User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8523
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Wed May 16, 2018 5:19 pm

StTim wrote:
But Kanban frommetrics ihave seen (and they can be fiddled by outsourcing etc) Boeing and Airbus have similar workforce’s per plane produced.

Perhaps the static stations lend themselves to more Automation.

I have watched a few programs re high end car manufacturing. R8 and up. Mostly they use stations and not continuously moving lines.

High end cars are typically not produced in high volume, typically use processes/techniques different from other builds, and often have extreme customizability for the customer. “Hand built” is also a selling point. Harder for automakers to justify a moving line for all that, and partially why those high end cars are so expensive in the first place.
 
Lootess
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Wed May 16, 2018 6:22 pm

Also the A350 is made only in Toulouse. One could make an argument that Boeing having two lines for the 787.

The A350 has most of the modern benefits of the 787 in a "777" size", and there is a big market for it. So the comparison to the Dreamliner isn't exactly a fair argument. Both planes also serve different markets.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 15276
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Wed May 16, 2018 7:08 pm

Lootess wrote:
Also the A350 is made only in Toulouse. One could make an argument that Boeing having two lines for the 787.

The A350 has most of the modern benefits of the 787 in a "777" size", and there is a big market for it. So the comparison to the Dreamliner isn't exactly a fair argument. Both planes also serve different markets.

Yes, both do serve different markets. An A359 should sell for more than a 787-10. :yawn:

Every airline has a different business case.
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
kevin5345179
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:08 am

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Wed May 16, 2018 7:10 pm

kanban wrote:
mjoelnir
You're the one who needs to learn about processes before shooting your mouth off.. The 737 lines do not stop a stations, the position equipment moves with the plane while in use then is disconnected and moved back to the position behind, the line inches forward the whole time. Second all major car and truck manufacturers including big diesel trucks like Kenworth use a continuously moving line.. Years ago when the line was towed from station to station we lost half of one shift clearing the pathway of tool boxes, tools, test equipment; then the tractor towed out the unit closest to the door, then moved the next unit up etc until there was an opening and the start of the line and the next fuselage, wings, tail feathers were craned in. the move took a full shift, now multiply that times three lines.. that's a lot of down time. Looking at Airbus line move schematics, there is a lot of ground prep work before a move.. so it is dead time for manufacturing as is the actual move.. only in their case it's not just one building that must be idled, but every building with a station in it.. It is also noted that where Boeing uses overhead cranes to minimize shop floor disruption, the Airbus line can not move laterally in the same building and relies on transportation dollies to move sections (different dollies depending on the completeness of the section being transported).

Small companies with limited production space and need can succeed with station concepts and component inventory.. Shingo's book on singlr minute die exchange shows how to minimize change over costs and also applies to running a sub model mix on a moving line (it takes some thinking out side the box).. Schoenberger also has some valuable books on world class manufacturing..

It is always interesting when the question is what makes a plane so expensive, the same folks only want to talk about the accounting systems... not what the creates the costs in the first place. There have been some good inputs here from a cumbersome manufacturing mode, to built in complexity (panels vs barrels), contractor stuffing vs OEM stuffing.

that is the direction the originator envisioned.. not how companies manipulate the accounting.


Just because things didn't go well for Boeing doesn't mean the philosophy is bad. It simply means doesn't work for you guys but may work really well for others.
Since you were in Boeing long enough, you must remember the complete production line shutdown. I don't think I need to further emphasis more ......
 
Fiend
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 8:53 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Wed May 16, 2018 8:25 pm

mayohoo wrote:
Perhaps I can say that kanban is pointing out that the Boeing line system is more efficient (once the kinks are worked out and you are going for highest most cost efficient production rate), while the Airbus station system is more flexible (but may require more movement time where production is not occurring). The fact that Boeing can produce a comparable number of 737s from a 3 line FAL to Airbus with 8 lines of station system FAL might support this?

With all due respect, kanban apparently has studied the two systems in his work and I would presume he has some expertise we can learn from...


And I work as an engineer in a facility that uses both systems.... And breakdowns in the single line model cost millions in lost production and lost time.
BAC 1-11, A300, A320, A321, A330, A340, A350, A380, B737, B747, B757, B777, B787, L1011, Fokker 100, ATR 72, MD83
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3856
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Wed May 16, 2018 10:07 pm

StTim wrote:
But Kanban frommetrics ihave seen (and they can be fiddled by outsourcing etc) Boeing and Airbus have similar workforce’s per plane produced.

Perhaps the static stations lend themselves to more Automation.

I have watched a few programs re high end car manufacturing. R8 and up. Mostly they use stations and not continuously moving lines.

I have seen some of the work force per plane numbers.. they were interesting in that all non direct functions were omitted.. The other thing that wasn't stated was of those workforce numbers what were the actual applied hours vs. the employee clock hours?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 15276
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Wed May 16, 2018 11:15 pm

kanban wrote:
StTim wrote:
But Kanban frommetrics ihave seen (and they can be fiddled by outsourcing etc) Boeing and Airbus have similar workforce’s per plane produced.

Perhaps the static stations lend themselves to more Automation.

I have watched a few programs re high end car manufacturing. R8 and up. Mostly they use stations and not continuously moving lines.

