moderators From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 459 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21984 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Since the bulk of the other thread was regarding the rumors and speculation about Airbus building a plant in Mobile, it has been decided to have a dedicated thread to the announcement so to separate the speculative posts now that this is official.
Quote: Airbus SAS plans to assemble single- aisle aircraft in the U.S. for the first time, encroaching on Boeing Co. (BA)’s home market to tap demand from North American airlines seeking to renew their fleets.
Airbus has chosen Mobile, Alabama, as the site to build A320 single-aisle aircraft that compete with Boeing’s 737, the Toulouse, France-based company said today. Construction will begin by the middle of next year, with deliveries starting in 2016 and output of 40 to 50 planes annually by 2018.
One last thing:
Please keep your comments civil and within the boundaries of the Forum Rules.
Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
KMOB1 From United States of America, joined May 2012, 1 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21852 times:
I've been a member here just over a month , my first post here .... Dont know a hell of a lot about planes compared to a lot of you , I love them and love to photograph them , although I am use to not being able to capture more than an Embraer 145, or MD88 .... If I'm lucky I can grab a FED EX Boeing or DC10 coming out of KBFM , where the Airbus plant will be .
As an airliner enthusiast living in Mobile , I was so pumped to hear the news last week , and to see it come to fruitition today . I look forward to the day I can see these baby's soaring out of KBFM
xjet From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 441 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21791 times:
I'm an Alabama native, and I am very happy for my home state. The state's manufacturing sector is growing with good paying jobs. The south is very business friendly, and it is paying dividends. Glad to see commercial aerospace make it's mark on the southern tip of the state. I hope it will be a fruitful as it has been in Huntsville/Decatur.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 3, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21762 times:
As I noted in the other thread, I find this a prudent move by Airbus.
ghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 758 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21576 times:
Interesting development, but I don't see why the Bloomberg article must cite this as a "challenge" to Boeing. Is it really? No. Airlines order what they need, I have a hard time believing where an aircraft was assembled plays a nominal role in choosing aircraft.
September11 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3623 posts, RR: 23 Reply 5, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 21443 times:
stasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3266 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 21176 times:
Alabama's a "right to work" state - no union representation. I wonder how the wages for the Alabama employees of Airbus will compare to their European colleagues.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
Asiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1019 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 21132 times:
Quoting ghifty (Reply 4): Interesting development, but I don't see why the Bloomberg article must cite this as a "challenge" to Boeing.
That seems to be the way Boeing thinks about it. Boeing made comments already last week before it was official announced. Apparently they feel very threatened. Just keep making better planes and the airlines will buy them.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4959 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 21071 times:
Quoting KMOB1 (Reply 1): As an airliner enthusiast living in Mobile , I was so pumped to hear the news last week , and to see it come to fruitition today . I look forward to the day I can see these baby's soaring out of KBFM
You have every right to be happy! (welcome to A.net!) the more you hang around the plant, the more you'll learn
Anyway:
When it comes to Boeing, do you think that
Quoting moderators (Thread starter): Airbus SAS plans to assemble single- aisle aircraft in the U.S. for the first time, encroaching on Boeing Co. (BA)’s home market to tap demand from North American airlines seeking to renew their fleets.
Honestly, how is this a challenge? I highly doubt the current status quo won't change. UA will have the A350 sure, but they still have a lot of Boeing aircraft. DL isn't going to buy anymore either. They're still primary Boeing customers, and I think that Airbus is just saying that it's "challenging" Boeing, when in my honest opinion, it's just for convenience with US Airways and American Airline's orders.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4787 posts, RR: 9 Reply 9, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 21005 times:
Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 6): Alabama's a "right to work" state - no union representation. I wonder how the wages for the Alabama employees of Airbus will compare to their European colleagues.
I looked up that term on wikipedia, and it seems to me it doesn't mean no union, but no mandatory union. Which is exactly the same situation as in France.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 10, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 20960 times:
Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 6): Alabama's a "right to work" state - no union representation. I wonder how the wages for the Alabama employees of Airbus will compare to their European colleagues.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 9): I looked up that term on wikipedia, and it seems to me it doesn't mean no union, but no mandatory union. Which is exactly the same situation as in France.
That is correct.
Some folks might be surprised that when Boeing bought the Charleston plant, the workforce there was part of the IAM, just like the workers in Everett and Renton. The workforce subsequently chose to decertify the union, but Boeing can't work them like serfs lest the IAM successfully re-unionize the shop.
KFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1208 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 20937 times:
I think the challenge to Boeing is that Airbus now have the advantage of multiple facilities worldwide. Which includes...
1. Airbus would be able to achieve equal or lower labor costs for its US facility
2. Better delivery slots paving way for more sales
3. Ease of purchase - from finance, tax to paperwork - for US based carriers, in Boeing's own home turf
4. Better sales presence in US and Canada
5. Inability on Boeing's front to develop an EU plant, due to its own unattractiveness
Overall, it takes away Boeing's 'home advantage'. It is one of those small steps that can have a big impact. It may be just an A320 line for the moment, but don't expect it to be another Tianjin line.
The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5091 posts, RR: 28 Reply 12, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 20932 times:
Just because Alabama is a Right to Work state does not mean that Airbus' plant will be and remain non-union. It simply means that no workers can be compelled to join a union.
It remains incumbent upon Airbus to earn the degree of loyalty from its employees that is required for the employees to reject union representation. One hopes they will be wise enough to do just that - often said (and I agree) that an employer gets the union it deserves.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
jayhup From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 440 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 20909 times:
As a former employee of a Boeing subsidiary I think this is great news for Alabama and for Airbus. It will keep the competition hot and heavy between the two companies and should benefit the airlines and us passengers.
Interesting however is the lack of "protest" from the White House over Airbus coming to a right to work state. Seems that they weren't so accommodating to Boeing when they first tried to open up in South Carolina.
ThereandBack From Turkey, joined Aug 2005, 699 posts, RR: 4 Reply 14, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 20842 times:
My only concern is how well the new facility will handle hurricanes and tornadoes in the area. If I were Airbus and selecting a site to build aircraft I would have went for an area less natural hazard prone.
Tangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 862 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 20796 times:
Quoting KFlyer (Reply 11): . Ease of purchase - from finance, tax to paperwork - for US based carriers, in Boeing's own home turf
Financing, financing, financing. That is what it takes to close the deal. Given that the European banks are in shaky ground along with the ECB, why not start another production in the US of A and tap the EXIM as it was mentioned in the previous thread?
This move will tap more financial resources away from Boeing (.......to close deals).
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 20753 times:
Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 15): Financing, financing, financing. That is what it takes to close the deal. Given that the European banks are in shaky ground along with the ECB, why not start another production in the US of A and tap the EXIM as it was mentioned in the previous thread?
Does the financing and incentives provided pass the WTO test based on the last rulings that are being appealed and does / could it have any effect?
How about the EXIM directive of both OEM's not competing on each others home turf, does this plant offer Airbus a route to circumvent?
Quoting jayhup (Reply 13): It will keep the competition hot and heavy between the two companies and should benefit the airlines and us passengers.
Try to imagine the duopoly in 20 years time, there are some scarey visions as well as good ones.
Quoting jayhup (Reply 13): Interesting however is the lack of "protest" from the White House over Airbus coming to a right to work state. Seems that they weren't so accommodating to Boeing when they first tried to open up in South Carolina.
If they were not forewarned they are probably looking at GM, Ford and Chrysler and imagining the day when Boeing is no longer the aviation leader in the USA.
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2870 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 20716 times:
Quoting ThereandBack (Reply 14): My only concern is how well the new facility will handle hurricanes and tornadoes in the area. If I were Airbus and selecting a site to build aircraft I would have went for an area less natural hazard prone.
Tangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 862 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 20708 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 16): Does the financing and incentives provided pass the WTO test based on the last rulings that are being appealed and does / could it have any effect?
How about the EXIM directive of both OEM's not competing on each others home turf, does this plant offer Airbus a route to circumvent?
I don't know intimately these rulings, but my sense is that airlines need financing and a guarantee to the lending commercial bank by the government where the product is manufactured for export must be a big reason why Airbus is setting up this plant. It is a common worldwide problem that banking thus financing is under strain. Airbus is just spreading its wings so that it can increase such access.
flyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1618 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 20630 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 10): but Boeing can't work them like serfs lest the IAM successfully re-unionize the shop.
That's really an old out-dated argument that the threat of unionization somehow motivates companies to treat their employees better. While companies will take measures and actions to persuade employees away from unionization for obvious reasons, even if the threat of unionization didn't exist, companies wouldn't suddenly start treating their employees like "serfs" for a number of reasons: 1) Codified federal law would prohibit such treatment 2) It's the 21st century and corporate management is better developed than the days of yore, it's a generally accepted law of business management now that having a happy, motivated workforce with a strong sense of internal and external equity results in a more productive workforce and a healthier bottom-line.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 9): Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 6):
Alabama's a "right to work" state - no union representation. I wonder how the wages for the Alabama employees of Airbus will compare to their European colleagues.
I looked up that term on wikipedia, and it seems to me it doesn't mean no union, but no mandatory union. Which is exactly the same situation as in France.
Being "Right to Work" is definitely an advantage, but the greater advantage for an Airbus factory in Alabama will be the lower overall cost of labor. Employee compensation will be lower because the cost-of-living is lower, not as many government-mandated benefits, labor flexibility ("employment at will" philosophy here in the US would permit Airbus to fire or lay-off less productive employees more easily while hiring or retaining better skilled or better productive ones), and higher worker productivity because of the longer work week in the US.
This is a win-win for both Airbus and Alabama, congrats to them both!
gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 20617 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 10): Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 6):
Alabama's a "right to work" state - no union representation. I wonder how the wages for the Alabama employees of Airbus will compare to their European colleagues.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 9):
I looked up that term on wikipedia, and it seems to me it doesn't mean no union, but no mandatory union. Which is exactly the same situation as in France.
That is correct.
Some folks might be surprised that when Boeing bought the Charleston plant, the workforce there was part of the IAM, just like the workers in Everett and Renton. The workforce subsequently chose to decertify the union, but Boeing can't work them like serfs lest the IAM successfully re-unionize the shop.
Quoting sccutler (Reply 12): Just because Alabama is a Right to Work state does not mean that Airbus' plant will be and remain non-union. It simply means that no workers can be compelled to join a union.
I too was puzzled by this term "right to work". From the above, does that mean in "non right to work" states one can be MADE to join a union to get/keep a job?
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 20540 times:
Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 18): It is a common worldwide problem that banking thus financing is under strain.
In setting up the Exim Bank and its Europe counterpart both sides agreed not to finance a/c from carriers from each others turf, hence DL throwing a hissy fit about competition on routes from Middle East carriers who used EXIM financing to purchase new a/c. DL and other US carriers had no problem when the bank was set up, probably too busy looking near term and not down the road, now the horse has left the barn, they have since moved on to oil refinaries.
