Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:42 pm

It seems the pendulum swings back and forth. Last time Boeing was pushed to the wall and Airbus had the upper hand with efficient production:
“Their biggest weapon that they’re using in the competitions today is price,” Conner told employees. “They are attacking us with price in every single campaign. And as a result of that, you know, we’re being pushed to the wall,” Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times wrote, citing a transcript of Conner’s internal comments."
Source from 2016: https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/31/airbu ... t-cutting/

lightsaber wrote:
If the 787 empty weight is significantly reduced (just the 3D printed stuff going on at the end of this year should remove about 500kg), this will nicely open up the payload/range charts.

You know which plane is called "the most 3D-printed plane in history”? It is the A350.

Source 1: https://www.abwtec.com/news/2016/5/16/i ... ufacturing
Source 2: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... clnk&gl=ch
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
astuteman
Posts: 7160
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:09 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
If the 787 empty weight is significantly reduced (just the 3D printed stuff going on at the end of this year should remove about 500kg), this will nicely open up the payload/range charts.

You know which plane is called "the most 3D-printed plane in history”? It is the A350.

Source 1: https://www.abwtec.com/news/2016/5/16/i ... ufacturing
Source 2: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... clnk&gl=ch


Fancy going off-message like this. :faint:
Of course Airbus know nothing of cost cutting/supplier bargaining/3D printing/competitive pressure ;)
Joking of course…

Seriously though, I do find it curious that posters that are supposed to be so knowledgeable about stuff like this, and complain that they don't see the same thing from Airbus, don't seem to be bothered enough to do a google search.
I think it is possible that there may be a cultural difference - the US culture being more inclined to show off its achievements than the somewhat more reserved European approach, perhaps.
Good post though! And there is plenty more to come.

Rgds
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:38 pm

[quote="CFRPwingALbody"]I think that the A350XWB FAL video is a good starting point for this discussion. It shows:
- Where sub-assemblies are manufactured.
- What route the sub-assemblies travel before entering the FAL.
- The FAL assembly steps followed to make an A350 from the sub-assemblies.
I agree there many movement steps in the FAL proces. A flowline would require much less movements. But the benefit of the station FAL proces is that a misproduced plane doesn't block the whole line. AFAIK it's exact this, lower rate production on a flow line, that caused the deferred production cost of the Boeing 787.

The supposed benefit of the station system related to "mis-produced" airplanes is all fantasy.. moving the engineers and parts people into the line allow for quick response and the line moves on.. yes there are some traveled items form time to time. So part of an Airbus production improvement would be to look at their rejection process flow. One time I was involved in a study of change incorporation due to rejection tags between Renton and Wichita.. the process was supposed to provide correction within 20 frames but was sometimes taking 50-70 frames. Why? each groups that touched the process was located in their own ivory tower with processes that ensured their relevance (real or not). This led to moving teams comprised of engineering, QA manufacturing and parts control to the factory floor next to the line. If a problem occurred the answer/work around was handled immediately without stopping the flow. Looking at the Airbus videos, there doesn't appear to be any such reaction team around.

The other thing I noticed was the use of gee wheez methods when simple is better.. it's really bad when one's tooling breaks down. I'm referring to lifting the sections up to an elevated work platform.. Why??? the sections should have been craned into cradles. The transportation dollies while needed in their setup are another cost with no benefit. Their new facility did resolve some issues but is actually just a newer iteration of bad planning.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20349
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:39 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
It seems the pendulum swings back and forth. Last time Boeing was pushed to the wall and Airbus had the upper hand with efficient production:
“Their biggest weapon that they’re using in the competitions today is price,” Conner told employees. “They are attacking us with price in every single campaign. And as a result of that, you know, we’re being pushed to the wall,” Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times wrote, citing a transcript of Conner’s internal comments."
Source from 2016: https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/31/airbu ... t-cutting/

lightsaber wrote:
If the 787 empty weight is significantly reduced (just the 3D printed stuff going on at the end of this year should remove about 500kg), this will nicely open up the payload/range charts.

You know which plane is called "the most 3D-printed plane in history”? It is the A350.

Source 1: https://www.abwtec.com/news/2016/5/16/i ... ufacturing
Source 2: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... clnk&gl=ch

The 3D printing in the engine is what matters. I would assume the T1000/7000 has the equivalent vparts? As your link notes, many plastic 3D printed parts.

My posts were on cutting costs on the structural parts as Boeing is in the process. If the 787 was behind on 3D printing, that only highlights the sub-assemblies and integration needs a cost cut.

Could I be off? Certainly. I am a thermo/controls engineer, not a manufacturing or structural, I just am exposed via work.

So the question is, what major costs will Airbus remove. I can believe it is the most 3D printed plane.

Now explain the high cost per aircraft. Some of that is maturity. Some might be the American philosophy to over communicate to ensure efficiency targets are met.

As I stated before, the A350 will sell. I have posted my evidence on how the 787 cut costs. I was lucky enough to witness a vendor briefing on their proposal to cut $1 million per A350 and about 180 kg of weight with further proposals for more 3D printing in titanium to cut weight and cost.

In no way do I think Airbus is sloppy. What I do think that at this time, the 787 has a per unit manufacturing cost advantage that gives Boeing a slight sales advantage.

The Air New Zealand sale should have gone A350. Besides performance improvement packages, I believe sales price played a role.

But I have seen assemblies in the A350 where the vendor walked us through as we were buying 3D printing for defense aircraft where we won't share the design with the vendors. Perhaps Airbus already selected a vendor and just hasn't announced the PIP?

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
9Patch
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:53 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
If the 787 empty weight is significantly reduced (just the 3D printed stuff going on at the end of this year should remove about 500kg), this will nicely open up the payload/range charts.

You know which plane is called "the most 3D-printed plane in history”? It is the A350.

So will Airbus will benefit less from 3D printing going forward since they've already pocketed those gains?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20349
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:39 pm

9Patch wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
If the 787 empty weight is significantly reduced (just the 3D printed stuff going on at the end of this year should remove about 500kg), this will nicely open up the payload/range charts.

