Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Completes A350 XWB Milestone 5 Review  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 24201 times:

.
Some bits and pieces

The A350 completed internal Milestone 5 review (weight status, schedule and ramp-up rates), Next stage : parts design, set up component production. The focus is on A350-900, Airbus is eager to maintain 2013 EIS.


picture : www.flightglobal.com

Several structural demonstrators have produced all over Europe, including barrels. Final wind tunnel checkout : completed in the late summer. Airbus plans to break ground on the final assembly facility at Airbus headquarters in Toulouse on Jan. 14.

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...Completes%20Milestone%205%20Review

[Edited 2009-01-02 14:05:14]

99 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9286 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 24199 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Several structural demonstrators have produced all over Europe, including barrels. Final wind tunnel checkout : completed in the late summer. Airbus plans to break ground on the final assembly facility at Airbus headquarters in Toulouse on Jan. 14.

could they not use the old 300/310 lines? or did they turn them into 330/340 lines?



yep.
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 24061 times:

The quoted aviation week article has some interesting quotes from Airbus's old foe Richard Aboulafia, who firmly states that the A350 will be 2 years late

This of course is the man who predicted in June 2007 that the 787 would fly on time, and enter service on time.

Other quotes come from a Mr McVitie of Arran Aerospace, a former employee of Teal for whom Mr Aboulafia now works.
Both Arran and Teal provide market research services etc for aerospace companies; it would be interesting to know who is paying them to cast doubts on the A350


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3374 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 23750 times:

Good to hear of some progress with the A350

To answer Delta's question - from what I remember the A300/310 line weren't really a line more a hanger where the planes were built "on the spot" so a new building is definitely required.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 23598 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
including barrels.

Since the plane is not being built in barrels, I find it very odd that they'd describe it in that fashion.

NS


User currently offlineHloutweg From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 23553 times:



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 4):

A barrel is a barrel no matter how it's built or the number of pieces it is composed of.



In Varietate Concordia
User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 23501 times:

Did Airbus ever express an intent to outsource the A350 more aggressively -- say 787 style? Given Boeing's experiences here, I wonder if they would still feel that way?

User currently offlineMarcoPoloWorld From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 633 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 23438 times:

Ah yes... the infamous mr Aboulafia....

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 2):
Both Arran and Teal provide market research services etc for aerospace companies; it would be interesting to know who is paying them to cast doubts on the A350

Precisely.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 23084 times:



Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 2):
Other quotes come from a Mr McVitie of Arran Aerospace, a former employee of Teal for whom Mr Aboulafia now works.

To be extra clear, Aboulafia does not work for McVitie as your sentence could imply.

McVitie is the go-to guy for counterpoint quotes in news articles about Airbus. He always has the dissenting angle that journalists need in order to claim fairness and balance. That's a big reason why they keep going to him.

By the way, Milestone 5 is the famous "detailed definition freeze" initially slated for last October. There were several threads asking when it happened; I guess this must be it.


chart courtesy of Flight Global


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12333 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 22912 times:



Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 2):
Other quotes come from a Mr McVitie of Arran Aerospace, a former employee of Teal for whom Mr Aboulafia now works.

Yep, I found this one interesting:

Quote:
Officials within the A350 supply chain and financial community don't expect the aircraft to come to market until at least 2015, says Doug McVitie, managing director of consultancy Arran Aerospace.

This was similar to what John Leahy was saying at a similar point in the 787 development process. I wonder if McVitie is just a copycat, or has some real data.

Quote:
Moreover, he notes that the failure to unload production facilities in France and Germany means EADS has to foot more of the A350 development bill than initially planned.

Really? I thought I'd seen various announcements saying that these sales were happening. Did the deals fall apart?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6863 posts, RR: 63
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 22578 times:



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8):
chart courtesy of Flight Global

Who appear to believe that the -800 will be a stretched version of the -900. Good old FLIGHT - still plagued by sub-editors who know nothing!  Big grin


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9976 posts, RR: 96
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 21959 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8):
By the way, Milestone 5 is the famous "detailed definition freeze" initially slated for last October. There were several threads asking when it happened; I guess this must be it.

