Matching Supply and Demand in Operational Capacity Management For Aviation Catering

Matching Supply and Demand in Operational
Capacity Management for Aviation Catering

A study of the operational capacity management for KLM
Catering Services’ KLM European and KLM Cityhopper
Operations Department
Bachelor Thesis
Abstract
This thesis analyzes the capacity challenges faced by KLM Catering Services (KCS) in its production line for
KLM European and KLM Cityhopper inflight catering. The demand for air travel is expected to grow to and
beyond 2019 levels, while KCS is constrained by its current facility until 2027.
Through observation, measurement, process mapping, and forecasting, bottlenecks in the current
processes were identified. Brainstorming sessions were used to gather several non-asset solutions to
improve the process throughput. A prioritization of all potential solutions led to the recommendation of
seven solutions: four “quick wins” with low implementation effort and high impact and three “major
projects” with high(er) implementation effort and high impact.
Implementation of the recommended solutions will increase the throughput of the production process
and alleviate the constraints caused by the identified bottlenecks. This will allow KCS to keep up with the
growing demand in an achievable manner.
Keywords: capacity management, process improvement, non-asset solutions, production environment,

throughput, bottlenecks
3
Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................... 3
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. 7
List of Figures ............................................................................................................ 8
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................. 9
Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 10
1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 12
1.1 Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................... 12
1.2 Research Objective ....................................................................................................................... 12
1.3 Research Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 12
1.4 Research Questions ...................................................................................................................... 13
1.5 Research Scope ............................................................................................................................. 13
1.6 Assumptions.................................................................................................................................. 14
1.7 Thesis Structure ............................................................................................................................ 14
2 Methodology .................................................................................................... 15
2.1 Mapping the current operational production process.................................................................. 15
2.2 Identifying bottlenecks within the EUR/KLC production processes .............................................. 17
2.3 Mapping the effects of process changes implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic ............... 18
2.4 The required capacity for the upcoming summer schedules ........................................................ 19
2.5 The search for potential non-asset solutions ................................................................................ 21
2.6 Determine which combination of non-asset solutions provides a fitting solution to KCS’s capacity
challenges .............................................................................................................................................. 22
3 Capacity Management Literature Review........................................................... 23
3.1 Capacity Management within the aviation industry ..................................................................... 23
3.2 Non-asset solutions to capacity constraints in a production environment .................................. 24
4 Mapping the current operational production process......................................... 26
4.1 Identifying and describing the production process flows ............................................................. 26
4.2 Number of work positions and employees needed to meet different levels of demand ............. 29
4
4.3 How is the capacity of each section of the production process determined, and what is the capacity of
each section of the production expressed in full-sized positions per block?......................................... 30
5 Bottlenecks in the operational production process............................................. 34
5.1 Where are potential bottlenecks located in the process? ............................................................ 34
5.2 What is the impact of each bottleneck on the process? ............................................................... 37
5.3 What are the causes of the most important bottlenecks? ........................................................... 39
6 Effects of implemented changes ........................................................................ 40
6.1 Waste Separation.......................................................................................................................... 40
6.2 Business class product .................................................................................................................. 40
6.3 Preparation of crew meals ............................................................................................................ 41
6.4 Production moment ...................................................................................................................... 41
6.5 Relationship between the implemented changes and the bottlenecks identified in Chapter 5 ... 42
7 Required capacity to meet peak demand ........................................................... 43
7.1 What is each production process section’s peak time (period) and what is the required peak capacity,
expressed in full-sized positions? .......................................................................................................... 43
7.2 What is the required capacity during peak times in the summer schedule per section, expressed in the
number of employees? .......................................................................................................................... 48
7.3 How big is the difference between the current and required capacity during the summer peak?49
8 Potential non-asset solutions ............................................................................ 50
8.1 What are possible non-asset solutions to address the most important bottlenecks? .................. 50
8.2 What projects are currently being worked on affecting the EUR/KLC operations? ...................... 53
9 Combining non-asset solutions that address KCS’s capacity challenges ............... 54
10 Conclusions....................................................................................................... 56
11 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 57
12 Discussion......................................................................................................... 59
List of References .................................................................................................... 60
Appendix I Methodology of research tasks and methods, data collection methods, and
sources ............................................................................................................. 62
Appendix II Interview Questions for Sub-questions 1, 2, and 3 .................................. 64
5
Appendix III Interview Log ....................................................................................... 65
Appendix IV Production Schedule for flights departing Monday 17 April ................... 66
Appendix V Ballenplaat Europe Flow (Handle 47 employees).................................... 67
Appendix VI Flowchart ROA ..................................................................................... 69
Appendix VII Flowchart EQH and Opdek .................................................................. 70
Appendix VIII Flowchart Non-Food & Beverage ........................................................ 71
Appendix IX Ishikawa diagram ROA bottlenecks....................................................... 72
Appendix X Ishikawa diagram monorail bottlenecks................................................. 73
Appendix XI Arrival distribution graphs Monday 17 April vs Monday 3 July ............... 74
Appendix XII Departure distribution graphs Monday 17 April vs Monday 3 July ........ 75
Appendix XIII Hypothetical production schedule for flights departing Monday 3 July 76
Appendix XIV Extra Waste Sorting position proposal ................................................ 77
Appendix XV Rollable plates for transportation of NF&B equipment sketch .............. 78
Appendix XVI Beverage stock lane redesign proposal ............................................... 79
Appendix XVII Reflection ......................................................................................... 80
6
List of Tables
Table 1: Recommended solutions ................................................................................................................... 11
Table 2: Number of positions per equipment type, per aircraft type ............................................................. 17
Table 3: Short-term capacity management approaches ................................................................................. 25
Table 4: Forecasted daily flight numbers and the respective amount of employees required per shift (forecast
3/4/23)............................................................................................................................................................. 29
Table 5: Number of employees per section during different demand levels ................................................. 29
Table 6: Number of equipment pieces per aircraft type ................................................................................. 30
Table 7: Number of positions per equipment type, per aircraft type ............................................................. 30
Table 8: Area and capacity per buffer section................................................................................................. 31
Table 9: Throughput time per trolley type ...................................................................................................... 31
Table 10: Throughput capacity “emptying trolleys” position ......................................................................... 31
Table 11: Throughput capacity trolley washing machine ................................................................................ 31
Table 12: Break times, duration, and occurring block..................................................................................... 32
Table 13: Adjusted throughput capacity “emptying trolleys” position ........................................................... 32
Table 14: Adjusted throughput capacity trolley washing machine ................................................................. 32
Table 15: Average monorail loop time, handling time, and waiting time ....................................................... 33
Table 16: Available monorail capacity per block, expressed in loops, carriers, and positions ....................... 33
Table 17: Dimensions and Area of equipment types ...................................................................................... 35
Table 18: Number of holdable positions per buffer area ................................................................................ 35
Table 19: Average waiting percentage for employees per work position ...................................................... 36
Table 20: Waiting times and percentages of a monorail carrier ..................................................................... 37
Table 21: Bottlenecks during monorail observation loops.............................................................................. 37
Table 22: Expected number of incoming positions during the summer peak ................................................ 43
Table 23: Production demand for Monday 17 April ........................................................................................ 44
Table 24: Peak times during the 280-flight schedule ...................................................................................... 45
Table 25: Comparison of departing flights, 280 flights vs 320 flights ............................................................. 46
Table 26: Hypothetical production schedule for 3 July ................................................................................... 47
Table 27: Expected demand per block during 320 flight schedule ................................................................. 47
Table 28: Employee handles for increasing demand levels ............................................................................ 48
Table 29: Difference in demand on the monorail, 280 vs 320 flights ............................................................. 49
Table 30: Implementation Effort and Impact of prioritized solutions............................................................. 55
Table 31: Recommended solutions ................................................................................................................. 57
7
List of Figures
Figure 1: Example of an Action Priority matrix ................................................................................................ 22
Figure 2: Schematic representation of demand and capacity management interventions ............................ 23
Figure 3: Mechanisms for capacity management ........................................................................................... 24
Figure 4: Sketch of buffer areas in the ROA .................................................................................................... 34
Figure 5: Two half-sized trolleys, full-sized trolleys, and a CTR....................................................................... 35
Figure 6: Action Priority matrix to prioritize possible solutions ...................................................................... 54
8
Executive Summary
KLM Catering Services (KCS) is a hub catering company that focuses on the assembly and distribution of
inflight catering for its customers, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) and KLM Cityhopper (KLC). This research
focused on the EUR/KLC Operations department.
In the years leading up to the Covid-19 pandemic, KLM and KLC experienced annual increases in traffic. This
meant that the demand also increased for KCS each year. By 2019, the EUR/KLC facilities had reached their
capacity limits, leading to a noticeable strain on the operations. Projects and innovations to improve capacity
were being worked on, but the Covid-19 pandemic led to a shift in priorities within the company, as the
capacity limits were no longer a pressing issue.
As demand for air travel increases post-pandemic, KCS is again facing capacity challenges in the EUR/KLC
production process. During the pandemic, several changes were made to the production processes and the
final product, the full impact of which has yet to be assessed at full capacity operations. KCS is restricted to
the current facility until 2027 when the company is scheduled to move to a new site. This means it is looking
for opportunities for process changes rather than physical expansion or renovation of the current facility.
To address these challenges, the research focused on the following main question:
“How can KLM Catering Services optimize its operational production process for KLM European and KLM
Cityhopper flights for the upcoming four summer schedules, considering the physical limitations of its
current facility?”
Based on observation, measurement, and process mapping three bottlenecks were identified as the main
constraints in the production process:
• Available buffer space in the ROA,
• Monorail capacity in the EQH and Opdek, and
• “Crew meals” workstation in the Opdek.
Four changes were implemented in the operational production process during the Covid-19 pandemic. These
are:
• Implementation of waste separation in the ROA.
• Different business class products, changing from trays with porcelain to prepackaged cardboard
boxes.
• Preparation of crew meals in the Opdek instead of in the in-house kitchen.
• Moving the production moment of all catering forward from V-48 to between V-8 and V-14.
The transfer of the preparation of the crew meals from the in-house kitchen to the Opdek created the
bottleneck at the “crew meals” work position.
The peak schedule forecast for 2023 is 320 flights per day. In this forecast schedule, the demand in the ROA
will increase the most during the morning peak, but the greatest impact will occur during the evening peak
as the arriving flights are more condensed during this time. In the production process, the greatest demand
is estimated to occur in blocks 2, 3, and 7, while the greatest increase in demand is estimated to occur in
blocks 6 and 11.
Additional employees are required to meet these increased demands. Meeting the current demand of 271-
280 flights per day requires 192 full-time production employees (64 per team, 3 teams for a 7-day week
coverage). Meeting the projected demand of 311-320 flights per day requires 220 full-time production
employees (73.3 per team). This is a difference of 28 employees across the department or 9.3 employees per
team.
In addition to manpower, process changes and improvements are recommended to increase the throughput
of the ROA and relieve the pressure on the EQH and Opdek. To meet this projected demand and potential
future increases, the following projects (Table 1) are recommended for implementation.
10
1 Introduction
KLM Catering Services (KCS) is a hub catering company focused on the assembly and distribution of inflight
catering for its customers, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) and KLM Cityhopper (KLC). Its operations are
divided into two flows: the KLM European operations and KLM Cityhopper operations (EUR/KLC Operations),
and KLM Intercontinental operations (ICA Operations). This research will focus on the EUR/KLC Operations.
In the years leading up to the Covid-19 pandemic, KLM and KLC saw their traffic increase annually. This meant
that the demand also increased each year for KCS. By 2019, the EUR/KLC facilities were reaching their capacity
limits, leading to a noticeable strain on the operations. Projects and innovations to improve capacity were
being worked on, but the Covid-19 pandemic led to a shift in priorities within the company, as the capacity
limits were no longer a pressing issue.
During the pandemic, several changes were made to the production processes and the final catering product,
the full impact of which has yet to be assessed at full capacity operations. KCS is restricted to the current
facility until 2027 when the entire company is scheduled to move to a new site. This means they are looking
at opportunities for process changes rather than physical expansion or renovation of the current facility.
1.1 Problem Statement

