Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1730 times:
Flight International, 31 Octover 2006 by Leithen Francis/Singapore
Wings for the A320s that Airbus will assemble in China could be produced locally as part of the European manufacturer's planes to outsource more production to the Asian country. The move would see the UK lose its exclusive hold on Airbus wing production.
Airbus China president Laurence Barron says the wings for the four A320 due to roll off the new assembly line in Tianjin each month would "ideally" be manufactured in-country, but whether this happens or not, "we have a plan to have four shipsets a month for the wing..."
Do I hear the echo of angry speeches in the British Parliament?
ZBA320 From United Kingdom (England), joined Mar 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1681 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter):
Do I hear the echo of angry speeches in the British Parliament?
Probably not. Most likely busy finding new ways to Tax people...
Since BAE Systems pulled out of Airbus the UK have no real say on what happens within Airbus. Unless UK Government decides to send bags of cash to help with the A350XWB projects some if not all work will go to China.
An Engineer made a bet that a 747 Gear wouldn't retract in a Hangar. He lost the bet.
Lumberton From United States, joined Jul 2005, 4123 posts, RR: 25 Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1664 times:
Has anything concerning the unions' reactions to the A320 production sharing with China appeared in the EU press of late? Now that this has been announced, and assuming that they are talking about A320s (not A318s, A319s, or A321s) then the bulk of the assembly work on these 300 would be lost to Toulouse, not Hamburg. Given French elections in the spring of '07, I would have expected the French unions to have at least weighed in by now.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7198 posts, RR: 42 Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1612 times:
You can see the pattern emerging. The EADS Board consists of five members appointed by the french bloc, five members appointed by the German bloc, and one member appointed by the Spanish.
If jobs have to be lost, the politically 'logical' place for job losses to occur is the UK. So (to 'non-aeroplane people') sacking Britishers, employing Chinese at much reduced cost, and keeping all the French, Germans, and Spaniards on the payroll makes perfect sense.
But only to non-aeroplane people. The A350XWB, and any other new designs Airbus embarks on, are going to need brilliant wing designs, above all else, if they are going to stand any chance of being competitive with present and future Boeing products.
In terms of design talent and innovation, the British aviation industry is the only one that has ever managed to compete longterm on anything like level terms with the US one. If Airbus (as now seems only too likely) severs the 'British connection,' my guess is that they will have no reasonable chance of ever drawing level with Boeing again.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom (England), joined Apr 2005, 1148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1540 times:
Don't forget there's a difference between wing design and wing manufacture. The former is a specialised skill, with the British team probably only second to Boeing in their ability, the latter is more transferable...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7198 posts, RR: 42 Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1514 times:
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 4): Don't forget there's a difference between wing design and wing manufacture
True on the face of it, AirbusA6. But in my experience it's an integrated process which requires a team approach. The marketing side says what's needed, the designers work out how to do it, the engineers and production people chime in and work out how to produce the stuff at reasonable cost.........
There's a sort of 'chemistry' about successful projects. Just hiring British designers to 'design' things that are going to be produced in some God-forsaken plant in China won't cut it, IMO - not when you're up against a competitor as 'switched-on' as Boeing is at the moment, anyway.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6288 posts, RR: 88 Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1453 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5): True on the face of it, AirbusA6. But in my experience it's an integrated process which requires a team approach. The marketing side says what's needed, the designers work out how to do it, the engineers and production people chime in and work out how to produce the stuff at reasonable cost.........
There's a sort of 'chemistry' about successful projects
Which is exactly how Boeing are going about having just as significant parts of the 787 manufactured in other countries.
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4662 posts, RR: 51 Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1431 times:
Only on a.net can a report about the possibility of setting up an additional wing production plant for locally produced A320s be turned into 'a clear indication' of Airbus 'cutting ties' with the UK and moving everything to China, and 'choosing to cut the UK jobs, and not the French and German' (conveniently ignoring that so far, precisely the French and German jobs ARE the only ones possibly being affected by the decision to build an FAL in China).
Only on a.net can a report about the possibility of setting up an additional wing production plant for locally produced A320s be turned into a thread about the impending doom of Airbus.
I mean, seriously, can we please, pretty pretty please, just have one thread on Airbus that doesn't turn into a thread focused around a few far-fetched doomsday scenarios?
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7198 posts, RR: 42 Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1395 times:
Regards in return, Astuteman.
