Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 467–472

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Procedia CIRP
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/procir

27th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference

Analysis of aircraft maintenance processes and cost

Tseko Mofokeng a, Paul T. Mativenga a,b, Annlizé Marnewick a,∗
a
Postgraduate School of Engineering Management, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
b
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United
Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The life cycle of an aircraft consists of design, production, operation and decommissioning phases. For an
Flight hours airline the main focus is on the maintenance process during the operation phase. This paper presents a
Flight cycles
case study of an airline facing a challenge of increasing maintenance cost. The objective is to understand
Dispatch responsibility
factors that drive increase in cost. Maintenance cost, flight hours, flight cycles, dispatch reliability and
Aircraft age
pilot reports were analyzed to find out the maintenance cost drivers. The study identified that the aircraft
which dominated the maintenance costs had the highest flight hours, and the lowest dispatch reliability
in the fleet.
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

1. Introduction
Aviation industry is a competitive business. In order to succeed
in the market, airlines are making efforts to minimize their oper-
ational cost. According to Ahmadi (2010) in the life cycle cost of
an aircraft the design and manufacturing phase costs are usually
well known, as there is some historical basis for the prediction
of such but the long-term costs and drivers associated with op-
erational phase are often hidden. Identifying the cause of increase
in maintenance cost during the operation phase will assist airlines
to redefine their maintenance processes in order to better manage
their maintenance activities.
1.1. Life cycle cost
Life cycle of an aircraft is divided into design, production, op-
eration, and decommissioning phases (Rzevski et al., 2016). The
design has to consider requirements for production, operation,
and disposal thereof. Design takes into consideration performance,
safety, reliability, manufacturing, and assembly of the aircraft. It is
difficult to foresee on-coming defects on newly designed aircraft,
hence manufacturers rely on data supplied during operation.
The operation phase consists of management of the use of air-
craft and involves maintenance and repair. Each aircraft performs
or fails differently depending on its inherent design, and how it
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: amarnewick@uj.ac.za (A. Marnewick).
is operated. Also a failure of one aircraft component can affect an-
other and lead to multiple defects. Operational phase is critical and
different from design phase, manufacturing phase, and decommis-
sioning phase because its cost is unpredictable. Maintenance pro-
cess focuses on improving aircraft reliability and reducing of main-
tenance cost during the operational phase. While, the decommis-
sioning phase, involves safe disposal or recycling of the aircraft.
Fig. 1 illustrates different phases of aircraft life cycle and cost at
each stage. According to Fig. 1, the operational phase has the high-
est cost.
1.2. Aircraft maintenance processes
Aircraft maintenance takes place during the operational phase
of the aircraft’s life cycle and is critical because it forms a sub-
stantial part of airlines’ operational cost (Stadnicka et al., 2017). As
indicated in Fig. 2, various aircraft life cycle costs are dependent on
aircraft design, complexity of operation, human factors, maintain-
ability, and reliability. Aircraft system effectiveness is dependent
on maintenance planning, availability of spares, personnel training,
and logistics support. Aircraft system becomes effective if it pro-
vides high performance, safety, and availability.
In order to minimize costs, improve safety and enhance perfor-
mance, maintenance process during operational phase of the air-
craft are essential. Aircraft maintenance is required to keep the air-
craft in a serviceable and reliable condition in order to generate
revenue, to minimize its physical deterioration so as to reduce op-
erating cost due to failure, and to abide with regulatory authorities’