You know which plane is called "the most 3D-printed plane in history”? It is the A350.

So will Airbus will benefit less from 3D printing going forward since they've already pocketed those gains?

Here I'll change my position.
What I saw in the 3D briefing was an easy 180kg of weight removal on the A350 and $1 million in cost savings.

Most of the polymer 3D printing is tooling cost reduction. Only a small final cost reduction.

Where I see benefit is replacement is of aluminum parts with titanium. 3D printing is less expensive than many of the aluminum parts in the A350.

Yes, there are 3D printed parts in the A350, but it came to market before the titanium printing revolution.

But there is more. The 787 barrel stuffing finally met promise on saving assembly costs. I'd like to know how the A350 is going to reduce those costs.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:11 pm

High volume is your friend when stable. But try launching a completely new model, and much of the current model's volume savings for multiple years (or more) can be eradicated, during the new model build up from zero to hero. Ditto as current model volumes are wound down.

High volume production discourages air frame innovation and new models.

If grandfathering is re-visited, the emphasis will be even more on new engines, and air frame tweaks, with the air frame OEM's extracting volume benefits for as long as possible.
 
musman9853
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:16 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
It seems the pendulum swings back and forth. Last time Boeing was pushed to the wall and Airbus had the upper hand with efficient production:
“Their biggest weapon that they’re using in the competitions today is price,” Conner told employees. “They are attacking us with price in every single campaign. And as a result of that, you know, we’re being pushed to the wall,” Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times wrote, citing a transcript of Conner’s internal comments."
Source from 2016: https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/31/airbu ... t-cutting/

lightsaber wrote:
If the 787 empty weight is significantly reduced (just the 3D printed stuff going on at the end of this year should remove about 500kg), this will nicely open up the payload/range charts.

You know which plane is called "the most 3D-printed plane in history”? It is the A350.

Source 1: https://www.abwtec.com/news/2016/5/16/i ... ufacturing
Source 2: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... clnk&gl=ch


so the only place the a350 is called the "most 3d printed plane" is one company website that deleted that page? not exactly a resounding endorsement for that claim.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:38 am

9Patch wrote:
So will Airbus will benefit less from 3D printing going forward since they've already pocketed those gains?

If somebody simply would have followed Astutemans advice (use Google to find out), you would see, that new 3D printed parts continue to be added to the A350 since 2015, when the articles popped up, that I quoted.

See the string of dates of just some relevant reports about Airbus 3D printing innovations in this link:
Feb 2019, Feb 2019, Sept 2018, Juli 2018, April 2018, Nov 2018.

lightsaber wrote:
Where I see benefit is replacement is of aluminum parts with titanium. 3D printing is less expensive than many of the aluminum parts in the A350.

Yes, there are 3D printed parts in the A350, but it came to market before the titanium printing revolution.

Quote1: "Last year, Airbus installed 3D printed titanium brackets on its in-series production A350 XWB aircraft."
Quote2: "The titanium powder used within laser sintering technology, also allows the parts to be created from much less material while maintaining the sturdiness of the original component. The company is also preparing to produce a larger group of A350 door components using 3D printing."
Sept 2018, from this link

musman9853 wrote:
so the only place the a350 is called the "most 3d printed plane" is one company website that deleted that page? not exactly a resounding endorsement for that claim.

It seems the blog was removed since 2015. But there are still other reports from that time that confirm the 1000 3D printed part claim.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Kindanew
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 11:07 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:27 am

Off the top of my head I remember reading that the -1000 introduced 3D printed door stops and that this change would be rolled out to the -900’s as well.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:19 am

astuteman wrote:
Of course Airbus know nothing of cost cutting/supplier bargaining/3D printing/competitive pressure ;)
Joking of course…


I've an old ____________ from about ~10 years ago that was made using ALM for Airbus R&T projects sitting on my desk.

[not naming what it is as its likely pretty unique]



ALM is not something that has snuck up on either airframer!
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:21 am

The next big step in ALM is use in PSEs. I'm out of the loop as to how far along this is with certifying authorities.


Given the MAX debacle - I don't trust the FAA and Boeing worth sh_t when it comes to rigourous assessment of whether it is fit for purpose for NMA.
 
TheOldDude
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:02 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:38 am

After this interesting discussion on 3D printed parts we are still left with the main point that Airbus itself is saying it must slash costs, especially on the A350. We've discussed several ways to lower costs; are any of them alone able to reduce costs sufficiently? In combination? Or will Airbus remain at a strategic disadvantage on cost indefinitely?

Also, we have to keep in mind that Boeing won't be standing still.

Edited to add last sentence.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:59 pm

From footage I've seen about the A350 fuselage panel construction, this looks like a really time-consuming labor and machining intensive proces. Thus really expansive.
Here is an example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6_R54EVDdf0
And another one that shows another eliminatable logistics step: Example 2
If they swap tap laying for 2D fabrics the cost will most likely reduce a lot. The winding proces Boeing uses is most likely also faster.
But I can't undo myself from the impression that fuselage can beter be made from Alu-Li sheets and extruded profiles joined by stirfriction welding. The weightsavings on 2D-omnidirectional loaded parts from CFRP compared to Alu is minimal. I expect lower CFRP content on new clean sheet designs. This also leads to production cost savings.
I'm also far from convinced there isn't degredation in CFRP parts. If degradation occurs CFRP parts don't show it, while alu does, leading to spontaneous failures. I hope I'm wrong because this could become really ugly. Aka 737MAX trouble squared.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10363
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:26 pm

Well based on the length of time CFRP parts have been deployed in a/c, I would think they have a good indication of how its failure rate performs over the decades.
 
LTCM
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:35 am

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:09 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
But I can't undo myself from the impression that fuselage can beter be made from Alu-Li sheets and extruded profiles joined by stirfriction welding. The weightsavings on 2D-omnidirectional loaded parts from CFRP compared to Alu is minimal. I expect lower CFRP content on new clean sheet designs. This also leads to production cost savings.


