Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
bigbird
Topic Author
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:38 pm

Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:15 pm

At the present time what is the current production rate for the A320 family at the facility? Also for the A223? From what it is now what is the planned increase for future production?
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:47 pm

I read somewhere that the agreement to obtain aids from Alabama was that Airbus needs to maintain a certain level of employments there and also they need to keep a certain amount of business.

It looks like the A220 line is one of the efforts to achieve that goal. It is unclear why the C Series needs two final assembly lines with such a low level production rate.
In addition it has been a long time since the ICT in the US dismissed the tariff that was requested by US trade representative on the C Series.

The whole thing is very unclear and I cannot understand exactly why the second assembly line for the C Series (A220) in Mobile is maintained.
It only increases the production cost.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:56 pm

VV wrote:
I read somewhere that the agreement to obtain aids from Alabama was that Airbus needs to maintain a certain level of employments there and also they need to keep a certain amount of business.

It looks like the A220 line is one of the efforts to achieve that goal. It is unclear why the C Series needs two final assembly lines with such a low level production rate.
In addition it has been a long time since the ICT in the US dismissed the tariff that was requested by US trade representative on the C Series.

The whole thing is very unclear and I cannot understand exactly why the second assembly line for the C Series (A220) in Mobile is maintained.
It only increases the production cost.

Assembling the CS300/A220-300 in Mobile allows for the Boeing suit to be circumvented: the CS100/A220-100 was too far from the 737 to have a valid claim, but not the CS300/A220-300.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 701
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:18 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Assembling the CS300/A220-300 in Mobile allows for the Boeing suit to be circumvented: the CS100/A220-100 was too far from the 737 to have a valid claim, but not the CS300/A220-300.
Exactly!!

And since then, Boeing has increased the size of its 737Max7, making the A221 even further away.

About the costs of having two different FAL, I'm sure Airbus figured it was a cost efficient way of mitigating "protectionnism" risks.

And once the YMX pre-FAL comes online, most of the economy of scale will be achieved right there (and also at about 10+/month combined production rate).
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:31 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
And since then, Boeing has increased the size of its 737Max7, making the A221 even further away.

Boeing’s Max7 change predates their price dumping suit that they lost (former was July 2016, later started April 2017).
 
T4thH
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:38 pm

The production rate for the A220 in Mobile is now at around one per month.

The pre-FAL are performed in Montreal (and this will stay there). The production rate will be increased to 4 to 5 per month for the A220 in year 2025. In 2022, when the pre FAL in Montreal will be further equipped and the whole (outdated) FAL -process will have been started to be updated (so from outdated: to assemble 5 hull sections in the FAL to receive an outer hull and so to start to build the jet from outside to inside, to new: to the regular Airbus process, to assemble the 5 hull sections in the Pre-FAL to three, than to implement all the equipment, floor plates, cables, tubes, pipes, windows e.g. in the three sections (all in the pre-FAL) and in the FAL to assemble the three full equipped hull sections + wings to a jet). In 2025, it is planned, the whole process shall have been updated to Airbus standard, and then we will see the 14 to 15 production rate in total for Mobile + Montreal.

It can be further increased to a maximum of 8 per month in Mobile (so there is enough space for it and additional investments will have to be performed for Mobile and the pre FAL in Montreal) but there are till now no plans to do this.

I have not followed regarding production rate of the A320 family in Mobile.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 701
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:38 pm

To Polot: Indeed!

I should written that the 737-700 was now no longer produced and that the 737Max7 was even further away in size.
Last edited by ExMilitaryEng on Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:39 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
VV wrote:
I read somewhere that the agreement to obtain aids from Alabama was that Airbus needs to maintain a certain level of employments there and also they need to keep a certain amount of business.

It looks like the A220 line is one of the efforts to achieve that goal. It is unclear why the C Series needs two final assembly lines with such a low level production rate.
In addition it has been a long time since the ICT in the US dismissed the tariff that was requested by US trade representative on the C Series.