I have seen some of the work force per plane numbers.. they were interesting in that all non direct functions were omitted.. The other thing that wasn't stated was of those workforce numbers what were the actual applied hours vs. the employee clock hours?


Moving lines are most efficient to set the pace for volume work. Stations are more efficient for customization.


Boeing compromises by stuffing barrels. By doing work at a vendor when maximum access is provided cuts costs.

Automation, with modern visual controls, can be implimented by both processes.

It is also a question of economy of scale. Moving lines gain efficiency with production rate.

Some is outsourcing to lower overhead vendors. Both Boeing and Airbus have high overhead rates.


Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
mham001
Posts: 5047
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Wed May 16, 2018 11:31 pm

kevin5345179 wrote:

Just because things didn't go well for Boeing doesn't mean the philosophy is bad. It simply means doesn't work for you guys but may work really well for others.
Since you were in Boeing long enough, you must remember the complete production line shutdown. I don't think I need to further emphasis more ......


Pretty sure he alluded to those change problems already but what does that have to do with today?

This should be easy enough to settle.

Who makes the most money per plane?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3147
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Wed May 16, 2018 11:50 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The line concept, Boeing is using, is not the continues movement Ford once pioneered. It is stop and start from station to station. The work stops when the frames all move to the next position in the line.



That is not entirely true. It depends on what production line you are referring to. The 737 is continuously moving in places and pulses in others about every 4 -8 hours depending on if we are talking about final assembly, fuselage system installation, wing build, etc. Work does not stop when the airplanes are moving. Absolutely everything is on wheels and connected to the transporter under the airplane and mechanics will move with the airplane. Other parts of the production lines pulse during lunch breaks and shift changes. The 787 is a pulse line.

mjoelnir wrote:
You should please explain, what is so wasteful with moving a frame instead of in a line, from station to station? If you have looked at the material, I did give the page for, you see that all the stations reside near to each other. In both cases you stop the work. But only in the line you stop the work on all frames in the line at the same time, in the station system you only stop work on the frame you are moving.
In the station system, when a frame is ready, you move it out of the station and can store it if the next station is not ready. You do not occupy the last station waiting for everything to move.
You can have different numbers of parallel stations, for example 3 station 50 and 4 station 40, if the work in each station take a different amount of time. It makes it easier to change the process in a single station and you can adjust the number of parallel station up or down.


I don’t know which production system is better, but logically the pulsing and moving lines do sound like there is less downtime staging equipment and moving planes. No equipment needs to be moved out of the way to position planes with the moving line concept. Either you Don’t understand the moving line concept on the 737 or are referring to the pulse lines on the 787 and 777. I’m not sure exactly what you are talking about, but in general work is not interrupted on the Boeing lines. When the mechanics are on shift and not during shift change or lunch breaks, no one pauses work to move planes. I don’t think that is true at Airbus, but I would appreciate learning more.
 
Andre3K
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 10:11 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Thu May 17, 2018 12:50 am

MrHMSH wrote:
Andre3K wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Who is responding to whom. The A300/310 was the original first wide body twin. The 767 was the response and so on.


And how successful would you call the A300/310 compared to the 767? Not to mention it doesn't fit Airbus's FBW style, it barely even counts.


I don't get why it's a problem to launch something that's not 'original' anyway though. It's a duopoly and you have to be competitive. What do you think Airbus' response to the 787 should have been? Launch a Cessna 172 competitor? Why wouldn't you learn from the opponents' mistakes and target weak points?


Because people are always looking to see what Boeing's next move is, but rarely does anyone expect Airbus to make the first move. And lately nobody has anything good to say about anything from Boeing, yet when Boeing eventually does make a move, it's immediately ostracized for not thinking far enough outside the box. Meanwhile those same people are quick to say "Airbus will just counter with a further warmed over product and negate Boeing's latest offering. How does that not seem hypocritical to you?

Example, Airbus for a change makes a good move by Neo'ing the A320 series, Boeing tries to not lose all the NB orders and re-re-engines the 737, It's panned by many as a failure and Boeing should have done a clean sheet. Talk of a new clean sheet airplane that replaces the high end NB aircraft (like 757) and all you hear is "The A321Neo has that segment on lock and they can just make it longer to counter a 797, Boeing shouldn't even bother". WTH? So a warmed over aircraft isn't good enough and a new one isn't good enough if you are Boeing, but apparently the same does not apply if you are Airbus. That's why I want to see Airbus make some more big moves first, the A380 proves that it's not easy trying to be a leader in something, and it's real easy to point out the mistakes of others when you didn't have to take the risk of making them.

Now I know timing is everything in the aviation world but some things that sound good on paper don't pan out IRL.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 803
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Thu May 17, 2018 3:45 am

As Kanban noted, Boeing's moving line works very well for Boeing. Basically there are still stations but they are mobile so the station comes to the plane so an activity does not affect other activities if it takes longer than normal for the task as long as there is space on the floor for an adjacent activity. It does take meticulous planning for it to be effective though.

Airbus with its methods of assembly has probably found that stations work best. The moving line favors small jigs and platforms, moving wing supports for instance. Stations allow for large jigs and platforms. That approach favors the A350 panels design as the entire section can be jigged. The moving line works much better with barrels as it avoids the large jigs.