The WTO issues I guess may be date limited, but some rulings did render anti-competive some actions / incentives by states.
Interesting times.
flyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1618 posts, RR: 9 Reply 22, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 20540 times:
Quoting gemuser (Reply 20): I too was puzzled by this term "right to work". From the above, does that mean in "non right to work" states one can be MADE to join a union to get/keep a job?
It's a type of legislation that a number of state governments have passed. Essentially in states that don't have this legislation, if 60% of employees vote in a union, it means 100% of the employees have to join the union basically forcing the 40% that voted against the union join one against their will. However, in states with "Right-to-work" legislation, basically only those employees that want to join the union can join the union and those that don't aren't forced to join one...hope that helps, it's of course a bit more nuanced but I think I explained the gist of it.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 23, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 20445 times:
Quoting gemuser (Reply 20): I too was puzzled by this term "right to work". From the above, does that mean in "non right to work" states one can be MADE to join a union to get/keep a job?
National Labor Relations Act and the Taft–Hartley Act make it illegal for a union to require employees be union members to work (a "closed shop" or "union shop"). So you are not required to join the union, but you are required to pay union dues.
When I was in high school, I did a summer working in retail for a drug store chain and a portion of my paycheck went to cover the dues of being a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union whether or not I actually chose to become a member of the union.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 24, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 20406 times:
Quoting jayhup (Reply 13): Interesting however is the lack of "protest" from the White House over Airbus coming to a right to work state. Seems that they weren't so accommodating to Boeing when they first tried to open up in South Carolina.
Interesting observation and a seeming double standard from the Administration. But it should be a win-win for all concerned as Airbus gets a lower labor cost U.S. manufacturing base, Alabama gets some much needed jobs and Boeing really loses nothing of consequence, at least in the short term. Well, maybe the Administration loses a bit on credibility.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 25, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 21065 times:
I do not believe the National Labor Relations Board can just target an employer on their own volition. The International Association of Machinists brought a complaint before the Board and the Board then agreed to file a complaint on behalf of the IAM. Once the IAM agreed to a new contract with Boeing, they withdrew their complaint with the NLRB and that forced the NLRB to withdraw their complaint with Boeing.
As this is the first Airbus facility in the United States, I would expect the IAM would have no grounds to file a complaint and therefore the NLRB would have no complaint to file against Airbus.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 26, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 21073 times:
From the pictures I've seen this is strictly a Final Assembly operations, so everything will have to be flown in (Fuselage, wings, empennage, etc) . So how profitable will this really be?
Second, I think some pundits are correct in thinking this is a way to advance military sales (A400M) bidding legitimacy
Asiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1019 posts, RR: 1 Reply 27, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 21360 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 26): From the pictures I've seen this is strictly a Final Assembly operations, so everything will have to be flown in (Fuselage, wings, empennage, etc) . So how profitable will this really be?
Well, we see Boeing flying in 787 fuselages with the special built 747, so its not a new strategy.
As a fair bit of supplies also comes from North American suppliers, it would mean that a few things has not to be transported over to Europe.
Jerseyguy From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1108 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 21281 times:
Stitch: required to pay the dues but not required to join. As far as I'm concerned it's really like being forced to join. Why would you pay the dues and not get anything our of it.
Good for Airbus for creating jobs in a right to work state.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, RR: 96 Reply 30, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 20826 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 26): From the pictures I've seen this is strictly a Final Assembly operations, so everything will have to be flown in (Fuselage, wings, empennage, etc) . So how profitable will this really be?
About the same as the 787 was originally meant to be, perhaps......
flyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 20689 times:
Just out of interest, does anyone have a nice picture or a description where the A320 parts do come from? I'd assume some of the parts are anyway manufactured in US so you save in the shipping and some parts you need to ship further than with the European FALs. But anyway, they have a FAL in China already, so I don't think this is anything new...
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4787 posts, RR: 9 Reply 32, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 20219 times:
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 19): Being "Right to Work" is definitely an advantage, but the greater advantage for an Airbus factory in Alabama will be the lower overall cost of labor. Employee compensation will be lower because the cost-of-living is lower, not as many government-mandated benefits, labor flexibility ("employment at will" philosophy here in the US would permit Airbus to fire or lay-off less productive employees more easily while hiring or retaining better skilled or better productive ones), and higher worker productivity because of the longer work week in the US.
Cost of living is lower than what ? As I said in the other thread, it's not a comparison between Alabama and another US state. With the Eurodollar always evolving, a USD salary can be lower than an Euro salary one day, higher the next. Government-mandated benefits are taxes on the salary, here, it just means you get a smaller paycheck. Labor flexibility is certainly an advantage, as for productivity, we work less hours but do as much work.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
DrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, RR: 1 Reply 33, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 19750 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 32): Cost of living is lower than what ?
That's the interesting part from an economics/business school perspective.
If there was a pure low wages vs. high wages argument, then Airbus and Boeing should build their plant in Rwanda. However, on the converse of that why build a plant in the US when the wages are much higher than other countries?
It is about inherent local capability in the workforce for the task required; in short, Airbus needs cheap but literate workers able to learn complex tasks, who are located in an area with ample infrastructure that will not be interrupted for arbitrary reasons. Alabama fulfils that criteria, along with local laws that prevent unionism and encourage foreign direct investment (FDI). Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes and Toyota have already set up there and ThyssenKrupp is building a steel plant in the state, too. The same logic applied to China in the 1980s, there was reliable infrastructure and ample literacy so workers could learn and look where that got them!
Believe me, if Airbus/Boeing just went for an area with the cheapest labour costs, they would spend a lot more building up capability and infrastructure than they would investing in a mature economy like that in Alabama or similar states in the US.
So, it makes perfect sense for Airbus to reduce costs, guarantee a certain quality of product and gain direct access to the NAFTA market.
However, the real competitive question is the C919 and the Irkut MS-21, will then encroach and takeover the market dominated by the 737 and the A320? I doubt it and have reservations about both projects, but as Arthur C. Clarke once stated, when an established professor states that something is unlikely or impossible, he is usually wrong and so please ignore me on that!
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2248 posts, RR: 1 Reply 35, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 19733 times:
Quoting KFlyer (Reply 11): I think the challenge to Boeing is that Airbus now have the advantage of multiple facilities worldwide. Which includes...
1. Airbus would be able to achieve equal or lower labor costs for its US facility
2. Better delivery slots paving way for more sales
3. Ease of purchase - from finance, tax to paperwork - for US based carriers, in Boeing's own home turf
4. Better sales presence in US and Canada
5. Inability on Boeing's front to develop an EU plant, due to its own unattractiveness
Airbus will gain huge flexibility by being able to spread currency risk, balance delivery rates between several sites, have a presence on three continents... this also adds flexibility for the NEO ramp-up, and Airbus could create more aailable slots to lure airlines away from the MAX.
Quoting kanban (Reply 26): this is strictly a Final Assembly operations, so everything will have to be flown in (Fuselage, wings, empennage, etc) .
No, it will be shipped in, similarly to what they are doing in TSN. FAL-installed equipment coming from US suppliers could be brought by rail directly from within the US. BFM is adjacent to Mobile's container port and 3 class I railways alllowing intermodal rail/ship transport. On the way back, ships could take US equipment to the EU FALs. The choice of BFM is not a random one; there is some pretty good infrastructure set up there. It seems Airbus always had in mind to build a FAL there, and after it didn't work out with the tanker, they're going for A320's.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, RR: 2 Reply 36, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 19510 times:
This 40-50 per year is far aways from the speculated 20 per months, but it will help Airbus to have more free slots for the NEO once it is in in production. It could do the AA order from 2017-2020, so it will help to sell more aircraft, reduce risk, create nice jobs in Alabama, create jobs in Europe for the parts - good on all sides for Alabama, for Airbus, for Europe, for the US - and 40-50 frames per year are not really bad for Boeing.
InsideMan From Vatican City, joined Aug 2011, 193 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 19123 times:
The Tianjin FAL was started with the objective of 4/month max capacity and is supposed to delivery exclusively to chinese customers. Since it is an exact replica of the Hamburg flow line FAL capacity could easily be increased, provided the trained workforce is available.
I presume the same will happen in BFM. Capacity of 4/month for US customers only. However this is the foot in the door if you will. If by any means this leads to more US orders, either facilitated through ease of financing or other reasons, a few years from now the capacity could easily be increased.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3591 posts, RR: 36 Reply 38, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 19052 times:
Quoting InsideMan (Reply 37): The Tianjin FAL was started with the objective of 4/month max capacity and is supposed to delivery exclusively to chinese customers. Since it is an exact replica of the Hamburg flow line FAL capacity could easily be increased, provided the trained workforce is available.
I too think that this FAL will start with conservative numbers, but in a couple more years it will be ready to have the production increased to the levels required if the market remains as strong for the narrow-bodies of Airbus (and Boeing for that matter) as they are today.
ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 39, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18701 times:
Quoting jayhup (Reply 13): Interesting however is the lack of "protest" from the White House over Airbus coming to a right to work state. Seems that they weren't so accommodating to Boeing when they first tried to open up in South Carolina.
Might it be that the White House is gratified to see a company from another country create jobs here while so many American companies are moving their operations overseas or south? This is going to be very good for Alabama. More and more, industry is moving to the south and southeast. More jobs here means better life styles for southerners, or so I hope.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 40, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18664 times:
Quoting Jerseyguy (Reply 28): Why would you pay the dues and not get anything our of it.
Most employers give all workers the same benefits whether union or not, much simpler than having multiple sets of benefits, hence the mantra of the law that since you benefit you should pay.
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 34): Newspapers here reported that opening an Airbus plant in Boeing's backyard is a prequel to a A-B merger
Not such a fantasy, it has taken a couple decades but foreign vehicles assembled in the USA have driven the USA car companies into Chpt.11 so not a far fetched idea.
It could be regarded as fear mongering, but look around at the landscape and you can see where it is possible.
caljn From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 173 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 17775 times:
Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 6): Alabama's a "right to work" state - no union representation. I wonder how the wages for the Alabama employees of Airbus will compare to their European colleagues.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3171 posts, RR: 1 Reply 42, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 17616 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 8): Honestly, how is this a challenge? I highly doubt the current status quo won't change. UA will have the A350 sure, but they still have a lot of Boeing aircraft. DL isn't going to buy anymore either. They're still primary Boeing customers, and I think that Airbus is just saying that it's "challenging" Boeing, when in my honest opinion, it's just for convenience with US Airways and American Airline's orders.
What has this got to do with the A320 factory in Alabama, I think you have posted to the wrong thread.