The whole thing is very unclear and I cannot understand exactly why the second assembly line for the C Series (A220) in Mobile is maintained.
It only increases the production cost.

Assembling the CS300/A220-300 in Mobile allows for the Boeing suit to be circumvented: the CS100/A220-100 was too far from the 737 to have a valid claim, but not the CS300/A220-300.


I hope you remember that the 737-7 moved away from that super crowded market when Boeing decided to stretch it.

In addition the complain to the ICT was dismissed.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN1FY382
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:55 pm

I still do not understand why the very first move by Airbus was to build the second assembly line in Mobile when the delivery late is still so slow.

In addition, the A220-100 is not so popular and it would most likely be paused once the VIP aircraft and the remaining Delta orders are delivered (if they are delivered).

There is something very weird about it.
The only explanation I have been able to make was that Airbus is obliged to maintain a certain level of activity in Mobile in order to comply with the condition imposed by the state of Alabama's condition for the financial help and/or subsidy and/or tax breaks.

Perhaps the activities generated by the A320neo would not be enough to comply with those conditions and thus the A220 final assembly allows to create job during the construction and then during operations to achieve the conditions.

Unfortunately I have not been able to get any tangible proof or anything on my speculation or explanation.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12219
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:02 pm

VV wrote:
I still do not understand why the very first move by Airbus was to build the second assembly line in Mobile when the delivery late is still so slow.

In addition, the A220-100 is not so popular and it would most likely be paused once the VIP aircraft and the remaining Delta orders are delivered (if they are delivered).

There is something very weird about it.
The only explanation I have been able to make was that Airbus is obliged to maintain a certain level of activity in Mobile in order to comply with the condition imposed by the state of Alabama's condition for the financial help and/or subsidy and/or tax breaks.

Perhaps the activities generated by the A320neo would not be enough to comply with those conditions and thus the A220 final assembly allows to create job during the construction and then during operations to achieve the conditions.

Unfortunately I have not been able to get any tangible proof or anything on my speculation or explanation.

It was done to get around possible tariffs. At the time the complaint was not fully dismissed so there was the risk of tariffs, and by the time that risk went away on the A221 it was too late-work had begun on Mobile FAL. It also provided a FAL on “Airbus territory” with the Mirabel FAL technically belonging to BBD at the time.
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2583
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:28 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
And since then, Boeing has increased the size of its 737Max7, making the A221 even further away.


I learned something I didn't know. The Max7 is about 6-1/2 feet (~2 meters) longer than the 73G.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:40 pm

VV wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
VV wrote:
I read somewhere that the agreement to obtain aids from Alabama was that Airbus needs to maintain a certain level of employments there and also they need to keep a certain amount of business.

It looks like the A220 line is one of the efforts to achieve that goal. It is unclear why the C Series needs two final assembly lines with such a low level production rate.
In addition it has been a long time since the ICT in the US dismissed the tariff that was requested by US trade representative on the C Series.

The whole thing is very unclear and I cannot understand exactly why the second assembly line for the C Series (A220) in Mobile is maintained.
It only increases the production cost.

Assembling the CS300/A220-300 in Mobile allows for the Boeing suit to be circumvented: the CS100/A220-100 was too far from the 737 to have a valid claim, but not the CS300/A220-300.


I hope you remember that the 737-7 moved away from that super crowded market when Boeing decided to stretch it.

In addition the complain to the ICT was dismissed.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN1FY382

That covers the A220-100; the A220-300 could still be attacked by Boeing. The fact that the 737MAX7 was stretched from the 737-700 has no bearing on whether Boeing decides another foolish lawsuit against the A220 (the -300 this time) like they did for the shorter version. From the article your linked (bolding mine):
The ITC said the 110-seat CSeries jets ordered by Delta DAL.N and Boeing Co's BA.N smallest 737 MAX 7 plane do not compete. It also said Bombardier Inc's BBDb.TO CSeries sale to Delta did not come at Boeing's expense as the planemaker did not offer any new aircraft to the No. 2 U.S. carrier.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:27 pm

The complain was the fact the C Series could have been sold below cost by Bombardier to an airline in the US.

There would not be any complain if the A220 is sold in the US above cost (that is with some profit).

It is not a secret that Airbus Canada is trying to reduce the production cost of the A220 such that there could not be any attack for dumping against the A220.
It also means that Airbus knows that the A220 production cost is higher than the real cost.

It can also explain the fact Airbus Canada will continue to lose money until 2025 or so.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:37 pm

VV wrote:
The complain was the fact the C Series could have been sold below cost by Bombardier to an airline in the US.

There would not be any complain if the A220 is sold in the US above cost (that is with some profit).

It is not a secret that Airbus Canada is trying to reduce the production cost of the A220 such that there could not be any attack for dumping against the A220.
It also means that Airbus knows that the A220 production cost is higher than the real cost.

It can also explain the fact Airbus Canada will continue to lose money until 2025 or so.

And that complain got dismissed since Boeing did not have anything to compete with the CS100 (now A220-100) in the 110-seat segment; the ruling does not shield the A220-300 from such claim, hence the Airbus decision to perform final assembly in the US.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:21 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
VV wrote:
The complain was the fact the C Series could have been sold below cost by Bombardier to an airline in the US.

There would not be any complain if the A220 is sold in the US above cost (that is with some profit).

It is not a secret that Airbus Canada is trying to reduce the production cost of the A220 such that there could not be any attack for dumping against the A220.
It also means that Airbus knows that the A220 production cost is higher than the real cost.

It can also explain the fact Airbus Canada will continue to lose money until 2025 or so.

And that complain got dismissed since Boeing did not have anything to compete with the CS100 (now A220-100) in the 110-seat segment; the ruling does not shield the A220-300 from such claim, hence the Airbus decision to perform final assembly in the US.


The 737-7, the smallest Boeing aircraft is not even in the A220-300's league.
The 737-7's capacity in high density configuration is 172 whereas the A220-300 can only seat a maximum of 149 people with a special modification. Come on WayexTDI, you should know that.

So it is still unclear why Airbus decided to put a second A220 final assembly in Mobile, beyond the possible obligation to achieve a certain level of activity and business in order to comply with the conditions of the attributions of subsidies/tax break and other possible aids.

Or perhaps Airbus is so afraid with the unions in Mirabel and thus prefers to have a "free to work" state in the US.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 701
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:34 pm

VV, the case was dismissed due to Boeing not offering anything in the CS100 category (110 pax).

I understand why Airbus doesn't want to risk a second complaint - this time against the A223, even knowing the 737Max7 is indeed somewhat larger.
(You know how biased are those proceedings).

FWIW, "apparently" Bombardier was already looking to establish a US FAL (in Wichita?) for that exact same reason, before Airbus came in.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10034
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:51 pm

VV wrote:
The complain was the fact the C Series could have been sold below cost by Bombardier to an airline in the US.


Not exactly - and the difference is significant in the history of the A220 FAL at Mobile.

'Antidumping laws seek to prevent products manufactured overseas from being sold by foreign firms in the U.S. at "less than fair value."'

Emphasis mine. U.S. manufacture avoids anti-dumping laws.

Countervailing duties seek to offset the subsidies that foreign governments provide for some exporting firms by imposing duties on the goods these firms export to the U.S.


So avoid unlawful export subsidies, too, and there's no basis for a Boeing complaint.

https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/g ... e-practice

Airbus really ought to have enough experience with this stuff at the WTO by now.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:30 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
VV, the case was dismissed due to Boeing not offering anything in the CS100 category (110 pax).

I understand why Airbus doesn't want to risk a second complaint - this time against the A223, even knowing the 737Max7 is indeed somewhat larger.
(You know how biased are those proceedings).