Increased flight movements by KLM and KLC lead to increased demand for KCS. By 2019, the EUR/KLC
facilities had reached their capacity limit during peak periods, resulting in a noticeable strain on operations.
The drop in demand during the Covid-19 pandemic eased some of the pressure on the system, but flight
movements are set to increase again in 2023, with predicted levels coming close to those of 2019.
Some changes were made to the production processes and the final product during the pandemic, but the
full impact of these changes has yet to be measured and analyzed at full capacity. In addition, KCS is
constrained by its current facility until 2027, which poses the challenge of how to meet increasing customer
demand within the current physical limits of the facility.
KCS wants to know how it can meet the operational production demand for KLM European and KLM
Cityhopper flights during the upcoming four summer seasons, given the current facility’s physical limitations
until the move to the new facility.
1.2 Research Objective

This research aims to identify capacity bottlenecks, map the long-term effects of the changes implemented
into the EUR/KLC operational processes during the Covid-19 pandemic and find plausible solutions for the
capacity constraints.
KCS defines one of the pillars of its purpose as being an ‘agile company’: to adapt quickly and be flexible to
keep up with developments in the market and the circumstances (KCS, 2023). By gaining accurate insight into
the capacity constraints in the EUR/KLC operations, KCS can adapt its processes as needed based on the
demand of its customers.
1.3 Research Relevance

By mapping the current operational processes, identifying bottlenecks, and developing solutions to these
(potential) problems, KCS can act proactively to meet the expected demand. The risk of unmet customer
demand is unknown if capacity constraints are ignored. This could result in the inflight experience for KLM
passengers not meeting expectations, resulting in a negative passenger experience, lost business for KLM,
and therefore lost business for KCS.
12
1.4 Research Questions
The main research question around which this assignment is centered is:
The sub-questions and underlying background questions which will help define and answer the main question
are:
1. How is the operational production process currently structured for the EUR/KLC operations?
• Which production process flows can be identified?
• How many employees are currently required to meet demand, and how many will be required as
demand increases?
• How is the capacity of each section of the production process determined, and what is the
capacity of each section expressed in the number of full-sized positions per block?
2. What are the bottlenecks within the EUR/KLC production processes?

• Where are potential bottlenecks located in the process?
• How big is the impact of each bottleneck on the process?
• What are the causes of the most important bottlenecks?
3. Which changes have been implemented into the EUR/KLC operations since January 2020, and what
will the implications of these changes be once production is scaled up?
• What are the changes and which section(s) of the production does each change affect?
• How has each implemented change affected the available capacity?
• Is there a relationship between the implemented changes and the impact of the bottlenecks
identified in sub-question 2?
4. What is the desired planning and production process situation for the upcoming summer schedules?
• What is each production process section's peak time (period), and what is the required capacity,
expressed in full-sized positions?
• What is the required capacity during peak times in the summer schedule per section, expressed
in the number of employees?
• What is the difference between the current and required capacity during the summer peak?
5. What non-asset solutions are available, and which are currently already being implemented?
• What are possible non-asset solutions to address the most important bottlenecks?
• What projects are currently being worked on affecting the EUR/KLC operations?
6. Which combination of non-asset solutions can provide a fitting solution to KCS’ capacity challenges?
1.5 Research Scope

The research focused on mapping the current EUR/KLC operational processes, identifying bottlenecks in the
current process, anticipating bottlenecks in the increased production for the summer schedules, and creating
potential solutions for the bottlenecks.
The identification of bottlenecks and the development of potential solutions for these bottlenecks will focus
on the production sections ‘Retour Ontvangst Afwas’ (ROA), ‘Equipment Holding’ (EQH), and ‘Opdek’. The
‘Non-Food & Beverage’ (NF&B) section is out of scope, as KCS believes that more impactful capacity
13
improvements can and must be achieved in the aforementioned sections. The NF&B section is included in
the process descriptions, but not in the bottleneck and solution scope.
KCS is aware that personnel shortage amongst production employees is a bottleneck. However, as it is aware
of and already working on this issue, KCS hopes to also identify other capacity constraints within the
processes and develop solutions for these.
In mapping these processes it is assumed that the product produced for KLM and KLC will remain the same
for the duration of the summer schedule. Changes in the number of flights performed by KLM and KLC due
to flight movement restrictions imposed by Schiphol Airport or due to staff shortages at KLM or Schiphol
Airport are considered outside the scope of this research. The research is based on the current forecasts.
This research aims to bridge the gap between the current available capacity and demand at KCS’s current
facility, for the next 4 years. The company will move to a new site in 2027. Therefore, large-scale
infrastructure investments in the current facility are undesirable for KCS. This research will focus on finding
non-asset solutions to the current (projected) constraints. Capacity management and infrastructure design
in the new facility are outside the scope.
1.6 Assumptions
Capacity considerations are based on scheduled operations, and do not account for irregular disturbances
such as bad weather or strikes.
1.7 Thesis Structure

Now that the problem and research questions have been introduced, solutions can be sought. In Chapter 2
the methodology of researching and finding solutions is investigated. Chapter 3 covers the literature review.
In Chapters 4 to 9 the sub-questions are researched and answered, leading to the conclusions in Chapter 10
and the recommendations in Chapter 11. The report is concluded in Chapter 12 with a discussion from the
researcher.
14
2 Methodology
The methodology covers all activities needed to realize the deliverables of this project, as well as a detailed
description of the research tasks, types, methods, and sources required to achieve this.
The main question around which this research and report are centered is:
The capacity management of the KCS EUR/KLC production operation is the central theme of this research. To
reach the goal of providing KCS with advice on how to meet capacity demands from their clients during the
peak months, the research is divided into 6 subsections (corresponding with the sub-questions):
1. Mapping the current situation
2. Identifying bottlenecks in the process
3. Mapping the effects of process changes implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic
4. Determining the required peak capacity
5. Searching for possible (available) solutions
6. Determine which (combination of) solutions is/are most suitable for KCS
Appendix I provides a schematic overview of the research tasks, research methods, data collection method,
and anticipated sources that are used to complete each subsection of the research. The research methods
are elaborated upon in subsections 2.1 to 2.6.
2.1 Mapping the current operational production process