Name checks out. :D
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2258
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:46 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
From footage I've seen about the A350 fuselage panel construction, this looks like a really time-consuming labor and machining intensive proces. Thus really expansive.
Here is an example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6_R54EVDdf0
And another one that shows another eliminatable logistics step: Example 2
If they swap tap laying for 2D fabrics the cost will most likely reduce a lot. The winding proces Boeing uses is most likely also faster.
But I can't undo myself from the impression that fuselage can beter be made from Alu-Li sheets and extruded profiles joined by stirfriction welding. The weightsavings on 2D-omnidirectional loaded parts from CFRP compared to Alu is minimal. I expect lower CFRP content on new clean sheet designs. This also leads to production cost savings.
I'm also far from convinced there isn't degredation in CFRP parts. If degradation occurs CFRP parts don't show it, while alu does, leading to spontaneous failures. I hope I'm wrong because this could become really ugly. Aka 737MAX trouble squared.


Doing barrels only the connection to the next barrel needs to be spot on, the rest almost doesn't need to be checked for dimensional tolerances, the mandrel provides enough control. Doing panels means the part needs to be jigged during layup and then in assembly into barrels, accuracy all along the long edges has to be maintained. A lot tougher with a lot more labor.

Degradation in the upper wing surfaces due to intense sun would be the highest there. I personally see the CFRP Wing and CFRP Body being the best choice on clean sheets, primarily due to the ability to automate the process.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:54 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
From footage I've seen about the A350 fuselage panel construction, this looks like a really time-consuming labor and machining intensive proces. Thus really expansive.
Here is an example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6_R54EVDdf0
And another one that shows another eliminatable logistics step: Example 2
If they swap tap laying for 2D fabrics the cost will most likely reduce a lot. The winding proces Boeing uses is most likely also faster.
But I can't undo myself from the impression that fuselage can beter be made from Alu-Li sheets and extruded profiles joined by stirfriction welding. The weightsavings on 2D-omnidirectional loaded parts from CFRP compared to Alu is minimal. I expect lower CFRP content on new clean sheet designs. This also leads to production cost savings.
I'm also far from convinced there isn't degredation in CFRP parts. If degradation occurs CFRP parts don't show it, while alu does, leading to spontaneous failures. I hope I'm wrong because this could become really ugly. Aka 737MAX trouble squared.


thanks for finding the videos.. yes they are time consuming and worse yet when one attaches all the panels to the section frame, you have edge imperfections that lead to two other problems, hand working to fit and fair.. and water penetration leading to delimitation if not sealed correctly. Airbus justifiably prides itself of owning and using the latest technology and robotics, the problem is these advances are not always used to improve production processes or costs and frequently are gee whiz publicity moments. Question why are the wing skins made in Spain the transported to Wales.. this removes problem correction from the simple category to the complex. By comparison, the 777x wing skins are made adjacent to the wing assembly line, and the engineers, tech, and support personal are within walking distance (although many use bicycles) to resolve issues quickly. For process improvement the skins should be manufactured in Wales, as well as other post assembly processes so the wing can be shipped directly to the installation point with a minimum of touches.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3457
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:03 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I'm also far from convinced there isn't degredation in CFRP parts. If degradation occurs CFRP parts don't show it, while alu does, leading to spontaneous failures. I hope I'm wrong because this could become really ugly.


We are at a point where your fear will be alleviated. The CFRP for the 787 uses the basic resin system as the one uses by the 777 empennage. The 777 empennage have been flying for almost 30 years now and we have not heard any issue about degradation. Pretty soon we will have the those first 777 retiring without any issue from their composite tail.

CFRP have one major benefit over aluminum is the elimination of fatigue failure.

Finally, recall that 777 that had a hard tail landing in SFO a few years back? Section 47 broke and one flight attendance died. But as I recall the rudder and tail did not "explode and shatter" as some people feared.

Looks like one of the tail fared well:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia ... 1K20131212

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1820
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:25 pm

bikerthai wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I'm also far from convinced there isn't degredation in CFRP parts. If degradation occurs CFRP parts don't show it, while alu does, leading to spontaneous failures. I hope I'm wrong because this could become really ugly.


We are at a point where your fear will be alleviated. The CFRP for the 787 uses the basic resin system as the one uses by the 777 empennage. The 777 empennage have been flying for almost 30 years now and we have not heard any issue about degradation. Pretty soon we will have the those first 777 retiring without any issue from their composite tail.

CFRP have one major benefit over aluminum is the elimination of fatigue failure.

Finally, recall that 777 that had a hard tail landing in SFO a few years back? Section 47 broke and one flight attendance died. But as I recall the rudder and tail did not "explode and shatter" as some people feared.

bt

Are you talking about OZ214 (Asiana Airlines Flight 214) on July 6, 2013? "Hard landing" is putting it mildly; it was a crash landing...
No crew member was killed; the 3 fatalities were 3 passengers.

Lastly, the rudder and tail did not explode as they didn't take a direct hit; the tail of the airplane broke off at the aft pressure bulkhead and then fell on the ground.
Composite usually are very good performers overall, but are less tolerant to impact damage; which did not happen here.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:26 pm

The wings are the reason nine Beluga flight are required for each A350, while only three are required for an A330. The wing top skin is manufactured in Spain, flown to the UK to make a wing structure. The wing structure is flown to Bremen, Germany where the flaps are mounted. The finished wing is flown to the FAL in Toulouse. Both UK=>Bremen & Bremen=>Toulouse are a flight for each wing, this will become a flight per wing set when the BelugaXL become operational.
I think moving all A350 wing fabrication to Spain is the best option for Airbus. (Brexit ..)
Let's make it capable for rate 20 and use some CSeries/A220 tech.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3457
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:42 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Composite usually are very good performers overall, but are less tolerant to impact damage; which did not happen here.


True, but the G force cause by the impact that broke the tail section was experienced by the empennage. So that tail saw similar to (maybe slightly lower) G crash load that broke the body section.

