https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN1MX1IU is a bit of a rambling article, but suggests that the A321 ACF configuration is causing issues by introducing greater complexity at the same time the plant is running at record levels.

For evidence it gives us:

Deliveries of the A321, a large single-aisle jet mainly made in Germany, spiked higher in May as delayed engines started coming in but slowed down again in September, Airbus data shows.

It'll be interesting to see if Airbus hits its well-publicized goal of delivering 800 aircraft this year, or if they will walk that back a bit as we get closer to the end of the year.

It could be the opposite: They now seem to get delayed neo-engines in larger quantities. Those have to be installed on pre-produced aircraft and those planes made ready for delivery. This means some double workload with new build production running at higher pace. They certainly know how to build A321 at Hamburg by now.

While they could be an issue, the reality is the engines are delayed again. Pratt had to prioritize spares. Airbus needs to figure out how to produce quite a bit more! What a classy problem...

Lightsaber

Those over enthusiastic ramp ups have really backfired at several places.

lightsaber wrote:

While they could be an issue, the reality is the engines are delayed again. Pratt had to prioritize spares. Airbus needs to figure out how to produce quite a bit more! What a classy problem...

Lightsaber

The article suggests that other vendors are using the engine situation to hide their own problems, and now some of those other problems are coming to the forefront.

Noshow wrote:

Those over enthusiastic ramp ups have really backfired at several places.

It leaves Airbus in a position of having to deliver 76 aircraft per month for the next three months or miss their 800 delivery goal.

This rate is about 10% higher than their previous record month, and they have to do it three months in a row.

All this while also hosting several high level retirement parties.

Seems like long odds to me.

Hamburg is in trouble, but as always a plan is in place.

Man, Airbus can’t catch a break.

Noshow wrote:

Those over enthusiastic ramp ups have really backfired at several places.

it's definitely backfired in the shortterm, but longterm it just makes sense. Boeing has like a 7 year 737max backlog, and Airbus' is even longer. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years, once this ramp has been sorted out, another rate increase to maybe like rate 70 in a few years.

musman9853 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Those over enthusiastic ramp ups have really backfired at several places.

it's definitely backfired in the shortterm, but longterm it just makes sense. Boeing has like a 7 year 737max backlog, and Airbus' is even longer. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years, once this ramp has been sorted out, another rate increase to maybe like rate 70 in a few years.

The real risk on the backlogs is cancellations, particularly around the time either Airbus or Boeing (or someone else however unlikely it seems) offers something truely new in that space. Even the orders coming in are almost irrelevant. It all comes down to production rate they can actually manage. Even poor execution isn’t going to lead to meaningful cancellations. Even a slower And it’s a careful balancing act. The higher you drive your rate the more difficult any eventual transition to something new becomes.

I think managaing that transition will be the single most difficult C-level exercise in the history of both companies.

You really can’t announce a typical 7 plus year program and start taking orders. You will be clobbered by people trying to convert out of the current program which kills your cash flow. And you presumably will have to spin up production of anything new so you have huge cash flow disruption exposure for the period this is happening.

You almost need to drop an announcement that you will be ready to deliver in 3-4 years and at full rate production in 6. For this reason I expect any 737/A320neo replacement to be done with largely mature tech.

For Boeing and Airbus I would almost say trying to replace either program will be like trying to give yourself a heart transplant while walking around working. For everyone else who might want to compete the bar to entry gets higher with every rate jump. You just can’t make price points without the scale and the scale requires a huge order book and huge capital investment. BBD tried and it basically bankrupted the company.

Because of this I don’t think it matters if they botch it even in the short term. Airlines have no other options right now and the barriers for something realistic are insanely high.

I couldn't help but notice Airbus is counting (8) aircraft built by Bombardier in their totals. Anything to make the numbers look better than they really are, I guess

SC430 wrote:

I couldn't help but notice Airbus is counting (8) aircraft built by Bombardier in their totals. Anything to make the numbers look better than they really are, I guess

I'm surprised that you are surprised (my presumption), given their continuing-to-be-in-the-books phantom A380 orders, their "13th month" orders, and some other creative shenanigans. Not quite the much derided "alternative facts" of a certain "Orange House" but close.

neutrino wrote:

SC430 wrote:

I couldn't help but notice Airbus is counting (8) aircraft built by Bombardier in their totals. Anything to make the numbers look better than they really are, I guess

I'm surprised that you are surprised (my presumption), given their continuing-to-be-in-the-books phantom A380 orders, their "13th month" orders, and some other creative shenanigans. Not quite the much derided "alternative facts" of a certain "Orange House" but close.