InsideMan From Vatican City, joined Aug 2011, 193 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 17585 times:
in Europe, you can't force somebody to join a union, nor to pay the union dues.
However, the employer has to treat all employees the same, union or not.
Interestingly only about 70% of workers as far as I know pay union dues, yet nobody
complains about a "free rider problem"....
The idea to force someone to pay union dues is absurd to me!
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 44, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 17393 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 42): What has this got to do with the A320 factory in Alabama, I think you have posted to the wrong thread.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 8): Quoting moderators (Thread starter):
Airbus SAS plans to assemble single- aisle aircraft in the U.S. for the first time, encroaching on Boeing Co. (BA)’s home market to tap demand from North American airlines seeking to renew their fleets.
Honestly, how is this a challenge?
Poster was questioning how Airbus encroaching on Boeing home turf by opening a FAL in Alabama posed a challenge.
Seems appropriate and in the right thread.
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 45, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 17200 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 26): From the pictures I've seen this is strictly a Final Assembly operations, so everything will have to be flown in (Fuselage, wings, empennage, etc) . So how profitable will this really be?
Quoting moo (Reply 29): It will be shipped in, they are using China as the blueprint for this FAL.
It will most likely be shipped in. That is the major reason for choosing Mobile, Alabama, in my opinion. The airport is right on the coast, which means a quick access to the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean.
Thenoflyzone
[Edited 2012-07-03 05:49:07]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 502 posts, RR: 3 Reply 46, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 17176 times:
I expect the following development.
Mobiles first 4 Planes/ months are for sure subject for increase if the assembly plant is constructed to be modular extend and if it is requested.
For increasing the Dollar content, I also believe that Airbus might be followed by Airbus suppliers which may open own facilities as well. Same happened when the Toyota, Nissan and others came to manufacture in the US. They partly brought their own suppliers (DENSO etc.) and didn't rely on e..g Delphi only.
So more to come along with that plant I believe. 4 Planes per month is just a starter.
Could be followed by A330s ('remaining production' in some years), M400s etc.
One of the biggest advantages for Airbus and in general European companies is probably that they rather think strategically and more long term and don't get quickly de-railed by just a single or a few weaker quarterly results.
So once now that they decided, they will keep track on straight roads and do not curve much.
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11360 posts, RR: 50 Reply 47, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 17196 times:
Quoting ghifty (Reply 4): I don't see why the Bloomberg article must cite this as a "challenge" to Boeing
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 8): Honestly, how is this a challenge?
The thing is, there's a far bigger game in play than just building a handful of A320s every month. You only have to look at Boeing's comments on the subject to get a feel for their opinion. They are not happy.
Quoting InsideMan (Reply 37): The Tianjin FAL was started with the objective of 4/month max capacity and is supposed to delivery exclusively to chinese customers.
While initial production was intended 100% for Chinese customers, it was always expected to build planes for non-Chinese customers at Tanjin. Indeed, the first A320 for a non-Chinese customer (Air Asia) will be delivered this year. Foreign deliveries were not originally expected before 2015. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2012-06/06/content_15476929.htm
trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 49, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16533 times:
Quoting LostSound (Reply 48): Telling your current customers that you will build their planes in their home country sounds like good customer service to me.
I seriously doubt any major airline cares where the plane is built as long as it performs as promised and they get the support they need. If airlines will fly their planes half way around the world for maintenance they will be happy to take delivery wherever the price is right.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7441 posts, RR: 2 Reply 50, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16451 times:
Great stuff. I love how people in the union North spout off jealously, trying to disparage the South's growing expertise and financial success in manufacturing. They can't hide the fundamental bankruptcy of their own ideas. But that's only my opinion.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 51, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16227 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 26): From the pictures I've seen this is strictly a Final Assembly operations, so everything will have to be flown in (Fuselage, wings, empennage, etc) . So how profitable will this really be?
Airbus flies / ships / trucks everything into the A320 FALs at TLS, XFW and TJN so MOB is just following the same process.
Quoting InsideMan (Reply 37): The Tianjin FAL was started with the objective of 4/month max capacity and is supposed to delivery exclusively to chinese customers...I presume the same will happen in BFM. Capacity of 4/month for US customers only...
The Mobile plant will be online just about the time American Airlines, JetBlue and Virgin America all start to receive their first A320neos....
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2065 posts, RR: 6 Reply 52, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 16179 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 8): Quoting moderators (Thread starter):
Airbus SAS plans to assemble single- aisle aircraft in the U.S. for the first time, encroaching on Boeing Co. (BA)’s home market to tap demand from North American airlines seeking to renew their fleets.
Honestly, how is this a challenge?
Don't be too lulled in false security. Of course this is great for the U.S. and Mobile, but it will also be great for Airbus.
Google translates like that:
The assembly plant in Mobile, the first Airbus in the United States, should allow Airbus to win "more than a few points" of market share on Boeing, John Leahy said in an interview telephone.
This claim is as remarkable as the first public claim, that the NEO-production-rate will be 50/month (from the same article).
What would be the physical limit of the current 737 production chain? The most important metric regarding market share is production rate (because it defines deliveries). I can see the NEO gain a lead now.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 53, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 16126 times:
I bet you the folks who run STA Mobile are going to start sweeting bullets when Airbus starts hiring people. It's a no brainer on who you would want to work for, an MRO or Airbus. Duh!
TVNWZ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 2200 posts, RR: 1 Reply 54, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 16047 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 50): Great stuff. I love how people in the union North spout off jealously, trying to disparage the South's growing expertise and financial success in manufacturing
It may also help get Alabama less dependent on the federal dole since the state gets about $2.70 worth of federal help for every tax dollar paid, one of the highest rates in the country.
odwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 641 posts, RR: 3 Reply 55, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 16064 times:
200 extra highly efficient Airbus A320neos produced before 2018 in the US. Can you imagine the lost sales opportunities if Boeing simply stayed the course with the 737NG and waited until 2020 for NSA?
I also found the comments about proximity to Bombardier and Embraer facilities and the possibility for partnerships on the eventual Airbus narrowbody replacement to be interesting.
strfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 488 posts, RR: 0 Reply 57, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 15565 times:
was it REALY the administration OR Was it the I.A.M. and Robert Buffenbarger ?? I think you might have read too much into that. Airbus will be a plus for Alabama and with Lockheed having an electrical wiring plant right next door in Meridian Mississippi Airbus can source More and More material from the USA and Skills closer by than anywhere else. The talent in the Southeast is tremendous. Alabama, Auburn, Georgia Tech, Georgia, Miss State, Ole Miss Tennesse. Florida. that Alabama plant could eventually outstrip any EADS facility IN Europe. the same way Boeing accesses talent from the west Coast. and Now from the Mideastern states. Airbus KNEW what they were doing. Americans KNOW how to get it Done!
The local laws don't prevent unionism, one can still join a union and pay union dues if one desires, however it makes it harder for union organizations to unionize the ENTIRE workforce.
diverdave From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 230 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 14798 times:
Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 6): Alabama's a "right to work" state - no union representation. I wonder how the wages for the Alabama employees of Airbus will compare to their European colleagues.
Actually, Alabama does have the highest rate of unionized employees in the southeastern U.S., though in absolute terms it is still rather low:
No, the Mobile plant will not attract many sales because it is simply placed in the US.
However, current and future US airlines will appreciate the ease of acquiring their A320s without the fuss it takes to accept an aircraft internationally. That is good customer service.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7441 posts, RR: 2 Reply 63, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 14503 times:
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 60): The local laws don't prevent unionism, one can still join a union and pay union dues if one desires, however it makes it harder for union organizations to unionize the ENTIRE workforce.
Absolutely, people's right to join a union is not encumbered in any way AFAIK in Alabama. They can even go on strike. No law against it.
It just isn't a closed shop. Workers can come into work, or not come in. They can pay dues or not pay dues. People accuse RTW logic of some kind of corporate tyranny? Isn't the tyranny actually on the side without individual choice?
GentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2069 posts, RR: 2 Reply 65, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12850 times:
Apparently Mobile was selected at least in part because of its deep water port. I guess Airbus plans on using waterways transportation both domestic and across the pond.
Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
glideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1542 posts, RR: 0 Reply 66, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12768 times:
Another sign of high tech manufacturing starting to come back to the US. It's no threat to Boeing. Good paying jobs building aircraft consisting of many parts already manufactured in the US.
I'm interested in the reaction from the French Unions. Maybe a trend starting? Airbus going off continent for production?
Going to be fun to watch.
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved"
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8418 posts, RR: 13 Reply 67, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12517 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 9): I looked up that term on wikipedia, and it seems to me it doesn't mean no union, but no mandatory union. Which is exactly the same situation as in France.
Correct, but the big difference between Alabama and France is the tradition of union membership--in the private sector it's much weaker here in Alabama.
Quoting ThereandBack (Reply 14): My only concern is how well the new facility will handle hurricanes and tornadoes in the area. If I were Airbus and selecting a site to build aircraft I would have went for an area less natural hazard prone.
Tornadoes (for whatever reason) aren't much of a problem in Mobile (they seem to hit the middle and northern parts of the state much more often) but hurricanes are a definite concern.
BoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 312 posts, RR: 33 Reply 68, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11464 times:
I think it's great for Alabama and for Airbus. Alabama is a beautiful place and, in my opinion, somewhat underrated. Though my Pacific Northwest self could never handle their weather on a regular basis...
Interesting that we'll have sizeable operations by both Airbus and Boeing in the same state.
InsideMan From Vatican City, joined Aug 2011, 193 posts, RR: 0 Reply 69, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 11346 times:
Quoting glideslope (Reply 66): I'm interested in the reaction from the French Unions. Maybe a trend starting? Airbus going off continent for production?
why is everybody talking about France and the French unions?
Germany has a lot more to lose, as it is already the biggest manufacturer of the A320 family today and has contracts in place that secure Germany the sole production for the next narrowbody family. I don't know if the FAL is specifically included, but if anyone should be worried it's German unions....
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 70, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 11306 times:
Quoting InsideMan (Reply 69): Germany has a lot more to lose, as it is already the biggest manufacturer of the A320 family today and has contracts in place that secure Germany the sole production for the next narrowbody family.
Do you happen to have a link to that?
I know Power 8 capped TLS production at 14 a month and gave XFW a third A320 FAL (that went live in 2011) in exchange for allowing TLS to perform both assembly and outfitting of the A350 (instead of splitting it between the two sites as with the A380). But I was not aware that NSR was going to be built exclusively in XFW.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 72, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11092 times:
Quoting Mcoov (Reply 71): How many people think this may also allow Airbus to sell A320s to the U.S. Air Force?
I imagine Airbus is allowed to sell A320s built in TLS or XFW to the USAF.
Asiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1019 posts, RR: 1 Reply 73, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10876 times:
Quoting InsideMan (Reply 69): why is everybody talking about France and the French unions?
Germany has a lot more to lose, as it is already the biggest manufacturer of the A320 family today and has contracts in place that secure Germany the sole production for the next narrowbody family. I don't know if the FAL is specifically included, but if anyone should be worried it's German unions....
German production is generally more competitive than the French in the global market place, but Im not sure how Airbus own plants compare to each other. I could die to see those numbers.
It is a dangerous development when unions try to secure jobs via binding contract rather than making sure they stay compatitive from cost- and productivity point of view. Sooner or later the reality hits them, and if they do not adopt when needed they will hit the ground even harder.
No doubt Airbus is doing the right thing here, by spreading their risks with multiple FALs in Europe, North America and Asia.
rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2851 posts, RR: 7 Reply 75, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10461 times:
I haven't seen it asked, has or will Boeing consider setting up their own manufacturing (rather than contractors') facility in China, or Europe, or Latin America, for the same reasons Airbus wants to establish facilities in Mobile?
Quoting LostSound (Reply 62): However, current and future US airlines will appreciate the ease of acquiring their A320s without the fuss it takes to accept an aircraft internationally. That is good customer service.
I'm not terribly famililar with the situation, but my understanding is that some states or municipalities involve a tax on receiving foreign goods. In the case of Frontier airlines, they receive their Airbus aircraft elsewhere than Denver, in order to avoid a municipal tax on received goods. In this case, I think -- think -- it pertains only to foreign manufactured goods. Directly manufacturing the product in the US would avoid that? Am I correct? If so, is it unique to Frontier (being a small airline limited to one HQ hub, not so much a problem with other Airbus customer such as UA, with multiple hubs, or VX, headquartered without such a tax?)
rotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 76, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10260 times:
What I find confusing is Airbus slamming the brakes on increasing the flow of A320 in Toulouse but now opening the Mobile line.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3591 posts, RR: 36 Reply 77, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 10128 times:
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 76):
What I find confusing is Airbus slamming the brakes on increasing the flow of A320 in Toulouse but now opening the Mobile line.
In TLS and XFW there is not much room to significantly increase the production. So as well as a strategic move, this expansion in production capacity is necessary for Airbus. By selecting an FAL in Mobile, AL, they get the best of both worlds. .
And Alabama is a very nice state which I have visited a couple of times. .
DrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, RR: 1 Reply 78, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 10090 times:
Quoting InsideMan (Reply 69): ermany has a lot more to lose, as it is already the biggest manufacturer of the A320 family today and has contracts in place that secure Germany the sole production for the next narrowbody family. I don't know if the FAL is specifically included, but if anyone should be worried it's German unions....
Very true and the unions in Germany are very, very strong. This move will strike right at the heart of their influence at Airbus, good thing too in my view.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 79, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9978 times:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 78): This move will strike right at the heart of their influence at Airbus, good thing too in my view.
At a time when the EU is looking at Germany to underwrite a lot of the financial burden presently being experienced in the EU?
Quoting rampart (Reply 75): In the case of Frontier airlines, they receive their Airbus aircraft elsewhere than Denver, in order to avoid a municipal tax on received goods. In this case, I think -- think -- it pertains only to foreign manufactured goods. Directly manufacturing the product in the US would avoid that? Am I correct?
A good question and I do not know if you are right or wrong, but in the long run it makes no difference. Politicians need taxes, if they are loosing taxes because the foreign a/c assembled in the USA is regarded as directly manufactured they will find a way to get around that. Taxing and a/c as a product is simple, things break and must be changed on a periodic basis, more money is made from spare parts over its life than the actual sale price, so a shift in taxation can be expected.
The States and the Feds are presently in a big battle about Sales Taxes on products heading out of state so it not new.
MillwallSean From Brunei, joined Apr 2008, 1115 posts, RR: 5 Reply 80, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9914 times:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 78):
Very true and the unions in Germany are very, very strong. This move will strike right at the heart of their influence at Airbus, good thing too in my view.
It wont. the unions are not against new plants outside Europe. they are happy with that if it benefits the company. And with so many employee representatives (union reps) on the companies boards decisions are well anchored with the unions before they are announced.
Those of you reading in union issues in this decision is turning a normal expansion into a political issue/agenda that frankly doesn't exist.
German unions haven't stopped German car makers setting up factories across the world have they?
To the contrary, what German unions would have protested against and caused a right stir about would have been a move to say Poland.
Broadening the geographical footprint is natural in a globalised world. Setting up a competing factory in Europe isn't. I hear sometimes ago that Airbus were seriously looking at another small factory in Asia/Middle East. probably wont happen now but they sure had government contacts about it with a few countries.
In this thread i have learnt that Europe is "right to work" following US terms. Hilarious.
Unions are involved a lot earlier in decision in Europe. Also the Anglican corporate culture differs. managers are much less absolute in Europe. The board and management is usually much more the same in English speaking countries as well. Many differences.
The country I see loosing out sooner or later will be my own UK. No equity, no real support of EADS and two sites that sooner or later will be one.
DrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, RR: 1 Reply 81, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9859 times:
Well, I think it will, particularly in the current economic climate.
Germany manufacturing unions have kept wage increases at an artificial low for the past 11 or so years, this is seen in reduced consumption patterns amongst the German population that is causing some angst, but is also one fo the fundamental reasons for the current valuations issues of the Euro; it is undervalued for German, which combined with the low wage growth has given the economy an unjustified boost and way overvalued for Greece or Ireland, which have had their competitive advantages eroded. Indeed, if this was the year 2000 and I wanted to build a plant in a competitive country with an educated workforce, reasonable wages and a history of manufacturing I would have chose....Greece! Yep, you read that correctly, Greece had very good productivity in manufacturing a decade ago and has had it eroded by the utterly false climate of the past 12 years.
The German economic model for manufacturing is flawed, very flawed and no matter what happens with the Euro it is currently producing very short to medium economic gains that are eroding the countries potential.
You mentioned the decisions in Germany to locate manufacturing locally, well that is not always goo; Porsche outsourced much of its production to a company in Finland (Valmet Automotive, whose aerospace division, Patria, made F-18s for the Finnish Air Force in the 1990s) and since the merger with Volkswagen those contracts have been disolved and the production relocation to a more expensive factory in Wartburg. These decisions, writ large and combined with a growing reduction in German wages will hurt the economy.
It is easy to blame an 'Anglo-Saxon' model versus a 'continental' model of business, but frankly the latter only appears to work with overt and in most cases covert subsidies and that is really damaging to the economy in the long term. Indeed, if you should at the Japanese model for an interesting way of combining unions and employers in a company, the local competitive environment - much more cut-throat than stereotype suggest - means that every works hard to make a buck in the company, labour included.
In short, the Alabama plant is not only a smart idea, I suspect that it might just be a foretaste of the long term planning of EADS.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3591 posts, RR: 36 Reply 82, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9827 times:
I think all this union talk is way off-topic. But to clarify some things:
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 80): German unions haven't stopped German car makers setting up factories across the world have they?
No, they have not. And that is a good thing imho.
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 80): To the contrary, what German unions would have protested against and caused a right stir about would have been a move to say Poland.
Not true. See the large plants VW has in Slovakia and Hungary for that matter. .
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 80): Broadening the geographical footprint is natural in a globalised world.
That I agree with.
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 80): Setting up a competing factory in Europe isn't.
Not true, see the examples I have given. And BMW is looking for production capacity in the Netherlands now. Another example that a competing plant in Europe is no problem for the unions.
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 81): The German economic model for manufacturing is flawed, very flawed and no matter what happens with the Euro it is currently producing very short to medium economic gains that are eroding the countries potential.
You could not be more wrong with this statement. The German model is not perfect, but it is by far the best Europe has to offer. They know their weaknesses, and they are working quite hard to take these out of the equation. .
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 81): In short, the Alabama plant is not only a smart idea, I suspect that it might just be a foretaste of the long term planning of EADS.
As I understand it it was always a wish and a part of the EADS/Airbus strategy to set-up an FAL in the USA.
imiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 84, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9763 times:
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 80): The country I see loosing out sooner or later will be my own UK. No equity, no real support of EADS and two sites that sooner or later will be one.
I suggest you read up on the amount of RLI the UK exchequer pumps into Airbus and GKN. Broughton and Filton are not going anywhere. Besides, there just isn't enough space to combine the two sites into one.
DrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, RR: 1 Reply 85, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9655 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 82): You could not be more wrong with this statement. The German model is not perfect, but it is by far the best Europe has to offer. They know their weaknesses, and they are working quite hard to take these out of the equation. .
I couldn't be less of a professor in the economics of manufacturing, either.
The model built up disequilibrium in the 1980s that led to a lost decade from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s and has only been reinvigorated by a very one sided set of factors that only put off the inevitable demise of such a system a decade at the most. America will still be manufacturing goods of some kind long after the middle-way model has gone the way of the UK in the 1970s, unless the German economy undergo a radical transformation into a more varied and flexible system that delivers prosperity to the populace, it will inevitably fall by the wayside.
Airbus had a very peculiar and statist creation and produce little but A300 whitetails for many years, many of which were picked up on the cheap by PAN AM in the early 1980s. It was the focus on exactly what the market wanted, rather than relying on the 'flag carriers' that created its major break with the A320 as well as evolving a series of aircraft such as the A330 that focussed on economy and ease of use.
However, a company can only go so far with this without changing production methods, introducing outsourcing and changing assembly location and this is the big challenge for Airbus. Boeing has done wonders with this, building parts here and there and assembling in Seattle and now Charlotte and then moving its corporate headquarters from Seattle to Chicago and building large overseas interests.
Smart. EADS is also smart and I expect to see Alabama become a successful assembly base but also, the components being made somewhere else than Germany, France or the UK. After all, if the wings, fuselage and other such items can be made cheaper in Brazil or Japan, why keep making 'em in Europe?
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2248 posts, RR: 1 Reply 86, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9584 times:
Quoting InsideMan (Reply 69): why is everybody talking about France and the French unions?
Germany has a lot more to lose, as it is already the biggest manufacturer of the A320 family today and has contracts in place that secure Germany the sole production for the next narrowbody family.
Well, because many - not just on a.net, but particularly in Washington - still see Airbus as a "French" company. That is surely another thing that Airbus is trying to counter with FALabama. But indeed, if anyone is to be worried, it is XFW, as long-term they were supposed to be the sole single-aisle assembly facility.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
Do you happen to have a link to that? I was not aware that NSR was going to be built exclusively in XFW.
I have no link or official Airbus release but it was much reported in the press back then that the long-term decision was to have all A350 concentrated in TLS and all A320replacement concentrated in XFW.
