The document discusses retrofitting Boeing 767 planes from three-person cockpits to two-person cockpits. There are two proposed options: 1) complete building 30 planes as planned and then retrofit the cockpits, or 2) make the changes during production line without removing planes from flow. Analytic hierarchy process is used to assess the options based on parameters like delivery time, learning curve, hidden risks, technical difficulties, and labor hours. The analysis finds that option 1 of completing production then retrofitting separately is preferable as it has less labor hours, avoids disrupting schedules or learning curves, and allows functional testing during final assembly without hidden problems.

1. BOEING
767
Prepared by-Khilendra Chauhan(41)
Kirti Tripathi(42)
Kaustub Kharosekar(43)
Kumar Varun(44)
Kunal Phutane(45)
Lokesh Kumar(46)
Madhuri Patil(47)
Mallinath Haldagi(48)
Manish Bhangre(49)
Mohammad Baseet(50)

2. Introduction to Boeing Company
In Boeing Timely delivery is the utmost priority
The commercial airplane division consists of the 717, 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777 families of
jetliners and the Boeing business jet. Building family of planes by developing on same
platform.
Availability of more variants and options including standard, long range, freighter, flexible
design with inherent growth potential.
Common family of plane produced on a common assembly line results in earlier reaching of
breakeven point
Expertise in global marketing, technological leadership, customer support and production
skills.
Having centralised coupled with manufacturing systems and tools for project management.

3. Problem statement
Thorton knew that the planes had to be
converted to models with two person cockpits.
But what was the best way to proceed?
Should the building of 30 planes be done as
originally planned & then retrofitting them with
two person cockpit in a separate rework area?
Should the changes be made in line inserting new
cockpits into 30 planes without removing from
flow of production?

4. Analytic Hierarchy Process
Performance
parameters for Best
Alternative
Assessment
Delivery
Time
Learning
Curve
Hidden risk
Technical
difficulties
Labor Hours
Delivery Time 1 2 3 4 5
Learning Curve 0.5 1 2 4 5
Hidden risk 0.33333 0.5 1 3 2
Technical difficulties 0.25 0.25 0.33333 1 3
Labor Hours 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.33333 1
Comparison Matrix for Parameters

5. Analytic Hierarchy Process
Geometric Mean Weightage Eigen value
Delivery Time 2.6051 0.409169 5.460602
Learning Curve 1.8205 0.285936 5.307808
Hidden risk 0.9999 0.157049 5.388546
Technical difficulties 0.5743 0.090202 4.891815
Labor Hours 0.3670 0.057643 5.210682
Geometric Mean, Weightage & Eigen Value
Power of matrix n 6
Mean Eigen value 5.251890737
Consistency index CI 0.06297
Random index RI for n 1.2479
Consistency ratio CR 0.056226
Calculating Consistency Ration

6. Analytic Hierarchy Process
Final weights & Ranking
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Delivery Time 4 3.5
Learning Curve 3.8 3
Hidden risk 3.6 3.2
Technical difficulties 3.8 3.4
Labor Hours 4 2
Final Weights 3.8619 3.2144
Ranking 1 2
We choose Alternative 1 as the Final Solution to this as per AHP.

7. Reasoning for Assigned Priorities in AHP :
• Was Sacred to Boeing
• Most important being the Airframe Industry
• Late by even a day would have caused huge
penalty.
Delivery time
• Disruption can cause huge loss of both time and
laborLearning Curves
• Higher and unidentifiable risk is not acceptable
• Identification and correction of Risk most
Important
Hidden Risk
• Least value is desirable from Cost and time frameLabor Hours

8. PROCESS FLOW CHART
Generation of Purchase
Orders of Electronics
equipment of dedicated two
crew cock pit
Design Modification Programs
Calculation of Labour Hours
required for Retrofitting
Retrofitting Of Two Person
Cock-Pit
Final Functional Testing
Delivery Of Boeing 767 for Flight Test

9. PARAMETRIC ESTIMATES FOR RETROFITTING
Labour hours required for Completion of retrofitting- 10,00,000
Permissible Delay Period – 1 month
No. of Shifts – 3 Shifts
Orders & Purchase of Newly required Electronic Equipments –
Assume 3 days
Time for establishing new Workstation for Retrofitting – Assume 5 days

10. Learning Curve For Retrofitting
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
LabourHrsRequired
No of Aircraft being Modified
Labour Hrs Req

11. RETROFITTING
1
• Arrangement of Parking Lots for Planes waiting for
Retrofitting
• Equip the Parking Lot with Safety Precautions
2
• Procurement of Materials required
• Removal of existing Three Cock Pit Crew
3
• Modification & Repairing from Three Crew to Two Crew Cock
Pit
• Management of Scrap Three Crew Cock pit as inventory
4
• Functional Testing of newly installed Two Crew Cock pit

12. CONCLUSION
From above analysis following points are favorable for choosing completion
of production & subsequent modification
Less number of Labor Hours are required
Neither learning curves nor schedules would be disrupted
Functional Analysis of flaps, ailerons, landing gears etc. would be done while
final assembly
No problems will be hidden by system
So we conclude that Mr Thornton should go with offline retrofitting with two
person cockpit in separate rework area