Until now you could at least depend on deliveries to be on the up and up. Noe they are taking credit for the delivery of planes they didn't sell and didn't build.

Revelation wrote:

It leaves Airbus in a position of having to deliver 76 aircraft per month for the next three months or miss their 800 delivery goal.

This rate is about 10% higher than their previous record month, and they have to do it three months in a row.

Sorry but I do not understand your numbers.
1st Airbus has to deliver 99 frames/month.
In Q4/2017 Airbus delivered 264 frames, 88/month. So yes they have to push as every year, but they demonstrated it year by year.

sciing wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It leaves Airbus in a position of having to deliver 76 aircraft per month for the next three months or miss their 800 delivery goal.

This rate is about 10% higher than their previous record month, and they have to do it three months in a row.

Sorry but I do not understand your numbers.
1st Airbus has to deliver 99 frames/month.
In Q4/2017 Airbus delivered 264 frames, 88/month. So yes they have to push as every year, but they demonstrated it year by year.

Interesting data.

The article said:

The internal snags have exacerbated delivery delays that leave Airbus with the challenge of delivering 76 single-aisle planes per month in the last quarter, according to consultants Flight Ascend, 9.6 percent more than its previous record.

So maybe they're talking about a record Q4 total rather than a record month 12 total.

They delivered 100 in December last year according to.

https://a320archive.com/statistics/2018/10

Perhaps this explains why the A321+ had to be shelved and shows us where the engineering resources are being used. All hands on deck to solve production problems that were hidden behind late engine deliveries

Newbiepilot wrote:

Perhaps this explains why the A321+ had to be shelved and shows us where the engineering resources are being used. All hands on deck to solve production problems that were hidden behind late engine deliveries

cheers

bigjku wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Those over enthusiastic ramp ups have really backfired at several places.

it's definitely backfired in the shortterm, but longterm it just makes sense. Boeing has like a 7 year 737max backlog, and Airbus' is even longer. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years, once this ramp has been sorted out, another rate increase to maybe like rate 70 in a few years.

The real risk on the backlogs is cancellations, particularly around the time either Airbus or Boeing (or someone else however unlikely it seems) offers something truely new in that space. Even the orders coming in are almost irrelevant. It all comes down to production rate they can actually manage. Even poor execution isn’t going to lead to meaningful cancellations. Even a slower And it’s a careful balancing act. The higher you drive your rate the more difficult any eventual transition to something new becomes.

I think managaing that transition will be the single most difficult C-level exercise in the history of both companies.

You really can’t announce a typical 7 plus year program and start taking orders. You will be clobbered by people trying to convert out of the current program which kills your cash flow. And you presumably will have to spin up production of anything new so you have huge cash flow disruption exposure for the period this is happening.

You almost need to drop an announcement that you will be ready to deliver in 3-4 years and at full rate production in 6. For this reason I expect any 737/A320neo replacement to be done with largely mature tech.

For Boeing and Airbus I would almost say trying to replace either program will be like trying to give yourself a heart transplant while walking around working. For everyone else who might want to compete the bar to entry gets higher with every rate jump. You just can’t make price points without the scale and the scale requires a huge order book and huge capital investment. BBD tried and it basically bankrupted the company.

Because of this I don’t think it matters if they botch it even in the short term. Airlines have no other options right now and the barriers for something realistic are insanely high.

Nicely reasoned. I've also been thinking about it for a while and your idea of the 3-4 year announcement etc then correctly leads-to the necessity that any "NSA"-scale replacement must be very secure and well-understood tech.
Which would then perhaps mean that the performance increment offered in such a step would not; could not be large.
So now the new product would probably be insufficiently attractive to proceed and will never "get off the ground". ( ).



But maybe there might be another way forward which accepts this necessarily modest performance step but which instead cuts deeply into some other operator cost-centre and so makes the new generation sufficiently more attractive?

Maybe something like an OEM designing-in advanced lifetime product-sustenance, and contracting to provide such at the time of sale?

Oh wait ...



cheers