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 80): The country I see loosing out sooner or later will be my own UK. No equity, no real support of EADS and two sites that sooner or later will be one.
UK still has very strong competence in wing & composites manufacturing. You guys need to hold on to that as much as possible, because indeed, lacking any political/shareholding power in EADS, it's the only thing you've got.
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 76): What I find confusing is Airbus slamming the brakes on increasing the flow of A320 in Toulouse but now opening the Mobile line.
Copying from the previous thread:
With existing FALs, XFW does 22-23 per month, 24-25 should still be possible, TLS is capped at 14 but could do 17, and TSN currently does 3 but was designed for up to 4. So you should be able to get around 46 per month with the current setup (assuming the supply chain can take it!).
So if they want to go up to rate 50, they need to a) physically expand (not just ramp-up) existing FALs or b) build an all-new FAL. Airbus chose b). And 46 at current FALs + 4 in BFM gives you exactly that number.
imiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 87, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9489 times:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 85):
However, a company can only go so far with this without changing production methods, introducing outsourcing and changing assembly location and this is the big challenge for Airbus. Boeing has done wonders with this, building parts here and there and assembling in Seattle and now Charlotte and then moving its corporate headquarters from Seattle to Chicago and building large overseas interests.
And yet many have argued, including current and former Boeing employees, that it was this very model of out-sourcing whilst holding on to all the risk that hit the 787 development so dearly. Many of the subcontractors had to be, effectively, bailed out and ultimately micro-managed by Boeing engineering teams.
If you nip over to the A350XWB production threads, you'll see Airbus has pretty much eaten up all the padding in the development schedule due to similar component manufacturing issues as Boeing.
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 85):
Smart. EADS is also smart and I expect to see Alabama become a successful assembly base but also, the components being made somewhere else than Germany, France or the UK. After all, if the wings, fuselage and other such items can be made cheaper in Brazil or Japan, why keep making 'em in Europe?
Why don't you ask Toyota how their last outsourcing exercise fared after subcontracted pedals manufactured in Canada caused the highest number of vehicle recalls in it's history?
The more production Airbus and Boeing keep under their own roofs, the better!
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, RR: 0 Reply 88, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9412 times:
Outsourcing as the holy grail is getting a bit tarnished lately. I can recall many IT projects that failed in India, different cultures, different people. Western people are used to a relaxed work environment with less rank, asians are used to management taking all decisions. I know many frustrated team leaders that had to go and work with stuff they would not have had to do back in west. Too much dependence on rank stifle development, team members turn into robots waiting for programming and input.
dazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 576 posts, RR: 3 Reply 89, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9374 times:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 81): You mentioned the decisions in Germany to locate manufacturing locally, well that is not always goo; Porsche outsourced much of its production to a company in Finland (Valmet Automotive, whose aerospace division, Patria, made F-18s for the Finnish Air Force in the 1990s) and since the merger with Volkswagen those contracts have been disolved and the production relocation to a more expensive factory in Wartburg. These decisions, writ large and combined with a growing reduction in German wages will hurt the economy.
The Porsche Boxster is still being built in Finland. Years before the VW merger, Porsche decided to add a new model to its line - the Cayenne. A new factory for the final assemlby has been built in Leipzig, Germany with a lot of metal work being done at the Volkswagen factory in Bratislava, Slovakia which has now been expanded to completely build the Panamera. So, neither has the finnish contract been disolved, nor has production moved back to Germany. On the contrary, capacity has been added outside of Germany which in turn helped to add a new final assembly in Germany. Exactly, what has been decribed above by others. And btw, wages in Eastern Germany are lower than in Finland.
Half knowledge at its best. No wonder the rest of your analysis is off, too.
KDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9305 times:
Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 6): Alabama's a "right to work" state - no union representation. I wonder how the wages for the Alabama employees of Airbus will compare to their European colleagues.
According to an article I read this week in the WSJ, the difference is 30%. That's pretty substantial if correct. It's also a good hedge against a union problem like the one's Boeing has experienced in the past, hence the Charleston line.
I also think that Airbus is making a play for the defense business with this move. It's a risk, as they will still be seen as "the other guys" in the minds od many in the US defense acquisition end of things. Living in the shadow of Wright-Patt Air Force Base, where many of our USAF aircraft development and acquisition programs are run (F15,16,22,35 Predator,B2 etc), I can tell you that this move is a $600 million risk.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 91, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9262 times:
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 76): What I find confusing is Airbus slamming the brakes on increasing the flow of A320 in Toulouse but now opening the Mobile line.
TLS was capped at 14 per month in exchange for being given the work to outfit the A350. A third assembly station was added at XFW, increasing production from 14 to 21 a month (moving to 24 a month by the end of the year) as compensation for not getting the A350 outfitting work.
TJN is moving from 3 to 4 a month, so Airbus will be at 42 by the end of the year: 14 from TLS, 24 from XFW and 4 from TJN. Airbus is considering moving to 44 (by pushing XFW to 26 a month), but anything more will need a new FAL.
With Airbus mumbling that continued long-term strong demand for the A320neo could see a production rate of upwards of 60, the MOB FAL looks like it is being built large enough to support three assembly stations to support upwards of 18-21 frames a month.
DrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, RR: 1 Reply 92, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9245 times:
Quoting dazeflight (Reply 89): Half knowledge at its best. No wonder the rest of your analysis is off, too.
How very (and unpleasantly) nationalistic and incorrect
I research on this subject, in German (well my version of it which I inherited from my mother, yiddish) and can tell you point blank that the decisions to invest by some major German manufacturers in either flawed because of the underlying economic conditions based upon artificially low wages or an undervalued Euro or from my very, very flawed views of the industrial landscape in Europe. Whilst some German companies are undertaking investment in Germany or its near hinterland, there is very, very little FDI in Europe at present because of the underlying structural problems. Please, do not repeat that oft said maxim repeated by Bild that Germany funds Europe through it's succes; it is a success based upon an artificial competitiveness through an undervalued Euro that has destroyed the competitiveness of other nations in the EU where ten years ago FDI by VW or EADS would have made a lot of sense, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain, what you might refer to as the PIGS, which is derogatory and unfair.
But lets turn this back to Alabama and Airbus, which on a personal level I love and I am a big Montgomery Biscuits baseball fan (the best minor league ground I know). The state has understood that it has a tradition of manufacturing that has been lost, but also comprehends that the taxpayer - unlike many core EU countries - will not directly subsidise the local industry as it understands this is in the long term a useless endeavour. Also, the government in Montgomery understands that for the older industries such as shipbuilding, there is little or no commercial market and eventually defence spending will be limited to a few yards out of state. Therefore, it needs to encourage some kind of direct investment that will bring in jobs to the state, generate revenue and provide a stable income. But Wait! There are these pesky nations such as Brazil, Russia, China and India where there are lower wages and a nice smart literate workforce, oj deary me. So it reduces union rights, cuts some taxes and then reaps the benefits of long term prosperity by bring in a major manufacturer like Airbus.
That is the future for Airbus and EADS, when the subsidies run out and the fiscal snowball hits the EU because of its inability to recognise the genuine reforms it needs and is prevented from doing so by German pressure (less so now Hollande is around - how will that affect Airbus?) EADS will have to make some quick and easy decisions and it will make them, it is not in business to provide enthusiasts like us something to chat about and pictures to look at, it is in business to generate revenue and profits!!!!!!!!!
DrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, RR: 1 Reply 93, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9230 times:
Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 87): The more production Airbus and Boeing keep under their own roofs, the better!
Wouldn't that lead to cost increases? Even with the snafus with the 787, a huge quantity of outsourcing still goes on. Indeed, look at Embraer and their production, a lot of the parts are made in the UK, US or other places (which is the model the C919 is copying) and they have a low cost base and infrastructure investment cost because of it.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, RR: 0 Reply 94, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9049 times:
Some have said it would be easier to lay off workers in Alabama than in France, sure that might be true, but it would also cause bad blood within America I am sure.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, RR: 96 Reply 95, posted (10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8996 times:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 85): However, a company can only go so far with this without changing production methods, introducing outsourcing and changing assembly location and this is the big challenge for Airbus. Boeing has done wonders with this, building parts here and there and assembling in Seattle and now Charlotte and then moving its corporate headquarters from Seattle to Chicago and building large overseas interests.
From my seat, Airbus have practiced a distributed assembly process with only really final assembly in toulouse (and later finkenwerder) from the outset, whereas Boeing has generally up until recently been playing "catch-up" in that respect, coming from a very traditional vertically integrated model based in Seattle.
I'll stand corrected.
As for overseas interests, one of these OEM's already has a final assembly line on a different continent.....
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 85): Airbus had a very peculiar and statist creation and produce little but A300 whitetails for many years, many of which were picked up on the cheap by PAN AM in the early 1980s.
No issue with the "statist" bit. But "did little but build A300 whitetails for many years?"
I must admit I've never quite heard it expressed like that before....
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 97, posted (10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8903 times:
Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 87): And yet many have argued, including current and former Boeing employees, that it was this very model of out-sourcing whilst holding on to all the risk that hit the 787 development so dearly. Many of the subcontractors had to be, effectively, bailed out and ultimately micro-managed by Boeing engineering teams.
So if some vendors are inept that means that the system is flawed or not viable???? what about the vendors who met their targets?
trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 98, posted (10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8870 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 97): So if some vendors are inept that means that the system is flawed or not viable???? what about the vendors who met their targets?
It means B should have done more homework on who they signed up and done more supervision initially. Airbus took the 70s and 80s to figure it all out. Given the 787 was B's first attempt at trying to bring together a number of suppliers who were also responsible for significant amounts of the development and not just a sub contractor they could have done worse but they should have done a lot better.
DrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, RR: 1 Reply 99, posted (10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8870 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 96): It does make you wonder, doesn't it, particularly since the A300 was the genesis of the twin-engined widebody?
Have you even read some of the literature on the early years of Airbus? Or, for that matter had a look at the production figures versus the deliveries in the mid to late 1970s? Try Matthew Lynn's Bird of Prey: The War Between Boeing and Airbus for starters (1995) and the move onto Victims of Hubris (hint) the decline and fall of Pan Am and Swissair by Simon Bennett (2002). Both have a lot to say on the early years of Airbus, back up by scholarly references, to boot.
Have a look at those before being so smug.
As for the genesis of the twin engine wide body, erm, well, yeah and so what? How many were sold? How many A300s were actually sold? 561 between 1974 and 2007. How many 767s were sold? Over 1023 from 1979 and thanks to the glorious military industry complex, it will keep going for quite a while.
Now as for the A330 evolution, that's a different matter.
The fact is for Airbus to survive way into the future, and I hope it does, it will have to adopt a completely commercial view and mentality that will take on not just Boeing, that evolves just fine and has a nice military industrial complex to help out but also the nascent industries developing in China and India.