Each manufacturer is working hard at improvements, in the narrow bodies ramping up to the projected rates in the few years requires a lot of improvement.
 
WIederling
Posts: 6526
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Thu May 17, 2018 6:57 am

kanban wrote:
The other thing that wasn't stated was of those workforce numbers what were the actual applied hours vs. the employee clock hours?


clocked vs. planned or clocked vs invisible overtime ...

Lead me ? :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 6526
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Thu May 17, 2018 7:00 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
That approach favors the A350 panels design as the entire section can be jigged. The moving line works much better with barrels as it avoids the large jigs.


The barrel sections as they come out of the autoclave are wobbly as can be. You need to carefully jig them up
to insert the frames without binding.
Probably the core reason why Boeing currently tries upright cylinder style assembly for fuselage sections.
Murphy is an optimist
 
jagraham
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Fri May 18, 2018 7:41 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Andre3K wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Who is responding to whom. The A300/310 was the original first wide body twin. The 767 was the response and so on.


And how successful would you call the A300/310 compared to the 767? Not to mention it doesn't fit Airbus's FBW style, it barely even counts.


The A300/A310 were very successful, launched into an unoccupied space, had a number of innovations (2 man cockpit for widebody, first widebody twin) and forced Boeing into launching a response, a 'me too' product, they didn't have to re-invent the will or take the risk. Not sure what the relevance of not having FBW is. The A300 established Airbus as a major player, not a bad achievement considering Boeing's dominance at the time. The A330 and A340 were not launched in response to any specific Boeing product, but the 787 was definitely a response to the A330. I would debate whether the A320 was really a 'me too' product in the first place, it had more capability than the 737 of the time, and forced Boeing into launching an upgraded 737, and then when the A320neo was launched it forced Boeing into a disadvantageous position. The 737MAX is about as 'me too' a product you can get.

I don't get why it's a problem to launch something that's not 'original' anyway though. It's a duopoly and you have to be competitive. What do you think Airbus' response to the 787 should have been? Launch a Cessna 172 competitor? Why wouldn't you learn from the opponents' mistakes and target weak points?



The A300 and 767 programs had overlap, as both were responses to the DC-10 and L1011. But the A300 was first to market.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2235
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Fri May 18, 2018 7:51 pm

jagraham wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Andre3K wrote:

And how successful would you call the A300/310 compared to the 767? Not to mention it doesn't fit Airbus's FBW style, it barely even counts.


The A300/A310 were very successful, launched into an unoccupied space, had a number of innovations (2 man cockpit for widebody, first widebody twin) and forced Boeing into launching a response, a 'me too' product, they didn't have to re-invent the will or take the risk. Not sure what the relevance of not having FBW is. The A300 established Airbus as a major player, not a bad achievement considering Boeing's dominance at the time. The A330 and A340 were not launched in response to any specific Boeing product, but the 787 was definitely a response to the A330. I would debate whether the A320 was really a 'me too' product in the first place, it had more capability than the 737 of the time, and forced Boeing into launching an upgraded 737, and then when the A320neo was launched it forced Boeing into a disadvantageous position. The 737MAX is about as 'me too' a product you can get.

I don't get why it's a problem to launch something that's not 'original' anyway though. It's a duopoly and you have to be competitive. What do you think Airbus' response to the 787 should have been? Launch a Cessna 172 competitor? Why wouldn't you learn from the opponents' mistakes and target weak points?


The A300 and 767 programs had overlap, as both were responses to the DC-10 and L1011. But the A300 was first to market.


First to market indeed... by 8 years.

The A300 was launched in 1969, before the DC-10 and L-1011 hadn't even flown when it was launched. The A300's first flight followed in 1972 and EIS was 1974. The corresponding figures for the 767 are 1978, 1981 and 1982. The 767's launch was heavily influenced by the A300.
 
Andre3K
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 10:11 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Fri May 18, 2018 8:16 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
jagraham wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

The A300/A310 were very successful, launched into an unoccupied space, had a number of innovations (2 man cockpit for widebody, first widebody twin) and forced Boeing into launching a response, a 'me too' product, they didn't have to re-invent the will or take the risk. Not sure what the relevance of not having FBW is. The A300 established Airbus as a major player, not a bad achievement considering Boeing's dominance at the time. The A330 and A340 were not launched in response to any specific Boeing product, but the 787 was definitely a response to the A330. I would debate whether the A320 was really a 'me too' product in the first place, it had more capability than the 737 of the time, and forced Boeing into launching an upgraded 737, and then when the A320neo was launched it forced Boeing into a disadvantageous position. The 737MAX is about as 'me too' a product you can get.

I don't get why it's a problem to launch something that's not 'original' anyway though. It's a duopoly and you have to be competitive. What do you think Airbus' response to the 787 should have been? Launch a Cessna 172 competitor? Why wouldn't you learn from the opponents' mistakes and target weak points?


The A300 and 767 programs had overlap, as both were responses to the DC-10 and L1011. But the A300 was first to market.


First to market indeed... by 8 years.