Artcle here on how Chancellor Merkel and Co. are looking to sort out Airbus' problems:-
"Steinbrueck said the government was considering the notion so as to help stabilize the company in the wake of delays in the production of Airbus' A380 superjumbo project. Earlier this month, the Toulouse, France-based aircraft-maker doubled the program's production delay to two years and said the holdup would take 4.8 billion euros ($6.09 billion) from EADS profit over four years.
"Germany is fearful of a serious loss of jobs at the Airbus plant in Hamburg on top of the decision to cut 1,000 temporary jobs and reduce working hours at its seven other German operations.
"Steg said the chancellery was "intensively looking into finding a solution that satisfies our ideas: at eye level with France; continuing having a joint, strategy company leadership together with France; priority for private investors; and having the business strategy responsibility with DaimlerChrysler."
"Also on Monday, Commerzbank AG said it would be willing to take a role in buying part of DaimlerChrysler AG's stake in EADS, bank CEO Klaus-Peter Mueller said in remarks published Monday.
"In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Mueller said if the automaker reduces its stake in EADS, the parent company of airplane maker Airbus, it would step in to help the German government keep the German-French balance in EADS even."
Prize for anyone who can find any reference to British interests in the story. If there is one, I missed it.
On a personal note, whenever I think of France and Germany and their endless troubles, I am irresistibly reminded of my old man. He was born in 1900 - which meant that not only was he was old enough to be conscripted in WW1, he was young enough to be called up AGAIN in 1939. So, one way or another, he spent a bigger proportion of his life 'rescuing' Europe than most people did.
I'll never forget the fun of taking him and my father-in-law (a veteran of Dunkirk) on their first and only peacetime visit to France. It was lunch-time when we arrived, and I took them straight to a restaurant; not knowing that storms were forecast. After a VERY good lunch we emerged into the rainswept 'Place'. We had to hurry 200 yards to the car.
Once we were safely under cover, they both had a good laugh about how France hadn't changed a bit. The thing they both remembered most about the place, from previous visits, was that, for one reason or another, their feet had been soaking wet most of the time..........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Rheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1563 posts, RR: 48 Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1251 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3): The A350XWB, and any other new designs Airbus embarks on, are going to need brilliant wing designs.
Without any doubt
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3): In terms of design talent and innovation, the British aviation industry is the only one that has ever managed to compete longterm on anything like level terms with the US one.
If that is to imply that in order to be brilliant, the wing would have to be designed by the Brits, that's nonsense. The A3456's wing may serve as bad example. Who else would have thought of a chord insert? L/D performance is excellent, no doubt, but unfortunately at the expense of weight. The refusal to accept winglets or vortex generators as design elements may be less obvious, but it's decidedly British as well.
In terms of talent and innovation, let's see...Nimrod AEW, Tornado ADV, Spey Phantom, Comet, VC10, Trident...so what US failures did you have in mind when you see the Brits on level terms with them?
If there was a prize for the most ugly designs, THIS would be won by the British hands down, maybe challenged by French interwar planes...
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom (England), joined Apr 2005, 1148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 1130 times:
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 11): If there was a prize for the most ugly designs, THIS would be won by the British hands down, maybe challenged by French interwar planes...
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7198 posts, RR: 42 Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1051 times:
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 11): In terms of talent and innovation, let's see...Nimrod AEW, Tornado ADV, Spey Phantom, Comet, VC10, Trident...
What's wrong with the Comet, Rheinbote? It was five years ahead of any American competitor, and as you imply, is still flying as the Nimrod? And, as I explained on another thread, the designs of both the VC10 and the Trident were adversely affected by the requirements of BOAC and BEA (in particular, BOAC's view that there was 'no potential' in the North Atlantic ). As a matter of fact, De Havilland's original Trident design got built as the Boeing 727, one of the most successful jet airliners ever. Nor did you mention the Harrier?
Agree with you about French inter-war designs - though I think they deserve some credit for the later Caravelle, and the Mystere. Racking my brains to come up with a really classic/successful German design, civil or military - but I'm afraid that the only one that comes readily to mind is the Junkers 88........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 13660 posts, RR: 93 Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1041 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3): If jobs have to be lost, the politically 'logical' place for job losses to occur is the UK. So (to 'non-aeroplane people') sacking Britishers, employing Chinese at much reduced cost, and keeping all the French, Germans, and Spaniards on the payroll makes perfect sense.
What am I missing here?
The British firm, BAE, wanted out of Airbus. It wasn't Airbus who wanted BAE out.