I recall the early days of the 787 discussion when some feared what would happened if a composite airframe experience a similar crash. There was fear of a "flying cloud of graphite splinters" :rotfl:

To soften the fear, Boeing representative took a sledge hammer to a sample composite panel :taekwondo:

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3457
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:46 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Lastly, the rudder and tail did not explode as they didn't take a direct hit


If you look at the photos, you can see it did get some secondary hits as there were significant gouges through the leading edge. Must have cut through some light stations or something.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:55 pm

AFAIR one of the first applications of FRP was the vertical tail plane of the A300. There the huge weight savings could be realised, because they experians mainly an unidirectional load. Horizontal tail services and the wings also experiences mainly unidirectional loads.
But the fuselage is loaded in all directions with changing and cycling loads.
I fear degradation of the epoxy-viber bond under these changing loads. Is this detectable?
If the bond between different CFRP material layers degrades, the load spread over less carbon fibers. If the load per fiber exceeds the ultimate stress it fail without deformation. If a fiber breaks the load has to be taken be the surounding fibers, those are also likely to overload and fail. The deformation of metals leads to load distribution of load resulting in a higher ultimate load for a component.
Thus CFRP fail more like brittle metals, there is hardly any deformation before failure.
I am aware of the corrosion problems of grade 7000 alu, and the ban on Chrome6.
Last edited by CFRPwingALbody on Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Bradin
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:55 pm

For those who lack visibility or understanding into the Airbus accounting process - Is Airbus factoring and spreading the costs of research and development from the original Airbus A350 in the current A350XWB sales?
 
smartplane
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:26 pm

Cost benefits of CFRP could change. This year, the UN asked ICAO and IMO to document zero waste end of life plans for their respective industries. Exporting waste to third world countries, burying and dropping in the ocean will not be options.

Will CFRP still look as attractive to the OEM's and airlines then? Could A & B become direct participants in the aircraft end of life disassembly industry?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20349
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:51 pm

bikerthai wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I'm also far from convinced there isn't degredation in CFRP parts. If degradation occurs CFRP parts don't show it, while alu does, leading to spontaneous failures. I hope I'm wrong because this could become really ugly.


We are at a point where your fear will be alleviated. The CFRP for the 787 uses the basic resin system as the one uses by the 777 empennage. The 777 empennage have been flying for almost 30 years now and we have not heard any issue about degradation. Pretty soon we will have the those first 777 retiring without any issue from their composite tail.

CFRP have one major benefit over aluminum is the elimination of fatigue failure.

Finally, recall that 777 that had a hard tail landing in SFO a few years back? Section 47 broke and one flight attendance died. But as I recall the rudder and tail did not "explode and shatter" as some people feared.

Looks like one of the tail fared well:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia ... 1K20131212

bt

CFRP has fatigue assumed in from day 1. It is called sacrificial layers. Despite adding these material that flies with no allowed structural benefit, it is still lighter.

Oh, it's cheap to dispose of CFRP. It is mixed with something far dirtier and burned: coal. So little needs to be disposed of that if only one coal powerplant is running globally, it can be disposed of.

The 787 survived accelerated testing for 66,000 cycles and 200,000 hours. The A350 is just as tough. As this is an A350 thread, I am 100% confident Airbus could exceed the 787 life. I personally do not think the cost of testing is worth it. But it could be done.

The new AirForce trainers are CFRP for a reason: minimum fuss for 40 years of abuse by pilots learning how to be pilots.

CFRP also doesn't require the hazardous coatings aluminum does.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10741
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:22 pm

smartplane wrote:
Will CFRP still look as attractive to the OEM's and airlines then? Could A & B become direct participants in the aircraft end of life disassembly industry?

https://www.mro-network.com/advanced-ma ... -recycling
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5045
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:43 pm

bob75013 wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Sokes wrote:
After reducing B787 deferred cost by nearly a billion $ Boeing still made about 2.3 billion $ profit last quarter which they used to repurchase shares.
I think they should have reduced deferred B787 cost by 2 billion $. The one billion $ extra would have shrank deferred costs by an extra one billion $ on the asset side and shrank one billion $ debt on the liability side. The balance sheet would have shrank one billion. I agree, it wouldn't have increased equity.
The remaining 1.2 billion $ should have been used to replace debt with equity.
...
11 billion $ long term debt isn't much if one makes 2.3 billion $ in a quarter.
...

I correct myself:
Normally in a society there are people who save. Business and to a lesser degree government are supposed to absorb that saving and put it to productive use.
Boeing has 11.4 billion $ long term debt. Deferred cost of B787 is 22 billion $.
Ignoring the MAX issue: If I argue the profit of five quarters should be used to reduce deferred costs from 22 billion $ to 11 billion $, Boeing won't have any more long term debt.
That's not even useful for a normal country. But America on top is the reserve currency. They are supposed to have higher debts. As the B787 is probably fine the next five years anyway, I suggest the following:
Boeing stops share buybacks, reduces the deferred production costs of B787 as before and uses profits to increase equity till they reach an equity level of 5-7 billion $. If they do this with business as usual, the added equity would replace debt. Not useful.
It's rather useful they add equity of 7 billion $ and 15-20 billion $ new debt.
It's really time they start the B797 and maybe even a second plane at the same time.
What a funny balance sheet. I guess consequence of many years seller market.

As before I find 339 million $ equity totally inacceptable for a company which is a) the size of Boeing and b) operates in a cyclical business.
I believe this even if their debt is, I admit, low.



How many times do people need to be tolda that deferred production costs are money that Boeing loaned itself in the form of cash. Repayment of deferred production involves Boeing paying Boeing back. It is absolutely meaningless from a financial standpoint. Boeing Paying Boeing bill is a very different animal than Boeing paying a real creditor.