FWIW, "apparently" Bombardier was already looking to establish a US FAL (in Wichita?) for that exact same reason, before Airbus came in.


Boeing does not offer any aircraft in A220-300 class either.

The smallest aircraft they offer is the 737-7 which is much bigger than A220-300.

Full stop.

There is NO REASON whatsoever to have a second final assembly line in Mobile for the reason you evoked.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 701
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:27 pm

Well, a ruling exists confirming that Boeing does not produce an aircraft in the CS100 category (110 pax). (Despite Boeing trying hard to prove otherwise)

Such ruling doesn't exist yet for the CS300/A221. And Airbus was not willing to test the water.

And they still don't want to test the water now either: only A221s are shipped from YMX to US customers. No Canadian built A223s (or maybe one?) were delivered to the US. All were made in Mobile. And no plans exist yet to do otherwise.

(FWIW: about those 300% duties, apparently Delta had a work around plan to accept those CS300s in Canada and use them on transborder/international flights --> so no need to "import" them in the US)
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 701
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:43 pm

And as a Québécois, you are well aware of those softwood lumber (or aluminium recently) barriers, tarrifs and other protectionnist measures the US applied against Canada.

And you are fully aware those product are not subsidized - but we still get nailed anyways.

Lobbies run the show in the US. They get their way - even if in the end, it's detremental for the economy as a whole.

And Boeing has tremendous lobbying power.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:23 am

VV wrote:
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
VV, the case was dismissed due to Boeing not offering anything in the CS100 category (110 pax).

I understand why Airbus doesn't want to risk a second complaint - this time against the A223, even knowing the 737Max7 is indeed somewhat larger.
(You know how biased are those proceedings).

FWIW, "apparently" Bombardier was already looking to establish a US FAL (in Wichita?) for that exact same reason, before Airbus came in.


Boeing does not offer any aircraft in A220-300 class either.

The smallest aircraft they offer is the 737-7 which is much bigger than A220-300.

Full stop.

There is NO REASON whatsoever to have a second final assembly line in Mobile for the reason you evoked.

It doesn't matter whether Boeing offers something similar to the A220-100 or -300, the very fact that they filed the suit against the sales of the CS100/A220-100 to DL (when they had nothing even remotely close in size to that aircraft) shows that they can do it against the CS300/A220-300. And in this case, given that the latter is much closer to the 737MAX7 than the CS100/A220-100 is, there is no guarantee of the outcome.

Again, I think we all agree with you that the lawsuit was without merit (how many times has this been said on a.net???); that didn't stop Boeing and its lawyers to file a claim. Airbus found a way to circumvent that problem, so it's a done-deal.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:25 am

Polot wrote:
VV wrote:
I still do not understand why the very first move by Airbus was to build the second assembly line in Mobile when the delivery late is still so slow.

In addition, the A220-100 is not so popular and it would most likely be paused once the VIP aircraft and the remaining Delta orders are delivered (if they are delivered).

There is something very weird about it.
The only explanation I have been able to make was that Airbus is obliged to maintain a certain level of activity in Mobile in order to comply with the condition imposed by the state of Alabama's condition for the financial help and/or subsidy and/or tax breaks.

Perhaps the activities generated by the A320neo would not be enough to comply with those conditions and thus the A220 final assembly allows to create job during the construction and then during operations to achieve the conditions.

Unfortunately I have not been able to get any tangible proof or anything on my speculation or explanation.

It was done to get around possible tariffs. At the time the complaint was not fully dismissed so there was the risk of tariffs, and by the time that risk went away on the A221 it was too late-work had begun on Mobile FAL. It also provided a FAL on “Airbus territory” with the Mirabel FAL technically belonging to BBD at the time.