The A300 was launched in 1969, before the DC-10 and L-1011 hadn't even flown when it was launched. The A300's first flight followed in 1972 and EIS was 1974. The corresponding figures for the 767 are 1978, 1981 and 1982. The 767's launch was heavily influenced by the A300.


767(All Varients): 1,106 through December 2017

A300/310: 561/255
Total=816

I'd say that the 767 was more successful.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3856
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Fri May 18, 2018 9:39 pm

OK we're straying from the topic.. why is the A350 so expensive.. parts, labor, process, transport????? If parts and labor are equal between the 787 and A350, that leaves process and transport. Is there anything else?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7382
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Fri May 18, 2018 11:41 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The line concept, Boeing is using, is not the continues movement Ford once pioneered. It is stop and start from station to station. The work stops when the frames all move to the next position in the line.



That is not entirely true. It depends on what production line you are referring to. The 737 is continuously moving in places and pulses in others about every 4 -8 hours depending on if we are talking about final assembly, fuselage system installation, wing build, etc. Work does not stop when the airplanes are moving. Absolutely everything is on wheels and connected to the transporter under the airplane and mechanics will move with the airplane. Other parts of the production lines pulse during lunch breaks and shift changes. The 787 is a pulse line.

mjoelnir wrote:
You should please explain, what is so wasteful with moving a frame instead of in a line, from station to station? If you have looked at the material, I did give the page for, you see that all the stations reside near to each other. In both cases you stop the work. But only in the line you stop the work on all frames in the line at the same time, in the station system you only stop work on the frame you are moving.
In the station system, when a frame is ready, you move it out of the station and can store it if the next station is not ready. You do not occupy the last station waiting for everything to move.
You can have different numbers of parallel stations, for example 3 station 50 and 4 station 40, if the work in each station take a different amount of time. It makes it easier to change the process in a single station and you can adjust the number of parallel station up or down.


I don’t know which production system is better, but logically the pulsing and moving lines do sound like there is less downtime staging equipment and moving planes. No equipment needs to be moved out of the way to position planes with the moving line concept. Either you Don’t understand the moving line concept on the 737 or are referring to the pulse lines on the 787 and 777. I’m not sure exactly what you are talking about, but in general work is not interrupted on the Boeing lines. When the mechanics are on shift and not during shift change or lunch breaks, no one pauses work to move planes. I don’t think that is true at Airbus, but I would appreciate learning more.


I assumed we were talking about wide body manufacturing. I hardly would compare the A350 production to the 737 production. My only question left is, are you making a serious argument here?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7382
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Fri May 18, 2018 11:45 pm

kanban wrote:
OK we're straying from the topic.. why is the A350 so expensive.. parts, labor, process, transport????? If parts and labor are equal between the 787 and A350, that leaves process and transport. Is there anything else?


As nobody has brought data regarding the production cost of A350, nor data regarding the production cost of comparable frames like the 787 or 777 it is quite absurd to make the statement, that the A350 is expensive to manufacture.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2120
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Fri May 18, 2018 11:55 pm

A350 is more capable than B787 (it's larger). That's why. Also, no one here can publicly tell the actual final deals going on. In the past Airbus discounted the heck out of their widebodies to get into the US market.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
Bald1983
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sat May 19, 2018 12:00 am

YIMBY wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The production line at Boeing is more mature and more streamlined. The production process is also more efficient.


This is irrelevant. The agreed price depends on the market conditions, and as long as there is more demand than supply the prices grow.

The unit price may be above or below the production costs. In the latter case the profit is taken from maintenance contracts and spare parts.


Not completely irrelevant. The lower the production costs, the more flexibility Boeing has in prices.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3147
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sat May 19, 2018 12:27 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The line concept, Boeing is using, is not the continues movement Ford once pioneered. It is stop and start from station to station. The work stops when the frames all move to the next position in the line.



That is not entirely true. It depends on what production line you are referring to. The 737 is continuously moving in places and pulses in others about every 4 -8 hours depending on if we are talking about final assembly, fuselage system installation, wing build, etc. Work does not stop when the airplanes are moving. Absolutely everything is on wheels and connected to the transporter under the airplane and mechanics will move with the airplane. Other parts of the production lines pulse during lunch breaks and shift changes. The 787 is a pulse line.

mjoelnir wrote:
You should please explain, what is so wasteful with moving a frame instead of in a line, from station to station? If you have looked at the material, I did give the page for, you see that all the stations reside near to each other. In both cases you stop the work. But only in the line you stop the work on all frames in the line at the same time, in the station system you only stop work on the frame you are moving.
In the station system, when a frame is ready, you move it out of the station and can store it if the next station is not ready. You do not occupy the last station waiting for everything to move.
You can have different numbers of parallel stations, for example 3 station 50 and 4 station 40, if the work in each station take a different amount of time. It makes it easier to change the process in a single station and you can adjust the number of parallel station up or down.


I don’t know which production system is better, but logically the pulsing and moving lines do sound like there is less downtime staging equipment and moving planes. No equipment needs to be moved out of the way to position planes with the moving line concept. Either you Don’t understand the moving line concept on the 737 or are referring to the pulse lines on the 787 and 777. I’m not sure exactly what you are talking about, but in general work is not interrupted on the Boeing lines. When the mechanics are on shift and not during shift change or lunch breaks, no one pauses work to move planes. I don’t think that is true at Airbus, but I would appreciate learning more.