Indeed it is.
The A350XWB is a whole 3 days late...  Wow!  biggrin 

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 6):
Did Airbus ever express an intent to outsource the A350 more aggressively -- say 787 style?

Yes they did.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
I thought I'd seen various announcements saying that these sales were happening. Did the deals fall apart?

I suspect the journalism has fallen apart far more than the sales have.  Smile

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 2):
Both Arran and Teal provide market research services etc for aerospace companies; it would be interesting to know who is paying them to cast doubts on the A350

Although the counterpoise quote from the AviationWeek correspondent (who presumably isn't paid to cast doubts on the A350 programme is:-

Quote:
An executive with a supplier working on the A350 says Airbus is eager to maintain the 2013 date and is even looking to see if there are opportunities to get the aircraft out earlier, in part to take advantage of Boeing's problems with the 787

I suspect there's a fear that the red faces will be even redder if (or when) the A350 enters service on time....  Smile

Rgds


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12379 posts, RR: 47
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 21368 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8):
McVitie is the go-to guy for counterpoint quotes in news articles about Airbus.

That's one way of putting it. Another way would be that he's a bitter, twisted, Airbus-hater, who never misses an opportunity to stick the knife in his ex-employer.  wink 

Given that it could, just about, be argued that Airbus missed this milestone by at most three months, claims the A350 will be two years late would seem to be based more on some perverse hope rather than cold facts.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently onlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5014 posts, RR: 44
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 21092 times:



Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 1):
could they not use the old 300/310 lines? or did they turn them into 330/340 lines?

The old A300/310 line, which was previously used to build the Caravelle IIRC, was only just wide enough to hold the A300. The A350, with its larger wingspan, would never fit in there.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 2):
The quoted aviation week article has some interesting quotes from Airbus's old foe Richard Aboulafia, who firmly states that the A350 will be 2 years late

Gotta love good old Richie! Though he appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years regarding Airbus, it's been going on for a while. Still remember him stating how the 767-400 (the original one, not the later proposed re-engined one) was 'clearly the better choice' compared to the A330-200, and how Boeing would easily sell several hundreds of them...


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 20851 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11):
The A350XWB is a whole 3 days late.

????????
October to January is three months.

A three month slip should not be reason for alarm because the whole A350XWB development schedule was always much more conservative than that of the 787. It's likely that some other development have proceeded in parallel and Airbus might be able to make up some or all of those three months before 2013. Still, EK are saying that EIS will be 2014 and I can't think of any reason why EK would be biased on this question.


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20771 times:



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
EK are saying that EIS will be 2014 and I can't think of any reason why EK would be biased on this question.

Is EK saying that their first A350 will EIS in 2014 or will the first A350 customer (Qatar) also be in 2014?

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8439 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20636 times:

Maybe 2014 is when EK plan their EIS.

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20478 times:



Quoting WINGS (Reply 15):
Is EK saying that their first A350 will EIS in 2014 or will the first A350 customer (Qatar) also be in 2014?

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20081216-715465.html

Fair use quote:

Tim Clark, president of the Dubai-based carrier, said the design for the aircraft, a competitor to the 777 offered by Boeing Co. (BA), should be ready within "a month or two."

The A350 has garnered almost 500 orders since airlines and leasing companies forced Airbus, owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., into a comprehensive redesign that has delayed planned entry into service until 2014 at the earliest, two years behind schedule.

Emirates' rapid growth and huge order book have made Clark and his colleagues among the most influential executives in the airline industry, particularly on aircraft design.

The carrier operates a 122-plane fleet, has 246 aircraft on order from Boeing and Airbus, with plans to use the aircraft for expansion or to replace older planes over the next five to eight years, Clark said.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20448 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 2):
The quoted aviation week article has some interesting quotes from Airbus's old foe Richard Aboulafia, who firmly states that the A350 will be 2 years late

This of course is the man who predicted in June 2007 that the 787 would fly on time, and enter service on time.