All true.
It was ALSO done before Covid became a "thing" and rates were expected to climb far more quickly. Airbus thought they were going to need the capacity. And still will at some point.
And having experienced first hand what happens when you lay off the bulk of your workforce only to need to start up again without the skills and experience, only an idiot would think that closing the line was a good idea.
None of this is rocket science, and doesn't need a degree to understand. The only thing that's difficult to understand is why some posters continue to insist they can't comprehend it.
Feels more like kite flying to me, to be honest
Rgds
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20124
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:39 am

astuteman wrote:
The only thing that's difficult to understand is why some posters continue to insist they can't comprehend it.
Feels more like kite flying to me, to be honest
Rgds


It's not difficult to understand if you read some of the blogs out there or know the history of the confused posters.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:50 am

In a nutshell: Mobile planes are "US made". Airbus hoped for Southwest ordering big time. To make an offer you need the capacity first.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:51 am

astuteman wrote:
....

All true.
It was ALSO done before Covid became a "thing" and rates were expected to climb far more quickly. Airbus thought they were going to need the capacity. And still will at some point.


Was it even reasonable to expect the production rate would ramp-up quickly when sales are not?

astuteman wrote:
....
And having experienced first hand what happens when you lay off the bulk of your workforce only to need to start up again without the skills and experience, only an idiot would think that closing the line was a good idea.


Closing which line? I think starting the second final assembly line in Mobile was too expensive in the first place. I have the feeling the second FAL in Mobile was not necessarily motivated by productivity motivation. It is motivated by something else that I still do not know.
As I previously mentioned, the only explanation (or speculation) that I could rationally find was either it was to fulfill some kind of obligation toward Alabama state government or the fear of the unions in Mirabel or both.

The explanation based on US sanction/tariff does not stand up against the straight face test.

astuteman wrote:
....
None of this is rocket science, and doesn't need a degree to understand. The only thing that's difficult to understand is why some posters continue to insist they can't comprehend it.
Feels more like kite flying to me, to be honest
Rgds


Honestly I do not understand much the motivation behind the second A220 line in Mobile, Alabama.
I really do not understand.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:58 am

I still have the feeling some people are still trying to find a big bad guy to justify the slow progression of the C Series (or A220).

The reality is that all kind of aircraft in the 100-130 seat segment do not perform well (commercially speaking).

The only differentiating factor for possible profitability in this segment is production cost.

Having two final assembly lines one in Quebec and one in Alabama US is certainly not helping to get costs down.
You can it as you want, no, two FALs for such a low volume is just not reasonable, unless the reason is not economic.

What is the real reason? I do not know.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:18 am

VV wrote:
astuteman wrote:
....

All true.
It was ALSO done before Covid became a "thing" and rates were expected to climb far more quickly. Airbus thought they were going to need the capacity. And still will at some point.


Was it even reasonable to expect the production rate would ramp-up quickly when sales are not?

astuteman wrote:
....
And having experienced first hand what happens when you lay off the bulk of your workforce only to need to start up again without the skills and experience, only an idiot would think that closing the line was a good idea.


Closing which line? I think starting the second final assembly line in Mobile was too expensive in the first place. I have the feeling the second FAL in Mobile was not necessarily motivated by productivity motivation. It is motivated by something else that I still do not know.
As I previously mentioned, the only explanation (or speculation) that I could rationally find was either it was to fulfill some kind of obligation toward Alabama state government or the fear of the unions in Mirabel or both.

The explanation based on US sanction/tariff does not stand up against the straight face test.

astuteman wrote:
....
None of this is rocket science, and doesn't need a degree to understand. The only thing that's difficult to understand is why some posters continue to insist they can't comprehend it.
Feels more like kite flying to me, to be honest
Rgds


Honestly I do not understand much the motivation behind the second A220 line in Mobile, Alabama.
I really do not understand.


Feels like code for "I've already made my mind up" .
Your choice I guess
Rgds
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:40 am

VV wrote:
astuteman wrote:
....
And having experienced first hand what happens when you lay off the bulk of your workforce only to need to start up again without the skills and experience, only an idiot would think that closing the line was a good idea.