It's about cashflow, money, revenue, profits, productivity and nothing else.
Alas, I fear the current Franco-German management creed can only see these in terms familiar with the mentality of the political classes of the Hapsburg Empire circa 1914!!!
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3130 posts, RR: 4 Reply 100, posted (10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8823 times:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 99): How many A300s were actually sold? 561 between 1974 and 2007
And that ignores that the A300-600 was a different plane than the other A300's using a new fuselage design developed on the A310 project. Quite an amazing difference between the A306 and its older brothers in performance, and that didn't happen with a wave of the hand and some paperwork.
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8357 posts, RR: 47 Reply 101, posted (10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8798 times:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 99): Alas, I fear the current Franco-German management creed can only see these in terms familiar with the mentality of the political classes of the Hapsburg Empire circa 1914!!!
Ah... I hadn't realised we were at the level of hissyfits. Sorry.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, RR: 96 Reply 103, posted (10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8814 times:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 99): As for the genesis of the twin engine wide body, erm, well, yeah and so what? How many were sold? How many A300s were actually sold? 561 between 1974 and 2007. How many 767s were sold? Over 1023 from 1979 and thanks to the glorious military industry complex, it will keep going for quite a while.
Just so I've got this straight.
Selling 880 copies (it is surely as reasonable to include the A310 in this as it it is to lump the 767-200, -300 and -400 family together) as a complete newcomer to the market with no track record and no global presence, against the 1000 767's produced in a longer period (as it is still in production) by the established incumbent, with as complete a track record and global presence as you would ever wish for is a "so what" failure?
I don't think so. Not by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever
Sorry.
The 1000 copy figure that is, and has been, as you say, supported by "the glorious military industry complex" - an advantage that the A300 never ever had the luxury of
I have to also say that doesn't feel to me that the maximum figure of 16 whitetails which was ever reached, really qualifies as "Airbus did little but build A300 whitetails for many years"......
Not that I could bring a figure to mind that does.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, RR: 96 Reply 104, posted (10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 8806 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 100): And that ignores that the A300-600 was a different plane than the other A300's using a new fuselage design developed on the A310 project. Quite an amazing difference between the A306 and its older brothers in performance, and that didn't happen with a wave of the hand and some paperwork.
And a 21st century 767-400 is a carbon copy of a 1980's 767-200?
Quoting astuteman (Reply 103): failure?
I don't think so. Not by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever
Sorry.
Dunno, what about profits and such like? We, the UK taxpayer and those residing within our European partners countries in Airbus subsidised each and every one of those aircraft.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, RR: 96 Reply 107, posted (10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8678 times:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 106): We, the UK taxpayer and those residing within our European partners countries in Airbus subsidised each and every one of those aircraft.
And my God have we reaped the benefits since then......
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3591 posts, RR: 36 Reply 108, posted (10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8655 times:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 106): Dunno, what about profits and such like? We, the UK taxpayer and those residing within our European partners countries in Airbus subsidised each and every one of those aircraft.
Is that a commercial success?
Since you are new here you must have missed the numerous threads on RLI. You would have known then that RLI is no subsidy. And certainly not in the way you present it to be. Airbus is a huge commercial success, also for the governments providing RLI (which every EU company can call upon, see Rolls-Royce Aircraft Engines) have gained a lot more money then they initially invested into the projects. The royalties are still paying off.
Remember that the RLI for the A320 was based on 400 copies or so of the A320. But they have build well over 5,000 copies of them and the production number is counting and counting upwards in high numbers. . So yes, it is a true commercial success in anybodies book. And it should also be that in your books imho.
Before you get too smug with yourself, you might want to reconsider another statement of yours:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 81): the production relocation to a more expensive factory in Wartburg
There is no such thing as a Porsche factory on the Wartburg, much less one that produces the Boxster. That happens in, shock! horror!, wealthy Stuttgart where the wages certainly aren't low.
Which provides a very handy example of qualified labour in Germany, and an expensive part of it, at that. That's much like Airbus, in fact, whose factory in Hamburg isn't exactly smack in the middle of low-wage country.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
DrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, RR: 1 Reply 111, posted (10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8636 times:
Can you do the maths on that EPA001?
Come on, back that assertion up with data: take the total sales revenue of Airbus since inception and subtract costs for the same period and see what figure you get. Then, add all forms of assistance over the same timeframe, regardless of what it is called and see what the figure is then.
The data is out there, it has been and the surprising part is 1) on the first equation, can you then state that Airbus have made a profit or a loss? 2) On the second, can the same claim be made?
For a commercial company, all that assistance would be paid off to the investor or face bankruptcy (even in the long run) and therefore it counts all the same. The question is this; was Airbus founded as a commercial company or was it just a big project born of the phalus envy Europe felt when compared to the US in the 1960s?
Seriously, you are promoting the economics of John Delorean and his car plant in the 1980s; it may have been cool, he may have made over 9000 in around 18 months, but it cost the British taxpayer £750 million and produced zero income.
I love flying Airbus and I applaud their commercial moves of the past half decade, but any advocacy of returning to old way of thinking is madness and will lead to the demise of European owned manufacturing that I fear will come about through inflexibility, ignorance and simple Eurocentric arrogance.
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 111): For a commercial company, all that assistance would be paid off to the investor or face bankruptcy
Since as you say the data is out there, you no doubt also know that Boeing enjoyed a much bigger financial benefit in real subsidies (as opposed to RLI) over the years. And that is without taking the direct Japanese subsidies to Boeing programmes into account. So Boeing is also not a successful commercial company in your opinion? Or is Rolls-Royce Engines also not a successful commercial company? I am just asking this so that we keep the discussion on the same page here. .
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8357 posts, RR: 47 Reply 113, posted (10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8612 times:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 111): The question is this; was Airbus founded as a commercial company or was it just a big project born of the phalus envy Europe felt when compared to the US in the 1960s?
You may call it penis envy, others refer to it as a project to reduce the dependence on American manufacturers. The adult world is commonly taken with the latter sort of point.
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 114, posted (10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8586 times:
So what does the component map look like... Fuselages built in Germany, wings in Wales, empennage.. ? So the bulk of the man-hours are still European. 1000 bodies for a FAL and Delivery process aren't doing much damage to the European unions as a third to a half would be non union anyway.
So assuming standard discounts on sales, and one heck of a shipping bill, when will the plant reach a break even point?
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, RR: 0 Reply 115, posted (10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8578 times:
Airbus was very dependent on government funding for a long time, it would not have made it without that support. Hopefully with time it will get less dependent on soft loans and such inventions and earn more respect?
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, RR: 96 Reply 116, posted (10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8601 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 110): The A310 has a new wing and fuselage so to call it the same as a A300 is... strange
New wing? Revised maybe. New fuselage? shrink maybe.
I'll refer to my previous question. It's strange to suggest that the 767 hasn't been equally modified over its life.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 110): Just as much sense as it does to include the 737,727, and 757 in the sales of the 707
Don't think so
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 111): The question is this; was Airbus founded as a commercial company or was it just a big project born of the phalus envy Europe felt when compared to the US in the 1960s?
you post as if these are
a) the only answers or
b) it's that "black-and-white"
When it should be very clear, even to the relatively uneducated amongst us, that neither are even remotely true.
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 111): Seriously, you are promoting the economics of John Delorean and his car plant in the 1980s
Equating Airbus to DeLorean?
That's a comparison I'll let stand or fall on its own merit.....
InsideMan From Vatican City, joined Aug 2011, 193 posts, RR: 0 Reply 119, posted (10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8512 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 70): Do you happen to have a link to that?
I know Power 8 capped TLS production at 14 a month and gave XFW a third A320 FAL (that went live in 2011) in exchange for allowing TLS to perform both assembly and outfitting of the A350 (instead of splitting it between the two sites as with the A380). But I was not aware that NSR was going to be built exclusively in XFW.
sorry, no link. but the deal was France gets the A350 and in return TLS is capped at 14/month of the current A320 family AND exclusive rights to Hamburg for the eventual succesor.
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 85): The model built up disequilibrium in the 1980s that led to a lost decade from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s and has only been reinvigorated by a very one sided set of factors that only put off the inevitable demise of such a system a decade at the most. America will still be manufacturing goods of some kind long after the middle-way model has gone the way of the UK in the 1970s, unless the German economy undergo a radical transformation into a more varied and flexible system that delivers prosperity to the populace, it will inevitably fall by the wayside.
seriously, you couldn't be more wrong. Germany and German unions make sure they stay competitive with foreign countries on productivity and total cost. But labour cost in and by itself is only a very marginal factor when making a decision on where to built a new plant.
In the FAL labour cost is less than 10%, so even if Alabama hat 30% less labour cost it would only reduce the price for the manfactured good by 3%, much less the sales price.
Germany's strongsuit is above all stability, skilled workforce, hardly any strikes, common sense amongst all peers etc. The reason to open a FAL in Mobile is not founded in labour cost but more in strategic opportunities a North American footprint opens for Airbus.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 120, posted (10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8462 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 113): You may call it penis envy, others refer to it as a project to reduce the dependence on American manufacturers. The adult world is commonly taken with the latter sort of point.
So this FAL Alamaba ensures that the USA will be less dependent on Boeing.
This was not a criticism.. the point was most of the work stays in Europe and very little comes here. One report said the sections would be stuffed (like the 787) so all US vendors would still be shipping to sub-assembly locations in Europe...
And yes surface is cheaper.. however the question is how many a/ps must be produced to pay off the investment? I'm not saying there will be insufficient sales, just curious about how long before the new FAL produces company profit.
FLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 390 posts, RR: 3 Reply 123, posted (10 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8246 times:
Everyone seems to be a bit grouchy about Airbus opening a plant in Mobile.
Please chill!
This will be good for Mobile and even better for Airbus. Throw a net from New Orleans to Eglin AFB and.Airbus has a strong band of defense and aerospace talented workers ripe for the picking.
Plus the Mobile Downtown Airport location offers exellent road, rail and sea access, making for easier logistics.
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2065 posts, RR: 6 Reply 125, posted (10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8036 times:
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 93): Indeed, look at Embraer and their production, a lot of the parts are made in the UK, US or other places (which is the model the C919 is copying)
And Embraer copied it from Airbus.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 116): Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 110):
The A310 has a new wing and fuselage so to call it the same as a A300 is... strange
New wing? Revised maybe. New fuselage? shrink maybe.
IIRC the A310 had a new wing. It had an unbelievable small wing area, and it is reported that Boeing could not believe it would give the aircraft the range it had. There was a demo flight somewhere in Asia that clarified these concerns...