Other quotes come from a Mr McVitie of Arran Aerospace, a former employee of Teal for whom Mr Aboulafia now works.
Both Arran and Teal provide market research services etc for aerospace companies; it would be interesting to know who is paying them to cast doubts on the A350

These quotes need to be read with a jar of salt in close proxemity. They just sound so very jealous on the progress the A350-XWB program is making. To EIS there is still almost 4 years to go. And four years was the initial target for the development and EIS of the total B787 program. Airbus has planned 7 years for developing three versions of this new airliner (after struggeling a couple of years with the initial A350 design) where Boeing planned only 4 years for three new versions. Now Boeing ditched one version already (B787-3), and it still way off there initial schedule.

Maybe this detailed design freeze on the A350 is three days or three months late. But the program is appearantly running at full speed, and is much and much further then the B787 ever was at this stage. To predict at least a two year delay for this program, which at present is based on absolutely nothing, is wishful thinking which makes the predictors, also at this stage of the program, a bunch of very, very sad people.  Sad

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8):
By the way, Milestone 5 is the famous "detailed definition freeze" initially slated for last October. There were several threads asking when it happened; I guess this must be it.

That is the same way as I understand the information in this article. So a bit late? Yes! Dramatically late? No! And remember that in this phase you can win or loose basic structural performance on the airframe. As some have suggested (like SUH) two to three years ago, Airbus should squeeze the maximum benefit out of the delayed program compared to the B787. It will be later on the market, but has the chance of incorperating the latest in technological or aerodynamic advantages which were not available to the B787 program. It looks to me they are doing just that.  Smile

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
I thought I'd seen various announcements saying that these sales were happening. Did the deals fall apart?

I suspect the journalism has fallen apart far more than the sales have.

I think so too. That is a very striking statement by you Astuteman. Big grin

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11):
Although the counterpoise quote from the AviationWeek correspondent (who presumably isn't paid to cast doubts on the A350 programme is:-

Quote:
An executive with a supplier working on the A350 says Airbus is eager to maintain the 2013 date and is even looking to see if there are opportunities to get the aircraft out earlier, in part to take advantage of Boeing's problems with the 787

I suspect there's a fear that the red faces will be even redder if (or when) the A350 enters service on time....

I think so too. Airbus was and is conservative with their development schedule for the A350-XWB. And so far there are no strong indications that they will not meet their deadlines regarding the EIS. This three days or even three months late "freezing of the detailled design" is not a thing one should be particularly worried about.

On the other hand Airbus should not rush anything in my opinion. The A380 production ramp-up fiasco is still fresh in our memories. As it will be fresh the memories of the customers. They better get it right, do a solid job and start with an overperforming and overdelivering product (just as the A380 is doing already) then to rush the plane to the market if that would mean an heavily overweight and underperforming airliner (at least the 20 to 100 copies of it Big grin).

But I guess some are extremely worried that Airbus will be more or less on time with the A350-XWB where Boeing screwed up dramatically with the B787 development program. The flight testing program is still not on-going for that airliner (which I also like very much and I would love to see it fly its test program this year, do not get me wrong here) making the EIS of the B787 even now still uncertain. And I write "even now" because the plane should have had its EIS under the original schedule some time ago already.

Let us hope the production ramp-up will be better for the B787 so that another +2 year delay can be avoided.  Sad That is still not certain at the moment since like I said even the flight test phase has not started yet. And who knows what could come from that phase. I hope only good news, but it could also be bad news. So even now there are a lot more uncertainties on the B787 program then there are on the A350-XWB program. No matter how much these "famous" sad commentators might dislike it.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 12):
That's one way of putting it. Another way would be that he's a bitter, twisted, Airbus-hater, who never misses an opportunity to stick the knife in his ex-employer.

Given that it could, just about, be argued that Airbus missed this milestone by at most three months, claims the A350 will be two years late would seem to be based more on some perverse hope rather than cold facts.

