SA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 2916 posts, RR: 20 Posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 43665 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Part 11 of this thread garnered a lot of replies. In some cases the thread takes longer for some users to load and we have therefore started part 12. Please feel free to contribute to the thread:
someone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2780 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 42812 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1): So BA has it's tail now, when will it be completed?
Complete in the form of a delivery should be about June next year if things goes as planned. However the aircarfts should roll out from FAL in TLS sometimes before Christmas
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 3, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 42718 times:
Quoting someone83 (Reply 2): Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
So BA has it's tail now, when will it be completed?
Complete in the form of a delivery should be about June next year if things goes as planned. However the aircarfts should roll out from FAL in TLS sometimes before Christmas
The time between arrival of the convoy in TLS and roll-out from the FAL for two latest HoVs was 2.8 months for MSN 087 (TG #1) and 3.5 months for MSN 078 (MH #1). Since the conoy for BA #1 arrived in TLS end of June I think we should be able to see the green BA #1 in September or October, due to the holiday season most probably rather October than September.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 4, posted (10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 41908 times:
No delivery in July???
I was just wondering which airframe could be delivered next. The only candidates I see are:
MSN 101 - EK #22 - A6-EDV - 2012-03 - in TLS since 16-05-2012 (after cabin outfitting)
MSN 085 - SQ #18- 9V-SKS - 2012 - in TLS since 30-05-2012 (after cabin outfitting)
MSN 103 - EK #23 - A6-EDW - 2012-Q3 - in TLS since 14-06-2012 (after cabin outfitting)
MSN 081 - MH #2- 9M-MNB - 2012-Q3 - in TLS since 25-06-2012 (after cabin outfitting)
MSN 092 - SQ #19- 9V-SKT - 2012-Q3 - in XFW since 03-02-2012
However, the two EK-airframes will not be delivered before September 2012. This leaves only MSN 085 and MSN 081 as the only airframes that might be delivered in July 2012.
someone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2780 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 41657 times:
Today, MSN110, EK's 29th, was ferried to XFW for outfitting, while MSN092, SQ's 19th and last on order, was ferried to TLS for preparations to delivery
scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3254 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 40815 times:
Quoting someone83 (Reply 6): Today, MSN110, EK's 29th, was ferried to XFW for outfitting, while MSN092, SQ's 19th and last on order, was ferried to TLS for preparations to delivery
Wow, first operator to complete their order,wonder if they'll order some more soon?
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1315 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 40622 times:
This may have been covered.
But I was wondering how far the 380 weight reduction programme had got. As I recall it was around the time of the BA production that a step change was being brought in. As I recall they were going to increase the use of ALi/Carbon/Titanium/GLARE to get down/closer to the origonal design weight.
But have no idea where we are.Has the origonal weight target been abandoned,what (if so) is the target weight?
I also recall that BA's aircraft were to be the first with a chage in the AoA of the wings - is that right?
Finally I recall a strong rumour about a year ago I think of some HGW testing at Toulouse. This (I think) did not involve using the stronger 'F/900' wings but just a straight HGW. Did that happen?
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 10, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 40329 times:
Quoting parapente (Reply 9): This may have been covered.
But I was wondering how far the 380 weight reduction programme had got. As I recall it was around the time of the BA production that a step change was being brought in. As I recall they were going to increase the use of ALi/Carbon/Titanium/GLARE to get down/closer to the origonal design weight.
But have no idea where we are.Has the origonal weight target been abandoned,what (if so) is the target weight?
I also recall that BA's aircraft were to be the first with a chage in the AoA of the wings - is that right?
Finally I recall a strong rumour about a year ago I think of some HGW testing at Toulouse. This (I think) did not involve using the stronger 'F/900' wings but just a straight HGW. Did that happen?
Part of these issues were discussed in the previous thread: A380 Production Thread Part 11 (by SA7700 Nov 28 2011 in Civil Aviation) , starting from reply no. 224.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 11, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 39844 times:
Interesting statements from CEO Fabrice Bregier and Airbus programme chief Tom Williams about the A 380-production including plans to change it, unfortunately in German language, maybe there is an English version as well.
Some key statements:
- A 380 production still too slow and too expensive
- in particular cabin outfitting
- the production time is still 25% higher than envisaged
- main task is now to start cabin outfitting earlier
- this could mean reallocating works from XFW to TLS (even if this is a sensitive issue)
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 12, posted (10 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 39405 times:
Did either mention whether the cabin outfitting for new customers was an issue, or is XFW still taking a fair bit of time installing the interiors on airframes like EK, where realistically one would expect they would have plenty of experience by now and installation should be...well...routine.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 13, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 38874 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12): Did either mention whether the cabin outfitting for new customers was an issue, or is XFW still taking a fair bit of time installing the interiors on airframes like EK
No, they did not mention if it is about cabin outfitting for new customers or not (sorry for not answering earlier). They just stated that it takes too much time in general. Some more specific statements made in that interview:
- many customers have very special cabin outfitting designs, which are expensive and difficult to install
- the fact that the works for producing the A 380s are shared between the two locations causes additional delays
- they compare the situation with the A 330, where cabin outfitting already starts during assembly of the airframe, whereas for the A 380 the cabin outfitting starts at the end of the production.
- main task is now to start with cabin outfitting as early as possible during the construction time
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12): realistically one would expect they would have plenty of experience by now and installation should be...well...routine.
Well, the actual times for cabin outfitting and painting phase (measured from ferry flight to XFW and delivery) are almost constant and did not change over the years (from EK #1 untuil EK #21):
The overall production time has been reduced signiticantly. However, the cabin outfitting times in Hamburg did not change and that fits to above mentioned statements by Airbus' management.
By the way, in the figure above I marked the production time for EK #22 if being delivered on July 31st (it's still in TLS for the preliminary wing cracks fix). Due to the wing-crack-issue the production time will go up again, in this case to almost 14 months.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 15, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 38822 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 13): The overall production time has been reduced signiticantly. However, the cabin outfitting times in Hamburg did not change and that fits to above mentioned statements by Airbus' management.
So it sounds like the cabin customization Airbus offered continues to bite them over five years later: first with the designs themselves (CATIA) and now with the installation time not coming down even after having significant experience in installing them.
Semaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 769 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 38576 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 15): So it sounds like the cabin customization Airbus offered continues to bite them over five years later: first with the designs themselves (CATIA) and now with the installation time not coming down even after having significant experience in installing them.
I'm not highly educated on the matter, but the only explanation for this trend (or not-trend, however you like to look at it) is that the number of individual A380 costumers have risen, and so have the respective choices of cabin layout.
What I mean to say is that between convoy and first flight, or between convoy and repositioning to XFW, the amount of diversification of the airplane tends to be nil for all costumers. Sure there are different engine choices, but then again, the engines are "only mounted" onto the wings in TLS, while in XFW they have to adapt to the likes and dislikes of every new costumer.
Not trying to talk down the fact that this bottleneck needs to be solved, and that "German Engeneering" can do better. But I think we should be a little more patient with the fellows who are working to make every airplane as good as it gets from the inside. And to be honest, so far I have heard from nobody complaints about the potential rubbishness of the A380 interieur.
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 17, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 38554 times:
Quoting Semaex (Reply 16): But I think we should be a little more patient with the fellows who are working to make every airplane as good as it gets from the inside. And to be honest, so far I have heard from nobody complaints about the potential rubbishness of the A380 interieur.
Believe me, Airbus' generosity has certainly paid dividends for those of us who fly premium cabins on A380s.
I was just a bit...surprised, I guess...that after having installed the same cabin in almost two dozen A380s for Emirates, the cabin outfitters at XFW might not have been able to appreciably lower the installation time. And I only say that because I get the impression from Fabrice Bregier and Tom Williams that they expected this to happen.
However, it may very well be the case that cabins take "X" amount of time no matter how often you do them and if some of the work can be done on the TLS line (say things like the overhead bins) while doing other assembly-related work, that would reduce the amount of install work necessary at XFW and overall reduce the time to delivery.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 18, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 38515 times:
Quoting Semaex (Reply 16): I think we should be a little more patient with the fellows who are working to make every airplane as good as it gets from the inside
First of all I have to state that I neveer had the intention to say anything negative about the people working in XFW. It was not their choice to give the customers that high level of flexibility that they have now and that they are using.
Remember, it's not only about 9 different customers right now (incl BA), EK for example has two different versions and other operators have changed their configuration later on (SQ, AF, QF).
However, I am afraid that even patience will not help. CEO Enders said about one year ago that they will never achieve the level of "mass production" they have achieved on the A 320. He said that cabin outfitting for the A 380 will be always more like working in a manufacture, rather than in a factory.
Quoting Semaex (Reply 16): And to be honest, so far I have heard from nobody complaints about the potential rubbishness of the A380 interieur.
There is no question about that (by the way, when will QR receive their first A 380 )
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 38346 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): I was just a bit...surprised, I guess...that after having installed the same cabin in almost two dozen A380s for Emirates, the cabin outfitters at XFW might not have been able to appreciably lower the installation time. And I only say that because I get the impression from Fabrice Bregier and Tom Williams that they expected this to happen.
However, it may very well be the case that cabins take "X" amount of time no matter how often you do them and if some of the work can be done on the TLS line (say things like the overhead bins) while doing other assembly-related work, that would reduce the amount of install work necessary at XFW and overall reduce the time to delivery.
Might the lack of decrease in outfitting time not indicate that management and execution of the installation process went according to plan more or less right from the beginning?
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 18): However, I am afraid that even patience will not help. CEO Enders said about one year ago that they will never achieve the level of "mass production" they have achieved on the A 320. He said that cabin outfitting for the A 380 will be always more like working in a manufacture, rather than in a factory.
Could they throw more hands at each aircraft being outfitted? If the process takes a high number of man hours, is there a possibility of more people working on the aircraft during outfitting, so decreasing the time required? N14AZ''s chart (they're great - thanks) shows a consistent 6 months between FF and delivery. Surely Airbus needs to come up with a plan to reduce that substantially, if at all possible. Not only does it cost money to have all that pre-FF WIP spending 5-6 months in Hamburg, it pushes back delivery dates and some argue that is costing orders.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 20, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 38139 times:
The trend of posts seem to point to the interior complexity and customer variances, those are convenient whipping boys and probably not the problem at all. The problem actually be a combination of too much hand work fitting parts (poor engineering design for manufacture), capacity problems at supplies (internal and external), or too stringent QA criteria.(*) Do we in fact know how much non or sub system interior work is being done (wiring, plumbing, systems, floor panels, sealed floors for galleys and lavs.. etc).. I'd love to see some interior shots of the plane as delivered XFW.. or a time lapse of an interior installation.
Then again, how much work is required in the cargo compartments?
Are they still dealing with incompatible drawing systems? Seems to me all the cabin panels by now should be snap in place regardless of customer. Personally, 6 months is absurd..
(*) had a case years ago where the exterior finish on a window frame was inspected with a 10x lens as an appearance item, and was experiencing a 60% rejection/scrap rate.. someone finally realized nobody was ever closer than 4 feet (boarding) and were generally 50-100 feet away.. so the spec was changed.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9137 posts, RR: 96 Reply 23, posted (10 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 37470 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 20): The trend of posts seem to point to the interior complexity and customer variances, those are convenient whipping boys and probably not the problem at all. The problem actually be a combination of too much hand work fitting parts (poor engineering design for manufacture), capacity problems at supplies (internal and external), or too stringent QA criteria.(*) Do we in fact know how much non or sub system interior work is being done (wiring, plumbing, systems, floor panels, sealed floors for galleys and lavs.. etc)..
For what its worth I think its possible that the cabling screw up has left them with physical integration issues in the spatial design that are causing great difficulties in the installation sequences/processes.
I can't say it for certain.
But on the product I'm most familiar with, I've certainly seen a set of fairly innocuous looking issues from the engineers standpoint cause absolute mayhem from an installation/physical integration standpoint. And one of the characteristics was that of causing a lot of the installation work to be "bespoke".
The best way out of that is a complete redesign, which ain't gunna happen.
Next best is to identify some low hanging fruit engineering changes that give you the biggest benefits for the smallest input.
Apart from that its a case of using the experience gained from numerous repetitions to drive continuous improvement and embed "leaner" solutions....
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 24, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 37211 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 23): Next best is to identify some low hanging fruit engineering changes that give you the biggest benefits for the smallest input..
One would have thought we'd be seeing evidence of producibility changes by now. Are the interior's engineers on site or sitting quietly in France?
Quoting astuteman (Reply 23): Apart from that its a case of using the experience gained from numerous repetitions to drive continuous improvement and embed "leaner" solutions....
when the 'experience gained' appears to be non repeatable... one wonders if there is an actual drive toward improving... the chart above doesn't indicate it.
I wish ferpe read this thread and could offer some insight.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9137 posts, RR: 96 Reply 26, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 37490 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 24): when the 'experience gained' appears to be non repeatable... one wonders if there is an actual drive toward improving... the chart above doesn't indicate it.
It doesn't.
And my question there is "Is this where the number of customisation options interracts with an inherently difficult integration so as to limit, or at least fundamentally slow, any learning curve effect..."
You will know I'm a fan of the plane. But it's hard to hide from the evidence that there is a deep-rooted complexity/difficulty in the outfitting of an A380 that after almost 5 years of deliveries Airbus have made very little headway against...