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, RR: 0 Reply 126, posted (10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7900 times:
When the day come that fuel is very expensive, how will this sort of shipping parts twice before assembly across an ocean be viewed? I know a lot of stuff like this goes on now. How long will this work.. Norway ships seafood to Asia and back before its sold in the store..
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3591 posts, RR: 36 Reply 127, posted (10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8021 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 122): the point was most of the work stays in Europe and very little comes here
Well since Airbus is the largest international customer for US aviation industry suppliers (last year they purchased for more than $ 12 Billion from US companies) I would not really say so easily that "most of the work stays in Europe".
Sure, most likely the majority of parts manufacturing will stay in Europe or anywhere else where it might be already located, but the US content of Airbus's business will only continue to rise with the FAL in Alabama.
DrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, RR: 1 Reply 128, posted (10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7980 times:
Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 123):
Everyone seems to be a bit grouchy about Airbus opening a plant in Mobile.
Please chill!
Yep, very true and I was as grouchy as anyone else and therefore propose a solution to the argument above
1) The dispute being Argentina and the UK over the Falklands has gone on too long.
2) Therefore, I propose selling the islands to the Japanese who will turn it into a giant golf course, employ the locals as caddies and make the most of the local fishing industry.
3) This will massive increase the number of flights to the Falklands necessitating a massive expansion of RAF Mount Pleasant, hereby renamed to Yoko Ono Stanley-London Airport.
4) To fund this investment, I therefore propose that Airbus abandon the Toulouse, Hamburg, Tianjin and Mobile factories and construct all their aircraft in the Falklands.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 129, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7869 times:
Quoting InsideMan (Reply 124): the only ones grouchy about this move are Boeing fanboys that fear a (further) deterioration of the market share
The USA is loosing its industrial capacity and turning more to service related country, Airbus is outsourcing the assembly but the making of the bulk of the a/c remains in Europe, why? It is not all about Boeing, but if market share is your focus then you understand perfectly why the European governments created Airbus, it was to maintain the technological expertize and to gain market share in the aviation industry. Since Airbus is the largest at this time and owns more than 50% of the market, why should Boeing and its fan boys be worried, they are already behind.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 127): Well since Airbus is the largest international customer for US aviation industry suppliers (last year they purchased for more than $ 12 Billion from US companies) I would not really say so easily that "most of the work stays in Europe".
Does make you wonder how the USA is able to run such a large trade deficit with Europe, one would think with those numbers it should be running a surplus.
Corruption?
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11360 posts, RR: 50 Reply 130, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7818 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 129): Since Airbus is the largest at this time and owns more than 50% of the market, why should Boeing and its fan boys be worried, they are already behind.
There's little doubt that Boeing will outsell and out-deliver Airbus this year.
imiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 131, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7809 times:
There is nothing wrong with outsourcing per say. The issue I have is that when done, going by past examples, the subcontractors are NOT RISK SHARING PARTNERS, so when the proverbial hits the fan, Spirit, Alenia et al are laughing all the way to the bank whilst Airbus and Boeing are left with a big bill to clean up the mess.
Furthermore, I wouldn't be too happy to see key skills and industry secrets being exported to bolster industries of other nations (787 wing work by Mitsubishi and Kawasaki). I think it was DeHavilland who said wing design and manufacture is the "magic" of the aerospace industry.
Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 123): Everyone seems to be a bit grouchy about Airbus opening a plant in Mobile.
Please chill!
The work will be done under an Airbus roof. No issue for me.
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 611 posts, RR: 1 Reply 132, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7735 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 126): When the day come that fuel is very expensive, how will this sort of shipping parts twice before assembly across an ocean be viewed? I know a lot of stuff like this goes on now. How long will this work.. Norway ships seafood to Asia and back before its sold in the store..
I'm not making a comment on seafood, but for aircraft... we need to look at these things with some perspective. The airplane, when ready, will probably make at least one Atlantic crossing's worth of flying *per day* in its 20+ year commercial life. Parts shipping costs are such a small fraction of that, and it just doesn't matter when compared to often far bigger things like:
Being able to use the world's leading supplier no matter where they are in the world, as opposed to the not-so-good supplier next door.
Price.
Availability.
Likelihood of avoiding flood, strike, etc. delays.
It is quite understandable that the world's industries are working in a global manner today. Get the most suitable supplier for the product that you need, no matter where they are.
trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 133, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7709 times:
Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 131): Furthermore, I wouldn't be too happy to see key skills and industry secrets being exported to bolster industries of other nations (787 wing work by Mitsubishi and Kawasaki).
MHI got the wing box as they were already producing what was then, when the 787 program started, the largest single piece composite wing box for the F2 and Boeing wanted that tech.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 134, posted (10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 7372 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 127): Well since Airbus is the largest international customer for US aviation industry suppliers (last year they purchased for more than $ 12 Billion from US companies) I would not really say so easily that "most of the work stays in Europe".
It matters little how much is purchased from US companies, it matters where it is installed. If the units are coming stuffed, the components must be shipped to that installation site. I would not be surprised to see that some US companies actually have manufacturing plants in Europe to support Airbus. I also would be surprised to see airbus leaving out installations merely for a US manufactured part.
Then there is the question of where the fuselages come from.. Europe will be supporting two remote FALs with fuselages, wings, etc.. so there must be some major assembly line increases to do that. I can not keep track of the number of FAL lines Airbus will have for the 320, however Boeing is projecting 60 units a month from 3 FAL lines.
As in discussions on the A350 production plan, my questions are not criticisms, but for understanding because there is no single best way.. if anything, though, I have trouble finding efficiencies in this move, however I'm open to looking. One area especially is change incorporation.. due to the later deliveries from the offshore FALs, they will lag in incorporating changes.. yes Charleston has the problem now, however that will disappear when they reach rate.
I will say this about Mobile, when they dig in the ground there is less chance of stumbling on archaeological remains that seem to pop up every time the plow in Europe and delay projects for months to years... but watch out for Native American remains non the less.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3591 posts, RR: 36 Reply 135, posted (10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 7360 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 134): my questions are not criticisms, but for understanding because there is no single best way.
Understood. I did not take your remarks/questions as criticism though. And I agree with you, and have written so too, there is no single best way for producing high numbers of single aisle airliners.
SQ22 From Germany, joined Feb 2012, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 136, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7226 times:
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 125): IIRC the A310 had a new wing. It had an unbelievable small wing area, and it is reported that Boeing could not believe it would give the aircraft the range it had. There was a demo flight somewhere in Asia that clarified these concerns...
I know my question is off-topic, but do you know more details about this or can you provide me with a link to have a look at? Thank you.
GentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2069 posts, RR: 2 Reply 137, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7154 times:
It appears Mobile may in fact have the diverse and viable workforce which Airbus may have been shopping for. As it relates to one aspect of building, repairing and flying French aircraft. The Coast Guard Aviation Training Center in MOB has for many years flown the Aerospatiale SA366G1 Dauphin; re-branded the MH-65 Dolphin short range recovery helicopter. http://www.helis.com/database/modelorg/922/ The URL reads in order to buy the French made airframe the U.S required it to be re-engined with American made engines.
Additionally you have significant military experience in the Florida panhandle. Airbus may also be able to draw from the workforce of the near-bye Dothan, Alabama aircraft repair facility.
As it relates to potential acquisition with the military Its going to be interesting to see if Airbus re-brands itself Airbus USA. If memory serves me to pass the Buy-American-Act test; 51% of the widget or the next higher assembly has to be made in the USA.
Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2248 posts, RR: 1 Reply 138, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6719 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 134): It matters little how much is purchased from US companies, it matters where it is installed. If the units are coming stuffed, the components must be shipped to that installation site. I would not be surprised to see that some US companies actually have manufacturing plants in Europe to support Airbus. I also would be surprised to see airbus leaving out installations merely for a US manufactured part.
That is probably what will happen initially. US suppliers will deliver parts to the European pre-FALs, where the sections will be equipped, then shipped to BFM. An advantage to this seemignly inefficient setup is that you fill your ships both ways, no just on the EU-US leg. Long term, I can imagine some minor subassemblies for the BFM line being performed directly in the US (not fuselage, but smaller parts). I believe Airbus is going to do this for some components for TSN FAL.
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2065 posts, RR: 6 Reply 139, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6619 times:
Quoting SQ22 (Reply 136): I know my question is off-topic, but do you know more details about this or can you provide me with a link to have a look at? Thank you.
There is the ST Aerospace facility right there in Mobile for Airbus to poach from. Which probably will be giving the people who run it fits once Airbus starts hiring. It will be any easy choice to make, MRO or OEM.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1591 posts, RR: 4 Reply 141, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6331 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 59): however as you point out by surface ship that isn't a constraint.
Surface shipping is cheaper. However, as the complexity of the parts being shipped gets bigger, the cost of having a high priced item sitting on a ship for weeks (considered as inventory cost) goes up also. Perhaps shipping across the Atlantic may be faster than the Pacific, but I wouldn't be surprised if the sections being shipped are already stuffed, then they will fly it across. If the production rate remains low, then they can probably easily schedule to fly the parts across with the existing fleet of outsized planes.
Quoting Mcoov (Reply 71): A320s to the U.S. Air Force
LJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 142, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5944 times:
This will also do very good for MOB pax numbers the coming years. I reckon it will be very busy between Toulouse/Hamburg and MOB with engineers and other Airbus staff flying between MOB and Europe. Will be intersting to see who will get all of this traffic (and probably upgauges MOB).
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 143, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5938 times:
The danger to Boeing is Airbus significantly reducing its exposure to the Euro and taking advantage of the United States's extremely low corporate taxation. I think 30 percent lower costs per unit are super conservative.
LJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 145, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5683 times:
Quoting gigneil (Reply 143): The danger to Boeing is Airbus significantly reducing its exposure to the Euro and taking advantage of the United States's extremely low corporate taxation. I think 30 percent lower costs per unit are super conservative.
Tax will probably no issue as US companies already know that you can evade US tax very well using European based shell companies. Moreover tax rates in Europe are usually lower than 30% (never look at the tax rate which a particular country publishes as the real tax rate for a multi national is usually much lower).
2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 982 posts, RR: 0 Reply 146, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5507 times:
Interesting development by Airbus - and I think a good example of a properly executed Rewards - Risk Analysis.
Overall this should be a good benefit for Airbus, and the risk is low. This has the potential to develop into a much larger US operation. But it also has the potential to fail almost entirely (I see that as low likelihood - but possible).
There are two keys to which option it will be: What happens in Europe concerning the Euro. It is much more likely than not that the Euro will collapse and vanish - and how each country restructures as a result may produce some very significant upsets in international trade (In order for the Euro to not collapse would require that the European countries actually agree to bind themselves together in a uniform financial union - something I cannot see happening).