I assumed we were talking about wide body manufacturing. I hardly would compare the A350 production to the 737 production. My only question left is, are you making a serious argument here?


You made some inaccurate generalized statements about the moving lines that Boeing uses, so I thought I would correct you. The 737 and 777 both use continuous moving lines so yes a widebody can also be produced on a moving line:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fpM6Pzfnouw
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7382
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sat May 19, 2018 1:25 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

That is not entirely true. It depends on what production line you are referring to. The 737 is continuously moving in places and pulses in others about every 4 -8 hours depending on if we are talking about final assembly, fuselage system installation, wing build, etc. Work does not stop when the airplanes are moving. Absolutely everything is on wheels and connected to the transporter under the airplane and mechanics will move with the airplane. Other parts of the production lines pulse during lunch breaks and shift changes. The 787 is a pulse line.



I don’t know which production system is better, but logically the pulsing and moving lines do sound like there is less downtime staging equipment and moving planes. No equipment needs to be moved out of the way to position planes with the moving line concept. Either you Don’t understand the moving line concept on the 737 or are referring to the pulse lines on the 787 and 777. I’m not sure exactly what you are talking about, but in general work is not interrupted on the Boeing lines. When the mechanics are on shift and not during shift change or lunch breaks, no one pauses work to move planes. I don’t think that is true at Airbus, but I would appreciate learning more.


I assumed we were talking about wide body manufacturing. I hardly would compare the A350 production to the 737 production. My only question left is, are you making a serious argument here?


You made some inaccurate generalized statements about the moving lines that Boeing uses, so I thought I would correct you. The 737 and 777 both use continuous moving lines so yes a widebody can also be produced on a moving line:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fpM6Pzfnouw


So the old lines are continuously moving and the newest lines are stop and go.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2235
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sat May 19, 2018 4:52 am

Andre3K wrote:

767(All Varients): 1,106 through December 2017

A300/310: 561/255
Total=816

I'd say that the 767 was more successful.


Sure, the 767 is probably more successful (although absolute sales aren't the whole story, the A300 established Airbus in a US-dominated market). However, your original contention was 'When will Airbus be first to deliver something original that isn't a failure?'

Now, the A300 was a success, and it was original, unless you are willing to claim otherwise.

Back on topic, that the A350 is a 'me too' product means absolutely nothing, Airbus found themselves in a pickle and launched a product to get them out of that pickle. Then Boeing launched a larger pickle to get them out of the pickle they found themselves in. So on, so forth, if you think it's important, all power to you, but it really doesn't matter.
 
WIederling
Posts: 6526
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sat May 19, 2018 8:51 am

kanban wrote:
OK we're straying from the topic.. why is the A350 so expensive.. parts, labor, process, transport????? If parts and labor are equal between the 787 and A350, that leaves process and transport. Is there anything else?


Sales prices are more determined by what the customer ( might ) think it is worth in scope of his use case.

Thus afaics "List" prices are trying to position your product in relation to other products.
( Then you have that other issue: B list prices and A list prices have different scope. What is included, what not.)

Low balling 787 list prices initially tried to insinuate that Boeing would assemble them so cheaply
that they could push them into the market insinuating that they would be a step change in how
things worked. Takers believed that little lie.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3147
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sat May 19, 2018 2:13 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

I assumed we were talking about wide body manufacturing. I hardly would compare the A350 production to the 737 production. My only question left is, are you making a serious argument here?


You made some inaccurate generalized statements about the moving lines that Boeing uses, so I thought I would correct you. The 737 and 777 both use continuous moving lines so yes a widebody can also be produced on a moving line:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fpM6Pzfnouw


So the old lines are continuously moving and the newest lines are stop and go.


I think the whole reason for discussing moving lines was to think about whether the production method used by Boeing may result in lower costs. I dont know if that is true or not, but Boeing does have a variety of methodologies depending on model. 767 and 747 are staged. 737 and 777 are partially continuously moving and 787 is pulsing. The moving lines do save time compared to the staged position lines at Boeing since there is less time moving and staging equipment. The higher rate and faster paced lines are the ones that move.

The one conclusion i have is that Boeing is very strategic with optimizing the production system as much as they can for each model and there is not a one size fits all best way to build a plane
 
mham001
Posts: 5047
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sat May 19, 2018 2:18 pm

There is only one thing that counts and nobody is bothering to talk about it. Which company makes the most money per plane delivered?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3147
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sat May 19, 2018 2:55 pm

mham001 wrote:
There is only one thing that counts and nobody is bothering to talk about it. Which company makes the most money per plane delivered?


Whenever we talk about that. The conversation goes down the same ugly repetitive program vs unit accounting debate
 
mham001
Posts: 5047
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sat May 19, 2018 3:17 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
mham001 wrote:
There is only one thing that counts and nobody is bothering to talk about it. Which company makes the most money per plane delivered?


Whenever we talk about that. The conversation goes down the same ugly repetitive program vs unit accounting debate


Average it out over a ten year period.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3147
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sat May 19, 2018 3:45 pm

mham001 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
mham001 wrote:
There is only one thing that counts and nobody is bothering to talk about it. Which company makes the most money per plane delivered?