If Britain doesn't want to be part of Airbus, that's fine, it will be dealt with. Britain doesn't want to be part of the Euro either.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7198 posts, RR: 42 Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1009 times:
Mariner, BAE effectively 'got out' of Airbus is 2001 when EADS was formed, and retained only what they themselves called a 'portfolio investment.' This was to Airbus' benefit as, as far as I understand the deal, Airbus UK had continued use of BAE's equity (in the form of buildings, plant, and machinery) and also took over most of BAE's employees on the Airbus programmes. That was all that happened a month ago, EADS paid BAE out for the equity it had left in Airbus when it was absorbed into EADS.
It's important to remember that the original Airbus was a consortium, whereas EADS was a full merger. Effectively, if BAE had joined that, BAE would have ceased to exist - and all its assets and intellectual property (including all its defence business) would have passed to EADS. The situation is therefore that the British Airbus workers are EADS employees, and have been since EADS was formed. But the British interest has never been recognised in terms of appointing British directors to the Board, or recruiting any Britishers to top positions.
From the comments of Merkel and others above - particularly "....Mueller said if the automaker reduces its stake in EADS, the parent company of airplane maker Airbus, it would step in to help the German government keep the German-French balance in EADS even" - it is becoming clear that, now that the chips are down, EADS is likely to be revealed as what it has been since 2001 - a French-dominated concern in which only the Germans provide any substantial counter-balance.
And that the pattern of any redundancies can be expected largely to reflect that situation - whether or not it is in the best interests of the company.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 13660 posts, RR: 93 Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 988 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 16): That was all that happened a month ago, EADS paid BAE out for the equity it had left in Airbus when it was absorbed into EADS.
I absoutely understand that.
I still don't see why, if Britain has no formal connection with Airbus, it is somehow "wrong" for Airbus to involve itself with those places with which it does have a formal connection, places which have an interest in Airbus beyond a portfolio investment.
That is what is in the "best interests" of the company.
Okay, so the British make good wings. They used to make good aircraft, too.
The only way anyone else is going to do it is to make 'em.
As someone who was in New Zealand on the day Britain announced its intention to join the EU, I fully remember the despair and sense of betrayal that Kiwis felt - their entire economy was centered on Britain.
Briaitn does what suits Britain. Airbus should do what suits Airbus.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7198 posts, RR: 42 Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 973 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 17): still don't see why, if Britain has no formal connection with Airbus, it is somehow "wrong" for Airbus to involve itself with those places with which it does have a formal connection, places which have an interest in Airbus beyond a portfolio investment.
Britain's 'formal connection' includes having many people who work for the company and having paid its share of all that 'launch aid.'
In any case, EADS as a company is in trouble. The directors have a duty to the shareholders to take whatever action is necessary to rescue it; questions of nationality should not intrude either into the question of who runs the company or who works for it. The ONLY acceptable strategy is the one that will work best, and quickest.
Quoting Mariner (Reply 17): Briaitn does what suits Britain. Airbus should do what suits Airbus.
As I've said, Britain has supported Airbus every bit as much as the French, the Germans, and the Spanish have. I think a more accurate representation of the way things look like working out is:-
"Britain does what suits Airbus. Airbus will do what suits the French and the Germans."
The 'bottom line' is that, if decisions continue to made on the basis of political expediency and on nationalities, rather than on the basis of what is best for the business, EADS is NOT going to get out of the trouble that it is in.
[Edited 2006-10-31 04:18:00]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
BOE773 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 954 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 17): Okay, so the British make good wings.
???????????????
The A380 wing design missed the break target.
F28 wings built by Shorts had crack problems at fuel tank access cutouts.
And there's more.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 13660 posts, RR: 93 Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 930 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18): "Britain does what suits Airbus. Airbus will do what suits the French and the Germans."
I would expect them to. "French and German" are the principal owners.
As to the "launch aid", Britain is being continuously repaid for its investment - and will, in the form of royalties, continue to be repaid.
Quoting BOE773 (Reply 20): Quoting Mariner (Reply 17):Okay, so the British make good wings.
???????????????
The A380 wing design missed the break target.
Tell NAV20, not me. I think the claim was his.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3): The A350XWB, and any other new designs Airbus embarks on, are going to need brilliant wing designs, above all else, if they are going to stand any chance of being competitive with present and future Boeing products.
In terms of design talent and innovation, the British aviation industry is the only one that has ever managed to compete longterm on anything like level terms with the US one.
I know less than nothing about wing design/manufacture, or who is good at it and who is not.