Like I said: sad people who probably do not really love or like their business, which is aviation, but only like aircraft from a specific OEM? I hope from now on both the A350-XWB and the B787 have a smooth run to EIS. And both will perform better than anticipated. I would love to fly on both to experience their qualities and their specific differences. That has been always a goal for me, and I can not wait to fly on both of these airliners. Sadly enough I still need to be patient about that.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
Still, EK are saying that EIS will be 2014 and I can't think of any reason why EK would be biased on this question.

Me too. But at this stage of the A350-XWB program, still 6 years to go before EK will get their first plane, that could of course still change. I do not hope so. And there are no strong indications yet that it would be late, except the wishful thinking of the forementioned sad and sorry people, but at this stage it can also not be ruled out. A lot might still happen, like nice developments, but also unpleasant developments.

We will have to wait and see, but so far all is looking good for the A350-XWB program. The sales are there (they are at least on par with the B787 sales at this stage of the program, which is surprising since the A350-XWB is a bigger aircraft which usually sells less copies then a smaller aircraft) and the development progress is there. The manufacturing progress is underway regarding the new assembly line, so it all looks good at the moment.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20431 times:



Quoting PM (Reply 10):
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8):
chart courtesy of Flight Global

Who appear to believe that the -800 will be a stretched version of the -900. Good old FLIGHT - still plagued by sub-editors who know nothing!

Glad to see the New Years celebs did not dent the acuity of your eyesight PM.  bigthumbsup 

Hands up all the others who had to look back to check!  bitelip 

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 11):
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8):
By the way, Milestone 5 is the famous "detailed definition freeze" initially slated for last October. There were several threads asking when it happened; I guess this must be it.

Indeed it is.
The A350XWB is a whole 3 days late..

Shocking slippage there, but just a taste of things to come - I hope!


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12379 posts, RR: 47
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 20202 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 17):
The A350 has garnered almost 500 orders since airlines and leasing companies forced Airbus, owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., into a comprehensive redesign that has delayed planned entry into service until 2014 at the earliest, two years behind schedule.

Something is not adding up here. These are not the words of EK, so does EK claim EIS as 2014 later in the article?

Airbus EIS for the A350XWB was always 2013, so how is 2014 two year late? I think the reporter is confusing the XWB with the original A350.  confused 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 20119 times:



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 20):
Something is not adding up here. These are not the words of EK, so does EK claim EIS as 2014 later in the article?

Airbus EIS for the A350XWB was always 2013, so how is 2014 two year late? I think the reporter is confusing the XWB with the original A350.

The journalist is not being as clear and careful with attribution as he arguably should be, but bounding the statement on either side by quotes from Tim Clark attributes it to Clark in the absence of any other attribution. Journalists often do that to avoid repeating "according to XXX" over and over again.

I agree with your explanation of how the journalist counts 2014 as two years late. Most likely he is counting from the announced EIS of one of the earlier A350s.


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8190 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19994 times:



Quoting NoWorries (Reply 6):
Did Airbus ever express an intent to outsource the A350 more aggressively -- say 787 style?

Define outsourcing "more agressively"  Smile Outsourcing has always been an inherent feature at Airbus. Roughly 50% of every Airbus airplane is built by outside contractors and it's been that way for a long time. Boeing is only now catching up to it, so I don't think Airbus will have the same type of supply chain problems that Boeing has had with the 787.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19898 times:

Things seem to be on time within a couple of months. Airbus has given themselves more time from this point to EIS than Boeing did with the 787, so can't see a few months being so bad right now.

Can't really trust much of what Tim Clark says. He's not paid to accurately portray what is happening at Airbus or Boeing. He's paid to get his airline in the news. If he does that by saying the A350 won't fly for his airline until a year late, then he'll do so. Nobody will care when (if) he's wrong…



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 19836 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 23):
Airbus has given themselves more time from this point to EIS than Boeing did with the 787, so can't see a few months being so bad right now.

