More About A380 Delays

katekebo · Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:37 pm

As the other two threads are getting very long and take time to load, I would like to start a new thread.

Two articles called my attention:
" Airbus faces delay costs but not cancellation"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060922...linecompanyairbuseads_060922114429

Quote:
New delays expected for the A380 superjumbo airliner are a blow to Airbus after a production crisis three months ago but are unlikely to cause customers to cancel orders....
....Analyst Scott Babka at Morgan Stanley said that the biggest danger for Airbus was knock-on effects elsewhere in its business.
"Real risk from here is that the A380 delays start to affect Airbus' competitiveness across the rest of its portfolio," said Babka in a research note Friday.
He explained that this could happen if "further delays on the superjumbo tie up resources and impede Airbus' ability to compete and introduce new products in other segments of the market". ...
....each A380 required 40,000 hours of re-work, which he said would result in an incremental cost of 1.6 million euros (2.1 million dollars) per aircraft.
Babka estimated that each of the first 100 planes delivered would also be discounted by an additional 5.0 million euros as compensation for the new delays. ....
....In London, the Financial Times reported that "the spectre of order cancellations is hanging over Airbus" and an unnamed analyst quoted in fellow British paper The Daily Telegraph made a similar suggestion. ....

"Maseu Wants Airbus A380 Purchase Cancelled"
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news_lite.php?id=221419

Quote:
The Malaysia Airlines System Employees Union (Maseu) has urged Penerbangan Malaysia Bhd (PMB), the holding company of Malaysia Airlines (MAS) to cancel its purchase of Airbus A380 aircraft whose delivery have again been delayed.

Conflicting reports are flying, but I think some cancellations are imminent, nonetheless as the delays can be used by some airlines whose growth plans have not materialized as a pretext to avoid getting an airplane they will have hard time filling up with passengers.

In my opinion the biggest challenge will be cashflow over the next 2-3 years to fund the development of the A350 while ironing out A380 production issues and paying BAE. This may force Airbus to slow down the development of the A350 which would allow Boeing to grab an even bigger share of the mid-size segment. The A320E may be another "victim" with a 1-2 yeards delay.

drexotica · Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:46 pm

I am curious about the figure of 40,000 hours of rework per plane - first, this seems like a huge number. How many people at once can be inside the aircraft cargo hold, etc. in order to rework/reroute the wiring? Also, assigning a cost of $2.1M to the 40K hours of labor seems small (i.e., $50/hour). Once benefits, etc. are factored in, I would have guessed that the cost would have been much higher.

TinkerBelle · Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:51 pm

Interesting read. Who else would cancel their orders though? All the airlines that have ordered the whalejet NEED it except for maybe EK. There was a rumor that VS might cancel their order too but I think that's bologne too. Let's just wait and see ut I do think MH will cancel their order but only as a scapegoat (Thanx Jacobin) wink

.

katekebo · Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:56 pm

EK could cancel some.

UPS and FedEx.

Korean, Thai, Qantas - I think these airlines see A380 more as replacement airplane of their existing capacity, than growth.

Rj111 · Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:06 pm

Man, I have usually defended Airbus on this site, but they've really screwed up this time. Four major delays is terrible! 7 years is an awfully long time for one aircraft, no matter how big it is. There appears to have been some very poor project management and i just hope it doesn't cost them too heavily in the long term.

jacobin777 · Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:29 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 4):
Man, I have usually defended Airbus on this site, but they've really screwed up this time. Four major delays is terrible! 7 years is an awfully long time for one aircraft, no matter how big it is. There appears to have been some very poor project management and i just hope it doesn't cost them too heavily in the long term.

It was a majour screw up, but it seems its a continuation of the previous screw up....lets see what happens when the Big Beast starts flying.....maybe it will be on bad nightmare for Airbus but a serious learning experience on multiple levels.....

Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 2):
Let's just wait and see ut I do think MH will cancel their order but only as a scapegoat (Thanx Jacobin) .

u're welcome..... Wink

baroque · Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:41 pm

While the numbers do seem a bit strange, it almost seems as if someone has worked out what to do. That would be positive news.