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.01.115
2212-8271/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
468 T. Mofokeng, P.T. Mativenga and A. Marnewick / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 467–472
Fig. 1. Aircraft Life Cycle Cost (Fantahun, 2018).
Fig. 2. Link between life cycle cost and aircraft system effectiveness (Gerdes et al.,
2016).
requirements (Ackert, 2010). Aircraft maintenance services include
A-checks, C-checks, D-checks, and daily maintenance checks.
A-check consists of visual inspection of aircraft interior and ex-
terior, and is performed biweekly to monthly (Ackert, 2010). A-
check tasks involve checking and servicing oil, filter replacement,
lubrication, operational tests, and inspection. A-check maintenance
is performed in the hangar overnight for approximately 10 h
per aircraft (Transport Studies Group 2008). C-check tasks include
functional and operational systems checks, cleaning and servicing
of aircraft systems and minor structural inspections (Ackert, 2010).
C-checks are performed in the hangar every 12 to 20 months and
depend on aircraft type, flight cycles, flight hours, and calendar
months. C-checks are performed in 3 days to 1 week for a sin-
gle aircraft (Transport Studies Group 2008). D-check tasks include
aircraft exterior paint stripping, removal of panels, inspection of
airframe structure, wings, landing gears, engines, and most struc-
turally significant items (Ackert, 2010). During D-check, many of
the aircraft’s internal components are checked, overhauled, and re-
paired (Ackert, 2010). D-checks are performed in the hangar ev-
ery 6 to 12 years and also depend on aircraft type, fight cycles,
flight hours, and calendar months (Ackert, 2010). D-checks are per-
formed for typically one month (Transport Studies Group 2008).
In addition to the above checks, daily maintenance checks involve
routine maintenance which includes inspection, minor repairs, and
servicing (Ayeni et al., 2011). Daily maintenance checks are per-
formed at gate before first flight or at each stop when the aircraft
is in transit. The maintenance time is typically 1 h (Transport Stud-
ies Group 2008).
Aircraft maintenance activities are divided into scheduled and
unscheduled maintenance. Scheduled maintenance is planned ac-
cording to flight hours, flight cycles, and calendar period (Hölzel
and Gollnick, 2015). Unscheduled maintenance is initiated by tech-
nical failures, reported defects, and faults identified during inspec-
tion (Ayeni et al., 2011). Flight hours (FH) refer to the actual num-
ber of hours flown by the aircraft over a specific period from the
time it lifts the wheels from the ground during take-off to the time
the wheels touch the ground during landing. While Flight Cycles
(FC) includes take-off and landing runs (Guzhva et al., 2018). It in-
cludes the total time from engine start through any condition of
flight and ending at engine shutdown.
Aircraft maintenance checks are guided by Maintenance Steer-
ing Group 3 (MSG-3) philosophy, which is widely used in aircraft
maintenance (Muchiri, 2002). MSG-3 was developed with the fol-
lowing purposes (Muchiri, 2002):
• To enhance safety and reliability of aircraft
• To restore safety and reliability of aircraft components when
deterioration has occurred
• To acquire information for design improvement of items whose
reliability levels is insufficient
• To minimize maintenance cost and residual failure
MSG-3 also categorizes maintenance according to scheduled
and non-scheduled maintenance tasks (Muchiri, 2002). Scheduled
tasks include lubrication, operational checks, visual inspection, de-
tailed inspection, restoration, and discard (Muchiri, 2002). Non-
scheduled tasks include reported defects originating from flying
crew (Muchiri, 2002).
MSG-3 divides an aircraft into major areas known as Air Trans-
port Association (ATA) systems and sub-systems for the purpose
of analysis (Muchiri, 2002). This system allows for the aircraft to
be manageable by analyzing all functions and failures (Muchiri,
2002). Before a new aircraft enters into service the manufacturer
releases requirements for maintenance to airworthiness authori-
ties (Ackert, 2010). Maintenance processes for airlines may dif-
fer but initial requirements remain the same. Activities required
during aircraft maintenance are covered in the maintenance pro-
cess and includes management, planning, preparation, execution,
assessment, and improvement (Ahmadi, 2010). The following pro-
cess describes a generic aircraft maintenance process followed by
different airlines (Kolanjiappan, 2011):
• An aircraft arrives in the hangar for maintenance such as A-
check, C-check, or D-check.
• Documents are inspected for reported defects on flight logs and
task cards.
• Technicians open the panels to gain access into areas requiring
maintenance
• Operational test is performed to confirm reported sub-system
defects
• Servicing of aircraft and repairing of reported defects are car-
ried out according to aircraft maintenance manuals
• All replaced parts are checked for leaks and integrity of instal-
lation
• Operational test is carried out to confirm aircraft state of air-
worthiness e.g. ground run, flight controls, or thrust reversers
• Aircraft documentations are then signed, and aircraft released
to service.
 T. Mofokeng, P.T. Mativenga and A. Marnewick / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 467–472 469

Table 1
Airline X’s fleet.