Airbus have left more time from now until EIS than Boeing budgeted for the entire 787 development period from announcement to EIS.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 23):
Can't really trust much of what Tim Clark says. He's not paid to accurately portray what is happening at Airbus or Boeing. He's paid to get his airline in the news. If he does that by saying the A350 won't fly for his airline until a year late, then he'll do so. Nobody will care when (if) he's wrong…

Good point, but I count Clark less biased than Airbus or Aboulafia. I'll continue to expect 2014 and if Airbus manage late 2013, it will be a pleasant surprise.  Smile


25 Moo : In that case, its a false attribution and is probably done deliberately - for example, the same style of attribution by proxy also leads you to accep
26 Zvezda : That's possible, but it's far from obvious. You could contact the journalist and ask for an explanation. If you ask politely, there is a good chance
27 Post contains links Zeke : As far I was aware, it was slated for Q4 2008, Oct-Dec, EADS/Airbus referred to it as "late 2008" in its communications with customers. link http://w
28 Moo : I disagree - to me, its quite obviously an editorial comment added by WSJ to add information and context to Clarks quote, I would never assume Tim Cl
29 AirbusA370 : Does anybody have information about the design freezes of the various aircraft systems? The structural and aerodynamic part is only half of the pictur
30 PM : Anyone who is claiming to have enough hard evidence at this point to predict a substantial delay in the EIS of the A350 is following some agenda - and
31 Post contains links and images Zeke : Part of Power8 was the restructure the aircraft development process and to reduce the cycle time of new aircraft development from 7.5 to 6 years (tha
32 EPA001 : Which is very much true. As I wrote before: It is truly sad such unfounded assumptions are being made, but if someones favorite OEM is in trouble, it
33 BestWestern : Why does any positive news from Airbus bring about a huge amount of criticism from certain american institutions?
34 Slz396 : Not to mention there's also a commercial aspect for these publications to it. Remember that a large portion of the readers of English language public
35 Nomadd22 : I thought it was obvious that he was refering to the original 350 EIS from before the XWB redesign.
36 DocLightning : I dunno. Airbus is too cold and calculating to allow themselves to mess this one up. And they're really good at making planes now. I think this bird i
37 Abba : This man is without even a shade of respectability. However, my experience with journalists is that numbers and dates are to be doubted. It is where
38 Stitch : Why? I think we learned with the 787 that "worrying information" starts to leak out from "official sources" through "unofficial channels" long before
39 EPA001 : For now it is clear he is doing just that. There is no reason for the A350-XWB to be late at this time. It is a 7-9 year program where Boeing only pl
40 Abba : If you think this should be true for Airbus as well then one should not think that Aboulafia is to be a prime candidate to recive information about p
41 Thorben : Aboulafia has about z e r o credibility left with me, just like (the rest of?) Boeing's marketing department. The media shouldn't give that "expert" a
42 Hloutweg : It isn't but the Wall Street journal who's saying that the EIS will be 2014. Not EK. Just clearing the Facts. None the less, that it is quite early t
43 Kire : In the development business (at least in those humble development projects I did and do, and some engineers and managers at A or B may share this expe
44 EPA001 : I think you are correct on this and we all here on A.net all know this. So the real question is: why is there now, at the peak of sad and disappointi
45 Keesje : Shared pain is lessened ? I referred from quoting Richard and McVite opinions because IMO they were predictable. During the last two yrs Airbus had i
46 PM : I've read FLIGHT every week since 1971 (and have many boxes of past issues in the attic to prove it) and I've lost count of the small and unnecessary
47 WingedMigrator : Nothing?? I'll tell you what it's based on: every new (non-derivative) airliner development program since 1995 has been 2 years late Jamais deux sans
48 PM : Third time lucky?
49 EPA001 : But they are all late due to different causes and the general perception is, also here on A-net , that these delays mainly are caused by bad manageme