What matters is the market value of Boeing: $209 BILLION as of EOD yesterday,and is sitting on almost $7 BILLION in cash,

also? Boeing has many other programs in house that they might borrow from. Boeing Military, and Boeing Space. Alco Boeing Commercial in their Parts and Tech Business.
 
musman9853
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:51 pm

kanban wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
From footage I've seen about the A350 fuselage panel construction, this looks like a really time-consuming labor and machining intensive proces. Thus really expansive.
Here is an example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6_R54EVDdf0
And another one that shows another eliminatable logistics step: Example 2
If they swap tap laying for 2D fabrics the cost will most likely reduce a lot. The winding proces Boeing uses is most likely also faster.
But I can't undo myself from the impression that fuselage can beter be made from Alu-Li sheets and extruded profiles joined by stirfriction welding. The weightsavings on 2D-omnidirectional loaded parts from CFRP compared to Alu is minimal. I expect lower CFRP content on new clean sheet designs. This also leads to production cost savings.
I'm also far from convinced there isn't degredation in CFRP parts. If degradation occurs CFRP parts don't show it, while alu does, leading to spontaneous failures. I hope I'm wrong because this could become really ugly. Aka 737MAX trouble squared.


thanks for finding the videos.. yes they are time consuming and worse yet when one attaches all the panels to the section frame, you have edge imperfections that lead to two other problems, hand working to fit and fair.. and water penetration leading to delimitation if not sealed correctly. Airbus justifiably prides itself of owning and using the latest technology and robotics, the problem is these advances are not always used to improve production processes or costs and frequently are gee whiz publicity moments. Question why are the wing skins made in Spain the transported to Wales.. this removes problem correction from the simple category to the complex. By comparison, the 777x wing skins are made adjacent to the wing assembly line, and the engineers, tech, and support personal are within walking distance (although many use bicycles) to resolve issues quickly. For process improvement the skins should be manufactured in Wales, as well as other post assembly processes so the wing can be shipped directly to the installation point with a minimum of touches.


yeah, this seems to be airbus' achilles heel. by political necessity it has FALs and factories spread out over the globe, yet that inherently makes things a lot less efficient.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1820
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:54 pm

bikerthai wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Composite usually are very good performers overall, but are less tolerant to impact damage; which did not happen here.


True, but the G force cause by the impact that broke the tail section was experienced by the empennage. So that tail saw similar to (maybe slightly lower) G crash load that broke the body section.

I recall the early days of the 787 discussion when some feared what would happened if a composite airframe experience a similar crash. There was fear of a "flying cloud of graphite splinters" :rotfl:

To soften the fear, Boeing representative took a sledge hammer to a sample composite panel :taekwondo:

bt

The G forces experienced by the empennage weren't THAT great, and somehow progressive as the aluminum fuselage was crumbling. Obviously not great enough to delaminate the CFRP.

The vertical stabilizer did take some hit as there was damage to the leading edge; but not enough to destroy the whole assembly.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1820
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:02 pm

musman9853 wrote:
kanban wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
From footage I've seen about the A350 fuselage panel construction, this looks like a really time-consuming labor and machining intensive proces. Thus really expansive.
Here is an example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6_R54EVDdf0
And another one that shows another eliminatable logistics step: Example 2
If they swap tap laying for 2D fabrics the cost will most likely reduce a lot. The winding proces Boeing uses is most likely also faster.
But I can't undo myself from the impression that fuselage can beter be made from Alu-Li sheets and extruded profiles joined by stirfriction welding. The weightsavings on 2D-omnidirectional loaded parts from CFRP compared to Alu is minimal. I expect lower CFRP content on new clean sheet designs. This also leads to production cost savings.
I'm also far from convinced there isn't degredation in CFRP parts. If degradation occurs CFRP parts don't show it, while alu does, leading to spontaneous failures. I hope I'm wrong because this could become really ugly. Aka 737MAX trouble squared.


thanks for finding the videos.. yes they are time consuming and worse yet when one attaches all the panels to the section frame, you have edge imperfections that lead to two other problems, hand working to fit and fair.. and water penetration leading to delimitation if not sealed correctly. Airbus justifiably prides itself of owning and using the latest technology and robotics, the problem is these advances are not always used to improve production processes or costs and frequently are gee whiz publicity moments. Question why are the wing skins made in Spain the transported to Wales.. this removes problem correction from the simple category to the complex. By comparison, the 777x wing skins are made adjacent to the wing assembly line, and the engineers, tech, and support personal are within walking distance (although many use bicycles) to resolve issues quickly. For process improvement the skins should be manufactured in Wales, as well as other post assembly processes so the wing can be shipped directly to the installation point with a minimum of touches.


yeah, this seems to be airbus' achilles heel. by political necessity it has FALs and factories spread out over the globe, yet that inherently makes things a lot less efficient.

It's such inefficient that Boeing basically copied the process for the 787: subcontract the subassemblies to suppliers all over the world and fly all those to 2 places for final assembly...

And why is Boeing implementing a Completion Center in China if it was that crazy? Sometimes, you have to spend a penny to make a dollar; Boeing, and Airbus before, understood that with their FAL/Completion Center in China.
And let's not forget about the Airbus FAL in Mobile: it will undermine any potential complain from Boeing about the sale of A220-300's to DL (and others). That's so inefficient... :roll:
 
tomcat
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:02 pm

kanban wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
From footage I've seen about the A350 fuselage panel construction, this looks like a really time-consuming labor and machining intensive proces. Thus really expansive.
Here is an example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6_R54EVDdf0
And another one that shows another eliminatable logistics step: Example 2
If they swap tap laying for 2D fabrics the cost will most likely reduce a lot. The winding proces Boeing uses is most likely also faster.


thanks for finding the videos.. yes they are time consuming and worse yet when one attaches all the panels to the section frame, you have edge imperfections that lead to two other problems, hand working to fit and fair.. and water penetration leading to delimitation if not sealed correctly. Airbus justifiably prides itself of owning and using the latest technology and robotics, the problem is these advances are not always used to improve production processes or costs and frequently are gee whiz publicity moments. Question why are the wing skins made in Spain the transported to Wales.. this removes problem correction from the simple category to the complex. By comparison, the 777x wing skins are made adjacent to the wing assembly line, and the engineers, tech, and support personal are within walking distance (although many use bicycles) to resolve issues quickly. For process improvement the skins should be manufactured in Wales, as well as other post assembly processes so the wing can be shipped directly to the installation point with a minimum of touches.