Number of aircraft Average age of the

Aircraft type Aircraft category type in the fleet aircraft type

A319-100 (Narrow body) Short range 8 14

A320-200 (Narrow body) Short range 12 5
A330-200 (Wide body) Long range 6 7
A340-300 (Wide body) Long range 8 15
A340-600 (Wide body) Long range 9 15
B737-800 (Narrow body) Short range 12 18
A330-300 (Wide body) Long range 5 2
B737-300 (Narrow body) Short range 2 26

1.3. Aircraft maintenance cost drivers Airline database

Pilot reports
The following factors have been identified as the maintenance Delay reports
Financial reports
cost drivers by different researchers: Aircraft utilization

• According to Maclean et al. (2018) aircraft age plays a major

role in the contribution of maintenance costs drivers. As the ATA Chapters
Maintenance cost
aircraft and its systems age, they degenerate to a point where Maintenance process Dispatch reliability
Flight hours
they are no longer able to fulfill all intended functions. Aircraft Flight cycles

aging affect the aircraft engines, avionics, airframe, interior, and

wings. According to the International Air Transport Association
(IATA) (IATA 2018), age-related factors are the results of the fol-
lowing: a) Routine maintenance tasks which increase with age Pareto analysis
of the aircraft b) Aircraft materials deteriorates with age which
increases costly repairs c) Airworthiness directives and bulletins
requesting for removal of components.
• False removal of components which can come as a result of
test procedures which are difficult to understand, and/or com-
plicated technology used for fault diagnosis (Periyarselvam et Maintenance cost drivers
al., 2013).
• Frequency of check intervals and excessive maintenance tasks
result in high cost and less availability of aircraft. Too long in-
Fig. 3. Research methodology for aircraft maintenance cost driver.
terval also results in degradation of maintenance effectiveness;
therefore, development of proper maintenance intervals is nec-
essary to ensure effectiveness of maintenance (Yi-yong et al.,
2002).
• Shortages of spares when required often leads to unexpected
downtime. Unavailability of spares when needed increases ad-
ditional costs to the company (Kontrec et al., 2015; Pogačnik et
al., 2017).
• Fioriti et al. (2018) and Pearlman and Simpson (1966) identified
the following cost factors (i) fleet size; (ii) aircraft utilization in
hours per year; (iii) the number of landings per hour; (iv) the
fuselage length; (v) aircraft age (vi) the number of seats.

1.4. Research motivation

This research was motivated by the challenges of Airline X

which has seen significant increase in its maintenance cost. The
aim of this study was to investigate the maintenance challenges
and identify priorities for action.

2. Data collection and analysis

Primary data was collected from the airline’s technical division.
Table 1 shows the type and average aircraft age operated by Airline
X.
Data from the aircraft shown in Table 1 for the year 2014 to
2018 was collected from airlines’ maintenance documents. The re-
search approach is informed by maintenance cost drivers model as
indicated on Fig. 3.
The data that informed this study was obtained from (i) pilot
reported defects as captured in the reliability program, (ii) dispatch
reliability statistics from delay reports, and (iii) financial reports.
Fig. 4. Fleet maintenance cost from year 2014 to 2018.
This data was analyzed using Pareto analysis to indicate mainte-
nance cost drivers that contributes to 80% of maintenance cost.
Aircraft maintenance cost, flight hours, flight cycles, and dispatch
reliability were analyzed in order to identify the maintenance cost
drivers. Details of the analysis are shown in Figs. 4–10.
Fig. 4 shows the fleet’s maintenance cost from 2014 to 2018.
The figure shows that two aircraft have significantly higher main-
470 T. Mofokeng, P.T. Mativenga and A. Marnewick / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 467–472

Fig. 7. Fleet dispatch reliability from year 2014 to 2018.

Fig. 5. Fleet flight hours from year 2014 to 2018.

Fig. 8. Cost per flight hour from year 2014 to 2018.

Fig. 6. Fleet flight cycles from year 2014 to 2018.