50 Chiad : Hmmm ... and I thought I was the only one thinking the same thing.
51 Ikramerica : Actually, talking "bad management" then the A350 is already late because the bad management launched a plane a few years ago that nobody really wante
52 Moo : 200 sales seems awfully high for a plane 'nobody really wanted'....
53 EPA001 : And that is what it is all about. Some in the article are specifically stating that the A350-XWB program will at least be 2 years late. By no means i
54 Slz396 : If you absolutely want to go down this path, then the 787 is already more than a decade late even, because the really 'bad management' at Boeing deci
55 Ikramerica : 200 sales seems awfully low for a plane that needs to sell 1000. If people wanted it so much, why did Airbus scrap it and take a multi-billion dollar
56 EPA001 : Like I wrote before, it would have sold at least 300+ by now. And if you take away some of the (unexpected) A330 sales, it could also easily be 400+
57 Stitch : It is, but we also need to remember that a number of customers - especially customers many on this board view as "top tier" or "super important/influ
58 Revelation : I'm not singling you out, but it's hard to make this kind of comparison. The challenges they both faced are quite different. Airbus seems to have a c
59 EPA001 : Yes they are, even when in the end they both want to sell as many airliners as they possibly can. Of course with a decent profit. I think after the A
60 Moo : Excuse me? What plane, ever, *needs* to sell 1000? I thought the break even point for twin widebody aircraft was accepted on here to be around the 50
61 EPA001 : Correct. And the original A350 would have had an even lower break-even number since it basically was a heavily redeveloped A330. The total program wa
62 Stitch : Airbus was throwing around figures of around $5 billion for the final iteration of the A350, which is close to what Boeing's original direct cost on
63 Mariner : Oh, lots of reasons, perhaps. There was a power vacuum at Airbus at the time - remember CEO Humbert? - and there was an internal rift at Airbus. I ag
64 Revelation : Loosing to the 787 at QF shortly after loosing to the 787 at AC was the straw that broke the back for the A350-not-XWB. Airbus wanted the QF deal ver
65 Post contains links Mariner : I thought it was the other way around. From memory, the Qantas 787 order was at the end of '05 and that SUH spat the dummy at Istat in '06? http://se
66 Astuteman : In my opinion, because the market saw them as becoming "second-best" in both the mid-size (A330/787) twin market AND in the large twin (A340NG/777),
67 Revelation : You are absolutely right - I stand corrected! But I do recall reading that internally the QF order is what doomed the old A350. Maybe Airbus didn't w
68 Post contains links Mariner : Maybe, but in early '06 they were also getting pressure from Singapore (Humbert: "Airbus listens to its customers"), and by the time of Istat ('06) t
69 EPA001 : But in the end I think everybody at Airbus is quite happy that "he won". The company looks to be back on track and is working very hard to get the A3
70 DocLightning : They gave themselves plenty of time. Few customers are going to complain if they get their deliveries early. But I think A decided to do this one at
71 Astuteman : I think Mariner is right, in that, Jan 2006 might well have been the first time that an alternative Product Strategy was put forward, and preliminary
72 Mariner : Oh, that may be. But because, from all I can tell, Humbert was the primary agent pressing for "change" - and the A350XWB represents that change - I t
73 EPA001 : Maybe in a couple of years the history of this turnaround at Airbus will be disclosed to us. Until that time we can only speculate. Well, he is a sur
74 Mariner : I'm not sure what point you are making. I'm a historian, my interest here is in the the politics, it is what I do. Call it speculation, but the chall
75 EPA001 : The point I was trying to make is that I have no inside knowledge whatsoever about what was going on inside Airbus at the time. But maybe someone wit
76 Mariner : I agree. I can think of some present geo-poltical problems that perhaps wouldn't exist if the people at the top had read a few more history books. ma
77 Swallow : Quoting Mariner (Reply 79): Or was Leahy just smarter at the game then Humbert? Yeah. He has gone 'AWOL' lately. I miss the old JL! Of late, he seems