The 2nd key is what does Boeing do. While 737 production will be in Seattle by agreement with the IAM. The 7x7 replacement is likely to also be in the southern US for the lower wages as well. Boeing already has the foothold in place.
gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, RR: 6 Reply 147, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5303 times:
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 146): (In order for the Euro to not collapse would require that the European countries actually agree to bind themselves together in a uniform financial union - something I cannot see happening).
IMHO, a Euro collapse is not a high probability, a real monetary union is a higher probability, but your point is valid, it COULD happen.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4787 posts, RR: 9 Reply 148, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5261 times:
Quoting InsideMan (Reply 43): in Europe, you can't force somebody to join a union, nor to pay the union dues.
However, the employer has to treat all employees the same, union or not.
Interestingly only about 70% of workers as far as I know pay union dues, yet nobody
complains about a "free rider problem"....
The idea to force someone to pay union dues is absurd to me!
In France it's far lower than that, only 8% of workers are union members, the lowest of the OECD.
Aside from that, I learned the other day that Toyota is ramping up production of the Yaris in France by 25000 units, to export to the US from here instead of Japan, imagine that ! I guess we're not that uncompetitive after all.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 150, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4705 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 144): Unlike most peoples expectations corporate tax in US is high.
That's not really true compared to France and Germany, and certainly not in Alabama.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2248 posts, RR: 1 Reply 151, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4463 times:
Quoting LJ (Reply 142): This will also do very good for MOB pax numbers the coming years. I reckon it will be very busy between Toulouse/Hamburg and MOB with engineers and other Airbus staff flying between MOB and Europe. Will be intersting to see who will get all of this traffic (and probably upgauges MOB).
Indeed, current air connections between the cities are quite bad, as neither TLS, HAM nor MOB are hubs or have TATL connections, so any flight necessarily involves 2 transfers. CO (UA) could fix HAM in an fairly easy way, by adding a MOB-EWR flight that times well with the HAM-EWR one. But I see no easy option for getting to/from Airbus HQ TLS. Looks like Airbus staff will be spending a lot of time on planes...
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1591 posts, RR: 4 Reply 153, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4452 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 144): Unlike most peoples expectations corporate tax in US is high.
Quoting LJ (Reply 145):
Tax will probably no issue as US companies already know that you can evade US tax very well
Both statement are true. Large US corporations like GE and Boeing have not paid Federal income taxes for years by various tax "incentives" and "deductions". There are taxes to be paid like property, B&O and other local/State taxes. However many of those can be mitigated by tax incentives at the local level.
diverdave From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 230 posts, RR: 0 Reply 154, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4180 times:
Nothing unexpected, I imagine. Certainly understandable that the Airbus union employees would want some guarantees. I wonder if such guarantees were made for the Chinese assembly plant?
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4787 posts, RR: 9 Reply 155, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4001 times:
Yes, the Chinese plant was supposed to make only a small number of planes, and only for the Chinese market for the first years.
Note that the CFE-CGC is a union for "managers" not manufacturing workers, it looks like SPEEA is the equivalent. The closest union to IAM, and the one with teeth at Airbus France, is FO, but all main French unions are represented, since there is no "organization" like in the US, each employee can join any union or none. I haven't heard from FO, CGT or CFDT yet about this, but there is already a lot of things going on with auto manufacturers and Air France in trouble, plus labor discussions are underway with the government right now.
FO's stance is quite leftist, ironically considering it was at a time financed by the CIA since it was anti-communist, for example it is demanding a more than 20% increase in the minimum wage, for it to attain 80% of the median French salary.
According to one of your links :
Quote: Alabama's unionization rate is more than three times the 3.2 percent rate in right-to-work South Carolina, where Boeing assembles 787s, and also more than three times the 2.9 percent rate in North Carolina, which has the nation's lowest rate of unionized employees.
So I guess right-of-work in itself wasn't the reason for Airbus to come to Alabama, fiscal incentives along with politics are more likely.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1591 posts, RR: 4 Reply 156, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3972 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 155):
Note that the CFE-CGC is a union for "managers" not manufacturing workers, it looks like SPEEA is the equivalent.
SPEEA is a "union" that represent . . . Engineering and other Technical staff.
Boeing "Managers" represents the company and have their own association "BMA" (not a union).
diverdave From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 230 posts, RR: 0 Reply 157, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3949 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 155): So I guess right-of-work in itself wasn't the reason for Airbus to come to Alabama, fiscal incentives along with politics are more likely.
I would have to agree with that, though I would add the benefits of the port and the available land/facilities at the former Brookley AFB. Airbus would have already done site and workforce studies for the tanker competition.
Aerospace in Alabama has at least some union tradition at the PEMCO facility in Dothan and the AAI (formerly PEMCO) facility in Birmingham.
The foreign auto assembly plants (Mercedes, Honda, Hyundai) have been successful at maintaining a non-union workforce at their Alabama locations, so I would imagine that Airbus will be able to do the same if that is a goal.
nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 159, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3495 times:
If Alabama used tax incentives to get the site, will Airbus file a WTO complaint against itself?
flood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1052 posts, RR: 1 Reply 160, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3466 times:
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 159): If Alabama used tax incentives to get the site, will Airbus file a WTO complaint against itself?
As soon as Boeing files a complaint against itself for the incentives provided by SC, which were substantially greater and the same types of incentives Boeing too complained about to the WTO.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 161, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3245 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 40): Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 34):
Newspapers here reported that opening an Airbus plant in Boeing's backyard is a prequel to a A-B merger
Not such a fantasy, it has taken a couple decades but foreign vehicles assembled in the USA have driven the USA car companies into Chpt.11 so not a far fetched idea.
Different situation in the car industry to me - US design was way behind foreign design IMO. I recall that 20 or so years ago US car manufacturers were still making engines based on 1940's/1950's designs. Primitive cast iron push rod stuff when the rest of the world had moved on to far more efficient aluminum / overhead cam / multivalve systems. US car engine technology was decades behind. Not so Boeing in relation to Airbus.
Quoting DrColenzo (Reply 106): Dunno, what about profits and such like? We, the UK taxpayer and those residing within our European partners countries in Airbus subsidised each and every one of those aircraft.
When's a subsidy not a subsidy - when the subsidee (if that word exists) returns more than the original subsidy eg A320.
scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3254 posts, RR: 10 Reply 162, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3193 times:
Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 158): How many 320's will they be building per month worldwide?
The stated target recently was 42 a month from 2012 moving up to 50 a month in 2015 (?) not sure how this affects this.
The work is split up as follows:
3 lines in Hamburg which will produce 25 planes a month by the end of this year (all variants of family)
1 line in TLS producing 10/12 planes a month by the end of this year
1 line in China producing about 4 per month
the new line is expected to reach 4 planes a month by 2018
All of these are from memory so please don't flame me!
But no major corporation in the US actually pays anything near that rate unless your accountant is incompetent whereas the Siemans and Toyotas of the world actually pay the ostensible corporate tax rate of their respective countries which is often far higher than that actually paid by their US counterparts.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 164, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2993 times:
Quoting trex8 (Reply 163): But no major corporation in the US actually pays anything near that rate unless your accountant is incompetent whereas the Siemans and Toyotas of the world actually pay the ostensible corporate tax rate of their respective countries which is often far higher than that actually paid by their US counterparts.
So do those countries also have state and federal taxes, some might get the impression that if a company uses deductions to lower or even eliminate federal taxes that they pay no taxes.
In times past at the start of each year there useb to be web and discussions sites showing rough numbers of when USA citizens ceased working to pay Uncle Sam his taxes, usually in the first quarter, after that it was all local and state taxes for the rest of the year.
trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 165, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2677 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 164): So do those countries also have state and federal taxes, some might get the impression that if a company uses deductions to lower or even eliminate federal taxes that they pay no taxes.
In times past at the start of each year there useb to be web and discussions sites showing rough numbers of when USA citizens ceased working to pay Uncle Sam his taxes, usually in the first quarter, after that it was all local and state taxes for the rest of the year.
The issue of "US pays highest corporate tax rate" pertains to federal taxes, not local. When GE can make 5 billion profit and pay zero federal corporate income tax last year, something is wrong in a big way with the system.
Are these sites saying Americans pay all their income after the first quarter in local taxes or am I reading this wrong?? Which state is this? I live in IL, usually considered a fairly high tax state and it isn't that bad!
No wonder everyone is p..... off in the US these days!
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 167, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2415 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 126): When the day come that fuel is very expensive, how will this sort of shipping parts twice before assembly across an ocean be viewed?
Shipping by sea is very fuel efficient, isn't it? It does not take that long to cross the Atlantic by ship, either.
Seems a good move to me to start incurring costs in another currency. It offsets some of the problems of selling in one currency while incurring most costs in another.
I would think that designing a plant able to accomodate an increase to much more than 4 frames a month would be a sensible move - if the $US/euro exchange rate altered over time to make US-based assembly more attractive, production could be increased to take advantage of the situation.
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1591 posts, RR: 4 Reply 168, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2323 times:
Quoting trex8 (Reply 165): Are these sites saying Americans pay all their income after the first quarter in local taxes or am I reading this wrong??
My federal taxes (including SS and Medicare) runs about 20-25%. That is what I think they are saying about the "first quarter" paying Federal taxes.
Then comes the State Income Tax (my state have none) but business will have Business and Occupation Tax, sales tax (8-9% for stuff I buy - except for food). Property tax (for home owner) about 5% for me. Then all the small fees that I will not include here . . . it adds up. (Good thing I don't drink or smoke - the Taxes on those items are mind boggling).
Quoting art (Reply 167):
Shipping by sea is very fuel efficient, isn't it? It does not take that long to cross the Atlantic by ship, either.
Yes shipping by sea is more efficient. But from a financing stand point: take a fully stuffed section costing multimillions of dollar, and multiply it by say 3% interest times how many days in transit and you can estimate the financing cost of shipping by sea. Just think the 5 days at sea is 5 days worth of extra inventory that you have to pay for. Today with just in time manufacturing . . . 5 days of inventory can be seen as a burden.
ju068 From Serbia, joined Aug 2009, 2579 posts, RR: 6 Reply 169, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1949 times:
I just came across this information on Facebook, i found it quite entertaining...
''The city of Mobile has officially renamed the street in the Brookley Aeroplex in Mobile, Alabama where our Airbus assembly line will be built. When completed, the manufacturing center will be located at…320 Airbus Way.''
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 459 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1019 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4959 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4787 posts, 
From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1208 posts, 
From Turkey, joined Aug 2005, 699 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, 
From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 642 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 1278 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2248 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Aug 2011, 193 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3591 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3171 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 641 posts, 
.
From Brunei, joined Apr 2008, 1115 posts, 
From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Jul 2006, 622 posts, 
From Serbia, joined Aug 2009, 2579 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