Table 2
tenance cost than the others. The A340-600 had the highest main- Descriptive statistics.
tenance cost with 25% of the overall maintenance cost from 2014 Mean Std. Deviation N
to 2018. Considering Table 1 and Fig. 4, both aircraft that were
Flight Hours 21,093 11,841 32
highest in terms of maintenance cost are wide body and undertake
Flight Cycle 6663 6179 32
long range journeys. The two planes that had the longest average ReliabilityCost 92541 24418 3232
age were not leading in terms of maintenance cost. From Fig. 4, it
can be inferred that other than the two aircraft highest in terms of
maintenance cost, the costs are fairly spread across different air-
Fig. 7. Indicates fleet’s dispatch reliability from 2014 to 2018.
craft.
According to Fig. 7. A340-600 has the lowest dispatch reliability of
Fig. 5 shows the fleet’s flight hours from 2014 to 2018. The re-
97.13% from 2014 to 2018.
sults indicate that A-340–600 has the highest flight hours with 21%
Tables 2 and 3 show the distribution of the data and the cor-
of the overall fleet flight hours from 2014 to 2018. While consider-
relation respectively between maintenance cost, flight hours, flight
ing Figs. 4 and 6 the top two in terms of flight cycles did not have
cycles and dispatch reliability.
the highest aircraft maintenance cost. According to Fig. 6, A320-
Results on Tables 2 and 3 show a correlation significant at 0.01
200 has the highest flight cycles with 34% of the overall fleet flight
level (which is 90%) as follows:
hours from 2014 to 2018. This had 14% of the cost in Fig. 4 and
was the third largest cost contributor. This is a narrow body short • Flight hours and flight cycle (0.461)
range aircraft. • Flight hours and reliability (0.453)
 T. Mofokeng, P.T. Mativenga and A. Marnewick / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 467–472 471

Table 3
Correlation.

Flight Flight
Hours Cycles Reliability Cost

Flight Hours Pearson Correlation 1 0.46∗∗ .45∗∗ 0.73∗∗

Sig. (2-tailed) 32 0.008 0.009 0.000
N 32 32 32
Flight Cycle Pearson Correlation 0.46∗∗ 1 0.30 0.10
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.008 32 0.101 0.61
N 32 32 32
Reliability Pearson Correlation 0.45∗∗ 0.30 1 0.31
Cost Sig. (2-tailed) 0.01 0.10 32 0.08
N 32 32 0.314 32
Pearson Correlation 0.73∗∗ 0.095 0.08 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 0.61 32 32
N 32 32
∗∗
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 4
Summary of fleet’s maintenance cost driver leading aircraft and contribution to cost.

Maintenance cost driver share Aircraft type Percentage contribution to maintenance costs (%)

High flight hours (21%) A340-600 25

High flight cycles (34%)Low dispatch reliability (97.13%) A320-200A340-600 1425

Fig. 9. Cost per flight cycle from year 2014 to 2018.

Fig. 10. Pareto analysis for A340-600 pilot reports from year 2014 to 2018.

• Flight hours and cost (0.729)