The research objective of sub-question one is to gain and provide insight into the current operational
production process.
To specify the information gathered during the research for this sub-question, methods used to answer
underlying background questions are described in subsections 2.1.1 to 2.1.3.
2.1.1 Which production process flows can be identified?
Data Collection Methods and Research Instruments
Primary and secondary data collection techniques were used to identify the production process flows. The
primary data collection methods consist of a guided tour through the production by a Shift Leader (SL) and
observations of the operations and the flow of equipment through the sections. The secondary data
collection consists of an analysis of the existing internal process map, referred to as a ‘ballenplaat’ within the
EUR/KLC department.
Sample
The KCS production facility operates from 6 AM to 11 PM, seven days a week. This is divided into two shifts:
6 AM to 2:30 PM and 2:30 PM to 11 PM. To bridge these production times and comply with labor law
requirements, three teams work a shift schedule, alternating between morning and evening shifts, and time
off. The target population of the observations was all three teams. To ensure objective representation
observations were conducted on all three teams during both the morning and evening shifts.
Data Analysis
The flowcharts of the production processes in each section were created based on the guided tour and
observations. To validate the results, the flowcharts and process descriptions were compared with the
existing internal process map (‘ballenplaat’), and fact-checked by the SLs and the Manager Operations.
15
2.1.2 How many employees are currently required to meet demand, and how many will be required
as demand increases?
Primary and secondary data collection techniques were used to determine the number of employees needed
to meet demand. The primary data collection method consists of interviewing the Manager Operations, and
the secondary data collection method consists of analyzing the ‘ballenplaten’ for different levels of demand.
The interview questions are presented in Appendix II.
Sample
No sample was used for this question. The Manager Operations is the head of the EUR/KLC Operations
department, and the rules explained using the ‘ballenplaten’ apply to all three teams.
Data Analysis
The number of full-time employees required per team to meet different levels of demand according to the
‘ballenplaten’ is calculated using the standard formula applied within KCS (1):
(𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑒𝑒𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡 ∗ 2 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑠) ∗ 2 (1)
3 𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚𝑠
2.1.3 How is the capacity of each section of the production process determined, and what is the
capacity of each section of the production expressed in full-sized positions per block?
Primary data collection methods, specifically observations and measurements, were used to determine the
capacity of each section of the production process.
To determine the capacity of the buffer space in the ROA, the designated buffer areas and the standard
dimensions of the different types of catering equipment were measured. To determine the throughput
capacity of the ROA, the handling time of equipment at each position along the critical path was timed.
Additionally the number of (different types of) equipment handled at the “emptying trolleys” position and
the number of (different types of) equipment entering the trolley washing machine were timed in 5-minute
increments.
To determine the capacity of the EQH and Opdek, attention was focused on the monorail carriers that move
equipment past the workstations and the employees working the stations. Randomly selected carriers were
monitored during an entire monorail loop, the total time and the wait time between the “set-up” and “take-
down” positions, and the total time and wait time of a full loop. Employees at each work position along the
monorail critical path were observed and the time spent waiting for carriers was measured.
Sample
To build a dataset that is representative of the entire EUR/KLC operation across all teams, all three teams
were observed during block 3 (8:50 AM to 10:15 AM), block 4 (10:15 AM to 11:40 AM), and block 7 (2:30 PM
to 3:55 PM) between 22 March 2023 and 29 March 2023.
Data Analysis
Throughout this report, the term ‘(full-sized) position’ is used to refer to two half-sized trolleys, one full-sized
trolley, or one container transport trolley (CTR).
To calculate the buffer capacity of the ROA, the available area per designated buffer area was divided by the
area of an equipment item to determine the maximum number of items that can be buffered. To calculate
the throughput speed of the “emptying trolleys” position and the throughput of the trolley washing machine,
the number of trolleys observed being handled during the 5-minute measurement period was multiplied by
17 to determine the throughput per block (85 minutes). The average throughput capacity of all
measurements was then used for further calculations in the following sub-questions.
16
Data Analysis
When asked during the interviews what they would identify as potential bottlenecks in the process, the SLs
identified the same sections and workstations in the process. The identified potential bottlenecks were then
observed, and buffer space and throughput were measured.
The available buffer space in the ROA, expressed in the number of positions that can be buffered, was
determined using the following formula (6):
𝐴𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑢𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒 (𝑚2 ) (6)
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑢𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟 (𝑚2 )
The throughput of the trolley washing machine and the capacity of the monorail were calculated using the
formulas explained in section 2.1.3.
To identify possible workstations slowing the monorail throughput time, observations were conducted to
measure the time employees spent waiting for carriers, and to measure the time carriers spent waiting for
handling at each position.
2.2.2 What is the impact of each bottleneck on the process?
To determine the impact of each bottleneck, primary data was collected through observations of the
production sections.
Sample
All three teams were observed during blocks 3 (8:50 AM to 10:15 AM), block 4 (10:15 AM to 11:40 AM), and
block 7 (2:30 PM to 3:55 PM) between 22 March 2023 and 29 March 2023.
Data Analysis
The impact of each bottleneck on the production process is analyzed based on the potential consequences,
identifying the most important bottlenecks.
2.2.3 What are the causes of the most important bottlenecks?
Primary data collected through observation was used to identify the key bottlenecks.
Sample
All three teams were observed during blocks 3 (8:50 AM to 10:15 AM), block 4 (10:15 AM to 11:40 AM), and
block 7 (2:30 PM to 3:55 PM) between 22 March 2023 and 29 March 2023.
Data Analysis
Ishikawa diagrams were used to identify the causes of the key bottlenecks.
2.3 Mapping the effects of process changes implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic
The research objective of sub-question three is to identify and map the effects of changes implemented in
the production processes during the Covid-19 pandemic.
2.3.1 What are the implemented changes and what section(s) of the production does each change
affect?
Primary data was collected through interviews with the SLs of team C and the Manager Operations. The
interview questions are available in Appendix II.
18
Sample
The Team C SLs and the Manager Operations are three of four people in the EUR/KLC department that have
worked here throughout the Covid period and experienced the implementation of the changes. The other
SLs joined the EUR/KLC department more recently and thus do not have a pre-Covid/post-Covid reference.
Data Analysis
Process mapping was utilized to analyze which section of the production each change affects.
2.3.2 How has each implemented change affected the available capacity?
Primary data collection techniques were employed through a documental analysis to describe the impact of
the implemented changes on the available capacity.
Sample
No sample was required to answer this question.
Data Analysis
During the documental analysis, attention was focused on identifying the effects of the implemented changes
on the available capacity. This was done by determining whether steps were added to or removed from
processes, which in turn could have a positive or negative impact on capacity.
2.3.3 Is there a relationship between the implemented changes and the identified key bottlenecks?
A documental analysis of data collected through primary data collection techniques was conducted. The data
used was collected through observations to answer sub-question two (identifying bottlenecks) and through
interviews with SLs and the Manager Operations to answer sub-question three (see above).
Sample
No sample was required to answer this question.
Data Analysis
The sections of the production process affected by the implemented changes were compared with the
previously identified bottlenecks. To identify a relationship, it was considered whether the bottlenecks
identified in sub-question two were influenced by the implemented changes, or if the bottlenecks occurred
separately from the implemented changes.
2.4 The required capacity for the upcoming summer schedules

The research objective of sub-question four is to determine the peak time for each section of the production,
determine the required capacity expressed in full-sized positions and employees, and determine the
difference between the current situation and the summer peak schedule.
2.4.1 What is each production process section’s peak time (period) and what is the required peak
capacity, expressed in full-sized positions?
Data Collection and Research Instruments
Secondary data was sourced from two internal databases based on expected peak capacity requirements.
Forecast schedule data was obtained from PowerBI, and current production data was sourced from Dynamics
365. This data was used for a documental analysis and to create a hypothetical peak production schedule.
19
Sample
Flight departure and arrival schedules and the corresponding production schedule from Monday 17 April
(week 16, 2023) were used as the current data, as this was the most reliable data at the time this sub-question
was researched (week 15, 2023). Flight departure and arrival schedules for Monday 3 July (week 27, 2023)
were used as the predicted peak data, as this day was the first day of the predicted 320-flight schedule at the
time this sub-question was researched.
Data Analysis
To determine each section’s peak period the arrival and departure schedules were analyzed. The ROA’s peak
period depends on the arrival schedule. The production peak period depends on the departure schedule,
with equipment being produced 8-14 hours before departure time.
To determine the required capacity during the summer peak schedule, forecasted arrival and departure
schedules were sourced from PowerBI. In the ROA, the demand increases 1-to-1 with the increase in flight
numbers and can thus be derived from the arrival distribution graphs. As production occurs 8-14 hours before
departure, an indication of the required capacity in the EQH and Opdek was calculated based on similar
distribution percentages as applied on the week 16 schedule. On Monday 17 April (week 16) 280 flights were
scheduled for departure, with production occurring in the distribution presented in Appendix IV.
During the research of this sub-question (week 15, 2023), 320 flights were forecasted to depart on Monday
3 July. The production distribution in the 280-flight schedule (Appendix IV) was used as a baseline to
develop a hypothetical production schedule for 3 July.
2.4.2 What is the required capacity during peak times in the summer schedule per section, expressed
in the number of employees?
To determine the required capacity expressed in manpower both primary and secondary data collection
techniques were used. The primary data collection consisted of an interview with the Manager Operations,
conducted during the research for sub-question one, and the secondary data collection method consisted of
a documental analysis of the internal process flow maps and ‘ballenplaten’.
Sample
Data Analysis
The internal process flow maps and ‘ballenplaten’ provide a standard for the number of employees required
per shift to meet the demand for different numbers of flights per day. The total number of full-time
employees required per team is calculated using the following formula (1):
(𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑒𝑒𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡 ∗ 2 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑠) ∗ 2
(1)
3 𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚𝑠
2.4.3 What is the difference between the current and required capacity during the summer peak?
To determine the difference between the current and required capacity, the forecasted data gathered
through secondary data collection methods from PowerBI was compared with current data collected from
PowerBI and Dynamics 365 as described above.
20
Sample
Data Analysis
The difference between the current and required capacity was determined by subtracting the current
number of required positions per block from the forecasted required number of positions per block.
2.5 The search for potential non-asset solutions