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 27, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 38298 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 26): But it's hard to hide from the evidence that there is a deep-rooted complexity/difficulty in the outfitting of an A380 that after almost 5 years of deliveries Airbus have made very little headway against...
Watching the BBC special on the overhaul of a BA 747-400, there was a fair bit of cabinetry left in the FIRST cabin after they pulled the seats out. And then the new FIRST cabin had even more cabinetry, as well as items like custom window treatments.
Considering how ornate SQ's and EK's First Class cabins on the A380-800 are, as kanban noted up-thread, it just may take a significant amount of time to install them. In some ways, these cabins are more reflective of what one would find on a business jet more than a commercial airliner and just as a biz jet requires a significant amount of man hours to install their bespoke cabins, the same may be the case with the A380.
Thanks.. not speaking German I'm not sure how long after arrival the pictures were taken. However things I noticed were buried connections, hand fitting, the plastic being applied to the floors raises questions.. water barrier or temporary surface?.. The stowage bin is that the final surface, a scratch prevention surface or is another decorative shell installed over it? The other thing I sense is every area works at it's own pace rather than as a unit so there are inconsistent levels of completion. There also appear to be flat vertical walls covering the windows - protection or cubicle sides? ..
It would appear that the plane arrives with all blankets, plumbing, electrical and systems hardware in place so the 6 month process flow becomes even more questionable.
We know.. and I'm looking at this as a typical process improvement challenge not Boeing does it this way so it's better.. no it's different, however there are optimum processes and wasteful processes that can be seen. It's trying to understand them remotely from the wrong side of the factory fence that is difficult. I was involved with both commercial installations and unique C-32 installation, as well as some late 707 Saudi vs USAF/NATO interior installations. All different, yet process wise very similar
Quoting Stitch (Reply 27): Considering how ornate SQ's and EK's First Class cabins on the A380-800 are, as kanban noted up-thread, it just may take a significant amount of time to install them.
While complexity and ornate could lead to a lot of build to plane vs build to spec, it doesn't have to be so. If they padded the spec dimensions and have to rework or hand fit on installation, or if they wait for the plane, then measure and hand build interiors, it will always be slow and worse yet the pieces won't be replaceable with spares.. as the plane ages, those measurements will change and as someone noted above what will be the D check flow time especially if they cannot achieve the 'new car' fit.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 1983 posts, RR: 10 Reply 29, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 37895 times:
I believe that a not insifnificant part of this interior outfitting inefficiency was iron cast (I think that's the correct phrase?) in the production flow, by a heavy political background with the decission to spit FAL and outfitting between Toulouse and Hamburg.
Nowadays, many large interiour pieces you would want to install before the fuselage sections are mated, as that allows installation of much larger pre-assembled pieces. These items now have to be split up in much smaller sections as they will have to fit through the aircraft doors, rather than a fuselage cross section.
These pre-assembly tasks can now no longer be carried out in parallel, early in the build process, but have to be carried out in a sequential manner after FAL and first flight. BTW, this adds considreably to total cost, as all high value parts (engines, avionics etc), have to be installed 6 - 8 month prior to delivery (=payment). At 3 frames per month, that is an incredable amount of cash tied up in WIP for a very long period!
Tasks in parallel are very nice in that you can relatively easily add workforce to reduce total assembly time. The moment any of these tasks are carried out in a sequential sequence, you are pretty much limited in just increasing workforce, since tasks now have to wait for each other before the next one can be started.
Also, a lot of relatively easy work tasks that are now carried out in Hamburg after FAL and first flight could probably have been done much earlier in the build process, but the split in responsibilities did not anticipate for this work in Toulouse.
I'll bet that Hamburg workforce traffic and tooling/fixture logistics in the fuselage internals are a nightmare in itself . . .
I also believe that this split up in work between FAL and Hamburg, had it's impact on many engineering design and production set-up decisions on airframe parts, interiour parts, FAL lay-out, and tool and fixture designs etc. It could very well be that to make that step change in interior installation efficiency, significant design changes have to made to all these items. Those can be pretty heavy changes to the airframe and outfitting parts, and to the production system. You don't do that overnight, especially not when the assembly process has not fully stabelized yet.
I think Mr. Enders touched on this previously, without going into details, that the split up in work between Toulouse and Hamburg [significantly] reduced assembly efficiency, and could not be easily simplified.
In hindsight, I think Airbus severely regrets this split in Toulouse and Hamburg tasks. Perhaps this should be an important change in production flow for the next generation A380 (-900). It would probably be best to move all A380 work to Toulouse, with a partial FAL redesign (and in return move all Toulouse A32X work to Hamburg). This would allow important design changes, and FAL redesign set up to improve the assembly process significantly. Probably won't happen this decade . . .
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 30, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 37905 times:
Quoting PW100 (Reply 29): I think Mr. Enders touched on this previously, without going into details, that the split up in work between Toulouse and Hamburg [significantly] reduced assembly efficiency, and could not be easily simplified.
That might have been one of the reasons he pushed for all assembly and outfitting on the A350 be done in TLS (which is the case) instead of the latter being done in XFW.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2249 posts, RR: 1 Reply 31, posted (10 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 37466 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 24): Are the interior's engineers on site or sitting quietly in France?
The Airbus cabin engineers are all based in XFW actually. So I don't think it is a lack of on-site support, but rather the late start of outfitting in the overall FAL process, coupled with an excessive customization.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 32, posted (10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 37206 times:
Excessive customization is frequently mentioned, however that should not lead to these kinds of delays unless changes are being made on receipt of the a/c for outfitting. Engineering should be out and procurement handled..
Another thing I noticed in the video was the lack of maneuvering space when entering the cabin.. so possibly there is a lot of disassemble and reassembly work? We have had that problem with lavs and galleys and the misplacing of components.
Perhaps they need a partial cabin mock-up to pre fit unique pieces.
someone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2780 posts, RR: 1 Reply 35, posted (10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 36993 times:
Latest movement regarding A380 production
MSN111, EK's 29th, had its first flight and was transfered to XFW
MSN101, EK's 22nd, has been flown back to XFW after getting wing repairs in TLS
MSN088, CZ's 4th, has rolled out from outfitting, after 16 weeks
MSN105, EK's 24th, has been transfered to TLS. Maybe for wing repair?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 37, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 35645 times:
Someone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2780 posts, RR: 1 Reply 40, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 35210 times:
Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 39): Anyone know which MSNs are shown?
MSN100, should be the unpainted one for TG, while the two unpainted for EK should be 108 and 112. The two painted for EK should be 103 and 105. The one for SQ are either 85 or 92
Quoting Stitch (Reply 37): Which makes how many for the year now? A dozen?
11 so far this year, and the next one to MH and SQ should be delivered shortly
spink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 34932 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 27): Watching the BBC special on the overhaul of a BA 747-400, there was a fair bit of cabinetry left in the FIRST cabin after they pulled the seats out. And then the new FIRST cabin had even more cabinetry, as well as items like custom window treatments.
Yes, but BA completely stripped that 747, did full surface checks AND repairs, and completely re-outfitted it in 5 weeks (or was it 6). If it is taking 6 months just to do the initial outfitting, it should be interesting when the first SG 380 (9V-SKA) gets it first D check which should be either the end of this year or sometime next year (assuming the standard 5-6 year per D check).
If it takes 6 months to fit it all together in the first place, how long will a "D" check take, when it all has to be taken apart first as well?
I think this is a critical question here. These things are huge capitol investments and time is money in this case. They need to be doing their checks in a reasonable amount of time.
Not yet delivered and in different production phases:
14) MSN 002 – pvt
15) MSN 092 - SQ #19 in TLS since 05-07-2012 for delivery => delivery in 2012
16) MSN 103 - EK #23
in XFW since 13-01-2011, back from TLS, where wings modification works were conducted => delivery in 2012
17) MSN 105 - EK #24
in XFW since 28-02-2012, even with the extra trip to TLS for wing modification works (took about 2 months for 101 und 103) there is enough time until years end => delivery in 2012
18) MSN 087 - TG -#1 - in XFW since 05-02-2012 => delivery in 2012
19) MSN 084 - MH #3 - in XFW since 14-03-2012 => delivery in 2012
20) MSN 088 - CZ #4 - in XFW since 26-03-2012 => delivery in 2012
21) MSN 106 - EK #25 - in XFW since 10-04-2012 => delivery in 2012
22) MSN 107 - EK #26 - in XFW since 26-04-2012 => delivery in 2012
23) MSN 109 - EK #28 - in XFW since 11-05-2012 => delivery in 2012
24) MSN 089 - MH #4 - in XFW since 21-05-2012 => delivery in 2012
25) MSN 093 - TG #2 - in XFW since 06-06-2012 => delivery in 2012
26) MSN 096 - KE #6 - 2012 in XFW since 03-07-2012 => delivery in 2012, shortly before years end
27) MSN 110 - EK #29 - in XFW since 05-07-2012 => ???
28) MSN 111 - EK #30 - in XFW since 19-07-2012 => ???
29) MSN 112 - EK #31 - in XFW since 02-08-2012 => ???
30) MSN 108 - EK #27 - outside FAL since 23-03-2012 => ???
For the last four airframes 110 – 112 and 108 it will be very hard. If these airfames will have to make the extra trip to TLS for wings modification (as EK’s 101 and 103 had to do), there is not enough time until years end for cabin outfitting, painting, all the associated test and acceptance flights plus the extra trip to TLS for wings modification works.
But maybe Airbus might decide to conduct the wing modification works in parallel to cabin outfitting (should be possible, correct?).
In case of MSN 108 there is an additional problem (FF in April 2012 but still in TLS). Even with the post-wing-problem production times it wouldn’t be possible to achieve delivery in 2012, even she would be ferried for XFW today.
Preview regarding 2013-deliveries
Airframes already in different construction phases after convoy to TLS:
1) MSN 100 - TG #3 – outside FAL since 12-06-2012
2) MSN 094 - MH #5 – outside FAL since 25-07-2012
3) MSN 120 - CZ #5 – in FAL since beginning of June 2012
4) MSN 122 - TG #4 – in FAL since end of June 2012
5) MSN 114 - MH #6 – in FAL since middle of July 2012
6) MSN 095 - BA #1 – in body join since beginning of July
7) MSN 113 - EK #32 – in parts receiving since end of July
Until years end there will be 14 additional convoys. Assuming that each convoy will include one full set of A 380 parts this would be equal to 7 plus 14 A 380s = 21 airframes that can be delivered in 2013.
Due to the fact that some airframes have been delivered within 10 months between convoy and delivery (the average is 12 months) one could also consider the convoys in January and February 2013. If there will be three convoys per month as planned for the rest of 2012 this would lead to 6 additional airframes and to a total maximum number of 27 airframes to be delivered in 2013.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 50, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 33489 times:
In other news, we are approaching the 100th first flight of an A 380.
FF #99 was MSN 112, EK #31, and if everything goes as planned MSN 100 (TG #3), test registration F-WWAT, should be the airframe to make the 100th first flight. RTO has not yet been made (correct me if I am wrong).
Right now F-WWAT is sending some signals as "STATIC01".
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 1781 posts, RR: 57 Reply 51, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 33489 times:
Re the long outfitting process of the A380, I think I can't add anything as I was not on A.net when the A380 was created and you have talked about what I believe is the problem as well. I will add one thing, Airbus as a company today and Airbus as it was during the creation of the A380 program.
Airbus was a groupement d'intérêt économique (GIE), ie a economical cooperation of individual companies before being formed to a shares company in 2001. The A380 program started in the 1990ies ie when this loose confederation of individual companies with national interests running high still was the case. Therefore this un-natural and inefficient division of work was a given, especially with a halo project like the largest frame on earth the jockeying for positions was frantic. Every country (France/Germany) fought like hell to show they had the same importance in the program as the other one. We know the resulting mess, something that was not repeated again for the A350.
Louis Gallois and Tom Enders have been working very hard to stop the typical French/German infighting in the company to the point where Enders terminated his ruling party (CDU) membership some years ago when Merkel's people was making to much noises about workdivision in Airbus. Enders is also now stopping the 2 EADS HQs (Paris and Munich) and settling the EADS HQ in TLS. Before them we know of the typical politically colored fights between the top French and Germans, Lehay is quoted as saying something like "I sold so well because I made sure not to be in the office much at the time" .
There were many consequences of this division of interest, one was that when Airbus should migrate from it's legacy CADDS design environment (all frames pre A380 and still a big part of A380) to CATIA 5 and Windchill the Germans decided that they make a half-stop at CATIA 4 and ENOVIA. The mess of 3 different CAD tools we know, the installation sequencing is another mess stemming from the same national infighting.
In all the A380 is a technical achievement and an industrial monument of the birth agony of the modern Airbus, sad but true.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2249 posts, RR: 1 Reply 52, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 33878 times:
In a parallel thread, it is being discussed that BA may delay its delivery (whether initiated from BA or Airbus is unclear). I'll leave the BA-specific discussion to that thread, but I wonder from a broader point of view, if it could happen with other carriers as well?
The BA move can make sense... why receive an aircraft with a temporary wing fix, only to have to take it out of service some months later for permanent wing rework? Might as well wait a bit longer and get the "final" aircraft. I fear that not only BA may end up doing this, but other 2013 customers as well (basically any wing set manufactured before the permanent solution is in place and having its corresponding aircraft due for delivery shortly after introduction of the permanent fix could be a candidate). (Note: the permanent fix should be approved before year end, IIRC). So Airbus could end up in 2013 with a bunch of "delivery-ready" A380's sitting around waiting for permanent wing rework...