This means that there is a significant correlation between
flight hours and cost. Table 4 summarizes fleet’s maintenance cost
drivers from 2014 to 2018. It is clear from this that flight cycles
and dispatch reliability are not as critical as flight hours.
Fig. 8 compares maintenance cost per flight hour of A340-600
and A320-200 which dominate respectively on flight hours and
flight cycles.
According to Fig. 8, A340–600 has higher maintenance cost per
flight hour when compared to A320-200. Fig. 9 compares cost per
flight cycle of both aircraft.
A340-600 has high maintenance cost and flight hours while
A320-200 has the highest flight cycles. Comparing A340-600 with
A320-200 on Figs. 8 and 9 showed that there is close correlation
between flight hours and maintenance cost.
An analysis of the reported faults was undertaken for the air-
craft that was found to dominate maintenance cost. Fig. 10 shows
the Air Transport Association (ATA) chapters that contributed to
80% of A340-600 pilot reported defects as evaluated by Pareto
analysis.
According to Fig. 10, Chapter 28 - fuel system, Chapter 32 land-
ing gear, Chapter 21 - air conditioning, and Chapter 23 - communi-
cations contributed to 80% of pilot reported defects on A340-600,
a wide body long range aircraft fleet. This is an interesting finding
for further research and for design, manufacture and improvement
focus.
3. Conclusions
Aircraft maintenance cost is a major challenge for airlines in or-
der to promote aircraft availability and financial viability. Airline’s
fleet maintenance cost was analyzed to identify maintenance cost
drivers during the operational phase of the aircraft life cycle. The
study was informed by maintenance cost data, reliability reports
and reported faults. It was found that the aircraft with the high-
472 T. Mofokeng, P.T. Mativenga and A. Marnewick / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 467–472
est maintenance cost had the highest flight hours in the fleet. This
was also a wide body airframe on a long-haul flight. The analy-
sis of aircraft maintenance cost and cost drivers showed that the
most dominant factor driving cost was flight hours. Pareto analysis
of the aircraft that dominated cost showed that the following Air
Transport Association (ATA) chapters contribute contributed to 80%
of the pilot reported problems.
1 Fuel
2 Landing gear
3 Air conditioning
4 Communications
These aircraft systems should be key areas for improvement,
intelligent sensing, condition monitoring and reliability enhance-
ment.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tseko Mofokeng: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data cura-
tion, Writing - original draft, Investigation. Paul T. Mativenga:
Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & editing. Annlizé
Marnewick: Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & editing.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted at the Airline technical division
and the data was provided by Airline X.
References
Ackert, S.P., 2010. Basics of Aircraft Maintenance Programs for Financiers [Inter-
net][cited 2018 Mar 14]. Available from: http://aircraftmonitor.com/uploads/1/
5/9/9/15993320/basics_of_aircraft_maintenance_programs_for_financiers___v1.
pdf .
Ahmadi, A., 2010. Aircraft Scheduled Maintenance Programme Development. Luleå
University of Technology.
Ayeni P., Baines T., Lightfoot H., Ball P. State-of-the-art of ‘ Lean ’ in the Aviation
Maintenance Repair Overhaul Industry. 2011;225(11):2108–23.
Fantahun, Y., 2018. Minimization of Aircraft Maintenance Cost. Addis Ababa Univer-
sity.
Fioriti, M., Vercella, V., Viola, N., 2018. Cost-Estimating model for aircraft mainte-
nance. J Aircr 55 (4), 1–12.
Gerdes, M., Scholz, D., Galar, D., Gerdes, M., Scholz, D., 2016. Effects of condi-
tion-based maintenance on costs caused by unscheduled maintenance of air-
craft. J. Qual. Maint. Eng. 22 (4), 394–417.
Guzhva, V., Raghavan, S., D’Agostino, D.J., 2018. Principles of maintenance re-
serve development and management. Aircraft Leasing and Financing. Elsevier,
pp. 263–298.
Hölzel, N.B., Gollnick, V., 2015. Cost-benefit analysis of prognostics and condi-
tion-based maintenance concepts for commercial aircraft considering prognostic
errors. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health
Manangement Society 2015, Hamburg. German Aerospace Center, pp. 1–16.
IATA, 2018. Maintenance Costs for Aging Aircraft. Montreal.
Kolanjiappan, S., 2011. Lean philosophy in aircraft maintenance. J. Manag. Res. Dev.
1 (1), 27–41.
Kontrec, N.Z., Milovanovi G, V., Panic, S.R., Miloševi, H., 2015. A reliability-based ap-
proach to nonrepairable spare part forecasting in aircraft maintenance system.
Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 731437, 7 pages, doi:10.1155/2015/731437.
Maclean, L., Richman, A., Hudak, M., 2018. Failure rates for aging aircraft. Safety 1
(1), 1–12.
Muchiri, A.K., 2002. Maintenance Planning Optimisation For the Boeing 737 Next
Generation. Delft University of Technology.
Pearlman, C., Simpson, R., 1966. Maintenance Cost Studies of Present Aircraft Sub-
systems. Cambridge.
Periyarselvam U., Tamilselvan T., Thilakan S., Shanmugaraja M. Analysis on Costs for
Aircraft Maintenance. 2013;3(3):177–82.
Pogačnik, B., Duhovnik, J., Tavčar, J., 2017. Aircraft fault forecasting at maintenance
service on the basis of historic data and aircraft parameters. Maint. Reliab. 19
(4), 624–633.
Rzevski, G., Knezevic, J., Skobelev, P., Borgest, N., Lakhin, O., 2016. Managing aircraft
lifecycle complexity. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodynamics 11 (2), 77–87.
Stadnicka, D., Arkhipov, D., Battaïa, O., Ratnayake, R.M.C., 2017. Skills manage-
ment in the optimization of aircraft maintenance processes. IFAC-PapersOnLine
6912–6917.
Transport Studies Group. Innovative Cooperative Actions of Research & Development
in EUROCONTROL Programme CARE INO III Dynamic Cost Indexing Innovative
Cooperative Actions of R & D in EUROCONTROL Programme CARE INO III Dy-
namic Cost Indexing Technical Discussion Document 9 . 0 Ai. UK; C06/12400BE,
2008.
Yi-yong, C., Li-ping, D., Kai, Z., 2002. Analysis of preventive maintenance program
improvement for in-service aircraft. Int. Counc. Aeronaut. Sci. 1 (1), 1–6.