Whenever we talk about that. The conversation goes down the same ugly repetitive program vs unit accounting debate


Average it out over a ten year period.



Those conversations tend not to go very well. This forum turns into accounting.net except with people who dont actually know much about accounting. The other challenge is that neither Airbus nor Boeing actually publish how much they earn per plane. We can only speculate. One speculation commonly repeated by fans of the losing manufacturer is that discounts were so big they were approaching losses even though that almost never happens.
 
WIederling
Posts: 6526
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sat May 19, 2018 3:46 pm

mham001 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
mham001 wrote:
There is only one thing that counts and nobody is bothering to talk about it. Which company makes the most money per plane delivered?


Whenever we talk about that. The conversation goes down the same ugly repetitive program vs unit accounting debate


Average it out over a ten year period.


That is not sufficient. ( 787:: 10 years covers either $30+b down the drink ( 2004 .. 20014)
or 25-b of profits ( next decade, ignore the bowwave ... )

You have to cover the whole lifetime of a product for a valid comparison.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Andre3K
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 10:11 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sat May 19, 2018 8:46 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Andre3K wrote:

767(All Varients): 1,106 through December 2017

A300/310: 561/255
Total=816

I'd say that the 767 was more successful.


Sure, the 767 is probably more successful (although absolute sales aren't the whole story, the A300 established Airbus in a US-dominated market). However, your original contention was 'When will Airbus be first to deliver something original that isn't a failure?'

Now, the A300 was a success, and it was original, unless you are willing to claim otherwise.

Back on topic, that the A350 is a 'me too' product means absolutely nothing, Airbus found themselves in a pickle and launched a product to get them out of that pickle. Then Boeing launched a larger pickle to get them out of the pickle they found themselves in. So on, so forth, if you think it's important, all power to you, but it really doesn't matter.


I should rephrase it with that in mind, when will Airbus IN MODERN TIMES be the first one again to step out on a limb (A380 was to outdo the 747, A330 was to outdo the Trijets and 767(i think), A340 was a failure, A320 was to outdo the 737, A350 was to outdo the 787 AND smaller 777's. Did i miss something besides the NEO's?

In other words when is Airbus (in modern days) going to be the one with something entirely new that Boeing has to respond to? It could be a new type of airliner configuration, a new type of powerplant that isn't some sort of turbofan, or a different class of plane. And yes it does matter who's leading or following because the follower can learn from the leaders mistakes/wins and improve on their designs (Sharklets ring a belll?).
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2235
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sat May 19, 2018 9:03 pm

Andre3K wrote:
I should rephrase it with that in mind, when will Airbus IN MODERN TIMES be the first one again to step out on a limb (A380 was to outdo the 747, A330 was to outdo the Trijets and 767(i think), A340 was a failure, A320 was to outdo the 737, A350 was to outdo the 787 AND smaller 777's. Did i miss something besides the NEO's?


Airbus is at a slight disadvantage here, in that most products they competed with were already launched and well-established, to not try and outdo a competitor in the spaces they decided to compete in would be complete stupidity, why wouldn't they try to outdo existing products? The A330 wasn't really launched to outdo the 767, the original A330-300 was quite a bit larger, the -200 was a shrink that was launched later. Worth noting that the A380 is quite a lot larger than the 747, it's rare that any manufacturer will launch such an exact competitor to the opposition.

In other words when is Airbus (in modern days) going to be the one with something entirely new that Boeing has to respond to? It could be a new type of airliner configuration, a new type of powerplant that isn't some sort of turbofan, or a different class of plane. And yes it does matter who's leading or following because the follower can learn from the leaders mistakes/wins and improve on their designs (Sharklets ring a belll?).


Waiting to learn from other's mistakes and targeting gaps seems like a very sensible thing to do, you're implying that takings risks with new designs is inherently something to strive for, but risks have to be managed. A risk is fine if it's calculated and executed well, but otherwise you could be in trouble. I don't see why it's such a bad thing to learn from your opposition's mistakes, the alternative is to not learn and thus make the same mistakes yourself. Airbus don't need to do that much new, they tend to get it right the first time and plan for the future so that they don't have to undertake expensive and riskier launches of new products. Sometimes it works (A330ceo, A320neo) sometimes it doesn't (A380).

Airbus launched sharklets on the A320 long after the 737 got them, it competed quite competently in the meantime.
 
RandWkop
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sun May 20, 2018 7:30 am

Andre3K wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Andre3K wrote:

767(All Varients): 1,106 through December 2017

A300/310: 561/255
Total=816

I'd say that the 767 was more successful.


Sure, the 767 is probably more successful (although absolute sales aren't the whole story, the A300 established Airbus in a US-dominated market). However, your original contention was 'When will Airbus be first to deliver something original that isn't a failure?'

Now, the A300 was a success, and it was original, unless you are willing to claim otherwise.

Back on topic, that the A350 is a 'me too' product means absolutely nothing, Airbus found themselves in a pickle and launched a product to get them out of that pickle. Then Boeing launched a larger pickle to get them out of the pickle they found themselves in. So on, so forth, if you think it's important, all power to you, but it really doesn't matter.