The research objective of sub-question four is to explore potential non-asset solutions to the previously
identified bottlenecks, to meet demand.
2.5.1 What are possible non-asset solutions to address the most important bottlenecks?
To find potential solutions a combination of primary and secondary data collection techniques was used. The
primary data collection method consists of conducting brainstorming sessions with Shift Leaders and Process
Improvement Developers, and the secondary data collection consists of a literature study in which solutions
implemented in other sectors are collected.
Sample
The session with the shift leaders was conducted with three SLs: one from Team B, one from Team C, and
the dayshift SL. Team A and the other SLs from Teams B and C were unavailable. The second brainstorming
session was conducted with two out of three Process Improvement Developers (PIDs) and the head of the
Innovation and Development department.
For the literature review, scientific articles were sourced from the Science Direct database using the following
search term: “capacity management AND production AND catering AND non-asset AND solution AND
planning AND throughput”. Articles are then scanned based on title, abstract, and introduction, and if
deemed relevant examined further for use in the literature review.
Data analysis
During the brainstorming sessions, ideas were recorded in bullet points. To analyze and compare the
potential solutions in more detail these bullet points are categorized and worked out into numbered
paragraphs.
2.5.2 What projects are currently being worked on affecting the EUR/KLC operations?
Primary data was collected to answer this question, through a brainstorming session with Process
Improvement Developers and the head of the Innovation and Development department.
Sample
Two out of three PIDs attended the brainstorming session, as the third was unavailable due to time off, as
well as the head of the Innovation and Development department who is involved in all ongoing projects
throughout the company.
21
4 Mapping the current operational production process
This chapter maps the current operational production process through three sub-sections. Section 4.1
identifies and describes the production process flows through the ROA, the EQH and Opdek, and the NF&B
departments. Section 4.2 determines the number of employees required to meet different levels of demand,
and Section 4.3 established the capacity of each section, expressed in full-sized positions per block.
4.1 Identifying and describing the production process flows