About the A350 wing skins, it's even trickier: it's only the lower wing skin that is made in Spain. The upper wing skin is made in Stade (Germany). To add to your questions: why are the A350 wing skins partially made in Spain while the A400M ones were all made in Germany? Was it to make sure that the lessons learned would be lost in between generations? On top of that, the A400M wing skins were actually designed in Airbus-Bremen and manufactured in Airbus-Stade, while the design responsibility of the wing itself was in Filton-UK. Talk about making things complex... I'm not sure which Airbus site is responsible for the A350 wing skins design as I'm less familiar with that program. I'd venture to say that it is still Bremen.

https://www.airbus.com/careers/our-locations/europe/stade.html
https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/a400m-wing-assembly-challenge-of-integrating-composites
 
VV
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:11 pm

The end of this article says, "Airbus says it will “continue to improve the A350 programme’s performance” in order to reach break-even this year, and improve margins beyond this date."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0s-455759/

Obviously it is true, since they say it.

Just remember that 840 787 have been delivered.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20349
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:23 pm

VV wrote:
The end of this article says, "Airbus says it will “continue to improve the A350 programme’s performance” in order to reach break-even this year, and improve margins beyond this date."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0s-455759/

Obviously it is true, since they say it.

Just remember that 840 787 have been delivered.

To be fair, Boeing went as almost $23,000,000,000 in arrears before breaking even. So Airbus is doing far better in terms of quantity delivered to break even.

That said, the A359/A35K gave Boeing a good scare. Boeing now is making over $30,000,000 payback now. But that is money Boeing owes to Boeing.

Both will cut costs further.

All indications I see are a price war. Boeing has a handicap (a totally botched EIS) but they had such a first mover advantage they recovered.

We'll get to debate for decades.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
musman9853
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:26 am

WayexTDI wrote:
musman9853 wrote:
kanban wrote:

thanks for finding the videos.. yes they are time consuming and worse yet when one attaches all the panels to the section frame, you have edge imperfections that lead to two other problems, hand working to fit and fair.. and water penetration leading to delimitation if not sealed correctly. Airbus justifiably prides itself of owning and using the latest technology and robotics, the problem is these advances are not always used to improve production processes or costs and frequently are gee whiz publicity moments. Question why are the wing skins made in Spain the transported to Wales.. this removes problem correction from the simple category to the complex. By comparison, the 777x wing skins are made adjacent to the wing assembly line, and the engineers, tech, and support personal are within walking distance (although many use bicycles) to resolve issues quickly. For process improvement the skins should be manufactured in Wales, as well as other post assembly processes so the wing can be shipped directly to the installation point with a minimum of touches.


yeah, this seems to be airbus' achilles heel. by political necessity it has FALs and factories spread out over the globe, yet that inherently makes things a lot less efficient.

It's such inefficient that Boeing basically copied the process for the 787: subcontract the subassemblies to suppliers all over the world and fly all those to 2 places for final assembly...

And why is Boeing implementing a Completion Center in China if it was that crazy? Sometimes, you have to spend a penny to make a dollar; Boeing, and Airbus before, understood that with their FAL/Completion Center in China.
And let's not forget about the Airbus FAL in Mobile: it will undermine any potential complain from Boeing about the sale of A220-300's to DL (and others). That's so inefficient... :roll:



Boeing isn't flying around wings back and forth. They're built and then delivered to the fals, they don't bounce around. Also, Boeing has like 3 production lines for the 737 that's going to rate 60. Airbus has like 8 different a320 fals. That's inefficient.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
9Patch
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:41 am

WayexTDI wrote:
It's such inefficient that Boeing basically copied the process for the 787: subcontract the subassemblies to suppliers all over the world and fly all those to 2 places for final assembly...

Boeing took the Airbus process and improved upon it.
Airbus admits they need to cut costs to compete.
Why is there so much denial?
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:07 am

9Patch wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
It's such inefficient that Boeing basically copied the process for the 787: subcontract the subassemblies to suppliers all over the world and fly all those to 2 places for final assembly...

Boeing took the Airbus process and improved upon it.
Airbus admits they need to cut costs to compete.
Why is there so much denial?

Not really though, Boeing took Toyota's manufacturing system instead of Airbus's. Toyota's production system uses the Kaizen philosophy and in Kaizen, transportation is one of the things considered as wastage.

Airbus has parts going from A to B to C to D to etc.

Boeing simply has it from A to B. This is the difference.

Kanban's username is in fact one of the systems used by Toyota.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:50 am

WayexTDI wrote:
It's such inefficient that Boeing basically copied the process for the 787: subcontract the subassemblies to suppliers all over the world and fly all those to 2 places for final assembly...

And why is Boeing implementing a Completion Center in China if it was that crazy? Sometimes, you have to spend a penny to make a dollar; Boeing, and Airbus before, understood that with their FAL/Completion Center in China.
And let's not forget about the Airbus FAL in Mobile: it will undermine any potential complain from Boeing about the sale of A220-300's to DL (and others). That's so inefficient... :roll:


Looking at the lines that are said to be the big money makers, you can't just dismiss the fixed costs of 4 final assembly sites for the A320 series vs 1 for the 737. And all 4 have different variations of the assembly process.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7160
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:26 am

kanban wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
From footage I've seen about the A350 fuselage panel construction, this looks like a really time-consuming labor and machining intensive proces. Thus really expansive.
Here is an example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6_R54EVDdf0
And another one that shows another eliminatable logistics step: Example 2
If they swap tap laying for 2D fabrics the cost will most likely reduce a lot. The winding proces Boeing uses is most likely also faster.
But I can't undo myself from the impression that fuselage can beter be made from Alu-Li sheets and extruded profiles joined by stirfriction welding. The weightsavings on 2D-omnidirectional loaded parts from CFRP compared to Alu is minimal. I expect lower CFRP content on new clean sheet designs. This also leads to production cost savings.
I'm also far from convinced there isn't degredation in CFRP parts. If degradation occurs CFRP parts don't show it, while alu does, leading to spontaneous failures. I hope I'm wrong because this could become really ugly. Aka 737MAX trouble squared.