I should rephrase it with that in mind, when will Airbus IN MODERN TIMES be the first one again to step out on a limb (A380 was to outdo the 747, A330 was to outdo the Trijets and 767(i think), A340 was a failure, A320 was to outdo the 737, A350 was to outdo the 787 AND smaller 777's. Did i miss something besides the NEO's?

In other words when is Airbus (in modern days) going to be the one with something entirely new that Boeing has to respond to? It could be a new type of airliner configuration, a new type of powerplant that isn't some sort of turbofan, or a different class of plane. And yes it does matter who's leading or following because the follower can learn from the leaders mistakes/wins and improve on their designs (Sharklets ring a belll?).

You could actually say the 77X is a response to the A350. Without the 350 Boeing could have NEO'd the 77W and left the wing and fuselage alone as there was nothing in it's category to compete. Similarly you could say the 787 was a response to the A330. The 737NG and MAX are responses to the A320 and NEO. So who is following who?
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sun May 20, 2018 8:15 am

This who followed who discussion is another one where you can spin it either by just comparing the things that favor you favorite company.

Boeing seems to react to Airbus comparing models. Airbus might be following Boeing when it come to some technology.

Either way, if it means that planes better and safer it can only be seen as something positive.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sun May 20, 2018 9:04 am

This thread has had too much cost (and accounting) discussion, when the primary question was about price, which in my mind is largely determined by what the customers are willing to pay. Sadly, we don't have exact information about the real prices either, because list prices are not the truth, and because prices can be split between purchases, services, and spares in many different ways.

But, over longer periods of time, if plane X has a higher price than plane Y and both sell, that is probably because plane X has higher demand.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1654
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sun May 20, 2018 12:35 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
This thread has had too much cost (and accounting) discussion, when the primary question was about price, which in my mind is largely determined by what the customers are willing to pay. Sadly, we don't have exact information about the real prices either, because list prices are not the truth, and because prices can be split between purchases, services, and spares in many different ways.

But, over longer periods of time, if plane X has a higher price than plane Y and both sell, that is probably because plane X has higher demand.


This is a fundamental misunderstanding of pricing, particularly of complex products.

There is a price demand curve for every product, that much is true. But a higher selling price doesn’t necessarily maximize your revenue in total. For example if I can get 20% higher price but I lose out on 40% volume my overall revenue is lower.

So cost is absolutley critical because it determines my flexibility as a producer to move along the cost demand curve. Ideally I would like to make these match up and have my lowest per unit cost at the same price and rate where I can maximize revenue. Cost basically puts a floor on how far you can move down the price-demand curve profitably.

Now revenue maximization isn’t the goal all by itself. The goal is to make the most profit obviously. But generally in the airplane industry margins, once a product is stabilized, are fairly stable. Airbus clearly would like more demand here as they discussed rate 13 at length but haven’t yet committed to it. That suggest to me they aren’t 100% happy yet with where they sit in the relationship between these two factors.
 
User avatar
DWC
Posts: 462
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sun May 20, 2018 1:19 pm

Andre3K wrote:
767(All Varients): 1,106 through December 2017

A300/310: 561/255
Total=816

I'd say that the 767 was more successful.

That is a very skewed & ignorant comment.
1. 816 is more than the DC10/MD10 & L1011 combined
2. You did not take into account how the US did everything to smother the A300/A310 into their market, before Airbus & Eastern stroke a shrewd deal.
3. You omitted that airlines are generally conservative & risk-averse to new models from an obscure OEM ( ask Sukhoi or Embraer way back then )
4. It is thus a marvel Airbus sold so many as an incipient OEM, consider that not even the Soviets who had about half the world to themselves in the 1970s/80s achieved anything close to that despite all their models ( the much acclaimed IL-62 sold 1/3 of that : less than 300 and it was a NB, the IL86/96 barely 136 ).
In fact, in the end, Airbus more than they ever expected, to say nothing of all subsequent models.
5. Actually, considering that the A330 is directly derived from the A300 & thus a version from it more than it is a "new" model - like the A350, one could argue that the A300 concept was both more productive & more successful than the 767 ( compared 1106 to the A300-310-330-340' nearly 2000 orders, and still counting )

That said, the 757/767 were a smart concept at the time & both commercially successful in their lifetime. But the very fact that sound orders dried up by the end of the 2nd millenium AD shows they had no future, unlike the A300 diameter & concept that was still around by the middle of the 3rd millenium's first century ;)
 
User avatar
DWC
Posts: 462
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sun May 20, 2018 1:19 pm

Momo1435 wrote:
Boeing seems to react to Airbus comparing models. Airbus might be following Boeing when it come to some technology

Boeing have a number of landmark models : 747, 777 & 787, all magnifiscent aircrafts.
Boeing are very very conservative but they have done really remarkably well with that stance.
I do hope their 797 is the game changer everyone expects, the 737 is remarkable but nonetheless a flying baby dinosaur.

