bigjku wrote:SomebodyInTLS wrote:2175301 wrote:
OR: That Boeing is working real hard at making something work that Airbus cannot immediately effectively respond to.
That sounds almost the same as what I said.I think this comes down to manufacturing methods. All composite barrel with wide wings; where the cost to assemble the composite barrels is less than the AL frame experience that Airbus has.
First, 787 and A350 experience has already shown that composite barrel is not significantly cheaper than large integrated composite panels - and that both are still way more expensive than aluminium.
Second, this doesn't really tally with the observed mission creep. If the delay was them knuckling down on some manufacturing methods then I would expect the airframe itself to be quite well defined already. All the discussion in this thread is about how that (still) isn't the case.
I think that the A350 and 787 issue saw no difference in the past but it may well be seeing a difference now. Recent RFP results have hinted at this. I think we have all acknowledged that it is speculation to this point. But it isn’t outside the realm of possibility either that one or the other picked the wrong way forward.
There's a couple of points being made in this thread that get repeated on others, and seem to be gaining the momentum of an "A-net fact" when in fact they're nothing more than myths.
The notion that CFRP barrels are about to suddenly turn into an unanswerably advantage for Boeing that Airbus will have to "re-create their manufacturing paradigm for" is frankly ludicrous in my opinion.
The cost of the barrel assembly, or panel assembly or fuselage section assembly, is such a tiny amount of the overall cost of manufacturing an aircraft that any differences in their efficiency are going to be vanishingly small in the grand scheme of things.
Same goes for the ALM "drug-like rush" that I see on here - as if Boeing are doing something that Airbus aren't, or can't.
I suspect a reasonably thorough search will show that Boeing are focussing their ALM efforts on the 787 whist Airbus have prioritised the A320 series.
The reality of the 787 vs the A330 or A350 is that a) the 787 has come down the learning curve finally, and b) it's output is increasing significantly - something that will affect unit cost by orders of magnitude more than any supposed advantage of CFRP barrels.
The 350 is not as far down the learning curve. But it will be. And it will also ramp up to much higher levels
The 330NEO is jammed in the process of trying to ramp up to a level half that of the 787 whilst experiencing significant delays to engine availability. hence there is a transient window in which it is vulnerable to attack from the 787.
Which is why we're currently seeing Airbus backing off from the accusation of "dumping" A330NEO's in the USA specifically (not elsewhere) as the 330NEO is not currently at its cheapest.
But can readily sell A320NEO's in the USA as their cost base is low enough as that is where they have focussed their cost efforts. (By my calcs the 320 series must be making upwards of 16%-17% margin at the moment, possibly more when the engine issues work themselves out).
And it is established enough, to make a "dumping" attack by Boeing a waste of money. It is just not vulnerable like the A330
There is NO massive manufacturing technology step that is going to put MOM out of reach of an Airbus response.
Sorry but there isn't.
What there is, is a massive effort to optimise incrementally across ALL fronts.
In DFM, in the application of ALM, in squeezing the supply chain, in smoothing the internal production flow, and in maximising the planned output.
None of those is what Michael porter would term a "sustainable competitive advantage" though
I suspect the last one is the real sticking point for the MOM business case. I can see it being a really finely balanced tipping point.
There is clearly a market (of some sort) for MOM
Is it big enough to allow the economies of scale production to make it cheap enough to expand the size of the market window.
Chicken and egg .....
On a final note I'm astonished to learn on here that $4Bn cashflow per year (and likely to rise) is not enough for Airbus to indulge in an all-new response to MOM.
By my calculations they have the neck end of $30Bn to play with over a 7 year development period.
Like I said - I think there are some reality checks needed before some of these fantasies become embedded, incorrectly, as fact.