I guess the negatives are that it does not say when the 40,000 hours will produce something, or how fast the next one can be done. If the workforce is in the hundreds, it will still take some weeks, and how many fixer gangs could they muster? It sounds like the start of one of those stories, how many (usually Irishmen, sorry there Tlse) does it take to .....

manni · Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:42 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 5):
It was a majour screw up, but it seems its a continuation of the previous screw up...

Indeed, looks like the previous management was a little optimistic when announcing the new delivery schedule, and Mr. Streiff now has to take the hot potatoes out of the fire.

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 3):
UPS and FedEx.

Korean, Thai, Qantas - I think these airlines see A380 more as replacement airplane of their existing capacity, than growth.

Curious why you think so. None of those have ever made any statement regarding a possible review of their A380 order since the delays announced in june, with the exception of QF and KE IIRC. After QF took satisfaction with the compensation offered, they even took time to praise the A380. As far as KE is concerned there were reports that they would convert options into firm orders.

manni · Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:49 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 6):
If the workforce is in the hundreds, it will still take some weeks

Indeed 40000 hours is not half as much as it sounds. If they were to be working 7 days a week 24 hours a day, and they have all reason to do so, it would take 100 people 17 days, 50 people 34 days and 180 days (6 months) will be needed if they only put 10 persons at it.

WINGS · Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:44 am

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 3):
EK could cancel some.

UPS and FedEx.

Korean, Thai, Qantas - I think these airlines see A380 more as replacement airplane of their existing capacity, than growth.

I believe that Airbus will have less issues with the A380F. Wiring will not be much of a headache on the Freighter.

Regards,
Wings

PolymerPlane · Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:41 am

Quoting WINGS (Reply 9):
I believe that Airbus will have less issues with the A380F. Wiring will not be much of a headache on the Freighter.

Regards,
Wings

I am curious whether the wiring issue is on the the primary flight control wiring, i.e. important for engine control and FBW, or for the IFE.

How far along is the A380F development, and how long has it been delayed?

Cheers,
PP

hb88 · Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:58 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 10):
I am curious whether the wiring issue is on the the primary flight control wiring, i.e. important for engine control and FBW, or for the IFE.

How far along is the A380F development, and how long has it been delayed?

As far as I know, the wiring issue is only relevant to the IFE and other in-cabin systems, not control/engine/flight etc systems. Also as far as I know, the 380F isn't affected significantly.

BoomBoom · Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:06 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 10):
I am curious whether the wiring issue is on the the primary flight control wiring, i.e. important for engine control and FBW, or for the IFE.

Quote:
Airbus is blaming the delays on the complexity of installing the miles of wiring in each of the double-decker planes. The wires are bundled in harnesses that are strung through the aircraft, controlling in-flight entertainment, lights, air conditioning and the plane's operating systems.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine....html

Shenzhen · Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:07 am

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 11):
As far as I know, the wiring issue is only relevant to the IFE and other in-cabin systems, not control/engine/flight etc systems. Also as far as I know, the 380F isn't affected significantly.

What I find interesting about the IFE being the source of all the problems is...

IFE is Buyer Furnished Equipment. If the Airlines provided Airbus with IFE equipment that didn't meet the airplanes specification, then why would Airbus need to compensate the Airline at all. It is their equipment, and as such, they should seek compensaton from the OEM whom the contracted the equipment.

Any ideas anyone???

Cheers

hb88 · Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:16 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 13):
What I find interesting about the IFE being the source of all the problems is...

IFE is Buyer Furnished Equipment. If the Airlines provided Airbus with IFE equipment that didn't meet the airplanes specification, then why would Airbus need to compensate the Airline at all. It is their equipment, and as such, they should seek compensaton from the OEM whom the contracted the equipment.

Any ideas anyone???

I think the basic in-aircraft network structure is standard while the specific end-user IFE fitout is indeed dependent on the particular carrier and OEM who supply it.

Shenzhen · Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:30 am

I just don't see Airbus taking the hit for IFE euipment that interferes with the airplane systems, or doesn't work as promised.

Remove the equipment (or don't install), deliver the airplane, and compensate the airlines for the cost of installing the equipment.

Let the Airline and IFE OEM certify the equipment on their airplane (or on an airline airplane at Airbus, after delivery) and get the production moving.

Why should Airbus take serveral billions of dollars worth of write offs if it isn't their fault.

Puzzling.....

Cheers

keesje · Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:34 am

which IFE does do the first A380s use? Panasonic or Thales?

pygmalion · Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:47 am

Though I normally don’t cross post…. I am going to copy over a response I made on another thread. Airbus troubles are integration issues.

Snippet:

Quoting Pygmalion, another thread:
...it bears repeating. I heard from an excellent source that the issue is the lack of coordination of designs between Hamburg, Spain and Toulouse. They all have different CAD and config database software and did NOT do sole source digital pre-assembly. Thus the wiring space allocations used by Toulouse for IFE and late install wiring ( read customer specific) did not match the reserved space left for it in Hamburg etc. Hamburg did not know that Toulouse used space for a bundle and used it for other structure... Toulouse did not know that the space it thought it had for wires had something else in it. Thus.... SIA specific wires cant go in as the space is used for something else. Toulouse is using early build aircraft as a mock-up to reroute bundles and get things installed. Those new designs need to then be routed back to Hamburg so they can get the other airframes to comply.. all of this do and redo takes time. In the old days, airframers built mockups for this snarly process. This was supposed to be a digital mock up but Airbus dropped the ball and didn't do the job. They are now catching up. They need to do a baseline delivery configuration. Get it working and then incorporate all of those changes on every other SIA unit and then they certify the baseline airplane. You not only need to design a certifiable aircraft, you have to get a certification that you can repeatably build and conform that certified design. Once you miss... it is very painful to catch back up.

There is a great couple of A380 CAD screen photos on Scotts column on Leeham.net showing the wiring complexity

Quoting Pygmalion:
Airbus had a new integration software package called ACE (Airbus Concurrent Engineering) to address the config integration issues that was supposed to be full up and in use on the A380. It didn't happen. Much like the 747-400 intro raised to a whole new order of magnitude, Airbus got bit hard by the integration flu. Now you see why Airbus is going back to an earlier aircraft for Certification proving flights. The later one has lost config control and will take too long to get conformed to the Singapore baseline. So Airbus is going back to an earlier airframe to certify and then they will cert changes from that base line.

I'll throw a bone to the Airbus crowd here. One point that should be made is that the integration issues are a startup problem but a BIG startup problem. Bad planning up front, lack of coordination equals production nightmares. Once they get a baseline that meets the goals and can be certified, they can build a recovery plan and get back on track. This typically is a much lesser issue as you go forward as you only need to integrate changes instead of the whole new airplane. So even though they are killing their working relationship with the customer base and spending big dollars to get it under control... they should be out of the woods after 15-20 airframes and they get a stable production system going. This will for sure delay the payback on R&D spending and it will not be cheap. We are talking 100's of millions of dollars of recovery spending not to mention payments to customers or folks like Emirates that can now decide to permanently delay out year deliveries if they think they ordered too much lift. The leadership gang at Airbus that allowed this to happen are rightfully being terminated with extreme prejudice. I have no knowledge of this in fact but I wouldn't be surprised if this was also the root of some of the A345-6 startup issues too in a smaller way.

Another point... The same ACE software was too be used on integrating the A400M... and its not in full up use yet. So we might see A400M integration issues too or at least much increased funding to do it manually. Hopefully they are learning their lessons. Rumor is that it will be full up for the A350X.... hopefully. After the A380 debacle, one would think that they will go all out and get 'er done.

pygmalion · Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:49 am

so anywho... I dont think its the IFE in and of itself... its the integration of the customized wiring and systems (or lack there of) that is causing the problem. If it was the IFE itself, they could always deliver with it tagged out and complete and cert it later.

leelaw · Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:50 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
which IFE does do the first A380s use? Panasonic or Thales?

...To date Thales has announced A380 orders for the i-5000 from Air France, Malaysia Airlines and Etihad Airways...Panasonic's A380 announced customers to date include Emirates, EVA Air and Qantas. A380 launch customer Singapore Airlines has selected Panasonic IFE hardware for all its previous aircraft, although it has not revealed its IFE system selection...

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...he+Airbus+A380+and+Boeing+787.html

hb88 · Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:51 am

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 17):
Though I normally don’t cross post…. I am going to copy over a response I made on another thread. Airbus troubles are integration issues.

.
.
[snip]
.

Thanks Pygmalion, very good post.

jacobin777 · Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:55 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
which IFE does do the first A380s use? Panasonic or Thales?

...To date Thales has announced A380 orders for the i-5000 from Air France, Malaysia Airlines and Etihad Airways...Panasonic's A380 announced customers to date include Emirates, EVA Air and Qantas. A380 launch customer Singapore Airlines has selected Panasonic IFE hardware for all its previous aircraft, although it has not revealed its IFE system selection...

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...he+Airbus+A380+and+Boeing+787.html

p.s.-thanks Leelaw... Smile

Shenzhen · Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:09 am

So in a nutshell, it isn't the IFE itself, but possibly the intigration of the varying systems throughout the entire airplane.

If this is true, then I really feel sorry for the first operators of this airplane, becuase there will be delays out the ying yang trying to figure out if a maintenace type message it truly a fault, or just bad intigration/timing between systems causing the messages.

Airlines will need to put teams on tracking mod levels to all the various system boxes to ensure that they can still talk with each other after the numerous change that will take place after delivery.

The idea of a few wires running down seat tracks (a little more at purser stations) seems like a much better problem.

As a passenger, my biggest question would be ...... Will the toilet flush????

Cheers

Dougloid · Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:20 am

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 17):
Though I normally don’t cross post…. I am going to copy over a response I made on another thread. Airbus troubles are integration issues.

Kind of interesting stuff.
Course you know I came out of the MD11 program. We had our fuckups for sure, but never anything of this magnitude. What we did have was some crackerjack engineers doing fixes right alongside the aircraft, and we in the quality assurance/first article and development inspection world had a direct pipeline right to the responsible people in design.
I did the first article inspection on the MD11 cargo doors on 447. There were some paper work issues involved that needed clarification and I was able to converse on the phone right with the people directly responsible for design engineering and get a disposition followed up with an EO in a matter of half an hour.

That sort of lateral and vertical coordination may be something that is missing here......

pygmalion · Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:42 am

I think they assumed it was better than it was... when the parts get to final assy and parts are to be installed in same space volume... its way late to fix with a phone call. Tolerance, minor rides, fastener locations... those have fairly simple remedies... out of sync configs and no space to route bundles that arrive cut to finished lengths... its a "go back to the boards", build new bundles and retry and hope another part doesn't come along to be installed in the same space later.

[Edited 2006-09-22 20:44:09]

DAYflyer · Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:47 am

I would have thought that part of the cost Airbus is going to have to eat on this would be passed along to the IFE company....

NYC777 · Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:53 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 25):
I would have thought that part of the cost Airbus is going to have to eat on this would be passed along to the IFE company....

Why? The IFE was supplied on time and according to specs. It more that there has been extremely poor managment regarding the installation of the IFE betwen Hamburg and Toulouse.

All this comes down to project management and how efficently systems intergration is managed which inthis case it was very poorly managed.

katekebo · Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:59 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 25):
I would have thought that part of the cost Airbus is going to have to eat on this would be passed along to the IFE company....

If the IFE equipment was the cause of the delay, Airbus would be screeming left and right blaming the IFE supplier. The reason they are keeping so lip-tight about the cause of the delay is because it's a internal issue. It may be related to the IFE installation, but not caused by it.

Stitch · Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:03 am

Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 2):
Who else would cancel their orders though? All the airlines that have ordered the whalejet NEED it except for maybe EK.

I have noted on many occasions that none of the larger customers (10 or more frames) are likely to cancel their A380 committments.

MH has been rumored, the stated reason being that they're having issues filling their 744s on a regular basis so an A380 would be tougher.

I thought QR might cancel, since they only had two, but they have evidently added two more, so they look to be on-board. QR taking four should keep EY's four in the fold, as well.

I've heard mixed things about TG's desire over the years, but nothing negative as of late, so no reason for them to cancel.

As for EK, they if they do decide to cancel some (but nowhere near all) of their orders, it would be because of the sheer number they have on order and whether they need all of them - not because of the delays.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 9):
I believe that Airbus will have less issues with the A380F. Wiring will not be much of a headache on the Freighter.

Not to mention that FedEx and UPS really need the volume capability the A380 offers.

[Edited 2006-09-22 21:04:49]

Dougloid · Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:17 am

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 24):
I think they assumed it was better than it was... when the parts get to final assy and parts are to be installed in same space volume... its way late to fix with a phone call. Tolerance, minor rides, fastener locations... those have fairly simple remedies... out of sync configs and no space to route bundles that arrive cut to finished lengths... its a "go back to the boards", build new bundles and retry and hope another part doesn't come along to be installed in the same space later.

I tend to agree, but my guess is that the evil had to be in thinking everything was on remote control, and no feedback system to relay small problems before they get to be big ones. A little too much Alles in ordnung, perhaps?

KaiGywer · Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:22 am

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 11):
As far as I know, the wiring issue is only relevant to the IFE and other in-cabin systems, not control/engine/flight etc systems. Also as far as I know, the 380F isn't affected significantly.

So any LH A380s won't be affected either? duck

Glareskin · Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:43 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 22):
As a passenger, my biggest question would be ...... Will the toilet flush????

Good point! I guess 555 doodies won't fit in the toilets. And taking them out to bring back to your seat doesn't seem like a good idea either..

Pictures in next post (edit)

[Edited 2006-09-22 21:48:21]

Glareskin · Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:47 am

Ken777 · Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:48 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 29):
I tend to agree, but my guess is that the evil had to be in thinking everything was on remote control, and no feedback system to relay small problems before they get to be big ones.

I seem to remember reading a while back that there is somewhat of a culture at Airbus where employees don't communicate problems upwards. It hit me at the time that communications, especially where there is (or might be) a problem would be one of the key needs in getting the project to completion.

Shenzhen · Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:59 am

What Airbus need in the near future is a strike. I suggest that the new management put forth a new contract to any and all unions that decreases their pay and benefits by, lets say 80 percent.

Once they walk off the job, blame future delays on the union workforce, for which they have no control. Every executive at every major company (Airline) know all too much about the greedy little guys down on the floor, and how they need to cut costs to ensure shareholder value.

Once the strike hits 30 or so days, end it by offering a small pay increase, and provide a new delivery schedule. Can't be held accountable for things out of their control.

Either this, or pray for 40 days and nights of rain in Southern France, or maybe a small earch shaking.

Cheers

[Edited 2006-09-22 22:03:14]

jrebel · Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:07 am

Whalebus? It is beginning to sound like Wailbus!

Johan

NYC777 · Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:39 am

What's very troubling to me is that they need another 4 weeks to understand the extent of the new delay If it was just a month or two they would have understood that and announced it yesterday. The fact that they need 4 more weeks indicates to me that the newest delay is going to be 6 months or more. Presumably they will use those 4 weeks to also go to the customers and grovel...err...beg...er negotiate new schedules and penalties. I wuold hate to be Leahy or any other Airbus salesman on that meeting.

DIA · Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:44 am

BTW, isn't it about time the first A380 frame is due for a "heavy D" and a repaint? Silly

texfly101 · Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:09 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 12):
IFE is Buyer Furnished Equipment. If the Airlines provided Airbus with IFE equipment that didn't meet the airplanes specification, then why would Airbus need to compensate the Airline at all. It is their equipment, and as such, they should seek compensaton from the OEM whom the contracted the equipment.

The IFE doesn't include the wiring harnesses. Those are the responsibility of the airframe manufacturer. Also when you change a harness bundle, you need to check out all the possible interference with the control wiring. There are required seperation distances for example that will have to be checked and validated. Now considering that it was originally understood to be a problem of the design CAD systems didn't properly track the harness bundles and the airframe geometry, you have one hell of a manual effort, hence the 40,000 manhours. Take a manyear at 2100 hours and you have approx 20 men for a year. So they will have to both check the geometry of the airframe with all its changes and the path and electronic characteristics of the proposed bundle changes. All of which are hard to predict, hence the "we'll get back to you" responses on how long.

keesje · Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:17 am

thnx Leelaw for the info / link

IFE has been a headache for two decades.

BA (MDDS), Boeing (777; Marconi), KLM (Philips/ BEA), LH (Rockwell) all have had their own nightmares with IFE.

The reasons for this non standardization/ customization/ customer satisfaction impact / cost levels / reliability ..

I thought the IFE industry and their customers had matured but it still leads to embarrasing situtions like the latest A380 delays.

YULWinterSkies · Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:41 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 34):
Either this, or pray for 40 days and nights of rain in Southern France, or maybe a small earch shaking.

Do you mean earth shaking? In that case, I'm afraid that Seattle would be much more at risk than Toulouse...

Neverest · Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:00 am

Airbus new CEO Christian Streiff belongs to what is considered as France’s industrial elite (X-Mines). If he lives up to expectations he should be able to eventually come to grips with the problems. But so was Forgeard, but he was more politically inclined and self-centered.

leelaw · Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:07 am

It didn't take long for Richard Aboulafia to offer a pithy quip regarding the latest delay afflicting the botched industrial ramp-up of the A380 program:

...it isn’t that I love Boeing and dislike EADS/Airbus. Rather, I want EADS/Airbus to be more like Boeing. So do many far-sighted EADS/Airbus executives. Looking at the A380 program’s latest setback, the company resembles the Department of Motor Vehicles trying to build an aircraft. For starters, EADS needs to transition from a company of large government and industrial stakeholders to a freely floated company. Widely held companies are far closer to the market. The A380 would not have happened if EADS were freely floated. If widely held companies invest in dumb projects, their stockholders let them know, fast. Their executives are appointed to satisfy these investors; sycophantic political appointees need not apply...

http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=228

comorin · Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:25 am

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 17):
Airbus had a new integration software package called ACE (Airbus Concurrent Engineering

Was this software developed in-house? I remember McDonnell (which begat MCAUTO) wrote its own CAD and PM software that was best of breed back in the 80s.

Stitch · Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:50 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):
I thought the IFE industry and their customers had matured but it still leads to embarrasing situtions like the latest A380 delays.

IFE is a competitive point, especially for long-haul customers like SQ, LH, QF, CX, and others. So the desire to outdo each other no doubt spurs these endeavors.

While all these new whizz-bang systems have their teething problems, once the glitches have been worked out... For example, CX's latest 17" 16:9 LCDs in First Class should be amazing, since I watch DVDs on my 17" widescreen laptop on planes. thumbsup

ebbuk · Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:01 am

Quoting Katekebo (Thread starter):

In my opinion the biggest challenge will be cashflow over the next 2-3 years to fund the development of the A350 while ironing out A380 production issues and paying BAE. This may force Airbus to slow down the development of the A350 which would allow Boeing to grab an even bigger share of the mid-size segment. The A320E may be another "victim" with a 1-2 yeards delay.

Not on your nelly. A dead Airbus is of no use to more people than we know, including Seattle. Expect Airbus to extend credit terms with suppliers, if they ain't getting paid, the suppliers surely won't either. Which ones will walk out of the project this far down the road?

It has to be done in order to keep the 350 and 320E programmes on schedule and importantly, to keep the 380 from being still-born. I see some more government cash injection too. You heard it first here

jacobin777 · Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:06 am

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 45):
You heard it first here

Its 2 a.m. in the UK innit?

coa747 · Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:49 pm

I think it is obvious from the latest delay that Airbus didn't spend enough time getting the bugs ironed out in the hardware before they started to design and build the A380 now they are trying to fix the problems after the fact. The way this plane was put together just doesn't make sense. Boeing did things the right way when it built the 777. Have all of the engineers under one roof and using the same database so that they could call up all relevant layers when working on a section to ensure clearance issues and verify what was going where. Lockheed Skunk Works is perhaps the best example of this. With engineers and manufacturing under the same roof. They communicate and discover and fix problems early in the design and construction stage. Not when the finished sections are ready to be put together and then trying to figure out how to reroute wires and other components to make it all fit. My feeling is that the politics of Airbus multinational ownership caused this problem as every country had to have a big piece of the pie. This in turn created all the integration issues that are rearing their ugly head now.

zvezda · Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:03 pm

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 13):
What I find interesting about the IFE being the source of all the problems is...

I think that was made up by some A.netters. I can't find any Airbus statements that support it. Airbus always says it's wiring.

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 27):
If the IFE equipment was the cause of the delay, Airbus would be screeming left and right blaming the IFE supplier. The reason they are keeping so lip-tight about the cause of the delay is because it's a internal issue. It may be related to the IFE installation, but not caused by it.

BoomBoom · Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:27 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 39):
I thought the IFE industry and their customers had matured but it still leads to embarrasing situtions like the latest A380 delays.

See Reply 48 above.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net