Elvis777 From United States, joined Aug 2005, 359 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 924 times:
Hi Mariner,
I agree with you in principle. Eads should do what is best for eads. Although one could ague that keeping wing porduction in wales is in the long run best for eads. What I am trying to say is that the technological prowess of the brits cannot be easily transfered elsewhere. I guess technically any decent aero engineer could say "I can design a wing for an intercontinental passenger carrying jet'. But I think that would be foolish to say that their wing center of exellence is now located in Hamburg, Barcelona , Toulose or Beijing- take your pick, and they would not miss a beat. I think it is the people doing the design work that are the true treasure of the company.
Imagine if they pull out of the uK completely and need a design for the A3xx. What then?
Perhaps I am wrong though. Perhaps the germans or spaniards could step up and deliver a quality product (Wing).
I alwasy though that the wing design was (is ) the crown jewel of any aircraft manufacturing company. But like I said , perhaps time ahs passed me by and now hte secret is in the integration of the bird components...
Peace
Elvis777
Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7198 posts, RR: 42 Reply 25, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 900 times:
Quoting BOE773 (Reply 20): ???????????????
The A380 wing design missed the break target.
For the record, the wing only broke because Toulouse mucked around with it trying to save weight:-
"While this type of failure has precedents, experts say the aim in such tests is to reach the ultimate-load target, without failing, before testing to destruction. Garcia says the trial was an “extremely severe test during which a wing deflection of 7.4m [24.3ft] was recorded” and that the A380 wing was designed to have “no margin” at ultimate load. “We had a weight-saving programme and ‘played the game’ to achieve ultimate load,” he says."
The (apparently eternal) A380 weight problem yet again........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
26 Elvis777: Hi Mariner, True. They are bright guys so it might not take them more than a few years to get up to speed. But , waht if , for whatever reason, eads d
27 Mariner: I guess they could also employ brilliant minds from elsewhere. Sorry, I don't know. Some might be offered jobs at Beoing, some at Airbus. The Chinese
28 Ikramerica: The claim about the china plant was that it would just be 'assembling jets, but the parts would still come from the EU.' That was the defense of the m
29 BOE773: I'd like to know the specifics of that, NAV20. Surely they did not de-rivet and remove some structure!!!
30 NAV20: No specifics available, BOE733 - only the expression 'played the game.' One gathers that, ever since that 'reveal,' there have been frenzied efforts
31 Lumberton: Flight International has an article on this topic today: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...+could+lose+exclusive+hold+on.html [Edited 2006-10-31
32 PEK18R36L: I wonder how long it is going to take the city fathers of Hamburg to figure that out? Alas, if it were only so simple. Anyone who doesn't think that
33 AirbusA6: Sensible companies utilise skills around the world, and local centres of excellence. For example, RR's centre of excellence for 2 shaft engines is Ger
34 Leelaw: Why go for an old dog that can't hunt...if you're making a wish-list go for the A350!
35 Dougloid: Do I detect a note of cynicism? How about a few choruses of "There's Trouble In Paradise"?
36 Eatmybologna: From what I am to believe, the Russians (who now own a 5% stake of EADS?) are exceptional wing designers. E-M-B
37 Astuteman: And is by no means alone...... This is, in fact the greatest value-adder in any complex manufactured product Indeed most multinationals make good mon
38 Mariner: Who would need to be an "apologist" for this? Bombardier began its checkered life as a subsidiary of a British company, and was briefly owned by Boei
39 LuvAir: Isn't outsourcing the wing like giving away your most important asset?
40 Lumberton: IMO, nothing quite as dramatic as this. If it were the case, Boeing would be in a world of hurt on the 787! Anyway, the A320 is a mature design. Who
41 Rheinbote: What's wrong about outsourcing a technology that has been overcome? The A380 may have been the very last airliner designed with a metal wing! The Come
43 LuvAir: Speaking of outsourcing and outsourcing of 'legacy' technology, I wonder why Boeing would outsource the 787's composite wing? "Mitsubishi Heavy Indust
44 Leelaw: IIRC, the 787 wings are primarily "composite" structures...remember the "lightning strike" contretemps.
45 Lumberton: Well, they are starting to weigh in: Unions say Airbus is "irresponsible" to hold back details on possible job cuts Of course, conspicuously absent f
46 RIX: - and which British design was technical failure? Viscount, Comet, Vanguard, Britannia, BAC 1-11, VC10, Trident... Ridiculously, talking about Europe
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Mar 2006, 122 posts, 
From United States, joined Jul 2005, 4123 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7198 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4662 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2006, 1563 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 13660 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
