Although this article castigates EADS, it notes that there is plenty of blame to go around; Boeing doesn't escape the stick either. What's going on in the industry? Are OEM's over promising? Is the market waking up? Look at EADS' stock today on the news of the A400M delay. Have we heard the last of 787 delays?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ggles%20with%20Program%20Execution

Quote: Customers are taking note. When EADS said the A400M would be six months late, French air force officials said they think that actually means a delay of at least a year. A second government representative says even a 12-month slip is optimistic. On the civil side, Clark suggests Airbus behavior on recent programs shows a pattern.

I'm afraid, the answer to your question is probably yes. Delays seem to be inevitable these days - not only in the Aerospace Industry, many other complex projects show similar signs.

There are certainly some problems specific to Airbus. But I have the impression that there is a pattern that goes beyond Airbus (and Boeing).

On Airbus's latest project, the twin-widebody A350XWB, the aircraft maker has set an aggressive development schedule.

I wouldn't call the A350 schedule aggressive, at least not compared to Boeings 787 schedule. Am I wrong?

Quoting GBan (Reply 1): I wouldn't call the A350 schedule aggressive, at least not compared to Boeings 787 schedule. Am I wrong?

Windows Vista was late, and PS3, and many other global products.
It means they're trying very hard. But you know how it is; when the A350 is delayed 6 months, nobody will be surprised, or even concerned. Airbus will still end up with a great product like the A380. That's just the way it is now. At least the planes are getting safer.

In my experience, all schedules are aggressive. Managers want to show their bosses they are getting the most they can get out of their workers, so they insist on setting aggressive schedules, and they go to bed each night praying that someone else's part of the schedule slips first so they don't get blamed for screwing up the project. That's life in the big city.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3): That's life in the big city.

That seems so, but it is proving costly. Airbus' compensation payouts for the A380 had to be painful. Now Boeing is on the hook for compensation due to the 787 delays.

I know the arguments regarding complexity, etc., but if the manufacturers recognize the difficulty up front, why the compensation clauses in sales contracts--at least for launch customers?

Unfortunately, I think the shift is permanent due to how large projects are now being planned in most industries.

When planning a project three different scenarios are developed:

1) If everything goes perfect on each step.

2) A "realistic" approach assuming a "normal" degree of problems.

3) If there are "worst case" expected problems throughout.

In the old days the "realistic" approach was what was reported as major project goals - in many industries.

Now the "pressure" is on to promise good performance - and the "If everything goes perfect" date is often used (or sometimes a slight variation of only assuming a few minor problems).

The original project planners - and managers know that the initial estimates on the project is say 3 to 5 years, with an realistic 4 years. But, investors want to here that we can do it in 3.... for "y" amount of money. Of course, reality sets in - and most often projects actually do come in most close to the "realistic" estimates.

In my job at a nuclear plant many managers and other supervisors can't get over how often and how well I plan my projects and how well I meet my promised time and money estimates. I have explained many times over the concept of planning and funding for normal problems - but many others keep telling me that they can't afford to plan like that. I don't understand why not. Upper level management lets me do it - and I'm quite sure that they would let others do it as well.

I feel that too many people now fall into the trap of feeling they need to report what are really false expectations. After-all - the world is speeding up and we must speed up as well. In reality, we need to remember that some things just takes time - and there is little we can do to change that. Problems occur in all projects, big or small, and we need to build in contingency planning (money and time) for those problems.