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 49): But maybe Airbus might decide to conduct the wing modification works in parallel to cabin outfitting (should be possible, correct?).
If the wing modification works are being carried out in TLS, then I don't think so, as cabin outfitting is done in XFW. Needless to say, it would be a big help if they could be done in parallel...
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 53, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 33791 times:
Quoting ferpe (Reply 51): I will add one thing, Airbus as a company today and Airbus as it was during the creation of the A380 program.
Airbus was a groupement d'intérêt économique (GIE), ie a economical cooperation of individual companies before being formed to a shares company in 2001. The A380 program started in the 1990ies ie when this loose confederation of individual companies with national interests running high still was the case. Therefore this un-natural and inefficient division of work was a given, especially with a halo project like the largest frame on earth the jockeying for positions was frantic. Every country (France/Germany) fought like hell to show they had the same importance in the program as the other one. We know the resulting mess, something that was not repeated again for the A350.
This is actually a reason that cannot be stressed often enough.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 51): "I sold so well because I made sure not to be in the office much at the time"
Nice saying. I think I should do the same
Quoting r2rho (Reply 52): I fear that not only BA may end up doing this, but other 2013 customers as well
QR already reported officially that they insisted on a later delivery in order to avoid the additional modification works. Al Baker said something like "I don't want that anybody crawls through my airplanes...".
Quoting r2rho (Reply 52): whether initiated from BA or Airbus is unclear
My understanding is that the delay was not requested by BA but is simply a consequence of the interruption of the convoys to TLS and all the consequences: before the wing problem became official at the beginning of this year, the FAL was always full (6 positions + 2 pre-FAL positions). Right now, for example, only 3 out of these 8 positions are occupied. This started in March 2012 when for two month no wing pair was transported to TLS. It's obvious that this jeopardizes the 2013-deliveries.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 52): Quoting N14AZ (Reply 49):
But maybe Airbus might decide to conduct the wing modification works in parallel to cabin outfitting (should be possible, correct?).
If the wing modification works are being carried out in TLS, then I don't think so, as cabin outfitting is done in XFW. Needless to say, it would be a big help if they could be done in parallel...
Well, I am not an expert but if they can do these works in Dubai, Signapore etc. why can't they do them in XFW in parallel to the cabin outfitting works?
They have even these shuttle flights between TLS and XFW to fly in the staff from Toulouse and back. During the re-wiring works, when staff from XFW worked in TLS, the staff in TLS complained about their German colleagues, because they would block the coffee machine(s). It's time for a revenge
jumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 33651 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 49): 6) MSN 095 - BA #1 – in body join since beginning of July
Quoting r2rho (Reply 52): So Airbus could end up in 2013 with a bunch of "delivery-ready" A380's sitting around waiting for permanent wing rework...
I agree with r2rho - if the first 380 for BA is already being joined together and Willie Walsh of IAG is now hoping for delivery maybe in 3rd quarter 2013 it means this plane is going to be in production for maybe 14 months or more - way over what I have read elsewhere is a typical manufacturing cycle. So at some point it, and I guess others in production, will be sitting around waiting for someone with a screw driver to do something....
Maybe they could put the engines on and fly it to LHR for a short holiday and those of us who can't wait to see a fully fledged BA A 380 can go and drool over it.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 55, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 33572 times:
Quoting jumpjets (Reply 54): if the first 380 for BA is already being joined together and Willie Walsh of IAG is now hoping for delivery maybe in 3rd quarter 2013 it means this plane is going to be in production for maybe 14 months or more - way over what I have read elsewhere is a typical manufacturing cycle.
Not necessarily, let's have a closer look on MSN 095:
- convoy arrived in TLS on June 30 2012
- the usual prodution time for a HoV in the recent time was:
- 12.8 months for KE,
- 13.6 months for CZ and
- 12.1 months for MH
- so even without wing issue delivery of BA #1 would not take place before June 2013,
- this fits to "around the third quarter of 2013" as stated by Walsh
- in case of EK the wing modification works added two months to the normal production time
So 12 months "normal" production time plus 2 months for addtional modification works fits to "around the third quarter of 2013"
HB-IWC From Greece, joined Sep 2000, 4414 posts, RR: 76 Reply 56, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 33532 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 49): the potential 2012-deliveries:
With regard to Emirates deliveries, an analysis of planned EK A388 operations indicates that the airline plans to receive at least 7 and likely even 8 or 9 more aircraft in 2012. As per the very latest schedule updates, EK is planning to introduce the following additional A388 flights:
01OCT - Melbourne
28OCT - Heathrow (4h daily rotation)
01DEC - Moscow
01DEC - Johannesburg (reintroduction of A388 flights)
10DEC - Heathrow (5th daily rotation)
01JAN - Paris (2nd daily rotation)
01JAN - New York (2nd daily rotation)
Even with increased utilization rates, the airline will need at least 7 more aircraft to operate this additional schedule on top of the existing schedule, which is operated with the current fleet of 22. In other words, it is a given that EK will take delivery of at least 2 additional frames on top of the ones that you have penciled in as certain for delivery this year.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3593 posts, RR: 36 Reply 57, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 33410 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 55): So 12 months "normal" production time plus 2 months for additional modification works fits to "around the third quarter of 2013"
I guess it should. Thanks again for all the hard work in giving us the up to date status of the A380 program.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 51): In all the A380 is a technical achievement and an industrial monument of the birth agony of the modern Airbus, sad but true.
Very well written ferpe. And I have all the reasons to believe that your analysis is spot-on, as always. Technically we could say that the A400M and the A350 are the first products of the all new Airbus as an integrated company. But since all the other products of Airbus are already outstanding in quality, otherwise they would not sell as well as they do, it could be an indication for an even better performance of the newest models?
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 59, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 32739 times:
Quoting someone83 (Reply 58): while MSN108 is havings its first flight from TLS today
Thanks for the information. Just a small note, if you don't mind: MSN 108 had its first flight already back in April (2012-04-23). It seems (and has been kind of confirmed) that MSN 108 had some problems during FF.
In other news, MSN 100 (TG #3) had its RTO today. So most probably we will see the A 380-FF # 100 next week.
someone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2780 posts, RR: 1 Reply 60, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 32743 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 59): Thanks for the information. Just a small note, if you don't mind: MSN 108 had its first flight already back in April (2012-04-23). It seems (and has been kind of confirmed) that MSN 108 had some problems during FF
Ah, thanks, had completely forgot about that
Anyway, based on flightrader she seems to bee heading towards XFW
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 61, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 32750 times:
Quoting someone83 (Reply 60): Anyway, based on flightrader she seems to bee heading towards XFW
Ah, good to know, because I lost her somewhere near Bordeaux.
For some time I had the feeling they wanted to make a flight formation or something similiar because MSN 108 and MSN 001, which was doing a test flight with its XWB engine, came close to each other near the French Atllantic coast.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6716 posts, RR: 65 Reply 67, posted (9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 30972 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 64): MSN 100 is currently in the air, thereby making the 100th FF of an A 380.
What seems like quite a long time ago, I estimated that more of the first 100 A380s would fly with RR than EA. Well, the numbers are 54 for RR and 46 for EA. I suspect the Emirates juggernaut will swing things back in EA's favour over the next one hundred.
MSN #115 (to become AF F-HPJJ) departed Langon in convoy nr 18 to Toulouse on Friday august 17 at 22:00 hrs. It's due to arrive in TLS on Wednesday august 22 at 03:00 hrs.
Sorry for the bad quality of the pics.
Does anybody know why this convoy departed at Friday and then stayed over for 2 night at the "aire d"Eauze".
I know it takes three nights to make the trip from Langon to TLS, but why not waited till Monday for departure. I first thought it had probably something to do with the space in Langon being cleared for the next parts to arrive by barge. But that does not make sense since the trailers are not there because they are on their way with the parts of ship #115.
Another question is why are the wings in Langon in a Hanger/shelter? On the two reststops during the transport they stay in open air.
Someone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2780 posts, RR: 1 Reply 69, posted (9 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 29641 times:
MSN089, MH's #4, has rolled out from outfitting in XFW after 13 weeks. And MSN107, EK's #26, finished outfitting last week. Not sure if it will go to TLS for wing works, like 101, 103 and 105?
Someone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2780 posts, RR: 1 Reply 70, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 28504 times:
Some updates this week:
-MSN084 MH's #3 was transfered from XFW til TLS delivery center
-MSN120 CZ's #5 rolled out fropm FAL in TLS
-MSN103 EK's #23 should be delivered to EK this week
-MSN088 CZ's #4 had it's RTO earlier this week at XFW
Based on earlier reports - 9V-SKT was scheduled for delivery tomorrow (Sept 6). Noteworthy because she is the last delivery for SQs current firm orders - unless SQ announce an exercise of options by tomorrow.
The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
Based on earlier reports - 9V-SKT was scheduled for delivery tomorrow (Sept 6). Noteworthy because she is the last delivery for SQs current firm orders
Delivered!
There also might be a total of five deliveries in September
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2249 posts, RR: 1 Reply 76, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 25922 times:
Quoting Someone83 (Reply 75): Based on earlier reports - 9V-SKT was scheduled for delivery tomorrow (Sept 6). Noteworthy because she is the last delivery for SQs current firm orders
Delivered
I expect SQ to make a follow-on order sometime in the not too far future, probably when the wing issues are fully solved and delivery rates become more predictable. Don't hey still have some unexcercised options left?
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 73): Deliveries for this month are:
MSN087 TG #1
MSN088 CZ #4
MSN092 SQ #19
MSN105 EK #24
MSN106 EK #25
And maybe MSN002 (recently reported by Flightglobal).
In that case we would have another of the typical cumulation of A380 deliveries (after one month of inactivity). I guess it is frames with the retrofit wing fix and frames with the FAL-incorporated fix coming together at the same time.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10682 posts, RR: 100 Reply 79, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 25481 times:
Quoting Wolbo (Reply 77): BA's first A380 has finished body join.
Excellent! The first of the new high MTOW/wing twist birds!
I'm surprised to see her towed without more weight at the engine mounts though...
Quoting r2rho (Reply 76): I guess it is frames with the retrofit wing fix and frames with the FAL-incorporated fix coming together at the same time.
A link to the current wing fix please. I've lost track of all the time frames.
teme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 85, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 24535 times:
Quoting EK413 (Reply 84): I'm afraid to break the news to everyone but I believe we have a new contender for the best looking livery going around on the A380!
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3593 posts, RR: 36 Reply 87, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 24455 times:
Quoting EK413 (Reply 84): I'm afraid to break the news to everyone but I believe we have a new contender for the best looking livery going around on the A380!
Well, I want to see the fully painted A380 of BA before I give it that much credit. But so far she is looking good. .
shankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1472 posts, RR: 1 Reply 89, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 24268 times:
Quoting Wolbo (Reply 77): BA's first A380 has finished body join
There is something about seeing the BA colour scheme on an aircraft (OK just the tail at the moment) that provides it with the ultimate stamp of approval
I recently felt the same about the 77W....superb and battle proven by many others, but seeing it for the first time in BA colours kind of confirmed, wow this is a bloody good aircraft
It really doesn't look it will be delivered anytime soon. Maybe the Sheikh has cancelled the deal? Remember, about one year ago the Kingdom Holding sticker was removed from the prototype Airbus usually presents on airshows (don't remember if it was MSN 001 or 004 or both).
Then again, Airbus would have the change the O&D spreadsheet accordingly but so far they didn't do it.
KennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 478 posts, RR: 0 Reply 100, posted (8 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 21822 times:
Singapore Airlines have recently received their 19th and last A388 and will hopefully order more. It looks like the next orders to be completed around the middle of next year will be Malaysia Airlines (2 delivered to date, 6th and last MSN114 entered FAL in July 2012) and China Southern Airlines (4 delivered to date, 5th and last MSN120 entered FAL in June 2012).
Are there any other orders that may be completed next year ? and shortly afterwards ?
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1772 posts, RR: 6 Reply 101, posted (8 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 20990 times:
Update:
- MSN087 TH #1 is now wearing its final registration (HS-TUA)
- MSN114 MH #6 completed final assembly
- MSN120 CZ #5 already performed its first engine run
Currently inside the FAL:
- MSN095 BA #1
- MSN113 EK #32
- MSN115 AF #5
- MSN116 EK #33
- MSN119 EK #34
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 108, posted (7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 18236 times:
Comments by Airbus VP-Marketing Sept 27 reported in Air Transport World:
Lange told ATW that modifications have been defined to resolve the wing cracks issue. These are currently being retrofitted to existing aircraft and will be fitted to aircraft coming off the delivery line sometime in 2013.
Lange said the issue was impacting production line throughput, not because airlines were withdrawing orders but because the issue provided opportunity for delaying or renegotiating orders already placed.
“Repeat customers in particular want to ensure full resolution of the issue so that they can be certain agreed delivery dates will be met,” Lange told ATW.
The target production rate is 30 aircraft a year, but the wing cracks issue has meant aircraft are being produced at a reduced rate of 2.3 a month, down from the earlier 2.7 a month.
And later in the article:
He acknowledged there would inevitably been some knock-on effect into 2013 but said, “This is a long-term business and we aim to be back at cruising speed in 2014.”