The EUR/KLC production line is split into four sections:
• “Retour Ontvangst Afwas” (ROA)
• “Equipment Holding” (EQH)
• “Opdek”
• “Non-Food & Beverages” (NF&B)
Each production section is schematically represented on the internal “ballenplaat” in Appendix V which
presents all workstations in the process. A flowchart has been created per section, schematically representing
the flow of the process. The flowcharts are included in Appendix VI to Appendix VIII. In this section, the terms
(catering) equipment, trolleys, container trolleys (CTRs), and containers will be used. (Catering) equipment is
an umbrella term that refers to all the listed types of equipment. The term trolley refers to both full-sized
trolleys and half-sized trolleys. Container trolleys (CTRs) are used to transport square (SQC) and standard
(STC) containers.
The EUR/KLC production line operates between 6 AM and 11 PM, divided into 12 “production blocks” of 85
minutes. Flight production tickets showing the required trolley content for Food-related production are
printed eight hours before the standard departure time of the flight during the day (V-8), and fourteen hours
(V-14) before the standard departure time of flights departing before 11 AM. This is due to the V-8 timestamp
for flights departing before 11 AM occurring between 11 PM and 6 AM when the facility is closed. At the start
of each block, the tickets that were printed during the previous block are gathered, determining how many
of each type of trolley need producing. In the Non-Food section, flight production tickets are also used to
determine which trolleys must be produced per shift. However, NF&B equipment is produced six blocks
ahead by default, to allow for beverages to sufficiently cool in the refrigerators before being loaded onto the
departing aircraft.
4.1.1 Retour Ontvangst Afwas (ROA) (Appendix VI)
The ROA is considered the start of the production process, where ‘used’ catering equipment is unloaded from
the catering trucks for emptying, washing if needed, and moving on to the next sections. A distinction is made
between equipment that contains Non-Food products and equipment containing Food products. Non-Food
equipment is separated and transported to the NF&B section via an elevator without being washed, while all
Food-related equipment passes through the washing installations.
For the Food-related equipment, a second distinction is made between trolleys that need manual emptying
and already empty equipment. The truck drivers sort the equipment requiring emptying under banners in
the middle of the ROA, based on their size. The employee at the “setting up dirty trolleys” position pushes
these trolleys onto a conveyor, alternating between equipment types. The trolleys pass the workstation
“emptying trolleys” before transiting onto the conveyor belt to the trolley washing machine.
At the “emptying trolleys” workstation employees remove the individual drawers from the trolleys and
separate them onto three conveyors for reusable beverages, washable tableware, and cardboard. Drawers
with reusable beverages immediately roll through to the EQH for regeneration, while drawers with tableware
are transported to dishwashers 1.2 and 1.3. Washer 1.2 is generally always in use, with Washer 1.3 offering
extra capacity when needed. Recyclable waste present in the drawers is divided equally over the conveyors
for beverages and tableware, which the employees at the two “waste sorting” positions separate into
different waste tubes on the floor. Extra cardboard is placed on the cardboard conveyor. The left “waste
26
sorting” position also transfers regenerable food products (e.g., chips, unused paper cups) onto bulk storage
carts. These carts are a separate step in the process, during which reusable food items are regenerated.
The already empty equipment includes waste trolleys and container trolleys (CTRs) holding square (SQC) and
standard (STC) containers. Containers are emptied by the left waste sorting position and are then pushed to
the side of the ROA. Waste trolleys are emptied along the side of the ROA by the employee at the “empty
waste trolleys” position and are then pushed to the side along with CTRs. The waste trolleys and CTRs are
rolled to the back of the ROA, where they are pushed up a short ramp to enter the conveyor belt directly to
the trolley washing machine. The employee stationed at the entry to the trolley washing machine is
responsible for feeding equipment into the machine at a consistent tempo, making sure that full-sized
trolleys enter one by one and half-sized trolleys enter in pairs.
4.1.2 Equipment Holding (EQH) (Appendix VII)
Equipment from the ROA enters the EQH at one of three access points: the end of the trolley washing
machine where the trolleys emerge sanitized, via the conveyor containing drawers with reusable beverages
ending at a large storage rack for these drawers, or the ends of the tableware dishwashers.
At the exit of the tableware dishwashers, the employees in positions “clearing 1.2” and “clearing 1.3” transfer
the drawers with clean tableware into the equipment lanes. The employee in the “return regeneration lanes”
position transfers drawers with reusable beverages from the conveyor exiting the ROA into the rack with
beverage stock lanes. On the other side of this rack the positions “building drawers” regenerate drawers so
they contain the correct amounts of each beverage type and transfer the drawers into the stock lanes behind
them. From here, the beverage and equipment drawers are ready to build trolleys for upcoming flights.
An employee sorts the equipment emerging from the trolley wash into buffer lanes, based on type (EUR/KLC,
full-sized/half-sized). From there, employees working the “set-up” position roll up to three full-sized trolleys
or 6 half-sized trolleys into a monorail carrier and place the respective flight production tickets in the holders
on the monorail carrier. These tickets are the reference points for all further stations, indicating which
drawers or items need to be inserted into the equipment. The monorail transports the trolleys past the
beverage and tableware stock lanes, where complete drawers are inserted based on the ticket codes. The
monorail then transports the equipment into the Opdek.
4.1.3 Opdek (Appendix VII)
The Opdek is a direct extension of the EQH, with all equipment entering the Opdek having passed through
the EQH first. In the Opdek the equipment is completed based on their flight production tickets. The monorail
first transports the trolleys to the “M-class bread” position, where economy class (M-class) bread trays are
loaded if needed. The next station is the “C-class boxes” position, where business-class (C-class) meal boxes
are stacked into the trolley. Next, the equipment is transported to the “crew meals” position, where a
standard snack box and meals preordered by the crew are added. Finally, the monorail carriers travel to the
“remove trolleys” position, where the equipment is rolled out of the carrier and the contents are checked.
If the contents match the ticket order, the doors are closed, the ticket is placed in the holder, and a security
seal is placed on the equipment door if required. If the contents do not match the production ticket the
employee informs the Flow-Coordinator which drawer or item is missing, and the Flow-Coordinator instructs
someone to retrieve the missing product. This is then added to the equipment and a final check is performed,
after which the equipment doors are closed, a seal is placed on the door if required and the production ticket
is placed in the holder on the front. All equipment is then transferred to the refrigeration sluice, where they
are cooled while waiting for distribution to the aircraft.
4.1.4 Non-Food & Beverages (NF&B) (Appendix VIII)
Equipment containing non-food products is identified with colored tape on the handles. This tape indicates
the standard contents of the equipment, allowing truck drivers to identify them quickly and place them in
front of the elevator in the ROA. From there they are transported to NF&B at regular intervals. Once the
equipment arrives in the NF&B section, it is sorted into 3 categories: the EUR Drygoods CTRs go to the far left
at the start of the EUR Drygoods cluster, the KLC Drygoods half trolleys go to the middle cluster, and the
27
EUR/KLC Beverage half trolleys are sorted into the buffer zone to the right based on the colored tape on the
handles.
The EUR CTRs contain a combination of square containers (SQC) and standard containers (STC). These are
lifted off the CTRs one by one using a lifting aid and placed on the roller belt along the equipment lanes.
Leftover drawers are removed from the containers and placed in the top lanes, from where they slide towards
the employee regenerating drawers. The container is then rolled along the equipment lanes and the
necessary items are added. Once it reaches the end it is placed on a CTR again using a lifting aid. When a CTR
is full, it is transported to the storage area.
At the KLC Drygoods cluster an employee removes the ‘old’ drawers from the trolleys, places them into the
equipment lanes, and refills the trolleys with standard contents. On the other side of the cluster, another
employee regenerates the returned drawers and ensures there is enough stock. Once a trolley is complete it
is manually transported to the storage area by an employee.
EUR and KLC Beverage trolleys are sorted in the buffer zone based on their handle colors by the “incoming”
position. At the other end of the buffer zone, up to eight trolleys with the same color indicator are pulled out
at once. Using simulation, this number was calculated as the maximum number of the same trolleys that can
be handled back-to-back to ensure continuous flow. Two trolleys are inserted into the Cobot (a robot that
works together with employees) unloading positions at a time. The Cobot empties the trolley and places the
drawers on a conveyor to the right side of the ‘cold’ stock lanes. When the trolleys are empty an employee
removes them, rolls them to the left side of the cold stock lanes, and places two new trolleys into the
unloading positions. The ‘old’ drawers are transported to the stock lanes, where they are refilled and inserted
into the lanes. On the left side, trolleys are refilled with complete drawers. Once a trolley is complete it is
placed in the refrigerated storage area until it needs to be loaded on n aircraft.
The final activity in the NF&B department is the regeneration of dry food products (chips, coconut macrons,
and banana bread) and paper cups. Trays containing these products are sorted onto bulk storage carts by the
ROA employee and are transported up to the NF&B department by the elevator when a cart is full. The
employee in the flex position is responsible for refilling and regenerating these trays. Once a cart is full of
completed trays it is transported back down via the elevator for transfer to the Warehouse Centrum where
the stock is incorporated into the supply system. The carts are then transferred to the Opdek as required.
28
Based on the time it takes to process the number of positions held in each buffer zone and the speed at which
the buffer zone is filled, it is concluded that the Food-related buffer is the bottleneck. The impact of this
bottleneck is concentrated during peak periods when flights arrive in clusters, resulting in catering equipment
arriving at the ROA at a higher rate than can be handled. When more flights are arriving at the ROA than can
be buffered and handled during the same period, the demand is greater than the capacity. This results in
increased pressure and stress on the ROA employees, waiting times and limited workspace for drivers, and
general chaos and stress throughout the ROA.
Elevator capacity
The capacity of the elevator determines the throughput with which the Non-Food related buffer is emptied,
and the equipment transported up to the NF&B section. The capacity of the elevator is 36 positions, while
the capacity of the Non-Food buffer in the ROA is 69 positions. It takes two elevator trips to empty a full
buffer. If regular emptying of the buffer and transport of equipment is not maintained, the demand in the
ROA will exceed the available buffer capacity, and the NF&B section can experience shortages of equipment
needed for production.
Capacity trolley washing machine
The throughput capacity of the trolley washing machine determines the throughput rate of equipment from
the ROA to the Opdek. It is also the limiting factor in the processing speed of the equipment, as the speed
cannot be increased.
5.2.2 EQH and Opdek
Equipment supply to the EQH buffer
The availability of equipment necessary to produce the planned flights depends on the inflow from the ROA.
Differences between incoming equipment and required equipment may lead to discrepancies or delays in
the production process if the required equipment is not available.
Raw material supply
The availability and delivery of materials and goods are essential for the production of catering equipment
within the desired production time. Shortages, discrepancies, or unavailability of materials can cause delays
in the production process.
Monorail capacity
The capacity of the monorail determines the speed at which the trolleys are transported to the various work
positions and thus the speed of production. If the number of trolleys needed to meet the scheduled demand
exceeds the capacity of the monorail, waste trolleys and safety trolleys (equipment that is empty when it
enters the aircraft) are produced ‘across the floor’ (trolleys are rolled directly to the refrigerated sluice by an
employee instead of moving along the monorail).
If the demand for a particular block cannot be met within the available production time, the number of
positions still needing to be produced rolls over into the time slot designated as the next block. This can be
advantageous if the next block has a lower productivity demand but can be disadvantageous if the next block
also has a higher productivity demand. Rolling over required positions to the next block can cause a rolling
delay in production.
Work positions slowing monorail throughput time
The workstations in the Opdek depend on the monorail to transport carriers with equipment through the
Opdek and past the workstations. As a result, the productivity of the workstations in the Opdek depends on
the monorail. If all workstations are operating at similar productivity levels, the monorail cycle should be
constant. Based on the results of the observations presented in Table 19 above, the “set-up”, “crew meals”,
and “take-down” positions are highlighted as potential bottlenecks, because these positions have the highest
productivity. The “crew meals” position is a bottleneck during the morning shift. In the current standard
configuration, this position is staffed by one employee who has a heavier workload compared to the other
positions in the Opdek. Measurements show that carriers spend a significant amount of time waiting for
processing by this employee during the morning shift, which slows the overall carrier throughput capacity.
38
5.3 What are the causes of the most important bottlenecks?
The bottlenecks with the most impact on the production process are:
• Buffer space availability in the ROA
• Monorail capacity in the EQH and Opdek
• The “crew meals” work position in the Opdek
Buffer space availability
The cause of this bottleneck is twofold; the supply of catering equipment to the ROA depends on the aircraft
arrival schedule, which has peaks and troughs, while the throughput capacity of the trolley washing machine
is fixed, depending on the available productive time. When the inflow of catering equipment is greater than
the throughput, buffer space is required. However, the buffer space is limited by the size and layout of the
ROA, creating a bottleneck.
Monorail capacity
The capacity of the monorail depends on the number of carriers and the speed of circulation, and the time
carriers spend waiting for handling at the various workstations.
Crew meals work position
The bottleneck at the “crew meals” workstation is that the employee working there has a more intense,
variable workload compared to other workstations. In addition, this workstation is a relatively new position
in the production process and has not yet fully experienced a ‘true summer peak’, having been implemented
during the Covid-19 pandemic when production volumes were lower.
Ishikawa diagrams determining the causes of the bottlenecks for the ROA and the monorail are included in
Appendix IX and Appendix X.
39
6 Effects of implemented changes
Based on the results of interviews with Shift Leaders, the following operational changes implemented since
January 2020 are identified:
• Waste separation when emptying trolleys in the ROA
• The business class product is now a pre-made ‘box’ instead of trays with porcelain
• The production of crew meals’ trolleys has been incorporated into the production line instead of
being prepared in the kitchen
• Flights are produced based on data at V-8, instead of V-48 and corrections at V-4
Each implemented change is elaborated upon to explain what the change entails, what the intended goal(s)
of the change was, which section of production the change affects, and what the effect is on the overall
available capacity. Finally, potential relationships between the implemented changes and the identified
bottlenecks are discussed.
6.1 Waste Separation
Waste separation has been implemented in the ROA. Each trolley is emptied by the workers in the “emptying
trolleys” position, who perform the first level of separation. Loose cardboard is placed on the overhead
conveyor belt, drawers of beverages are placed on the right conveyor, drawers of washable tableware are
placed on the left conveyor, and waste is divided equally between the left and right conveyors. The
employees working in the “waste separation” position (one at each conveyor) are responsible for further
separating the waste into dedicated waste tubes for empty beverage cartons, plastic bottles, cans, and
general waste, and cardboard onto the overhead conveyor. Paper coffee cups and plastic drink cups are also
collected separately: these are sorted into two bins at the dishwasher by the worker loading the dishwasher.
The goal of implementing waste separation was to reduce the amount of general waste (for which KCS has
to pay for removal and further processing), by separating recyclable materials (which KCS can sell to recycling
companies for further processing). Along with the financial benefit, waste separation is also part of Air
France-KLM’s ‘Destination Sustainability’ initiative (Air-France KLM Group, 2022).
6.1.1 Effect(s) of the change on available capacity
Before the implementation of the intensive waste separation, the “waste separation” worker was only
stationed along the left conveyor and separated plastic bottles and cans, while the rest of the waste was
grouped as general waste. Summarized, the implemented changes in the waste separation process
encompass the full range of waste tubes on both sides of the conveyors, and cardboard being transported
separately on the overhead conveyor to a paper crusher. The impact of this change on the available capacity
is limited because the “waste separation” work positions are not part of the critical path for trolleys,
beverages, or equipment to move through the process. If necessary, an extra person can be stationed on
each side of the conveyors, effectively doubling the potential throughput rate.
6.2 Business class product
The change in the business-class product involves a change from trays with porcelain dishes and loose meal
items to pre-made boxes. This change affects two production areas, namely the Opdek and the ROA. Before
Covid, the main meal was prepared in porcelain dishes in the on-site kitchen and was transported to the
Opdek per block. A worker in the Opdek was then responsible for assembling meal trays, containing the
porcelain main dish and the other meal components (e.g., dessert) delivered in pre-packaged portions by the
supplier. The trays were then placed onto trolleys for each flight, depending on the number of business-class
passengers. The current business-class product is a pre-made lidded box, containing the meal components
in individually wrapped portions. By eliminating the crockery and trays from the business-class product, fewer
actions are required in the Opdek and there is less equipment to wash after a flight. This impacted the ROA
by ‘freeing up’ one of the two equipment dishwashers. Instead, the cardboard boxes are emptied by the
workers at the “waste separation” positions and the cardboard is separated onto the top conveyor. The goals
of replacing the porcelain dishes in business class meals were reducing the workload in the ROA, in the on-
40
site kitchen, in the Opdek, and lowering the overall weight of the in-flight catering, reducing aircraft fuel
burn.
Before the Covid-19 pandemic, parts of the business class meals were prepared in the kitchen and required
transportation to the Opdek where an employee assembled the trays, and an entire dishwasher was
dedicated to the porcelain and trays in the ROA. With the current prefabricated boxes, no additional
transport or assembly is required before they are placed on trolleys in the Opdek, and processing in the ROA
is simplified. Based on these factors, the available capacity has increased, both in the Opdek (no more
transport, no more building trays) and in the ROA (extra dishwasher available, cardboard casing is sorted for
recycling).
6.3 Preparation of crew meals
Preparation of the crew meals (provided to crew on flights that are in the air between 5 PM and 8 PM) has
been changed from the on-site kitchen to the Opdek. Crew members can choose from nine options and can
place their orders up to two days before the flight. Meal components are delivered pre-packaged by the
supplier. An Opdek employee builds trays with the completed meals and these are added to the dedicated
meal trolleys based on the order tickets. Before the implementation of this change, crew meals and meal
trolleys were fully prepared in the on-site kitchen and added to the rest of the trolleys for a flight in the
refrigerated sluice. The goal of preparing the crew meals in the Opdek was to consolidate all production of
EUR/KLC catering products in the same section.
The implementation of the change in crew meal production location has resulted in a transfer of
responsibility for ensuring that crew meal trolleys are loaded together with the rest of the catering
equipment for a particular flight. Previously, because crew meals were produced in a separate location and
at a different time from the rest of the catering equipment for a particular flight, a regular problem was that
the crew meal container was missing in the sluice when a flight was loaded into a catering truck. To address
this issue, the responsibility for ensuring all equipment is complete and present is now fully within the
Operations department.
Crew meals are added to a half-size trolley or a square container, depending on the configuration of the
flight. In terms of the impact on available capacity, adding crew meals to the production line adds
responsibility and increases the demanded capacity, mainly during the morning blocks.
6.4 Production moment
The data on which the production quantities are based and the actual time of production have been moved
back from 72 hours before departure time, first to V-48 hours and then to V-8 hours – V-14 hours before the
departure time. Previously, passenger data from 72 hours before departure was used to produce the catering
equipment 48 hours before departure, which was then stored in the refrigerated sluice. Approximately 4
hours before departure, the contents of the catering would be checked, and items would be added or
removed based on the most recent passenger data. This was
changed so that the catering is produced based on the data available 8-14 hours before departure.
Production lines are closed between 11 PM and 6 AM, so flights departing between 6 AM and 11 AM are
produced the night before based on data from approximately 14 hours pre-departure. Flights departing
between 11 AM to 10 PM are produced the same day based on data from approximately 8 hours pre-
departure. This change affects the EQH by buffering equipment for a shorter period and reduces the amount
of time trolleys spend waiting in the refrigeration sluice. The goal of this change was to reduce the time
equipment spent waiting in the refrigerated sluice as capacity was constrained there and have the equipment
spend more hours in active use.
41
6.4.1 Effects(s) of the change on available capacity
The implementation of this change has had a positive impact on available capacity in the production areas.
Equipment spends more hours in active use rather than stored in the buffers in the EQH or the refrigeration
sluice. The work position responsible for checking all flights 4 hours before departure to add or remove items
has been eliminated, reducing time and labor costs. Additionally, capacity is no longer constrained in the
refrigerated sluice as there are fewer flights stored for extended periods.
6.5 Relationship between the implemented changes and the bottlenecks identified in Chapter 5
The three bottlenecks with the most impact on the production process, identified in Section 5.3 are:
• Buffer space availability in the ROA
• Monorail capacity in the EQH and Opdek
• The “crew meals” work position in the Opdek during the morning shift
The “crew meals” workstation is a new addition to the production process, as one of the implemented
changes described above. The concentration of the production of all aspects and components of the catering
equipment together in the Operational Production has the advantage that a better overview of all equipment
can be maintained, to minimize missing equipment in the sluice. However, the disadvantages of
implementing this change are the additional workload for Opdek employees and an additional work position
that carriers must pass to complete the handling. These disadvantages illustrate a direct relationship
between the implementation of the change and the bottleneck at the “crew meals” workstation identified
during the morning shift.
42
8 Potential non-asset solutions
To create an inventory of possible non-asset solutions, two brainstorming sessions were conducted. Section
8.1 presents an overview of potential solutions, while Section 8.2 elaborates upon projects already being
worked on.
8.1 What are possible non-asset solutions to address the most important bottlenecks?
The main bottlenecks for which solutions are being sought are explained in detail in Chapter 5. In brief, these
are:
• The available buffer space in the ROA during the peak arrival times,
• The monorail capacity during production, and
• The crew meals work position in the Opdek during the morning shift.
Possible solutions for each bottleneck are discussed in subsections 8.1.1 to 8.1.3, numbered in no particular
order.
8.1.1 ROA buffer space
Throughput increase
1. To empty full-sized trolleys faster, an (additional) employee could perform preparatory work such as
removing empty M-class bread drawers, before the trolley goes onto the conveyor to the “emptying
trolleys” position.
2. Analyze the trolley washing machine: the speed is currently already set to speed 3 (the highest speed)
to meet demand. However, could the drying process be shortened by turning up the air blowers for
example?
3. Optimize the waste separation tubes. Currently, the waste separation tubes can become clogged, with
sensors giving error messages due to the waste collection containers under the tubes in the cellar not
being consistently filled as a result of mound forming. These piles are raked approximately 5-7 times
per shift to spread recycling more evenly, during which the waste separation cannot take place. To
address this, a system that continuously spreads the recycling evenly in the container would remove
the waiting time.
4. Add an additional waste sorting position, where the bread trays, drawers with plastic and cardboard
cups, coffee waste, and some of the C-class boxes can be handled. The employee in the “emptying
trolleys” position could sort drawers onto three conveyors instead of two:
• hard left (new): bread trays, drawers with plastic/cardboard cups, coffee waste, and some C-class
boxes,
• middle (existing): tableware trays that require washing, regenerable snack trays, and some C-
class boxes,
• right (existing): beverage drawers, some drawers with recycling.
This extra waste sorting position could remove pressure from the two current waste sorting positions
and the workstation responsible for loading the tableware dishwasher. Additionally, it would make the
work for the “emptying trolleys” position more ergonomic, as this employee would divide drawers
across three conveyors at the same height, simplifying the workload.
5. Implement the use of rollable ‘plates’ to transport NF&B equipment, that can hold and move three
positions at once, to increase the loading speed (and thus the overall throughput) of the elevator to
the NF&B section.:
• 6 plates would fit in the elevator, bringing the capacity per trip to 24 positions.
• If drivers rolled the NF&B equipment directly onto the plates, double handling of the equipment
could be reduced.
50
• When implementing rollable plates, use a rotation system of three sets, where “full” plates from
the ROA are unloaded in the NF&B section, empty plates are transported down, and then
exchanged with ‘full’ plates in the ROA.
6. Buffer and process equipment per flight instead of by trolley type for a variable flow and throughput
into the EQH. To facilitate this, zones could be created within the existing buffer area using tape or
signs to indicate the change to drivers. Additionally, all CTRs should be added into the process via the
front conveyor by the employee in the “setting up dirty trolleys” position and emptied by the employee
working the “emptying trolleys” position, instead of being emptied by the employee in the left waste
sorting position and entering the process via a ramp to the side of the ROA.
Trolley washing machine capacity
7. Wash STC and SQC containers and oven inserts (OIS) in dishwashers 1.2 or 1.3 instead of passing them
through the trolley washing machine.
8. Disinfect CTRs, internal-use oven trolleys, and empty safety trolleys with UV-C light or H2O2 disinfectant
spray or transfer them directly to the EQH without washing if not required. Oven trolleys and safety
trolleys were transferred directly to the EQH in previous years, via a connecting door between the ROA
and EQH that is currently locked. Permission would be required from the Quality Assurance & Control
department before these process changes could be implemented.
• UV-C light disinfects but doesn’t remove dirt or residue from trolleys. It provides an opportunity
to remove chlorine from the cleaning process and would allow for a lower water temperature in
the trolley washing machine. However, simulations have concluded that the stickers on the trolleys
will fade significantly faster due to the UV-C rays.
Personnel
9. Adding employees: an additional employee could be stationed along the right conveyor to speed up
the sorting of empty bottles and cans from the regenerable beverage drawers. Another possibility is to
add an employee at the end of the beverage conveyor in the EQH, to prevent the beverage conveyor
from getting congested.
10. Staggered breaks: test continuous staffing with staggered breaks so that the trolley washing machine
runs continuously and enforce break time duration more strictly to maximize available productive time.
11. Implement different types of schedules for ROA employees: for example, (2?) more employees could
be scheduled in the evening than in the morning, as the largest peak occurs in the evening. Another
option could be to (re)implement 35-hour contracts for some of the ROA employees, with working
hours being 7:00 AM - 2:30 PM and 3:30 PM - 11:00 PM.
12. Improve productivity in the early morning by ensuring that all washing machines are started and
warmed up, ready for use by 6:00 AM. Additionally, the necessity of scheduling the roll call at the start
of the shift could be reconsidered, in favor of combining it with one of the coffee breaks.
13. Always work with one employee in the “emptying trolleys” position, instead of two, which the
employees often do by themselves. Having one employee working in this position is more
ergonomically efficient and reduces the double handling of drawers.
Space increase
14. Expand the available buffer space by incorporating what is currently ‘Milieu Centrum 2’. This will
require renovations of the ROA.
51
Delivery of equipment to the ROA
15. Work together with the Apron Distribution (AD) and Catering Control (CC) departments to spread the
peak of incoming trucks more, preferably by having the peak start earlier. The Distribution department
currently works with an internal sub-optimization system that places driver efficiency as the most
important parameter. If possible, it could be beneficial to send out a truck only for incoming flights,
rather than waiting to deliver new catering before clearing the old from an aircraft.
16. Work together with the Apron Distribution (AD) and Catering Control (CC) departments to potentially
combine the delivery and collection of EUR and KLC flights. Currently, these aircraft are treated as
entirely separate entities, with trucks servicing either EUR or KLC.
8.1.2 Monorail capacity
17. To ensure productivity, perform continuous (preventative) maintenance on the monorail carriers and
structure
18. Calculate and test the impact of running empty carriers one by one instead of in sets of three between
the take-down and set-up positions
19. Calculate and test the impact of adding an extra carrier, increasing the total to 21 carriers.
20. Transfer waste trolleys and safety trolleys directly to the VE hall (VE stands for Vluchtgerichte
Eindassemblage or Flight-Oriented Final Assembly) from the exit of the trolley washing machine and
add cardboard inserts and flight production tickets to the trolleys in the VE hall.
21. Transfer the production of all full-sized trolleys to the NF&B section upstairs for bulk production. This
includes moving all beverage stock lanes, M-class bread, and C-class boxes from the EQH and Opdek to
the NF&B section. The full-sized trolleys could be produced in bulk, by adding the beverage drawers
ahead of the required production time and adding the bread and boxes closer to the required departure
time. This removes all full-sized trolleys from the EQH and Opdek freeing up capacity in those sections,
but greatly taking up capacity and space in the NF&B section.
22. A new design for the beverage regeneration stock lanes is currently being worked on. The proposed
design consists of pushing what are currently two sections of the beverage stock lanes together, with
one employee from the “building drawers” position moving to reinforce the “return regeneration stock
lanes” position, and the second employee being freed up to be positioned as needed.
8.1.3 Crew meals position
23. Instruct one of the employees working in the “M-class bread” or “C-class boxes” position to assist the
employee in the crew meals positions when needed.
24. Ensure the “crew meals” workstation is organized efficiently by ensuring the meal stock trolleys are in
alphabetical order based on their type code.
25. Train all employees so each person working in a position is competent, and speed and efficiency are
universal skills.
26. Add a “Flex” position in the Opdek that can assist the “M-class bread”, “C-class boxes”, and “crew
meals” positions as needed.
27. If there is a congestion of carriers without crew meal trolleys waiting behind one being handled, send
several carriers, including the one with the crew meal trolley, to the take-down position and complete
the crew meals trolley separately from the monorail.
52
8.2 What projects are currently being worked on affecting the EUR/KLC operations?
Out of all the possible solutions presented above, three have been suggested previously and two are
currently in development. The solutions in question are:
• ROA solution 4: adding an extra waste sorting position for M-class bread drawers, drawers with paper
and plastic cups, and coffee waste.
• ROA solution 5: implementing rollable plates for internal transportation of NF&B equipment.
• ROA solution 6: buffering and handling equipment per flight instead of by equipment type.
• Monorail solution 21: transferring waste and safety trolleys directly to the VE hall from the exit of
the trolley washing machine.
• Monorail solution 23: a redesign of the beverage regeneration stock lanes in the EQH.
A sketch of the additional waste sorting position is included in Appendix XIV. To implement this solution an
extra roller belt branching off from the “emptying trolleys” position, and a small conveyor connected to the
cardboard conveyor belt are required. The waste tubes and crates required for the waste separation are
already present in the ROA.
The design and development of rollable plates for internal transportation of NF&B equipment is currently
underway. A sketch of the current design is included in Appendix XV . Each plate has its own entry ramp and
wheels, allowing for manual movement. They are also connectable to an electric tow cart.
The concept of buffering and processing equipment by flight rather than by equipment type was proposed
and tested in 2022, but not prioritized for implementation. The goal is to create a more varied flow of
equipment into the EQH and ensure all equipment types are available continuously.
The direct transfer of waste and safety trolleys to the VE hall was proposed in 2022, but also not prioritized
for implementation. If trolleys are transported in clusters per block from the EQH buffer to the VE hall, buffer
time can be minimized and the need for capacity for this equipment on the monorail is eliminated.
A redesign of the beverage regeneration stock lanes in the EQH is the project that is currently in development.
A sketch of the proposed redesign is included in Appendix XVI . By pushing the stock lanes together the
available floor space can be utilized more efficiently, as it creates the possibility to add a new stock lane (as
illustrated in the plans) or move the regeneration of snacks down from the NF&B section (described in
subsection 4.1.4).
53
10 Conclusions
In the years leading up to the Covid-19 pandemic, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) and KLM Cityhopper (KLC)
saw their traffic increase annually. This meant that the demand for KLM Catering Services (KCS) also increased
every year. By 2019, the production facilities for KLM European and KLM Cityhopper (EUR/KLC) flights were
reaching their capacity limits, resulting in a noticeable strain on the operations. Projects and innovations to
improve capacity were underway, but the Covid-19 pandemic led to a shift in priorities within the company
as the capacity constraints were no longer a pressing issue.
With the end of the pandemic and the return of air travel demand to predicted levels similar to 2019, KCS is
once again facing capacity constraints. KCS is looking for opportunities to optimize its EUR/KLC operational
production process for the upcoming four summer schedules, considering the physical limitations of the
facility.
The mapping of the current situation through interviews and observations revealed the following three
bottlenecks:
• The available buffer space in the ROA,
• Monorail capacity in the EQH and Opdek, and
• The “crew meals” work position in the Opdek.
Four changes were implemented in the operational production process during the Covid-19 pandemic. These
are:
• Implementation of waste separation in the ROA,
• Different business class product: changing from trays with porcelain to prepackaged cardboard
boxes,
• Preparation of crew meals in the Opdek instead of in the in-house kitchen,
• Moving the production moment of all catering forward from V-48 to between V-8 and V-14.
The transfer of the preparation of the crew meals from the in-house kitchen to the Opdek is directly
responsible for the bottleneck at the “crew meals” work position.
The peak schedule forecast for 2023 is 320 flights per day. In this forecasted schedule, the demand in the
ROA will increase the most during the morning peak, but the greatest impact will still be during the evening
peak as the arriving flights are more condensed during this time. In the production process, the largest
demand is estimated to occur in block 2, 3, and 7, while the largest increase is estimated to occur in blocks 6
and 11.
Additional employees are required to meet these demand increases. Meeting the current demand of 271-
280 flights per day requires 192 full-time production employees (64 per team). To meet the forecasted
demand of 311-320 flights per day, 220 full-time production employees (73.3 per team) will be needed. This
is a difference of 28 employees across the department or 9,3 employees per team.
In addition to manpower, process changes and improvements are recommended to increase the throughput
of the ROA and relieve the pressure on the EQH and Opdek. 27 potential solutions were identified through
two brainstorming sessions. Seven of these solutions are recommended for prioritization and
implementation based on the effort required for and impact of implementation. The recommended solutions
are presented in Chapter 11.
In conclusion, KCS can optimize its operational production process to meet forecasted demand by hiring 28
additional employees to meet handle requirements and implementing the recommended solutions to
improve throughput in the ROA, EQH, and Opdek.
56
Solution 5: Work with AD and CC to spread the peak and combine delivery and collection of EUR and KLC
flights
Solution 5 requires collaboration with the Apron Distribution and Catering Control departments. It is
recommended to create a project team with PIDs and SLs from all three department to analyze the required
process changes and their impact. It is recommended to start this project in summer 2023 so that the process
improvements can be implemented in the medium to long term, depending on the impact of the changes.
Solution 6: implement the use of rollable plates for transport of NF&B equipment
Solution 6 requires an investment in 18 rollable plates. During the required production and delivery time, the
associated process changes should be mapped by a project team of Operations SLs and PIDs so that the plates
can be implemented in the process upon delivery. Taking into account the design, production, and delivery
times for the rollable plates, this solution should be initiated after the 2023 summer peak and aim to be
implemented by the summer of 2024.
Solution 7: Add a waste sorting position in the ROA
Solution 7 requires investment in a roller belt and a conveyor belt. During the production and delivery time,
it is recommended that a project team of Operations PIDs and members of the Innovation and Development
department focus on identifying the required process changes, which the SLs will communicate to the
production teams. Considering the development and delivery time of the conveyor and roller belt, it is
estimated that this solution can be implemented by the summer of 2024.
58
12 Discussion
This research and its conclusions are based on interviews, observations, measurements, forecasts, and
brainstorming.
Interviews with the Shift Leaders and the Manager Operations were conducted during the research for sub-
questions one, two, and three. The SLs were interviewed separately or in their team pairs to minimize bias,
and their answers to sub-questions one and two were in line with each other and were confirmed by the
observations and measurement conducted. The answers provided for sub-question three also confirmed
each other, leading to chapter 6 in this report being based solely on the interview results.
Observations and measurements are the main techniques used to answer sub-questions one and two. These
can be subject to human error, both on the part of the observer and the observed. To minimize this risk,
steps were taken to ensure the validity of the measurements by observing all three teams during blocks 3
(8:50 AM to 10:15 AM), block 4 (10:15 AM to 11:40 AM), and block 7 (2:30 PM to 3:55 PM) between 22 March
2023 and 29 March 2023.
The peak demand determined in sub-question four is based on forecasts sources from PowerBI and real-time
production data sourced from Dynamics 365. Forecasts are subject to change: at the time of investigating
sub-question 4 (weeks 14 & 15 2023), Monday, July 3 (week 27) was the start of the peak schedule with 320
flights per day. By week 17, the start of the 320-flight schedule was delayed to Monday, August 28 (week 35).
This could change again by the time this report is published. Because these extended forecasts are subject to
change, the estimated numbers and distribution of production for the hypothetical peak schedule are just
that, hypothetical. In implementing the recommendations resulting from this study, it is important to keep
in mind that forecasts and schedules are subject to change based on airline capacity and customer demand
and that KCS must be flexible to meet that demand on an ongoing basis. However, if the recommendation to
meet the demand of 320+ flights in 2023 is not yet applicable, it is worth keeping this research for future
implementation.
To answer sub-questions five and six, two brainstorming sessions were conducted to identify potential non-
asset solutions to the bottlenecks. One session was conducted with three Shift Leaders: one from Team B,
one from Team C, and the day shift SL. Including more Shift Leaders for additional perspectives and ideas
would allow for additional insight and inspiration, but unfortunately, Team A and the other SLs from Teams
B and C were not available. Due to the time constraints of writing this report, public holidays, and SL
availability, there was no opportunity to organize an additional session. However, considering that the
sample consisted of three out of seven SLs or 43% of the population, the outcomes are deemed
representative. During the brainstorming session with the SLs, some group following was observed, with one
person speaking up more often and the others often joining him. In the future, it may be beneficial for the
outcome to approach the SLs individually. The second brainstorming session was conducted with two Project
Improvement Developers (PIDs) from the Operations department and the head of the Innovation and
Development department. For this research assignment, these three colleagues were able to provide a wide
range of ideas. If further process improvements are sought in the future, additional colleagues from the
Innovation and Development department and PIDs from various departments throughout KCS could be
approached for new ideas.
The recommendations for appropriate (non-asset) solutions consist of four quick wins that require low effort
and yield high impact and three major projects that require high(er) effort and yield high impact. One could
argue that there should be more quick wins and fewer major projects, as the effort required for the major
projects could overshadow the results of the quick fixes. However, two out of three of the recommended
major projects have been previously proposed and researched, reducing the time and effort required for
implementation. Additionally, the proposed major projects have a higher impact on the process than the
remaining quick wins in the matrix.
59
List of References
Air-France KLM Group. (2022, June 27). Reducing our waste at all levels - Groupe Air France-KLM.
Destination Sustainability. Retrieved April 18, 2023, from
https://sustainabilityreport.airfranceklm.com/en/reducing-our-waste-at-all-levels/
Asset Management Council. (n.d.). Asset Management Body of Knowledge (AMBoK). Asset Management
Council, Asset Management Body of Knowledge (AMBoK). Retrieved April 26, 2023, from
https://www.amcouncil.com.au/AMBoK glossary.aspx
Cambridge Dictionary. (2023). Capacity. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved March 10, 2023, from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/capacity
Investopedia. (2020, December 30). Capacity Management: Definition in Business and Strategies. Retrieved
February 16, 2023, from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capacity-management.asp
Jacquillat, A., & Odoni, A. R. (2018). A roadmap toward airport demand and capacity management.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 114, 168–185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.09.027
Jones, P. (2004). Flight Catering (2nd ed.). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080477787
KCS. (2023, February 13). Purpose. KLM Catering Services Schiphol Intranet. Retrieved February 15, 2023,
from https://intranet.kcs.nl/organisatie/strategie/purpose/default.aspx
KCS. (2023). Forecast flight schedule [Dataset; PowerBI].

https://app.powerbi.com/groups/me/apps/84aed109-bd95-4ee9-973a-
ee7e3a4abb7a/reports/2e29be0d-337b-4d13-a8b8-
8e254a2fea5f/ReportSectione5f64dc81e696200ed7d?ctid=f52b7805-a0e2-4048-91d7-
5fe177ba008a
Mirkovic, B., & Tosic, V. (2013). Airport apron capacity: estimation, representation, and flexibility. Journal of
Advanced Transportation, 48(2), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/atr.1250
Mula, J., Poler, R., García-Sabater, J. P., & Lario, F. (2006). Models for production planning under
uncertainty: A review. International Journal of Production Economics, 103(1), 271–285.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.09.001
Panda, S., Mohanty, S., Rout, P. K., Sahu, B. K., Bajaj, M., Zawbaa, H. M., & Kamel, S. (2022). Residential
Demand Side Management model, optimization and future perspective: A review. Energy Reports,
8, 3727–3766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.02.300
60
Polater, A. (2020). Airports’ role as logistics centers in humanitarian supply chains: A surge capacity
management perspective. Journal of Air Transport Management, 83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101765
Product Plan. (2020, July 29). Action Priority Matrix. Retrieved May 12, 2023, from
https://www.productplan.com/glossary/action-priority-
matrix/#:~:text=An%20action%20priority%20matrix%20is,on%20top%20of%20the%20others.
Rodríguez-Sanz, Á., & Rubio-Andrada, L. (2022). A preliminary framework for managing airport capacity and
demand from an economic perspective. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 94(9),
1463–1480. https://doi.org/10.1108/aeat-01-2022-0019
Voronova, O. (2022). Improvement of warehouse logistics based on the introduction of lean manufacturing
principles. Transportation Research Procedia, 63, 919–928.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2022.06.090
Wilson, M. (2020, December 7). Lean Manufacturing. www.creativesafetysupply.com. Retrieved May 15,
2023, from https://www.creativesafetysupply.com/articles/lean-manufacturing/
61
Appendix II Interview Questions for Sub-questions 1, 2, and 3
Sub-question 1:
1. How would you define the capacity of the production?
2. How would you determine or measure the capacity of the production?
3. What is the average throughput of trolleys per block at this moment, per section of the production?
4. What is the capacity of the production sections according to your definition?
5. How is the required number of employees per shift and team determined?
Sub-question 2:
1. Where do you think bottlenecks are located in the ROA?
2. Where do you think bottlenecks are located in the EQH?
3. Where do you think bottlenecks are located in the Opdek?
4. Where do you think bottlenecks are located in NF&B?
5. Which bottlenecks do you think have the greatest impact on the process?
6. What is the underlying cause of each bottleneck?
Sub-question 3:
1. Which changes have been implemented in the ROA since January 2020?
2. Which changes have been implemented in the EQH since January 2020?
3. Which changes have been implemented in the Opdek since January 2020?
4. Are there other (overarching) changes that have been implemented?
5. What have the effects of these changes been on the available capacity? Has this been positively or
negatively affected?
64
Appendix IX Ishikawa diagram ROA bottlenecks
72
Appendix X Ishikawa diagram monorail bottlenecks
73
Appendix XIV Extra Waste Sorting position proposal
77
Appendix XV Rollable plates for transportation of NF&B equipment sketch
78
Appendix XVI Beverage stock lane redesign proposal
79
80

Matching Supply and Demand in Operational Capacity Management For Aviation Catering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matching Supply and Demand in Operational Capacity Management For Aviation Catering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matching Supply and Demand in Operational

Capacity Management for Aviation Catering

Keywords: capacity management, process improvement, non-asset solutions, production environment,

List of Tables ............................................................................................................. 7

List of Figures ............................................................................................................ 8

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................. 9

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 10

1.1 Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................... 12

1.2 Research Objective ....................................................................................................................... 12

1.3 Research Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 12

1.4 Research Questions ...................................................................................................................... 13

1.5 Research Scope ............................................................................................................................. 13

1.7 Thesis Structure ............................................................................................................................ 14

2.1 Mapping the current operational production process.................................................................. 15

2.2 Identifying bottlenecks within the EUR/KLC production processes .............................................. 17

2.5 The search for potential non-asset solutions ................................................................................ 21

3 Capacity Management Literature Review........................................................... 23

3.1 Capacity Management within the aviation industry ..................................................................... 23

3.2 Non-asset solutions to capacity constraints in a production environment .................................. 24

4 Mapping the current operational production process......................................... 26

4.1 Identifying and describing the production process flows ............................................................. 26

5 Bottlenecks in the operational production process............................................. 34

5.1 Where are potential bottlenecks located in the process? ............................................................ 34

5.2 What is the impact of each bottleneck on the process? ............................................................... 37

6 Effects of implemented changes ........................................................................ 40

6.1 Waste Separation.......................................................................................................................... 40

6.2 Business class product .................................................................................................................. 40

6.3 Preparation of crew meals ............................................................................................................ 41

6.4 Production moment ...................................................................................................................... 41

7 Required capacity to meet peak demand ........................................................... 43

8 Potential non-asset solutions ............................................................................ 50

9 Combining non-asset solutions that address KCS’s capacity challenges ............... 54

List of References .................................................................................................... 60

Appendix II Interview Questions for Sub-questions 1, 2, and 3 .................................. 64

Appendix IV Production Schedule for flights departing Monday 17 April ................... 66

Appendix V Ballenplaat Europe Flow (Handle 47 employees).................................... 67

Appendix VI Flowchart ROA ..................................................................................... 69

Appendix VII Flowchart EQH and Opdek .................................................................. 70

Appendix VIII Flowchart Non-Food & Beverage ........................................................ 71

Appendix IX Ishikawa diagram ROA bottlenecks....................................................... 72

Appendix X Ishikawa diagram monorail bottlenecks................................................. 73

Appendix XI Arrival distribution graphs Monday 17 April vs Monday 3 July ............... 74

Appendix XIV Extra Waste Sorting position proposal ................................................ 77

Appendix XV Rollable plates for transportation of NF&B equipment sketch .............. 78

Appendix XVI Beverage stock lane redesign proposal ............................................... 79

Appendix XVII Reflection ......................................................................................... 80

1.1 Problem Statement

1.2 Research Objective

1.3 Research Relevance

2. What are the bottlenecks within the EUR/KLC production processes?

1.5 Research Scope

1.7 Thesis Structure

2.1 Mapping the current operational production process

2.4 The required capacity for the upcoming summer schedules

2.5 The search for potential non-asset solutions

4.1 Identifying and describing the production process flows

Jones, P. (2004). Flight Catering (2nd ed.). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080477787

KCS. (2023). Forecast flight schedule [Dataset; PowerBI].

You might also like