78 Zeke : This is pure flame bait, I cannot think of any aircraft Airbus EVER budgeted to build 1000 aircraft for, even the A320 was back around 400 aircraft m
79 Post contains images EPA001 : I hope to see that too!   That seems to be the case here. But the B787, though heavier, has more development potential since it is an all new airfra
80 Lightsaber : Airbus is recruiting extensively to gain talent to keep the A350 on schedule; they are opening up new engineering offices to attract 'the right talen
81 SEPilot : As an avid Boeing partisan, I wish no ill on Airbus with the A350. And as an avid Boeing partisan, it appears to me that Airbus has learned from both
82 AirNZ : On what basis does it need to sell 1000, and I naturally assume this to be your opinion as I certainly have seen no-one, or any official figures, quo
83 Joecanuck : People must be almost terminally bored to be talking about 350 delays already. As of now, there is no reason to suspect Airbus will be late with the 3
84 PM : I understood it to mean that any new widebody should really be expecting sales of that magnitude to achieve credibility. For example, had Airbus sold
85 EPA001 : Or are practicing "wishful thinking"? . A certain Richard A. comes to mind here!
86 Abba : Wonder how much potential the 330 has as an NG version if (or when) the provisions for the 340 within its design is taken out. Something that will be
87 Post contains images Keesje : A GENX (or new Trent) powered A330 would save about 20% fuel on a CF6-80E1 version, according to GE. I think the wing and the rest is ok apart from s
88 Moo : Something that struck me with regard to a recent post here detailing where the 787s planned enhanced economics were gained was that the composite str
89 Swallow : There has been talk about a re-engine with the GEnx or T1000, but this has cost implications since the wing and pylon would require modification and
90 Astuteman : Bingo! I suspect the aforementioned new engine, wing and pylon will come, once current orders start to dry up, and it rises in the heirarchy of engin
91 Post contains links and images Keesje : Thats rights, the wing attachments / pylon would have to be redesigned. I think it is doable. Airbus has build up a lot of knowledge on this part of
92 EPA001 : That would seem to be the right and logical time to make this move for Airbus. So when will this happen. I would guess at the end of this decade (201
93 Zvezda : I expect we'll see more efficient engines for the A330 long before that. I would guess 2012 to 2015 would be more likely.
94 Trex8 : doesn't sound right if a 787 is 20% better than a 767 and half of that is from the engines.
95 EPA001 : I am not so sure. The orderbook is still very good for the A330 program, and is expected to remain OK for quite some years to come. (if the crisis do
96 Astuteman : As in "new" engines? It would be great to see. Certainly it possible that the passing of the A350XWB peak engineering, and the slackening of demand f
97 Stitch : Don't the new-spec Trent 700's for the current A330 family see a not-insignificant reduction in SFC?
98 Scbriml : I believe they do, which explains why a significant majority of recent A330 customers have selected RR engines.
99 Post contains links and images Keesje : . I think to fuel price will "recover" faster then many hope. With more efficient engines like GP7000, GENX, Trent 1000 coming into service and provin
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus On Track To Freeze A350 XWB Lines posted Wed Jun 4 2008 08:50:16 by Aviationbuff
10-abreast A350 XWB -Airbus Proposal posted Mon May 19 2008 05:29:01 by Aviationbuff
Airbus Rolls Out A350 XWB Design Revisions posted Tue Sep 25 2007 15:47:45 by Carls
Airbus Lobbies GE To Offer GEnx For A350 XWB posted Fri Apr 20 2007 12:12:09 by Keesje
Airbus A350 XWB Question posted Mon Oct 30 2006 15:04:07 by Eaglewarrior
FI: Airbus To Ask Board To Approve A350 XWB posted Mon Oct 23 2006 10:21:23 by Leelaw
Avianca Confirms MoU For 10 A350 XWB posted Thu Jul 17 2008 04:33:27 by RICARIZA
A350 XWB Development Master Schedule posted Tue Jul 8 2008 07:58:56 by Keesje
Hexcel To Supply Composite Materials For A350 XWB posted Wed Jun 4 2008 08:52:39 by Aviationbuff
Hawaiian Air Delay A350-XWB Purchase posted Fri Jan 18 2008 13:24:51 by PanAm_DC10
Hexcel To Supply Composite Materials For A350 XWB posted Wed Jun 4 2008 08:52:39 by Aviationbuff
Hawaiian Air Delay A350-XWB Purchase posted Fri Jan 18 2008 13:24:51 by PanAm_DC10