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2249 posts, RR: 1 Reply 109, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17596 times:
Quoting Someone83 (Reply 107): Emirates took delivery of both MSN105 and 106 yesterday
Good, that makes 19 for the year so far, 7 more to go in 3 months to match last year's deliveries should be achievable. The last stated target of 28-29 will be a challenge however IMO.
Quoting art (Reply 108): I wonder what he means by "back at cruising speed in 2014." 2.7 a month, I presume.
Possibly, but for the sake of the A380 program I hope you are wrong. I sure hope it doesn't take Airbus all of 2013 to recover that production rate; they need to get to 3 per month ASAP, the low (and completely unpredictable) delivery rates are holding back potential new orders IMO, and only push back the famous break-even date even further.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 111, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17489 times:
Quoting r2rho (Reply 109): Quoting art (Reply 108):
I wonder what he means by "back at cruising speed in 2014." 2.7 a month, I presume.
Possibly, but for the sake of the A380 program I hope you are wrong. I sure hope it doesn't take Airbus all of 2013 to recover that production rate; they need to get to 3 per month ASAP, the low (and completely unpredictable) delivery rates are holding back potential new orders IMO, and only push back the famous break-even date even further.
I seem to recall that Airbus expected to be producing 40 complete A380's by year 4 or 5 of production. Clearly they badly misjudged the time needed for outfitting with their production system. I also guess that the failure to produce at a higher rate puts potential orders in jeopardy. However, ramping up to an assembly rate of 3 per month seems pointless to me if Airbus cannot outfit them at that rate. They just end up with more money tied up in stalled work in progress sitting on the tarmac.
Semaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 769 posts, RR: 2 Reply 112, posted (7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 17438 times:
I have a couple of questions concerning the cabin outfitting, and I feel like this is the best place to get them answered.
As we have repeatedly seen, the bottleneck of the whole A380 program is the outfitting done at XFW. My first question is whether these issues are slowly being overcome, and if so, how did they achieve it and what are they doing differently then before?
The second question is, whether it would be possible for Airbus to create a whole new outfitting line altogether, whether it be in Spain or England or even China? Personally, I cannot see how Airbus is going to achieve a target of 5 or more frames per month if the space and resources at XFW are simple not there.
From my unknowledgable point of view the tricky thing in XFW is that they have to accomodate the needs of every new A380 operator, with all their different specs and configurations inside the cabin. Just have a look at the difference between an AF and LH A380 cabin, and the other 7 (current) operators sure also have their special wishes. So there's a potential problem at all times, and it's getting harder with every new airline.
However, TLS produces at a much faster rate, simply because from the basics of the aircraft, it doesn't matter which operater it is, they all have the same airframe to construct and 'simply' fit different engines accordingly.
Kind Regards
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 982 posts, RR: 0 Reply 115, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 16620 times:
Quoting Semaex (Reply 112): I have a couple of questions concerning the cabin outfitting, and I feel like this is the best place to get them answered.
As we have repeatedly seen, the bottleneck of the whole A380 program is the outfitting done at XFW. My first question is whether these issues are slowly being overcome, and if so, how did they achieve it and what are they doing differently then before?
The second question is, whether it would be possible for Airbus to create a whole new outfitting line altogether, whether it be in Spain or England or even China? Personally, I cannot see how Airbus is going to achieve a target of 5 or more frames per month if the space and resources at XFW are simple not there.
-
Quoting KennyK (Reply 114): Maybe set up another outfitting line purely for EK in TLS and pass everyone else through XFW ?
I am not sure that will help in the end as the cost of setting up a 2nd line will not be cheap.
Airbus has a problem with the A380. That being that even at this point they have not yet figured out how to produce one for the original sales price. While that is not unusual for the first couple years production at it takes 2-3 years to fine tune an assembly line for airliners; we are well past that point with the A380. Airbus has indicated that the key cost over-runs are indeed in the number of manhours that it takes to outfit the A380 (which is also the key delay in significant ramp-up). I do not see how a 2nd outfitting assembly line will reduce those manhours per plane. So if you are loosing money building the plane - why would you spend more money (a really good chunk of money at that) to build another assembly facility when it will not solve the problem of how many manhours it takes to complete the plane.
Airbus would be better off spending money figuring out how (if possible) to significantly reduce the number of manhours for final assembly (I do understand they are trying). If they can do that - then they will not need another final assembly area as the one they have will be big enough.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 116, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 16474 times:
Quoting Semaex (Reply 112): I cannot see how Airbus is going to achieve a target of 5 or more frames per month if the space and resources at XFW are simple not there
While the outfitting is currently the most visible bottleneck, the entire A380 assembly process from sub assembly to delivery is a hodge podge of arrogance and politics that will never reach a decent flow rate, (And the A350 is following suit).
Plus with limited sales and shrinking backlog, customers in 2020 will be happy with a 1 a month replacement rate. The plane is more about national egotism (on several fronts) than profit.
Yes that is a harsh assessment, however when you look at the logistics, plants, through put and time from convoy to delivery, there was never an attempt to streamline the flows and reduce the transportation costs and risks. They have dug a deep hole.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2249 posts, RR: 1 Reply 118, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 16206 times:
Quoting Semaex (Reply 112): they have to accomodate the needs of every new A380 operator, with all their different specs and configurations inside the cabin.
Cabin customization has been and is being a nightmare for the A380. Airbus went way too far in letting customers customize their cabins. Every new customer is a whole new challenge. They are still regretting this, and as you can see on the A350 they now offer much less customization options.
Quoting Semaex (Reply 112): the bottleneck of the whole A380 program is the outfitting done at XFW. My first question is whether these issues are slowly being overcome, and if so, how did they achieve it and what are they doing differently then before?
[...]whether it would be possible for Airbus to create a whole new outfitting line altogether, whether it be in Spain or England or even China?
N14AZ has done some nice analyses in these threads about that. Indeed the general impression is that TLS can produce aircraft faster than XFW can outfit them. But I don't think adding outffiting capacity is the solution. Rather, reducing outfitting manhours (still much too high) and moving work upstream:
Quoting Aircellist (Reply 117): How about installing the monuments in the fuselage at the initial assembly chain, still in Germany to protect workshare?
Indeed, some cabin monuments and other work could be done further upstream, parallel to final assembly work. The place to do this would be in the TLS FAL however. Which as you say, gets you into workshare issues/politics. But eventually they will have to do something about it.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 119, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 16125 times:
Quoting r2rho (Reply 118): Indeed, some cabin monuments and other work could be done further upstream, parallel to final assembly work. The place to do this would be in the TLS FAL however. Which as you say, gets you into workshare issues/politics.
It seems that these factions who think of their share of the work first are very short sighted. IMO the A380 will secure fewer orders (resulting in less work for all) because of built-in inefficiencies to please those seeking workshare for their faction. Similarly it will make less money / lose more money than would otherwise be the case (resulting in less funds being generated for investment and therefore less work). It will cease to be manufactured sooner (resulting in less work).
Overall the workshare issues/politics will result in less work for all at Airbus. It would be helpful if those fighting for their own faction's interests had the vision to do that more successfully.
jumpjet From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 218 posts, RR: 0 Reply 120, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 16074 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 116): While the outfitting is currently the most visible bottleneck, the entire A380 assembly process from sub assembly to delivery is a hodge podge of arrogance and politics that will never reach a decent flow rate, (And the A350 is following suit).
Absolutely on the button! Dealing with anything in life "by committee" rarely works and the essential nature of this invariably leads to inbuilt innefficiency, brinkmanship, and internal political squabbling. Just take a look at what's going on with the proposed merger of EADS and BAE Systems. There's endless delays in finalising matters - most simply caused by arguments as to where the headquarters of the new company is going to be!
bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3018 posts, RR: 2 Reply 121, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 16061 times:
Quoting Semaex (Reply 112): As we have repeatedly seen, the bottleneck of the whole A380 program is the outfitting done at XFW. My first question is whether these issues are slowly being overcome, and if so, how did they achieve it and what are they doing differently then before?The second question is, whether it would be possible for Airbus to create a whole new outfitting line altogether, whether it be in Spain or England or even China? Personally, I cannot see how Airbus is going to achieve a target of 5 or more frames per month if the space and resources at XFW are simple not there.
The situation of completing an airframe at TLS, giviing it a first flight, then sending it to XFW for 9 months of cabin outfitting should never have been considered. In the early days of Arbus when there wasn't that much work to spread round and each nation "had to get its share" this might have been understandable, but its a very different company now and XFW should have just been given a larger share of another programme, say A320 final assembly to compensate.
Quoting Semaex (Reply 112): From my unknowledgable point of view the tricky thing in XFW is that they have to accomodate the needs of every new A380 operator, with all their different specs and configurations inside the cabin. Just have a look at the difference between an AF and LH A380 cabin, and the other 7 (current) operators sure also have their special wishes. So there's a potential problem at all times, and it's getting harder with every new airline. However, TLS produces at a much faster rate, simply because from the basics of the aircraft, it doesn't matter which operater it is, they all have the same airframe to construct and 'simply' fit different engines accordingly.
This can't be so different to any other large aircraft programme, step inside a 744 belonging to any major airline and its will likely look entirely different to another airlines, particularly with F & J class. In some ways bigger ought to be easier, more room to move about, giving the ability to have multiple teams working in the cabin at the same time..
Its well documented that BA conduct D checks which entail the total removal of the interior, checking and repairing as necessary the fuselage and replacing/renewing the interior in around 30 days sometimes including new F or J class cabins and new AVOD. Perhaps it might be better to fly BA's green A380's to Cardiff ? they couldn't be slower than XFW. I can remember when BA's new 744's were flown direct from Boeing to Cambridge for Marshalls to install the seating etc, they didn't sit there for many weeks.
That is an avarage of 15.5 weeks. Painting takes about 2 weeks, so the outfitting process itself takes about 13 weeks. Add another ~ 5 weeks for cabin flight testing and we are at an average of 20 weeks (or 5 months). Yes, 5 months is still a long period, but far less than 9 months.
bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3018 posts, RR: 2 Reply 123, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15953 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 122): That is an avarage of 15.5 weeks. Painting takes about 2 weeks, so the outfitting process itself takes about 13 weeks. Add another ~ 5 weeks for cabin flight testing and we are at an average of 20 weeks (or 5 months). Yes, 5 months is still a long period, but far less than 9 months.
Thanks for the correction, thats better but still a long time for a plane to sit idle with very expensive new engines hanging under the wings.
What do you mean by "cabin flight testing" ?
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1772 posts, RR: 6 Reply 124, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15942 times:
Another 'problem' is that there are only 6 outfitting hangars in XFW. I remember MSN094 sitting at the TLS flightline for 7 weeks (nearly 2 months!) after roll-out, awaiting an empty hangar in XFW.
Quote: Thanks for the correction, thats better but still a long time for a plane to sit idle with very expensive new engines hanging under the wings.
I agree that 5 months is still a long time, but it's definitely getting better. In fact, Thai is the first operator where the first frame (MSN087) took less than a year between convoy and delivery (47 weeks).
Quote: What do you mean by "cabin flight testing" ?
After the roll-out in XFW they (the frames) make several flights to test the cabin installation.
babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3512 posts, RR: 6 Reply 125, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 16019 times:
I'm still kinda hoping that BA pull some fancy cabin trick such as a bar in premium classes like Emirates and the others. A nice retro touch to match the retro looking first class suites.
I'm also amazed that when you look at the engines on BA's A380 there isn't that much space for the hot engine thrust to escape. Same for the VS A340-600s.
Just some random thoughts.
Can't wait to see the BA A380 at LHR.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 126, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15989 times:
Quoting babybus (Reply 125): I'm also amazed that when you look at the engines on BA's A380 there isn't that much space for the hot engine thrust to escape
???
Has the sky BA flies through got less space in it?
jumpjet From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 218 posts, RR: 0 Reply 127, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 16116 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 124): I'm also amazed that when you look at the engines on BA's A380 there isn't that much space for the hot engine thrust to escape. Same for the VS A340-600s.
Sorry, I don't quite get this????? Can you please explain?
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 128, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 16097 times:
All this long fitting work must cost Airbus a lot of money, why cant they just offer a standard cabin and anything beyond that will be billed to the airline? Cap the fittings to about 2 months maximum standard.
I wonder if this program will ever be the financial success as the A320 or A330 was.
bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3018 posts, RR: 2 Reply 129, posted (7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 16046 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 124): Quote:What do you mean by "cabin flight testing" ?
After the roll-out in XFW they (the frames) make several flights to test the cabin installation.
herein lies the problems of working across two sites, if everything was done at TLS, this could be done at the same time as the test flights.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 130, posted (7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15946 times:
Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 121): In the early days of Arbus when there wasn't that much work to spread round and each nation "had to get its share" this might have been understandable, but its a very different company now and XFW should have just been given a larger share of another programme, say A320 final assembly to compensate.
Airbus did exactly this in order to streamline A350 production.The original plan was to follow the A380 model - build in TLS and outfit in XFW - however XFW accepted another A320 line to allow TLS to handle all A350 production and outfitting tasks.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 131, posted (7 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15683 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 122): That is an avarage of 15.5 weeks. Painting takes about 2 weeks, so the outfitting process itself takes about 13 weeks
anything greater than 1 week outfitting (2 in worst case) 1 week painting reflects gross incompetence in planning and organization... the customer specialization while a problem has been the justifying crutch supporting the whole process and distracts from the ludicrous flows in FAL and earlier.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 132, posted (7 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 15626 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 131): anything greater than 1 week outfitting (2 in worst case) 1 week painting reflects gross incompetence in planning and organization... the customer specialization while a problem has been the justifying crutch supporting the whole process and distracts from the ludicrous flows in FAL and earlier.
You say interior fitting should take 2 weeks at most. Any idea how long it takes for any other aircraft where interior fitting only starts after assembly has finished?
It has been mentioned but if BA can strip out a 744 interior, work on the aircraft structure for some time and then refit in a month, I'm baffled how it takes so long to fit the interior of an A380.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 1983 posts, RR: 10 Reply 133, posted (7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 15356 times:
I agree that a not insifnificant part of this interior outfitting inefficiency was iron cast (I think that's the correct phrase?) in the production flow, by a heavy political background with the decission to spit FAL and outfitting between Toulouse and Hamburg.
Nowadays, many large interiour pieces you would want to install before the fuselage sections are mated, as that allows installation of much larger pre-assembled pieces. These items now have to be split up in much smaller sections as they will have to fit through the aircraft doors, rather than a fuselage cross section.
These pre-assembly tasks can now no longer be carried out in parallel, early in the build process, but have to be carried out in a sequential manner after FAL and first flight. BTW, this adds considreably to total cost, as all high value parts (engines, avionics etc), have to be installed 6 - 8 month prior to delivery (=payment). At 3 frames per month, that is an incredable amount of cash tied up in WIP for a very long period!
Tasks in parallel are very nice in that you can relatively easily add workforce to reduce total assembly time. The moment any of these tasks are carried out in a sequential sequence, you are pretty much limited in just increasing workforce, since tasks now have to wait for each other before the next one can be started.
Also, a lot of relatively easy work tasks that are now carried out in Hamburg after FAL and first flight could probably have been done much earlier in the build process, but the split in responsibilities did not anticipate for this work in Toulouse.
I'll bet that Hamburg workforce traffic and tooling/fixture logistics in the fuselage internals are a nightmare in itself . . .
I also believe that this split up in work between FAL and Hamburg, had it's impact on many engineering design and production set-up decisions on airframe parts, interiour parts, FAL lay-out, and tool and fixture designs etc. It could very well be that to make that step change in interior installation efficiency, significant design changes have to made to all these items. Those can be pretty heavy changes to the airframe and outfitting parts, and to the production system. You don't do that overnight, especially not when the assembly process has not fully stabelized yet.
I think Mr. Enders touched on this previously, without going into details, that the split up in work between Toulouse and Hamburg [significantly] reduced assembly efficiency, and could not be easily simplified.
In hindsight, I think Airbus severely regrets this split in Toulouse and Hamburg tasks. Perhaps this should be an important change in production flow for the next generation A380 (-900). It would probably be best to move all A380 work to Toulouse, with a partial FAL redesign (and in return move all Toulouse A32X work to Hamburg). This would allow important design changes, and FAL redesign set up to improve the assembly process significantly. Probably won't happen this decade . . .
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 134, posted (7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 15372 times:
Quoting PW100 (Reply 133): Nowadays, many large interiour pieces you would want to install before the fuselage sections are mated, as that allows installation of much larger pre-assembled pieces. These items now have to be split up in much smaller sections as they will have to fit through the aircraft doors, rather than a fuselage cross section.
But isn't that the case for most, if not all, airliners?
They seem to assemble the entire fuselage first, then add all the interior bits (insulation blankets, panels, carpets, seats, galleys, lavatories, bins, etc).
Or because the A380 appears to be essentially a complete airframe except for the interior when it is sent to XFW, does this mean that XFW has to perform re-work in order to install the interior and that adds time?
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 1983 posts, RR: 10 Reply 135, posted (7 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 15324 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 134): But isn't that the case for most, if not all, airliners?
It was my impression that the airframe sections of the likes of 787, 350 have in increasing level of pre-stuffing where not only these large items, but also wiring, tubes, etc, are installed at much earlier stages in the assembly process where the lack of confined space limitations of a completed aircraft allow for much smoother and more efficient production proces. The A380 on the other hand went the opposite way, to the extreme.
But I'll readily admit that this is not exactly my field of expertise, and I'll be happy to be corrected by much more knowledgable people than me . . . including yourself.
Rgds,
PW100
[Edited 2012-10-05 14:03:05]
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 136, posted (7 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 15110 times:
Quoting art (Reply 132): You say interior fitting should take 2 weeks at most.
OK maybe 2 weeks... I spent years managing the parts going into the 757 and process inspecting the 737, plus a few years around the 747 and properly planned and managed outfitting is no big deal. yes at one point we had units that had to be disassembled to get through the doors until we figured out how to install and secure in the fuselage sections before mating.
Looking at a video on one of the earlier threads, the A380 installation was haphazard, uncoordinated, inefficient and labor intensive. It may take a joint resolution of the German and French legislative bodies to authorize process improvements.
Quoting PW100 (Reply 133): These pre-assembly tasks can now no longer be carried out in parallel, early in the build process,
That belief is what will prevent any improvement.
some of the stuffing needs to move upstream from the vaunted convoys..look at Boeing's moving line and Airbus's shuffle (more pronounced on the A350). Please recall that prior to Henry Ford every automobile was a collection of hand fitted parts with no standardization. Boeing's moving line requires every part be correct and identical unit after unit; and every action repeatable with the same result. Looking at Airbus processes each roll out appears to be coincidence rather than a planned event.
ricknroll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 479 posts, RR: 0 Reply 137, posted (7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 15040 times:
The A380 is a much larger and more complex machine that the 757. It also has a much wider variation in how the seating can be laid out, the types of seats used and the interior fit out, for example showers, cabins, etc. It would require consultation with the customers as much as anything else if they are to simply the options available for fit out so a more standard and regular process could be used.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 138, posted (7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 15053 times:
Quoting ricknroll (Reply 137): The A380 is a much larger and more complex machine that the 757. It also has a much wider variation in how the seating can be laid out, the types of seats used and the interior fit out, for example showers, cabins, etc. It would require consultation with the customers as much as anything else if they are to simply the options available for fit out so a more standard and regular process could be used.
That's the myth... yes the A380 is bigger, but the seat tracks are installed upstream.. and it's a standard layout. seats could be installed in 24 hours. they are the last thing in after carpets. All this hype about complexity of design is an excuse for either poor engineering, poor production planning/job sequencing, poor component scheduling, or poor management. One video I saw bemoaned the difficulty getting stuff through the double wide doors... why, because somebody decided to install a wall just inside before they got the big stuff installed.. that's poor planning. Even looking at the layout outside the a/p, there were obstacles that prevented large parts movement. Now the bulk of the plane gets stow bins, ceilings, sidewalls, trim, carpets and that's it... If they start in steerage and work forward 60% will be done in very short order. but if they put down the water seal then move galleys and lavs over it, they will be constantly repairing.
If one believed that variability between customer installations causes the problem, why has the through put plateaued even for old customers.
now re the 757, we built the VP planes on the standard production line, they had unique customized interiors. those planes moved at the same rate through the process as the commercial planes. it can be done.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9137 posts, RR: 96 Reply 139, posted (7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14900 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 138): All this hype about complexity of design is an excuse for either poor engineering, poor production planning/job sequencing, poor component scheduling, or poor management. One video I saw bemoaned the difficulty getting stuff through the double wide doors... why, because somebody decided to install a wall just inside before they got the big stuff installed.. that's poor planning
This is certainly a far more pragmatic set of reasons to present to us than playing the "politics" BS card as was done earlier.
There is nothing in the politics that should have prevented an effective outfitting sequence.
There's no question in my mind that "complexity of design" is a factor, but not in the way most people think.
I remain convinced that the CAD screw-up has resulted in a seriously sub-optimal physical integration solution (particularly for systems routings) as they tried to squeeze the cabling into spaces that frankly weren't big enough.
The symptoms sound suspiciously familiar enough to somenoe who has very recent, very painful experience of this.
Quoting kanban (Reply 116): the entire A380 assembly process from sub assembly to delivery is a hodge podge of arrogance and politics that will never reach a decent flow rate
Remove the unneccesary politics BS and I'm struggling to see how it looks substantially different from the plethora of worldwide routes that small, and large parts of the 787 routinely traverse - usually by the most expensive transport medium known to man.
I accept that the slower transport media result in WIP, but it IS a one-piece-flow (of sorts)
Quoting kanban (Reply 116): Plus with limited sales and shrinking backlog, customers in 2020 will be happy with a 1 a month replacement rate. The plane is more about national egotism (on several fronts) than profit.
You post a lot better when you focus to the production engineering, frankly. In that arena I've come to appreciate the value of your input
The politics/egotism BS is way past tired.
In my opinion, of course
maxter From Australia, joined exactly 4 years ago today! , 192 posts, RR: 0 Reply 140, posted (7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14490 times:
And mine as well. The almost hysterical and irrational bashing of the non engineering side of assembly issues is in marked contrast with the cold logical reasoning of the engineering failures. I sense an agenda here. As mentioned previously, my opinion only.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 141, posted (7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14399 times:
Apologies if I seem driven, we've gone through multiple threads about the problems and seen little improvement beyond initial learning curve. Having participated in shop floor teams tackling similar issues and seeing results, I tend to lose my cool at the apparent resistance to improvement. Wasn't there a thread a few years back that suggested that by tripling the outfitting positions, they would remove the backlog and every airline would flock to buy?... Even the charts presented periodically here are skewed to positive.. (the delivery total line goes up, the delivered customer base goes up) but the through put in both FAL and outfitting are essentially stagnant. and unrealistically long compared to the tasks.
One thought, I've noticed a heavy reliance on robotics, could the robotics be part of the bottle neck.. say for instance parts are delivered on robotic tooling creeping along buried sensors at 0.25 KMPH when a fork lift would deliver at 20 KMPH (exaggeration between the two rates for illustration only).. I've challenged Ferpe on the A350 moving from bay to bay on a special dolly vs on it's own landing gear, but then the A350 is a thread unto itself.
The difference with the 787 is the sections are far more fully complete when arriving for FAL.. the forward (41 section) is only missing the least robust electronics and the seats (last to be installed to prevent some mech with snippers in his rear pocket from poking holes or leaving a blotch of primer or sealant.) The other section have all the insulation, wiring, plumbing (water, air, waste and what little hydraulic remains) installed and requiring only hookup. I am told but have not verified that the floors are installed and sealed for galleys and lavs. there was also studies to install lavs and galleys in Charleston. Note the 787 line has 4 positions and the capability to be a continuously moving line. Years ago before the moving line was adopted, I believed the Airbus FAL to docked station was better than Boeing's WWII era nightly line moves (we wasted a whole shift per model just advancing the planes one position).
I would say part of my frustration is some process in the A380 management effectively and intentionally seems to resist improvement. and as you both noted "in my opinion"
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 142, posted (7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14408 times:
Quoting maxter (Reply 140): The almost hysterical and irrational bashing of the non engineering side of assembly issues is in marked contrast with the cold logical reasoning of the engineering failures.
It seems there was not too much cold logical reasoning in choosing the manner in which the A380 was to be built. I don't think bashing Airbus for the unfortunate "political" choices they made is irrational. IMO what Airbus did was irrational (knowing that they were not choosing the best way to build the product).
Whatever, what does Airbus propose to transform what must be a very expensive build process into one that is a lot cheaper?
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1772 posts, RR: 6 Reply 143, posted (7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14404 times:
Quote: Whatever, what does Airbus propose to transform what must be a very expensive build process into one that is a lot cheaper?
Here is an interesting quote from a 2005 article:
Quote: Airbus is planning to use the moving assembly line for other aircraft families such as the A330 and A340 from next year. Plans are also under way to study the feasibility of similarly having a moving line for interior equipment fitting on the A380 from 2008.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 144, posted (7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13921 times:
Quoting art (Reply 142): IMO what Airbus did was irrational (knowing that they were not choosing the best way to build the product).
It was perfectly rational; you're just using a different version of "best" than Airbus (or Boeing or Bombardier or Embraer or...).
If the game was all about the most efficient assembly process, you'd co-locate all your suppliers. You would never ship sections by barge or Beluga or Dreamlifter...it's completely asinine from a logistics point of view. Any supply chain where you need to invent an entirely new transport vehicle is, on it's face, a complete engineering failure.
But it's not just about engineering. All companies, and especially aerospace companies, have to live in the real, political, world. You can't tell the UK to move their wing plant to Toulouse. You can't get the Japanese to launch an all composite-airliner with 100 orders and not have them build any parts. You can't sell P8-I's to the Indians without also dealing with the 787 financing fiasco.
"Best" is the optimal solution you can find *given the constraints you have*. Yes, if you released all the constraints, you could do better. But you can't release the constraints so how you'd do it if you could is mostly intellectual navel gazing. In the mean time, OEM's need to build airplanes.
That is not to say they can't get better...they absolutely can...most processes can. But it's a mistake to think that anything in aerospace ends up the way it is because anyone thought that was the most efficient assembly process they could come up with.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9137 posts, RR: 96 Reply 146, posted (7 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 13747 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 141): Apologies if I seem driven, we've gone through multiple threads about the problems and seen little improvement beyond initial learning curve. Having participated in shop floor teams tackling similar issues and seeing results, I tend to lose my cool at the apparent resistance to improvement
For what its worth I completely share your frustrations (I suspect we operate, or have operated, in a similar part of the value system in this type of complex manufacturing too).
I struggle to believe Airbus aren't trying desperately to improve the A380.
Which is why I harbour the suspicion that there is a fundamental underlying engineering suboptimisation now built into the airframe that's causing difficulties in leveraging improvement.
Unfortunately I have to be extremely careful what I say, given my current position.
All I can do is reiterate my comment that the symptoms look all-too-sadly "familiar"...
worrying too.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 144): All companies, and especially aerospace companies, have to live in the real, political, world. You can't tell the UK to move their wing plant to Toulouse. You can't get the Japanese to launch an all composite-airliner with 100 orders and not have them build any parts. You can't sell P8-I's to the Indians without also dealing with the 787 financing fiasco.
Totally agree with all of that, Tom. Whatever the programme these days, product globalisations = politics. Unescapable.
And yes, it does lead to strange logistical paradigms.
But it doesn't need to lead to prohibitive manufacturing sequences.
In fact, the shipping points can really effectively be used as hold points for "staged" construction, outfitting and testing.
A characteristic which I actually believe was one of Airbus's early strengths, paradoxically enough.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10682 posts, RR: 100 Reply 147, posted (7 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 13721 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 139): I remain convinced that the CAD screw-up has resulted in a seriously sub-optimal physical integration solution (particularly for systems routings) as they tried to squeeze the cabling into spaces that frankly weren't big enough.
I too believe that. I'm hearing that some of the wiring will *never* be done by the process envisioned as the connectors just will not fit through the passages provided. Does anyone have a link that contradicts? My sources on this are not my best sources...
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 148, posted (7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13565 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 144): Quoting art (Reply 142):
IMO what Airbus did was irrational (knowing that they were not choosing the best way to build the product).
It was perfectly rational; you're just using a different version of "best" than Airbus (or Boeing or Bombardier or Embraer or...).
When you compromise the efficiency of a production process to the extent that you cannot build your product profitably, why bother designing, developing and producing that product?
Boeing, Bombardier and Airbus all ship major assemblies to a final assembly line. Is that approach so flawed that those products are incapable of being built at a profit? No. What's different about the A380? An inefficient "assemble then fit interior" process was dreamed up. I would not know but I guess that if you used that approach on the the other products from those manufacturers, they would cost significantly more to build.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 146): Whatever the programme these days, product globalisations = politics. Unescapable.
And yes, it does lead to strange logistical paradigms.
But it doesn't need to lead to prohibitive manufacturing sequences.
Which appears to be what has happened with the A380. When vying for workshare both Airbus France and Airbus Germany should have recognised that assembling in France then outfitting in Germany was not a viable approach.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 1983 posts, RR: 10 Reply 149, posted (7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13518 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 146): the suspicion that there is a fundamental underlying engineering suboptimisation now built into the airframe that's causing difficulties in leveraging improvement
I do indeed think that this is the main problem. How long did it take Airbus to complete the cabin outfitting on SQ last airframe? All the logistics apart of shipping large airframe parts all over europe, this part of the production process should be completed in considerably less time than around 5 months after a 19 frame learning curve.
I'm affraid we won't see step change improvement in this process until the A380-900. This will be the most natural point in time to change the process, and change some of the engineering decisions embedded in the design of the airframe, systems intergration, production system and perhaps logistics.
Rgds,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2479 posts, RR: 35 Reply 150, posted (7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13342 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 144): But it's not just about engineering. All companies, and especially aerospace companies, have to live in the real, political, world.
Add that it is practically impossible to move the full supply chain to a single location. There's just too much infrastructure and people required.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 144): "Best" is the optimal solution you can find *given the constraints you have*.
People forget that all but the smallest projects are compromises between many different incompatible requirements. It isn't about perfect solutions. It is about best compromise.
Quoting art (Reply 148): Airbus Germany should have recognised that assembling in France then outfitting in Germany was not a viable approach.
Why isn't it a viable approach?
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 151, posted (7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13308 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 150): Quoting art (Reply 148):
Airbus Germany should have recognised that assembling in France then outfitting in Germany was not a viable approach.
Why isn't it a viable approach?
Because it increases costs too much. If this was driven by workshare some other work should have been moved to Germany to make up for all A380 work being done in France more cheaply and more quickly.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 152, posted (7 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 13351 times:
Quoting art (Reply 148): When vying for workshare both Airbus France and Airbus Germany should have recognised that assembling in France then outfitting in Germany was not a viable approach.
If astuteman and lightsaber are correct, the problem is in the fundamental design of the A380. Doing everything in TLS would probably have some mitigating circumstances, but it won't overcome the design issue.
Quoting PW100 (Reply 149): I'm affraid we won't see step change improvement in this process until the A380-900.
If it is a design issue, then Airbus would need to correct it with the A380-900 to mitigate it and I'm not sure they'd follow that road.
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 611 posts, RR: 1 Reply 153, posted (7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13205 times:
Quoting art (Reply 151): Because it increases costs too much. If this was driven by workshare some other work should have been moved to Germany to make up for all A380 work being done in France more cheaply and more quickly.
I agree with Astuteman and others that there's an underlying technical constraint that is causing these problems. Assembly and outfit in different locations should have been possible.
Does anyone have a clue about the way that Airbus is actually doing the outfitting? And what's really involved with the outfitting exactly, anyway? Are there any pictures of A380s in the outfitting process that might offer a clue of what is going on? Do they have to finish the plane far enough in Germany so that it can fly, and the in France they rip plenty of parts out to do the complete outfitting? They assemble entire parts of the cabin outfitting and then attempt to move them inside the plane in one piece? (But that sounds so non-plausible...) There's a parts shortage? There's wiring as a part of the outfitting process, and that is somehow all screwed up because of the CAD fiasco? (But how much wiring is there anyway in the outfitting process?) Somethign else, what?
jumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0 Reply 154, posted (7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13161 times:
It has been suggested on another thread that BAs Boeing widebodies have their Y cabins fitted by Boeing and then flown to the UK for the rest of the fitting out by BA themselves. Might this happen for their A380s? Could other airlines do the same? Would it help speed up the fitting out and delivery process?
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 155, posted (7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13089 times:
Quoting art (Reply 148): When vying for workshare both Airbus France and Airbus Germany should have recognised that assembling in France then outfitting in Germany was not a viable approach.
While I moan about the inefficiency, I do not believe the work share split itself is the problem. It's how it's planned and managed. Thinking about the wiring issue, if the same computer programming issue exists between the fuselage and the interior design groups, the interiors will not fit until all the drawings, parts and tooling are redesigned.
Further as I mentioned above, the outfitting problems obscure equal sized problems in the FAL process... both need to be fixed.
Quoting PW100 (Reply 149):
I'm affraid we won't see step change improvement in this process until the A380-900.
I sense too much "that's my process and you won't change perfection" to put money on improvements with a new model.
Quoting jumpjets (Reply 154): It has been suggested on another thread that BAs Boeing widebodies have their Y cabins fitted by Boeing and then flown to the UK for the rest of the fitting out by BA themselves. Might this happen for their A380s?
What BA installs are seats and a few UK produced amenities (saves shipping costs) not cabin outfitting. (note; my use of outfitting this may be a word usage variant peculiar to Yankee manufacturers and there for confusing)
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 156, posted (7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13100 times:
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 153): Do they have to finish the plane far enough in Germany so that it can fly, and the in France they rip plenty of parts out to do the complete outfitting?
A380s are assembled in France (TLS) and then flown to Germany (XFW) for outfitting.
As to the rest of your questions, I'm guessing that the original design and engineering drawings for things like the IFE wiring were invalidated by the CAD system incompatibilities and Airbus can't re-design them (either due to certification issues or a physical lack of space to widen or change the pass-throughs between sections) so they have to devote significant man-hours to working around the design, which slows outfitting.
Quoting jumpjets (Reply 154): It has been suggested on another thread that BAs Boeing widebodies have their Y cabins fitted by Boeing and then flown to the UK for the rest of the fitting out by BA themselves. Might this happen for their A380s?
As noted by kanban, what BA do is just install the FIRST and Club World seating and fixtures. The aircraft have their bins installed, interior cabin walls, IFE cabling, galleys and lavs (or at least the fittings) and all that already installed.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 158, posted (7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 12592 times:
Quoting art (Reply 148): When you compromise the efficiency of a production process to the extent that you cannot build your product profitably, why bother designing, developing and producing that product?
For starters, none of the manufacturers do full program-level accounting (not to be confused with "program accounting", which is a cost-allocation accounting method) so they can't actually tell whether any particular product is profitable with much certainty.
In addition, there can be a lot of synergistic benefits of one program for others so that one "unprofitable" program may in fact be a perfectly good business decision if what it enables for your other programs more than offsets the loss. A *lot* of military offset contracts work this way.
Quoting art (Reply 148): Boeing, Bombardier and Airbus all ship major assemblies to a final assembly line. Is that approach so flawed that those products are incapable of being built at a profit? No.
Exactly. But if you offered any of them the option to have their major assembly supplier half way around the planet or next door, without any other constraints, guess which one they would choose?
Quoting art (Reply 148): What's different about the A380? An inefficient "assemble then fit interior" process was dreamed up.
They didn't dream that up. Most airplane are some variant of "assemble then fit interior". The only thing that Airbus is doing "new" here is to move the airplane in between but that's not what seems to be causing all their problems.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2479 posts, RR: 35 Reply 159, posted (7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 12565 times:
Quoting art (Reply 151): Because it increases costs too much. If this was driven by workshare some other work should have been moved to Germany to make up for all A380 work being done in France more cheaply and more quickly.
I'm sorry but that doesn't address what is the root of the problem. By itself there is no problem splitting assembly between different places. Often it is more efficient.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 160, posted (7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 12561 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 158): Quoting art (Reply 148):
When you compromise the efficiency of a production process to the extent that you cannot build your product profitably, why bother designing, developing and producing that product?
For starters, none of the manufacturers do full program-level accounting (not to be confused with "program accounting", which is a cost-allocation accounting method) so they can't actually tell whether any particular product is profitable with much certainty.
You don't think A & B know with certainty that their narrowbodies are built profitably? I do.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 158):
In addition, there can be a lot of synergistic benefits of one program for others so that one "unprofitable" program may in fact be a perfectly good business decision if what it enables for your other programs more than offsets the loss. A *lot* of military offset contracts work this way.
Accepted.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 158): Quoting art (Reply 148):
Boeing, Bombardier and Airbus all ship major assemblies to a final assembly line. Is that approach so flawed that those products are incapable of being built at a profit? No.
Exactly. But if you offered any of them the option to have their major assembly supplier half way around the planet or next door, without any other constraints, guess which one they would choose?
Not difficult to guess.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 158): Quoting art (Reply 148):
What's different about the A380? An inefficient "assemble then fit interior" process was dreamed up.
They didn't dream that up. Most airplane are some variant of "assemble then fit interior". The only thing that Airbus is doing "new" here is to move the airplane in between but that's not what seems to be causing all their problems.
My bad. I thought a lot internal fitting was commonly done during the assembly process.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 161, posted (7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 12486 times:
Quoting art (Reply 160): I thought a lot internal fitting was commonly done during the assembly process
the process is constantly maturing, when I started every interior clip was installed after body join, that began moving back into section assembly then back to skin panel assembly. The floors were plywood panels until late in the process, seat tracks were late in the process, then were integrated into a floorbeam/seat track assembly..
Lately more work is done at the major section suppliers. FAL is mostly hooking the bits together.
The more I think about the A380 outfitting problem, the more I suspect the interior component designs, tools and therefore parts are incompatible with the fuselage design base.. the same as the electrical problem. I can not figure out the process flow problem of the FAL or why the sections are essentially bare when they arrive at the FAL. Airbus remains very tight lipped.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2249 posts, RR: 1 Reply 162, posted (7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 12084 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 128): All this long fitting work must cost Airbus a lot of money, why cant they just offer a standard cabin and anything beyond that will be billed to the airline?
They are probably bound by you-ask-for-it-and-we'll-build-it contracts (i.e. showers) signed with the various airlines. I wonder though, if for future customers Airbus could negotitate contracts with a lower degree of customization (or more do-it-yourself). This would at least help in the long term.
Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 129): Quote:What do you mean by "cabin flight testing" ?
After the roll-out in XFW they (the frames) make several flights to test the cabin installation.
herein lies the problems of working across two sites, if everything was done at TLS, this could be done at the same time as the test flights.
The two-sites are not a necessarily a problem for this as the ferry flights can be used for that. Even a highly mature A320 typically performs 3 flights before being delivered to the customer. Whether you do them flying circles around TLS or between TLS and XFW doesn't make a difference. But A380's indeed still have to perform more test flights than their more mature counterparts; this is a further area of improvement.
Quoting PW100 (Reply 133): Nowadays, many large interiour pieces you would want to install before the fuselage sections are mated, as that allows installation of much larger pre-assembled pieces. These items now have to be split up in much smaller sections as they will have to fit through the aircraft doors, rather than a fuselage cross section.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 134): But isn't that the case for most, if not all, airliners?
AFAIK, yes, so we can't blame Airbus for setting up the process in the same way as every other aircraft. Only with the A350 are they beginning to fit larger monuments at FAL arrival before the sections are mated (I am not 100% familiar though so correct if I'm wrong)
Quoting Stitch (Reply 152): If astuteman and lightsaber are correct, the problem is in the fundamental design of the A380. Doing everything in TLS would probably have some mitigating circumstances, but it won't overcome the design issue.
I too believe that. It is not just assembly process inefficiency, there is more to it, and surely several factors playing together.
Quoting cmf (Reply 159): By itself there is no problem splitting assembly between different places.
I believe that an efficient assembly process between TLS and XFW could still be set up. A fraction of pre-outfitting work could be shifted to TLS but there is still plenty of cabin work that is not done in parallel to other assembly and can be done at XFW. As others have said, the split-site work, while having an influence, is in itself not the sole or primary cause of production inefficiency.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 163, posted (7 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11619 times:
Quoting art (Reply 160): You don't think A & B know with certainty that their narrowbodies are built profitably? I do.
I'm sure they know that their narrowbodies are profitable. I'm equally sure that if you ask them "How much profit did you make on *that* aircraft?" they have no ability to answer that with any precision. It's almost impossible to meaningfullly attribute overhead costs for a very large corporation on a per unit basis, so none of them bother to try.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 164, posted (7 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11378 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 163): I'm sure they know that their narrowbodies are profitable. I'm equally sure that if you ask them "How much profit did you make on *that* aircraft?" they have no ability to answer that with any precision. It's almost impossible to meaningfullly attribute overhead costs for a very large corporation on a per unit basis, so none of them bother to try.
Tom.
Quoting r2rho (Reply 162): Quoting Stitch (Reply 152):
If astuteman and lightsaber are correct, the problem is in the fundamental design of the A380. Doing everything in TLS would probably have some mitigating circumstances, but it won't overcome the design issue.
I too believe that. It is not just assembly process inefficiency, there is more to it, and surely several factors playing together.
Re: extended outfitting time stemming from the fundamental design of the aircraft, how did these problems come about? It seems strange that an experienced OEM with several designs under its belt that did not suffer major outfiting problems should then design an aircraft where outfitting presents difficulties of a different order. I do not refer to the repercussions of the CATIA wiring problems and I appreciate that there is a learning curve for the many configurations used.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 166, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10919 times:
Quoting art (Reply 164): Re: extended outfitting time stemming from the fundamental design of the aircraft, how did these problems come about?
Airbus allowing far too much customization of interiors and then designing their installation on two incompatible systems.
Quoting art (Reply 164): It seems strange that an experienced OEM with several designs under its belt that did not suffer major outfiting problems should then design an aircraft where outfitting presents difficulties of a different order.
One of the selling points of the plane to airlines was that it offered so much space that they could offer amenities and options not previously available (or practical) for a commercial airliner. Items like showers, spas, casinos, etc. While such items have been available on Corporate Jets, that outfitting is normally handled by a third-party integrator where with the A380, they'd all be done by Airbus Commercial on the line.
Quoting art (Reply 164): I do not refer to the repercussions of the CATIA wiring problems and I appreciate that there is a learning curve for the many configurations used.
The CATIA wiring problems are one of the foundations for the delays, it appears.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9137 posts, RR: 96 Reply 167, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10800 times:
Quoting art (Reply 164): how did these problems come about? It seems strange that an experienced OEM with several designs under its belt that did not suffer major outfiting problems should then design an aircraft where outfitting presents difficulties of a different order
Quoting art (Reply 164): I do not refer to the repercussions of the CATIA wiring problems
I'm not sure on what basis you discount them when asking that question, as in my opinion, it is exactly this that is causing the problem.
At the time it was stated by Airbus that the CATIA conflict led to many situations where the wiring solution just wouldn't fit through the structural openings (penetrations) allowed for it, due to the mismatches in data.
It is my belief (without any first-hand evidence) that they have never been able to fully solve this problem throughout the design, thus creating numerous "fit at ship" situations.
If I can refer you to Lightsaber's unattributed rumour in post # 147 that some parts of the cabling solution will NEVER fit as originally intended..
If this is right, and the cabin wiring fitters are absolutely on the ragged edge for space availability, then funny things start to happen associated with, for example, tolerances, and tolerance build up.
Millimetres become worth their weight in gold.
In circumstances where the millimetres just aren't there because the tolerances have worked against you, then a bespoke routing solution for that particular cable/harness/penetrator has to be a) engineered, b) procured or manufactured, c) planned/sequenced, d) installed. That's a long, expensive, and disruptive process, especially as it is likely to be an emergent workload
The bad news is that Tolerance build up by its nature has a tendency to be random.
So those millimetres that are missing on frame X might be there on frame Y, thus invalidating the workaround. Conversely elsewhere in the wiring solution, frame Y might have this problem where frame X actually works.
It's random.
Generating continuous improvement and LFE (Learning From Experience) in these circumstances is horrendously difficult.
My hypothesis may be wrong. I hope it is. Because a permanent solution is likely to involve re-engineering on a huge scale.
I've experienced this phenomenon first hand on a very complex product.
And it leverages seemingly trivial local issues into construction schedule mutilating delays and cost overruns at the grand scale
As I say, I could be way off beam.
But if I've demonstrated a possible way that the CATIA screw-up can quite easily be causing ongoing issues on a large scale, that seem impossible to be "learned" out of the process, then my post has served its purpose.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10682 posts, RR: 100 Reply 168, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10765 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 167): At the time it was stated by Airbus that the CATIA conflict led to many situations where the wiring solution just wouldn't fit through the structural openings (penetrations) allowed for it, due to the mismatches in data.
It is my belief (without any first-hand evidence) that they have never been able to fully solve this problem throughout the design, thus creating numerous "fit at ship" situations.
If I can refer you to Lightsaber's unattributed rumour in post # 147 that some parts of the cabling solution will NEVER fit as originally intended..
To expand.
The original plan was to have the wiring pre-made such that at the D-check interval (or a 'heavy C') it would be cheaper to quickly replace the wire bundles instead of inspecting them. The idea was to have complete assembled wire bundles, with every twist and turn pre-bent, in a fashion that could be quickly pulled into place complete with terminators.
Now add to the mess custom IFE wiring.
Now add that the ports are much smaller than plan. Some of the wire bundles will *never* fit through their opening with connectors. That means that wire connectors must be attached 'in situ' with all the testing done in the aircraft. That means instead of having nice lab benches where a tech quickly connects the tester, one has to lug a tester and verify the calibration on aircraft. Then test on the aircraft and find the errors. (Bench top wire crimpers work 100X better than hand held ones which is why Airbus planned this.)
So instead of having a complete set of aircraft wire that takes a day or two to install, one is working in aircraft for weeks or months installing nothing but wire as that runs everywhere. (There are literally tons of wire.) For equipment and people are in the way of other cabin outfitting.
The reality is the ports for the wires will never be big enough. That would require redoing the structure which is a re-design. And yes, this means that the D-check intervals will be more expensive due to wiring issues.
I remain an A380 fan. The economics are still excellent. But this is a problem the plane will always have.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 169, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10693 times:
astuteman, lightsaber - thanks for your (to me) revelations. I was under the impression that the wiring problems had been solved for "Wave 2" aircraft.
From what you say it sounds very much like the A380 is condemned to quite unpredictable outfitting processes and man hours unless parts of it are re-designed.
Edit: I think that Airbus opted for Al rather than Cu for the wiring to save weight. If that is right, is there any possibility of reducing loom cross sections by electing to use a different conducting material?
An excellent explanation my friend. It's easy to see how the CATIA screw up could stay with this programme to the bitter end, at least to some degree.
And, as a fan, like you, it pains me to agree this could be a problem the plane will always have..
I'm guessing they'll progressively engineer fixes for the worst cases. But as I alluded to above, space will be the limiting factor to the art of the possible.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 171, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10602 times:
Quoting art (Reply 169): I was under the impression that the wiring problems had been solved for "Wave 2" aircraft.
I am going to hazard a guess here that "Wave 1" aircraft were ones that were already assembled and had to be re-worked (as in having their installed bundles ripped out and replaced).
it sounds like "Wave 2" aircraft are being assembled and wired with the process outlined by lightsaber above. Not having to remove the pre-existing wire saves some time, but the overall process still requires significant man hours.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9137 posts, RR: 96 Reply 172, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10593 times:
Quoting art (Reply 169): If that is right, is there any possibility of reducing loom cross sections by electing to use a different conducting material?
I've wondered the same.
From memory, that was indeed one of the key issues - that Al wire takes up more space.
I can't believe that it isn't being looked at.
For what its worth, the Airbus personnel I've met are dead set on continuous improvement, and practice it with passion.
So if improvement is hard to see from the outside, it points the finger at less "solveable" issues
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 173, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10519 times:
So what I hearing is the FAL slowness is related to the ships wiring and the outfitting slowness is related to the IFE wiring? Then it seems there are two problems one is length (accumulation of tolerances always occurring at the worst possible point) and the other is diameter... plug size or bundle diameter? Did they try to put the main cabin bundle through holes in the upper deck floor beams or is it suspended beneath.
With all the robotic processes building the sections, one would think the tolerance issue would be minimized
Do we know which computer system was used to engineer the interior components?
Quoting astuteman (Reply 172): For what its worth, the Airbus personnel I've met are dead set on continuous improvement, and practice it with passion
good to hear! Now next time get them to join A.net and enlighten us.
Added: was looking at the A350 thread and saw this picture http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...0547.116293.392751580741132&type=1 notice the wiring coiled and bagged in the forward section ceiling.. I believe it will be arriving that way from the sub assembly shop.. this is the kind of improvements that would shorten the A380 flows . and if the IFE plan is known that early especially on multiple plane orders, there is no reason not to have it installed similarly
airmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 146 posts, RR: 40 Reply 174, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10483 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 138): All this hype about complexity of design is an excuse for either poor engineering, poor production planning/job sequencing, poor component scheduling, or poor management
This is certainly true to a certain extent, especially for all those blunders made in the early days. Some of which continue to create unavoidable problems, as Astuteman and Lightsaber have said above.
But IMO you cannot discount the fact that the A380 is double-decker airliner, or simply compare it to a 757. In other airliners, like the 757 you use as an example, the cabin layouts cannot change so much : the back half is almost always tightly packed Y class, the front is a mix of Y, J and F, but overall the layouts remain fairly similar. Even on a 747, the top deck is too small to really play around with. You usually find all F or all J up there
The 380 allows for some more creativity, with airlines choosing for Y+F on one deck, full J on the other (KAL), all Y on one deck and J+F on the other (LH), Y+F and J+F (AF), etc etc...The plane is certified for up to 850 pax, but Korean uses 419 IIRC. That's one full 747 worth of difference !
So you have huge variations in passenger density and in the number and positions of galleys and lavatories. It's quite obvious by comparing the various A380 layouts on seatguru
In turn, this will impact the environment systems (pressure and temperature control, ventilation, local cooling for galleys, humidifcation), potable water supplies, waste water evacuation, power supplies for galleys, power for IFE equipment (obviously variable with Y, J or F), IFE relay boxes and wiring towards the main servers, emergency oxygen distribution, and perhaps more.
I'm guessing that all these require a very high degree of customization for ducts, pipes and wires, amplified by the high level of freedom Airbus gave to airlines. But then again, if the airlines can't adapt all that space to their own particular needs, the whole point of the A380 is lost...
Maybe Airbus decided to standardize the pre-FAL stuffing, and keep all this customization work for the XFW FAL ? If so, it might be difficult to transfer these activities upstream in the process to reduce lead times in Hamburg
But my main point was that I think it is difficult to compare the A380 cabin outfitting with the processes and lead times known for other aircraft.
Beware, these are just my own thoughts, and I'll admit they are totally baseless as I know very little of manufacturing processes for the A380...
SQ22 From Germany, joined Feb 2012, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 175, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10298 times:
Quoting airmagnac (Reply 174): Beware, these are just my own thoughts, and I'll admit they are totally baseless as I know very little of manufacturing processes for the A380...
Me too, but we can try to ask the right questions.
Does anyone know something about the 747 outfitting in the first years? I guess this was a challenge. too. I know its a bit off-topic, but its still helpful to get a better view about the technical details for non-technicians like me.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 176, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10293 times:
Please don't let the size or number of decks snow you, processes should be repeatable without fitting and trimming no matter what the size is, you just repeat the process more times. Yes I can agree that if every customer has a unique seat, lav, galley, and misc wow factor layout, it is a pain. Generally one would have nose to tail seat tracks and all these special furnishing attach to them.. yes plumbing and wiring runs might be different between customers. Air should be common with porting options. However when a customer block includes 5-20 identical layouts, and there is little through put improvement, something is wrong be it a 757, 747 or A380. I don't think they are going through manpower turnovers that could account for loss of knowledge.
again it's only an opinion based on one manufacturer's processes.
And yes I'd love to get a call from Airbus to come look as a consultant.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, RR: 25 Reply 177, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 10728 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 176): Yes I can agree that if every customer has a unique seat, lav, galley, and misc wow factor layout, it is a pain.
Some operators have even more than one A 380, e.g. EK with two different versions and QF, SQ and AF changed their layout after receiving The first batch of airframes.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3593 posts, RR: 36 Reply 178, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10591 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 170): An excellent explanation my friend. It's easy to see how the CATIA screw up could stay with this programme to the bitter end, at least to some degree.
Thanks astuteman and lightsaber for your detailed views on the issue. Your views sound highly plausible. My question would be this: is a possible launch of an A380-900 the right time to redesign the whole cabin outfitting issue, including the cable harnesses? Or is it even a too complex thing to go after when introducing the further developed, enlarged and improved A380?
airmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 146 posts, RR: 40 Reply 179, posted (7 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10507 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 176): processes should be repeatable without fitting and trimming no matter what the size is, you just repeat the process more times
Agreed, insofar as you are working on standardized products. But if my suspicions are true, there is a loss of commonality very early in the cabin systems integration due to the sheer size of the plane, making each cabin version a totally new product to design & produce. And so far, the number of aircraft produced in each cabin configuration is probably too low to really identify problem patterns.
Combine that with the possible tolerance issues mentioned above (this time due to Airbus screw-ups) and every single aircraft outfitting becomes an artisan job. Which makes it difficult to learn from mistakes and identify improvements and optimizations. You can't establish a process if the input is different each time.
So yes, Airbus screwed up big time and are still paying for it. But I believe that size does matter here, up to a point. I think you can't blame process OR size, but more of a mix of both.
Quoting kanban (Reply 176): again it's only an opinion based on one manufacturer's processes.
Someone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2780 posts, RR: 1 Reply 180, posted (7 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9981 times:
Some production updates this week:
MSN096, KE's 6th, has finished outfitting after 14 weeks
MSN123, EK's 32nd, has finished FAL after 11 weeks
MSN086, MH's 4th,has had its cabin first flight
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 181, posted (7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9795 times:
Quoting Someone83 (Reply 180): MSN096, KE's 6th, has finished outfitting after 14 weeks
MSN123, EK's 32nd, has finished FAL after 11 weeks
Quoting airmagnac (Reply 179): And so far, the number of aircraft produced in each cabin configuration is probably too low to really identify problem patterns
note: both flow through rates in the first quote should not be considered optimal... or acceptable.
Mayohoo From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 7 posts, RR: 0 Reply 183, posted (7 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9202 times:
Still, since one airline makes up a high percentage of the aircraft volume, you would expect the Emirates a380s to be completed at a much faster pace compared to the others simply due to the fact that there should be some familiarity with how they are being set up. It seems as though the a380 just takes a long time to outfit no matter what the configuration, likely for the reasons Stich and Kanban are hypothesizing.
Aircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1419 posts, RR: 9 Reply 184, posted (7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9053 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 152): If astuteman and lightsaber are correct, the problem is in the fundamental design of the A380. Doing everything in TLS would probably have some mitigating circumstances, but it won't overcome the design issue.
May it be bad enough that it prevents the A389 from ever existing? (long shot question).
Thanks for the tentative explanations, by the way, Astuteman, Lightsaber and Kanban.
Not wanting at all to stir an A vs B war, believe me... just discussing, here... But since the nightmarish days of comparing the belatedness of the 787 and the A380, B seems to be faring much better in catching up on the deliveries front.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 185, posted (7 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8962 times:
Quoting Aircellist (Reply 184): May it be bad enough that it prevents the A389 from ever existing? (long shot question).
If Airbus can outfit an A380-800, they can certainly outfit an A380-900.
The real question is how easily / how much can Airbus mitigate the outfitting through design changes to the A380-900.
2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 982 posts, RR: 0 Reply 186, posted (7 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8623 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 185): If Airbus can outfit an A380-800, they can certainly outfit an A380-900.
The real question is how easily / how much can Airbus mitigate the outfitting through design changes to the A380-900.
Let me phrase it in the correct terminology:
If Airbus cannot outfit an A380-800 in a cost effective fashion; it is true that they could still outfit a A380-900. The only question is how much will they have to raise the price to cover the cost of the design changes and the cost of the outfitting in order for it to be a profitable operation for Airbus? Secondly, is the higher price of the A380-900 then worth it to enough customers?
I have no idea what the answers are to those questions. But, they are the real questions and not if it is possible to outfit the A380-900 regardless of cost or profit.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 187, posted (7 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8568 times:
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 186): If Airbus cannot outfit an A380-800 in a cost effective fashion; it is true that they could still outfit a A380-900. The only question is how much will they have to raise the price to cover the cost of the design changes and the cost of the outfitting in order for it to be a profitable operation for Airbus?
There has got to be more improvement than that relative to outfitting... the 11 week FAL rate is likewise got to come down or do people believe they slowed the FAL down to take the pressure off outfitting?
Aircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1419 posts, RR: 9 Reply 188, posted (7 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8565 times:
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 186): If Airbus cannot outfit an A380-800 in a cost effective fashion; it is true that they could still outfit a A380-900. The only question is how much will they have to raise the price to cover the cost of the design changes and the cost of the outfitting in order for it to be a profitable operation for Airbus? Secondly, is the higher price of the A380-900 then worth it to enough customers?
Thanks for rephrasing my question in a neater way. That was what I had in mind, asking the question.
I do hope the A389 will come to exist one day. But A380 making does not seem easy.
brindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 190, posted (7 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8081 times:
Quoting Aircellist (Reply 184): But since the nightmarish days of comparing the belatedness of the 787 and the A380, B seems to be faring much better in catching up on the deliveries front.
Quite true. However it should be noted that B have ended-up with 3 lines, rather than the single one which they apparently anticipated.
How well I remember the heady days, say 6 years ago - for instance, I recall a question being posed on these pages as to the likelihood of another line ever becoming necessary ... no way!, answered a confident proponent.
He explained that since the final assembly was little more than a lego bolt-together process taking say 2 days total, the FAL was almost totally elastic & could offer very high rates indeed without strain!
No problem, apparently. Next question?
Ok, ok, we all make mistakes.
It is fair, however, to observe that there is a big difference between 1 FAL as originally planned and 3 such, as has actually been necessary(!).
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, RR: 83 Reply 191, posted (7 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8094 times:
Quoting brindabella (Reply 190): It is fair, however, to observe that there is a big difference between 1 FAL as originally planned and 3 such, as has actually been necessary(!).
It's also fair to note that CHS was built to protect Boeing against labor actions by the IAM at PAE and the surge line is a temporary line and not capable of completely assembling a 787 from start to finish.
And now let's focus back on the A380 in this thread. If we want to compare the production of the 787 and A380, let us do so in a new thread.
brindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 192, posted (7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7951 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 191): It's also fair to note that CHS was built to protect Boeing against labor actions by the IAM at PAE and the surge line is a temporary line and not capable of completely assembling a 787 from start to finish.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10682 posts, RR: 100 Reply 193, posted (7 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7755 times:
Quoting Aircellist (Reply 184): May it be bad enough that it prevents the A389 from ever existing? (long shot question).
The fundamental problem is the port diameters. In Catia 4, a port might be designed with a 7.5cm diameter. In Catia 5, they might have seen the port as a 8.5cm diameter. What 10mm might not sound like much, it is enough to keep a wiring bundle from going through. So the question is, what is the cost to expand the ports? Part of the issue is the fit up 'mish mash' resulted in many of the ports requiring more reinforcement as stresses shifted.
I think the A380 could be improved. Its not horrid. There is still a business case to build A388s. However, the 'continuous improvement' has been impeded as fundamental concepts the A380 was built around (e.g., installing wiring in complete pre-bent and fitted bundles) is not working. There is a fix, but some will require system redesign (more fiber) and that is not trivial. I see no reason why they wouldn't do so for the A389. It will add $200M or so to the cost, but that money will have a positive ROI.
Many (belated) thanks for the explanation. I know that every mm counts... The difference just one or two mm bridge height may have on a cello's playability and sound is surprising...
So... If ever there is a redesign for the A389, could it be "easily" rolled back into the A388? I guess, after all, if it allows for a much quicker building of the plane, it may be worth making it?
Such a fascinating aircraft, and such an aeronautical feat. What a shame it has to endure all those troubles.
On another question, I see in this article about VS that their president, Mr Ridgway, is talking about "rapidly moving out of four-engined aircraft - we have to do that because of where we seeing fuel costs going".
In context: this article is about the replacement of VS' A340s and 747s. But then, what is the current status of their A380 order? I remember it has been pushed back...
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10463 posts, RR: 20 Reply 195, posted (7 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6574 times:
Quoting brindabella (Reply 190): the final assembly was little more than a lego bolt-together process taking say 2 days total
Even in the days of yore, the projection was a frame out the doors every 3 days with each frame taking 12 days to click together.
Quoting Aircellist (Reply 194): But then, what is the current status of their A380 order? I remember it has been pushed back...
Has been in place since 2001, has been pushed back at least once, and VS has ordered A330s from Airbus in the mean time, which perhaps was a chance to get rid of the A380 deposits, should Airbus have let them.
ricknroll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 479 posts, RR: 0 Reply 198, posted (7 months 23 hours ago) and read 6080 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 181): note: both flow through rates in the first quote should not be considered optimal... or acceptable.
I would very much doubt that Airbus thinks they are optimal or acceptable. They also have a system that is producing planes, and you can't move from where they are to where they would like to be easily without impacting what they are achieving.
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2249 posts, RR: 1 Reply 199, posted (7 months 22 hours ago) and read 6019 times:
Quoting art (Reply 196): 9 weeks to year end. Airbus hopes to deliver 28(?) frames this year. I wonder how close they will get to their target.
Seems a bit too ambitious, they'd have to deliver 4 a/c per month. But they should - and must - at least match the 26 deliveries of last year. Delivering less would be a major blow, at least psychologically, regardless of any wing problems. It is sad enough that 2012 will likely see no increase of deliveries versus 2011.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10682 posts, RR: 100 Reply 203, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5025 times:
Moderators, please start a new thread due to the length.
That's not the painting hangar in XFW. It looks different. This hangar looks Tououse-ish to me but I might be wrong.
Quoting india1 (Reply 208): Won't that mean a stretch in the next 7 weeks and over Christmas?
I wasn't able to follow production as close as before but I think so far Airbus delivered 20 A 380s, correct?
So 10 aiframes in less than 2 months including Christmas, pheeeeew...
petera380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 324 posts, RR: 0 Reply 211, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3864 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 207): Does anybody know what's going on in this picture?
I think it may be MSN 001 in TLS before the unveiling? I seem to remember they covered it all up.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1772 posts, RR: 6 Reply 213, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3905 times:
Quote: That is ambitious. Let's hope they can pull it off.
Let's have a look at the remaining 10 frames.
MSN084 MH #3 contractually delivered
MSN089 MH #4 contractually delivered
MSN093 TG #2 back in TLS for a delivery this month
MSN096 KE #6 rolled out at XFW, awaiting cabin flight test
MSN100 TG #3 finished cabin outfitting, inside the paint shop now
MSN108 EK #27 rolled out at XFW, awaiting cabin flight test
MSN109 EK #28 made several (customer/test) flights, delivery scheduled for this month
MSN110 EK #29 rolled out at XFW, awaiting cabin flight test
MSN111 EK #30 status unknown
MSN112 EK #31 finished cabin outfitting, inside the paint shop now
Aircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1419 posts, RR: 9 Reply 214, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3866 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 210): Quoting india1 (Reply 208):
Won't that mean a stretch in the next 7 weeks and over Christmas?
I wasn't able to follow production as close as before but I think so far Airbus delivered 20 A 380s, correct?
So 10 aiframes in less than 2 months including Christmas, pheeeeew...
Just the usual end-of-year rush. It's been like this (arguably not on the same scale) since the beginning, with that plane.
From what I see on Karel's list, there would be five deliveries each from Toulouse and Hamburg... Well, three remaining from TLS, since MH's two contractual deliveries seem to already be effective... When shall those two fly out?
petera380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 324 posts, RR: 0 Reply 216, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3885 times:
Airbus has delivered 22 so far this year so they only need 8 more to make the target of 30.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1772 posts, RR: 6 Reply 217, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3905 times:
Quote: From what I see on Karel's list, there would be five deliveries each from Toulouse and Hamburg...
Correct. The 5 EK frames will be delivered from XFW, the others from TLS.
Quote: When shall those two fly out?
Another company has to apply the stripes on the MH frames first. I guess both frames will arrive in KUL later this month. Rumours are speaking about November 23.
Quote: How far is BAs first from taking to the air for the first time?
MSN095 performed a first rejected take-off yesterday. Ferry flight to XFW is imminent.
Quote: Airbus has delivered 22 so far this year so they only need 8 more to make the target of 30.
That is correct, Flightglobal wasn't aware of the two MH frames.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2467 posts, RR: 21 Reply 219, posted (6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3888 times:
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 207):
Does anybody know what's going on in this picture?
My first glance was someone decided to install a cargo door over the wing. closer examination looks like they are hiding titles etc. the tail looks odd because it seems to be bare composite at the bottom.
scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3254 posts, RR: 10 Reply 221, posted (6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3847 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 219): My first glance was someone decided to install a cargo door over the wing. closer examination looks like they are hiding titles etc. the tail looks odd because it seems to be bare composite at the bottom.
It's very odd as they've covered up the MSN no at the front too. Do we know if this is a recent photo, if it is there could be an announcement coming - maybe someone has bought MSN002?
Sponsor Message: 
From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 2916 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4965 posts, 
From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 2780 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2313 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2011, 119 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3254 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26705 posts, 
)
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 611 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1419 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2010, 1781 posts, 
.
From Greece, joined Sep 2000, 4414 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2005, 6716 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3910 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 4977 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 479 posts, 
, 192 posts, 
From Italy, joined Aug 2011, 178 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Feb 2010, 48 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 634 posts, 