Closing which line? I think starting the second final assembly line in Mobile was too expensive in the first place. I have the feeling the second FAL in Mobile was not necessarily motivated by productivity motivation. It is motivated by something else that I still do not know.
As I previously mentioned, the only explanation (or speculation) that I could rationally find was either it was to fulfill some kind of obligation toward Alabama state government or the fear of the unions in Mirabel or both.

The explanation based on US sanction/tariff does not stand up against the straight face test.

astuteman wrote:
....
None of this is rocket science, and doesn't need a degree to understand. The only thing that's difficult to understand is why some posters continue to insist they can't comprehend it.
Feels more like kite flying to me, to be honest
Rgds


Honestly I do not understand much the motivation behind the second A220 line in Mobile, Alabama.
I really do not understand.

How many times does this have to be explained? The CS100/A220-100 was facing a 300% tariff, which would have made it non-competitive. To circumvent this, it was decided to perform the final assembly of the US-bound aircraft in the US.
The tariff was dropped, but the initial complain only applied to the CS100/A220-100; the larger CS300/A220-300 was not part of the initial suit, hence not part of the final ruling (meaning the tariff could be reinstated for that model).

This was explained many times here, and in the media. You might not accept it, but it is what it is.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:57 am

How many times has it to be explained that there won't be any tariff ever on the A220 in the US as long as Airbus Canada sold them at fair conditions?

The reason for the second FAL in Mobile is still obscure in my mind.
The second line would simply destroy the business case of the A220 that is still losing money until 2025 or so.

As long as the production cost does not go down significantly there is no way the pricing can be "fair".

Having two gfinal assembly lines is not a thing to reduce cost when the production rate is as low as 5 aircraft per month.

So yes, I maintain that the reason of Mobile A220 assembly line has nothing to do with the threat of any tariff. It is a bogus pretext.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:51 am

astuteman wrote:
VV wrote:
astuteman wrote:
....

All true.
It was ALSO done before Covid became a "thing" and rates were expected to climb far more quickly. Airbus thought they were going to need the capacity. And still will at some point.


Was it even reasonable to expect the production rate would ramp-up quickly when sales are not?

astuteman wrote:
....
And having experienced first hand what happens when you lay off the bulk of your workforce only to need to start up again without the skills and experience, only an idiot would think that closing the line was a good idea.


Closing which line? I think starting the second final assembly line in Mobile was too expensive in the first place. I have the feeling the second FAL in Mobile was not necessarily motivated by productivity motivation. It is motivated by something else that I still do not know.
As I previously mentioned, the only explanation (or speculation) that I could rationally find was either it was to fulfill some kind of obligation toward Alabama state government or the fear of the unions in Mirabel or both.

The explanation based on US sanction/tariff does not stand up against the straight face test.

astuteman wrote:
....
None of this is rocket science, and doesn't need a degree to understand. The only thing that's difficult to understand is why some posters continue to insist they can't comprehend it.
Feels more like kite flying to me, to be honest
Rgds


Honestly I do not understand much the motivation behind the second A220 line in Mobile, Alabama.
I really do not understand.


Feels like code for "I've already made my mind up" .
Your choice I guess
Rgds


Haha, I already admired that you gave it a try.

OT: does anyone know what a reasonable volume is for a separate FAL to make sense? Or are there to many factors to have a rule of thumb?
From experience I know in car manufacturing the optimal volume size is around 300k. Bigger than that you will need big investments in infrastructure to support the size and you lose the scaling advantages.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2710
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Airbus Mobile Question

Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:44 am

I'd guess four per month would be about the typical minimum at given Airbus logistics. With a lot of room to grow further without too big investments.
The point of the second line might have been to move the production to some airbus "flow line" system from the low rate "bay" system of BBD.
The final assembly share is not much by value. Like 5 percent or similar. So you can still build things elsewhere and just assemble them wherever you want.

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