But seems to me that Airbus have been innovating all the way, Airbus have indeed introduced :
1. the world's first twin WB ( B countered with the 767 )
2. the world's first FBW & glass-cockpit in commercial aviation
3. the A320 is & remains a superior airplane ( only slightly now ) to the then omnipresent 727, 737, DC9 & derivatives
4. the A330/340 were innovations of their own & hailed as such for a full decade after introduction, the A340 demise was due to a sharp evolution in ETOPS & twin engine technology that Boeing actually foresaw, also very quiet compared to the 777
5. their transport system is an innovation of its own - even if less than economically optimal, one has to bear in mind that getting several countries together is such a massive scale was no mean feat... Boeing copycated it when they outsourced to Japan...
6. The Super Guppy & Belugas foretold the Dreamlifter.
7. the world's first large double deck passenger aircraft, sluggish sales do not make it a less innovative plane, in fact it is Airbus' & the sky's new flagship by every other measure. On a sidenote, helped EK to build a yet unheard of business model.
8. the A350 is a model of well thought innovation & smooth introduction to market, surely something Boeing could innovate on.
9. sharklets ( I do prefer Boeing's raked wings though )
10. if NEOing is not an innovation per se, I don't know what is industrually speaking, cannot be MAXed out now :duck:

Airbus planes do not follow much on Boeing's innovations : they keep bleed-air engines, thus did not go so much on batteries.
In some ways, the A350 is comparatively conservative compared to the 787, which begs the question if the A350 is that expensive to produce as some think...
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sun May 20, 2018 2:06 pm

Like I said, it's just too easy in this discussion to just pick the things where either Airbus and Boeing are or aren't following the other. With the polarization on this forum this will never turn into an open discussion. There are too many things that can be compared to have a definitive answer anyway.
 
Andre3K
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 10:11 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Sun May 20, 2018 9:14 pm

DWC wrote:
Andre3K wrote:
767(All Varients): 1,106 through December 2017

A300/310: 561/255
Total=816

I'd say that the 767 was more successful.


5. Actually, considering that the A330 is directly derived from the A300 & thus a version from it more than it is a "new" model - like the A350, one could argue that the A300 concept was both more productive & more successful than the 767 ( compared 1106 to the A300-310-330-340' nearly 2000 orders, and still counting )

That said, the 757/767 were a smart concept at the time & both commercially successful in their lifetime. But the very fact that sound orders dried up by the end of the 2nd millenium AD shows they had no future, unlike the A300 diameter & concept that was still around by the middle of the 3rd millenium's first century ;)


That's BS and you know it. I'm no Airbus or type certificate expert, nor am I a training manager but i'm pretty sure you cant just go from flying a A300 to a A330, they are not the same plane, they do not fly the same, they ARENT the same. That's about like me saying "well since the 737 uses the same cockpit section as the 707 and bla bla bla". A330 to A350 sure, but your getting ridiculous to claim the A330 is simply a new A300.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3856
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Mon May 21, 2018 4:05 pm

OK, since no one seems to have the slightest knowledge and assume that we want to argue "pulled from the air" points on sales costing structures and phantom lineage..
here is what I see as adding to the A350 costs
1) mixed aluminum /carbon fiber nose section
2) fuselage frame and attached panel construction
3) A manufacturing sequence that has sub sections, body sections and assembled fuselage traveling (some like the nose section as I recall have three stops before arriving for stuffing)
4) use of wheeled transport dollies where craning would be more expeditious (especially if the FAL complex was designed for production)
5) procurement practices that involve pre stocking components (and the cost of storage, rework and scrapping related to design changes)
6) keeping processes and assembly in-house that could be done cheaper (and as well) if contracted out. (some of this undoubtedly is union related)

If Ferpe is reading this maybe he can give a educated update.
 
jagraham
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Why is the A350 so expensive?

Fri May 25, 2018 2:12 am

MrHMSH wrote:
jagraham wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

The A300/A310 were very successful, launched into an unoccupied space, had a number of innovations (2 man cockpit for widebody, first widebody twin) and forced Boeing into launching a response, a 'me too' product, they didn't have to re-invent the will or take the risk. Not sure what the relevance of not having FBW is. The A300 established Airbus as a major player, not a bad achievement considering Boeing's dominance at the time. The A330 and A340 were not launched in response to any specific Boeing product, but the 787 was definitely a response to the A330. I would debate whether the A320 was really a 'me too' product in the first place, it had more capability than the 737 of the time, and forced Boeing into launching an upgraded 737, and then when the A320neo was launched it forced Boeing into a disadvantageous position. The 737MAX is about as 'me too' a product you can get.

I don't get why it's a problem to launch something that's not 'original' anyway though. It's a duopoly and you have to be competitive. What do you think Airbus' response to the 787 should have been? Launch a Cessna 172 competitor? Why wouldn't you learn from the opponents' mistakes and target weak points?


The A300 and 767 programs had overlap, as both were responses to the DC-10 and L1011. But the A300 was first to market.


First to market indeed... by 8 years.

Between 1968 and 1984, Lockheed manufactured a total of 250 TriStars, assembled at the Lockheed plant located at the Palmdale Regional Airport in southern California north of Los Angeles

The A300 was launched in 1969, before the DC-10 and L-1011 hadn't even flown when it was launched. The A300's first flight followed in 1972 and EIS was 1974. The corresponding figures for the 767 are 1978, 1981 and 1982. The 767's launch was heavily influenced by the A300.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos