaliseerd
worden op wekelijkse en dagelijkse basis.
x
Samenvatting
De samenstelling en evaluatie van onderhoudsclusters
Door de implementatie van "Bottom-up" en "Top-Down"-benaderingen,

Onderhoudstaken-Pakketten en Onderhoudinspectie kunnen worden gegroepeerd in
onderhoudsclusters. Zulke clusters kunnen of statisch of dynamisch zijn. Het
clusteren gebeurt door middel van een computermodel, ontwikkeld in Visual Basic
en MS Excel.
Het model combineert onderhoudslimieten met gesimuleerde vliegtuigutilisatie-
scenarios (hoog-, gemiddeld- en laagutilisatie), en onderhoudsscenarios (zoals lage
onderhoudfrequenties) . Hieruit wordt de onderhoudsbehoefte berekend (d.w.z.
aantal hangar-/groot-onderhoudsbezoeken en benodigde man-uren). Verder
berekent het model het verlies als gevolg van onderhoud uitgevoerd voordat de
onderhoudslimieten zijn bereikt (de-escalatie).
Lijn-onderhoudsclusters worden gevalueerd voor frequenties van 4 tot 6 weken,

voor een periode van 6 jaar. Frequenties van hoger dan 6 weken leiden tot escalaties
van onderhoudslimieten, en worden dus niet berekend. Het is te merken dat lijn-
onderhoud sterk afhankelijk is van vliegtuig-utilisatie.De resultaten van deze
evaluatie zijn weergegeven op Tabel 0.1.
Tabel 0.1. Variatie van de onderhoudsman-uren behoefte per vliegtuig
Line Maintenance Man-hour demand De-escalation (in man-hours)

4-weeks 5-weeks 6-weeks 4-weeks 5-weeks 6-weeks
2001 440 409 362 27 11 17
2002 734 684 626 51 37 48
2003 821 705 606 60 31 33
2004 762 664 584 55 29 28
2005 634 687 677 52 31 26
2006 845 696 573 52 42 30
Total 4235.2 3845.9 3428.5 296.0 182.0 181.3
De tabel hierboven laat zien dat de onderhoudsbehoefte vermindert met een lagere
frequentie, zo ook de de-escalatie van onderhoudslimieten.
Groot-onderhoudsclusters zijn gevalueerd voor een herhalingsfrequentie van 18

maanden en 24 maanden. Grotere intervals zou resulteren in de escalatie van
onderhoudslimieten. Zie Tabel 0.2 hieronder voor evaluatie-resultaten.
Tabel 0.2: Onderhoudsman-uren behoefte per vliegtuig over een periode van 10 jaar
Base Maintenance at an 18-Month Interval Base Maintenance at a 24-Month Interval

BMV 1 [Sep-02] 211 17 BMV 1 [Mar-03] 107 22
BMV 2 [Mar-04] 236 20 BMV 2 [Mar-05] 199 53
BMV 3 [Sep-05] 303 25 BMV 3 [Mar-07] 119 26
BMV 4 [Mar-07] 244 21 BMV 4 [Mar-09] 515 142
BMV 5 [Sep-08] 303 18 BMV 5 [Mar-11] 348 98
BMV 6 [Mar-10] 557 49
xi
Tabel 0.2 toont aan dat de man-uren behoefte voor groot-onderhoud vermindert,
wanneer het onderhoudsinterval verhoogt wordt naar 24 maanden. Tegelijkertijd
neemt de de-escalatie toe. Verdere analyse wijst uit dat als de eerste groot-
onderhoudsbeurt uiterst een maand eerder wordt uitgevoerd (initile de-escalatie),
meer winst behaald kan worden in het reduceren van de man-uren behoefte voor
groot-onderhoud. De laagste behoefte aan man-uren volgt uit een initile de-escalatie
van 30 dagen. Zie ook Tabel 0.3 hieronder.
Tabel 0.3 Manuren behoefte per vliegtug: vr en na initile de-escalatie.
First Base Maintenance at 24-Months First Base Maintenance at 23-Months

BMV 1 [Mar-03] 107 22 BMV 1 [Feb-03] 100 13
BMV 2 [Mar-05] 199 53 BMV 2 [Feb-05] 199 29
BMV 3 [Mar-07] 119 26 BMV 3 [Feb-07] 119 15
BMV 4 [Mar-09] 515 142 BMV 4 [Feb-09] 279 28
BMV 5 [Mar-11] 348 98 BMV 5 [Feb-11] 336 10
Conclusies en aanbevelingen
Geoptimaliseerde clusters voor lijn-onderhoud kunnen worden bereikt door het

gebruik van Onderhoudstaken-Pakketten (zoals ontwikkeld in dit rapport), en door
het minimaliseren van het aantal hangarbezoeken. Dit leidt hoofdzakelijk tot
vermindering van herhaald onderhoud. Door lijn-onderhoud uit te voeren op een 6-
weken interval wordt de de-escalatie verlaagt van 29% naar 10% van de berekende
man-uren behoefte. In termen van kostenreductie is deze procentage gelijk aan een
gemiddelde vermindering van ?12.691 per vliegtuig per jaar.
Groot-onderhoud kan worden uitgevoerd op een interval van 24 maanden. Optimale

clusters worden bereikt na een toepassing van initile de-escalatie, waardoor de
eerste groot-onderhoudsbeurt niet later dan 23 maanden na de introductie van het
vliegtuig in de vllot plaatsvindt. Een 30-dagen initile de-escalatie leidt tot de minste
totale de-escalatie van ongeveer 7%, en vervolgens leidt tot de meeste optimale
clusters voor groot-onderhoud. De 7% staat voor 95 man-uren, vergeleken met 23%
(341 manuren) vr een initile de-escalatie. Dit leidt tot een gemiddeld besparing
van ?12.181 per vliegtuig per jaar.
Om de onderhoudsvoordelen van de 737NG te maximaliseren, wordt het volgende

aanbevolen:
- Het toepassen van Onderhoudstaken-Pakketten voor lijn-onderhoud, in plaats van
lijn onderhoudsinspecties
- Een jaarlijkse terugblik op de realisatie van de planning
- Een standaardisatie van groot-onderhoud, door het gebruik van groot-
onderhoudsfasen.
- Het toepassen van een initile de-escalatie bij het eerste groot-onderhoudsbezoek.
xii
Acronyms
Acronyms
737 NG Boeing 737 Next Generation

AD Airworthiness Directive
AM Aircraft Modification
APU Auxiliary Power Unit
ATA Air Transport Association
AV Annual Visit
AWL Air Worthiness Limitations
BM Base Maintenance
CMR Certification Maintenance Requirements
Cons. Conservative
CPCP Corrosion Prevention Control Program
CPV Commercile Planning en Verkoop
CYC Cycles
DDS Dispatch Deviation Sheet
FAA Federal Aviation Authority
FAR Federal Aviation Requirement
FC Flight Cycles
FH Flight Hours
HMx Heavy Maintenance
HRS Hours
HV Transavia airlines
JAA Joint Aviation Authority
JAR Joint Airworthiness Requirements
LM Line Maintenance
MEL Minimum Equipment List
METALS Maintenance Engineering Transavia Airline Logistics System
MI Maintenance Instruction
ML Most Likely
MP Maintenance Program
MP&S Maintenance Planning and Support
MPD Maintenance Planning Data
MRB Maintenance Review Board
MRI Maintenance Requirement Items
MSG Maintenance Steering Group
MSI Maintenance Significant Items
Mx Maintenance
NLA Nederlandse Luchtvaart Autoriteit
OMP Transavias Operators Maintenance Program
Opt. Optimistic
RI Repair Instruction
SB Service Bulletin
SL Service Letter
SPL Schiphol
SSI Structural Significant Items
xiii
Definition of Terms
Definition of terms
Airworthiness: Conformation to the regulations under which an

aeronautical product is certified
Block Checks: Groups of maintenance tasks packaged together for

repetition at specific intervals
Cluster: A collection of Maintenance items, grouped together

under specific circumstances
De-escalation: Loss of man-hours resulting from the execution of a
maintenance task before the maintenance limit is
reached
Equalised Checks: Groups of maintenance tasks arranged into many small

packages, all having approximately the same ground
time
Inherent Reliability: Reliability with which the aircraft is designed
Maintenance Check: A group of maintenance tasks that share the same

maintenance interval, as defined in the OMP
Maintenance Demand: The total amount of man-hours required to perform all

maintenance work due on an aircraft
Maintenance Items: A collection of Maintenance Task Packages and

Maintenance Checks
Maintenance Slot: A specified amount within which an aircraft is
withdrawn from operations for the purpose of
maintenance
Maintenance Task: Unit task as defined in the MPD
Maintenance Task Package: A group of maintenance tasks that share the same set-
up activities, and have a common maintenance interval
Maintenance Visit: The presence of an aircraft in a maintenance facility for

the purpose of maintenance
Maintenance Window: A specified period of time in which the aircraft is not

utilised, considered sufficient enough for the execution
of maintenance
Maintenance Work Package: A collection of maintenance tasks specifically prepared

for execution on the work floor
Total De-escalation: Summation of all de-escalations for a given situation
Transavia Check: Equivalent to Maintenance Check
xv
Outline
Outline
Colophon .................................................................................................................................. i
Preface ..................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... v
Samenvatting.......................................................................................................................... ix
Acronyms.............................................................................................................................. xiii
Definition of terms................................................................................................................ xv
Outline.................................................................................................................................. xvii
1 Assignment Analysis ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problem Background.............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem formulation .............................................................................................. 2
1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Research environment ........................................................................................... 6
1.5 Approach Strategy .................................................................................................. 6
1.5.1 Assignment analysis....................................................................................... 7
1.5.2 Background research ...................................................................................... 7
1.5.3 Maintenance program analysis: 737NG ...................................................... 8
1.5.4 Maintenance planning definition and development ................................. 9
1.5.5 Report phase .................................................................................................... 9
1.6 Requirements, constraints and assumptions ...................................................... 9
1.6.1 Requirements .................................................................................................. 9
1.6.2 Constraints ....................................................................................................... 9
1.6.3 Assumptions...................................................................................................10
2 Maintenance Planning and Scheduling ......................................................................11
2.1 Maintenance Program (MP) Development ........................................................11
2.1.1 MRIs based MPD items:................................................................................12
2.1.2 MRIs based on non-MPD items ...................................................................12
2.1.3 Maintenance Checks......................................................................................13
2.1.4 Maintenance Task Cards and task card control ........................................14
2.1.5 The B737-300 MP vs. the B737 NG MP .......................................................15
2.2 Maintenance Planning and scheduling ..............................................................17
2.2.1 Long term planning .......................................................................................18
2.2.2 Medium term planning .................................................................................18
2.2.3 Short term planning ......................................................................................18
2.3 Line Maintenance ..................................................................................................19
2.3.1 Scheduling of hangar visits ..........................................................................19
2.4 Base Maintenance ..................................................................................................22
2.4.1 Scheduling of Base Maintenance .................................................................22
2.5 The Planning department vs. the Sales department .........................................25
2.5.1 Commercial Planning....................................................................................25
2.6 Maintenance planning and the cost of ownership ............................................26
2.7 Conclusions: ...........................................................................................................27
3 Maintenance Clusters Definition and Development ................................................29
3.1 Approach ................................................................................................................29
3.2 Bottom-Up approach .............................................................................................30
3.2.1 Maintenance Checks......................................................................................30
3.2.2 Maintenance Task Packages .........................................................................30
xvii
3.2.3 Aircraft utilisation: Determining due dates and due items .....................32
3.2.4 Maintenance Scheduling ..............................................................................35
3.3 Top-down approach ..............................................................................................38
3.3.1 Aircraft utilisation requirement...................................................................38
3.3.2 Maintenance scheduling ...............................................................................41
3.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................43
4 Cluster formation and evaluation ...............................................................................45
4.1 Approach ................................................................................................................45
4.2 Maintenance Item Clustering ...............................................................................46
4.2.1 Clustering method selection ........................................................................46
4.2.2 Calculation and simulation software ..........................................................47
4.3 Simulation process description ............................................................................48
4.3.1 Simulation Components: ..............................................................................48
4.3.2 Maintenance Item Allocation Model (MIAM): Model design .................51
4.3.3 Clustering: Line Maintenance Transavia Hangar ..................................53
4.3.4 Clustering: Base Maintenance MRO Station ...........................................53
4.3.5 Maintenance item Interval de-escalation ...................................................54
4.3.6 Model Validation and verification ..............................................................55
4.4 MIAM Results ........................................................................................................56
4.4.1 Base Maintenance ..........................................................................................56
4.4.2 Base Maintenance Optimisation ..................................................................62
4.4.3 Line Maintenance ..........................................................................................67
4.4.4 Line Maintenance Optimisation ..................................................................75
4.5 Summary .................................................................................................................80
5 Conclusions and Recommendations ...........................................................................81
5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................81
5.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................83
References ...............................................................................................................................85
A. Assignment .................................................................................................................87
B. Transavia Airlines......................................................................................................89
B.1. History.....................................................................................................................89
B.2. The fleet ...................................................................................................................89
B.3. Maintenance Facilities ...........................................................................................90
B.4. Organisation ...........................................................................................................90
B.5. Operational area ....................................................................................................93
C. The MSG-3 Philosophy .............................................................................................97
C.1. MSG Development: ...............................................................................................97
C.1.1. MSG-2 (Process oriented) .....................................................................97
C.1.2. RCM (Reliability Centred Maintenance) ............................................98
C.1.3. MSG-3 (Task oriented maintenance)...................................................98
C.2. Maintenance program objectives (MSG-3) .........................................................98
C.3. MSG-3 Logic flow analysis ...................................................................................99
D. Maintenance Program Packaging Methods .........................................................101
D.1. Maintenance program packaging methods .....................................................101
D.2. Block Packaging ...................................................................................................101
D.3. Equalised/Phased or progressive packaging: .................................................102
E. Line and Base Maintenance Redefinition .............................................................105
E.1. Cause .....................................................................................................................105
E.2. Aim ........................................................................................................................105
E.3. Approach ..............................................................................................................105
E.3.1. Engineering...........................................................................................106
xviii
Outline
E.3.2. Purchases and Logistics ......................................................................107

E.3.3. Maintenance planning and support ..................................................107
E.3.4. Safety & Quality Assurance (S&QA) ................................................107
F. Transavia Airplane Reliability Program ...................................................................109
G. Maintenance Governing Regulations ...................................................................113
G.1. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ..................................................113
G.1.1. Reliability program requirements .....................................................114
G.1.2. Airworthiness Directives (ADs) ........................................................114
G.1.3. Airworthiness .......................................................................................115
G.2. The Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) ..................................................................115
H. Line Maintenance Planning Norm ........................................................................117
I. List of Line and Base Maintenance Checks ..............................................................119
I.1. Line Maintenance Checks ...................................................................................119
I.2. Base Maintenance Checks ..................................................................................120
I.3. List of all Line Maintenance Tasks in Task Packages .....................................120
J. The Maintenance Item Allocation Model (MIAM) .................................................131
J.1. Necessity ...............................................................................................................131
J.2. Hybrid Simulation ...............................................................................................131
J.2.1. Components of a Discrete-Event simulation model ...............................131
J.3. Library Routine: Utilisation Simulation ...........................................................131
J.3.1. Actual Aircraft Utilisation ..........................................................................131
J.3.2. Variable Aircraft Utilisation .......................................................................133
J.4. Visual Basic Code ................................................................................................135
J.4.1. Line Maintenance Codes ............................................................................135
J.4.2. Base Maintenance Codes ............................................................................140
J.5. Model Verification and Validation....................................................................142
Figure J. 3 Model Verification and Validation Process ..........................................142
J.5.1. Validation .....................................................................................................142
J.5.2. Verification ...................................................................................................144
K. MIAM Results - Tables ...........................................................................................153
K.1. Base Maintenance ................................................................................................153
K.2. Line Maintenance ................................................................................................157
L. Appendix L ...............................................................................................................161
xix
Introduction
1 Assignment Analysis
1.1 Problem Background
In order to sustain the inherent reliability1 of an aircraft, the aircraft manufacturer develops a
document referred to as Maintenance Planning Data (MPD). This is a generic document as it
contains all Maintenance Review Board (MRB) requirements, plus Boeing requirements that
result from service experience. It also includes aircraft information such as zonal diagrams,
ground rules, and recommended check intervals. The document provides maintenance
planning information necessary for an operator to develop a customised scheduled
maintenance program [Boeing CAS, 2000].
On top of tasks stipulated in the MPD, airlines also have additional tasks that follow from
Airline specific task cards. These tasks are meant to satisfy the operators specific needs for
aircraft utilisation. Such tasks may be scheduled in as routine maintenance. Other tasks
follow from incidents and accidents (Repair Instructions), Deferred Defects (non-routine
maintenance tasks), Maintenance Instructions and Aircraft Modifications (from Service
letters, Service bulletins and Airworthiness Directives). These are tasks that are performed
when opportunity arises, but may also have specified time limits.
Following the stipulated maintenance tasks and intervals from the MPD, an operator
develops a Maintenance Program (referred to as the Operators Maintenance Program
OMP- by Transavia). The maintenance program has to be approved by the local Aviation
Authority. This document reflects how an operator intends to schedule, package and
perform maintenance (maintenance checks). The operator arrives at an OMP by reviewing
the aircraft anticipated utilisation, fleet size, seasonal constraints, and maintenance
capabilities, operational requirements, dispatch reliability, amongst other factors, and
combining these with aircraft operational requirements.
The band of possible task packages2 for a given aircraft can range from:
1. A program consisting of a large number of progressively performed small packages,
resulting from Task-Based Maintenance (Equalised/Progressive check)
2. A program which bundles most scheduled tasks in relatively few large checks
performed at higher intervals (Block check).
Traditionally, the MPD documents recommended the use of Block checks (letter checks A, B,
C, D), by pre-determining the packages for each letter check. However, with the
advancements in aircraft maintenance analysis brought about by the task-oriented MSG-3
and its revisions (rev.1 en rev.2)3, the Boeing Company is tending to opt for non-packaging
of maintenance tasks in the MPD, leaving this open for the operator. This has been the case
with the Boeing 737 Next Generation (henceforth referred to as 737NG) MPD document. The
main reason for this is that the operator gets more freedom to plan maintenance based on
aircraft scheduling and utilisation, hence having more control over direct maintenance costs.
By reviewing an operators anticipated utilisation, environmental considerations, fleet size,
seasonal constraints, and other factors, it is possible to package an aircrafts maintenance
program taking full advantage of the allowable utilisation parameters as specified in the
MPD document.
1 See also Appendix F: Airplane Reliability Program

2 See also Appendix D: Maintenance program packaging methods
3 See also Appendix C: The MSG-3 Philosophy
1
The planning and execution of maintenance tasks can be boldly classified into two
categories:
a. Line maintenance: This can generally be defined as maintenance activities with a pre-
flight, daily, weekly, and periodic (A Check, B Check) frequency (JAR-145 Section 2,
paragraph 3.2.2). It mainly consists of visual inspections, lubrication, and general
servicing of aircraft and does not require the opening of panels and access doors for
detailed inspections.
Line maintenance is mainly characterised by short downtime periods of twenty-four
hours or less and small maintenance packages, quantified in terms of man-hours.
b. Heavy (Base) maintenance: This can generally be defined as maintenance activities falling
under C Checks and D checks (JAR-145 Section 2 paragraph 3.2.3), requiring panel and
access doors opening and disassembly for deeper inspection and eventually repair.
Base maintenance is mainly characterised by long downtime periods and large
maintenance packages, quantified in terms of man-hours
1.2 Problem formulation

Transavia airlines (henceforth referred to as Transavia) operates 13 737NG aircraft (see fleet
composition in Appendix B: Transavia Airlines). As mentioned earlier, the MPD for this type
of aircraft does not use letter checks to categorise maintenance intervals. It lists maintenance
tasks in intervals based on Flight Hours (FH), Flight Cycles (FC), or Calendar Time (CT).
Transavia has to sort out and package maintenance tasks for line maintenance as well as base
maintenance.
The initial approach to this sorting task was to borrow the maintenance patron from other
aircraft models in the Transavia fleet, namely the B 737-300 (line Maintenance) and the B 757-
200 (base maintenance). This resulted in a 5-week interval hangar visit for scheduled line
maintenance and an eighteen months interval for base maintenance. This eighteen months
interval is not preferable, considering that the airline operations vary heavily on seasonal
basis as illustrated in Figure 1.1 below.
Tr a ns a v ia 's A irc r a ft Se a s o na l Ut ilis a t io n (B737 NG)
450.0
High S ea son
400.0
Low S e ason Low S e ason
Flight hours per aircraft
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
Ja n F eb M ar A pr May Jun Jul A ug S ep O ct Nov De c
Figure 1.1 Annual utilisation, 737NG (Source: Aircraft Technical Administration)
2
Introduction
Maximum aircraft availability is desired during the summer (high) season (May - October)
when fleet utilisation is high. During the winter (low) season (November - April), the aircraft
utilisation demand is low. Maintenance tasks requiring significant downtime (mainly base
maintenance tasks) are, therefore, performed during the winter season. This often results in
the de-escalation of task-intervals for items performed much in advance (e.g. by performing
base maintenance at a frequency of 18 months, all maintenance tasks that will be due
between 19-35 months will have to be performed then, leading to an interval de-escalation of
between 19-35 months, depending on the task interval). There is, therefore, a need to
determine when, and how often, maintenance should be performed, in order to reduce task de-
escalation and consequently, maintenance costs.
In an effort to reduce maintenance costs arising from work contracted out and task-interval
de-escalation, line and base maintenance has been redefined within Transavia [Stam, 2001].
The new definitions for these terms are as follows:
a. 1. Line Maintenance: defined as all Pre-flight checks, Daily Checks, Service checks, and
all MRIs classified upon their demand for certified staff, required
tools/equipment/materials and facility demands, for which Transavia can provide,
i.e. Transavia meets these demands.
a. 2. Base Maintenance: defined as all MRIs classified upon their demand for certified
staff, required tools/equipment/materials and facility demands, for which Transavia
cannot provide, i.e. Transavia does not meet these demands.
(See also Appendix E: Line and Base Maintenance Redefinition)
These two definitions, which differ from those given in section 1.1, imply that each
individual task has to be analysed before being classified into either line or base
maintenance. They also imply that the line maintenance tasks (work performed in-house)
will significantly increase (coupled with a decrease in Base Maintenance tasks), hence
demanding a new approach in the planning and scheduling of maintenance in-house and
maintenance work contracted out. There is, therefore, the need to determine the impacts of the
increase in line maintenance tasks, and how this should be dealt with within the Transavia, with as
end-result the reduction of maintenance costs.
Finally, there is also the need to define exact work packages for both line and base maintenance in
order to facilitate easier financial budgeting. This financial budgeting is done once a year, and it
creates a capital reserve for base maintenance, as well as line maintenance. The base
maintenance reserve is based on the anticipated work to be issued out, and the current/
projected rates of base maintenance.
The definition of exact work packages would also help monitor and evaluate the impact of
line and base maintenance redefinition and hence facilitate further optimisation of the
maintenance program and maintenance planning.
This assignment can therefore be formulated as follows:

Develop a cost-effective maintenance planning and packaging method that will lead to the
reduction of direct maintenance costs, yet maintaining the reliability of the 737 Next
Generation fleet.
1.3 Objectives
The objectives of the above-stated assignment can be achieved by answering the following
major questions, which will serve as the main topics:
3
A. What are the most significant factors determining maintenance task clustering and
planning optimisation within the Transavia organisation?
B. What is the most optimum way of clustering maintenance tasks to be performed by the
maintenance department at Transavia, and by a base maintenance station?
C. What impact do such clusters have on the cost of ownership4 of the aircraft (with regard
to maintenance)?
These questions have in turn been split into sub-questions for a deeper analysis of the
assignment. These sub-questions will also serve as the sub-topics for the research.
The assignment will be carried out in four phases (see the next chapter), in the course of
which the following sub-questions will be answered.
Ad A. The following sub-questions will be used to collect facts on the current situation
within the organisation, and to establish a base on which an eventual clustering will
be implemented.
A.1 How is the maintenance execution department of Transavia airlines structured?

It is important to establish the structure of the technical department in order to
determine where different responsibilities fall in the maintenance process.
A.2 How is the maintenance execution planned?

The end result of this research should be an optimum maintenance planning. This
implies that there is a need to look into the current maintenance planning structure in
order to establish elements that need to be optimised. Such elements may include: total
maintenance items, manpower demand and availability, maintenance capacity and
maintenance planning tolerances. A constraint on the maintenance planning is the
certification of Transavias maintenance department (see A.4 below)
A.3 How do the maintenance costs of the old and new fleet compare (-300, -800 Cost breakdown)?
As mentioned in section 1.2 above, the B737-300 MPD differs in many aspects from that
of the 737 NG. The aircraft operator (Transavia) expects a reduction in maintenance
costs through the maximisation of improved maintenance characteristics of the 737
NG. It is, therefore, necessary to establish whether this is currently the case.
A.4 What are the boundary conditions for operations and maintenance?
The research results are expected to be as realistic as possible. Therefore, various
factors that may limit the implementation of results should be established early in
advance in order to realise the objectives of the research.
Ad B. The following sub-questions will be used to guide the formation of maintenance task
packages.
B.1 What are the significant differences between the old and the new operators maintenance
program?
The maintenance planning is based on an approved maintenance program. The
maintenance program identifies all maintenance tasks that have to be performed, and
how often they have to be performed.
4 See definition in section 2.6
4
Introduction
This sub-question should lead to the determination of the key differences between the
traditional maintenance program structure and the new maintenance program
structure for the 737NG.
B.2 How are the new tasks quantified?

This entails establishing what kind of system is used to group maintenance tasks and
maintenance checks, and what information can be derived from this coding system
B.3 How do the tasks interrelate?

This sub-question should establish whether the maintenance execution department
sets certain conditions on when various tasks should be performed (e.g. day or night),
and what tasks should not be combined in a package (relationship between set-up
activities).
B.4 What are the lessons learnt from the past on scheduled and unscheduled maintenance?
This is to establish whether the maintenance execution department employs a certain
policy as pertains to performing unscheduled maintenance in combination with
routine maintenance. This sub-question should also determine how Deferred Defects
are dealt with within the organisation.
B.5 What is the policy of the Boeing Company on B737NG maintenance?

The MPD document normally includes a customised maintenance program, in which
various maintenance check intervals are recommended. It is therefore advisable to look
at whether the recommended program is of any significance to the Transavia program.
B.6 What conclusions can be drawn from the answers to the questions above on fields that need to
be optimised?
Information gathered through sub-questions B.1 B.5 should form a base on which
maintenance clusters should be built on to satisfy the needs of Transavias technical
department
B.7 What is the criteria to be used in the clustering of maintenance tasks?

The end result of the research will be maintenance clusters for the 737NG aircraft. This
sub-question should therefore lead to the establishment of a system to be utilised in
packaging maintenance tasks, and consequently maintenance clusters.
Ad C.After the formation of clusters, an evaluation will have to be done in order to establish
their effectiveness within the organisation. Sub-questions to be used in the evaluation
are:
C.1 How do the new task packages and tasks compare/differ from the previous task packages?
It will be necessary to establish the main similarities and differences between the
current and the new maintenance packages. This will be the first step in the evaluation
of maintenance packages resulting created from section B.7 above.
C.2 Is it possible to determine what impact the new work schedule will have on the maintenance
department?
The second step in the evaluation and optimisation of maintenance clusters is
establishing what impact such clusters have on the planning and execution of
maintenance, both on the work floor and at the planning department
5
C.3 Is it possible to determine the financial implications of the new planning?

It is also important to establish how the new packages behave under different
circumstances, based on the aircraft utilisation. This also forms a part of the
optimisation process. Further, it is necessary to establish whether the new planning
will lead to the reduction of maintenance costs, as indicated in the assignment.
C.4 Will the new clusters have an impact on the organisation on the work floor? Is there any re-
organisation required?
This sub-question is meant to establish what impact the new packages might have on
the general organisation on the work floor.
C.5 Are these clusters also applicable for the KLM Business Unit 737?
Finally, it is desired that the maintenance packages developed should also be
applicable for the KLM Business Unit 737. This sub-question should, therefore, assist in
establishing the applicability of the clusters to the KLM 737NG fleet.
1.4 Research environment
The research is to be carried out at the Maintenance Planning and Support (MP&S)
department of the Transavia airlines (Appendix B).
1.5 Approach Strategy
This research will be carried out in four phases, namely

A. (1) Assignment analysis
B. (2a.) Background research
B. (2b.) Maintenance program and maintenance planning analysis
C. (3) Maintenance planning definition, development, and implementation
D. Report phase
This subdivision is necessitated by the following factors:

1. The research requires a strategy that reflects what the assignment is about, what is
expected from the assignment, why, and how these expectations are to be met.
2. The research requires a schedule illustrating what is being done at what stage and
what the various deliverables are.
3. The assignment creates the need to assess the situation within the organisation in
order to establish the organisation requirements. This has been translated to main
question 1.3.A (See section 1.3)
4. The end result of the assignment should be an optimum packaging of maintenance
tasks. Optimisation entails identifying areas needing improvement, identifying
elements of maintenance that are directly associated with task packaging (such as
maintenance downtime, maintenance frequency)- main question 1.3.B, and
combining all these such that the most favourable situation is achieved- main
question 1.3.C
5. The documentation of all findings from the research.
6
Introduction
The following diagram (Figure 1.2) illustrates the relationship between elements of the
phases listed above and the documents resulting there from:
R ese arch P h ase C on te n ts R e su ltin g D ocu m e n ts
C h ap te r 1:
A ssig n m e n t an alysis P H A SE 1 A ssig n m e n t A n alysis
B ackg rou n d R e se arch C h ap te r 2:

P H A SE 2 M ain te n an ce P lan n in g an d Sch ed u lin g :
M ain te n an ce P rog ram an d B ackground R esearch & M ain tenance Program an alysis
P lan n in g A n alysis
M ain te n an ce P lan n in g C h ap te r 3:
d e fin ition an d d e v e lop m en t M ain te n an ce C lu ste rs d e fin ition an d d e ve lop m e n t
P H A SE 3 C h ap te r 4:
M ain te n an ce C lu ste r form ation , e valu ation an d
M ain te n an ce P lan n in g
op tim ization
O p tim isation
C h ap te r 5:
R e port ph ase P H A SE 4 C on clu sion s an d re com m e n d ation s:
O ptim isation proposal
Figure 1.2: Relationship between phases and chapters
The following diagram is an illustration of how these phases interrelate
Assignment Analysis
Phase 1
Background
Literature Study
Research
Maintenance
Program and Planning
Analysis Phase 2
Maintenance
Optimization
Planning definition
Proposal
And Development
Phase 4
Maintenance
Planning Evaluation
And Optimization
Phase 3
Figure 1.3: Approach strategy
The following is a motivation and a description of the above-mentioned phases.
1.5.1 Assignment analysis

This is the initial phase of the research. During this (current) phase, the assignment is
reviewed and reformulated. The objectives of the assignment are identified and an approach
strategy set.
This phase will be concluded with an Assignment analysis report (this document).
1.5.2 Background research
7
This first part of phase 2 will assess the current situation within the Engineering and
maintenance department of Transavia, as pertains to the maintenance of its B737 fleet.
Information gathered from this phase will be used to form a technical and economic base for
the research. The following is a description of the approach for this phase:
a. Consultation of records and relevant publications

Relevant documents on the organisation of the technical department, maintenance
procedures, and maintenance governing regulations are readily available from the
technical library of the engineering department.
Other documents such as Transavias OMP and the NG MPD document, need to be
consulted owing to the fact that they are the guiding documents for maintenance
planning.
b. Interviews and information systems such as the organisations intranet

Interviews form a good source for undocumented information, and especially
information on past experiences and on various traditions in maintenance planning
and execution.
The organisations intranet is a good source for up-to-date information. Information
gathered from this may include: fleet mutations, new maintenance strategies and
aircraft utilisation trends.
c. Literature Study
Literature references may provide an insight on various elements affecting
maintenance planning and maintenance processes, and also proposals for solutions
on similar problems.
1.5.3 Maintenance program analysis: 737NG
During this second part of phase 2, a deeper look will be taken into the MPD and the
Operators Maintenance Manual (OMP) of the 737NG. The following is a description of the
contents of this phase
a. Analysis of specifications on the maintenance program and maintenance tasks

b. A comparison between the maintenance programs of the 737NG and the 737 Classics
c. An evaluation of maintenance planning recommendations on the MPD document
Relationship between the maintenance program and the maintenance planning:

The maintenance planning is based on the maintenance program. The maintenance program
identifies the tasks that have to be done, and when these have to be done. The questions that
arise are: what do the tasks entail and what are the intervals linked to these tasks?
It may also be important to establish what elements of the Next Generation MPD make the
maintenance planning and execution on the aircraft better than that of previous models, as
stated by the aircraft manufacturer (Boeing).
Owing to the fact that the MPD also proposes a maintenance-planning schedule, it is worth
analysing this schedule in order to establish whether it is also applicable for the Transavia
fleet. Ideas on an eventual maintenance-planning schedule may also be borrowed from this
proposal.
8
Introduction
1.5.4 Maintenance planning definition and development
Information gathered from the previous phases will be put together in this phase, and this
should result in new maintenance clusters. The intervals in which different clusters fall will
be pre-determined before clustering is done. These clusters will then be evaluated with the
help of a maintenance allocation model (see Chapter 4), and optimised where necessary.
This will be done as follows:
a. Listing all maintenance tasks with all relevant features established in section 1.5.3a
above
b. Developing a clustering strategy and forming clusters based on facts gathered from
the previous stages of the research
c. Evaluating the effectiveness of maintenance clusters created in (b.) above, and if
necessary, optimising these. This should then result in the identification of the most
effective way to cluster task packages and perform maintenance.
The above strategy is preferred, owing to the fact that it has a logical sequence as pertains to
achieving the desired results of the research.
Phase 3 will be concluded with a Maintenance planning definition and development report.
1.5.5 Report phase

All facts and results gathered from the three phases above will be documented and
presented as a report. This phase will also include recommendations, deduced from the
most important results of the whole research.
1.6 Requirements, constraints and assumptions
1.6.1 Requirements
- The research should be completed within the stipulated period of nine months
- The results of the research should be realistic and should fit within the framework of
Transavia airlines. A look should also be taken on how the results fit into the KLM
737 Business Unit
1.6.2 Constraints
a. Transavia flight operations are seasonal in nature
Implications:
Large variations in the number of flight hours and cycles between summer and
winter
Maximum availability is required for the summer season, thus maintenance activities
with long downtime periods should not fall in this season
b. The airline frequently leases aircraft in and out
Implications:
Variations in fleet capacity, as requested by the flight operations department, and
consequently the (non-) availability of aircraft.
Introduction of different maintenance programs for aircraft leased in under foreign
registration.
c. Aviation authorities regulate maintenance programs
Implications:
9
All proposals and modifications on the maintenance program and maintenance

execution are subject to approval by relevant authorities
d. The companys financial year runs from the first of April of a given year to the thirty-first
of March of the year thereafter.
Implication:
In order to keep the total cost of heavy maintenance low, not more than two aircraft
should be planned into heavy maintenance per financial year.
e. The airline has no back shops, except for seat repair

Implications:
All repair activities (with the exception of seat repair) cannot be performed within the
premises of the company. Such activities have to be contracted out.
Discussions on line and base maintenance pivot on this limitation.
1.6.3 Assumptions
The term B737 NG is used to define both the B737-800 and the B737-700. Presently, the
800 version totals 12 aircraft and the 700 totals 1 aircraft.
Unless otherwise stated, maintenance programs, maintenance strategies and
maintenance tasks referred to in the report are 737 NG specific
10
Chapter 2
2 Maintenance Planning and Scheduling
This chapter will look into the background of maintenance planning and scheduling
within Transavia.
The process of establishing a maintenance planning and scheduling at Transavia
follows the sequence illustrated below:
Engineering department MP&S department
Maintenance
Program (MP)
Planning Scheduling
Development
(2) (3)
(1)
Figure 2.1 Establishing maintenance planning and scheduling within Transavia

This chapter will therefore begin with (1); with section 2.1 describing how the
maintenance program is currently developed (by the engineering department). The
implementation of the maintenance program is done by MP&S (2) and (3). This
implementation process will be described in sections 2.2 to 2.5, and a conclusion will
follow in section 2.7.
2.1 Maintenance Program (MP) Development
The initial source for the development of the OMP is the manufacturers
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) document. The MPD covers all manufacturer
recommended tasks, the MSIs (developed following the MSG-3 philosophy). Within
Transavia, the MP is documented in the Operators Maintenance Program (OMP).
This document is an approved maintenance program (see Figure 2.2) meant to guide
maintenance in a JAR-145 maintenance organisation (See also Appendix G.2).
The Maintenance Programs section within the Engineering Department takes the
responsibility for the development and amendment of the Transavia Maintenance
Program (as illustrated in Figure 2.2 below). Each Maintenance Significant Item (MSI)
or Structural Significant Item (SSI) from the MPD is translated into a Maintenance
Requirement Item (MRI). The MRIs are limited by calendar days and/or flight hours
and/or flight cycles.
Principally, there is no difference between an MSI and a MRI. However, MRIs also
encompass SSIs, and they do not include items listed in the MPD, not applicable to
the Transavia fleet. Section 2.1.3 will go deeper into MSI/MRI features.
All MRIs are evaluated and classified as base maintenance MRIs or line maintenance
MRIs. The evaluation process has already been mentioned in section 1.2, and is fully
described in Appendix E.3.
11
2.1.1 MRIs based MPD items:

The MPD is a summary of the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) report,
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Airworthiness Limitations (AWL)
and manufacturers recommendations.
a. MRIs based on the MRB report.
The MRB report outlines the initial minimum maintenance requirements for an
approved maintenance program. The MRB requirements have been developed
using Maintenance Steering Group logic. The B737 NG maintenance program has
been developed using the MSG-3 revision-2 logic (Appendix C). The MPD
contains both mandatory and non-mandatory tasks.
b. MRIs based on Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR)

A CMR is a Mandatory periodic task, established during the design certification
of the aircraft as an operating limitation of the type certificate. CMR tasks are
identified whenever system probabilities and failures are not expected to fall
within the acceptable range without a periodic maintenance requirement. The
following comments apply to CMR items
- They are part of the aircraft certification basis
- The short-term escalation of CMRs is not allowed
c. MRIs based on Airworthiness limitations (AWLs)

An ALI is a supplemental structural inspection for those Structural Significant
Items (SSIs) that do not receive adequate fatigue damage detection opportunity
from the initial baseline maintenance program (hidden failures). The AWLs are
accomplished in conjunction with and not as a substitute for the existing
structural maintenance program. AWLs are also mandatory.
d. MRIs based on manufacturers recommendations

MRB reports generated with MSG-3 rev.2 contain economic non safety
maintenance requirements. These MRIs are added in the MPD as recommended
requirements.
2.1.2 MRIs based on non-MPD items

A non-MPD MRI is based on Transavias in service experience or approved data (e.g.
Airworthiness Directives (ADs), Service Bulletins (SBs), Service Letters (SLs), Aircraft
Modifications (AMs), JAA/NLA requirements). Such non-MPD maintenance tasks
are formulated into Engineering Orders (EOs) or into Transavia Maintenance
Instructions (MIs). Such orders or instructions can either be incidental (performed
only once) or recurring (repeated inspections).
The following diagram illustrates the process described above.
12
Chapter 2
MSG-3 rev.2
Airline/Manufacturer Manufacturer B737 NG
Development Airlines Maintenance
Document Requirement
(ATA) Review Documents
B737 NG B737 NG B737 NG

Maintenance B737 NG MPD MRB
Manual Aircraft Document Boeing Report
(Boeing) Task Cards (Boeing) (FAA)
Service
Letters EOs/MIs
(SLs)
Boeing MRIs Tasks,Task-
Service Intervals
Bulletins EOs/MIs
(SBs) Transavias B737 NG
Maintenance Transavia
Airworthiness HV MRIs Program Job Cards
Directives EOs/MIs Tasks,Task- (OMP) 1.1
(ADs) Intervals
Transavias
Maintenance National Aviation
Instructions
Transavia Task Authority (IVW/DL) Source: Boeing 737-NG MPD (derived)
(MIs)
Cards Approval
Figure 2.2 MPD and OMP development
2.1.3 Maintenance Checks

The 737 NG MPD identifies over 1500 maintenance significant items. In addition to
these, the engineering department also develops maintenance instructions, the so-
called MIs. These MSIs and MIs are coded as described in section 2.1.4. MSIs are
subdivided into three main groups, namely:
1. Zonal MSIs
2. Systems MSIs
3. Structural MSIs, (referred to as SSIs)
Each of the MSI requirements is translated into a Maintenance Requirement Item

(MRI).
As mentioned previously, there is no difference between an MSI and an MRI. An
MRI is a Transavia formulation of a MSI. However, MRIs also encompass SSIs, and
they do not include items listed in the MPD, not applicable to the Transavia fleet.
Transavia MRIs bear the following properties:
Property Description
MRI number A MPD Item Number: see also Figure 2.3)
Zone Section of the plane where task is performed
Access: Access panel or door required to be opened when performing the task
Interval Expressed in terms of frequency and usage parameters, such as flight hours,
flight cycles and calendar time (in days)
13
HV interval A conversion of the MSI interval into an acceptable Transavia interval, e.g., a
MSI interval of 2000CYC (cycles) becomes 38C2000L or 38C2000B, depending
on whether the task is a line or a base maintenance task. Other codes are
38D_ (Day), 38D_* (Day/Cycle or Day/Hour), 38H_ (Hour) and 38C_*
(Cycle/Day)
Boeing Man-hours Estimated man-hours required to perform a task
Applicability Applicability of the task to aircraft model and engine model specified
Zonal title/ task This is a general description of the task to be performed. It also provides
description additional explanation on access and interval for the specified task
Job card/ task card (See also Figure 2.3)

number
MSG-3 Category Categories 5 (Safety), 6 (Non-safety economic), 7 (non-safety operational), 8
(hidden safety) and 9 (hidden non-safety);
MSG-3 Classification Lubrication (LU), Service Check (SV), Visual Check (VC), General Visual (GV),
Inspection (IN), Detailed Inspection (DT), Operational (OP), Functional (FC),
Restoration (RS) and Discard (DS)
HV Task Classification Transavias classification into either Line (L) or Base (B) Maintenance
Table 2.1 MRI Properties
Considering that there are over 1500 maintenance tasks, it would not be reasonable
to deal with each task separately. The B737 NG OMP deals with this problem by
grouping maintenance tasks into checks, solely on their HV intervals and Transavia
classification properties. This strategy follows from the OMPs of other aircraft types
in the Transavia fleet, namely the B737-300 and the B757-200. A complete overview
of these checks is included in Appendix I.
It should be observed at this point that the Transavia maintenance checks do not
portray any properties of MSG-3 philosophy. Features such as the MSG-3 category
and the MSG-3 classification play little to no role in the checks.
2.1.4 Maintenance Task Cards and task card control
For all MPD tasks, the aircraft manufacturer (Boeing) prepares task cards (see Figure
2.2 above). Tasks cards contain a thorough description of the task, a zonal diagram
illustrating the position or component to be maintained, and an approximation of the
amount of Man-hours and the elapsed time (time needed to complete the task for a
given amount of man-hours) needed to complete the task. These task cards are
revised at a constant basis, either by Transavia, or by Boeing, in order to incorporate
improvements and corrections. Transavia also prepares task cards for all its
operational-specific maintenance tasks.
Task card numbering

The task cards are numbered sequentially within each ATA chapter. The following is
an example of task card numbering from ATA 27 (flight controls)
14
Chapter 2
MRI Number
27 - 010 01 - 01
Task Card Sequence Number
Indicates position where applicable: 00 N/A

01 - LEFT
02 - RIGHT
03 - CENTRE
MRB Sequence Number
ATA Chapter
Figure 2.3 Task card numbering
Maintenance Job cards

For each task card, a corresponding job card is prepared by the engineering
department, and filed in the METALS system. Job Cards are actually identical to task
cards, only that job cards are used once, on the work floor, while task cards are used
for reference purposes. Job cards do also have a provision for a signature and a
stamp for the technician performing the maintenance task.
The following job cards are in use:

1. Routine job cards
Pertaining to MPD and non-MPD based recurring MRIs
2. Corrosion Prevention Control Program (CPCP) job cards
These are, in fact, routine job cards, which are based on the manufacturers
CPCP, as referred to in the MPD
3. Maintenance Instructions (MI) task cards
- Pertaining to recurring MRIs which do not fit in a regular maintenance
inspection interval
- Pertaining to non-recurring (one-time) inspections, which are mostly
initiated as a result of a SB or a SL evaluation. Such maintenance
instructions do not form a part of the maintenance program, as they are
non-recurring.
4. Modification job cards
Pertaining to non-recurring (one-time) modification instructions, which are
initiated as a result of an engineering evaluation, which leads to an Aircraft
Modification (AM). Such modifications are not part of the maintenance
program, as they are non-recurring.
2.1.5 The B737-300 MP vs. the B737 NG MP
Before the introduction of the 737NG aircraft (the subject of this research), Transavia
was, and still is, operating the B 737-300 (classics).
The B733 (classic) maintenance program differs from that of the next generation on a
number of aspects. These aspects are tabulated below:
15
B 737 Classics B737 Next Generation

Maintenance Philosophy MSG-2: Process Oriented MSG-3 rev.2: Task Oriented
Maintenance Tasks Packaged into OMP Checks as: Packaged into OMP Checks as:
Transit Check Pre-flight Check
24-hr Check Ground Handling Check
(Boeing) A-Check at 250 Flight hours Tire & Oil Check
(Boeing) C-Check or Annual Visits AV Service Check
4000 Flight Hours 1AV Service Check
8400 Flight Hours 2AV (Transavia) Line Maintenance Checks
15600 Flight Hours 4AV (Transavia) Base Maintenance Checks
30000 Flight Hours 8AV
Power plant CFM56-3 CFM56-7

-Quick Engine Change Configuration: 20Hrs -Quick Engine Change configuration: 8hrs
Table 2.2 Maintenance program comparison 733 vs. 738

Notes:
1. Transit checks are performed before departure and on arrival
2. 24-hr check are performed once a day
3. Annual visits (AV) are performed once a year. The Contents of the checks
refer to Boeing C-check tasks. The checks have cumulative abbreviations,
based on flight hours. Each AV check is unique, and AVs are executed as
follows:
1AV Once a year
2AV Once every two years
4AV Once every four years
8AV Once every eight years
Combinations are then formed sequentially, for example:
In year 1: 1AV
In year 2: 1AV, 2AV
In year 3: 1 AV
In year 4: 1AV, 2AV, and 4AV
4. The Maintenance task list indicated under the NG column implies that only
the task execution frequency is stated, but not a package in which the task
should be performed (as witnessed in the previous column)
It should also be observed that Transavia has been operating the B737 classics for
over 15 years. The current B737-classics fleet average age is 10.14 years. From the
maintenance point of view, a lot of experience is gathered over the years by
maintaining the same type of aircraft. Routine and non-routine maintenance of such
a fleet is easily quantified and can be predicted to a certain extent.
However, the case above is not applicable for the next generation fleet. These aircraft
have been designed for easier and more flexible maintenance. The average fleet age
of the B737 NG is 1.5 years (see also Table B.1), and not enough experience has been
gathered to help establish the exact maintenance characteristics of this type of
aircraft. This implies that continuous adjustments on the maintenance program and
the maintenance planning are necessary, as compared to the minimal adjustments
(based on AD notes and SBs) on the maintenance of the classic fleet.
The maintenance program of the B737 NG is, therefore, under constant revision,
partly because it has to be revised every three months (following quarterly MPD
16
Chapter 2
reviews), and partly because new procedures have to be added to it. The
maintenance program section of the engineering is responsible for this.
The effectiveness of the maintenance program and the aircraft maintenance

characteristics are monitored through a Reliability Monitoring Program (see also
Appendix F), maintained by the engineering department. Performance indicators
used to monitor the maintenance program and fleet performance include: the
Technical Dispatch Reliability (TDR), Pilot Reports (PIREPS), Hold item Lists (HIL),
Unscheduled Removals, No Fault Found (NFF)Reports, and Confirmed Failures.
For each of these parameters, an alert level (an upper control limit) is set, at which
action is necessary.
2.2 Maintenance Planning and scheduling

Maintenance engineers establish tasks and interval limits for various maintenance
tasks; either based on the MPD (routine maintenance), Aircraft Modifications (AM),
Repair Instructions (RI), Airworthiness Directives (AD) and Maintenance
Instructions. Such maintenance tasks may be based on two maintenance activities:
1. Routine maintenance:
This is performed in accordance with the instructions stated in the OMP. Such
instructions and consequently utilisation limits serve as a basis for the
planning of aircraft maintenance.
2. Non-routine maintenance
In cases of component failure, rectification may be performed immediately or
may be deferred, depending on the severity. Operational critical items and
safety related items (listed in Minimum Equipment List MEL) would
require immediate corrective action, while non-safety and non-critical items
will be put on a deferred defect sheet (DDS) for rectification when
opportunity arises.
Maintenance planning is done in three phases, namely Long-term, Medium term and
Short-term.
Maintenance
Planning
Routine Non -routine

Long Term Medium Term Short Term

Planning Planning Planning
-Capacity Planning -Allocation of resources: - Capacity planning

-Spare parts processing -Maintenance slots - Allocation of resources:
-Determining manpower Requirements - Maintenance slots
- Maintenance windows
Figure 2.4 Maintenance planning phases (Source: MP&S)
17
2.2.1 Long term planning

Long term planning entails a planning with a time horizon of longer than one year. It
mainly comprises of maintenance activities packaged in intervals greater than one
year, and planning for regular maintenance slots (line and base maintenance). In this
planning, a clear distinction is made between the summer and winter season
planning as per Transavia high and low season operation (section 1.2). Further, the
maintenance capacity for both seasons is determined. The High season is sometimes
characterised by the leasing in of aircraft, while the low season is normally
characterised by the leasing out of aircraft.
2.2.2 Medium term planning

Medium term planning (>3months, <1 year) involves scheduling maintenance slots
per aircraft, in accordance with the preferences of the Commercial Planning and
Sales Department (CPV). See also section 2.5 and Appendix B. Factors such as
maintenance resource availability and cost factors are introduced into the planning at
this phase.
The exact fleet size for each season (high/low) is also established at this phase.
2.2.3 Short term planning

Fine-tuning of planned maintenance is done between three months and 24 hours
before the planned maintenance session. Maintenance resources such as manpower
(and consequently work rosters), hangar space and materials are established at least
a month before the actual date of maintenance execution.
Under ideal circumstances, it would be possible to perfectly plan aircraft
maintenance well in advance. However, Transavias aircraft utilisation does not
always match the planned utilisation. Factors that may lead to this include:
- Performance of ad hoc flights
- Over-utilisation of aircraft, leading to the exhaustion of maintenance intervals
before their pre-calculated due dates
- Flight cancellations due to technical reasons (No-Go situations)
- Aircraft unavailability due to under-estimated downtime
- Aircraft unavailability due to non-technical reasons, such as extended stay in
outside stations
- Aircraft incidents that may result in unscheduled checks or aircraft grounding
- Component unavailability
- Manpower unavailability
In cases where maintenance schedules cannot be realised as planned, adjustments

need to be made on the planning in order to ensure that maintenance work due is
performed in time, and work not due postponed to the next available opportunity.
Short term planning is also necessitated by pending corrective actions, as may be
listed on the Hold item List (HIL) or on a DDS. The planning in of such tasks is done
if scheduled maintenance provides an opportunity for this.
Task packages
The Transavia OMP groups maintenance tasks into inspections/checks, based on
their maintenance intervals. A complete list of all packages is listed in Appendix I.1
and I.2. Maintenance planning then packages these tasks in preparation for a hangar
18
Chapter 2
or base maintenance visit. The packages are segmented due to the inequality of
maintenance windows.
2.3 Line Maintenance

The Transavia maintenance department is certified to perform all maintenance
activities that fall under line maintenance (See also Appendix I).
The organisations OMP distinguishes between the following line maintenance
activities tabulated below:
Type of check Description

Pre-flight Check: Visual and functional inspection performed before each flight to
ascertain that the aircraft is airworthy
Tyre and Oil Check: Analytical check performed at the end of each day to visual
certify operational condition and for trend monitoring purposes
(on-condition maintenance)
Service Check: Visual and functional check performed every two days to
ensure that all operational and safety standards are met
Ground Handling Checks to ensure that aircraft is configured for gate arrival and
Checks: gate departure
Hangar Visits: Withdrawal of aircraft from operation for the performance of a

set of routine and non-routine maintenance in the hangar
Table 2.3 Line maintenance activities (Source: Boeing 737NG OMP)
2.3.1 Scheduling of hangar visits

Owing to the fact that scheduled hangar visits requires aircraft withdrawal from
service, downtime scheduling is done at the Long-term, and the Medium-term
planning ensures that flight operations are not interrupted.
Hangar visit intervals are determined by the maintenance package with the lowest
interval (either in days, hours or cycles). This interval is currently 5 weeks for the
aircraft in question. Routine maintenance performed during such a visit includes all
checks due at the moment of the visit, and all checks due between that moment and
the next visit.
Hangar planning5:
i. Hangar maintenance is carried out on weekdays, between Monday evening and
Thursday night;
D = DAY 07:00 till 15:00
A = EVENING 15:00 till 23:00
N = NIGHT 23:00 till 07:00

Hangar Shifts
D A N D A N D A N D A N D A N D A N D A N
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY
Figure 2.5 Hangar Maintenance Slots
5Based on a fixed agreement between MP&S, Aircraft Maintenance (V.O.), and Hangar space
managers. See also Appendix H.
19
ii. Each day (24 hours) is sub-divided into three eight (8)-hour segments, also referred
to as shifts: a day shift, evening shift and night shift;
iii. Each week has a total of eleven (11) shifts available for hangar maintenance;
iv. Each eight-hour shift has six effective maintenance hours. The extra two hours are
allocated for rest for the maintenance crew.
v. Each shift comprises of an average of 12 technicians (Team), headed by 2 Team Co-
ordinators (TC). Each team comprises of mechanical as well as avionics technicians.
However, their proportion may vary from team to team. The proportions may also
be altered in order to provide enough skills for a given work package;
vi. Each shift can therefore produce an average of 72 man-hours;
vii. Hangar planning rules are such that only two aircraft may be maintained
simultaneously. The distribution of manpower in the hangar, the sequence with
which maintenance tasks are carried out, and eventual swaps of technicians
(platform/hangar) is done on the work floor, and is controlled by Maintenance
Controllers (MC);
viii. Planning for hangar maintenance is based on, respectively, manpower availability,
hangar space availability and aircraft availability;
The available hangar shifts can be used distributed over any of the three types of
aircraft operated by Transavia, depending on the demand for maintenance. This
report will, however, concentrate on the maintenance demand of the B737 NG
aircraft.
Hangar slots do not necessarily have to run concurrently with hangar shifts, even
though this would be more preferable. The following is an example of why this is the
case:
Aircraft arrival: 22:00

Aircraft in Hangar: 00:00
Aircraft out of Hangar: 03:45
Aircraft Departure: 05:30
Hangar Slot (1 Slot): 22:00 05:30 7 hr 30 min
Hangar Shifts: Night: 23:00 07:00*
Effective (Net) Maintenance time: 3 hr 45 min
Table 2.4 Aircraft Flight Schedule: Singe Mx slot (Example: HZE, Week 27, 2000)
(*: Points vi, vii and viii above answer questions that may arise from hangar capacity
and manpower utilisation)
As mentioned earlier in this section, this aircraft is slotted in for a hangar visit once
every five weeks. The exact demand for maintenance (following from maintenance
due items at time of maintenance) determines the total amount of man hours
required and the total amount of downtime for a maintenance visit.
Table 2.5 below tabulates the line maintenance man-hours, and the frequency with
which hangar slots are allocated to each B737 NG aircraft annually. The man-hours
allocated are based on the assumption that all routine (75%) and non-routine (25%)
(Normal wear and tear) maintenance is fully provided for (see also Table 2.6 on the
realisation).
Week Days Slots Max. Available Man-hours
1 7 - -
5 35 1 < 55
10 70 1 < 55
15 105 2 < 100
20 140 1 < 55
20
Chapter 2
25 175 1 < 55
30 210 4 < 300
35 245 1 < 55
40 480 1 < 55
45 315 2 < 100
50 350 1 < 55
52 364 - -
Totals (364) 14 < 885
Table 2.5 Planning hangar maintenance (per year) (Source: MP&S)

The maintenance planning sequence above is generally applicable for aircraft not
older than five years. As time progresses, the aircraft is expected to generate more
complaints from routine maintenance, hence requiring more scheduled downtime.
The determination of required downtime is generally based on experience. Owing to
the fact that the B737 NG fleet is relatively new (1.5 years see also Appendix B.2), it
is not possible to determine the maintenance downtime demand for over five years.
The realisation of the planning above, however, portrays a totally different picture,
as tabulated in Table 2.6 below. This table shows the actual number of slots allocated
to three 737NG aircraft (registrations PH-HZA, PH-HZB and PH-HZF) over the year
2000. These aircraft have been selected because they operated for Transavia
throughout the whole year (not leased out or introduced into the fleet in 2000).
Calendar week HZA HZB HZF Calendar Week HZA HZB HZF
1 2 27 1 1
2 28 2
3 1 1 29 1(BMx)
4 2 30
5 31 1
6 2 2 32 2 1
7 33 2 1
8 1 34
9 35
10 1 36 1 1
11 2 37 4
12 1 1 38 1
13 39
14 40 1
15 1 2 41 1
16 2 42 2
17 43
18 44
19 3 3 45 1
20 1 46 1 4 2
21 47 BMx
22 48
23 1 49 2 1
24 1 1 50
25 51 1
26 1(BMx) 52
Slots Routine* 24 24 19
Grey region = High Season Slots non-routine** 16 4 15
BMx = Base Mainte Total Slots 40 28 34
nance
* = Including non-routine from normal wear and tear
** = See also Table 2.7
Table 2.6 Realisation Hangar maintenance planning (Source: Maintenance Schedule, 2000 MP&S)
The main reason for the differences between the planning and the realisation result
from:
21
1. Aircraft unavailability for maintenance: This is a situation that may follow

from aircraft over-utilisation (high production), leading to the accumulation
of maintenance tasks due, and eventually a demand for more ground time.
2. Aircraft late arrivals: Delays in aircraft arrival sometimes lead to the
cancellation of scheduled maintenance tasks, which also leads to the
accumulation of due maintenance tasks.
3. Inspection findings that require re-inspection in a given period of time.
4. Differences in team compositions between high and low seasons: During the
high season (weeks 14-43), maintenance teams comprise of 15 technicians,
while during the low season (weeks 1-13 and 44-52), 10 technicians make up a
team.
5. Unpredictable events (such as incidents and accidents)
6. Aircraft modifications and AD notes arising in the course of the year.
Table 2.7 below quantifies how the non-routine maintenance activities above are
distributed per aircraft tail number:
Non-routine event HZA HZB HZF Total per event

DDS 8 7 15
Aircraft Modification 6 4 10
MIs (non-routine) 1 3 2 6
Incidents (Aircraft damage) 1 1 2 4
Total Additional slots 16 4 15 35
Table 2.7 Clarification of non-routine maintenance slots

Observations from the above patron are:
1. The actual planning pattern of (routine) hangar maintenance does not match
the projected planning (see possible reasons stated above). The five-week
interval between two hangar visits is hardly maintained. Possible causes for
this could be over-maintenance (repetition of the same tasks in shorter
intervals than need be), large work packages that do not fit into the slots
assigned, labour deficiencies, or a combination of any of the factors above.
2. The total non-routine hangar time is un-evenly distributed, and it is not
possible to establish a relationship between this and the routine hangar
maintenance.
3. Maintenance is not really minimised during the high season.
2.4 Base Maintenance
Maintenance checks classified as Base Maintenance tasks are always contracted out
(see section 2.1 and Appendix E).
In order to provide a good base for Base Maintenance (technical and financial)
planning, Transavia airlines enters into long-term contracts with base maintenance
organisations. Currently, KLM Maintenance and Engineering performs all base
maintenance for the Transavia 737 NG fleet.
2.4.1 Scheduling of Base Maintenance

Base maintenance visits are normally scheduled in during the winter season, with the
frequency of eighteen months per aircraft.
Activities performed during such visits are categorised as follows:
22
Chapter 2
a. Routine heavy maintenance packages: These are the routine maintenance

packages due for execution at a base maintenance station. The packages comprise
of all checks with maintenance intervals falling on and between two base
maintenance intervals.
b. Aircraft modifications: These are modifications that follow from SBs, AD notes.
Modifications can also follow from customised demands from aircraft operations
or from technical proposals by the engineering department.
c. Aircraft Repairs: These follow mainly from incidental damage, structural wear
and tear, or structural failure.
d. Deviated work
e. Aircraft repainting
Unlike the 737-Classics, the Next Generation aircraft do not have a well-defined base
maintenance. Base maintenance checks are therefore packaged based on the number
of due base maintenance checks. Further, the base maintenance interval of 18 months
is not based on a recommended interval, but on a maintenance tradition adapted
from B757-200 maintenance pattern. This aircraft also forms a part of the Transavia
fleet.
At the start of this research, 6 aircraft had had their first base maintenance visit. The
following figure illustrates the composition of the various visits.
First Base Maintenance , HV Fleet- 18 Months Interval
1800
1600
1400
1200
KLM Manhours
1000
800
Additional work
600 Non-routine
Routine
400
200
0
HZA (Nov-99) HZB (Jan-00) HZC (Feb-00) HZD (Nov-00) HZE (Nov-00) HZF (Nov-00)
Base maintenance visit per tail number
Figure 2.6: First Base Maintenance visit: Overview
At the beginning of this research, the three oldest aircraft in the fleet had had their
second base maintenance visit. The following is an overview of the total man-hours
spent on these aircraft:
23
Second Base Maintenance visit, HV Fleet - 18 months interval
3000
2500
2000
KLM Manhours
1500
1000
Additional work
Non-routine
Routine
500
0
HZA (Mar-01) HZB (Mar-01) HZC (Mar-01)
Base maintenance visit per tail number
Figure 2.7: Second Base Maintenance Visit: Overview (Source: HV Project Management)
In order to give an illustration of what the routine, Non-routine and additional work
entails, the base maintenance packages for the HZA (first and second) are
summarised in table x below.
First Base Mx: HZA [Nov 1999] KLM Second Base Mx [Mar 2001] KLM
Routine Maintenance: Routine Maintenance:
Checks (Boeing MHrs: 134.21) 268.7 Checks (Boeing MHrs: 153.31) 312.8
Non Routines: Non Routines:
Normal wear and tear 516 Normal wear and tear 206.2
Shop work 69 Shop work 5.6
Non-Routine Maintenance: Non-Routine Maintenance:

Additional Work: (MIs, AMs, RIs) 511.5 Additional Work: (MIs, AMs, RIs) 1629
Docking 3.6 Docking + KLM tasks 101.8

Open and Close 275.7 Open and Close 233.8
Total Man-hours 1644.5 Total Man-hours 2489.2
Table 2.8 Overview of Base maintenance visit components (Source: HV Project Management)
Note: Docking, additional KLM tasks and Open and Close fall under routine
maintenance.
From Figure 2.6, Figure 2.7, and from Table 2.2 above, the following is observed:
1. The base maintenance station (KLM) uses a factor 2 to calculate man-hours
needed for routine maintenance, without considering eventual non-routines.
Including eventual non-routines, a factor 3.6 is applied on the original Boeing
man-hours.
2. The routine maintenance work from both the first and the second base
maintenance visit is approximately equal.
3. Additional work constitutes the largest part of base maintenance. The

proportions of additional work vary from aircraft to aircraft. This results from
24
Chapter 2
un-proportional amounts of deviated work (Deferred Defects and repair

work preferably performed during base maintenance), status of the aircraft
when delivered (which determines the amount of modifications necessary),
AD notes, aircraft damage, and repair work.
4. It is also evident that all base maintenance work is performed between

November and March, during the low season. From Table 2.8, it can also be
noted that the second base maintenance visit is performed only after 16
months, two months before the visit is due (18 Months frequency).
2.5 The Planning department vs. the Sales department
In order to synchronise aircraft utilisation and aircraft maintenance, a close

relationship is maintained between the commercial planning department
(Commercile Planning en Verkoop -CPV) at Schiphol Centre and the Maintenance
Planning and Support department (MP&S) at Schiphol East (See also Appendix B.4)
for an overview of departments within the organisation).
The following diagram (Figure 2.8) illustrates how these two departments interrelate
Aircraft for Maintenance department

Sales department
maintenance (TD)
(CPV)
Maintenance
resources
Aircraft utilisation Maintenance

Commercial
Aircraft capacity and demand pattern Planning
Planning
Sales demand/availability - Long term - Long term Cost factors
Maintenance -Medium term
- Short term schedule per - Short term
aircraft
Aircraft
factors
Aircraft for
Objective: Optimum utilisation of aircraft Availability
production Safety
factors
Objective: Provide optimum maintenance

for aircraft fleet at a minimum cost
Figure 2.8 Sales Department - Maintenance department interrelationship
2.5.1 Commercial Planning
The CPV department (which falls under the Sales and Marketing) is charged with the
sale of aircraft seats, hence directly determining the demand for aircraft capacity. In
order to ease the task of maintenance forecasting, CPV prepares an aircraft demand
forecast based on information received from contractual sales and fleet capacity
planning departments.
25
- The CPV long-term planning is seasonal and follows the utilisation pattern
illustrated in section 1.2, while short term planning ranges from between a month
to a day before the actual execution of a planned flight.
- Short term planning from the CPV is basically sales driven, either in advance or
ad hoc, but it can also be influenced by aircraft availability, i.e. aircraft
serviceability. Aircraft maintenance only has an impact on availability and the
technical dispatch reliability.
Principally, MP&S prepares a long term planning for both line and base
maintenance. Owing to the fact that the Transavia fleet is fully interchangeable, with
variations only capacity-wise, CPV is able to plan in serviceable aircraft for a whole
season in advance, and allocate maintenance slots to each aircraft, by combining
aircraft demand for operation and maintenance demand (from Table 2.5).
2.6 Maintenance planning and the cost of ownership
The frequency with which maintenance is performed determines, to a great extent,

the amount of man-hours and materials needed for each maintenance visit. The
maintenance frequency also dictates the amount of down time needed for
maintenance. From these (man hours, materials and downtime), the total cost of
maintenance can be calculated.
The relationship between the maintenance planning and scheduling, and the cost of
ownership (Figure 2.9 below) may, therefore, be visualised as follows:
Direct Operating Costs Indirect Operating Costs Acquisition Costs
Direct Maintenance Costs Indirect Maintenance Costs (Burden) Flight Crew
Fuel/Oil
Depreciation/Rental
Scheduled Unscheduled Insurance
Airframe Engine Airframe Engine
labour Labour Labour Labour
Material Material Material Material
Figure 2.9 Aircraft Cost of Ownership (Source: Smit, 1993)
The amount of labour (man-hours) and materials spend on (routine and non-routine)
maintenance directly determines the direct maintenance costs.
26
Chapter 2
As pertains to costs arising from aircraft downtime, Figure 2.10 below can be used to
elaborate this.
In Serviceable aircraft
Waiting for
Non-routine
repair
4 maintenance Unplanned
Unavailability 5
resources (mainly to
(lost production) Unavailability
Breakdown: un-serviceable aircraft
Solve AOGs, No-Go

(lost production)
situations )
Down-time
Maintenance resources Maintenance
In routine (Manpower, spares, Tools) plan
maintenance
3 Feedback
Unavailability for control
(lost production) Planned resources
(mainly routine)
Out of
In operation
1 2 operation Source (derived): Kelly, 1984
Ground-time
Up-time
Figure 2.10 Maintenance downtime in relation to the cost of maintenance
In block 3 above, the aircraft is withdrawn from operation in order to provide for
maintenance downtime. This un-availability may be considered as a loss in terms of
possible seats that could have been available for sale if the aircraft was in operation.
In blocks 4 and 5, the aircraft is un-available due to technical reasons, and this leads
to inevitable losses in terms of production (seats, flight hours). Further, additional
maintenance resources have to be provided for in order to make the aircraft
serviceable again.
On the other hand, if maintenance was to be performed in block 2, there will be no
losses experienced in terms of aircraft un-availability, owing to the fact that the
aircraft is not needed in that block. No maintenance is performed in block 1.
Indirect maintenance costs can vary greatly because these mainly depend on the
maintenance organisation. On the other hand, direct maintenance costs of an aircraft
can be viewed as more systematic and controllable costs.
From a maintenance-planning point of view, a reduction in the total cost of

ownership can be achieved by:
- A minimisation in the total maintenance work done on an aircraft by avoiding
unnecessary repetition of maintenance tasks.
- A minimisation in the total maintenance down time.
2.7 Conclusions:
The introduction of the B737 NG in the Transavia fleet has created the need to review
the way in which the organisation plans its maintenance. The exclusion of the letter
checks from the MPD document was done in order to give airlines more certainty in
the planning and execution of maintenance. However, Transavia still tends to utilise
the letter check system to plan maintenance.
27
There is, therefore, a need to radically change the mentality and the traditions of
maintenance program development and maintenance planning and scheduling in
order to utilise fully the advantages of Next Generation aircraft, which should lead to
a reduction in the amount of maintenance performed on the fleet
The engineering department of Transavia has developed a new approach toward

maintenance program development by evaluating all MRIs and classifying them to
either line or base maintenance MRIs. This classification is based on the contents and
requirements of each MRI, instead of just looking at the MRI interval. The task is now
upon the maintenance planning (and consequently this assignment), to optimally
plan maintenance tasks, in order to optimise maintenance execution and to minimise
maintenance costs.
In short:
1. There is a need to determine the composition and the contents of maintenance
packages for both line and base maintenance (Main question 1.3.B)
2. There is a need to determine optimum intervals for both line and base
maintenance scheduling (Main question 1.3.B)
3. There is a need to quantify the gains made from (1) and (2) above, in terms of
cost reduction and improved maintenance effectiveness (Main question
1.3.C)
28
Chapter 3
3 Maintenance Clusters Definition and Development
This chapter will establish a strategy through which maintenance tasks should be
grouped together and scheduled for performance. The grouping up of maintenance
activities for execution at a specified date will be referred to as clustering, while the
resulting groups of maintenance tasks will be referred to as clusters.
The first section 3.1 will discuss clustering strategies, followed by an application of
each strategy to the Transavia situation in sections 3.2 and 3.3. This will then be
followed by conclusions in section 3.4.
3.1 Approach
In order to cluster tasks together and schedule then for execution, there is a need to
identify which tasks (1) can be grouped together and how (2) the tasks have to be
grouped. Thereafter, it is necessary to establish when (3) these clusters will be
performed.
These three questions can be answered using two approaches, as suggested by File
(2000). These approaches are:
1. A Top-Down approach: This approach answers (respectively) the questions

when (3) what (1) maintenance tasks can/should be done. It entails working
with the aircraft utilisation requirement, and identifying the most favourable
periods to perform maintenance. The maintenance tasks are then fitted into
these periods. Such periods are also referred to as opportunities, and the top-
down approach leads to opportunity maintenance.
Aircraft Utilization Requirement
Maintenance Scheduling
Maintenance Task packaging
2. A Bottom-Up approach: This approach answers (respectively) the questions

what (1)- when (3) maintenance tasks can/should be done. It begins by
identifying maintenance tasks that are due for performance, and when they
are due for performance. In other words, this approach creates a maintenance
demand for a specified aircraft.
Maintenance Tasks
Maintenance Schedule
Aircraft Maintenance Requirement
29
In order to achieve the desired optimisation, a combination of the two approaches is

necessary.
The following sections will begin with a bottom-up approach (what (1) is to be
done?), after which a top-down approach (when (3) is the most appropriate time to do
it?) will follow. A combination of these two approaches will then answer the last
question, which was -how (2)-the maintenance is to be done.
3.2 Bottom-Up approach
As explained here above, this approach begins by determining when maintenance

tasks are due, and from these, the maintenance demand for the aircraft is
determined. Section 2.1.3 described how all maintenance tasks applicable to the
Transavia fleet are grouped into the so-called Transavia Checks. This section,
however, considers all maintenance tasks, rather than the Transavia Checks (see
section 3.2.1). It then creates an aircraft utilisation to be used in determining when
the checks are due (section 3.2.3). It then explains how a combination of the tasks,
and the utilisation, leads to maintenance schedule and maintenance demand.
3.2.1 Maintenance Checks

For the bottom-up approach, the relevant properties from a check (derived from
Table 2.1) are:
- The maintenance interval
- The check man hours
From these two properties, the maintenance demand at a specified interval can be
established.
As was mentioned earlier, the grouping together of maintenance tasks into checks
only looks at the HV (Transavia) Interval, and the line/base maintenance
classification. This is also the case for the rest of the aircraft in the Transavia fleet.
Given that the 737NG MPD is a MSG-3 based document, it can be said that there is
very little application of the MSG-3 Task-Based Maintenance philosophy (Appendix
C.1.3) in the MPD. The result of this is that there are very few differences in the way
maintenance is planned and executed for the entire fleet. These differences are the A-
Checks for the B737-300 (see also Table 2.2), and the Line Maintenance phases for the
B757.
Consequently, very few gains can be made in terms of hangar maintenance for the
Next Generation fleet.
3.2.2 Maintenance Task Packages
Apart from grouping tasks together by only using the task interval property, other
properties can be considered (see also Table 2.1).
Dijkhuizen [1998] suggests the use of Set-Up properties for the packaging of
maintenance tasks, especially those performed frequently (Line Maintenance). He
defines Set-Up as: where one or more tasks require a fixed condition/procedure/cost,
irrespective of how many components are being maintained.
By considering tasks that share the same set-up activities (e.g. the same access area or
access panels, aircraft preparation), tasks can be clustered together. But by
30
Chapter 3
considering that such tasks may bear different maintenance intervals, the
maintenance interval should also be considered.
The following is diagram illustrates how this packaging can be done:
Line?
Base?
Tasks Tasks
Transavia L/B
Set-up properties
(CT/FH/FC)
Figure 3.1 Creation of maintenance task packages and maintenance checks

The L/B classification (also explained in Chapter 2 and in Appendix E) classifies each
maintenance task into either line or base. Line maintenance tasks are then pre-
packaged, based on their set-up properties and thereafter on their maintenance
intervals. Base maintenance tasks are pre-packaged on the basis of their maintenance
interval, just as in the OMP (and are hence left unaltered).
The following is an example of the results of the process illustrated on Figure 3.1
above.
TAV Check: Maintenance Interval Boeing Man-hours MRIs

C4000*L 4000 Cycles/540 Days 25.88 122
Table 3.1 Sample Transavia Check (Source: Transavias OMP)

By combining shared set-up activities and the task interval (common: 4000 cycles), 8
different Maintenance Task Packages are created. Packages sharing the same set-up
activities and maintenance interval are labelled according to their Task Interval
(C4000*) and their package group (labelled alphabetically: A-H). Combinations of
these two attributes give each package a clear identity.
Task MPD Interval* HV Check Boeing MSG-3 MSG-3 Skill ATA 100 (MRIs)
Package Notation Man-hours Category Class. Chapter
C4000A* 4000CYC or 540 DAYS 38C4000* 1.85 5DT, 2GV 5, 6 M 20. 32 7
C4000B* 4000CYC or 540 DAYS 38C4000* 1.08 GV 0 M 52 10
C4000C* 4000CYC or 540 DAYS 38C4000* 2.49 GV 0 M 53 12
C4000D* 4000CYC or 540 DAYS 38C4000* 4.16 GV 0 M 53 9
C4000E* 4000CYC or 540 DAYS 38C4000* 0.59 GV 0 M 53 3
C4000F* 4000CYC or 540 DAYS 38C4000* 0.54 GV 0 M 53, 54 4
C4000G* 4000CYC or 540 DAYS 38C4000* 3.96 GV 0 M 55 23
C4000H* 4000CYC or 540 DAYS 38C4000* 11.21 GV 0 M 57 54
8 packages 25.88 122
Table 3.2 Sample Maintenance Task Packages resulting from the Figure 3.1 process
Notes:
31
*: Which Ever Comes First
DT: Detailed inspection
GV: General Visual
M: Mechanical Skills
MSG-3 Class. /Cat: (See Table 2.1)
A complete list of the Maintenance Task Packages that follow from the classification
tree above is included in Appendix I.3. This list consists of a total of 121 Maintenance
Task Packages, as compared to the previous 51 Line Maintenance checks.
It is evident from the example above that from a large Transavia Check (122
maintenance tasks, 26 Boeing man hours - Table 3.1), 8 manageable Task Packages
can be created (Table 3.2). A deeper analysis into the exact nature of the task
packages reveals that the C4000G* and C4000H* contain tasks requiring significant
ground time, as compared to the other 6. Previously, the C4000* check was
considered as a time consuming check, requiring a lot of man-hours (i.e. 93 man-
hours base maintenance or 51.76 man-hours line maintenance).
From the example above, it is also clear that other Maintenance Task Package
properties are revealed, than was previously the case. These included:
1. The ATA chapters of the tasks being performed
2. The skills required per task package (M)
3. The Type of check (General Visual, Detailed)
The three properties listed above are of importance for the MP&S department, but
their relevance will not be dealt with in this report.
In the following sections, Maintenance Task Packages and Maintenance Checks will
be referred to as maintenance items. This will be in cases where both line and base
maintenance are dealt with together.
3.2.3 Aircraft utilisation: Determining due dates and due items

Maintenance items based on flight hours and flight cycles (to be referred to as hour
and cycle items) are dependent on the utilisation of the aircraft, while those based on
calendar days are independent from the aircraft utilisation.
Aircraft utilisation is recorded on a monthly basis. From this, the annual utilisation is
determined. Daily utilisation is normally an average of the annual or monthly
utilisation.
As is to be established in section 3.3.1, the weekly utilisation per aircraft is not
defined, neither is it used by Transavia.
Aircraft utilisation can be determined using data gathered from two sources, namely:
1. METALS Utilisation: Data used to predict maintenance due dates and to
monitor component ages in the METALS system. The Data is stored in the
METALS system
2. Actual B737 NG utilisation Records: Data gathered by the records department
for Reliability analysis, and for updating of the data in METALS. Such Data is
issued through Transavias Boeing 737-700/800 Monthly and Quarterly Fleet
Reports
32
Chapter 3
METALS:
METALS utilises average fleet utilisation data from previous years in order to
generate forecasts for future aircraft utilisation. Instead of dividing up a year into
logical segments, e.g. months or quarters, METALS works with unique segments
(see Table 3.3). These segments are derived from trends monitored (by METALS)
over the years of fleet data collection. The utilisation that follows is, therefore, not
specific for a given type of aircraft, for it applies to the whole fleet.
Year Segment FH/Day FC/day FH/FC Ratio (FH/year) (FC/year)

Jan 1- Mar 31 7.14 4 1.79 (2606) (1460)
Apr 1 Jun 3 12.14 6 2.02 (4431) (2190)
Jun 4 Sep 23 13.57 7 1.94 (4953) (2555)
Sep 23 Dec 2 7.14 4 1.79 (2606) (1460)
Dec 3 Dec 31 10 5 2.0 (3650) (1825)
Table 3.3 Annual Aircraft utilisation METALS (as per 1 April 2001)
These values have been plotted on Figure 3.2 below.
The shortcomings of the utilisation pattern above are:
- A poor definition of the high and the low season. While section 1.2 clearly defines
the high season as the period between April 1 and October 31, the METALS
utilisation misses out on the end of the high and the beginning of the low season.
- The utilisation above works with the total Transavia fleet average. In practice, the
utilisation of different types of aircraft does differ.
- The assumption that aircraft utilisation for all months in a segment is the same
Average Aircraft Utilisation - METALS
16
14
12
Flight Hours Per Day
10
8
Hours
Cycles
6
0
01/01-31/03 01/04-03/06 04/06-23/09 24/09-02-12 03-12-31/12
Period
Figure 3.2: Aircraft utilisation pattern METALS (as per 1 April 2001)
Actual B737 NG utilisation records:

In order to determine utilisation parameters to be used in this research, it is necessary
to look at how the METALS flight hours and cycles compare to the actual flight hours
and cycles of the B 737 NG fleet.
33
Using data collected by the technical records department over a period of three years
(June 1998 till June 2001) for the B737 NG fleet, the following aircraft utilisation
patron can be generated:
Average Aircraft Utilisation - Actual Utilisation
14
12
Flight Hours/Cycles per Day
10
6 Flight Hours/Day
Flight Cycles/Day
0
March
March
March
May
May
May
April
April
April
July
November
December
July
November
December
July
November
December
February
February
February
January
January
Jun-98
January
Jun-99
Jun-00
August
August
August
September
October
September
October
September
October
Calendar Months
Figure 3.3: Actual aircraft utilisation pattern B737 NG [June 1998-June 2001]
The continuous lines illustrate the average fleet utilisation for the indicated months,
while the dotted lines indicate the average utilisation over the three years.
Average annual utilisation per aircraft: 3747 flight hours, 1364 flight cycles
Average FH/FC Ratio: 2.74 FH
Figure 3.3 shows a better-defined utilisation pattern, compared to Figure 3.2. It is

evident from Figure 3.3 that aircraft utilisation sinks sharply after October (to as low
as 7.56 flight hours and 2.5 flights a day). Maximum utilisation is achieved in July
(13.0 flight hours and 4.8 flights a day). Further, it is evident that the utilisation in
June is comparatively lower than in the months of May, July, and August. From the
low season, the months November and February show the lowest utilisation
The following table summarises the analysis made above:
Details METALS Actual Utilisation

Annual Pattern (High/low utilisation) 1 1
Annual Utilisation (Variation In Months) 0 1
Representation for the B737 NG utilisation 0 1
Score 1 3
0 = poorly defined, 1 = Well defined
Table 3.4 Comparison between METALS and Actual Records data
At this point, it can be concluded that the METALS utilisation is not representative
for the actual utilisation of the B737 NG.
34
Chapter 3
It is, therefore, preferred to use pattern that is based on Figure 3.3, rather than that
from METALS.
3.2.4 Maintenance Scheduling
By combining the aircraft utilisation with the maintenance items, maintenance due
dates per item can be generated
After determining maintenance due dates and Items, the next step in the bottom-up
approach is to determine when these items can be performed (hence scheduling).
This section will mainly focus on factors influencing and limiting the scheduling of
aircraft maintenance.
Line Maintenance:
As described earlier in section 2.3.1, the scheduling of line maintenance follows
guidelines laid down in a Maintenance-Planning guide. This guide allocates eleven
slots a week to the technical department for hangar maintenance. The maintenance
planning then sub-divides these slots over the three types of aircraft in the Transavia
fleet.
For the purpose of definition only, the following values of slot allocation will be
used:
Aircraft Type Fleet Size Minimum slots Hangar Visit Aircraft Visiting Total slots per
per hangar visit frequency hangar per week aircraft type per
per aircraft (Routine Mx) week (approx)
737-300 7 2 4 weeks 1.75 3.5 (4)
757-200 4 3 5 weeks 0.8 2.4 (3)
737 - NG 13 1.5 5 weeks 2.6 3.9 (4)
Slots required Per week (Routine Mx) 9.8 (11)
Table 3.5 Minimum maintenance slot allocations for the Transavia fleet (Sources: MP&S)
This research is on the 737NG, and will therefore concentrate on the maintenance
demand for this aircraft. Table 3.5 reveals that a maximum of 4 slots are available per
week for routine maintenance of the 737NG fleet. This also translates to 15 slots a
year.
In order to determine how frequent the aircraft has to visit the hangar for
maintenance, it is necessary to look at intervals of maintenance tasks performed
during such visits. For this purpose, only the common variations in the Maintenance
Task Package intervals will be analysed:
Package Intervals Boeing Man-hours Package Intervals Boeing Man-hours

60 DAYS 0.2 450 HOURS 13
60 DAYS/ 400 CYCLES 1.6 1000 HOURS 6.05
100 DAYS 11.2 1600 HOURS 3.85
100 DAYS/ 1000CYCLES 1.22 2000 HOURS 3.21
360 DAYS 4.05 5000 HOURS 49.21
480 DAYS/ 2500CYCLES 0.6 8000 HOURS 3
540 DAYS 2.5 10000 HOURS 6.05
720 DAYS 7.85 12000 HOURS 2
35
1080 DAYS 3.5 15000 HOURS 4.4

1080 DAYS/ 8000HOURS 4.1 20000 HOURS 1.5
1400 DAYS 3.5 25000 HOURS 6.85
1800 DAYS 2.5 30000 HOURS 0.5
1800 DAYS/ 18000CYCLES 19.4
2880 DAYS 4.6
2880 DAYS/ 18000CYCLES 17.9
300 CYCLES 0.2 10000 CYCLES 0.1
1000 CYCLES 1.7 12000 CYCLES 0.8
2000 CYCLES 0.64 12500 CYCLES 0.25
3000 CYCLES 5.5 15000 CYCLES 0.3
3500 CYCLES 0.2 25000 CYCLES 3.9
4000 CYCLES 0.9
4000 CYCLES/ 540DAYS 25.88
5000 CYCLES 1.2
9000 CYCLES/ 900DAYS 1.18
Table 3.6 Line Maintenance Task Package Limits (Sources: OMP/ 737NG MPD; Table I. 3)
From Table 3.6 above, it can be seen that an aircraft will have to visit the hangar, at
least once every 60 days, or after it makes 450 flight hours or 300 flight cycles. These
are actually the maintenance intervals that determine how often the aircraft should
have a hangar visit. The limits above are, in actual fact, independent of each other,
and do not reflect the relationship between flight hours per day or flight hour per
cycle ratios. The process from which the interval limits are determined falls outside
the scope of this research.
Another observation from Table 3.6 above is illustrated in Figure 3.4 below:
Man-hour Proportions by Package Interval Limits- Line Maintenance
Limited By Calendar Days

18%
Limited By Flight Hours

38%
Limited By Flight Cycles

7%
Limited By Calendar
Limited By Calendar
Days/Flight Hours
Days/Flight Cycles
2%
35%
Figure 3.4 Maintenance Demand by Package Limits

Task packages based on Days and Days/Cycles constitute the largest part of
maintenance demand (53%), while the hour tasks constitute of 38%. Task packages
with a cycle limit constitute the smallest proportion (7%) of the chart.
In order to draw a conclusion on whether the maintenance is Calendar Day-driven or
Hour-drive, one has to look at the utilisation of the aircraft, in terms of hours flown
per day. For example, with the given hangar visit frequency of 5 weeks; the aircraft
36
Chapter 3
should make less than 90 hours a week in order to remain within this bracket. If the
aircraft makes 100 hours a week, 450 hours will be achieved in 4.5 weeks, at which
the first hour limit (450 hours -see Table 3.6) will have to be performed. Below this,
the maintenance will always be Calendar Day-driven. This fact will be illustrated in
section 4.4.3.
By combining the limits (in Table 3.6) above with the aircraft utilisation (see Figure
3.3 above), the actual due dates for each Maintenance Task Package can be
determined. From here, the exact aircraft maintenance demand can be established.
If it is decided to perform each Maintenance Task Package once it is due, the aircraft
will be visiting the hangar, as frequently as all checks are due. This is not practical,
owing to the to the following facts:
- The Task Packages have different weights (number of due items, total man-
hours demand and total ground time demand), and such visits would lead to
large variations in manpower demand and hangar space demand.
- Such a strategy would have a heavy impact on aircraft utilisation, an
undesired situation.
- The frequency with which the aircraft visit the hangar will exceed the number
of hangar slots allotted for each aircraft type (see Table 3.5)
The bottom-up approach can, therefore, not be utilised on its own in the creation of
optimum maintenance clusters for line maintenance. This creates the need to utilise a
second approach (the Top-down approach, section 3.3) in conjunction with the
Bottom-up approach.
Base Maintenance:
It has been stated earlier that base-maintenance is contracted out to an authorised
base-maintenance station. Base Maintenance Checks are also referred to as Heavy
Maintenance Checks owing to the nature of work they encompass, and the amount
of downtime required to perform the work.
The following is a list of maintenance intervals for Base Maintenance Checks:
Maintenance Check Intervals Boeing Man-hours Maintenance Check Intervals Boeing Man-hours
540 DAYS 36 8000 HOURS 4.35
1620 DAYS/ 12000CYCLES 3.84 12000 HOURS 5
1800 DAYS 0.8 15000 HOURS 2
1800 DAYS/18000CYCLES 17.6 20000 HOURS 2.15
2160 DAYS/ 18000 CYCLES 0.5 22400 HOURS 1.2
2880 DAYS 5.1 25000 HOURS 1.6
3600 DAYS 14.2 30000 HOURS 1.3
3600 DAYS/ 36000CYCLES 49.38
4320 DAYS 4.3
4320 DAYS/ 36000CYCLES 62.65
5400 DAYS 8
7200 DAYS 0.4
9000 CYCLES/ 900DAYS 4

24000 CYCLES/ 2880DAYS 13.63
25000 CYCLES 4
36000 CYCLES/ 2880DAYS 5.5
Table 3.7 Transavia Base Maintenance Checks (Sources: 737 NG OMP/ 737NG MPD; Table I. 2)
37
As was the case in Line maintenance, the maximum Base-Maintenance intervals will
be determined by the 540-day check, or by the 8000-hour check or the 9000-cycle
check. Once again, these three checks are not interrelated.
In the following chapters, the 540-Day check will be considered as a Line
Maintenance Check (as agreed upon by the Engineering and the MP&S department.
One observation from the table above is that Base maintenance is essentially
Calendar day-driven (See also Figure 3.5 below).
Man-hour Proportions by Check Interval Limits- Base Maintenance
Limited By Flight Hours Limited By Calendar Days

7% 13%
Limited By Flight Cycles

2%
Limited By Calendar Time/

Flight Cycles
78%
Figure 3.5 Maintenance Demand by Transavia Check Limits

Base Maintenance Checks posses large maintenance intervals, and also a high
demand for ground time. The planning hereof is basically done in the low season.
This fact will be elaborated in section 3.3.
The bottom-up approach can also not be utilised on its own in the formation of
maintenance clusters for base maintenance, as indicated by the fact stated above. The
planning hereof is done on a Top-down principle, as explained in the next section.
3.3 Top-down approach
3.3.1 Aircraft utilisation requirement

The top-down approach begins by analysing the aircraft utilisation requirement. This
can be done at three levels, namely:
1. On an annual utilisation level
2. On a weekly utilisation level
3. On a daily utilisation level
Ad.1
38
Chapter 3
The annual utilisation rhythm (Figure 3.3) gives an indication on aircraft demand
spread out over a year. From this, a seasonal pattern can be established, as illustrated
in Figure 3.6 below.
Aircraft Utilisation: 2000
450
> 12 hours per day
400
350
< 9 hrs per day < 9 hrs per day

300
Hours/ Cycles
250
High Season
Flight
200 Low Season Low Season Hours
> 4 cycles per day Flight
150 Cycles
100 <3.2 cycles per day <3.2 cycles per day
50
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Period [Months]
Figure 3.6 Seasonal Aircraft utilisation

It is evident from the figure above that the aircraft utilisation demand in the low
season differs largely from that of the high season. Without further elaboration, it can
also be concluded that no heavy maintenance can be performed during the high
season without a significant interruption on the flight operations. As to be explained
later in section 3.3.2, the high utilisation also forms a problem for regular
maintenance. While a high utilisation leads to a higher demand for maintenance (see
Bottom-Up approach), it also leaves little room for the execution of maintenance.
The analysis of the utilisation at an annual level provides for the creation of
maintenance slots at an early stage (long-term planning, section 2.2.1).
Further, it may also be said that the fleet size also varies with the seasons. The High
season is normally characterised with the increase in the number of aircraft through
leasing, while the low season is characterised by a decrease in the fleet size, coupled
with the leasing out of aircraft. However, the average utilisation (Figure 3.6) remains
stable, owing to the fact that is dependent on the capacity demand.
Ad.2
The weekly utilisation rhythm gives an indication on trends around aircraft
utilisation on a weekly basis, over a whole year. From this, it may be possible to
establish what days of the week are more convenient for performing maintenance,
and days in which maintenance should be kept at a minimum.
Below are two figures drawn from the utilisation of a sample aircraft from the 737NG
fleet. Figure 3.7 is drawn from the low season, while Figure 3.8 is from the high
season.
39
Weekly Utilisation - Low Season
21:36
19:12
16:48
14:24 Mon
Tue
12:00
Up-Time
Wed
Thu
9:36 Fri
Sat
7:12 Sun
4:48
2:24
0:00
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Period [Months] Up-Time: Includes Flight Time, Turn-around Time
and Time Between two flights (<3hrs)
Figure 3.7 Weekly Utilisation - Low Season (Source: FLASH)
From the figure above, it is not possible to determine whether the aircraft sampled
flies more frequently on specific days as compared to other weekdays. The only
observation that may follow from the graph is that Saturdays and Sundays are
relatively busier than weekdays.
A reason for the irregular variation lays in the fact that aircraft utilisation (in the low
season) is solely based on capacity demand. The type of aircraft utilised for a
particular destination will depend on the amount of seats required. A weekly
pattern can, therefore, be derived form the total fleet flight hours flown on a specified
day of the week. This would not be representative for the B737 NG.
Weekly Utilisation - High Season
0:00
21:36
19:12
16:48
Mon
14:24 Tue
Up-Time
W ed
12:00 Thu
Fri
9:36 Sat
Sun
7:12
4:48
2:24
0:00
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Period [Months]
Figure 3.8 Weekly Utilisation - High Season (Source: FLASH)
40
Chapter 3
As was the case with the low season, it is not possible to draw a conclusion from the
weekly pattern in the high season. However, by observing the months June to
August, it may be mentioned that Mondays seem to have a lower utilisation as
compared to other days of the week. The utilisation then seems to increase gradually
with the week.
A limiting factor in making use of the weekly utilisation pattern is the distribution of
hangar labour over the week (refer to section 2.3.1). Following the observation made
above on utilisation on Mondays, it may also be said that there is no labour available
for the hangar day shift on this day. The same case applies for Fridays and the whole
weekend.
Ad.3
Daily utilisation patterns give an indication of day periods when the aircraft is
least/not utilised, and the duration of this periods.
The daily utilisation is principally aircraft specific (Scheduled flights) and seasonal
dependent. The seasonal dependence is more evident from the departure times in the
two seasons (Figure 3.9). Aircraft-specific utilisation is entirely dependent on how
the Capacity-Planning Department plans in the aircraft.
UPTIME
APRIL 18:00
MAY 19:00
JUNE 18:15
JULY 19:15
AUGUST 17:30
SEPTEMBER 18:30
OCTOBER 18:00
NOVEMBER 13:45
DECEMBER 13:00
JANUARY 13:30
FEBRUARY 13:00
MARCH 15:00
0000. 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100
Figure 3.9 Average earliest departure and latest return times 737 NG (FLASH, 1999-2000)
Figure 3.9 above reveals that aircraft depart earlier and return late during the high
season, while the opposite is the case during the low season. Since the table contains
averages, the actual distribution of departure and return times may vary greatly,
especially during the low season.
3.3.2 Maintenance scheduling

By utilising the top-down strategy, it is possible to establish the availability of
maintenance windows, in addition to the maintenance slots allotted for maintenance.
This can be at the three levels listed in section 3.3.1 above, and illustrated here below.
41
Aircraft Utilisation Requirement/

Flight schedule
Maintenance Slots
Annual Weekly pattern/ Daily pattern/

pattern Weekly Flight Schedule Daily Flight Schedule
Fixed Slots Ad-hoc slots Fixed Slots Ad-hoc slots Fixed Slots Ad-hoc slots
Figure 3.10 Top-Down Approach
It has already been mentioned that a specified number of slots (fixed See also Table
2.5) are made available for Line maintenance per year per (Long-term planning).
Specification of which aircraft should undergo maintenance is done on a short-term
basis (>48 Hours, < 3 Months before maintenance), based on the maintenance
demand of each aircraft. This possibility is also supplemented by the fact that the
737NG fleet is interchangeable. These slots are spread throughout the year, with no
variations between the high and low season.
Base maintenance slots are allocated on an annual basis (fixed slots). These slots are
allocated to specific aircraft tail numbers, depending on when the maintenance is due
to be performed.
Ad-hoc slots can be derived from periods that the aircraft remains unutilised at the
base station. Such slots can be utilised for the execution of opportunity maintenance
pending. These unutilised periods can be illustrated as follows:
HZA, Week 18 2000 (High Season)

0000. 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100
MONDAY SPL- 5hrs Flight Flight
TUESDAY SPL-4 hrs Flight Flight
WEDNSDAY SPL-4 hrs Flight SPL-5 hrs Flight
THURSDAY SPL-4.5 hrs Flight Flight
FRIDAY SPL-5.5 hrs Flight Flight
SATURDAY SPL-4.25 hrs Flight Flight
SUNDAY SPL-4.25 hrs Flight Flight
0000. 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100
Figure 3.11 Sample times between outbound and inbound flights SPL (Source: FLASH)
42
Chapter 3
Assuming that the above pattern is sustained throughout the high season, it can be
concluded that no opportunities arise from the flight schedule (Opportunity = Time
between 2 flights 3hr 45 min. See also Table 2.5).
HZA, Week 45 2000 (Low Season)

0000. 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100
MONDAY SPL- 12 hrs Flight Flight
TUESDAY SPL-8.45 hrs Flight Flight
WEDNSDAY SPL-8.75 hrs Flight
THURSDAY SPL-23 hrs Flight
FRIDAY SPL-6.75 hrs Flight
SATURDAY SPL-15.5 hrs Flight Flight
SUNDAY SPL-7.25 hrs Flight
0000. 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100
Figure 3.12 Sample times between outbound and inbound flights SPL (Source: FLASH)
Notes:
1. The time between two flights is the difference between the return time of a
flight and the departure time of the next flight.
2. The number of flights indicated does not represent the total flight cycles
made by the aircraft on specified day.
From Figure 3.12, it can be seen that there are enough opportunities available for
planning in maintenance. Such maintenance can either be based on fixed slots or ad
hoc slots.
3.4 Conclusions
The maintenance clustering process may follow from two approach strategies,
namely the Top-down (When can maintenance be performed, and what maintenance
should be performed then?) and the Bottom-Up Approach (What maintenance should be
performed, and when should it be performed?). However, the utilisation of both
approaches is more practical for an airline, in terms of optimising maintenance
planning and execution.
For the optimisation of maintenance task intervals, it would be preferable to utilise
maintenance task packages for line maintenance, instead of the current Maintenance
Checks. Maintenance Task Packages are formed by considering the maintenance task
interval, task set-up activities and the Transavia (L/B) classification. The result of this
is a set of so-called maintenance task packages, which reflect a Task-Based
maintenance (MSG-3), and packages small enough to accommodate Fixed
Maintenance and Opportunity Maintenance.
It has also been illustrated that the high season offers little to no opportunities for
maintenance between flights, meaning that during the season, all maintenance has to
be on a fixed basis. On the other hand, the low season offers enough time between
flights for maintenance, either on a fixed or on an ad-hoc basis. Ad hoc slots may
present themselves on a weekly basis (low season), but they are limited during the
weekends.
43
44
Chapter 4
4 Cluster formation and evaluation
Through the implementation of the Bottom-Up/ Top-Down approach, maintenance

Task Packages and Maintenance Checks can be grouped into maintenance clusters.
Such clusters can either be static or dynamic, depending on their application.
This chapter will deal with the application of the approach described in chapter
three. It begins by selecting a method to be utilised for the clustering process (section
4.1). The method selected is then worked out in section 4.2. Thereafter, an application
of the clustering method follows in section 4.3, from which results are generated and
evaluated in section 4.4. A summary of the chapter will then follow in section 4.5.
4.1 Approach
The process leading to the formation and evaluation of maintenance clusters is
illustrated in Figure 4.1 below, and is as follows:
Aircraft
Utilisation
Items (a) Scenarios (c)
Scenarios (b)
Maintenance Item Allocation

Boundary Model
Conditions (d) (Clustering Process:
Top-Down /Bottom-Up)
Maintenance
Clusters (e)
Optimum
Cluster Evaluation
Maintenance
(Evaluation Process) (f)
Clusters
Figure 4.1 Cluster formation and evaluation process
a) By combining aircraft utilisation with the Maintenance Item interval, it is

possible to determine when a specific item will be due (see section 3.2.4), and
the corresponding man-hour demand. As stated in chapter 3, the term
Maintenance Item refers to both Line Maintenance Task Packages and Base
Maintenance Checks (see also section 3.2)
b) As illustrated in Figure J. 1, the B737 NG shows variations in the utilisation of

specific aircraft. These variations are not specified to tail numbers, but are
rather random over the whole fleet. Further, the airline is in the process of
specialising in BASIQ AIR operations, a factor that may drastically change the
aircraft utilisation. These factors need to be incorporated in the clustering
process. This creates the need to develop utilisation scenarios. Such scenarios
will be tackled in section 4.3.1.
c) The effect of different maintenance frequencies is incorporated in the process

through maintenance scenarios. Maintenance scenarios have the following
properties:
45
For line maintenance:

- Hangar visit frequency in weeks/days
For Base maintenance:
- Base maintenance frequency (Heavy Maintenance Visit # HMV) in
years/days
d) Conditions governing maintenance planning and execution, such as those

described in section 1.6, are incorporated in the process through boundary
conditions
e) The maintenance item clustering process will be done using a Maintenance

Item Allocation Model (MIAM), described in section 4.3.2. Maintenance
clusters possess the following properties:
- Maintenance items (Maintenance Task Package clusters or
Maintenance Check clusters)
- Maintenance item properties
- Total (cluster) man-hours
- Total maintenance-item interval de-escalation (see also section 4.3.5)
f) Task clusters resulting from (e.) above will then be evaluated (see also
sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.4), and from these, clusters deemed as optimum will be
identified
4.2 Maintenance Item Clustering
4.2.1 Clustering method selection
A choice for a cluster formation and evaluation method can be made between:
1. An analytical method:
The analytical method involves the design of a formal model of the process in
question. This model incorporates all relevant process parameters, and the
relationship between them is presented mathematically. Manipulating or
solving these equations achieves a solution to the problem [Bratley, 1987;
Hillston, 2001]
2. Computer simulation method

Involves the utilisation of a computer program to solve the problem in
question. The simulation experiment begins by designing a formal model (in
the form of a flow chart) of the process in question, which is then translated
into programming language of simulation software. Computer simulations
borrow some properties of the analytical method. The resulting programme is
normally a comprehensive description of the process, in which only the
relevant process properties and parameters are incorporated. This is also
referred to as a Hybrid Simulation [Bratley, 1987; Hillston, 2001]
For this research, it is preferable to utilise the Hybrid Simulation for the creation and
evaluation of maintenance clusters.
The model will be utilised to generate events (maintenance items turning due) and
gather data (man-hours required and task interval de-escalations).
46
Chapter 4
4.2.2 Calculation and simulation software

The choice for a simulation method is done as follows:
1. Compatibility with various forms of input:
The parameters and variables used in the model may originate from Data
within the organisation, such as from the maintenance program (OMP
Maintenance Tasks), METALS (Aircraft Utilisation in MS Excel Format) and
from Boeing Digital Data (Maintenance Task descriptions MS Access Format)
2. Preferred form of output:

These should be in a form that is easy to understand and interpret without
much explanation or further processing.
- Graphical outputs
- Tabulated results
3. Simulation/ iteration capability:
Where specific optimums are to be calculated, the program may fill in values
automatically (iterate)
4. Familiar environment for the researcher and other possible users:

The program should serve as a tool for achieving the desired results. It is,
therefore, not the centre of the research. The programming language should
be simple, but should also be comprehensive enough in describing the model.
5. Availability:
The program used should be available on the workstations provided by the
Transavia.
A selection of a programming language may be made from:

a) C++
b) MS Excel/Visual Basic
c) MATLAB
d) SimJava
The following is a three-point6 evaluation of the programming languages listed above:

C++ MATLAB MS Excel/ SimJava
Visual Basic
Compatibility with available forms of input 1 1 2 1
Preferred form of output 2 1 2 2
Simulation/Iteration Capability 2 2 2 2
Familiar environment for the researcher 2 2 2 1
Familiar Environment for other possible users 2 1 2 1
Availability 2 1 2 0
Score 11 8 12 7
0 = N/A; 1 = Poorly Defined; 2 = Well Defined
Table 4.1 Evaluation of programming languages
From the evaluation above, the combination of MS Excel comes out stronger than
other programming languages. C++ demands the writing of a comprehensive
program. The results of this would be, however, user-friendlier than with the other
options. Unfortunately, C++ does not support all forms of input that might be used,
such as MS Excel worksheets. This is only possible after the incorporation of
additional modules.
6 [Smit, 1994]
47
MATLAB can only be used for its analytical power, but it has poor user-friendly
features. SimJava, on the other hand, is a perfect tool for carrying out simulations,
but the language is unknown to the researcher.
Hence, the software to be utilised in this research will be MS Excel 2000 and Visual
Basic 4 (VB4), in conjunction with the Visual Basic Editor (VBE) present in excel. VB4
will be utilised for programming purposed while MS Excel sheet properties will be
used for processing the inputs and presenting the outputs.
4.3 Simulation process description
4.3.1 Simulation Components:

The following components will be incorporated in the simulation model (see also
Appendix J.2)
Simulation components Description

1. System state Variables Aircraft status at the beginning of the simulation (age in
Calendar Days, Flight Hours and Cycles)
2. Simulation clock Maintenance scenarios: An indication of how
frequently maintenance will be performed
3. Event List The process of tasks turning due. The list contains task
limits given in Days, Hours or Cycles
4. Statistical counters Different results generated from the calculations are
summed up under (9) below
5. Initialisation routine This routine sets starting values to the preferred format
(see also section 4.4)
6. Timing routine This routine sets the duration of the simulation
7. Event Routine This routine resets values to zero once the tasks are
performed
8. Library routine In order to make the evaluation process comprehensive
enough, different utilisation scenarios are simulated
(see sections 3.2.3, 3.3.1 and Ad.8. below)
9. Report Generator Data gathered from the simulations includes the
Maintenance demand, and the total de-escalation
Table 4.2 Simulation Components description
Ad.1. System state variables:

The variables above may be derived from specific aircraft in the Transavia fleet, or by
assuming that the aircraft being simulated is new in the fleet.
Ad.2. Simulation clock (See also section 3.2.4):

Two different clocks are applied, for line and base maintenance; a weekly and an
annual clock respectively.
Line maintenance is performed at short intervals that do not exceed 7-weeks.
Currently, line maintenance is performed every 5 weeks (see section 2.3.1). The
simulations will be aimed at evaluating the effects of performing maintenance at
various frequencies, as listed in Table 4.3.
48
Chapter 4
Base maintenance is performed at large intervals, currently 1.5 years (see section
2.4.1). The simulations will therefore be aimed at evaluating the effect of increasing
this interval (the desired situation). Base maintenance frequencies will be set at:

4 Weeks 18 Months
5 Weeks 24 Months
6 Weeks -
7 Weeks -
Ad hoc maintenance -
Table 4.3 Simulation Clock: Line/Base Maintenance Intervals
Ad.8. Library Routine: Simulation7 of Aircraft Utilisation

Component 8 (library routines) is meant to simulate aircraft utilisation for the period
to be considered, based the following basic assumptions:
- The aircraft will follow the standard utilisation: Actual Utilisation
- The aircraft utilisation may vary, by decreasing, increasing, or remaining
constant: Variable Utilisation
Owing to the fact that the seasonal pattern has to be incorporated in the calculations,
it is preferred not to describe the utilisation with a normal (statistical) distribution.
Instead, The Monte-Carlo simulation method is utilised. A uniformly distributed
range is specified, and from this, a random number is drawn (see also Appendix J.3).
The VB4/Excel function utilised to generate values is the RANDBETWEEN [min,
max] function.
Simulation based on the actual utilisation:

For the period in which the 737NG aircraft have been operating for Transavia, the
following minimum and maximum aircraft utilisation values were witnessed. See
also Appendix J.3.1
Hours Min 236 197 251 284 355 328 373 377 346 324 114 183
Max 305 288 337 405 398 385 429 407 388 396 280 307
Cycles Min 76 71 72 101 132 122 140 135 122 105 69 63
Max 114 109 126 133 141 142 153 149 149 143 131 101
FH/FC Min 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.3 0.9 1.8
Max 4.0 4.1 4.7 4.0 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.8 4.1 4.9
Table 4.4 Simulation ranges - Actual Utilisation
The simulation program samples the min/max FH or FC values for the each month
from the table above.
The FH/FC ratio tabulated serves to indicate the extremes of all possible
combinations
Simulation based on variable Utilisation

While it is evident that Table 4.4 covers the lowest (114 FH/63 FC) and the highest
possible (429 FH/153 FC) monthly utilisation, it does not directly provide for a
permanently low or a permanently high utilisation. It also does not provide for a low
7 Only the aircraft utilisation is simulated
49
FH/FC ratio in the high season. The latter is of importance to Transavia, considering
the developments around their BASIQ AIR services.
For these reasons, various utilisation scenarios are developed to describe possible
utilisation patterns that may arise in the periods being considered.
Such utilisation scenarios may, therefore, be based on three assumptions, as
described by Bratley (1987). [Bratley, 1987]:
1. Conservative utilisation (Cons.): Based on the minimum conceivable daily

utilisation.
The minimum daily utilisation from Table 3.3 is 7.14 flight hours. It may
be assumed that if the utilisation will remain low throughout the year, a
minimum of 7 hours and a maximum of 9 hours may be chosen
(uniformly distributed, for the given simulation period).
2. Most-Likely utilisation (ML): This utilisation is based around the current
average daily utilisation of 10 flight hours per day.
The ML utilisation may, therefore, be chosen to lie between 9 and 11
hours (uniformly distributed, for the given simulation period)
3. Optimistic utilisation (Opt.): This may be based around the maximum
conceivable daily utilisation, which is (from Table 3.3) 12.73 flight hours.
This utilisation may be chosen to lie between 11 and 13 hours (uniformly
distributed, for the given simulation period).
For each of the scenarios listed above, different Flight hour/cycle ratios are
considered in order to calculate flight cycles to correspond to the flight hours from
the three scenarios above.
The ratios mentioned above can be derived from the anticipated concentration of
Transavia activities to BASIQ AIR destinations. The current destinations of BASIQ
AIR are:
- Nice (2 hours flight time)
- Barcelona (2.2 hours flight time)
- Malaga (2.9 hours flight time)
The following ratio ranges are therefore chosen to represent various modes of
operation that may be witnessed within the airline:
a. Conservative: 1.9 - 2.1 FH/FC
b. Most Likely: 2.2 - 2.7 FH/FC (including the average utilisation)
c. Optimistic: 2.8 - 3.1 FH/FC
By combining utilisations 1 3 above with ratios a-c, the following 9-utilisation

scenarios follow:
Utilisation: Scenarios Flight Hours Flight Hours/Cycles
Conservative Scenario 1 7 9 hrs/day 1.9 2.1
Scenario 2 7 9 hrs/day 2.2 2.7
Most Likely Scenario 4 9 11 hrs/day 1.9 2.1
Optimistic Scenario 7 11 13 hrs/day 1.9 2.1
Scenario 10: (Actual Utilisation) (Actual Utilisation)
Table 4.5 Variable utilisation scenarios
50
Chapter 4
From the flight hours and flight hour/cycle ratios above, it is possible to calculate
minimum and maximum utilisation ranges for each month. See also Appendix J.3
The simulation process described for the actual utilisation is also applicable for the
variable utilisation.
For the purpose of uniformity, the actual utilisation will be referred to as Scenario 10.
There are, therefore, 10 Scenarios to be considered in the calculations.
4.3.2 Maintenance Item Allocation Model (MIAM): Model design
Figure 4.1 illustrates that maintenance clusters result from a clustering process,
which adds maintenance scenarios, utilisation scenarios, and boundary conditions to
the maintenance items.
This section will model the Hybrid Simulation method (selected in the previous
section) into a clustering model, referred to as the Maintenance Item Allocation
Model.
Process description:
The first section of Figure 4.1 describes the clustering process (while the second
section describes the optimisation process). This first section is elaborated as follows:
INPUTS PROCESS OUTPUTS
- Maintenance Items: Maintenance Clusters

(Properties) Maintenance Item interval Maintenance Item (Properties)
- Maintenance Item Man-hours Allocation Model - Cluster Performance Date
- Aircraft Utilisation Scenarios (Table 4.5) (MIAM) - Total Man-hour Demand
- Maintenance Scenarios (Table 4.3) - Maintenance Interval De-
- Boundary Conditions escalation
Figure 4.2 Clustering process description
a). INPUTS/OUTPUTS
Considering that the inputs listed above comprise of System State Variables, the
Simulation Clock and the Library Routine (from Table 4.2), and considering that the
clustering process describes the Bottom-Up/ Top-Down approach, the following can
be said on about the inputs and outputs:
- The Maintenance Item interval induces a Time Since Last Performed variable
(in Days, Hours or Cycles, depending on the interval)
- The Maintenance Scenarios govern the frequency with which maintenance is
to be performed
- The aircraft utilisation not only follows a seasonal pattern, but it also
accumulates over the periods to be considered
- The Maintenance Clusters consist of a group of Maintenance Items (Line
Maintenance Task Packages or Base Maintenance Checks), which exhibit a
maintenance demand (in either Transavia Man-hours or KLM Man-hours),
and the total de-escalation resulting from the clustering (see section 4.3.5).
51
b). Clustering Process: The MIAM
As described earlier in this chapter (see Table 4.2), the MIAM is modelled to serve the
following purposes:
1. To Simulate the aircraft utilisation
2. To calculate when a maintenance item turns due
3. To fit each maintenance items into a maintenance cluster
4. To generate maintenance clusters (see outputs, Figure 4.2)
The initial process within the MIAM (calculating when an item is due) can be
Reset TSLP to
0
Library Routine Simulation Clock
INPUT Add monthly

Maintenance Item: Utilization
Maintenance Mx Item YES Mark as
Time Since Last (CT/FH/FC/
Item Due? Maintenance Due
Performed (TSLP) CT-FH/CT-FC)
To TSLP
NO
Maintenance
Due item
Maintenance Item variable:
1. Time Since Last Performed OUTPUT
Maintenance Due Item
Maintenance Item Constants: 1. Date when THIS item is due
a. Maintenance Interval (Mx item) 2. Item Man-hours required to
b. Maintenance Item perform THIS item
Man-hours (Mx item)
illustrated as follows:
Figure 4.3 Maintenance Item Allocation Model: Top Model
A Maintenance Item is introduced into the MIAM. Further, the library routine is
selected (utilisation, based on Scenarios 1-10, Table 4.5). A Maintenance Scenario
(Simulation Clock) is also selected from Table 4.3. The simulation increment is in
months.
The library routine draws a seed (monthly utilisation in flight hours and cycles) from
the scenario in question. The seed is added to the TSLP, where after an evaluation is
done on whether the items maintenance interval has been achieved. If this is the
case, the item is due for performance, it is marked as a maintenance due item. TSLP
is reset to 0, and the process is repeated. If the above is not the case, the process is
repeated until the maintenance interval is reached. If the item is a calendar-day
limited item, then the days of the month in question are utilised (i.e. 31 days for
January, 28 days for February etc), instead of the library routine.
The process it terminated at the end of the simulation period.
It is important to mention that for each month, the same seed is used to evaluate all
Maintenance Items. A new seed is drawn every time the calculation is repeated
The model described in Figure 4.3 does not result in a maintenance cluster, but it
does lay the basis on which the clustering process should be done. The outputs of the
model are:
52
Chapter 4
- The Maintenance Item due dates

- The maintenance demand (in either Transavia or KLM man-hours)
The process described above also makes the following assumptions:

1. All tasks in each Maintenance Item are performed simultaneously (See also
Table I. 4).
2. The marking of an item as due implies that it is performed at that moment.
3. The maintenance item limits are never exceeded (escalated)
The next two sections will develop the model in Figure 4.3 into clustering models for
Line Maintenance (performed by Transavia) and Base maintenance (performed by an
MRO, in this case KLM).
4.3.3 Clustering: Line Maintenance Transavia Hangar
This clustering is aimed at determining which Maintenance Task Packages should be

performed per hangar visit (on a fixed or ad hoc basis Figure 3.10). The simulation
clock (in weeks - Table 4.3) is hence incorporated into the model. The resulting
model is illustrated as follows:
Reset
TSLP to 0
Maintenance
Library Routine Simulation Clock Window
(Tables 4.2, 4.4) (Tables 4.2, 4.3) (Section 3.3.1)
INPUT
Add monthly
Maintenance
Utilization Fits into YES Add package
Task Time Since Last Package YES
(CT/FH/FC/ Available To window
Package Performed (TSLP) Due*? Window?
CT-FH/CT-FC) cluster
(Table I.3)
To TSLP
NO NO
Add package
To slot cluster
Package in
Package in
Window
OUTPUTS Slot cluster
Cluster
*= Due now or before the next maintenance interval
Figure 4.4 Maintenance Item Allocation Model: Line Maintenance

The allocation process is similar to that of the top model. However, the evaluation on
whether a Maintenance Task Package is due is based on the availability of a
maintenance slot or a maintenance window (See section 3.3). If a Maintenance Task
Package turns due and there is a maintenance window readily available for
maintenance, it will be fitted into the window. If it does not fit into a given window,
either because it is too large, or because the window is full, it will be fitted into the
next available maintenance slot. In every case, the Maintenance Task Package limit
should not be escalated.
4.3.4 Clustering: Base Maintenance MRO Station

The clustering of base maintenance tasks is aimed at:
- Determining how often base (heavy) maintenance should be performed.
53
- Determining which Maintenance Checks (see also Table I. 2) should be

performed at which base maintenance check
Just as was the case with line maintenance, this section will only tackle the
determination of maintenance checks for different maintenance visits, at intervals
resulting from Table 4.3.
Reset TSLP
To 0
Library Routine Simulation Clock
(Tables 4.2, 4.4) (Tables 4.2, 4.3)
INPUT Add monthly

Maintenance Utilization
Time Since Last Mx Check YES Mark as
Check (CT/FH/FC/
Performed (TSLP) Due*? Maintenance Due
(Table I.2) CT-FH/CT-FC)
To TSLP
NO
Add Mx Check
To Cluster
Maintenance
OUTPUT Cluster
* Due now or before the next maintenance interval
Figure 4.5 Clustering process Level 3: Base Maintenance
The process illustrated in Figure 4.5 above is similar to that used in line maintenance
clustering. However, the determination of Maintenance Checks to execute per base
maintenance visit is much easier, mainly due to the large limits that Maintenance
Checks have.
Each of the above models results in a program that calculate the desired clusters. The
resulting programs (written in Visual Basic Code) are included in Appendix J.4.
4.3.5 Maintenance item Interval de-escalation
Maintenance item clustering normally results in the de-escalation of maintenance

item intervals. These are the maintenance intervals allocated to individual tasks by
the engineering department (see also section 3.2.4). It is calculated as a fraction of the
interval that is not utilised, i.e.
TAVi lastp
de escalation = ; lastp TAVi
TAVi
Where: TAVi = Transavia interval (CT, FH, FC)

lastp = Time since last performed (accumulated utilisation)
De-escalation can be interpreted as a loss, in that maintenance items end up being

performed more frequently than they ought to be performed. The loss will therefore
be expressed in terms of labour, increased downtime and repeated set-up activities.
The last two losses cannot be calculated directly. However, this report will work
further with the assumption that labour losses are representative enough for de-
escalation losses.
54
Chapter 4
Hence, de-escalation will be calculated as follow:
For Line maintenance:

TAVi lastp
de escalation = HVMhrs
TAVi
Where: HVMhrs = Transavia Man-hours (Boeing Man-hours x 1.7)
For Base Maintenance:

TAVi lastp
de escalation = BaseMhrs
TAVi
Where: BaseMhrs = Base Maintenance man-hours (Boeing Man-hours x 3.6:

See Table 2.8)
In terms of the exact cost of labour, the following values are applicable:
Line Maintenance: Transavia 31.76*

Base Maintenance: MRO (KLM) 52.07*
* - As per 01-05-2001
Table 4.6 Maintenance Man-hour rates (Source: Project Management, TAV)
4.3.6 Model Validation and verification

(See also Appendix J.5)
Validation: Actual Process vs. The MIAM

Model Validation is done in order to ascertain that the model is a reasonable
representation of the real life process: that it reproduces system behaviour with
enough fidelity to satisfy analysis objectives [Hillston, 2001].
a). Assumptions made:
- The aircraft considered makes flights on a daily basis, throughout the entire
period considered
- The aircraft performs flights solely for Transavia, hence sticking to
Transavias seasonal utilisation pattern
- Maintenance clusters are performed as scheduled. No escalations and
extensions are considered
b). Inputs and Distributions:
- Maintenance dates (Due dates, Time Since Last Performed) have a MM/YY
format. Maintenance is always performed at intervals larger than 28 days(4
weeks)
- All utilisation scenarios represent Transavias seasonal pattern
c). Outputs: Maintenance man-hour demand is also regarded as downtime. The
process concentrates more on man-hour demand variations, and downtime is
expected to decrease if the maintenance frequency decreases.
55
Verification: MIAM Design and MIAM Realisation
Verification is intended to ensure that the model does what is intended to do (often
referred to as debugging)
a). The model calculates all possible inputs; with the exclusion of line maintenance
frequencies lower than 4 weeks. If certain boundary conditions are violated (e.g.
escalation of maintenance interval limits), the model returns erroneous outputs
(N/A, #VALUE etc.). This ensures that no invalid results are evaluated further.
b). The modelled scenarios produce the desired utilisation patterns.

c). Base Maintenance does not vary greatly with changes in the maintenance
utilisation. Minimal changes are observed within each utilisation scenario groups
(conservative, most likely or optimistic). Sampling one scenario from each group
may be considered to be representative enough for the other two.
d). Line maintenance shows significant variations within the various utilisation
scenarios. Considering that the maintenance demand is calculated at short intervals,
such variations cannot be ignored. Hence, all the 10 scenarios should be considered.
4.4 MIAM Results
The results resulting from the MIAM can be grouped into two categories, each
resulting from the two models, namely the Line Maintenance and the Base
Maintenance MIAM. For both categories, the Current Situation (as described in
chapter 2) is analysed, after which the Proposed (New) Situation (as proposed in
chapter 3) is analysed. The results in section 4.4 are also included in Appendix K.
Unless otherwise stated, the following initial conditions will apply:
Initialisation Routine 01- 04 - 2001

System State Variables: 0 CT, 0 FH, 0 FC
A single aircraft is considered
Event Routine 0
Library Routine (As stated)
Table 4.7 Initial Conditions*
4.4.1 Base Maintenance
A. Current Situation:
The first results generated by the MIAM are based on the conditions that prevailed at
the start if this research, namely:
- Base Maintenance Items Include all Maintenance Checks with an interval equivalent
to, or larger than 540 Days, 3000 Cycles or 6000 Hours (See also and Table I. 2 in
Appendix I.1)
Items on Calendar Time: 1276 Base Man-hours
Items on Flight Cycles: 41 Base Man-hours
Items on Flight Hours: 100 Base Man-hours
- Base maintenance is performed every 18 months
* Refer also to Table 4.2: System State Variables
56
Chapter 4
The purpose of this is to form a basis of evaluation and comparison with results
generated under different conditions.
The results will also be based on Scenario 10 (See Table 4.5). This is because they will
not be optimised further.
By utilising the MIAM, the following results are generated, under the conditions
stated above:
Base Visit #1 Due Date Base MHrs2 De-escalation3 % De-escalation

HMV 1 Sep 02 261 78 30
HMV 2 Mar 04 315 94 30
HMV 3 Sep 05 432 89 21
HMV 4 Mar 07 323 98 30
HMV 5 Sep 08 437 78 18
HMV 6 Mar 10 715 130 18
Totals (6 Visits) 2484 567 23
Table 4.8 Maintenance Demand - Current situation

Notes:
1 HMV #: Heavy Maintenance Visit #
2 Base MHrs: Routine Maintenance man-hours. Not including Open & Close
work, estimated at 265 Man-hours per visit
3 De-escalation: Calculated over Cluster Man-hours
The table above is plotted out in Figure 4.6 below:
Base Maintenance Demand: 18 Month Interval (Previous Situation)
800
700
600
Base Mx Manhours
500
Cluster MHrs
400
Cluster De-Escalation
300
200
100
0
HMV1 [Sep 02] HMV2 [Mar 04] HMV3 [Sep 05] HMV4 [Mar 07] HMV5 [Sep 08] HMV6 [Mar 10]
Base Visit [Number, Date]
Figure 4.6 Base Maintenance Demand, in comparison with de-escalation losses
Table 4.8 and Figure 4.6 reveal that for every base maintenance visit, and average of
23% in terms of labour costs is wasted (see also Table 4.9 below).
57
It can also be observed that the first five visits (HMV1 HMV5) do not vary much in
terms of man-hour demand, as compared to the sixth visit. The sixth visit (HMV-6)
exhibits a large maintenance demand, mainly as a result of an increase in the number
of maintenance tasks that comes along with the ageing of the aircraft.
It was established in section 2.4.1 that the proportions of Routine work and non-
routine work resulting from routines are:
Routine Man-hours: 2.0 * Boeing Man-hours
Non-routines (from routines): 1.6 * Boeing Man hours
Total Routine Man-hours: 3.6 * Boeing Man-hours
By incorporating this information in Table 4.8, and by adding open and close man-
hours to the routine maintenance, the following may be seen as an illustration of the
proportions between routine and non-routine maintenance (resulting from routine
work):
1200
1000
800
Base Mx Man-hours
Open & Close

600
Non-Routines
Routine MHrs
400
200
0
HMV1 [Sep 02] HMV2 [Mar 04] HMV3 [Sep 05] HMV4 [Mar 07] HMV5 [Sep 08] HMV6 [Mar 10]
Figure 4.7 Routine and Non-Routine work, Current Situation
The maintenance demand illustrated above can be translated into maintenance costs
by incorporating the base maintenance rate stated in Table 4.6. The result of this is
given in Table 4.9 below. Observations from the table will be discussed in section
4.4.2 on optimisation.
Base Visit Base Man-hours Total Cost, Routine Mx () Total Losses ()

(including O&C)
HMV 1 [Sep 02] 526 27371.95 4047.40
HMV 2 [Mar 04] 580 30221.22 4907.79
HMV 3 [Sep 05] 697 36274.04 4632.79
HMV 4 [Mar 07] 588 30633.61 5110.82
HMV 5 [Sep 08] 702 36572.09 4070.47
HMV 6 [Mar 10] 980 51041.51 6752.47
Totals (10 years) 4074 212112.4 29521.31
Table 4.9 Base Maintenance Costs per aircraft, Current Situation
58
Chapter 4
B. Proposed (New) Situation:
The proposed situation refers to the clustering that is done under the following
conditions:
- Base Maintenance items are not determined by their intervals (>3000 Cycles,
> 6000 Hours, > 540 Days), but by their Line/Base Classification. See also
section 3.2.1 and Figure 3.1.
Items on Calendar Time: 813 Base Man-hours
Items on Flight Cycles: 14 Base Man-hours
Items on Flight Hours: 65 Base Man-hours
- All maintenance scenarios on Table 4.5 may be considered, owing to the fact
that the model will be looking at the current situation and projecting into the
near future (0 10 years)
This situation utilises the simulation clock values, as listed in Table 4.3. Each interval
will be analysed separately.
18-Month Interval for Base Maintenance visits
An 18-month interval for base maintenance results in the following maintenance

demand for the various scenarios:
Cons ML Opt Scenario 10

Type Visit Base MHrs % De-esc Base MHrs % De-esc Base MHrs % De-esc Base MHrs % De-esc
HMV1 [Sep 02] 209 9 211 8 229 10 211 8
HMV2 [Mar 04] 229 11 236 9 236 11 236 9
HMV3 [Sep 05] 297 9 299 8 327 9 303 8
HMV4 [Mar 07] 239 11 248 9 243 11 244 9
HMV5 [Sep 08] 307 7 303 6 316 8 303 6
HMV6 [Mar 10] 550 10 553 9 563 10 557 9
Totals 1830 9 1851 8 1915 10 1855 8
Table 4.10 Base Maintenance Cluster man-hours By Scenario
Owing to the fact that different scenarios result in different cluster compositions
(illustrated on Figure 4.14), it can be said that an 18-Month Base Maintenance
Interval would demand a careful monitoring of the aircraft utilisation. Large
variations in the utilisation would require a constant revision of the maintenance
clusters that might have been pre-calculated and pre-planned. This is especially so
when the aircraft utilisation should not be limited by the anticipated maintenance.
When plotted out on Figure 4.8 below, it becomes clearer that the Optimistic
Scenarios slightly results in a higher maintenance demand than other scenarios. This
is as a result of the maintenance demand leaning slightly on utilisation, rather than
on calendar time, as is the case with other utilisation scenarios.
59
750
650
550
Base Mx Manhours
450
350
250
Cons
ML
150 Opt
Scen.10
Current
50
-50 HMV1 [Sep 02] HMV2 [Mar 04] HMV3 [Sep 05] HMV4 [Mar 07] HMV5 [Sep 08] HMV6 [Mar 10]
Figure 4.8 Cluster Maintenance demand by Scenario, as compared to the Current situation
It is also evident from Figure 4.8 that there is a large difference in the maintenance
demand between the current and the proposed situation. This is a logical
consequence of the Line/Base Maintenance redefinition (Appendix E), which
resulted in many tasks being classified as line maintenance tasks than was previously
the case.
As pertains to the maintenance costs associated with the clusters from the 18-Months
maintenance interval, the following is a tabulation of how these relate:
Mx Costs () Cons. ML Opt. Scenario 10
Labour De-esc Labour De-esc Labour De-esc Labour De-esc
Type Visit Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
HMV1 [Sep 02] 10900 997 10994 929 11931 1198 10994 896
HMV2 [Mar 04] 11931 1315 12306 1159 12306 1356 12306 1050
HMV3 [Sep 05] 15444 1356 15566 1275 17028 1595 15791 1294
HMV4 [Mar 07] 12428 1369 12925 1211 12644 1381 12700 1109
HMV5 [Sep 08] 15967 1112 15780 1002 16473 1271 15780 938
HMV6 [Mar 10] 28637 2765 28796 2558 29321 2836 29021 2540
Totals ()/ aircraft 95308 8915 96367 8133 99704 9637 96592 7828
Table 4.11 Base Maintenance Cluster Costs by Scenario - 18 Months
24 Month Interval for Base Maintenance Visits
As was with the other interval, the scenarios analysed will be limited to Scenario 1
(Scen-1), 5 (Scen-5), 9 (Scen-9), and the actual scenario.
HMV1 [Mar 03] 82 9 100 12 107 10 107 13
HMV2 [Mar 05] 187 12 195 14 205 13 199 15
HMV3 [Mar 07] 95 8 111 9 113 8 119 10
HMV4 [Mar 09] 509 8 515 9 521 9 515 10
HMV5 [Mar 11] 327 2 341 3 348 2 348 3
Totals 1200 7 1261 8 1293 8 1287 9
Table 4.12 Base Maintenance Cluster man-hours by Scenario
60
Chapter 4
Table 4.12 shows that with a larger base maintenance interval, the maintenance
demand still varies between various scenarios. Further, the actual scenario tends to
move closer to the Optimistic utilisation. Further, there is a significant reduction in
the total maintenance demand as compared to the original situation (see Figure 4.1
below), and also as compared to the maintenance demand at an interval of 18
Months. The latter is the case; as a result of a reduction in work that recurs per
maintenance visit.
An additional advantage of the 24-Months interval is that there are only five base
maintenance visits in ten years, as compared to the previous six in the same period
750
650
550
Base Mx Manhours
450
350
250
Cons
ML
150 Opt
Scen.10
Current
50
-50 HMV1 [Mar 03] HMV2 [Mar 05] HMV3 [Mar 07] HMV4 [Mar 09] HMV5 [Mar 11]
Figure 4.9 Cluster Maintenance demand, as compared to the Current situation
The Cluster maintenance demand illustrated in Figure 4.9 shows relatively large
variations between various visits, and especially so during the fourth and the fifth
visit.
By comparing the total man-hour demand from an 18-month and a 24-month Base
maintenance interval (Scenario 10), it can be seen that the 24 month interval results in
a lower man-hour demand.
Base Mx at 18 Months Base Mx at 24 Months
Base Visit Base Mhrs Base Visit Base Mhrs
HMV1 [Sep 02] 211 HMV1 [Feb 03] 107
HMV2 [Mar 04] 236 HMV2 [Feb 05] 199
HMV3 [Sep 05] 303 HMV3 [Feb 07] 119
HMV4 [Mar 07] 244 HMV4 [Feb 09] 286
HMV5 [Sep 08] 303 HMV5 [Feb 11] 336
HMV6 [Mar 10] 557
Total Base Mhrs 1855 Total Base Mhrs 1046
Table 4.13 Base Man-hour demand Comparison: 18 Month and 24 Month Intervals
61
Following an analysis of the exact contents of the clusters illustrated the following
observations are made:
hzy 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

hzl Frequency 35 0 Apr Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Apr
Days 30 730 1460 2190 2920 3648 3678

Hours 335 7742 15647 23298 31203 38756 39043
Cycles 118 2946 5878 8819 11751 14666 14784
Bo-Mhrs
CHECKS
Cycles
Hours
Days
720 7742 2946 HMV1 HMV2 HMV3 HMV4 HMV5
D720* 720 4000 50 x x x x x
D1620* 1620 12000 14 x x
D1800 1800 3 x x
D1800* 1800 18000 63 x x
D2160* 2160 18000 2 x
D2880 2880 18 x
D3600 3600 51 x
D3600* 3600 36000 178 x
D4320 4320 15 x
D4320* 4320 36000 226 x
Figure 4.10 MIAM extract: Base Mx at 24 Months (Scenario 10)
Figure 4.10 is a visualisation of how the MIAM identifies due items (x) and groups
them into clusters (HMV#).
The rows at the top stand for the aircraft age (in calendar days, hours and cycles),
while the first column of the left lists the maintenance checks. The second, third and
fourth columns are help columns, while the fifth column lists the base maintenance
man-hours.
From the extract, it can be seen that the D1800*, the D3600, D3600* and the D4320*
checks carry a significant amount of man-hours with them. These checks have,
however, been clustered for performance much earlier (~ 680 days) than they are
due. This is a large de-escalation of the check interval. Further, it is also evident that
in HMV4, there are many other checks that turn due for performance. The result of
this is a large maintenance cluster, hence the peak in Figure 4.9.
4.4.2 Base Maintenance Optimisation

It is possible to move the checks closer to their maintenance limits by fixing the
maintenance date in advance, namely at the very first base maintenance visit, or at a
consecutive maintenance visit with minimum cluster man-hours. A minimum is
desired because the fixing is a de-escalation in itself. Figure 4.9 indicates two
minimums, namely the HMV1 and the HMV3. If it is chosen to fix HMV1, then this
can be referred to as initial de-escalation.
Figure 4.10 below illustrates the effect of the initial de-escalation on the total
Maintenance demand and on the total de-escalation (see also Table 4.14):
62
Chapter 4
400
1250
350
1050
300
Scen. 10 Mhrs
850 Cons Mhrs
De-escalation Manhours
250
Base Mx Mnhours
ML Mhrs
Opt Mhrs
De-esc. Scen 10 200
650
De-esc. Cons
De-esc. ML
De-esc. Opt 150
450
100
250
50
50 0
0 30 60 90 120
Initial De-escalation [Days]
Figure 4.11 Effect of Initial De-escalation on the Maintenance Demand/Total De-escalation
It is evident that the total maintenance demand decreases by the application of an

initial de-escalation. However, this decrease is only limited to about 30 days after
which the initial de-escalation shows almost no effect to the total maintenance
demand. This is the case with all scenarios.
Initial De-esc Scenario 10 Cons. ML Opt

[Days] Base MHrs % De-esc. Base MHrs % De-esc. Base MHrs % De-esc. Base MHrs % De-esc.
0 1287 26 1200 21 1261 25 1293 25
30* 1020 9 959 7 1020 8 1052 8
60 1032 9 964 7 1025 9 1057 8
90 1039 9 970 8 1031 9 1064 9
120 1039 10 977 9 1039 10 1069 9
Table 4.14 Initial de-escalation on maintenance scenarios
On the other hand, the total de-escalation shows a sharper decline for an initial de-
escalation of 30 days (*). By values above this, the total de-escalation increases
gradually. The principle reduction (from 0-days), amounts to 26.9%
Scenario 1 shows the lowest maintenance demand and also the lowest de-escalation.
This follows from the fact that this scenario represents the lowest utilisation
considered in the MIAM.
Figure 4.12 below illustrates the effects of the initial de-escalation on the situation
illustrated in Figure 4.10. The maintenance checks that had previously been de-
escalated heavily are now clustered for performance at their exact due dates.
63
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Apr Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Mar Jan
Days 30 699 1429 2159 2889 3609 3648 4319
Hours 345 7324 14878 22252 29806 37319 37586
Cycles 125 2815 5765 8661 11611 14532 14656
Base Mhrs
CHECKS
Cycles
Hours
Days
720 7604 2937 HMV1 HMV2 HMV3 HMV4 HMV5 HMV6
D720* 720 4000 50 x x x x x
D1620* 1620 12000 14 x x
D1800 1800 3 x x
D1800* 1800 18000 63 x x
D2160* 2160 18000 2 x
D2880 2880 18 x
D3600 3600 51 x
D3600* 3600 32000 178 x
D4320 4320 15
D4320* 4320 32000 226
Figure 4.12 Initial De-escalation effects on the MIAM: 30 days
At this point, it can be concluded that there are variations needed within the 24-
Month interval, i.e. the implementation of an initial de-escalation of between 1 - 4
Months. This means that the interval will not be a pure 2-year Base Maintenance
interval.
The maintenance demand resulting from the initial de-escalation on Figure 4.12 is
also illustrated on Figure 4.13 below.
Base Maintenance Demand: Before/After a 30-day Initial De-escalation (Scenario 10)
600
500
400
Base Mx Man-hours
300
MHrs (Before Initial De-esc.)

200 MHrs (After Initial De-esc.)
De-esc.(Before Initial De-esc.)
100 De-esc. (After Initial De-esc.)
0
HMV1 [Feb 03] HMV2 [Feb 05] HMV3 [Feb 07] HMV4 [Feb 09] HMV5 [Feb 11]
Base Visit [Visit#, Date]
Figure 4.13 Base Maintenance Demand: Before/ After 30 days Initial de-escalation (i.d)
Note: i.d.: Initial de-escalation
64
Chapter 4
It can be concluded at this point that an optimum clustering for base maintenance is
realised by a Base Maintenance frequency of 24 Months, and an initial de-escalation
of 30 days
It can also be said that it is possible to standardise Base maintenance clusters, owing
to the static nature of the cluster composition (mainly calendar-time driven). The
exact clusters belonging to the various utilisation scenarios can be derived from the
following cross-matrix scheme:
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb
Days 699 1429 2159 2889 3619 699 1429 2159 2889 3619 699 1429 2159 2889 3619 699 1429 2159 2889 3619
Hours 7111 14828 22125 29842 37301 5553 11315 17240 23002 28965 6839 14139 21375 28675 35968 8443 17377 26109 35043 43804
Cycles 2838 5771 8707 11640 14544 2742 5704 8577 11539 14441 2864 6023 9022 12181 15232 2862 5817 8777 11732 14701
BaseMhrs
CHECKS
Scen-1
Scen-5
Scen-9
Actual
HMV1 HMV2 HMV3 HMV4 HMV5 HMV1 HMV2 HMV3 HMV4 HMV5 HMV1 HMV2 HMV3 HMV4 HMV5 HMV1 HMV2 HMV3 HMV4 HMV5
D720* 49.68 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
D1620* 13.824 x x x x x x x x
D1800 2.88 x x x x x x x x
D1800* 63.36 x x x x x x x x
D2160* 1.8 x x x x
D2880 18.36 x x x x
D3600 51.12 x x x x
D3600* 177.768 x x x x
C3500 0 x x x x
C9000* 14.4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
C24000* 49.068 x x x x
C36000* 19.8 x x x x
H8000 15.66 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
H10000 1.8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
H12000 18 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
H15000 7.2 x x x x x x x x x x x
H20000 7.74 x x x x x x x
H22400 4.32 x x x x x
H25000 5.76 x x x x x
H30000 4.68 x x x x
0
Figure 4.14 Base Maintenance Cross-matrix scheme by Scenarios
Base maintenance clusters can also be classified as Phases, with each phase being a
composition of maintenance checks that are due for performance at the same time.
From Figure 4.14, the phasing of clusters should be done for three different
situations, namely Low, Normal, and High aircraft utilisation.
1. Low aircraft utilisation: Follows from the conservative utilisation (2255-3285

FH/year, 1345-21564 FC/year, and 1.9-3.0 FH/FC)
Cluster Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phase 15

Frequency 2 years 4 Years 6 years 8 years 10 years 12 years 15 years
Checks D720* D1620* D2160* D2880 D3600 D4320 D5400
C9000* D1800 H20000 H25000 D3600* D4320*
H8000 D1800* H22400 H30000
H10000 H12000
H15000
Base MHrs 81.54 105 13.8 24.1 234 284 34
Table 4.15 Low utilisation Clusters

2. Normal aircraft utilisation: Covers the utilisation range of between 3286-4015
FH/year, and 1346-1564 FC/year (2.1-3.0 FH/FC)
65

Checks D720* D1620* D2160* D2880 D3600 D4320 D5400
C9000* D1800 H22400 C24000* D3600* D4320*
H8000 D1800* H25000 C36000* C3500
H10000 H15000 H30000
H12000 H20000
Base MHrs 100 95 11.8 92 229 284 34
Table 4.16 Normal utilisation clusters

3. High utilisation: Follows the optimistic utilisation (4015-4745 FH/year, and 1346-
1564 FC/year i.e. 2.1-3.0 FH/FC)

Checks D720* D1620* D2160* D2880 D3600 D4320 D5400
C9000* D1800 H30000 D3600* D4320*
H8000 D1800*
H10000 H20000
H12000 H22400
H15000 H25000
Base MHrs 107 98 6.48 18.4 229 284 34
Table 4.17 High Utilisation clusters
The optimum 2-year combinations (also denoted as HMV #) for all scenarios can be
made as follows (see Table 4.15, Table 4.16, and Table 4.17):
HMV 1 HMV 2 HMV 3 HMV 4 HMV 5 HMV 6

Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 1
Phase 2 Phase 2 Phase 2
Phase 3 Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
Table 4.18 Optimum Cluster combinations for base maintenance
As pertains to the maintenance costs resulting from clustering at 24 months, the

following is an analysis on how the base maintenance costs vary with the initial de-
escalation, over a period of 10 years (for a single aircraft)
Mx Costs [] Cons ML Opt Scenario 10

Initial De-esc Mx Cost De-esc. Mx Cost De-esc. Mx Cost De-esc. Mx Cost De-esc.
0 Days 62484 13226 65660 16402 67327 16923 67014 17756
30 DAYS -12549 -9841 -12548.9 -12028 -12549 -12705 -13902.7 -12913

60 DAYS -12289 -9633 -12289 -11768 -12289 -12445 -13278 -13018
90 DAYS -11976 -9268 -11976 -11455 -11924 -12080 -12913 -12913
120 DAYS -11612 -8904 -11560 -11039 -11664 -11820 -12913 -12184
Table 4.19 Base maintenance cost minimisation by a variable initial de-escalation: (24-
months interval)
66
Chapter 4
As expected, Table 4.19 shows that a 30-day initial de-escalation leads to the highest
reduction in the total maintenance costs and de-escalation losses.
By considering the Actual utilisation scenario, the savings on maintenance cost
translates to an average of 2781 per Base Maintenance visit; with the whole fleet
(13 aircraft) taken into consideration, 36147 is saved per maintenance visit.
4.4.3 Line Maintenance
The results of the line maintenance analysis in the MIAM will be limited to a period
of five to six years. As stated in section 2.3, this is the period in which the aircraft is
considered as new.
A. Current Situation
As was the case with Base Maintenance, the current situation for line maintenance
encompasses all the maintenance checks bound by the following conditions
- All maintenance items with maintenance intervals lower than 540 Days, 3000
Cycles, and 6000 Flight Hours.
Items on calendar Time: 37 Transavia Man-hours
Items on Cycles: 14 Transavia Man-hours
Items on Flight Cycles: 124 Transavia Man-hours
- Hangar maintenance is performed every 5 weeks, in the high and in the low season,
and it follows the sequence on Table 2.5
The conditions above results in the following maintenance demand per year (based
on Days, Hours and Cycles) in terms of Transavia man-hours (1.7 x Boeing Man-
hours):
Cons. ML Opt. Scen-10

Scen-1 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9
2001 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 231 218
2002 410 422 410 467 455 448 475 475 462 467
2003 333 326 317 372 385 378 502 471 481 476
2004 397 405 426 460 452 460 463 494 463 356
2005 342 333 330 468 468 481 481 481 481 481
2006 412 421 424 458 452 426 385 373 407 458
Total HV_MHrs 2111.8 2125.6 2124.8 2443.3 2429.6 2410.9 2524.0 2512.2 2524.4 2455.5
Table 4.20 Maintenance Demand, Current situation
The variation in the Scenario maintenance man-hours required per year is not large,
and this is also the case with the total maintenance demand for the period
considered. However, there is a significant difference between maintenance resulting
from the conservative utilisation and from the other scenarios. For illustration
purpose only, scenarios 1, 4, 7, and 10 are plotted out on Figure 4.15 below to
illustrate these facts.
67
Maintenance Demand Per Aircraft - Current Situation
550
500
450
Transavia Ma- hours
400
350 Cons. Utilisation

ML Utilisation
Opt. Utilisation
300 Scenario 10
250
200
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Period [Years]
Figure 4.15 Maintenance Demand, Current Situation
The maintenance demand from year 2001 is lower than that from others years, but
this is a direct result of the fact that the airplane calculated is introduced in the fleet
in the course of that year. However, this year has to be taken into consideration
because maintenance performed in that year has an effect on maintenance
performance in the future (time since last performed).
As was stated in section 2.3.1, hangar maintenance is performed every 5 weeks. By

including this fact in the MIAM (Simulation clock Routine), the following
maintenance demand is generated:
5-Week Cons. ML Opt. Scen-10

Mx Scen-1 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9
2001 327 327 327 347 347 347 388 381 381 347
2002 590 601 577 596 600 596 612 614 610 600
2003 478 467 491 584 580 584 584 588 592 580
2004 524 535 524 572 494 480 578 588 573 572
2005 498 487 498 510 588 602 611 602 610 510
2006 556 571 556 575 586 575 583 594 590 575
HV MHrs 2972.1 2986.9 2972.5 3184.5 3195.5 3184.5 3355.5 3366.5 3356.3 3184.5
Table 4.21 Maintenance Demand - Current Situation: Hangar Maintenance at 5 weeks
From Table 4.21 above, it can be concluded that the maintenance-planning pattern on
Table 2.5 in chapter 2 is sufficient for the execution of routine line (hangar)
maintenance. This planning provided a maximum of 885 Transavia man-hours per
year for routine hangar maintenance (for each aircraft). This routine maintenance
includes non-routines generated from the routine maintenance.
However, the demand for maintenance slots portrays a different sequence than that
on Table 2.5. Table 4.22 below gives an example of this slot demand.
68
Chapter 4
Slots On Planning Slots On Demand

Date Slots (Max) HV MHrs Slots HV MHrs
Dec-01 1 55 1 45.04
Jan-02 1 55 1 56.5
Feb-02 0
Mar-02 2 100 2.5 112.2
Apr-02 1 55 1 48.8
May-02 0
Jun-02 1 55 3 157.74
Jul-02 4 300 1 48.8
Aug-02 0
Sep-02 1 55 1.5 72.48
Oct-02 1 55 1 56.5
Nov-02 0
Dec-02 2 100 1 45.04
Totals 14 < 830 13 643.1
Table 4.22 Slot planning vs. slots required for routine maintenance
The Shaded area in Table 4.22 represents the high season. The maintenance during
this season is more utilisation-dependent than calendar-time-dependent, hence the
increase in the man-hour demand. This is in contrast with the planning, which
assumes a specific rhythm all year round. It can also bee seen that the slots in the
high season leave little room for non-routine maintenance arising from reasons other
than routine maintenance (e.g. from postponed non-routine maintenance on
Dispatch Deviation Sheets - DDS).
If the extra slots required in Mar-02, Jun-02, Sep-02 are not granted, it will be
necessary to have the aircraft back in the hangar between two consecutive hangar
visits. This will be for the purpose of completing the unfinished work from the slot
previous slot.
Table 4.22 and Table 2.5 may explain the differences exhibited by the realisation of
the planning on Table 2.6, i.e. the large differences between the maintenance
planning and realisation.
By comparing Table 4.20 and Table 4.21, it can be seen that the maintenance demand
resulting from performing line maintenance at a 5-week frequency is higher than the
theoretical maintenance demand performing individual maintenance tasks as they
turn due without clustering or de-escalating their intervals (See Figure 4.16 below).
The reason for this can be attributed to the fact that a lot of maintenance is performed
more frequently that it ought to; this is an inevitable consequence of task clustering.
69
Theoretical vs. Hangar Visit Maintenance Demand
4000.0
3500.0
Total Mx Man-hour demand (5 yrs)
3000.0
2500.0
Theoretical
2000.0
Maintenance
Demand
1500.0
5-week Hangar
Visit
Maintenance
1000.0 Demand
500.0
0.0
Scen-1 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9 Actual
Utilisation Scenarios
Figure 4.16 Theoretical vs. Hangar Maintenance Demand: 5-week frequency

The de-escalation that follows the clustering above is as follows:
Utilisation Transavia MHrs De-escalation Mhrs % De-escalation

Scen-1 2972.1 860.3 29
Cons. Scen-2 2986.9 861.3 29
Scen-3 2972.5 847.7 29
Scen-4 3184.5 741.2 23
ML Scen-5 3195.5 765.9 24
Scen-6 3184.5 773.6 24
Scen-7 3355.5 831.5 25
Opt. Scen-8 3366.5 854.3 25
Scen-9 3356.3 831.9 25
Scen-10 3184.5 729.0 23
Table 4.23 Total De-escalation by a 5-week clustering
It may be said that the total de-escalation is large, as compared to the de-escalation
witnessed from Base Maintenance. It is worth noting that the de-escalation decreases
with utilisation, indicating that items mainly de-escalated are those based on the
utilisation, and especially the Flight-hour items.
B. Proposed (New) Situation

The proposed situation makes use of the Maintenance Task Packages developed in
section 3.2.2, and listed in Table I. 3 in Appendix I.3.
Maintenance Task Packages on Calendar Time: 196 Transavia Man-hours
Maintenance Task Packages on Flight Cycles: 26 Transavia Man-hours
Maintenance Task Packages on Flight Hours: 140 Transavia Man-hours
70
Chapter 4
Further, the (theoretical) maintenance demand is calculated according to the

simulation clock on Table 4.3, from which clusters may be formed.
Maintenance Demand:
New Situation Cons. ML Opt.
Scen-1 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9 Scen-10
2001 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 231 218 218
2002 467 467 467 512 513 513 533 520 533 533
2003 389 401 376 439 446 531 545 550 534 527
2004 483 470 508 540 519 435 568 542 579 438
2005 451 443 438 555 582 594 601 623 601 594
2006 474 494 494 521 534 521 427 427 427 520
Total Transavia MHrs 2480.9 2494.3 2501.6 2785.2 2811.6 2811.6 2891.6 2892.4 2892.0 2829.7
Table 4.24 Line Maintenance Demand per aircraft: Proposed Situation
As was the case in base maintenance, and in the current situation, the variations
within the utilisation patterns (conservative, most likely, optimistic) are minimal.
However, the conservative utilisation is considerably less (11%) than the other
utilisation patterns.
By considering samples from the utilisation on Table 4.24, the following comparison
can be made between the demand from the current and the new situation:
Maintenance Demand: Current vs Proposed Situation
3500.0
3000.0 2892.0
2829.7
2811.6
2480.9 2524.4
2429.6 2455.5
2500.0
Transavia Mx Man-hours
2111.8
2000.0
Maintenance Demand:
Current Situation
1500.0
Maintenance Demand:
Proposed Situation
1000.0
500.0
0.0
Cons ML Opt Scen-10
Utilisation Scenario
Figure 4.17 Line Maintenance Demand per aircraft, first 6-yrs: Current vs. proposed
Situation
It follows from the comparison above that the new situation leads to a maintenance
demand increase of 372 Transavia man-hours per aircraft, over six years (on
average).
Table 4.25 below show how the above translates on an annual basis for scenario 10:
Maintenance Demand HVMHrs Current Situation HV MHs Proposed Situation Increase

2001 218 218 0
71
2002 467 533 66

2003 476 527 51
2004 356 438 82
2005 481 594 113
2006 458 520 62
Total 2455.5 2829.7 374
Table 4.25 Line (routine) maintenance demand change: Current vs. proposed Situation
It follows that the increase on Table 4.25 is time-dependent. This results from the fact
that maintenance items previously included in base maintenance are gradually
introduced in line maintenance. This happens gradually because current base
maintenance checks (before Line/Base Redefinition Appendix E) normally posses
large maintenance intervals, and are mainly Calendar-Time-dependent (see also
Table 3.6).
Clustering at 4, 5, and 6-week frequency, and by comparing this to the maintenance

demand on Table 4.24 leads the following plot:
5000.0
4413.8
4235.2
4181.2
4500.0
3927.7
3845.9
3826.4
3788.6
3601.7
3558.3
Maintenance Demand [Transavia Man-hours]
4000.0
3428.5
3407.4
3164.4
3500.0
2892.0
2829.7
2811.6
Pre-calculated
2480.9
3000.0 Maintenance
Demand
2500.0
4 Weeks Mx.
Frequency
2000.0
1500.0 5 Weeks Mx.

Frequency
1000.0
6 Weeks Mx.
500.0 Frequency
0.0
Cons ML Opt Scen-10
Scenarios
Figure 4.18 5-yr Line Maintenance Demand per aircraft, by a varying line maintenance
interval
The pre-calculated maintenance demand represents the maintenance demand
illustrated on Figure 4.17.
A high maintenance frequency leads to a higher maintenance demand, a fact that can
be drawn from Figure 4.18 above. It can also be seen that by increasing the
maintenance interval, the de-escalation of maintenance intervals is reduced
considerably. In the case above, the total de-escalation may be viewed as the
difference between the Pre-calculated maintenance-demand (1st column) and the
maintenance resulting from the maintenance frequency.
However, the increase in the maintenance interval is not unlimited. Scenarios leading
to utilisation higher than 11 FH/day limit the maintenance frequency to 6-weeks, for
above this, the lowest maintenance interval will be exceeded, and this will be in
violation of one boundary condition. A 7-week frequency is, therefore, only
applicable for the conservative utilisation
72
Chapter 4
By considering the maintenance demand following from utilisation scenario 10,

Figure 4.18 varies as follows:
Line maintenance demand variation by frequency - Scenario 10
900
800
700
Transavia Man-hours
4 weeks
600 5 weeks
6 weeks
500
400
300
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Period [Years]
Figure 4.19 Maintenance demand variation on a yearly basis (Scenario 10)

The 5-weeks maintenance frequency shows a relatively constant maintenance
demand for the period considered. This is not the case with the 4-weeks and the 6-
weeks maintenance intervals. The situation above also applies to other scenarios.
Even though the 5-weeks frequency might be preferred due to its constant
maintenance demand (uniform planning over the years considered), priority should
be given to the 6-weeks frequency, for it leads to a lower maintenance demand.
Since Transavia is currently performing its line maintenance at 5 weeks, this report
will limit itself to 5-6 weeks or thereabout.
On a monthly basis, the maintenance demand is a projection of Figure 4.19 and it

varies as follows:
M an-hour D e mand: 5-we e ks Hangar fre que ncy Slot D e mand: 5-we e k H angar Fre que ncy
4
180
166
160
3
133
140
128
Tra nsa via M a n-hours
No. of Ha nga r S lots

114
120
2002
100
2003 2 2002
82
80
80
72
2003
60
59
57
60
51
43
43
42
41
40
39
39
38
35
40 1
31
20
0
0
Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug S ep Oc t Nov Dec 0
P e riod [M onths] Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul A ug S ep Oc t Nov Dec

P e riod [M onths]
Figure 4.20: Maintenance/Slot demand on a 5-week maintenance basis
73
By considering two years, namely 2002 and 2003, the following man-hour/slot
demand is established:
HV MHrs Per a/c Slots Per a/c HV MHrs Per a/c Slots Per a/c
2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003
Jan 39 35 1 1 Jan 35 0 1
Feb 38 0 1 Feb 0 77 1 2
Mar 80 133 2 3 Mar 104 106 2 2
Apr 42 41 1 1 Apr 26 30 1 1
May 40 43 1 1 May 149 0 3
Jun 166 51 3 1 Jun 0 67 2
Jul 0 57 1 Jul 73 40 2 1
Aug 114 128 3 3 Aug 98 145 2 3
Sep 59 82 1 2 Sep 54 0 1
Oct 31 0 1 Oct 0 75 3
Nov 39 43 1 1 Nov 52 47 1 1
Dec 60 72 1 2 Dec 47 0 1
Totals 709 685 16 16 639 586 15 15
Table 4.26 Man-hour/slot demand: 5-weeks Table 4.27 Man-hour/slot demand: 6-weeks
The 5-weeks maintenance frequency translates to an annual demand of 709 man-

hours, 16 maintenance slots, and 685 Man-hours and 17 slots, for 2002 and 2003
respectively. These values are also given on Table 4.26 below (See Table 2.4):
M an-hour de mand: 6-we e ks Hangar fre que ncy Slot De mand: 6-we e k Hangar fre que ncy
160
149
145
3.5
140
3
120
106
104
2.5
98
100
2
77
2002 2002
75
80
73
67
2003 2003
1.5
60
54
52
47
47
40
1
35
40
30
26
20 0.5
0
0 0
Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug S ep Oc t Nov Dec Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug S ep Oct Nov Dec
P e riod [M onths] P e riod [M onths]
Figure 4.21: Maintenance/Slot demand on a 6-week maintenance basis

The 6-weeks maintenance frequency translates to an annual demand of 639 man-
hours, 15 maintenance slots, and 586 Man-hours and 15 slots, for 2002 and 2003
respectively. These values are also given on Table 4.26 above.
It can be seen from Figure 4.21 that even though the slot distribution is not similar for
the two years considered, both years demand 15 slots in total. The total man-hours
demanded in both situations (5 weeks and 6 weeks) still remain under the maximum
available man-hours for routine maintenance (885 HV Man-hours Table 2.5).
It should be said that the calculation of the slot demand on Table 4.26 and Table 4.29
is done in such a way that the upper limit of the man/hour slot demand is
considered. For example, 39 man-hours = 1 slot. It has already been given that 1 slot
74
Chapter 4
< 55 man-hours (Table 2.5). The surplus man-hours my be made available for non-
routine maintenance, such as that from DDS, MIs and AMs.
4.4.4 Line Maintenance Optimisation
It was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter that the optimisation process
mainly involves the reduction of maintenance man-hours, and a maximum
utilisation of the maintenance item interval. From reduced man-hours follows a
reduction in maintenance downtime, and from increased item interval utilisation
follows a decrease in the interval de-escalation.
Line maintenance optimisation will also be aimed at reducing the amount of
maintenance performed in the high season.
It was illustrated in the previous section that an increase in the maintenance interval
also leads to a decrease in the man-hour demand. The 6-weeks maintenance
frequency leads to the following maintenance demand:
Manhour Demand perhangar visit: 6-Week Freq.
180
160
140
120
Transavia Manhou
100
80
60
40
20
0
May-01
May-02
May-03
May-04
May-05
May-06
Nov-01
Nov-02
Nov-03
Nov-04
Nov-05
Nov-06
Sep-01
Sep-02
Sep-03
Sep-04
Sep-05
Sep-06
Feb-02
Mar-02
Feb-03
Mar-03
Feb-04
Mar-04
Feb-05
Mar-05
Feb-06
Mar-06
Aug-01
Dec-01
Jan-02
Aug-02
Dec-02
Jan-03
Aug-03
Dec-03
Jan-04
Aug-04
Dec-04
Jan-05
Aug-05
Dec-05
Jan-06
Aug-06
Dec-06
Apr-01
Jun-01
Apr-02
Jun-02
Apr-03
Jun-03
Apr-04
Jun-04
Apr-05
Jun-05
Apr-06
Jun-06
Oct-01
Oct-02
Oct-03
Oct-04
Oct-05
Oct-06
Jul-01
Jul-02
Jul-03
Jul-04
Jul-05
Jul-06
Period [mm/yy]
Figure 4.22 Man-hour demand: Line maintenance clustering at a 6-weeks frequency

(Utilisation scenario 10)
In the situation illustrated above, the man-hour demand is not minimised in the
high season (peaks between April and October).
Section 3.2.4 mentioned the fact that line maintenance could either be utilisation or
calendar-time driven. The high season is characterised by an increase in aircraft
utilisation, hence an increase in maintenance demand (based on utilisation).
Constraints in minimising maintenance in the high season are Maintenance Task

Packages with a short recurrence cycle (see Table 4.28), and interval de-escalations
leading to more losses in than would be gained if performed in the low season.
These are mainly Task Packages with large man-hours demand.
75
High Season: April-October (7 Months/214 days, approx 2620 FH/960 FC Scen. 10)
Period Task Package Maintenance interval Occurrence HV man-hours
214 Days 60 Days (0.06 HV MHrs) 3x 0.18
60 Days/400C (5.44 HV MHrs) 3x 16.32
100 Days (22.4 HV MHrs) 2x 44.8
100Days/1000C (2.44 HV MHrs) 2x 4.88
2626 FH 450 Hours (26 HV MHrs) 5x 130
1000 Hours (13.1 HV MHrs) 2x 26.2
1600 Hours (7.7 HV MHrs) 1x 7.7
2000 Hours (6.42 HV MHrs) 1x 6.42
960 FC 300 Cycles (0.68 HV MHrs) 3x 1.02
Minimum Man-hours required 238.54
Table 4.28 Task Packages with a short recurrence cycle

By using the values on Table 2.5, it can be said that 239 Transavia man-hours leads to
a demand of at least 4 maintenance slots for the high season. How these slots are
spread will entirely depend on the utilisation.
Further, it is important to identify Maintenance Task Packages with a high demand
for man-hours. From Table 3.6 follows:
Task Package Dual Interval Transavia Task Package Transavia

Intervals MHrs Intervals Mhrs
100 Days 22.4 450 Hours 26
720 Days 15.7 1000 Hours 13.1
720 Days 4000 Cycles 71 4000 Hours 21.5
1800 Days 18000 Cycles 38.8 5000 Hours 98.42
2880 Days 18000 Cycles 35.8 10000 Hours 12.1
3000 Cycles 11 25000 Hours 13.7
4000 Cycles 540 Days 51.76 369.64
246.46
Table 4.29 Task Packages with large man-hour requirements
The occurrence of the task packages listed on Table 4.29 above creates a large
demand for man-hours, and especially so in the high season. Task packages based on
calendar days can be de-escalated (strategy utilised for base maintenance) once, such
that they will always recur in the low season or at specific times of the later year.
As for the FH and FC task packages, their recurrence is based on the utilisation. By
referring to Scenarios 1, 5, 9, and, the following recurrence cycles can be calculated:
MHrs Cons. ML Opt. Scen-10 Observation:

FH/yr 2910 3626 4368 3866
FC/yr 1444 1512 1485 1455
450 H 26 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 No initial de-escalation (See Table 4.28)
1000 H 13.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 Will occur twice in the high season
4000 H 21.5 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.0 Recurs approx. once a year
5000 H 98.42 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.3 Recurs every 15 months
10000 H 12.1 3.4 2.8 2.3 2.6 Recurs every 27 months
25000 H 13.7 8.6 6.9 5.7 6.5 Large interval assign to low season
300 C 11 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 Recurs every 24 months assign to low season
Table 4.30 Task Package recurrence interval in years

With the exception of all Maintenance Task Packages with an interval of 300 cycles,
all other packages are strongly utilisation dependent (see the trends on Table 4.30).
An initial de-escalation would be of little use if the package has to be performed
76
Chapter 4
outside the high season. Reason: the next due date is bound to fall in the high season,
and the de-escalation process is bound to be repeated annually.
Maintenance Task Packages (with significantly less man-hours) would be preferable

to work with. An initial de-escalation would be meant to spread them apart, in such
a way that packages originating from the same Transavia check never have to be
performed together. It is worth mentioning that this strategy is already being applied
to the H5000 packages (H5000A, B, C, D, E). See also Table I. 1. Table 2.4 is also a
good example of how only the H5000E Task Package is scheduled in for
performance.
By referring back to the Maintenance Task Package example on Table 3.2, the
following example is given:
Task packages: HV Man- De- HV Man-hours lost per

(4000C/540D hours escalation De-escalation
Mx Interval) priority1:
422 Days 84 Days 126 days 168 days 210 days
C4000A* 3.64 3 0.28 0.57 0.85 1.13 1.42
C4000B* 2.16 2 0.17 0.34 0.50 0.67 0.84
C4000C* 4.98 4 0.39 0.77 1.16 1.55 1.94
C4000D* 8.32 6 0.65 1.29 1.94 2.59 3.24
C4000E* 1.18 1 0.09 0.18 0.28 0.37 0.46
C4000F* 1.18 1 0.09 0.18 0.28 0.37 0.46
C4000G* 7.92 5 0.62 1.23 1.85 2.46 3.08
C4000H* 22.4 7 1.74 3.48 5.23 6.97 8.71
C4000* (Check) 51.6 - 4.02 8.03 12.04 16.05 20.07
Table 4.31 Maintenance Task package de-escalation: example

1- Highest priority is 1 while lowest is 7
2- 42 days = 7 days x 6 weeks
In the example above, it can be seen that it is preferable to de-escalate task packages
separately, for this results in less man-hour losses that when a Transavia check has to
be de-escalated. It follows also that the loss in man-hours will increase with the de-
escalation. Further, it would be of little significance to de-escalate packages B*, E*
and F* on Table 4.31. Such packages could always fit into any maintenance windows.
By optimising the scheduling of Maintenance Task Packages with intervals listed on

Table 4.29 (see also the affiliated Maintenance Task Packages on Table I. 3), an
optimised hangar visit packaging would be as follows:
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Jan 134.1 0 87.84 43.3 69.12
Feb 0 112.22 73.4 162.42 0
Mar 103.86 100.78 40.14 0 133.94
Apr 0 56.4 30 0 116.06 35.3
May 111.98 52.44 0 65 26.4 0
Jun 58.84 0 75.14 39.86 0 182.06
Jul 0 66.54 39.12 0 99.64 35.9
Aug 49.12 50.9 44.96 85.84 26.4 50.3
Sep 51.44 52.74 0 54.74 48.44 0
Oct 49.44 0 40.28 30 0 79.58
Nov 0 53.6 190.5 0 74.9 39
Dec 67.44 47.34 0 82.36 41.44 0
HV Mhrs/year 388 618 633 559 639 625
Table 4.32 Line Maintenance Man-hour Demand per aircraft: Optimised situation
77
200
180
160
140
Transavia Man-hours
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Jun-01
Jan-02
Jun-02
Jan-03
Jun-03
Jan-04
Jun-04
Jan-05
Jun-05
Jan-06
Jun-06
Dec-03
May-01
Aug-01
Sep-01
Dec-01
Feb-02
Mar-02
May-02
Aug-02
Sep-02
Dec-02
Feb-03
Mar-03
May-03
Aug-03
Sep-03
Feb-04
Mar-04
May-04
Aug-04
Sep-04
Dec-04
Feb-05
Mar-05
May-05
Aug-05
Sep-05
Dec-05
Feb-06
Mar-06
May-06
Aug-06
Sep-06
Dec-06
Apr-01
Apr-02
Apr-03
Apr-04
Apr-05
Apr-06
Jul-01
Jul-02
Jul-03
Jul-04
Jul-05
Jul-06
Oct-01
Oct-02
Oct-03
Oct-04
Oct-05
Oct-06
Nov-01
Nov-02
Nov-03
Nov-04
Nov-05
Nov-06
P eriod [Months]
Figure 4.23 Maintenance Demand: Optimised situation
The maintenance demand above leads to a maintenance slot demand that increases
gradually over the years, to reflect the increase in the amount of maintenance arising
from maintenance task packages with large maintenance intervals. With the
exception of the first two years (2001, 2002), all high seasons show a demand of 8
slots per year. This trend is tabulated here below, and plotted out on Figure 4.24
below.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Jan 3 2 1 1
Feb 3 2 3
Mar 2 2 1 3
Apr 1 1 3 1
May 3 1 2 1
Jun 1 2 1 3
Jul 2 1 2 1
Aug 1 1 1 2 1 1
Sep 2 1 1 1
Oct 1 1 1 2
Nov 1 3 2 1
Dec 2 1 2 1
Total slots 11 13 14 14 15 13
Table 4.33 Maintenance Slots demand - optimised situation
78
Chapter 4
3.5
2.5
Maintenance Slots
1.5
0.5
0
May-01
May-02
May-03
May-04
May-05
May-06
Nov-01
Nov-02
Nov-03
Nov-04
Nov-05
Nov-06
Sep-01
Feb-02
Mar-02
Sep-02
Feb-03
Mar-03
Sep-03
Feb-04
Mar-04
Sep-04
Feb-05
Mar-05
Sep-05
Feb-06
Mar-06
Sep-06
Jan-02
Jan-03
Jan-04
Jan-05
Jan-06
Aug-01
Dec-01
Aug-02
Dec-02
Aug-03
Dec-03
Aug-04
Dec-04
Aug-05
Dec-05
Aug-06
Dec-06
Apr-01
Jun-01
Jul-01
Apr-02
Jun-02
Jul-02
Apr-03
Jun-03
Jul-03
Apr-04
Jun-04
Jul-04
Apr-05
Jun-05
Jul-05
Apr-06
Jun-06
Jul-06
Oct-01
Oct-02
Oct-03
Oct-04
Oct-05
Oct-06
Period [M onths]
Figure 4.24 Maintenance Slots demand: Optimised situation
In terms of de-escalated man-hours, it can be seen from Table 4.34 that depending
on the scenario, the de-escalation lies between 10-19%.
Cons. ML Opt. Scen-10

HV MHrs De-esc HV MHrs De-esc HV MHrs De-esc HV MHrs De-esc
2001 337 119 362 144 370 152 362 144
2002 588 63 606 94 681 148 626 93
2003 501 0 606 159 603 69 606 79
2004 593 160 600 81 653 74 584 146
2005 586 20 646 64 678 76 677 83
2006 560 32 587 53 618 191 573 53
Total 3164.4 393.5 3407.4 595.8 3601.7 709.7 3428.5 598.8
Table 4.34 Line Maintenance Clustering and resulting De-escalation:
As pertains to the maintenance costs, the following comparison can be made

between the current clustering at 5-weeks using Line Maintenance Checks, and the
optimised Clustering at 6-weeks using Maintenance Task Packages:
Utilisation Labour Costs- De-esc. Costs % De-esc Labour Cost - De-esc. Costs % De-esc
Current () - Current () Proposed () Proposed ()
Cons. 94394 27323 29 100501 12498 12
ML 101489 24325 24 108218 18916 17
Opt. 106596 26421 25 114391 22540 20
Scen-10 101140 23153 23 108890 19018 17
Total Cost 403619 101222 25 432000 72972 17
Table 4.35 Total Maintenance cost per aircraft, over a 6-year period: Current vs. Proposed
situation
The proposed situation shows a higher man-hour demand than the current
situation. This is a direct result of the increase in the amount of maintenance work
79
for line maintenance (Line/Base maintenance redefinition), as compared to the

current situation.
Despite the fact above, the total de-escalation is lower in the proposed situation, as
compared to the current situation, and leads to an average annual reduction in line
maintenance costs of about 12,691 per aircraft.
4.5 Summary
Through the implementation of the Top-Down and the Bottom-Up approaches, it is

determined that the amount of maintenance demand is dependent on the utilisation
of the aircraft. This is especially the case for line maintenance, which strongly varies
through the increase and decrease of flight hours. A variation in the number of flight
cycles does not lead to any significant variations in the maintenance demand.
The application of the two approaches also leads to the conclusion that Base
maintenance can be performed optimally at a frequency of 24 Months. However, this
optimum is achieved through the application of an initial de-escalation, which
schedules the performance of the first base visit at a date, not later than 23 Months
after the introduction of the aircraft into the fleet. This leads to the clustering of
maintenance checks to clusters closest tot their maintenance intervals. A 30-day
initial de-escalation leads to the least total de-escalation of check-intervals, and
consequently to the most optimum clusters for Base maintenance.
The clustering of base maintenance checks leads to static maintenance clusters,
which may also be viewed as phases in maintenance. Such phases are of importance,
especially in the planning of long-term maintenance.
It can also be concluded that Line maintenance is strongly utilisation dependent

during the high season, and calendar-time dependent during the low season.
Consequently, the maintenance demand increases with the utilisation. Herewith, the
maintenance demand rises during the high season. By reducing the total
maintenance demand in the high season to a minimum, an increase in the de-
escalated man-hours results. This also follows from the fact that the high season lasts
7 months, and the low season 5.
Line maintenance demand also increases with the maintenance frequency. This
increase follows from repetitive maintenance. A frequency of 4 weeks results in a
higher maintenance demand than that resulting from a 5-week or a 6-week
frequency. A 6-week frequency results in the lowest maintenance demand. A 7-week
frequency would result in an even lower maintenance demand, but it is only
applicable where the aircraft utilisation low. In other instances, the utilisation-
dependent maintenance intervals would be violated.
Line maintenance clustering is, therefore, a dynamic clustering process, that is

strongly dependent on the utilisation of the aircraft and on the frequency with which
maintenance is performed. Maintenance task packages are of importance in that they
provide for the creation of smaller maintenance clusters with minimum de-
escalation.
80
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions
The optimisation of the maintenance of the B737 NG can be sub-divided into Line
Maintenance Optimisation and Base Maintenance Optimisation. This follows from
the fact that Transavia performs Line Maintenance in house, and contracts out Base
Maintenance.
Line Maintenance
The B737 NG MPD is a document developed from the MSG-3 maintenance

philosophy, which leads to task based maintenance. This is unlike the other aircraft
operated by Transavia, which have an MSG-2 (Process Oriented) MPD. This,
therefore, calls for a different approach in the way the maintenance program (OMP)
is developed, as pertains to task packaging, and the execution thereof. This entails
looking at task properties, such as the MSG-3 classification (such as lubrication,
Discard, Restoration) and the set-up demand (common procedure/conditions/cost).
The result of this is smaller task packages demanding less man-hours, as compared
to the conventional Maintenance checks currently used by Transavia.
The shift from the current situation, (where line maintenance is limited by 3000 Flight
Cycles, 6000 Flight Hours and 540 Days), to a Line-Base classification results in an
increase in maintenance demand of between 66-113 man-hours per year.
Line maintenance demand is strongly dependent on the utilisation of the aircraft,

and on the seasonal pattern followed By the Transavia fleet. The clustering hereof is,
therefore, dynamic. Aircraft utilisation below 3000 flight hours a year leads to a
maintenance demand that is 11% less than that from above 3000 flight hours. While
the low season offers enough ground time for maintenance, the high season leaves
little room for this, yet creates a higher demand for maintenance.
The demand for maintenance slots does not follow a specific pattern, but is also
dependent on the utilisation. The departure situation was a rhythmic distribution of
maintenance slots (1-1-2-1-1-4-1-1-2-...), irrespective of the season or utilisation. In
reality, the actual demand and distribution of maintenance slots varies from year to
year. This leads to distributions such as 3-2-1-2-1-1-1-3- or 2-2-1-2-1-2-1-1-2-.
However, the total demand for maintenance slots remains at 15 in all cases.
Maintenance clustering always will result in the de-escalation of maintenance task

intervals. This de-escalation, of Calendar-Time, Flight Hours, or Flight Cycles, is in
actual fact a loss that can be quantified in man-hours. De-escalation leads to an
increased frequency of maintenance item execution, hence an excessive labour
spending on the item.
The minimisation of maintenance during the high season inevitably results in
interval de-escalation. Owing to the fact that most items that have to be de-escalated
(for this purpose) are mainly utilisation dependent (flight hour/Cycle items), de-
81
escalation will have to be done every new season, and the cost of this will be
dependent on the utilisation of the aircraft.
Optimising the clustering of line maintenance is achieved by minimising the number

of times the aircraft visits the hangar. This mainly reduces repetitive maintenance. By
performing line maintenance at a 6-week interval, the total de-escalation of man-
hours is brought down from as high as 29%, to as low as 10% of the exact
maintenance demand. This translates to an average annual reduction in line
maintenance costs of about 12,691 per aircraft. A 7-week frequency can be achieved
if the aircraft is utilised for less than 3000 flight hours per year, resulting in de-
escalation less than 10%.
Base Maintenance
Base maintenance items are characterised by large maintenance intervals and a high
demand for man-hours and ground time. The scheduling of this is, therefore, done
only in the low season.
The optimisation of base maintenance follows from the reduction in the frequency (of
the maintenance), a reduction in the number of man-hours contracted out, and a
minimisation in the interval (man-hour) de-escalation.
Base maintenance can be performed optimally at a frequency of 24 Months.

However, this optimum is achieved through the application of an initial de-
escalation, which schedules the performance of the first base visit at a date, not later
than 23 Months after the introduction of the aircraft into the fleet. This leads to the
clustering of maintenance checks to clusters closest to their maintenance intervals. A
30-day initial de-escalation leads to the least total de-escalation on the maintenance
man-hours (7%), and consequently to the most optimum clusters for Base
maintenance. The 7% translates to 93 man-hours, as compared to 341 man-hours
(23%) before the initial de-escalation a reduction of losses by 248 man-hours. This,
in turn, translates to an average saving of 12,181 per aircraft, over a period of ten
years.
Base maintenance shows a dependence on aircraft utilisation, depending on whether

this is low (below 3210 Flight hours per year), normal (between 3210 and 4015 flight
hours per year), or high (above 4015, but below 48 flight hours per year). A variation
of flight hours/cycles ratio of between 1.9 and 3.1 has no impact on the base
maintenance demand.
The clustering of base maintenance checks leads to static maintenance clusters, which
may also be viewed as phases in maintenance. Base Maintenance checks can be
clustered together into six unique phases, starting from a phase that recurs every 2
years, to a sixth phase that recurs every 12 years. However, the composition of the
phases varies according to the aircraft utilisation.
Maintenance labour forms a component of the direct maintenance costs. It also has a
direct proportionality with the downtime, and the material costs, which are also
elements of direct maintenance costs. In turn, direct maintenance costs are a part of
the cost of ownership. Hence, the reduction of maintenance labour (man-hours)
directly leads to the reduction of the cost of ownership
82
5.2 Recommendations
In order to maximise the maintenance advantages that came along with the B737 NG,
the following is recommended:
1. The application of Maintenance Task Packages for line maintenance, in place

of the current line maintenance checks.
2. An annual review of the maintenance planning versus realisation. This

should serve as a gauge for the planning accuracy, and establish trends that
follow from the application of (1) above.
3. The standardisation of Base Maintenance through the utilisation of base

maintenance phases.
4. The use of initial de-escalation at the first base maintenance visit. This should
serve as a tool to reduce the total maintenance man-hours contracted out, and
the total de-escalation resulting from maintenance clustering.
83
References
References
[1] Kececioglu, D., Maintainability, Availability & Operational Readiness

Engineering, Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering,
University of Arizona, Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersey (USA), 1995
[2] Patton, J.D., Preventive Maintenance, 2nd edition, ISA, North Carolina
(USA), 1995
[3] Kelly, A., Maintenance Planning and Control, Butterworths, Manchester
(UK), 1984
[4] Ben-Daya et al., Maintenance, Modelling and Optimisation, Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Boston (USA), 2000
[5] Lalli et al., Reliability and Maintainability (RAM) Training, NASA/TP-
2000-207428, NASA Publications, Washington/Ohio (USA), 2000
[6] Kent, R.M., Health Monitoring System Technology Assessments: Cost

Benefit Analysis, NASA/CR-2000-299848, pg.(?-?),
Washington/Maryland (USA), 2000
[7] File, W.T., Cost Effective Maintenance: Design and Implementation, ,

Butterworths-Heinemann, 1991
[8] Niebel, B.W., Engineering Maintenance Management, 2nd edition, , Marcel
Dekker Inc., New York (USA), 1994
[9] Smit, K., Maintenance Engineering, Lecture Notes D-96, Faculty of
Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Education, Delft, 1993
[10] Smit, K, Onderhoudsmanagement (Maintenance Management), Lecture

Notes wb5415, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Marine
Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 1988
[11] Boeing, Airline Maintenance Program Development, Fleet Maintenance

Seminar Notes, Commercial Aviation Services, Seattle (USA), 2000
[12] Boeing, 737 600/ -700/ -800 / -900 Maintenance Planning Data Document,
D626A001, Revision June 2001, Commercial Aviation Services, Seattle
(USA), 2001
[13] Boeing, Production Planning Requirements To Maintain Continued

Airworthiness, Fleet Maintenance Seminar Notes, Commercial Aviation
Services, Seattle (USA), 2001
[14] Bratley et al., A Guide To Simulation, 2nd edition, pg. 1-11, Springer-
Verlag New York Inc, New York, 1987
[15] Stam, T., Lems, W., Line and Base Maintenance Redefinition, Maintenance
program concept redefinition, Schiphol East, 2001
[16] Dijkhuizen, G. van, Maintenance Meets Production: On the Ups and
Downs of a Repairable System, Dissertation TU Twente, pg. 23-29, Print
85
Partners Ipskamp, Enschede, 1998

[17] Smit, K., Besturing Onderhoud met behulp van Computers (Computer-
Assisted Maintenance Management), J2020, pg. 8, Department of
Industrial Engineering Management, Delft University of Technology,
1994
[18] Hillston, J., Modelling and Simulation, Lecture Notes, Department of
Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 2001
86
Appendix A
A. Assignment
Subject Optimisation of the maintenance of the Boeing 737 Next

Generation (NG)
Background With the introduction of the 737 NG, the Boeing Company has
ceased prescribing the C-check interval. This has been
replaced by a large number of ungrouped tasks that have got
to be planned into the maintenance program by the aircraft
operator.
Assignment Research on how the maintenance program and maintenance

tasks execution can be optimised. Pay special attention on the
cost of ownership of the aircraft with regard to maintenance
execution. The unavailability of the aircraft for airline
operations should also be considered
Recommendations - Realistic and executable

- Applicable within the Transavia organisation and
processes
- Applicable for both Transavia airlines and KLM business
Unit 737, with the exception of work contracted out
87
Appendix B
B. Transavia Airlines
B.1. History
Transavia Limburg N.V. was founded in 1965. It received an airline licence in 1966,
with which it could operate charter flights from Beek (Maastricht) and Zestienhoven
(Rotterdam) airports. Shortly thereafter, an American company, the American Boreas
Corporation, bought all company shares. The companys name was later changed to
Transavia Holland so that it could also operate from Schiphol airport. Despite
various problems with the acquisition of licences, the airline transported 21.000
passengers in its first year of operation.
In 1968, the airline began operating charter flight to the United States, and it also
stated leasing out its aircraft and cabin/cockpit crew. By 1971, the Transavia
passenger count had reached 447.000, and it had 420 employees. In 1972, the Royal
Dutch Steamship Company (KNSM) took over 40% of the companys shares. In the
same year, the Caravell fleet was replaced with the Boeing 737-200, at the cost of fl.
20 million per aircraft. KNSM acquired all the company shares in 1977.
Transavia Holland changed its name to Transavia airlines in 1986, and in the same
year, it acquired its first B737-300. During the same year, the company transported its
millionth passenger. An introduction of a line service to London Gatwick led to the
introduction of Business Class seats for the fleet.
A merger of the KNSM and Ned Lloyd in 1988 resulted in the sale of 40% of the
shares to KLM. Transavia airlines also introduced a line service to holiday
destinations along the Mediterranean Coast.
1991 saw the acquisition of 80% of the shares by KLM. A year later, the airline
received a delivery of its first Boeing 757-200.
Transavia airlines still operates as an independent organisation, with the following

major activities:
- Holiday charter flights
- Scheduled business and holiday flights
- Aircraft leasing
- Ad-hoc flights
The airline has its head office at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Its main operation
base is also Schiphol Airport. Its other base is at Rotterdam Airport.
Staff
Currently, Transavia has an average of 1500 employees, serving on board, as ground
staff and as administrative staff.
B.2. The fleet

The Transavia fleet is currently under modernisation in order to cater optimally for
the needs of the airline and its passengers. The following list gives an overview of the
fleet, as per 28-06-2001
89
Aircraft type Abbreviation Number Capacity Average age

Boeing 737-300 B733 7 149 10.14 yr.
Boeing 737-700 (NG) B737 NG 1 149 0
Boeing 737-800 (NG) B737 NG 12 184 1.5
Boeing 757-200 B752 4 219 7
Total - 24 - -
Table B. 1 Transavia Fleet as per 26 June 2001

All the aircraft have the same one-class configuration, thus making them fully
interchangeable. They all have the range for most of Transavia destinations. The
major utilisation difference is their capacity.
The abbreviation used above is limited to the technical department only, and it is
used to distinguish the various maintenance programmes for each type of aircraft.
B.3. Maintenance Facilities

For the maintenance of these aircraft, the airline has a hangar in which two aircraft
can be maintained simultaneously, and a third aircraft one parked for fault
correction. This facility has a JAR-145 certificate, and is authorised by the NLA to
perform all maintenance activities it is capable of performing (See relevant
appendix). Maintenance performed in own facility is referred to as line maintenance.
Heavy maintenance is normally contracted out to KLM E&M (B737 aircraft) and
Shannon Aviation (B 752 aircraft) in Ireland. These two heavy maintenance stations
have a long-term contract with Transavia to perform base maintenance for the fleet.
Engine maintenance is contracted out to SNECMA (B737 CFMI-engines) in France
and Derby (B752 Rolls-Royce engines) in the United Kingdom. APU maintenance is
done by Allied Signals in Raunheim, Germany.
B.4. Organisation
The following diagram illustrates the organisation of Transavia airlines as a whole.
90
Appendix B
President
Corporate Personnel
Communications (PR) & Organisation
Legal Affairs External Relations
Director Director Director

Operational affairs Finance and Planning Sales and Planning
Controllers
Marketing
Department
Quality & Fleet
Safety Assurance Management Financial Charter
Administration Sales
Technical Information Scheduled

Ground Service & Flight Department Cabin Crew Services Service Sales
Department
Operations Control (Cockpit) Department
(A)
Treasury Capacity
Management Planning
Commercial
Insurance
Realisation
Facility
Management Lease
Figure B.1 Transavia: Organisational Structure
A - The Technical Department
The technical department is subdivided into three departments, namely Purchases and
Logistics, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering.
Figure B.1 illustrates the organisational structure of the E&M
B - Aircraft Maintenance
The Aircraft Maintenance department has the following objectives:
1. To ensure that all operating aircraft are in serviceable condition as regards to
airworthiness, punctuality, sitting configuration and passenger/crew comfort
2. Support the Lease department (Lease in/out, sale) and the Fleet Management
(aircraft purchases) technically.
The aircraft maintenance section performs the following activities:
a. Line maintenance
- Arrival services (aircraft reception from cockpit crew)
- Aircraft inspection as per instructions
- Defect analysis
- Defect correction or deferring
- Aircraft transfer to cockpit crew
- Departure services
91
Head of
Maintenance and Engineering (A)
Maintenance Control Secretariat
Purchases and Logistics Aircraft Maintenance Engineering

(D) (B) (C)
Maintenance
Training Engineering Technical
Purchases Supply shop Planning and
co-ordination team library
Support
Project Technical
purchaser
Support
Technical
purchaser
Maintenance Seat
team workshop
Analysts
Figure B.2: Organisational Structure E&M
b. Hangar maintenance
- Towing aircraft from the Gate to the Hangar
- Parking aircraft in the Hangar
- Opening of inspection access panels
- Performing line maintenance inspections and modifications
- Defect analysis
- Defect correction or deferring
- Closing of inspection access panels
- Moving aircraft from Hangar
- Towing aircraft to the Gate
c. Seat maintenance
- Seat inspection
- Seat defect correction
d. Technical Flight co-ordination

- Technical consultation with the cockpit crew during flight, at the request of
the cockpit crew
e. Aircraft health monitoring

- Monitoring production per aircraft (flight hours, cycles)
- Monitoring inspections performed
- Registering defects and corrective action
- Monitoring component change
C Engineering
92
Appendix B
Objectives:
1. Setting technical standards and specifications for new or modified aircraft and
components so that aircraft maintenance may be performed in accordance with
Transavia and NLA maintenance execution requirements, while keeping cost as
low as possible
2. Supporting the aircraft maintenance department in faultfinding and rectification
of complex faults. Also issue repair instructions for specific tasks, and help in
investigating the course of the most common defects
3. Participate technically in the purchase of new aircraft, and in making
specifications on aircraft modification in order to fulfil the wishes of the Flight
and cabin services, marketing and lease department.
This department is subdivided into five sections, broadly categorised according to

ATA 100 classification. These sections are:
a. Maintenance programs
b. Power Plants
c. Structures/Systems
d. Interiors
e. Avionics
D - Purchases and Logistics
Objectives
Realisation of all commercial activities (purchases, outsourcing and sales) of goods
and services (including personnel) and all logistical services in order to support the
E&M in maintaining its JAROPS1 and JAR145 standard and low cost of ownership
strategies.
Activities
a. Project purchases: purchasing specified goods and services for maintenance
activities and modifications from specialised vendors. This also involves
preparing contracts for out-source work and pooling activities.
b. Purchases: Purchasing goods and materials for (ad hoc) maintenance activities
and toping up component stocks for normal activities. Purchases also deals with
the disposal (sale) of unnecessary materials.
c. Analysis: Determining optimum stock and spare-parts levels and re-order levels
and monitoring contracts and co-operation agreements.
d. Warranty management: Monitoring aircraft and component warranty as a tool of
minimising spending on maintenance.
e. Supplies shop: Mainly deals with the reception, storage and distribution of
materials/articles and technical consignments.
B.5. Operational area

Transavia mainly operates holiday charters and scheduled services (including the
BASIQ AIR service) to destinations along the Mediterranean Sea. It also makes flights
to destinations such as Tel Aviv (Israel) and Kathmandu (Nepal).
93
Table B.2 below gives an overview of all Transavia destinations.
The Transavia operational year is typically divided into two periods: the summer
period (high season) and the winter period (low season).
The high season begins in May and runs through October. During this season, the
airline operates at its maximum capacity (utilises all aircraft) and, where necessary,
leases in aircraft. Consequently, minimum ground time (turn around time and
maintenance time) is desired in order to suit operational demands.
The low season begins in November and runs through April, the following year. This
season demands the availability of at least half of the fleet, hence offering more
ground time for maintenance activities. It is during this season that heavy
maintenance is carried out.
94
Appendix B
Destinations Flights Destinations Flights Destinations Flights

Bulgaria Ireland Turkey
Varna c Connaught c Antalya c
Corsica Shannon c Bodrum c
Ajaccio c Israel Dalaman c
Cyprus Eilat c Izmir c
Lacarna c Tel Aviv c Spain
Paphos c Ovda c Alicante c,l
Egypt Italy Almeria c
Hurgada c Alghero c Arrecife c
Luxor c Catania c,l Bacelona c,l,b
Sharm el Sjeikh c Milan l Fuerteventura c
France Napels c,l Gerona c
Nice l,b Pisa c,l Ibiza c
Greece Rimini c Jerez de La c
Athens c Rome c Frontela c
Chania c La Palma c
Chios c Morocco Las Palmas c,l
Corfu c Agadir c Mahon c
Heraklion c,l Casablanca c,l Malaga c,l
Kalamata c Malta Palma de Mallorca c,l
Kavala c Malta c Reus c
Karpathos c Portugal Sevilla c,l
Keffalinia c Faro c,l Tenerife Sud c,l
Kos c Funchal c,l Valencia l
Mikonos c Lissabon c
Mytilini c Oporto c,l
Preveza c Nepal
Rhodos c,l Kathmandu l
Samos c Tunisia
Santorini c Djerba c
Skiathos c Monastir c
Skyros c
Thesaloniki c,l
Volos c
Zakynthos c
b = BASIQ AIR
c = Charter flights
l = Scheduled service
Table B.2: Transavia flight destinations
95
Appendix C
C. The MSG-3 Philosophy
C.1. MSG Development:
The B747 Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) created a new analytic approach to
maintenance using three control processes:
1. Hard Time limit: A maximum interval for performing maintenance tasks on a
part or unit. Such intervals apply to overhaul, but also to the total life of the
part or unit.
2. On-Condition: A repetitive inspections or tests to determine the condition of
units or systems, comprising servicing, inspecting, testing, calibrating and
replacement.
3. Conditioning Monitoring: Applies to items that have neither Hard Time limits
nor On Condition maintenance as their primary maintenance policies
C.1.1. MSG-2 (Process oriented)

Analyses from the piece part level up (bottom-up). This results in control methods of
Hard-Times, On Condition tasks and a large quantity of Condition Monitored items
requiring intensive record keeping. The following diagram illustrates the MSG-2
logic analysis process, guided by five key questions:
Is there a
failure NO
Mode that has direct
Adverse effects on
Flight safety?
Is there an
Indication to the flight crew NO
YES When a function ceases
To perform upon
Demand?
YES
Is there an
adverse relationship between
Age and reliability?
Is there a
Is there a maintenance or shop
reduction in failure resistance NO Check that will assure a high
NO NO
Detectable by Probability of continued Function or
Maintenance? function on demand?
HT HT
OC CM OC
Figure C.1: MSG-2 Analysis
The end-result of the logical analysis is a list of tasks:

- Tasks that can be done
97
- Tasks that have to be done

- Tasks that should be done
C.1.2. RCM (Reliability Centred Maintenance)

The Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) concept refined the logic process leading
to MSG-3.
C.1.3. MSG-3 (Task oriented maintenance)

Task oriented process, analyses through system failure from the top down. Results in
maintenance tasks that are performed for safety, operational or economic reasons. It
involves preventive maintenance, performed before failure occurs (and is intended to
prevent failure) as well as failure finding tasks.
The tasks referred to consist of Lubrication/Servicing, Operational/Visual,
Inspection/Functional, Restoration and discard. These are mostly derived from the
MSG-3 logic analysis.
MSG-3 Revision 1
This was a refining of the original MSG-3 in order to make it user-friendlier. It led to
the elimination of the Operating Crew Monitoring strategy in the original MSG-3
MSG-3 Revision 2
This is a revision of the MSG-3 policy. It provides additional clarification and
guidelines on development of Corrosion Prevention Control Programs (CPCP).
C.2. Maintenance program objectives (MSG-3)

- To ensure realisation of inherent safety and reliability levels of the equipment
- To restore safety and reliability to their inherent levels when deterioration has
occurred
- To obtain the information necessary for the design improvement of those items
whose inherent reliability proves inadequate
- To accomplish these goals at minimum total cost, including maintenance costs
and the cost of residual failure
Contents Maintenance Program

MSG-3 Tasks are sub-divided into two categories:
1. Scheduled tasks: these are tasks to be accomplished at scheduled intervals
Lubrication/servicing (LU/SV)
Operational Visual check (OP/VC)
Inspection-General Visual/ Functional check (GV/FC)
Detailed Inspection (IN)
Restoration (RS)
Discard (DS)
2. Non-scheduled tasks: these result from
Scheduled tasks accomplished at specific intervals
Reports of malfunction (usually originating from operating crew)
Data analysis
98
Appendix C
C.3. MSG-3 Logic flow analysis
This analysis leads to the identification of Maintenance Significant items (MSIs).

The MGS-3 requires the Systems and Power plant design to be divided into
convenient sized items for the purpose of analysis, better known as the Top-down
analysis.
The aeroplane is divided into major functional areas ATA systems and subsystems.
Further sub-division is done until sub-components not replaced on aircraft are
identified. This level of sub-division is also referred to as the Highest Manageable
Level. This level is considered high enough to avoid unnecessary analysis, but low
enough to allow proper analysis and ensure that all functions, failures and causes are
covered.
MSIs are identified from the following questions:

Could the failure of this system affect safety?
Could the failure of this system be undetectable or likely to be detected
during operations?
Could the failure of this item have significant operational impact?
Could the failure of this item have significant economic impact?
As mentioned earlier, the logical flow diagram classifies maintenance tasks into five
categories, namely:
- Category 5: Evident Safety Effect
- Category 6: Evident Operational Effect
- Category 7: Evident Economic Effect
- Category 8: Hidden Safety Effect
- Category 9: Hidden Non-Safety Effect
The following is an illustration of the MSG-3 logical flow diagram.
Is the occurrence of the functional failure

Evident to the operating crew during the
Performance of normal duties?
YES NO
Evident Functional Failure Hidden Functional Failure
Does the functional failure or secondary Doe s the combination of a hidden functional failure
Damage resulting from the functional and one additional failure of a system related
Failure have a direct adverse effect on the or back-up function have and adverse effect on
Operating safety? Operational safety?
YES NO YES NO
Does the functional failure have a

Direct effect on operating capability?
YES NO
SAFETY OPERATIONAL ECONOMIC SAFETY NON-SAFETY

EFFECTS EFFECTS EFFECTS EFFECTS EFFECTS
Figure C.2: MSG-3 Logic Flow diagram
99
The MSG-3 principle is also utilised in identifying Structural Significant Items (SSI). It
begins with considering the whole aircraft structure.
The aircraft is sub-divided into zones and/or areas using industry standards and
definitions resulting in manageable sections for analysis. Thereafter, all structural
items are identified and classified as Structural Significant Items, or as Other Structure.
The following diagram illustrates this process.
AIRCRAFT
STRUCTURE
DEFINE AIRCRAFT
ZONES OR AREAS
DEFINE AIRCRAFT
STRUCTURAL ITEMS
IS ITEM
NO
SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL
ITEM?
YES
CATEGORISE AND
LIST AS SSI
IS SSI DAMAGE TOLERANT?

NO YES
SAFE LIFE LIMIT FATIGUE DAMAGE ED/AD/CPCP ANALYSIS OF

ANALYSIS (FD) ANALYSIS ANALYSIS OTHER STRUCTURES
AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS CONSOLIDATED STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
Figure C.3: SSI Analysis
For all SSI, Accidental Damage (AD) and Environmental Deterioration (ED)
evaluations are performed, resulting in the MRB tasks. Fatigue evaluations usually
form part of the damage tolerance evaluation for certification, and will result in
supplementary inspections (Airworthiness Limitations), where the baseline MRB are
not adequate.
The Zonal maintenance program covers inspection requirements for Other Structure.
[Source: Boeing CAS, October 200]
100
Appendix D
D. Maintenance Program Packaging Methods
D.1. Maintenance program packaging methods
Objectives
Manufacturer
To provide the operator with packaging options for fleet maintenance
program
Increase the production efficiency of an organisation
Operator
Increase aircraft availability
Reduce production costs
By reviewing an operators anticipated utilisation, environmental considerations,

fleet size, seasonal constraints, and other factors, it is possible to package an aircrafts
maintenance program taking full advantage of the allowable utilisation parameters
(Hours, Cycles and Calendar Time) as specified in the MPD document.
The band of possible task packaging for a given airplane can range from a program
consisting of a large number of progressively performed small work packages
equalised/progressive check) to a program which bundles most scheduled tasks in
relatively few large checks performed at higher intervals (block check).
The traditional A, B, C & D check programs are typically situated somewhere
between the two extremes (also referred to as Segmented Checks). Most airlines
scheduled programs fall in this category. The selection of the right task packaging
method that satisfies an operators requirements will depend on three primary
considerations:
- Operational considerations (route structure, flight length, frequency of flight)
- Commercial considerations (traffic patterns, seasonal constraints)
Technical considerations (maintenance program, manpower skills, tooling etc)
D.2. Block Packaging

This is focused on the principle of grouping all maintenance tasks that require
frequent repetition under a letter check (i.e. A, B, C, D Checks). This method
produces a small number of relatively large work packages having the disadvantage
of a relatively long maintenance ground time
Conditions favouring BLOCK packaging include
- Large airplane fleet - High utilisation

- Spare airplane available - Long range operation
- Flexible manpower - Non-scheduled maintenance
- Single centrally located maintenance - Utilisation varies with calendar
base season
- Contract maintenance
Advantages:
Reduces spare requirements at out stations
101
Increased ground time

Increased ground time simplifies scheduling or the logical sequencing of work to
be performed. Sequencing considerations include specific configuration for the
accomplishment of various tasks. For example, many operational tasks require
electric or hydraulic power. Engine tasks may require cowls and thrust-reversers
to be Open. This could conflict with wing tasks requiring flaps and leading edge
devices to be deployed.
Logistical considerations for spares are also simplified.
Accomplishment of modifications
Rectification of non-routines
More efficient sequencing of long jobs
Disadvantages
Manpower requirements can be adversely affected if airplane fleet planning cannot
support back-to-back scheduling of airplanes.
Component parts may be replaced several hundred hours before replacement is
necessary. However, the benefit quite often outweighs the disadvantages. Operator
scheduling constraints are typically the reason for early replacements.
Block check programs increase the risk of the airplane becoming a parts department
in support of in-service airplanes.
D.3. Equalised/Phased or progressive packaging:

Packages requiring shorter ground time
Equalised packaging is an alternative method of packaging maintenance tasks. In
this method, tasks are arranged into many small packages all having approximately
the same ground time. Each package may contain only a few tasks but with a ground
time (elapsed time) of less than 8 hours. This may also be elapsed time that satisfies
the availability requirements specified by airline operations and scheduling.
In their description of the functions of a maintenance management tool, MX

Technologies refer to equalised maintenance as a program derived through updated
MSG-3 analysis. This implies that equalised maintenance is, in actual fact, Task-
Based Maintenance. In an equalized program, the larger letter checks are segmented
into smaller but more frequent work packages, with the result that the aircraft has
greater overall availability for revenue-generating service. Also, segmentation helps
to get the maximum life out of life-limited components
Conditions favouring equalised packaging include
- Small aircraft fleet - Low utilisation

- No spare airplane - Short range operations
- Manpower equalisation - Scheduled operations
- Multiple maintenance locations - Constant utilisation
- Maintenance performed in house
Advantages
Equalised packaging simplifies manpower-planning requirements. This is because,
moving tasks from one check package to another minimises peaks and valleys in
manpower requirements. However, when considering equalisation, it is important to
weigh all operational considerations.
102
Appendix D
Other advantages include:
- Reduced ground time - Frequent visit supports full component

life
- Increased aircraft availability - Balanced workload on small fleets
- Reduced size of workload - More opportunities to correct deferred
maintenance
- Flexibility of grouping tasks with
common access
Disadvantages
As with the block check, if taken to an extreme, disadvantages can offset the
efficiency gained in another area if all aspects of the program are not carefully
considered. Equalised work packages increase open/close access requirements. This
in turn increases the stress on fasteners, causing a consequent replacement due to
induced damage. Additionally, over time, total man-hours as compared to a block
check will be higher.
Other disadvantages include:
Increase in production planning and scheduling workload
Careful planning is required due to the limited ground time
There is limited time for the accomplishment of modifications
Short jobs are inherently inefficient
Limited time to identify and rectify non-routines
[Sources: Boeing CAS, 2000; Mxi Technologies (www.mxi.com), 2002]
103
Appendix E
E. Line and Base Maintenance Redefinition
Transavia JAR-145 scope of work
E.1. Cause
The MPD of the 737-800 does not make a distinction between A and C checks.
Instead, it just lists all maintenance tasks that need to be performed on the aircraft.
This allows the operator to set up his own maintenance program, depending on the
aircraft utilisation.
Transavia opted to define line maintenance task as all tasks with maintenance limits
of less than 540 Days, 3000 Cycles or 6000 Hours. All tasks with limits above these
were classified as base maintenance tasks. Such a definition was not reasonable,
owing to the fact that there were many tasks with higher intervals, which Transavia
was fully capable of performing.
The JAA Leaflet No. 6 on the JAR-145 Definition of Line Maintenance also supported
this view. Point 4 of this leaflet states: Taking into account the wide range of aircraft
used in commercial aircraft transport, e.g. light single engine, helicopter and large transport
airplanes, and furthermore considering their different maintenance programmes, it is not
appropriate to use hours, letter checks, or calendar time as a divider between line and base
maintenance.
Transavia would therefore prefer to perform some base maintenance tasks at its own
hangar, in order to reduce this de-escalation.
E.2. Aim
To carry out an evaluation on which tasks, classified under the current definition (see
E.1 above) as Base Maintenance tasks, can be performed by Transavia, a JAR-145
Line Maintenance organisation (JAR-145 Section 2, paragraphs 3.2.1-3.2.4).
Transavia Airlines is currently certified as a Line Maintenance Organisation, and
hence licensed to perform all Line Maintenance tasks. Line Maintenance referred to is
as defined in this document, and as approved by the National Aviation Authority
(Inspectie Verkeer and Waterstaat - Divisie Luchtvaart, IVW-DL, formally RLD), in
accordance to JAR-OPS 1.910(b) and 3.910(b).
E.3. Approach
All maintenance tasks Transavia is capable of performing will be evaluated by
considering the following aspects:
Staff
Whether the Transavia Certified staff (JAR-66, Category B1) has the knowledge and
expertise to perform such tasks, and to rectify defects where necessary.
Means
Whether Transavia has the necessary components, materials, tools, equipment and
documentation needed to perform such tasks, and to rectify defects where necessary.
Materials
Whether Transavia has the necessary facilities required to perform such tasks, and to
rectify defects where necessary.
105
Methodology
Whether Transavia, as an organisation, is structured in such a way that it can
perform such tasks and rectify defects where necessary.
E.3.1. Engineering
The engineering department evaluates whether maintenance for various systems can
be executed within the means of Transavia, or whether a JAR-145 base maintenance
organisation should be contracted
The following are restrictions on the evaluation on the execution of tasks, based on
MSG-3 rev.2 task categories
MSG-3 Task Category Definition

Lubrication and Servicing (LU) Consumable replenishment by lubricating
No restriction, as long as no extensive aircraft open-up or disassembly is required
Operational check (OP) A failure finding task to determine if an item is fulfilling its
intended purpose. Does not require quantitative tolerances
No restrictions
Visual Check (VC) A visual failure finding task through observation to
determine if an item is fulfilling its intended purpose. Does
not require quantitative tolerances
General Visual Inspection (GV) A visual inspection that will detect obvious unsatisfactory
conditions/discrepancies
Functional Check (FC) A quantitative check to determine if one or more functions of
an item perform within specified limits. This is a potential
failure finding task
No restrictions
Inspection-Detailed (DT) An intensive visual examination of a specified detail,
assembly, or installation. A potential failure finding task
No restriction, as long as no extensive aircraft open-up or disassembly is required and
also not for intensive structures/CPCP inspections
Restoration (RS) Reworking, replacement of parts or cleaning necessary to
return an item to a specific standard
Discard (DS) The removal from service of an item at a specified life limit
Table E. 1 Evaluation Restrictions

Note:
Extensive open-up refers to the gaining access to inspection areas, other than
through the visible access doors/panels. Such open-up may involve the de-
riveting of aircraft panels or the removal of entire aircraft sections, work that
demands significant ground time for the so-called open & close.
System engineers are responsible for determining the necessary means and materials,
and if necessary, can request intervention of the tooling commission.
106
Appendix E
The engineering department will use the following flow diagram (Figure E. 1) to
determine whether Transavia can perform a specific maintenance task. The results
will then be recorded in a compliance checklist.
E.3.2. Purchases and Logistics

Shall order materials and equipment if necessary
E.3.3. Maintenance planning and support

Shall provide the means and materials for aircraft maintenance
E.3.4. Safety & Quality Assurance (S&QA)

Will evaluate whether Transavia JAR-145 fulfils all requirements (set by the
authorities and Transavia), through audits and monitoring. Where necessary, S&QA
will order corrective action.
MRI
1. Does Transavia have staff

members certified under JAR YES
66, Cat. A/B1/B2, capable to
perform this task/rectification?
NO
2. Does Transavia have the tools
and the equipment required
to perform this task? Are the YES/ NOT APPLICABLE
Certified staff from (1) above
capable to operate these
tools/equipment?
NO
3. Can the certified staff from

(1) above work with YES
components and materials
required for this task?
NO
4. Does the Transavia facility

NO meet the requirements
(where necessary) for
executing this task?
YES
Transavia Cannot Perform this task Transavia can perform this task
Figure E. 1 Task Evaluation flow diagram
[Source: Stam, T., Lems, W., Transavia airlines]
107
Appendix F
F. Transavia Airplane Reliability Program
Airplane Reliability program

This is a set of rules and practices developed by the airline and approved by the
regulatory authority. It is an event reporting system based on performance values
experienced under actual operating conditions. It provides continuous audits of
maintenance functions to enhance safety and cost effective maintenance. The
program identifies problem areas within in the airplane maintenance process so that
corrective action can be taken to fix these problems. The reliability program
principals are applicable to all airplane models operated by the airline. Guidelines
for establishing a reliability programs are provided in the FAA Advisory Circular
120-17A.
The reliability program is a close loop cycle, accomplished by applying the following
steps:
1. Identification of performance parameters that reflect airplane reliability.
2. Collection, analysing and reporting of data gathered from service experience and
reflecting airplane reliability.
3. Problems are investigated and identified.
4. Corrective actions are proposed and applied.
5. Corrective actions are monitored to ensure that maintenance cycle problems are
solved.
Reliability program flowchart
A Reliability Program Flow Chart (Figure F. 1 below) will include the following
steps:
1. Identification of performance parameters.
2. Collection of. Service data
3. Reporting and analysing of service data
4. Decisions are made if performance standards are met
5. Engineering investigates alerts and determines corrective actions
6. Reliability Control Board (RCB) approves corrective action.
7. Engineering issue engineering order (EO) to correct problem.
8. Maintenance accomplishes EO on airplane.
9. Cycle repeat it self.
Reliability program responsibilities are shared by

Reliability Section (RS): this section conducts the day-to- day operations of the
program and report directly to the Quality Assurance Manager.
A Reliability Control Board (RCB): this is an audit and standard committee,
composed of a permanent and advisory members responsible to manage the
overall operation of the program and approves corrective action
Various Engineering and Production units of the Maintenance and
Engineering Division: these provide support to the various aspects of the
program.
The reliability program supports the long and short-term surveillance of fleet
reliability through a progressive schedule of activities, which include a daily
109
maintenance and engineering briefing (daily meeting) and a monthly reliability

meeting.
Performance Parameters Identified
Data Collected
Data Ploted and Analyzed
Maintain Performance Monthly Reliability

Yes
Production Standards Met Report
No
Incorporate
EO Alert
Engineering
Investigation
Maintenance
Corrective
RCB Approval Program
Action
Changes
Source: Boeing CAS, 2000
Figure F. 1 Reliability Flow Chart
Performance Parameters
A performance parameter is a quantitative measure of airplane reliability for which the
following can be established:
1. A trend value
2. An upper control limit
3. A lower control limit
These parameters are selected on the basis of:

- Their ability to provide a realistic measure of reliability
- The extent to which the data is readily available
- The sensitivity in reflecting changes in the level of reliability
Available data collection sources within the organisation are:

Monthly fleet Reports
Quarterly Fleet Reports
Aircraft Technical Log and Board book sheets
Weekly Technical delay reports
Irregularity Reports
Deferred Defect sheets
Pilot and Maintenance Reports
Daily Meeting reports
Shop Reports
110
Appendix F
Work Performance sheet

Digital engine trend monitoring data
System and component reliability reports (METALS)
Flight Data Recorder
The following is a list of parameters used in measuring reliability performance:

- Technical Dispatch Reliability
- Pilot Reports
- Hold Item Lists
- Deferred defect Reports
- Delays/cancellations
- Review of structural inspection findings
- In Flight shut downs (IFSD)
- Unscheduled removals
- Confirmed failures
1. Trend Value Monitoring

Airplane reliability is monitored at various levels, which are:
a. Aircraft level: performance parameter used for reflecting the airplane
reliability will be whether the aircraft has made the next flight or not.
The following parameters are utilised:
Airtime per month

Average Daily Utilisation =
Days in the month*No. of a/c in fleet
Airtime per month

Average Stage length =
Cycles per Month
Pilot Reports*1000
Fleet Technical Performance =
Airtime per evaluation interval
b. System level: performance parameters used are Pilots reports (PIREPS) per 100
landings and/or Mechanical delays/Cancellations per 100 Revenue
Departures, the ATA chapters considered when calculating the rate of these
two parameters are ATA 21 through 36, 38 and 49.
c. Power plant level: parameters used are In-flight shutdowns events (IFSD) per
1000 engine hours and/or unscheduled removal per 1000 engine hours.
Transavia airlines also works with an engine removal rate parameter, which
is:
No. of engines removed*1000
Engine Removal Rate =
Engine Hours
The ATA chapters considered when calculating the rate of these parameters
are ATA 71 through 80.
111
d. Component level: parameters used are Unscheduled component removals

rate per 1000 unit hours/ landings and/or the Confirmed failures per 1000
unit hours (and consequently MTBUR and MTBF).
No. of Component Removal*1000

U. Component Removal Rate =
Quantity per a/c* airtime per evaluaton interval
Quantity per a/c * Flight hours

MTBUR =
Unscheduled Removals
Quantity per airplane*flight hours

=
MTBF No. of confirmed Failures
The ATA chapters considered when calculating the rate of these two
parameters are ATA chapters 21 through 36, 38, 49 for systems and 73, 75, 77,
79 and 80 for power plant.
The MTBUR is used more often because gathering failure information would
require shop reports, which usually take a long time to gather.
(See also: List of ATA chapter titles)

2. Upper Control Limit
These limits are assigned to each performance parameter to describe desirable or
undesirable trends. The limit is a rate of occurrence, which if exceeded, triggers an
investigation and corrective action.
Upper Control Limit=X + K
where X =
X
N
( X ) 2
X2 N
= SD =
N 1
K = multiplier
The mean value ( X ) is calculated by dividing the sum of the entire failure rate for
the period under consideration by the number of months in the period.
Alert values will exist whenever a three-month average rate of occurrence exceeds
the upper control limit.
112
Appendix G
G. Maintenance Governing Regulations
The Standards for design and operation are issued as regulations. These can apply to
both Manufacturers and Operators. Approvals by the Regulatory authority showing
compliance with these standards are shown by means of issuing certificates.
G.1. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The FAA issues its standards through the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). The
Code of Federal Regulation is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject
to federal regulation. The Aviation Regulations are found in the Code of Federal
Regulations Title 14, Chapter I, Parts 1 through 199.
The major Parts from Chapter I of the Code that have an impact on Maintenance are:
Parts 25, 33, 34, and 36 contain the design standards that are used as the
basis of Certification.
Parts 39 and 121 are applicable to operating airplanes
Standards for Safety in Design are contained in Part 25 and mandatory changes to
the certified Design are covered by part 39. Part 25.1529 (Appendix H) contains the
requirement for Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. This means that
Maintenance Manuals must support a new design. This must include an approved
Maintenance Program.
The standards in the FARs that relate to how an operator must perform maintenance
are found in part 121 and Part 43. Part 121.365 requires a certificate holder to have an
adequate maintenance and inspection organization. Part 121.379 requires certificate
holders to use approved data for major repairs and alterations.
Part 43 requires that methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the
administrator be used for inspection and repair of civil aircraft. FAA approved
services documents are the major source that fill this requirement. This FAR also
identifies what is required (by paper work sign offs) to return an aircraft back to
service also defines a Major and Minor Repair or Alteration.
Advisory Circulars are the FAA primary means of distributing information of a non-
regulatory nature to the public. They provide a description of non-regulatory
guidance, policy, and information. There is a Master Index that lists all effective ACs.
There are several Advisory Circulars that have an impact on Maintenance Programs.
These include:
1. AC 120-16C: Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Programs
This AC gives airline the privilege and responsibility of aircraft
maintenance. It provides information and guidance on Continuous
Airworthiness Maintenance Programs. Five elements of an airworthiness
maintenance program include:
- Performance and approval of maintenance & alterations (routine
and non-routine maintenance)
113
- Arrangements for maintenance and alterations (Maintenance

scheduling)
- Responsibility for airworthiness
- Continuous analysis and surveillance
- Maintenance and inspection organisation
2. AC 121-22A: Maintenance Review Board (MRB)

This AC provides guidelines that may be used by industry during its development
and revision of the initial minimum scheduled maintenance/inspection
requirements for derivative or newly type certificated transport category
aircraft and power plants for submittal to the FAA for approval. These initial
minimum scheduled maintenance/inspection requirements are referred to in
this AC as the Maintenance review Board Report (MRBR). The requirements,
after approval by the FAA, become the framework around which each air
carrier develops its own individual maintenance program.
FAA regulations require that specific operational authorizations and limitations

applicable to an Air Operator Certificate, issued in conjunction with the issue of the Air
Operations Specifications, are to supplement the general requirements of the basic
certificate, and are to list authorizations and limitations not specifically covered by
other FAA regulations. Part 121.25 lists the contents of the Operating Certificate and
the Operations Specification.
This combined issuance of the Air Operator Certificate and the Operations
Specification constitute the FAA approval of the unique airline operation. Variables
affecting unique carrier operations include:
o Aircraft types
o Operating environment
o Operator capability
o Level of experience
o Facilities
o Organizational structure
G.1.1. Reliability program requirements

FAR Part 121.373 requires each certificate holder to establish and maintain a system
for the continuing analysis and surveillance of the performance and effectiveness of
its maintenance program. On the other hand, AC120-17A provides information and
guidance materials which may be used to design or develop maintenance reliability
programs utilising reliability control methods.
G.1.2. Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

If it is determined that Service Instructions (inspections, repairs, or modifications) are
necessary, the manufacturer is required by Part 21 to provide them. The FAA
approves all Service Instructions that the manufacturer may develop. An
Airworthiness Directive is the only means by which owners and operators (airlines)
can be forced to accomplish a manufacturer Service Bulletin. Airworthiness
Directives are the end result of the Continued Airworthiness Program performed by
the FAA.
[References: FAR Parts 21,121, 135]
114
Appendix G
G.1.3. Airworthiness
Two conditions must be met for an airplane to be considered airworthy:
An aeronautical product is airworthy when it conforms to the regulations under

which it has been certified.
This means that the product has to comply with the documentation that
demonstrates that the design meets the regulations. This documentation has been
submitted to the FAA as the basis for Certification approval. The airplane
configuration and the components installed must be consistent with the drawings,
specifications, and other data that are part of the Type Certificate.
An aeronautical product must conform to its type design, supplemental type

design, any applicable Airworthiness Directives (AD), and be in a condition for
safe operation.
This means that an airplane continues to be airworthy when it continues to meet the
design (or approved design changes) and is being inspected in accordance with, and
meeting the requirements of, the approved manuals. The condition for safe operation
refers to the condition of the airplane relative to wear and deterioration
G.2. The Joint Aviation Authority (JAA)
The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) is an associated body of the European Civil
Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of
a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and
implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures. This co-
operation is intended to provide high and consistent standards of safety and a "level
playing-field" for competition in Europe. Much emphasis is also placed on
harmonising the JAA regulations with those of the USA (FAA).
The JAA develops and implements Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs) in the fields
of:
- Aircraft design and manufacture,
- Aircraft operations and maintenance,
- Licensing of aviation personnel
Parts of the JAR directly associated with aircraft maintenance include:
1. The JAR-OPS part 1&3: Maintenance

This is a section of JAR-OPS and covers the operator's responsibility for
maintenance management and includes the aircraft maintenance programme and
flight technical log.
The JAR-OPS Part 1 prescribes requirements applicable to the operation of any
civil aeroplane for the purpose of commercial air transportation by any operator
whose principal place of business is in a JAA Member State.
2. JAR-145: Approved Maintenance Organisations

The JAR-145 is a requirement to approve/accept maintenance organisations to
maintain any aircraft used for commercial air transport.
115
3. JAR-66: Certifying Staff

JAR-66 is a requirement about qualifying maintenance personnel to issue
certificates of release to service for JAR-145 organisations. JAR-66 specifically
covers the issue of an aircraft maintenance basic licence.
4. JAR-147: Approved Maintenance Training

JAR-147 is a requirement for approved maintenance training to satisfy part of the
JAR-66 requirements including in particular the conduct of basic and type
examinations to be accepted by the JAA-NAA as a basis for issue of the proposed
JAR-66 Licence.
116
Appendix H
H. Line Maintenance Planning Norm
Line maintenance is a term used to refer to all maintenance activities performed by

Transavia itself. However, Line maintenance can be sub-divided into Platform
maintenance (maintenance at the gate/parking area), and Hangar maintenance
(maintenance performed at the Transavia hangar).
The maintenance-planning norm is an agreement made between Maintenance

Planning and Support (MP&S) and the Commercial Planning and Sales Department
(CPV) on the amount of time required for scheduled maintenance activities. Such
activities include routine maintenance (Daily Checks, Pre-flight maintenance etc.,
and scheduled non-routine maintenance (Engine/APU change and
Exterior/Technical Cleaning.
The following is a tabulation of the amount of time allocated to scheduled

maintenance activities for the B737 NG:
Maintenance Activity Time Maintenance Time

1st Pre-flight check 1hr 15 min 1hr 15 min
Pre-flight 0hr 55 min 0hr 55 min
Daily check 1hr 30 min 1hr 30 min
Man-hours Block (Slot) time Hangar Time

Hangar maintenance, 1 slot < 55 7hr 45 min 4 hrs
Hangar maintenance, 2 slots < 100 10hr 45 min 7 hrs
Hangar maintenance, 4 slots < 300 24hrs 45 min 21 hrs
Engine Change (QEC* - configuration) 40 12hr 45 min 9 hrs

APU Change (QEC - configuration) 12 10hr 00 min 6 hrs 45 min
Engine Boroscope inspection (1600 FC) 6 7hr 00 min 3 hrs 15 min
Engine Boroscope inspection- Extensive (1600FC) 12 10hr 00 min 6 hrs 15 min
Exterior Cleaning 25 8hr 00 min 4 hrs 15 min
(*QEC: - Quick Engine Change)
Table H. 1 Maintenance Planning Norm - Line Maintenance (Source: MP&S, TD-Planning

2001)
Assumptions:
No maintenance is performed on days other than those agreed upon with CPV
Slot Time Hangar Time = 3hrs 45 min consists of:
Arrival last flight SPL: Crew/passengers/Catering out, cleaning 50 minutes
Towing 30 minutes
Hangar activities (miscellaneous) 40 minutes
Before Departure after hangar visit:

Towing (morning flight) 45 minutes
Crew/Catering/passengers in 60 minutes
Routine Maintenance includes the performance of inspections as stated in the job

cards, and the performance of eventual non-routines (Normal wear and tear), as
specified in the job cards.
Source: Transavia Maintenance Department, April 2001
117
118
Appendix I
I. List of Line and Base Maintenance Checks
The inspection checks detailed in the Operators Maintenance Programme should be

completed within the stated flight hours, flight cycles and/or calendar time periods,
whichever comes first, and repeated at the same interval.
a. The letters D, H and C stand for Days, Hours and Cycles, respectively
b. Inspections/checks marked with a * have a dual limit: The checks are
performed when either of the limits is reached, i.e. whichever limit comes
first
c. The 38 preceding the letters D, H, and H indicates that the check is
applicable for the B737-800, abbreviated as B738. The checks apply to all
next generation aircraft (- 700 and 800) in the Transavia fleet
The maintenance checks are developed as follows:

1. All maintenance tasks listed in the MPD and all maintenance tasks
developed by the engineering department are broadly categorised into
Day, Hour, Cycle, and dual limit (Day/Hour, Day/Cycle, Hour/Cycle)
items.
2. Per category, maintenance tasks with equivalent maintenance intervals
are grouped together into checks. These checks are then labelled using
labels (e.g. 38C4000*) described in a, b and c above.
I.1. Line Maintenance Checks

"L" Packages Dual Interval Items MPD "L" Packages Items MPD
Man-hours Man-hours
38D60L 1 0.2
38D60L* 400C 5 1.6 38H450L 29 13
38D100L 8 11.2 38H1000L 21 6.05
38D100L* 1000C 12 1.22 38H1600L 8 3.85
38D240L* 1250C 6 2.95 38H2000L 19 3.21
38D360L 13 4.05 38H4000L 37 10.75
38D360L* 2000C 2 0.2 38H5000AL 20 5.22
38D480L* 2500C 2 0.6 38H5000BL 28 6.3
38D540L 5 2.5 38H5000CL 3 6.1
38D720L 20 7.85 38H5000DL 14 5.6
38D720L* 4000C 24 35.3 38H5000EL 15 12.55
38D1080L 5 3.5 38H6500L 3 0.6
38D1080L* 8000H 7 4.1 38H8000L 10 3
38D1440L 2 3.5 38H10000L 15 6.05
38D1800L 3 2.5 38H12000L 1 2
38D1800L* 18000C 18 19.4 38H12500L 2 1.9
38D2880L 7 4.6 38H15000L 7 4.4
38D2880L* 18000C 23 17.9 38H20000L 1 1.5
38H25000L 20 6.85
38C300L 3 0.2 38H30000L 1 0.5
38C1000L 6 1.7
38C2000L 7 0.64
38C3000L 14 5.5
38C3500L 2 0.2
38C4000L 6 0.9
38C4000L* 540D 80 15.37
38C5000L 5 1.2
38C9000L* 900D 6 1.18
38C10000L 1 0.1
38C12000L 2 0.8
38C12500L 1 0.25
38C15000L 1 0
38C25000L 5 3.9
Table I. 1 737 NG OMP Line Maintenance Checks
119
I.2. Base Maintenance Checks
"B" Packages Dual Interval Items MPD

Man-hours
38D540B 4 36
38D720B* 4000C 1 0.4
38D1620B* 12000C 5 3.84
38D1800B 2 0.8
38D1800B* 18000C 36 17.6
38D2160B* 18000C 1 0.5
38D2880B 4 5.1
38D3600B 19 14.2
38D3600B* 36000C 42 49.38
38D4320B 2 4.3
38D4320B* 36000C 46 62.65
38D5400B 2 8
38D7200B 1 0.4
38C9000B* 900D 8 4
8C24000B* 2880D 14 13.63
38C25000B 2 4
8C36000B* 2880D 3 5.5
38H8000B 7 4.35
38H10000B 1 0.5
38H12000B 2 5
38H15000B 2 2
38H20000B 4 2.15
38H22400B 1 1.2
38H25000B 4 1.6
38H30000B 2 1.3
Table I. 2 737 NG OMP Base Maintenance Checks
I.3. List of all Line Maintenance Tasks in Task Packages
The Maintenance task packaging results from an analysis of all effective OMP tasks,
based on the procedure illustrated above.
ALL Tasks
Line?
Base?
Tasks Tasks
Transavia L/B
Set-up properties
Transavia Interval
(CT/FH/FC)
Figure I. 1 Maintenance Task Packaging Process
120
Appendix I
The following is a summary of all Maintenance Task packages. A complete list of the
contents of each task package follows in Table I. 4.
It is worth mentioning that most tasks in a task package are from the same ATA 100
chapter (level 1), even though this does not always have to be the case. The reason for
this may be attributed to the relationship between ATA 100 and aircraft Zones
Tasks not classified include all engine-specific tasks that require to be performed
separately through the application of the staggering principle. This is done in order
to ensure power unit reliability, as recommended by Boeing and the engine
manufacture, CFMI.
Table I. 3 List of Maintenance Task Packages
Task Package TAV Check No. of MRIs MPD MHrs MSG-3 Class. Skill MSG-3 Cat ATA Chapter
C300 38C300 2 2 GV M 8 25-
C1000 38C1000 4 1.2 LU M 5 27-
C2000A 38C2000 1 0.3 RS M 6 21-
C2000B 38C2000 6 0.34 GV M 0 70-
C3000 38C3000 14 5.5 M 32-
C3500 38C3500 2 0.2 GV M 9 25-
C4000A 38C4000 2 0.6 LU M 6 27-
C4000B 38C4000 4 0.3 2GV, 2DT M 0,6 70,74
C4000A* 38C4000* 7 1.85 5DT, 2GV M 20,32
C4000B* 38C4000* 10 1.08 GV M 0 52
C4000C* 38C4000* 12 2.49 GV M 0 53
C4000D* 38C4000* 9 4.16 GV M 0 53
C4000E* 38C4000* 3 0.59 GV M 0 53
C4000F* 38C4000* 4 0.54 GV M 0 53,54
C4000G* 38C4000* 23 3.96 GV M 0 55
C4000H* 38C4000* 54 11.21 GV M 0 57
C5000A 38C5000 3 1 SV M 6 27
C5000B 38C5000 2 0.2 VC M 9 72
C9000* 38C9000* 6 1.18 GV M 0 54
C10000 38C10000 1 0.1 OP A 0 24
C12000 38C12000 2 0.8 DT M 6 27
C12500 38C12500 1 0.25 OP M 9 32
C15000 38C15000 1 0 OP M 8 32
C25000 38C25000 5 3.9 3SV, 2OP M 8 27
D60 DYS 38D60 1 0.2 VC M 8 25

D60A* DYS 38D60* 1 0.2 GV M 8 25
D60B* DYS 38D60* 3 1.2 LU M 6 32
D100* DYS 38D100* 12 1.22 GV M 0 52,53
D240* DYS 38D240* 4 2 LU M 6 27
D360A 38D360 2 0.8 OP A 9 23,31
D360B 38D360 1 0.35 FC A 7 34
D360C 38D360 10 3.2 6LU, 4DT M 9 52
D360* 38D360* 2 0.2 LU M 6 27
D480* 38D480* 2 0.6 LU M 6 27
D540A 38D540 1 0.05 OP M 9 25
D540B 38D540 1 0.05 DT M 8 25
D540C 38D540 3 2.4 FC M 8 32
D720A 38D720 1 0.2 FC A 9 23
D720B 38D720 1 0.1 GV M 9 25
D720C 38D720 4 0.8 DT M 8 25
D720D 38D720 1 0.05 OP M 9 25
D720E 38D720 1 0.05 VC M 8 25
D720F 38D720 1 2.4 FC A 6 34
D720G 38D720 1 0.1 GV M 8 49
D720H 38D720 10 4.15 M 52
D720A* 38D720* 2 0.4 LU M 6 27
D720B* 38D720* 1 1 DT M 0 52
D720C* 38D720* 9 7.9 DT M 1 52
D720D* 38D720* 4 4.8 GV M 0 53
D720E* 38D720* 3 1.2 DT M 0 53
121
D720F* 38D720* 5 20 DT M 0 53
D1080A 38D1080 1 0.5 FC M 9 26
D1080B 38D1080 5 3 2OP, 2DT M 8 28
D1080* 38D1080* 2 0.6 DT M 8 27
D1440A 38D1440 1 1.5 FC A 9 23
D1440B 38D1440 1 2 VC M 9 35
D1800A 38D1800 1 4 RS M 9 38
D1800B 38D1801 2 0.2 OP M 9 71
D1800A* 38D1800* 8 4 DT M 6 20
D1800B* 38D1800* 10 15.4 GV M 0 54
D2880A 38D2880 2 1.1 GV M 0 53
D2880B 38D2880 2 2 GV M 0 55
D1440 38D2880 2 1 GV M 0 55
D2880C 38D2880 1 0.5 GV M 0 57
D2880* 38D2880* 23 17.9 M 1 52
H500 H450 20 2.9

H1000A 38H1000 1 0.2 OP M 8 25
H1000B 38H1000 1 0.1 VC M 9 26
H1000C 38H1000 3 0.5 RS M 9 28
H1000D 38H1000 1 0.05 SV M 9 32
H1000E 38H1000 2 0.5 DT M 6 72
H1000F 38H1000 2 0.01 OP M 9 78
H1000G 38H1000 2 0.05 DT M 9 79
H1250 38H1000 2 0.05 OP M 8 27
H1600A 38H1600 6 3.4 M 6 24
H1600B 38H1600 1 0.05 VC M 8 26
H1600C 38H1600 1 0.4 LU M 6 27
H2000 38H2000 19 3.21
H2000A 38H2000 5 1.0 RS A 8 24
H2000B 38H2000 3 0.9 DS M 6 29
H2000C 38H2000 2 0.36 VC M 8 35
H2000D 38H2000 5 0.55 GV M 9 49
H2000E 38H2000 3 0.3 DT M 9 79
H2000F 38H2000 1 0.1 DT M 9 79
H2500A 38H2000 1 0.2 OP M 9 27
H2500B 38H2000 1 0.3 RS M 7 38
H3000A 38H2000 1 0.2 DT M 9 26
H3000B 38H2000 1 0.3 OP M 8 27
H3000C 38H2000 2 0.2 VC M 8 78
H3200 38H2000 4 0.6 2GV, 2OP MA 8 49, 25
H4000B 38H4000 6 2.1 OP M 8 25
H4000C 38H4000 1 0.5 GV M 6 27
H4000D 38H4000 12 5.1 GV M 9 28
H4000E 38H4000 4 1.15 A 35
H4000F 38H4000 1 0.2 DT M 7 49
H4000G 38H4000 9 1.3 7GV, 2OP M 52
H4000H 38H4000 2 0.1 VC M 9 71
H5000A 38H5000A 20 5.22
H5000B 38H5000B 28 6.3
H5000C 38H5000C 3 6.1
H5000D 38H5000D 14 5.6
H5000E 38H5000E 15 12.55
H6000A 38H6000 1 0.05 GV M 8 26
H6000B 38H6000 6 2.7 26,28,78
H6000C 38H6000 1 0.05 GV M 8 26
H6500A 38H6500 2 0.3 OP M 9 38
H6500B 38H6500 1 0.3 DS M 9 38
H8000A 38H8000 3 1.2 29,32
H8000B 38H8000 2 0.1 35
H8000C 38H8000 2 0.3 49
H8000D 38H8000 3 0.1 52
H10000A 38H10000 2 1 DT A 8 20
H10000B 38H10000 1 0.1 FC M 9 21
H10000C 38H10000 1 0.3 OP A 9 23
H10000D 38H10000 1 0.1 FC M 9 27
H10000E 38H10000 1 0.5 OP M 8 27
H10000F 38H10000 1 1 OP M 9 28
H10000G 38H10000 1 0.4 DS M 8 29
122
Appendix I
H10000H 38H10000 1 0.4 DS M 8 29
H10000I 38H10000 1 0.2 DS M 8 29
H10000J 38H10000 1 0.2 DT A 6 34
H10000K 38H10000 4 0.85 3GV, 1OP M 49
H12000 38H12000 1 2 FC M 8 28
H12500 38H12500 2 1.9 FC M 8 27
H15000A 38H15000 4 3 2DT, 2GV A 8 20
H15000B 38H15000 1 1 GV A 8 20
H15000C 38H15000 2 0.4 DT A 8 20
H20000 38H20000 1 1.5 DT A 8 20
H25000A 38H25000 5 2.45 M 27
H25000B 38H25000 7 1.6 6FC, 1DS M 29
H25000C 38H25000 6 2.4 FC M 8 29
H25000D 38H25000 2 0.4 FC, OP M 32
H30000 38H30000 1 0.5 GV A 8 20
H4000A 38H4000 2 0.2 OP A 9 21
Engine Tasks - Unclassified

1600 CYC MI 1 IN M 9 72-180-01
1600 CYC MI 1 IN M 9 72-180-02
1600 CYC MI 1 IN M 6 72-200-01
1600 CYC MI 1 IN M 6 72-200-02
1600 CYC MI 0.5 IN M 6 72-210-01
1600 CYC MI 0.5 IN M 6 72-210-02
1600 CYC MI 0.2 DT M 6 74-010-01
1600 CYC MI 0.2 DT M 6 74-010-02
2000 HRS MI SV 38-020-00
5000 HRS MI 1 FC A 7 31-120-00
5000 HRS MI 0.1 GV A 8 20-110-01
5000 HRS MI 0.1 GV A 8 20-110-02
5000 HRS MI 0.02 GV A 8 20-130-01
5000 HRS MI 0.02 GV A 8 20-130-02
5000 HRS MI 0.1 GV M 9 71-050-01
5000 HRS MI 0.1 GV M 9 71-050-02
5000 HRS/5000 C MI 0.1 VC M 9 72-070-01
5000 HRS/5000 C MI 0.1 VC M 9 72-070-02
5000 HRS MI 0.1 VC M 9 72-080-01
5000 HRS MI 0.1 VC M 9 72-080-02
5000 HRS MI 0.05 VC M 9 72-090-01
5000 HRS MI 0.05 VC M 9 72-090-02
5000 HRS MI 0.1 VC M 8 72-110-01
5000 HRS MI 0.1 VC M 8 72-110-02
5000 HRS/5000 C MI 1 IN M 6 72-120-01
5000 CYC/HRS MI 0 72-120-01
5000 CYC/HRS MI 0 72-120-02
5000 HRS/5000 C MI 1 IN M 6 72-120-02
5000 HRS MI 0.1 VC M 9 72-300-01
5000 HRS MI 0.1 VC M 9 72-300-02
5000 HRS MI 0.1 VC M 9 72-340-01
5000 HRS MI 0.1 VC M 9 72-340-02
5000 HRS MI 0.3 DS M 6 73-010-01
5000 HRS MI 0.3 DS M 6 73-010-02
5000 HRS MI 0.05 VC M 9 78-020-01
5000 HRS MI 0.05 VC M 9 78-020-02
5000 HRS MI 0.1 VC M 9 78-050-01
5000 HRS MI 0.1 VC M 9 78-050-02
5000 HRS MI 2 LU M 9 78-060-01
5000 HRS MI 2 LU M 9 78-060-02
5000 HRS MI 0.2 VC M 9 78-070-01
5000 HRS MI 0.2 VC M 9 78-070-02
5000 HRS MI 0.1 VC M 9 78-080-01
5000 HRS MI 0.1 VC M 9 78-080-02
5000 HRS MI 0.2 DS M 9 79-010-01
5000 HRS MI 0.2 DS M 9 79-010-02
5000 HRS MI 0.2 DS M 9 79-040-01
5000 HRS MI 0.2 DS M 9 79-040-02
1600 CYC MI 0.05 DT M 6 80-010-01
1600 CYC MI 0.05 DT M 6 80-010-02
1000 HRS MI 2 A 0 MI-24-20-8002
123
1000 HRS MI 1.5 IN M 0 MI-28-20-8006
Table I. 4 List of Tasks in each Task Package

Task MPD MRI Transavia MPD Task MPD MRI Transavia MPD
Package Interval Number Check MHrs Package Interval Number Check MHrs
C300 300 CYC 25-160-00-01 38C300 0.1 D60 60 DYS 25-250-00 38D60 0.2
C300 300 CYC 25-160-00-02 38C300 0.1 D60A* 60A* DYS 25-140-00 38D60* 0.2
D60B* 60B* DYS 32-030-01 38D60* 0.4
C1000 1000 CYC 27-144-01 38C1000 0.5 D60B* 60B* DYS 32-030-02 38D60* 0.4
C1000 1000 CYC 27-144-02 38C1000 0.5 D60B* 60B* DYS 32-080-00 38D60* 0.4
C1000 1000 CYC 27-176-01 38C1000 0.1
C1000 1000 CYC 27-176-02 38C1000 0.1 D100* 100* DYS 52-802-02 38D100* 0.03
D100* 100* DYS 52-806-02 38D100* 0.03
C2000A 2000A CYC 21-100-00 38C2000 0.3 D100* 100* DYS 52-810-01 38D100* 0.03
C2000B 2000B CYC 70-802-01 38C2000 0.07 D100* 100* DYS 52-822-01 38D100* 0.08
C2000B 2000B CYC 70-806-01 38C2000 0.05 D100* 100* DYS 52-826-02 38D100* 0.08
C2000B 2000B CYC 70-808-01 38C2000 0.05 D100* 100* DYS 52-838-02 38D100* 0.08
C2000B 2000B CYC 70-812-02 38C2000 0.07 D100* 100* DYS 53-818-00 38D100* 0.08
C2000B 2000B CYC 70-816-02 38C2000 0.05 D100* 100* DYS 53-836-00 38D100* 0.13
C2000B 2000B CYC 70-818-02 38C2000 0.05 D100* 100* DYS 53-870-00 38D100* 0.17
D100* 100* DYS 53-872-00 38D100* 0.17
C3000 3000 CYC 32-020-01 38C3000 0.5 D100* 100* DYS 53-890-00 38D100* 0.17
C3000 3000 CYC 32-020-02 38C3000 0.5 D100* 100* DYS 53-892-00 38D100* 0.17
C3000 3000 CYC 32-070-00 38C3000 0.4
C3000 3000 CYC 32-110-00 38C3000 0.1 D240* 240* DYS 27-170-01 38D240* 0.6
C3000 3000 CYC 32-125-00 38C3000 0.4 D240* 240* DYS 27-170-02 38D240* 0.6
C3000 3000 CYC 32-155-01 38C3000 0.6 D240* 240* DYS 27-220-01 38D240* 0.4
C3000 3000 CYC 32-155-02 38C3000 0.6 D240* 240* DYS 27-220-02 38D240* 0.4
C3000 3000 CYC 32-250-00 38C3000 0.2
C3000 3000 CYC 32-260-00 38C3000 0.1 D360A 360A DYS 23-060-00 38D360 0.3
C3000 3000 CYC 32-330-00 38C3000 0.2 D360A 360A DYS 31-140-00 38D360 0.5
C3000 3000 CYC 32-340-00 38C3000 1.2 D360B 360B DYS 34-110-00 38D360 0.35
C3000 3000 CYC 32-390-00 38C3000 0.4 D360C 360C DYS 52-021-01 38D360 0.6
C3000 3000 CYC 32-400-00 38C3000 0.2 D360C 360C DYS 52-021-02 38D360 0.6
C3000 3000 CYC 32-410-00 38C3000 0.1 D360C 360C DYS 52-022-01 38D360 0.6
D360C 360C DYS 52-022-02 38D360 0.6
C3500 3500 CYC 25-170-00 38C3500 0.1 D360C 360C DYS 52-030-00 38D360 0.1
C3500 3500 CYC 25-170-00 38C3500 0.1 D360C 360C DYS 52-041-02 38D360 0.1
D360C 360C DYS 52-042-01 38D360 0.1
C4000A 4000A CYC 27-174-01 38C4000 0.3 D360C 360C DYS 52-042-02 38D360 0.1
C4000A 4000A CYC 27-174-02 38C4000 0.3 D360C 360C DYS 52-091-00 38D360 0.2
C4000B 4000B CYC 70-804-01 38C4000 0.05 D360C 360C DYS 52-092-00 38D360 0.2
C4000B 4000B CYC 70-814-02 38C4000 0.05
C4000B 4000B CYC 74-020-01 38C4000 0.1 D360* 360* DYS 27-152-01 38D360* 0.1
C4000B 4000B CYC 74-020-02 38C4000 0.1 D360* 360* DYS 27-152-02 38D360* 0.1
C4000A* 4000A* CYC 20-140-00 38C4000* 0.15 D480* 480* DYS 27-222-01 38D480* 0.3
C4000A* 4000A* CYC 20-150-01 38C4000* 0.25 D480* 480* DYS 27-222-02 38D480* 0.3
C4000A* 4000A* CYC 20-150-02 38C4000* 0.25
C4000A* 4000A* CYC 20-160-01 38C4000* 0.6 D540A 540A DYS 25-380-00 38D540 0.05
C4000A* 4000A* CYC 20-160-02 38C4000* 0.6 D540B 540B DYS 25-400-00 38D540 0.05
C4000A* 4000A* CYC 32-806-01 38C4000* 0 D540C 540C DYS 32-200-00 38D540 0.6
C4000A* 4000A* CYC 32-810-02 38C4000* 0 D540C 540C DYS 32-215-01 38D540 0.9
C4000B* 4000B* CYC 52-804-02 38C4000* 0.13 D540C 540C DYS 32-215-02 38D540 0.9
C4000B* 4000B* CYC 52-808-02 38C4000* 0.13
C4000B* 4000B* CYC 52-812-01 38C4000* 0.13 D720A 720A DYS 23-050-00 38D720 0.2
C4000B* 4000B* CYC 52-814-01 38C4000* 0.03 D720B 720B DYS 25-150-00 38D720 0.1
C4000B* 4000B* CYC 52-818-01 38C4000* 0.03 D720C 720C DYS 25-230-00-01 38D720 0.2
C4000B* 4000B* CYC 52-824-01 38C4000* 0.13 D720C 720C DYS 25-230-00-02 38D720 0.2
C4000B* 4000B* CYC 52-828-02 38C4000* 0.17 D720C 720C DYS 25-230-00-03 38D720 0.2
C4000B* 4000B* CYC 52-830-02 38C4000* 0.08 D720C 720C DYS 25-230-00-04 38D720 0.2
C4000B* 4000B* CYC 52-834-02 38C4000* 0.08 D720D 720D DYS 25-330-00 38D720 0.05
C4000B* 4000B* CYC 52-840-02 38C4000* 0.17 D720E 720E DYS 25-370-00 38D720 0.05
C4000C* 4000C* CYC 53-802-00 38C4000* 0.07 D720F 720F DYS 34-010-00 38D720 2.4
C4000C* 4000C* CYC 53-804-00 38C4000* 0.07 D720G 720G DYS 49-010-00 38D720 0.1
C4000C* 4000C* CYC 53-806-00 38C4000* 0.1 D720H 720H DYS 52-011-01 38D720 0.6
C4000C* 4000C* CYC 53-808-00 38C4000* 0.13 D720H 720H DYS 52-011-02 38D720 0.6
C4000C* 4000C* CYC 53-810-00 38C4000* 0.08 D720H 720H DYS 52-012-01 38D720 0.6
124
Appendix I
C4000C* 4000C* CYC 53-822-00 38C4000* 0.13 D720H 720H DYS 52-012-02 38D720 0.6
C4000C* 4000C* CYC 53-828-00 38C4000* 0.33 D720H 720H DYS 52-120-00 38D720 0.2
C4000C* 4000C* CYC 53-838-00 38C4000* 0.25 D720H 720H DYS 52-220-00 38D720 0.4
C4000C* 4000C* CYC 53-842-00 38C4000* 0.5 D720H 720H DYS 52-230-00 38D720 0.15
C4000C* 4000C* CYC 53-846-00 38C4000* 0.33 D720H 720H DYS 52-240-00 38D720 0.4
C4000C* 4000C* CYC 53-848-00 38C4000* 0.33 D720H 720H DYS 52-250-00 38D720 0.4
C4000C* 4000C* CYC 53-852-00 38C4000* 0.17 D720H 720H DYS 52-260-00 38D720 0.2
C4000D* 4000D* CYC 53-858-00 38C4000* 0.5
C4000D* 4000D* CYC 53-860-00 38C4000* 0.33 D720A* 720A* DYS 27-138-01 38D720* 0.2
C4000D* 4000D* CYC 53-864-00 38C4000* 0.5 D720A* 720A* DYS 27-138-02 38D720* 0.2
C4000D* 4000D* CYC 53-866-00 38C4000* 0.33 D720B* 720B* DYS 52-510-00 38D720* 1
C4000D* 4000D* CYC 53-874-00 38C4000* 0.5 D720C* 720C* DYS 52-540-00 38D720* 0.3
C4000D* 4000D* CYC 53-876-00 38C4000* 0.67 D720C* 720C* DYS 52-610-00 38D720* 1
C4000D* 4000D* CYC 53-882-00 38C4000* 0.5 D720C* 720C* DYS 52-610-00 38D720* 1
C4000D* 4000D* CYC 53-884-00 38C4000* 0.5 D720C* 720C* DYS 52-610-00 38D720* 1
C4000D* 4000D* CYC 53-896-00 38C4000* 0.33 D720C* 720C* DYS 52-610-00 38D720* 1
C4000E* 4000E* CYC 53-898-00 38C4000* 0.17 D720C* 720C* DYS 52-670-00 38D720* 1
C4000E* 4000E* CYC 53-900-00 38C4000* 0.25 D720C* 720C* DYS 52-670-00 38D720* 1
C4000E* 4000E* CYC 53-902-00 38C4000* 0.17 D720C* 720C* DYS 52-730-00 38D720* 0.8
C4000F* 4000F* CYC 53-904-01 38C4000* 0.17 D720C* 720C* DYS 52-730-00 38D720* 0.8
C4000F* 4000F* CYC 53-906-02 38C4000* 0.17 D720D* 720D* DYS 53-010-00 38D720* 1.2
C4000F* 4000F* CYC 54-802-01 38C4000* 0.1 D720D* 720D* DYS 53-010-00 38D720* 1.2
C4000F* 4000F* CYC 54-810-02 38C4000* 0.1 D720D* 720D* DYS 53-010-00 38D720* 1.2
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-802-00 38C4000* 0.07 D720D* 720D* DYS 53-010-00 38D720* 1.2
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-804-00 38C4000* 0.1 D720E* 720E* DYS 53-030-00 38D720* 0.4
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-806-00 38C4000* 0.07 D720E* 720E* DYS 53-030-00 38D720* 0.4
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-810-00 38C4000* 1 D720E* 720E* DYS 53-030-00 38D720* 0.4
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-812-00 38C4000* 0.07 D720F 720F* DYS 53-310-00 38D720* 4
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-814-00 38C4000* 0.5 D720F 720F* DYS 53-310-00 38D720* 4
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-816-00 38C4000* 0.07 D720F 720F* DYS 53-310-00 38D720* 4
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-818-00 38C4000* 0.07 D720F 720F* DYS 53-310-00 38D720* 4
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-820-00 38C4000* 0.03 D720F 720F* DYS 53-310-00 38D720* 4
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-822-01 38C4000* 0.07
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-824-01 38C4000* 0.07 D1080A 1080A DYS 26-290-00 38D1080 0.5
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-826-01 38C4000* 0.13 D1080B 1080B DYS 28-020-01 38D1080 1
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-828-01 38C4000* 0.5 D1080B 1080B DYS 28-020-02 38D1080 1
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-830-01 38C4000* 0.07 D1080B 1080B DYS 28-030-01 38D1080 0.5
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-832-01 38C4000* 0.08 D1080B 1080B DYS 28-030-02 38D1080 0.5
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-834-01 38C4000* 0.07
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-836-02 38C4000* 0.07 D1080* 1080* DYS 27-034-01 38D1080* 0.3
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-838-02 38C4000* 0.07 D1080* 1080* DYS 27-034-02 38D1080* 0.3
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-840-02 38C4000* 0.13
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-842-02 38C4000* 0.5 D1440A 1440A DYS 23-030-00 38D1440 1.5
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-844-02 38C4000* 0.07 D1440B 1440B DYS 35-060-00 38D1440 2
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-846-02 38C4000* 0.08 D1440C 1440 DYS 55-120-01 38D2880 0.5
C4000G* 4000G* CYC 55-848-02 38C4000* 0.07 D1440C 1440 DYS 55-120-02 38D2880 0.5
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-804-01 38C4000* 0.08
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-806-01 38C4000* 0.17 D1800A 1800A DYS 38-040-00 38D1800 4
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-808-01 38C4000* 0.08 D1800B 1800B DYS 71-040-01 38D1800 0.1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-810-01 38C4000* 0.08 D1800B 1800B DYS 71-040-02 38D1800 0.1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-812-01 38C4000* 0.07
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-814-01 38C4000* 1 D1800A* 1800A* 20-180-00 38D1800* 0.5
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-816-01 38C4000* 0.17 D1800A* 1800A* 20-190-00 38D1800* 0.9
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-818-01 38C4000* 0.03 D1800A* 1800A* 20-200-00 38D1800* 0.45
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-824-01 38C4000* 1.25 D1800A* 1800A* 20-210-00 38D1800* 0.3
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-828-01 38C4000* 0.5 D1800A* 1800A* 20-220-00 38D1800* 0.65
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-832-01 38C4000* 0.05 D1800A* 1800A* 20-230-00 38D1800* 0.6
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-834-01 38C4000* 0.08 D1800A* 1800A* 20-240-00 38D1800* 0.45
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-836-01 38C4000* 0.05 D1800A* 1800A* 20-250-00 38D1800* 0.15
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-838-01 38C4000* 0.1 D1800B* 1800B* 54-010-01 38D1800* 0.2
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-840-01 38C4000* 0.05 D1800B* 1800B* 54-010-02 38D1800* 0.2
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-842-01 38C4000* 0.1 D1800B* 1800B* 54-015-01 38D1800* 0.2
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-844-01 38C4000* 0.05 D1800B* 1800B* 54-015-02 38D1800* 0.2
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-846-01 38C4000* 0.1 D1800B* 1800B* 54-030-01 38D1800* 0.3
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-848-01 38C4000* 0.17 D1800B* 1800B* 54-030-02 38D1800* 0.3
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-852-01 38C4000* 0.08 D1800B* 1800B* 54-070-01 38D1800* 3
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-854-01 38C4000* 0.08 D1800B* 1800B* 54-070-02 38D1800* 3
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-858-01 38C4000* 0.17 D1800B* 1800B* 54-080-01 38D1800* 4
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-860-01 38C4000* 0.25 D1800B* 1800B* 54-080-02 38D1800* 4
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-862-01 38C4000* 0.25
125
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-864-01 38C4000* 0.05 D2880A 2880A DYS 53-020-00 38D2880 0.1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-868-01 38C4000* 0.33 D2880A 2880A DYS 53-050-00 38D2880 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-870-01 38C4000* 0.08 D2880B 2880B DYS 55-080-01 38D2880 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-874-02 38C4000* 0.08 D2880B 2880B DYS 55-080-02 38D2880 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-876-02 38C4000* 0.17 D2880C 2880C DYS 57-030-00 38D2880 0.5
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-878-02 38C4000* 0.08
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-880-02 38C4000* 0.08 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-530-00 38D2880* 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-882-02 38C4000* 0.07 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-550-00 38D2880* 0.5
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-884-02 38C4000* 1 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-570-00 38D2880* 0.3
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-886-02 38C4000* 0.17 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-620-00 38D2880* 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-888-02 38C4000* 0.3 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-620-00 38D2880* 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-894-02 38C4000* 1.25 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-620-00 38D2880* 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-898-02 38C4000* 0.5 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-620-00 38D2880* 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-902-02 38C4000* 0.05 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-650-00 38D2880* 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-904-02 38C4000* 0.08 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-650-00 38D2880* 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-906-02 38C4000* 0.05 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-650-00 38D2880* 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-908-02 38C4000* 0.1 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-650-00 38D2880* 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-910-02 38C4000* 0.05 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-680-00 38D2880* 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-912-02 38C4000* 0.1 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-680-00 38D2880* 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-914-02 38C4000* 0.05 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-710-00 38D2880* 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-916-02 38C4000* 0.1 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-710-00 38D2880* 1
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-918-02 38C4000* 0.17 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-740-00 38D2880* 1.2
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-922-02 38C4000* 0.08 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-740-00 38D2880* 1.2
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-924-02 38C4000* 0.08 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-760-00 38D2880* 0.6
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-928-02 38C4000* 0.17 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-760-00 38D2880* 0.6
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-930-02 38C4000* 0.25 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-816-01 38D2880* 0.08
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-932-02 38C4000* 0.25 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-820-01 38D2880* 0.08
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-934-02 38C4000* 0.05 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-832-02 38D2880* 0.17
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-938-02 38C4000* 0.33 D2880* 2880* DYS 52-836-02 38D2880* 0.17
C4000H* 4000H* CYC 57-940-02 38C4000* 0.08
C5000A 5000A CYC 27-132-00 38C5000 0.3 C10000 10000 CYC 24-110-00 38C10000 0.1
C5000A 5000A CYC 27-140-01 38C5000 0.35
C5000A 5000A CYC 27-140-02 38C5000 0.35 C12000 12000 CYC 27-172-01 38C12000 0.4
C5000B 5000B CYC 72-100-01 38C5000 0.1 C12000 12000 CYC 27-172-02 38C12000 0.4
C5000B 5000B CYC 72-100-02 38C5000 0.1 C12500 12500 CYC 32-310-00 38C12500 0.25
C15000 15000 CYC 32-285-00 38C15000 0
C9000* 9000* CYC 54-800-01 38C9000* 0.25
C9000* 9000* CYC 54-804-01 38C9000* 0.17 C25000 25000 CYC 27-134-00 38C25000 0.5
C9000* 9000* CYC 54-806-01 38C9000* 0.17 C25000 25000 CYC 27-142-01 38C25000 1.5
C9000* 9000* CYC 54-808-02 38C9000* 0.25 C25000 25000 CYC 27-142-02 38C25000 1.5
C9000* 9000* CYC 54-812-02 38C9000* 0.17 C25000 25000 CYC 27-168-01 38C25000 0.2
C9000* 9000* CYC 54-814-02 38C9000* 0.17 C25000 25000 CYC 27-168-02 38C25000 0.2
H1000A 1000A HRS 25-125-00 38H1000 0.2 H4000A 4000A HRS 21-020-00 38H4000 0.1
H1000B 1000B HRS 26-320-00 38H1000 0.1 H4000A 4000A HRS 21-030-00 38H4000 0.1
H1000C 1000C HRS 28-060-01 38H1000 0.25 H4000B 4000B HRS 25-010-01 38H4000 0.5
H1000C 1000C HRS 28-060-02 38H1000 0.25 H4000B 4000B HRS 25-010-02 38H4000 0.5
H1000C 1000C HRS 28-060-03 38H1000 0.5 H4000B 4000B HRS 25-050-00 38H4000 0.3
H1000D 1000D HRS 32-300-00 38H1000 0.05 H4000B 4000B HRS 25-080-00 38H4000 0.3
H1000E 1000E HRS 72-020-01 38H1000 0.5 H4000B 4000B HRS 25-090-00 38H4000 0.3
H1000E 1000E HRS 72-020-02 38H1000 0.5 H4000B 4000B HRS 25-105-00 38H4000 0.2
H1000F 1000F HRS 78-120-01 38H1000 0.01 H4000C 4000C HRS 27-011-00 38H4000 0.5
H1000F 1000F HRS 78-120-02 38H1000 0.01 H4000D 4000D HRS 27-013-01 38H4000 0.6
H1000G 1000G HRS 79-020-01 38H1000 0.05 H4000D 4000D HRS 27-013-02 38H4000 0.6
H1000G 1000G HRS 79-020-02 38H1000 0.05 H4000D 4000D HRS 27-026-01 38H4000 0.5
H1250 1250 HRS 27-216-00 38H1000 0.7 H4000D 4000D HRS 27-026-02 38H4000 0.4
H1250 1250 HRS 27-224-00 38H1000 0.05 H4000D 4000D HRS 27-136-01 38H4000 0.4
H4000D 4000D HRS 27-136-02 38H4000 0.4
H1600A 1600A HRS 24-010-01 38H1600 1 H4000D 4000D HRS 27-182-00 38H4000 0.1
H1600A 1600A HRS 24-010-02 38H1600 1 H4000D 4000D HRS 27-182-01 38H4000 0.4
H1600A 1600A HRS 24-040-01 38H1600 0.5 H4000D 4000D HRS 27-182-02 38H4000 0.4
H1600A 1600A HRS 24-040-02 38H1600 0.5 H4000D 4000D HRS 27-215-01 38H4000 0.4
H1600A 1600A HRS 24-050-01 38H1600 0.2 H4000D 4000D HRS 27-215-02 38H4000 0.4
H1600A 1600A HRS 24-050-02 38H1600 0.2 H4000D 4000D HRS 28-010-00 38H4000 0.5
H1600B 1600B HRS 26-050-00 38H1600 0.05 H4000E 4000E HRS 29-060-00 38H4000 0.05
H1600C 1600C HRS 27-102-00 38H1600 0.4 H4000E 4000E HRS 29-070-00 38H4000 0.2
H4000E 4000E HRS 29-080-00 38H4000 0.7
H2000A 2000A HRS 24-090-00 38H2000 0.2 H4000E 4000E HRS 35-010-00 38H4000 0.2
126
Appendix I
H2000A 2000A HRS 24-120-00 38H2000 0.2 H4000F 4000F HRS 49-132-00 38H4000 0.2
H2000A 2500A HRS 27-154-00 38H2000 0.2 H4000G 4000G HRS 52-051-01 38H4000 0.1
H2000A 3500 HRS 25-030-00 38H2000 0.2 H4000G 4000G HRS 52-051-02 38H4000 0.1
H2000A 3000A HRS 26-300-00 38H2000 0.2 H4000G 4000G HRS 52-052-01 38H4000 0.1
H2000B 3000B HRS 27-218-00 38H2000 0.3 H4000G 4000G HRS 52-052-02 38H4000 0.1
H2000B 2000B HRS 29-050-01 38H2000 0.3 H4000G 4000G HRS 52-101-00 38H4000 0.1
H2000B 2000B HRS 29-050-02 38H2000 0.3 H4000G 4000G HRS 52-102-00 38H4000 0.1
H2000C 2000C HRS 35-050-00 38H2000 0.06 H4000G 4000G HRS 52-130-00 38H4000 0.1
H2000C 2500B HRS 38-030-00 38H2000 0.3 H4000G 4000G HRS 52-200-00 38H4000 0.4
H2000D 2000D HRS 49-190-00 38H2000 0.1 H4000G 4000G HRS 52-210-00 38H4000 0.2
H2000D 2000D HRS 49-200-00 38H2000 0.05 H4000H 4000H HRS 71-020-01 38H4000 0.1
H2000D 3200 HRS 49-090-00 38H2000 0.1 H4000H 4000H HRS 71-020-02 38H4000 0.1
H2000D 3200 HRS 49-110-00 38H2000 0.1
H2000D 3200 HRS 49-140-00 38H2000 0.2
H2000E 2000E HRS 79-030-02 38H2000 0.1
H2000E 3000C HRS 78-090-01 38H2000 0.1
H2000E 3000C HRS 78-090-02 38H2000 0.1
H2000F 2000F HRS 79-030-01 38H2000 0.1
H5000A-E Previously Classified:

H5000A 5000 HRS 27-012-00 38H5000A 0.07 H5000C 5000 HRS 28-100-00 38H5000C 0.5
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-016-00 38H5000A 0.1 H5000C 5000 HRS 28-110-00 38H5000C 5.5
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-028-00 38H5000A 0.2 H5000C 5000 HRS 28-125-00 38H5000C 0.1
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-030-00 38H5000A 0.1 H5000D 5000 HRS 27-080-00 38H5000D 0.4
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-036-00 38H5000A 0.5 H5000D 5000 HRS 27-112-00 38H5000D 0.3
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-038-00 38H5000A 0.3 H5000D 5000 HRS 31-010-00 38H5000D 0.2
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-040-00 38H5000A 0.2 H5000D 5000 HRS 31-020-00 38H5000D 0.3
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-046-00 38H5000A 0.1 H5000D 5000 HRS 31-030-00 38H5000D 0.2
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-056-00 38H5000A 0.3 H5000D 5000 HRS 31-040-00 38H5000D 1.5
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-058-00 38H5000A 0.2 H5000D 5000 HRS 31-050-00 38H5000D 1.5
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-060-00 38H5000A 0.1 H5000D 5000 HRS 34-070-00 38H5000D 0.1
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-062-00 38H5000A 0.05 H5000D 5000 HRS 34-080-00 38H5000D 0.1
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-068-00 38H5000A 0.75 H5000D 5000 HRS 34-090-00 38H5000D 0.2
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-070-00 38H5000A 0.75 H5000D 5000 HRS 78-110-01 38H5000D 0.3
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-073-00 38H5000A 0.4 H5000D 5000 HRS 78-110-02 38H5000D 0.3
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-074-00 38H5000A 0.1 H5000D 5000 HRS 78-130-01 38H5000D 0.1
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-075-01 38H5000A 0.3 H5000D 5000 HRS 78-130-02 38H5000D 0.1
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-075-02 38H5000A 0.3 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-010-00 38H5000E 0.05
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-076-00 38H5000A 0.2 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-020-00 38H5000E 0.9
H5000A 5000 HRS 27-086-00 38H5000A 0.2 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-080-00 38H5000E 1.5
H5000B 5000 HRS 21-010-00 38H5000B 0.1 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-110-00 38H5000E 1.5
H5000B 5000 HRS 21-040-00 38H5000B 0.1 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-140-00 38H5000E 1.5
H5000B 5000 HRS 21-050-00 38H5000B 0.1 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-190-00 38H5000E 0.05
H5000B 5000 HRS 21-060-00 38H5000B 0.2 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-200-00 38H5000E 1.5
H5000B 5000 HRS 22-010-00 38H5000B 0.1 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-220-00 38H5000E 1.5
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-088-00 38H5000B 0.3 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-230-00 38H5000E 1.5
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-094-00 38H5000B 0.3 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-270-00 38H5000E 1.5
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-106-00 38H5000B 0.3 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-280-00 38H5000E 0.05
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-110-00 38H5000B 0.2 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-380-00 38H5000E 0
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-114-00 38H5000B 0.2 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-400-00 38H5000E 1
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-116-00 38H5000B 0.3 H5000E 5000 HRS 26-400-00 38H5000E 0
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-118-00 38H5000B 0.3 H5000E 5000 HRS 38-100-00 38H5000E 0
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-120-00 38H5000B 0.2
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-121-00 38H5000B 0.3
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-122-00 38H5000B 0.05
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-158-00 38H5000B 0.1
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-164-00 38H5000B 0.2
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-171-01 38H5000B 0.5
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-171-02 38H5000B 0.5
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-178-00 38H5000B 0.2
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-186-00 38H5000B 0.1
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-188-00 38H5000B 0.2
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-190-00 38H5000B 0.75
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-214-00 38H5000B 0.1
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-225-01 38H5000B 0.1
H5000B 5000 HRS 27-225-02 38H5000B 0.1
H5000B 5000 HRS 29-240-00 38H5000B 0.1
H5000B 5000 HRS 29-250-00 38H5000B 0.3
H6000A 6000A HRS 26-250-00 38H6000 0.05 H8000A 8000A HRS 29-025-01 38H8000 0.4
127
H6000B 6000B HRS 26-090-00 38H6000 0.6 H8000A 8000A HRS 29-025-02 38H8000 0.4
H6000B 6000B HRS 26-150-00 38H6000 0.6 H8000A 8000A HRS 32-240-00 38H8000 0.4
H6000B 6000B HRS 26-170-00 38H6000 0.6 H8000B 8000B HRS 35-090-00 38H8000 0.5
H6000B 6000B HRS 28-080-00 38H6000 0.5 H8000B 8000B HRS 35-100-00 38H8000 0.1
H6000B 6000B HRS 78-100-01 38H6000 0.2 H8000C 8000C HRS 49-102-00 38H8000 0.2
H6000B 6000B HRS 78-100-02 38H6000 0.2 H8000C 8000C HRS 49-120-00 38H8000 0.3
H6000C 6000C HRS 26-190-00 38H6000 0.05 H8000D 8000D HRS 52-111-00 38H8000 0.3
H8000D 8000D HRS 52-112-00 38H8000 0.3
H6500A 6500A HRS 38-010-00 38H6500 0.2 H8000D 8000D HRS 52-140-00 38H8000 0.1
H6500A 6500A HRS 38-050-00 38H6500 0.1
H6500B 6500B HRS 38-060-00 38H6500 0.3
H10000A 10000A HRS 20-030-01 38H10000 1 H20000 20000 HRS 20-050-00 38H20000 1.5
H10000A 10000A HRS 20-030-02 38H10000 1 H25000A 25000A 27-084-00 38H25000 0.2
H10000B 10000B HRS 21-070-00 38H10000 0.1 H25000A 25000A 27-104-00 38H25000 0.05
H10000C 10000C HRS 23-090-00 38H10000 0.3 H25000A 25000A 27-166-00 38H25000 0.2
H10000D 10000D HRS 27-156-00 38H10000 0.1 H25000A 25000A 27-192-01 38H25000 1
H10000E 10000E HRS 27-194-00 38H10000 0.5 H25000A 25000A 27-192-02 38H25000 1
H10000F 10000F HRS 28-040-00 38H10000 1 H25000B 25000B 29-110-00 38H25000 0.4
H10000G 10000G HRS 29-210-00 38H10000 0.4 H25000B 25000B 29-120-00 38H25000 0.2
H10000H 10000H HRS 29-220-00 38H10000 0.4 H25000B 25000B 29-130-00 38H25000 0.2
H10000I 10000I HRS 29-270-00 38H10000 0.2 H25000B 25000B 29-140-00 38H25000 0.2
H10000J 10000J HRS 34-100-00 38H10000 0.2 H25000B 25000B 29-150-00 38H25000 0.2
H10000K 10000K HRS 49-162-00 38H10000 0.1 H25000B 25000B 29-160-00 38H25000 0.2
H10000K 10000K HRS 49-180-00 38H10000 0.5 H25000B 25000B 29-180-00 38H25000 0.2
H10000K 10000K HRS 49-212-00 38H10000 0.05 H25000C 25000C 29-170-00 38H25000 0.2
H10000K 10000K HRS 49-220-00 38H10000 0.2 H25000C 25000C 29-260-00 38H25000 0.4
H25000C 25000C 29-280-00 38H25000 0.5
H12000 12000 HRS 28-070-00 38H12000 2 H25000C 25000C 29-290-00 38H25000 0.4
H25000C 25000C 29-300-00 38H25000 0.2
H12500 12500 HRS 27-082-00 38H12500 0.2 H25000C 25000C 29-310-00 38H25000 0.7
H12500 12500 HRS 27-092-00 38H12500 1.7 H25000D 25000D 32-230-00 38H25000 0.3
H25000D 25000D 32-420-00 38H25000 0.1
H15000A 15000A HRS 20-010-01 38H15000 0.5
H15000A 15000A HRS 20-010-02 38H15000 0.5 H30000 30000 HRS 20-020-00 38H30000 0.5
H15000A 15000A HRS 20-080-01 38H15000 1
H15000A 15000A HRS 20-080-02 38H15000 1
H15000B 15000B HRS 20-100-00 38H15000 1
H15000C 15000C HRS 20-120-01 38H15000 0.2
H15000C 15000C HRS 20-120-02 38H15000 0.2
Engine Not Grouped

1600 CYC 1600 CYC 72-180-01 MI 1 5000H/C 5000 72-120-02 MI 1
1600 CYC 1600 CYC 72-180-02 MI 1 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 72-300-01 MI 0.1
1600 CYC 1600 CYC 72-210-01 MI 0.5 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 72-340-02 MI 0.1
2000 HRS 2000 HRS 38-020-00 MI 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 78-020-02 MI 0.05
5000 HRS 5000 HRS 31-120-00 MI 1 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 78-050-01 MI 0.1
5000 HRS 5000 HRS 20-110-01 MI 0.1 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 78-050-02 MI 0.1
5000 HRS 5000 HRS 20-110-02 MI 0.1 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 78-060-01 MI 2
5000 HRS 5000 HRS 20-130-01 MI 0.02 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 78-060-02 MI 2
5000H/C 5000 HRS/CYC 72-070-01 MI 0.1 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 78-080-02 MI 0.1
5000H/C 5000 HRS/CYC 72-070-02 MI 0.1 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 79-010-01 MI 0.2
5000 HRS 5000 HRS 72-090-02 MI 0.05 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 80-010-01 MI 0.05
5000 HRS 5000 HRS 72-110-01 MI 0.1 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 80-010-02 MI 0.05
5000 HRS 5000 HRS 72-110-02 MI 0.1 1000 HRS 1000 HRS MI-24-20- MI 2
5000H/C 5000 HRS/CYC 72-120-01 MI 1 1000 HRS 1000 HRS MI-28-20- MI 1.5
5000H/C 5000 CYC/HRS 72-120-01 MI
5000H/C 5000 CYC/HRS 72-120-02 MI
128
Appendix I
Unclassified: Inconsistent Task Interva
H450 500 HRS 21-140-01 38H450 0.05
H450 500 HRS 21-140-02 38H450 0.05
H450 1000 HRS 21-150-00 38H450 0.1
H450 400 HRS 24-020-01 38H450 0.1
H450 400 HRS 24-020-02 38H450 0.1
H450 400 HRS 24-030-01 38H450 0.1
H450 400 HRS 24-030-02 38H450 0.1
H450 550 HRS 25-020-00 38H450 0.6
H450 750 HRS 27-161-00 38H450 0.1
H450 500 HRS 29-030-01 38H450 0.4
H450 500 HRS 29-030-02 38H450 0.4
H450 500 HRS 29-090-00 38H450 0.1
H450 800 HRS 71-010-01 38H450 0.1
H450 800 HRS 71-010-02 38H450 0.1
H450 500 HRS 72-060-01 38H450 0.05
H450 500 HRS 72-060-02 38H450 0.05
H450 500 HRS 72-260-01 38H450 0.05
H450 500 HRS 72-260-02 38H450 0.05
H450 500 HRS 72-320-01 38H450 0.15
H450 500 HRS 72-320-02 38H450 0.15
100 DYS 100 DYS 25-290-00 38D100 0.5

100 DYS 100 DYS 25-340-00 38D100 0.1
100 DYS 100 DYS 25-390-00 38D100 0.1
100 DYS 100 DYS T05-01-801 38D100 2
100 DYS 100 DYS T25-60-801B 38D100 4
100 DYS 100 DYS T38-10-801 38D100 2
100 DYS 100 DYS T38-10-801 38D100 2
100 DYS 100 DYS T38-30-808 38D100 0.25
100 DYS 100 DYS T52-00-804 38D100 0.5
240* DYS 240* DYS T25-10-805 38D240* 0.5
240* DYS 240* DYS T53-00-809 38D240* 0.45
360 DYS 360 DYS T23-30-8001 38d60
360 DYS 360 DYS T57-20-8001 38d60
300 CYC 300 CYC T25-50-803 38C300

1000 CYC 1000 CYC T52-00-801 38C1000 0.5
4000* CYC 4000* CYC T55-30-8001 38C4000*
450 HRS 450 HRS T23-30-801 38H450 1

450 HRS 450 HRS T25-10-808 38H450 0.25
450 HRS 450 HRS T25-10-810 38H450 0.25
450 HRS 450 HRS T25-20-801 38H450 6
450 HRS 450 HRS T25-30-801 38H450 0.5
450 HRS 450 HRS T25-60-801A 38H450 1
450 HRS 450 HRS T34-41-804 38H450 0.5
450 HRS 450 HRS T38-10-802 38H450 0.5
450 HRS 450 HRS T49-60-801 38H450 0.1
450 HRS 450 HRS T52-50-802 38H450 0.5
1000 HRS 1000 HRS T25-10-804 38H1000 0.25
1000 HRS 1000 HRS T25-20-807 38H1000 0.5
1000 HRS 1000 HRS T25-30-804 38H1000 1
1000 HRS 1000 HRS T34-28-804 38H1000 0.42
1000 HRS 1000 HRS T34-41-803 38H1000 0.25
1000 HRS 1000 HRS T34-62-803 38H1000 0.33
1000 HRS 1000 HRS T34-62-804 38H1000 0.33
129
Appendix J
J. The Maintenance Item Allocation Model (MIAM)
J.1. Necessity
In order to determine the most optimum way of clustering maintenance items

(Maintenance tasks grouped into either Transavia Checks or Maintenance Task
Packages), a choice can be made between the application of an analytical method or a
simulation method. Owing to the large amount of data that needs to be calculated
simultaneously, including the consideration of various scenarios, a computer model
in the form of a hybrid simulation is preferred.
J.2. Hybrid Simulation
J.2.1. Components of a Discrete-Event simulation model
The following is a list of components generally present in most discrete-event

simulation models.
System state: State variables that describe the system state at a particular time
Event List: A list containing the next time when each type of event will occur
Statistical Counters: Variables used for storing statistical information about system
performance
Initialisation Routine: A sub-program to initialise the simulation model at a time zero
Event Routine: A subprogram that updates the system state when a particular type of
event occurs (there is one event routine for each event type).
Library routines: a set of subprograms used to generate random observations from the
probability distributions determined as part of the simulation model
Report Generator: A subprogram that computes estimates (from the statistical

counters) of the desired measures of performance and produces a report when the
simulation ends
Main program: This is the subprogram that invokes the routines to determine the next
event and update the system state appropriately.
[Hilston, 2001]
J.3. Library Routine: Utilisation Simulation
J.3.1. Actual Aircraft Utilisation
Table J. 1 below tabulates the specific annual utilisation of the B737 NG Fleet, over
the period 1999-2000. It only includes that part of the fleet that was present for the
whole calendar year, i.e. from January till December.
131
The years 1998 (introduction year) and 2001 (data collection year) are not
considered.
a / c re g . Ja n Feb M ar Apr M ay Ju n Ju l Aug Sep O ct N ov D ec A n n u a l T o ta l

H o u rs ZA 305 288 337 379 386 385 396 377 365 368 263 205 4054
2000 ZB 236 247 259 381 395 383 373 407 361 324 227 212 3805
ZC 269 197 328 301 376 349 415 391 374 376 114 183 3673
ZD 269 240 253 309 398 373 429 394 383 377 218 224 3867
ZE 268 256 284 298 355 375 395 397 385 366 184 260 3823
ZF 278 271 315 405 378 356 386 405 375 396 218 307 4090
1999 ZA 246 229 292 319 374 328 403 380 371 381 280 224 3827
ZB 273 215 251 284 372 339 394 382 388 369 275 301 3843
ZC 238 233 288 329 376 343 386 381 346 395 268 246 3829
C y cle s ZA 114 109 109 124 136 133 149 143 122 134 131 67 1471
2000 ZB 88 90 86 133 138 142 143 135 139 105 69 63 1331
ZC 89 78 126 101 135 140 144 149 140 132 131 107 1472
ZD 77 79 72 106 139 131 153 146 142 129 69 70 1313
ZE 76 82 81 103 140 135 146 148 145 128 71 82 1337
ZF 102 99 113 113 132 134 142 143 132 136 82 89 1417
1999 ZA 79 76 104 111 136 122 145 144 147 143 100 75 1382
ZB 87 71 94 103 137 128 150 141 149 134 97 106 1397
ZC 81 79 99 119 141 130 140 143 128 142 96 86 1384
Table J. 1 Actual Aircraft utilisation, 1999-2000 (Source: Technical Administration dept.)
The following diagram is an illustration of how the utilisation (in flight hours) varied
over the year 2000, per aircraft tail number.
Aircraft Utilisation: Actual vs. Average (2000)
500.00
450.00
400.00
350.00
Average-2000
Monthy Flight Hours
300.00 Reg. ZA
Reg. ZB
250.00 Reg. ZC
Reg. ZD
200.00 Reg. ZE
Reg. ZF
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
Period [Months]
Figure J. 1 Specific variations in aircraft utilisation
132
Appendix J
The values in Table J. 1 may be summarised and illustrated as follows:
Actual Utilisation (Summary)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annually
Hours: Min 236 197 251 284 355 328 373 377 346 324 114 183 3673
Max 305 288 337 405 398 385 429 407 388 396 280 307 4090
Cycles Min 76 71 72 101 132 122 140 135 122 105 69 63 1313
Max 114 109 126 133 141 142 153 149 149 143 131 107 1472
Total Hours 2382 2176 2607 3005 3410 3231 3577 3514 3348 3352 2047 2162 34811
Mean 264.7 241.78 289.7 333.9 378.89 359 397.44 390.44 372 372.4 227.4 240.2 3867.89
Standard Deviation 21.81 27.806 31.96 43.35 12.917 20.71 16.637 11.137 13.26 21.18 53.47 42.45 128.32
Total Cycles 793 763 884 1013 1234 1195 1312 1292 1244 1183 846 745 12504
Mean 88.11 84.778 98.22 112.6 137.11 132.8 145.78 143.56 138.2 131.4 94 82.78 1389.33
Standard Deviation 12.59 12.266 16.92 10.91 2.7588 6.058 4.1767 4.1265 9.107 11.16 24.26 15.97 57.42
Table J. 2 Aircraft Utilisation: Summary Table

The minimum and maximum values, for both hours and cycles, are used to describe
the expectation space of the simulated values.
Aircraft Utilisation 737NG Fleet (Period: Jan 99-Dec 00)
500
450
400
350
Flight Hour-Flight Cycles
300
Min. Flight Hours
Max. Flight Hours
250
Min. Flight Cycles
Max. Flight Cycles
200
150
100
50
0
Calendar Months
Figure J. 2 Utilisation: Minimum and Maximum (Hours, Cycles)
J.3.2. Variable Aircraft Utilisation
Variable utilisation is based on the fact that the utilisation of the fleet may change
differ from that witnessed in the actual utilisation.
In order to incorporate such changes, the following utilisation scenarios are
developed:
1. Conservative Scenario The utilisation to be anticipated will be below
average
2. Most Likely Scenario The utilisation to be anticipated will be about
average
3. Optimistic Scenario The utilisation to be anticipated will be above
average
These scenarios apply for both flight hours and flight cycles.
133
On a daily basis and on am annual basis:
On a daily basis On an annual basis

Hours Cycles Annually: Hours Cycles
min max min max min max min max
Conservative 7 9 1.9 2.1 2555 3285 1344.7 1564.3
Most Likely 9 11 2.2 2.7 3285 4015 1493.2 1433.9
Optimistic 11 13 2.8 3.1 4015 4745 1433.9 1530.6
Table J. 3 Variable minimum and maximum utilisation
Owing to the fact that the increment used in the simulation is in months, the monthly
utilisation should be determined. Further, the seasonal increment and decrement
should also be incorporated in the resulting monthly utilisation.
By considering the average aircraft utilisation, the proportion that each month
contributes is:
Suppose ai is the average aircraft utilisation (in hours or cycles) per month
(calculated for the period between 1999-2000), and that Av is the annual average for
the same period. The proportion (P) each month contributes on the utilisation curve
is:
ai
Pi = ; where i is the month being calculated
Av
12
From this follow the fact that: P =1
1
i
The simple calculation above results in the following values:
Month P (hours) P (Cycles)

Jan 0.0681 0.0659
Feb 0.0638 0.0635
Mar 0.0752 0.0736
Apr 0.0839 0.0824
May 0.0913 0.0928
Jun 0.0905 0.0949
Jul 0.1019 0.1029
Aug 0.1018 0.1026
Sep 0.0966 0.0999
Oct 0.0985 0.0964
Nov 0.0660 0.0646
Dec 0.0624 0.0605
1 1
Table J. 4 Month proportions to the seasonal distribution
The values from table x. above are then added to the simulation program for the
generation of the required utilisation.
134
Appendix J
J.4. Visual Basic Code
J.4.1. Line Maintenance Codes
Option Explicit
'Attribute VB_Name = "Module1"
'UMXSMP/PICCO/Anthony\Visual Basic code
'
'
'
'UTDAYS = Days limit on check
'UTHOURS = Hours limit on check
'UTCYCLES = Cycles limit on check
'VISITS = Hangar visit date
'FREQUENCY = Hangar visit frequency
'RDAYS = Days in a Calendar month
'RHOURS = Production hours (following utilisation) corresponding to the indicated
month
'RCYCLES = Production cycles (following utilisation) corresponding to the indicated
month
'For the leading column applies: If Value>UTLIMIT then MOD(Value,UTLIMIT)
Function DueDate (Visit, Frequency, PrevVal, NextVis As Double, PrevRw, Value,

RVALUE, UTLIMIT, NextRw As Integer) As Integer
Dim i, j, k, l As Integer
'Calculating due dates for items (checks) with single limits

'RVALUE refers to RDAYS, RHOURS and RCYCLES
'
k = RVALUE + NextRw
j = PrevVal + PrevRw
l = j - UTLIMIT
If Value = UTLIMIT Then
'DueDate = l + RVALUE
DueDate = RVALUE
'Else
'If j < UTLIMIT Then
'DueDate = RVALUE
Else
'If (NextVis < Frequency) And (Value + k < UTLIMIT) Then
'DueDate = Value + RVALUE
If Value + k < UTLIMIT Then
DueDate = Value + RVALUE
Else
'If Visit = Frequency And (Value + RVALUE > UTLIMIT) Then
If Visit = Frequency Then
135
DueDate = UTLIMIT
Else
If NextVis = Frequency Then
Else
End If
'End If
End If
End If
End If
End Function
Function DUALDH (Switch As Integer, Visit, Frequency, PrevVal, PrevVal2,

NextVis As Double, PrevRd, PrevRh, Value, Value2, RDAYS, RHOURS, UTDAYS,
UTHOURS, NextRd, NextRh As Integer) As Integer
Dim TDDY, TDHR, i, j, k As Integer
'
'Function generates the due dates for checks with dual intervals (applicable to both
D/H and D/C items)
'
j = RDAYS + NextRd
k = RHOURS + NextRh
If Value = UTDAYS Then

TDDY = PrevVal + PrevRd - Value + RDAYS
If TDDY < 28 Then
TDDY = RDAYS
End If
Else
If (Value + j < UTDAYS) Then
TDDY = Value + RDAYS
Else
TDDY = UTDAYS
Else
TDDY = Value + RDAYS
End If
End If
End If
End If
If Value2 = UTHOURS Then

TDHR = PrevVal2 + PrevRh - Value2
If TDHR < 200 Then
TDHR = RHOURS
136
Appendix J
End If
Else
If (Value2 + k < UTHOURS) Then
TDHR = Value2 + RHOURS
Else
TDHR = UTHOURS
Else
TDHR = Value2 + RHOURS
End If
End If
End If
End If
If (TDHR = UTHOURS) Or (TDDY = UTDAYS) Then

TDHR = UTHOURS
TDDY = UTDAYS
End If
If Switch = 1 Then
DUALDH = TDHR
Else
DUALDH = TDDY
End If
End Function
Function ToHangar5 (Freq, PrevVal As Double, Value, RDAYS, PrevRd, PPrevRd As

Integer)
Dim i, j As Double
'
'Function calculates the date on which hangar maintenance should be performed
'
'Value = Value of previous cell
'Freq = Hangar visit Frequency
'RDAYS = Days of the month for the Cell in question
'
'Frequency never exceeds 54, and the least possible summation is 30+28 = 58.
Therefore,
'Value < Freq will always be followed by Freq
j = Value + RDAYS
If Freq < 31 Then

i = Freq
Else
If Value < Freq Then
i = Freq
137
Else
If Value < Freq And (Value + RDAYS >= Freq) Then
i = Freq
Else
If Value = Freq And (PrevVal = Freq) Then
i = RDAYS
Else
If Value = Freq And (PrevRd - (Freq - PrevVal) + RDAYS >= Freq) Then
i = Freq
Else
If Value = Freq And (PrevRd - (Freq - PrevVal) + RDAYS < Freq) Then
i = PrevRd - (Freq - PrevVal) + RDAYS
End If
End If
End If
End If
End If
End If
ToHangar5 = i
End Function
Function LoSSeS (Value, RDAYS, UTLIMIT As Integer, PrevVal, ValuatorL As

Double)
Dim i As Double
i = PrevVal + RDAYS
If (Value = UTLIMIT) And (i < UTLIMIT) Then

LoSSeS = (UTLIMIT MOD i)) * ValuatorL * 3.4
Else
LoSSeS = 0
End If
End Function
Function Crosses (Value, UTLIMIT As Integer) As Characters

Function identifies maintenance due items with a cross mark

Crosses = "x"
Else
Crosses = " "
End If
End Function
Function General1(Value, RVALUE, UTLIMIT As Integer)

Dim i As Integer
This function calculates the exact maintenance demand
138
Appendix J

i = RVALUE
Else
If Value + RVALUE < UTLIMIT Then
i = Value + RVALUE
Else
i = UTLIMIT
End If
End If
General1 = i
End Function
Function General2(Switch, Value, Value2, RVALUE, RVALUE2, UTLIMIT,

UTLIMIT2 As Integer)
Dim i, j As Integer
This function calculates the exact maintenance demand

i = RVALUE
Else
i = Value + RVALUE
Else
i = UTLIMIT
End If
End If
If Value2 = UTLIMIT2 Then
j = RVALUE2
Else
If Value2 + RVALUE2 < UTLIMIT2 Then
j = Value2 + RVALUE2
Else
j = UTLIMIT2
End If
End If
If i = UTLIMIT Or j = UTLIMIT2 Then
i = UTLIMIT
j = UTLIMIT2
End If
If Switch = 1 Then
General2 = j
Else
General2 = i
End If
End Function
139
J.4.2. Base Maintenance Codes

Option Explicit
'For the leading column applies: If Value>UTLIMIT then MOD (Value, UTLIMIT)
Function ShortDue (RVALUE, Value As Double, UTLIMIT As Integer) As Integer

Dim m As Integer

ShortDue = RVALUE
Else
ShortDue = Value + RVALUE
Else
ShortDue = UTLIMIT
End If
End If
End Function
Function CheckDue (RVALUE As Double, ADDIT, Freq, Value, UTLIMIT,

UTVALUE As Integer) As Integer
Dim i, j, k As Integer
'Calculating due dates for items (checks) with single limits

'RVALUE refers to RDAYS, RHOURS and RCYCLES
i = Value + UTVALUE
j = Freq
k = RVALUE

CheckDue = RVALUE
Else
If (ADDIT = 1) And (i > UTLIMIT) Then
CheckDue = UTLIMIT
Else
CheckDue = Value + RVALUE
End If
End If
End Function
Function DUALDC (Switch, ADDIT, Value, Value2, UTLIMIT, UTLIMIT2,

UTVALUE, UTVALUE2 As Integer, RVALUE, RVALUE2 As Double) As Integer
140
Appendix J
Dim TDDY, TDHR, DAYSD, i, k As Integer, CYCSD, j, l As Double

'
'Function generates the due dates for checks with dual intervals
'(applicable to both D/H and D/C items)
'
i = RVALUE
j = RVALUE2
k = Value + UTVALUE
l = Value2 + UTVALUE2

DAYSD = RVALUE
Else
If (ADDIT = 1) And (k > UTLIMIT) Then
DAYSD = UTLIMIT
Else
DAYSD = Value + RVALUE
End If
End If
If Value2 = UTLIMIT2 Then

CYCSD = RVALUE2
Else
If (ADDIT = 1) And (l > UTLIMIT2) Then
CYCSD = UTLIMIT2
Else
CYCSD = Value2 + RVALUE2
End If
End If
If (DAYSD = UTLIMIT) Or (CYCSD = UTLIMIT2) Then

DAYSD = UTLIMIT
CYCSD = UTLIMIT2
End If
If Switch = 1 Then
DUALDC = CYCSD
Else
DUALDC = DAYSD
End If
End Function
Function BaseLosseS (Value, RVALUE, UTLIMIT As Integer, PrevVal, ValuatorL,

Manhours As Double)
Dim i As Double
i = PrevVal + RVALUE
141
If (Value = UTLIMIT) And (i < UTLIMIT) Then

BaseLosseS = (UTLIMIT - i) * ValuatorL * Manhours * 3.6
'BaseLosseS = (UTLIMIT Mod i) * ValuatorL * Manhours * 3.6
Else
BaseLosseS = 0
End If
End Function
J.5. Model Verification and Validation
MODEL DESIGN SIMULATION
REAL LIFE
SYSTEM DATA
SYSTEM
ANALYSIS
INPUT CONCEPTUAL
MODEL MODEL
DATA MODEL
VALIDATION VALIDATION
(Replication) (Predictive)
QUANTITATIVE
MODEL
PROGRAM PROGRAMMING
VERIFICATION
COMPUTER
COMPUTER
VISUAL BASIC/
VISUAL BASIC/ EXCEL DATA
EXCEL DATA MODEL
MODEL
SIMULATION
Source: Syllabus-Digital Simulations A
Figure J. 3 Model Verification and Validation Process
J.5.1. Validation
Model validation is done in order to ascertain that the model is a reasonable
representation of the real life process. This follows from the fact that various aspects
of the real life situation are either simplified or left out, and in other cases, various
assumptions are made.
The following aspects of model validation can be considered (and tabulated here
below):
142
Appendix J
a. Assumptions
b. Input parameter values and distributions
c. Output values
[Hillston, 2001]
Table J. 5 Assumptions
Assumptions Real Life Model
1. Aircraft utilisation - Aircraft do not perform flight every day of - The aircraft performs flights daily
the year, especially not during the low season,
when the flight demand is low
- During the low season, a part of the fleet is - The aircraft considered is present in
leased out. The specific tail number of the the Transavia fleet for the period
aircraft to be leased out depends on the choice considered (not leased out)
of the lessee, and on the approval of the
technical department.
2. Aircraft utilisation - This is basically seasonal, as was illustrated - Follows the same seasonal pattern
pattern in Figure J. 1 above. witnessed in reality
- The utilisation strongly varies per tail number - Varies over time. Each simulation
and is not repeated over the years. No tail run results in a different utilisation
number flies to specific destinations. quantity (flight hours cycles)
- If an aircraft is leased out, the utilisation by - The aircraft utilisation considered
the lessee may differ strongly from that of always follows the Transavia pattern
Transavia,
3. Execution of - This varies from much in advance, to past - All clusters are performed on time.
maintenance clusters the due dates. In cases where a maintenance No extensions are incorporated in the
cluster cannot be performed on time, model
extensions are requested.
- The METALS system considers maintenance - The model considers tasks as done,
tasks as performed at the moment the aircraft once they have been clustered.
enters the maintenance facility.
Table J. 6: Input parameters and distributions

Parameters/Distributions Real Life Model
1. Dates - dd/mm/yy format - mm/yy format:
(Maintenance dates/time since Maintenance is performed at intervals
last performed) larger than 4 weeks (28 Days). Hence,
visits occur at most once a month
2. Man-hours - Based on Boeing man-hours; a - Same principle is utilised as in real life

factor 1.7 for Transavia hangar
work, and 3.6 for an MRO station
3. Aircraft utilisation - Based on the exact utilisation of - Based on assumptions derived from
the aircraft. Varies with the reality, and projected situation;
seasons (see also Figure J. 1) assumptions modelled into utilisation
and per aircraft scenarios. Varies with seasons.
- Uniform distribution used in the
simulation process meant to represent
patterns on Figure J. 1.
Table J. 7: Output Values

Output Values Real Life Model
1. Clusters - Date of performance (dd/mm/yy) - Date of performance (mm/yy)
- Man-hour demand - Man-hour demand
- Down-time demand - Model meant to calculate the
143
maintenance demand (how often

maintenance, and how many man-
hours are required)
- Skills demand - Maintenance execution team
composition is not of importance in this
model
2. De-escalation - Considered as lost utilisation time - Considered as lost labour (shorter

intervals than stipulated mean more
frequent maintenance execution, hence
more labour)
From the data above, it may be assumed that the model created idealises the real
situation, without misrepresenting it. Hence, it may be sat that the model is valid.
J.5.2. Verification
Verification of a model is meant to certify that the program runs as intended, and
that it produces the desired outputs.
The following kinds of verification will be performed:
1. Verification of Logic/ Check against known solutions
2. Modular testing: Ensuring that each sub-routine produces sensible output for
all possible input
3. Sensitivity testing: Checking the effect of a parameter on the performance of
the model
4. Stress testing: Ensuring that the model works for extreme values of all input
parameters
Verification of the utilisation scenario outputs
In order to verify whether the library routine draws utilisations as required, a

number of runs are done for each utilisation scenario: The results of this are
tabulated below:
Table J. 8 Utilisation Scenario runs
Scenario 1
Random Values 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Hours 178 205 227 243 285 240 286 304 271 290 198 197 2924
Cycles 93 90 115 127 127 141 152 155 146 132 91 84 1453
Hours 179 190 244 275 276 246 322 305 310 283 212 163 3005
Cycles 97 98 100 120 125 139 148 158 154 135 89 90 1453
Hours 191 205 243 265 239 284 333 324 290 323 199 180 3076
Cycles 101 87 106 128 143 130 156 145 146 144 88 89 1463
Scenario 2
144
Appendix J
Hours 219 167 239 227 277 269 278 272 299 287 195 203 2932
Cycles 85 94 112 109 143 151 151 128 152 160 95 99 1479
Hours 176 177 206 226 290 276 283 284 289 312 194 172 2885
Cycles 111 78 93 106 168 131 146 150 169 144 90 95 1481
Hours 193 206 247 231 242 269 263 264 276 323 194 162 2870
Cycles 95 100 92 110 129 151 145 151 165 139 90 83 1450
Scenario 3
Hours 191 189 244 250 286 288 286 312 291 310 193 179 3019
Cycles 97 93 106 125 142 141 156 155 149 145 95 90 1494
Hours 186 203 213 229 288 297 304 323 267 322 211 182 3025
Cycles 100 92 110 119 135 145 153 149 147 146 93 88 1477
Hours 182 174 203 230 283 232 262 330 281 317 181 174 2849
Cycles 95 96 106 119 134 144 152 157 145 147 94 90 1479
Scenario 4
Hours 245 239 277 298 333 328 399 391 337 376 237 243 3703
Cycles 99 93 110 112 140 132 154 160 150 147 101 88 1486
Hours 239 241 248 334 334 341 371 367 385 330 253 228 3671
Cycles 96 95 110 126 127 135 141 158 141 131 89 87 1436
Hours 236 229 257 277 340 360 363 346 335 364 229 211 3547
Cycles 102 94 100 115 125 139 139 142 156 144 87 92 1435
Scenario 5
Hours 255 245 283 303 307 353 369 380 385 365 217 246 3708
Cycles 117 111 127 118 147 147 144 178 148 132 90 108 1567
Hours 230 251 272 298 304 306 396 344 345 383 219 217 3565
Cycles 116 97 132 129 146 153 177 145 122 149 103 98 1567
Hours 251 226 263 332 354 321 387 406 370 377 252 241 3780
Cycles 112 109 92 137 129 144 127 151 148 163 84 97 1493
145
Scenario 6
Hours 258 217 252 313 326 347 366 379 348 387 217 226 3636
Cycles 99 95 108 124 140 143 155 150 151 139 94 87 1485
Hours 247 256 264 276 341 355 369 366 323 336 219 246 3598
Cycles 100 94 106 121 139 143 151 156 150 147 97 88 1492
Hours 245 232 258 327 353 299 365 361 327 375 242 218 3602
Cycles 98 94 107 125 134 143 152 153 144 144 96 91 1481
Scenario 7
Hours 305 277 321 350 425 408 471 477 456 404 302 259 4455
Cycles 103 87 99 127 143 139 159 159 140 143 97 83 1479
Hours 288 259 350 375 421 410 448 472 394 437 266 292 4412
Cycles 94 99 110 114 131 139 155 142 140 137 97 84 1442
Hours 304 292 317 363 376 401 464 410 433 443 267 271 4341
Cycles 102 95 111 113 127 142 159 159 142 145 97 82 1474
Scenario 8
Hours 301 297 312 380 376 424 424 439 439 430 307 271 4400
Cycles 87 86 117 116 136 173 187 172 142 162 79 97 1554
Hours 299 264 344 345 427 394 475 456 430 439 277 270 4420
Cycles 120 79 115 105 156 141 175 138 142 168 99 91 1529
Hours 322 302 333 344 418 369 416 480 409 434 273 258 4358
Cycles 89 104 133 122 155 121 176 131 171 129 81 110 1522
Scenario 9
Hours 282 270 350 380 399 425 475 412 396 401 285 275 4350
Cycles 97 93 106 125 142 145 154 149 152 144 93 87 1487
Hours 306 262 335 380 387 414 414 483 392 450 304 278 4405
Cycles 99 96 111 122 142 143 156 157 148 141 96 92 1503
146
Appendix J
Hours 307 267 331 368 373 381 472 457 429 452 296 281 4414
Cycles 98 97 112 121 135 144 149 152 149 144 97 87 1485
Scenario 10
Hours 245 199 282 320 390 370 381 389 383 332 178 253 3722
Cycles 105 80 123 120 138 122 148 148 130 143 120 95 1472
Hours 302 208 271 299 357 369 395 390 376 366 235 194 3762
Cycles 99 83 113 129 140 126 143 147 131 142 101 103 1457
Hours 301 201 334 312 373 356 394 401 360 356 191 290 3869
Cycles 106 78 110 128 139 137 149 149 145 143 126 100 1510
It may be said that the random values drawn remain within the specified ranges
(Table J. 3). The extreme minimums and maximums are not attained, owing to the
large variation in the random numbers drawn. This does compare to the reality (see
also Figure J. 1).
It can therefore be said that the utilisation simulations produce the desired outputs.
Effect of utilisation scenarios on the base maintenance man-hour demand
In order to establish whether the maintenance scenarios have an effect on the base
maintenance man-hour demand, a number of runs are made for each scenario.
After three consecutive runs, the following base maintenance man-hours are
established for an 18-month interval:
Table J. 9 Base Maintenance Demand variation by scenario
Type Visit Scen-1 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9 Scen-10
HMV 1 [Sep 02] 209 209 209 211 211 211 229 229 229 211
HMV 2 [Mar 04] 229 229 229 236 236 236 236 236 236 236
HMV 3 [Sep 05] 297 297 297 299 299 299 327 327 327 303
HMV 4 [Mar 07] 239 239 239 248 248 248 243 243 243 244
HMV 5 [Sep 08] 307 307 307 303 303 303 316 316 316 303
HMV 6 [Mar 10] 550 550 550 553 553 553 563 563 563 557
Total MHrs 1830 1830 1830 1851 1851 1851 1915 1915 1915 1855
From Table J. 9 above, it is clear that there is no variation in the maintenance demand
within a given utilisation (Conservative, Most Likely, Optimistic). The reason behind
this can be attributed to the fact that the differences in flight hours and cycles within
scenarios are relatively small compared to the large interval between two consecutive
base maintenance visits.
Further, it is evident that there is minimal difference between the Most Likely
utilisation and scenario 10. This follows from the fact that the Most Likely utilisation
range forms a large part of the actual utilisation See also Table J. 2 and Table J. 3.
147
It would therefore be justified to refer to one scenario per utilisation.

Table J. 9 can be simplified to the following table:
Table J. 10 Base Maintenance Cluster man-hours by scenario

HMV1 [Sep 02] 209 9 211 8 229 10 211 8
HMV2 [Mar 04] 229 11 236 9 236 11 236 9
HMV3 [Sep 05] 297 9 299 8 327 9 303 8
HMV4 [Mar 07] 239 11 248 9 243 11 244 9
HMV5 [Sep 08] 307 7 303 6 316 8 303 6
HMV6 [Mar 10] 550 10 553 9 563 10 557 9
Totals 1830 9 1851 8 1915 10 1855 8
Effect of utilisation scenarios on the line maintenance man-hour demand

In order to establish whether the maintenance scenarios have an effect on the line
maintenance man-hour demand, a number of runs are made for each scenario.
Table J. 11 Maintenance Demand, Current situation - 5-week frequency
2001 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 231 218
2002 410 422 410 467 455 448 475 475 462 467
2003 333 326 317 372 385 378 502 471 481 476
2004 397 405 426 460 452 460 463 494 463 356
2005 342 333 330 468 468 481 481 481 481 481
2006 412 421 424 458 452 426 385 373 407 458
Total MHrs 2111.8 2125.6 2124.8 2443.3 2429.6 2410.9 2524.0 2512.2 2524.4 2455.5
Table J. 12 Maintenance Demand Proposed situation: 5-week frequency

Maintenance Demand:
New Situation Cons ML Opt Scen-10
Scen-1 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9
2001 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 231 218 218
2002 467 467 467 512 513 513 533 520 533 533
2003 389 401 376 439 446 531 545 550 534 527
2004 483 470 508 540 519 435 568 542 579 438
2005 451 443 438 555 582 594 601 623 601 594
2006 474 494 494 521 534 521 427 427 427 520
Total 2480.9 2494.3 2501.6 2785.2 2811.6 2811.6 2891.6 2892.4 2892.0 2829.7
Despite the fact that the differences in the maintenance demand from various
maintenance scenarios are minimal, it can be said that the maintenance demand does
vary with the utilisation.
By analysing the changes in the maintenance demand within a randomly selected

year, the following is observed:
148
Appendix J
Table J. 13 Maintenance Demand variation from 3 runs: Scenario 2, 6-weeks Mx frequency
HV MHrs 1st run HV MHrs 2nd run HV Mhrs 3rd run

Jan-02 42.2 42.2 30
Feb-02 0 0 0
Mar-02 71.04 71.04 83.64
Apr-02 0 0 0
May-02 54.92 48.5 40.58
Jun-02 0 0 0
Jul-02 82.22 88.64 96.56
Aug-02 77.04 77.04 56.74
Sep-02 125.66 32.44 40.14
Oct-02 0 0 0
Nov-02 52.4 145.62 158.22
Dec-02 50.54 50.54 41.34
Total Mhrs 556.02 556.02 547.22
HV MHrs 1st run HV MHrs 2nd run HV Mhrs 3rd run

Jan-02 37.7 37.7 37.7
Feb-02 0 0 0
Mar-02 82.36 103.86 82.36
Apr-02 21.5 0 21.5
May-02 35.9 35.9 35.9
Jun-02 0 0 0
Jul-02 174.24 174.24 174.24
Aug-02 63.16 63.16 56.74
Sep-02 45.04 45.04 51.46
Oct-02 0 0 0
Nov-02 53.6 53.6 52.4
Dec-02 58.24 58.24 59.44
Total MHrs 571.74 571.74 571.74
HV MHrs 1st run HV MHrs 2nd run HV MHrs 3rd run

Jan-02 70.52 70.52 70.52
Feb-02 0 0 0
Mar-02 71.04 63.34 71.04
Apr-02 105.82 113.52 105.82
May-02 35.9 39.3 35.9
Jun-02 0 0 0
Jul-02 87.44 84.04 87.44
Aug-02 57.94 57.94 57.94
Sep-02 45.04 45.04 45.04
Oct-02 0 0 0
Nov-02 68.2 68.2 81.6
Dec-02 58.56 61.96 71.16
Total MHrs 600.46 603.86 626.46
149
Table J. 13 till Table J. 15 clearly show that no three runs will result in identical
clusters all year round. However, the total maintenance demand remains more or
less stable.
The purpose of the simulation model was to ensure that the maintenance demand
follows the aircraft utilisation, and that this varies over the years and over the
selected periods (Months). The tables above indicate that this purpose is achieved.
Modular Testing:
Subroutines in the program include:

- The Utilisation Scenario Sub-routine (See above): The working of this sub-
routine has been verified above
- The Maintenance Frequency Sub-routine: This sub-routine incorporates
the maintenance frequency into the model. Its working can easily be
checked, owing to the fact that the maintenance frequency is included in
all outputs
- The Maintenance Mode Sub-routine: Incorporates either the current
maintenance item definition or the proposed Maintenance Task Packages
into the model. Its working is also easy to verify, in that either
Maintenance Checks or Maintenance Task packages are listed in the
model.
Sensitivity testing:
The model works well when a single parameter is altered.
Stress testing:
Model inputs include: the maintenance frequency, the maintenance interval limits,
and the aircraft utilisation.
- The aircraft utilisation varies as listed in Table J. 3 above. The model behaviour
under this conditions it included in Table J. 8 above
- The maintenance frequency is defined to lie between the following ranges:
Line Maintenance 4 7 Weeks:
At a three-week frequency, the model functions inappropriately because it is
designed to cluster at intervals of 4 Weeks and above. Three weeks translates to
21 days, while the model works with values above 28 days (See also: Model
Validation).
At an eight-week frequency, the model functions properly as pertains to the
maintenance frequency sub-routine. However, this frequency leads to the
violation of a number maintenance limits, hence rendering all outputs invalid
Base Maintenance 18 24 Months:

The model operates normally for all intervals. However, intervals larger than 24
months leads to the violation of a number of maintenance limits, hence rendering
the outputs invalid.
- As for the maintenance interval limits, the model will calculate all limits not
lower than 28 days, 250 flight hours and 50 flight cycles. This is because it is
modelled to work with the lowest maintenance interval indicated in the
OMP. It will also not calculate Fight Cycle intervals exceeding 32780. The
reason behind this is not clear, but it may be attributed to the program (MS
Excel) itself. However, such high limits may be ignored because Transavia
150
Appendix J
does not operate airplanes with over 50,000 flight hours or 25,000 flight
cycles.
151
Appendix K
K. MIAM Results - Tables
K.1. Base Maintenance
Scenario considered: Scenario 10

Table K. 1 Without utilising the Line/Base Classification
Airplane considered: New as of 01-04-2001
Without Utilising the L/B Classification:

18 Months B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss () % loss
HMV1 [Sep-02] 469 84 24403.4 4346.3 18
HMV2 [Mar-04] 524 93 27249.9 4848.8 18
HMV3 [Sep-05] 640 95 33297.0 4937.7 15
HMV4 [Mar-07] 532 99 27661.9 5127.2 19
HMV5 [Sep-08] 646 83 33594.7 4315.9 13
HMV6 [Mar-10] 924 133 48050.2 6943.1 14
[-] 0 0 0.0 0.0 0
Totals 3734 587 194257 30519 16

HMV1 [Mar-03] 504 32 26220.0 1689.8 6
HMV2 [Mar-05] 695 59 36143.5 3086.0 9
HMV3 [Mar-07] 512 33 26632.0 1732.6 7
HMV4 [Mar-09] 1100 103 57241.6 5341.0 9
HMV5 [Mar-11] 730 57 37990.0 2988.7 8
[-] 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 3541 285 184227 14838 8
24 Months* B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss () % loss

HMV1 [Feb-03] 511 36 26594.5 1860.1 7
HMV2 [Feb-05] 695 62 36143.5 3221.1 9
HMV3 [Feb-07] 524 30 27249.9 1573.9 6
HMV4 [Feb-09] 867 59 45091.4 3072.2 7
HMV5 [Feb-11] 725 0 37733.4 0.0 0
[-] 0 0 0.0 0.0 0
Totals 3322 187 172813 9727 6
* = First Base Maintenance visit at 23 months
Table K. 2 By utilising the Line/Base Classification
By Utilising the L/B Classification:

HMV1 [Mar-03] 186 11 9691.3 554.9 6
HMV2 [Mar-05] 278 27 14483.6 1426.3 10
HMV3 [Mar-07] 199 12 10328.1 624.8 6
HMV4 [Mar-09] 595 71 30928.0 3675.3 12
HMV5 [Mar-11] 427 48 22229.2 2499.4 11
Totals 1685 169 87660 8781 10
153
24 Months* B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss () % loss

HMV1 [Feb-03] 179 13 9316.8 675.9 7
HMV2 [Feb-05] 278 26 14483.6 1364.4 9
HMV3 [Feb-07] 191 10 9953.5 517.0 5
HMV4 [Feb-09] 366 25 19021.2 1283.4 7
HMV5 [Feb-11] 408 0 21223.5 0.0 0
[-] 0 0 0.0 0.0 0
Totals 1423 74 73999 3841 5
(Assuming That Open and Close Manhours amount to 230 per Visit):
Table K. 3 Previous situation
Previous Situation: Base Mx at 18 Months

18 Months B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss () % Loss
HMV1 [Sep-02] 570 84 29679.9 4350.4 15
HMV2 [Mar-04] 624 93 32491.7 4853.4 15
HMV3 [Sep-05] 740 95 38531.8 4942.5 13
HMV4 [Mar-07] 632 99 32908.2 5132.1 16
HMV5 [Sep-08] 746 83 38844.2 4320.1 11
HMV6 [Mar-10] 1024 133 53319.7 6949.8 13
[-] 0 0 0.0 0.0 0
Totals 4336 587 225776 30548 14
Optimised Situation: Base Mx at 24 Months, First Visit at 23 Months

24 Months* B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss () % Loss
HMV1 [Feb-03] 409 13 21301.8 675.9 7
HMV2 [Feb-05] 508 26 26473.6 1364.4 9
HMV3 [Feb-07] 421 10 21939.2 517.0 5
HMV4 [Feb-09] 596 25 31015.6 1283.4 7
HMV5 [Feb-11] 638 11 33220.0 572.8 2
[-] 0 0 0.0 0.0 0
Totals 2573 85 133950 4414 3
* = First Base Maintenance Visit at 23 Months
Table K. 4 Expectation: Base Maintenance Man-hours
Summary: Base Mx at 18 Months

18 Months Routine Non-routine Open& Close B-MHrs De-Esc (Mhrs)
HMV1 [Sep-02] 189 170 230 570 84
HMV2 [Mar-04] 219 197 230 624 93
HMV3 [Sep-05] 283 255 230 740 95
HMV4 [Mar-07] 223 201 230 632 99
HMV5 [Sep-08] 287 258 230 746 83
HMV6 [Mar-10] 441 397 230 1024 133
[-] 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 1642 1478 1380 4336 587
154
Appendix K
Optimised Situation: Base Mx at 24 Months, First Visit at 23 Months

24 Months* Routine Non-routine Open& Close B-MHrs De-Esc (MHrs)
HMV1 [Feb-03] 100 90 230 409 13
HMV2 [Feb-05] 155 139 230 508 26
HMV3 [Feb-07] 106 96 230 421 10
HMV4 [Feb-09] 203 183 230 596 25
HMV5 [Feb-11] 227 204 230 638 11
[-] 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 791 712 1150 2573 85
Assumptions (Approximations)
Routine = 2*Boeing Manhours
Non-Routine = 1.6* Boeing Manhours
Open & Close = 230 Manhours (approximation)
Table K. 5 Maintenance demand trends for the rest of the fleet

HZA 24 months
24 Mths Type Visit Period B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss ()
HMV2 [Apr-02] Apr-02 274 19 14258.9 969.8
HMV3 [Apr-04] Apr-04 278 15 14472.4 802.8
HMV4 [Apr-06] Apr-06 508 67 26409.1 3476.1
HMV5 [Apr-08] Apr-08 424 47 22079.4 2463.5
HMV6 [Apr-10] Apr-10 280 24 14558.5 1239.3
Totals 1764 172 91778 8951
HZA Type Visit Period B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss ()

24 Mths* HMV2 [Mar-02] Mar-02 274 23 14258.9 1180.9
HMV3 [Mar-04] Mar-04 198 11 10309.3 586.7
HMV4 [Mar-06] Mar-06 366 27 19039.9 1398.7
HMV5 [Mar-08] Mar-08 420 12 21822.8 624.3
HMV6 [Mar-10] Mar-10 282 27 14652.2 1426.5
Totals 1539 100 80083 5217
HZC Type Visit Period B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss ()

24 Mths HMV2 [Jun-02] Jun-02 274 21 14258.9 1070.7
HMV3 [Jun-04] Jun-04 285 18 14846.9 944.6
HMV4 [Jun-06] Jun-06 500 67 26034.6 3495.9
HMV5 [Jun-08] Jun-08 432 46 22453.9 2412.1
HMV6 [Jun-10] Jun-10 273 24 14184.0 1265.5
[-] Jan-00 0 0 0.0 0.0
Totals 1764 177 91778 9189
HZC Type Visit Period B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss ()

24 Mths* HMV2 [Mar-02] Mar-02 274 40 14258.9 2087.7
(-100 D) HMV3 [Mar-04] Mar-04 198 12 10309.3 637.9
HMV4 [Mar-06] Mar-06 366 27 19039.9 1389.2
HMV5 [Mar-08] Mar-08 420 15 21822.8 772.9
HMV6 [Mar-10] Mar-10 523 28 27190.0 1441.8
[-] [-] 0 0 0.0 0.0
Totals 1780 122 92621 6329
155
HZE Type Visit Period B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss ()

24 Months HMV2 [May-03] May-01 186 11 9691.3 566.8
HMV3 [May-05] May-03 271 24 14109.1 1261.6
HMV4 [May-07] May-05 286 17 14865.7 861.0
HMV5 [May-09] May-07 496 66 25791.1 3457.0
HMV6 [May-11] May-09 432 46 22453.9 2373.6
Totals 1671 164 86911 8520
HZE Type Visit Period B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss ()

24 Mths* HMV2 [Mar-03] Mar-03 274 18 14258.9 947.9
(-60 D) HMV3 [Mar-05] Mar-05 203 12 10552.8 637.3
HMV4 [Mar-07] Mar-07 361 27 18796.5 1403.5
HMV5 [Mar-09] Mar-09 420 12 21822.8 618.3
HMV6 [Mar-11] Mar-11 527 28 27433.5 1461.8
Totals 1785 97 92864 5069
HZJ Type Visit Period B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss ()

24 Mths HMV1 [Apr-02] Apr-02 179 8 9316.8 430.9
HMV2 [Apr-04] Apr-04 278 26 14483.6 1328.9
HMV3 [Apr-06] Apr-06 199 13 10328.1 665.0
HMV4 [Apr-08] Apr-08 595 72 30928.0 3765.9
HMV5 [Apr-10] Apr-10 427 48 22229.2 2501.6
Totals 1678 167 87286 8692
HZJ Type Visit Period B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss ()

24 Mths* HMV1 Mar-02 179 14 9316.8 731.1
HMV2 Mar-04 278 27 14483.6 1395.2
HMV3 Mar-06 199 12 10328.1 636.8
HMV4 Mar-08 366 28 19021.2 1473.3
HMV5 Mar-10 415 11 21598.1 565.2
Totals 1437 92 74748 4801
HZM Type Visit Period B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss ()

24 Mths HMV1 [Apr-03] Apr-03 186 10 9691.3 509.9
HMV2 [Apr-05] Apr-05 278 28 14483.6 1433.3
HMV3 [Apr-07] Apr-07 286 19 14865.7 973.3
HMV4 [Apr-09] Apr-09 507 71 26390.4 3690.1
Totals 1258 127 65431 6607
HZM Type Visit Period B-MHrs De-Esc Mx Cost () Mx Loss ()

24 Mths* HMV1 [Feb-03] Feb-03 179 18 9316.8 922.8
(-48 D) HMV2 [Feb-05] Feb-05 274 26 14258.9 1375.3
HMV3 [Feb-07] Feb-07 203 13 10552.8 653.2
HMV4 [Feb-09] Feb-09 354 24 18421.9 1236.9
HMV5 [Feb-11] Feb-11 420 9 21822.8 493.6
Totals 1430 90 74373 4682
Aircraft Delivery Dates

1998 HZA HZB HZC
1999 HZD HZE HZF
2000 HZG HZI HZJ HZK
2001 HZL HZM XRA
156
Appendix K
The quantities shown on Table K. 5 above are estimations of what the situation
would look after the application of an initial de-escalation. In reality, the exact
maintenance demand will differ from that tabulated above, owing to the fact that an
evaluation of tasks already performed needs to be done. The last base maintenance
visit also has to be reviewed.
K.2. Line Maintenance
Table K. 6 Maintenance Demand: Current situation: Transavia man-hours per aircraft

Maintenance Demand,
Current Situation
2001 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 231 218
2002 410 422 410 467 455 448 475 475 462 467
2003 333 326 317 372 385 378 502 471 481 476
2004 397 405 426 460 452 460 463 494 463 356
2005 342 333 330 468 468 481 481 481 481 481
2006 412 421 424 458 452 426 385 373 407 458
Total MHrs 2111.8 2125.6 2124.8 2443.3 2429.6 2410.9 2524.0 2512.2 2524.4 2455.5
5-week Maintenance demand

2001 327 327 327 347 347 347 388 381 381 347
2002 590 601 577 596 600 596 612 614 610 600
2003 478 467 491 584 580 584 584 588 592 580
2004 524 535 524 572 494 480 578 588 573 572
2005 498 487 498 510 588 602 611 602 610 510
2006 556 571 556 575 586 575 583 594 590 575
Total 2972.1 2986.9 2972.5 3184.5 3195.5 3184.5 3355.5 3366.5 3356.3 3184.5
5-week Frequency: de-escalation

2001 12 11 8 12 13 12 15 17 16 12
2002 42 35 34 40 40 30 42 43 44 31
2003 40 36 44 38 36 29 25 28 23 33
2004 36 45 44 32 34 31 34 27 26 36
2005 35 35 37 40 28 42 25 31 18 39
2006 37 49 36 28 31 29 31 34 34 39
Total 202.5 209.0 202.1 190.1 181.6 172.2 172.5 180.2 161.1 190.4
Table K. 7 Proposed Situation:

Maintenance Demand: Proposed Situation
2001 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 231 218 218
2002 467 467 467 512 513 513 533 520 533 533
2003 389 401 376 439 446 531 545 550 534 527
2004 483 470 508 540 519 435 568 542 579 438
2005 451 443 438 555 582 594 601 623 601 594
2006 474 494 494 521 534 521 427 427 427 520
Total 2480.9 2494.3 2501.6 2785.2 2811.6 2811.6 2891.6 2892.4 2892.0 2829.7
157
Maintenance Demand at Intervals: 4 Weeks

2001 420 420 420 428 428 428 447 440 447 440
2002 701 711 701 725 725 732 777 811 777 734
2003 677 668 677 811 798 803 806 786 806 821
2004 728 743 732 648 673 762 785 795 785 762
2005 592 581 588 735 713 621 737 725 745 634
2006 809 820 813 845 844 832 853 861 853 845
Total 3927.7 3942.1 3931.1 4190.9 4181.2 4178.3 4406.1 4417.5 4413.8 4235.2
De-escalation In Man-hours - 4 Weeks

2001 18 17 16 18 18 18 24 26 23 27
2002 34 40 35 36 36 50 55 58 52 51
2003 32 37 35 56 41 53 58 50 50 60
2004 39 36 37 41 46 52 57 51 57 55
2005 31 34 35 59 56 50 49 50 60 52
2006 44 42 40 60 53 42 48 49 48 52
Total 198.6 205.5 197.5 269.0 250.0 264.0 290.3 284.4 289.5 296.0
Table K. 8 Maintenance Demand: 5 Week frequency

Maintenance Demand at Intervals:5 Weeks
2001 364 364 396 396 396 415 415 476 409 409
2002 685 666 684 688 684 740 744 728 684 684
2003 595 615 693 689 693 696 692 737 705 705
2004 609 599 605 608 605 686 691 696 664 664
2005 626 647 691 700 704 732 728 711 669 687
2006 680 665 709 710 707 717 721 728 694 696
Total 3558.3 3555.3 3777.8 3791.6 3788.6 3987.3 3990.7 4074.6 3826.4 3845.9
De-escalation In Manhours: 5 Weeks

2001 11 12 9 11 11 13 16 16 14 11
2002 43 36 42 40 37 32 44 45 39 37
2003 41 33 39 37 38 29 27 24 25 31
2004 36 34 38 33 29 33 33 35 29 29
2005 36 42 37 32 33 39 28 27 26 31
2006 34 45 48 33 31 40 29 26 32 42
Total 201.5 201.1 212.0 185.1 179.3 186.0 177.1 172.0 166.2 182.0
Table K. 9 Maintenance demand: 6 weeks frequency

Maintenance Demand at Intervals 6 weeks
2001 337 337 337 362 362 362 370 370 370 362
2002 588 604 592 603 606 614 689 681 681 626
2003 501 512 512 597 606 599 603 590 603 606
2004 593 594 582 585 600 584 653 653 653 584
2005 586 585 606 657 646 645 678 678 678 677
2006 560 566 548 606 587 594 624 628 618 573
158
Appendix K
Total 3164.4 3198.9 3175.5 3410.4 3407.4 3397.8 3615.8 3599.3 3601.7 3428.5
De-escalation In Man-hours: 6 Weeks

2001 20 17 16 17 16 16 23 22 21 17
2002 37 41 32 34 33 29 37 34 35 48
2003 31 37 30 36 34 38 41 26 38 33
2004 36 37 35 31 33 23 25 32 32 28
2005 33 28 25 30 27 22 33 32 30 26
2006 29 29 31 36 35 42 27 29 24 30
Total 185.8 188.5 168.2 184.8 178.9 170.2 186.2 175.5 180.3 181.3
159
Appendix L
L. Appendix L
161

Maintenance Planning Optimization 737NG PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Maintenance Planning Optimization 737NG PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Maintenance Planning

Optimisation for the

Delft/ Schiphol East, 30 May 2002

Title: Maintenance Planning Optimisation for the Boeing 737 Next

Author: Anthony K. Muchiri

Date: Thursday, 30 May 2002

Delft University of Technology Transavia Airlines

This thesis represents the results of my graduation assignment, a research project

In all cases, some knowledge on aircraft maintenance is needed.

Delft, May 2002

This assignment is aimed at developing a cost-effective maintenance planning and

Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Background

Maintenance at Transavia is broadly categorised into Line Maintenance (maintenance

Base maintenance is performed every 1-years (18 months). Transavia has an

Maintenance Clusters Definition and Development

approaches, namely the Top-Down approach (answering the questions When

OMP Maintenance Tasks

The Top-Down approach begins by analysing the aircraft utilisation requirement at

Cluster Formation and Evaluation

Through the implementation of the Bottom-Up and the Top-Down approach,

Line Maintenance Man-hour demand De-escalation (in man-hours)

Table 0. 2 Base Maintenance man-hour demand per aircraft: 10 yr period

Base Maintenance at an 18-Month Interval Base Maintenance at a 24-Month Interval

First Base Maintenance at 24-Months First Base Maintenance at 23-Months

Conclusions and Recommendations

Base maintenance can be performed optimally at a frequency of 24 Months.

- The application of Maintenance Task Packages for line maintenance, in place of

Door de toenemende behoefte om onderhoudskosten te verlagen, en de

Deze opdracht is gericht op het ontwikkelen van een kosten-effectieve

Vliegtuigonderhoud binnen Transavia is verdeeld in lijn/hangar-onderhoud

Groot-onderhoud wordt uitgevoerd om de 18 maanden. Transavia heeft een

Clusteren is het proces om onderhoudstaken te groeperen in paketten die gepland

OMP Maintenance Tasks

De Transavia L/B classificatie-criteria wordt gebruikt voor de identificatie van taken

De "Top-Down" benadering begint met het analyseren van utilisatiebenodigdheden

Door de implementatie van "Bottom-up" en "Top-Down"-benaderingen,

Lijn-onderhoudsclusters worden gevalueerd voor frequenties van 4 tot 6 weken,

Line Maintenance Man-hour demand De-escalation (in man-hours)

Groot-onderhoudsclusters zijn gevalueerd voor een herhalingsfrequentie van 18

Base Maintenance at an 18-Month Interval Base Maintenance at a 24-Month Interval

First Base Maintenance at 24-Months First Base Maintenance at 23-Months

Geoptimaliseerde clusters voor lijn-onderhoud kunnen worden bereikt door het

Groot-onderhoud kan worden uitgevoerd op een interval van 24 maanden. Optimale

Om de onderhoudsvoordelen van de 737NG te maximaliseren, wordt het volgende

737 NG Boeing 737 Next Generation

Airworthiness: Conformation to the regulations under which an

Block Checks: Groups of maintenance tasks packaged together for

Cluster: A collection of Maintenance items, grouped together

Equalised Checks: Groups of maintenance tasks arranged into many small

Inherent Reliability: Reliability with which the aircraft is designed

Maintenance Check: A group of maintenance tasks that share the same

Maintenance Demand: The total amount of man-hours required to perform all

Maintenance Items: A collection of Maintenance Task Packages and

Maintenance Visit: The presence of an aircraft in a maintenance facility for

Maintenance Window: A specified period of time in which the aircraft is not

Maintenance Work Package: A collection of maintenance tasks specifically prepared

Transavia Check: Equivalent to Maintenance Check

E.3.2. Purchases and Logistics ......................................................................107

1.1 Problem Background

1 See also Appendix F: Airplane Reliability Program

1.2 Problem formulation

Tr a ns a v ia 's A irc r a ft Se a s o na l Ut ilis a t io n (B737 NG)