thanks for finding the videos.. yes they are time consuming and worse yet when one attaches all the panels to the section frame, you have edge imperfections that lead to two other problems, hand working to fit and fair.. and water penetration leading to delimitation if not sealed correctly. Airbus justifiably prides itself of owning and using the latest technology and robotics, the problem is these advances are not always used to improve production processes or costs and frequently are gee whiz publicity moments. Question why are the wing skins made in Spain the transported to Wales.. this removes problem correction from the simple category to the complex. By comparison, the 777x wing skins are made adjacent to the wing assembly line, and the engineers, tech, and support personal are within walking distance (although many use bicycles) to resolve issues quickly. For process improvement the skins should be manufactured in Wales, as well as other post assembly processes so the wing can be shipped directly to the installation point with a minimum of touches.


Firstly as a fellow manufacturing engineer I have huge respect for your knowledge and experience.
I need to make some comments with respect to your post, though.

The set of videos I watched, and then compared to videos of the 787 barrels being manufactured suggested that there are no major differences besides the obvious one (panel vs barrels). I also struggled to see the panel manufacture itself as "labour intensive" when the only thing you see is a robot laying machine. :).

Multi site/multi nation manufacturing is a regular feature of modern major programmes required to establish the partnering demanded by scale.
And Boeing do it in much the same way Airbus do - perhaps not to the same extent.
The problems it brings demand their own set of countermeasures.
Amongst the foremost of these are stricttly governed "condition of supply" criteriea relating to the effective management of key design or build features through the lifecycle, together with advanced 3D predictive metrology.

A colleague I work with is a senior metrology specialist (as am I), and came to us from Airbus via another "multi-national programme".
He has an advantage over me as his specialisation is exclusively aerospace.

The electronic 3D predictive metrology processes that were implemented in this instance on the A350, across continents, guarantee fit ups as close as 0.02mm, or 1/1300 of an inch, which is adequate to guarantee first time fit up in the downstream assembly. It is a discipline (alongside the strict condition of supply criteria) that has to be grown in order to successfully execute distributive manufacturing.

Developing those disciplines, to quote your own phrase back at you, removes the problem correction from the complex to the simple.

All I can say is that if Boeing are experiencing "hand fit and fair" on these types of assembly, in this day and age then they are doing something wrong.
I do wonder if, say for example, in the 777 manufacture, where the assembly processes are alongside each other, it can appear that you actually have the option of "travelling the fix" because it is easy. Also as an older design it won't be embedded in the digital thread to the same extent as the 787 or A350

If you are manufacturing in different nations, or even continents, that travelled fix problem as you say would be more complex..
The best way to deal with a complex problem is not to have it in the first place.
Which is how the controls I describe have evolved.
I would rely on you to tell me, but I would be surprised if Boeing were travelling fit up fixes on the 787 barrels which are manifactured all over the place.
That's the best way to completely ruin the advantages of pre-stuffing, which have (rightly) been touted on this forum.

Believe me I know. I've been there :)

Rgds
Last edited by astuteman on Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7160
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:38 am

mham001 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
It's such inefficient that Boeing basically copied the process for the 787: subcontract the subassemblies to suppliers all over the world and fly all those to 2 places for final assembly...

And why is Boeing implementing a Completion Center in China if it was that crazy? Sometimes, you have to spend a penny to make a dollar; Boeing, and Airbus before, understood that with their FAL/Completion Center in China.
And let's not forget about the Airbus FAL in Mobile: it will undermine any potential complain from Boeing about the sale of A220-300's to DL (and others). That's so inefficient... :roll:


Looking at the lines that are said to be the big money makers, you can't just dismiss the fixed costs of 4 final assembly sites for the A320 series vs 1 for the 737. And all 4 have different variations of the assembly process.


As a point of order, Boeing now has 2 737 final assembly sites.
Your point about process variations is valid - that needs to be corrected.
That said, as another point of order, the programme particularly singled out with a profitability issue is the A350, not the A320 (although its clear that Airbus are not content with the A320 as it stands either).
The A350 has only one final assembly location.
And the reason the A320 has 4 FAL's is largely commercial - the value to the business obtained from having indigenous final assembly in the USA and China outweighs the obvious production inefficiencies it introduces. Which is exactly why Boeing have elected to go down the same route with the 737.
Sometimes the bigger picture does get in the way of the purist manufacturing.

Rgds
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:46 am

WayexTDI wrote:
It's such inefficient that Boeing basically copied the process for the 787: subcontract the subassemblies to suppliers all over the world and fly all those to 2 places for final assembly...

And why is Boeing implementing a Completion Center in China if it was that crazy? Sometimes, you have to spend a penny to make a dollar; Boeing, and Airbus before, understood that with their FAL/Completion Center in China.
And let's not forget about the Airbus FAL in Mobile: it will undermine any potential complain from Boeing about the sale of A220-300's to DL (and others). That's so inefficient... :roll:


let's take a look at that... the nose and body sections are flown to Charleston, all the sections for the Everett FAL are flown in.. however these are complete sections, some stuffed with wiring, hydraulic, pneumatics, etc. so the FAL is a slip together and roll out. Airbus manufactures many pieces in bucket shops all over Europe then ships them to bucket shops in different countries where another couple pieces are added before shipping to another bucket shop and so on. reading some of the comments on the wing one has to ask WHY???? Going back to the A380 follow the components unto the point the convoys roll ... it's as though nobody trusts a simple flow process is this just a French affection, or are European process managers that bad?.

About the Chinese finishing center, sometimes world sales require tradeoffs, or work packages. The Chinese finishing center does not build planes, they are flown in, interiors installed and painted.. far different from shipping bits and pieces.

This thread is about the A350 production issues... Mobile is not part of that scenario.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:46 am

I think the devision of workpackeges is caused by how the programs are funded. Nation A funds x% of the A350 development thus gets x% of the work packages. I even expect state funding is directly related to dedicated production facilities and funding.
The investments can be earned back via income and profit taxes, besides the loyalties.
I think that Airbus might have decided the A350 workpackeges a little but to much.
Airbus has reasons to spread the work. Aerospace wages are highest in Wasington because Boeing has the majority of its factories there. This also causes work-home logistic problems. By spreading the factories the work is less clustered. This leads to less pressure on wages, shorter home-work transits and lower clustered transit flows. I think Airbus could benefit from lower wages, but employment taxes are most likely higher in Europe than in the USA.
 
VV
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:04 am

lightsaber wrote:
VV wrote:
The end of this article says, "Airbus says it will “continue to improve the A350 programme’s performance” in order to reach break-even this year, and improve margins beyond this date."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0s-455759/

Obviously it is true, since they say it.

Just remember that 840 787 have been delivered.

To be fair, Boeing went as almost $23,000,000,000 in arrears before breaking even. So Airbus is doing far better in terms of quantity delivered to break even.

....

Lightsaber



Let's do very simple maths.
Let's take a very rounded and very conservative number as the average overall income generated by each delivered 787. Let us assume this very notional rounded conservative number to be US$ 100,000,000 (one hundred million US dollars).

Until end of May 2019, there have been 840 (eight hundred and forty) delivered 787. The revenue generated using the very conservative and rounded number is then 840 x 100,000,000 = US$ 84,000,000,000.

In reality the actual discounted price (market price) is much higher than 100,000,000 and varies according to the model.

I just cannot understand people who still believe the 787 program "has dug 23,000,000,000 US dollars" of production cost to be "paid back". I still think many people just do not understand what "deferred production cost" means.

And the same people believe with about expected 400 deliveries at the end of this year, the A350-900 and A350-1000 could make profit.

Something does not pass the straight face test, does it?
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2258
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:24 am

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
The wings are the reason nine Beluga flight are required for each A350, while only three are required for an A330. The wing top skin is manufactured in Spain, flown to the UK to make a wing structure. The wing structure is flown to Bremen, Germany where the flaps are mounted. The finished wing is flown to the FAL in Toulouse. Both UK=>Bremen & Bremen=>Toulouse are a flight for each wing, this will become a flight per wing set when the BelugaXL become operational.
I think moving all A350 wing fabrication to Spain is the best option for Airbus. (Brexit ..)
Let's make it capable for rate 20 and use some CSeries/A220 tech.


A great example of an improvement. Then the plant that lost this gets to do all of a different element that flew 4 places.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:22 am

VV wrote:
Something does not pass the straight face test, does it?


Why are you mixing revenue with deferred cost?

Aircraft Sale Price = Revenue per frame

Aircraft Sale Price - Aircraft Build Price = Profit per frame

[Aircraft Sale Price - Aircraft Build Price] + Deferred Cost = Profit per frame for executive bonus schemes*


Then, over X frames (the accounting block), assuming a fixed "Profit per frame for executive bonus schemes" - the summation of the deferred cost must be zero - which of course are driven by holding or squeezing up the sales price and pushing down build price.



*which is nothing short of criminal IMO. The block width should not be allowed to change from original forecast (doing otherwise affects company's ability to invest in future products prior to conclusion of accounting block). If Boeing were to have to take accounting hits on deferred costs - all pertinent bonus payments based on the accounting performance at the time should be removed from the executives in question (plus 50% on top) just to remind them of the responsibilities of holding executive office.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:36 am

TheOldDude wrote:
After this interesting discussion on 3D printed parts we are still left with the main point that Airbus itself is saying it must slash costs, especially on the A350. We've discussed several ways to lower costs; are any of them alone able to reduce costs sufficiently? In combination? Or will Airbus remain at a strategic disadvantage on cost indefinitely?
.


The point is that manufacturers will be working on reducing cost from the moment of first delivery, and will continue to do so.
Boeing has been doing that since 2011 on the 787 and Airbus has been doing that since 2015 on the 350.

Not sure what all the fuzz is about, apart from a ludicrous level of testosterone fanboyism.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:38 am

VV wrote:
Let's do very simple maths.
Let's take a very rounded and very conservative number as the average overall income generated by each delivered 787. Let us assume this very notional rounded conservative number to be US$ 100,000,000 (one hundred million US dollars).

Until end of May 2019, there have been 840 (eight hundred and forty) delivered 787. The revenue generated using the very conservative and rounded number is then 840 x 100,000,000 = US$ 84,000,000,000.

In reality the actual discounted price (market price) is much higher than 100,000,000 and varies according to the model.

I just cannot understand people who still believe the 787 program "has dug 23,000,000,000 US dollars" of production cost to be "paid back". I still think many people just do not understand what "deferred production cost" means.

And the same people believe with about expected 400 deliveries at the end of this year, the A350-900 and A350-1000 could make profit.

Something does not pass the straight face test, does it?


Profit =/= Cash Flow.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:43 am

musman9853 wrote:
Boeing isn't flying around wings back and forth. They're built and then delivered to the fals, they don't bounce around. Also, Boeing has like 3 production lines for the 737 that's going to rate 60. Airbus has like 8 different a320 fals. That's inefficient.

Then, surely, two 787 FALs must quite be inefficient to a single 350 FAL (going back ON-topic . . . ).
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Bloomberg:Airbus Says It Must Slash A350 Costs to Win Wide-Body Price War

Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:58 am

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I think Airbus could benefit from lower wages, but employment taxes are most likely higher in Europe than in the USA.


But against that, health care insurance in the States is a world apart from that in Europe.

The difference probably isn't as pronounced as you'd expect.

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