According to Christian Streiff, Airbus will need a full 10 years to catch up with Boeing's product development. After the latest round of delays for the a380 and a possible delay for the a400m, Airbus has decided to go through some restructuring. "He (Streiff) said on Wednesday that the group must urgently rethink the way it developed aircraft."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9f2dd43c-53d3-11db-8a2a-0000779e2340.html

Ya know, just as we saw Airbus spring a "December" surprise on everyone last year, I would not be too surprised if Airbus pulled a rabbit out of the hat and announced that the problems were actually less than they thought and that deliveries would now commence ahead of the revised schedule.

Wouldn't that be a kick?

Quoting Khobar (Reply 1): Ya know, just as we saw Airbus spring a "December" surprise on everyone last year, I would not be too surprised if Airbus pulled a rabbit out of the hat and announced that the problems were actually less than they thought and that deliveries would now commence ahead of the revised schedule. Wouldn't that be a kick?

Wouldn't work. Customers given timelines really don't like it when the timeline is broken one way or another. They have costs as well.

Quoting Charliejag1 (Thread starter): ccording to Christian Streiff, Airbus will need a full 10 years to catch up with Boeing's product development.

Is he assuming that Boeing will stand still or continue to be a moving target? There was talk on another thread (by a European poster) that Herr Enders said in an interview that Airbus was still considering the launch of the A350XWB. In other words, no decision yet.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 3): Is he assuming that Boeing will stand still or continue to be a moving target?

I interpreted 'catching up to Boeing' as a moving target, as you say. I'm not really sure what you mean, though. It's not like Boeing is going to stop thinking and developing for 5 or 10 years so that it doesn't leave the competition in the dust.

I think it is possible that Airbus will move the timeline up a little bit at some point, even though I agree that businesses don't like it when the timeline is broken on either side. After three rounds of delays, Airbus would be wise to make sure they do not understate the latest delay. If anything, Airbus should say the delay is a little longer than they anticipate. It would be better to come out a month or two ahead of schedule than to announce a fourth round of delays.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 2): Wouldn't work. Customers given timelines really don't like it when the timeline is broken one way or another. They have costs as well.

I hear you, but do the airlines in question have a choice with regards to their timelines? They can't purchase new aircraft to fill the void - at best they can reorganise their plans to make do in the meantime until the A380 comes on line. For example, Singapore are now scheduled to get their first A380 in Oct. 2007. So presumably SQ draws up a contingency plan and puts it in place. What costs would there be if the A380 became available in March 2007 rather than October? And what kind of costs would there be if, instead of only one as currently planned, Airbus was able to deliver four at the same time?

Quoting Khobar (Reply 1): Ya know, just as we saw Airbus spring a "December" surprise on everyone last year, I would not be too surprised if Airbus pulled a rabbit out of the hat and announced that the problems were actually less than they thought and that deliveries would now commence ahead of the revised schedule.

Recent history does not seem to favor such an outcome, but no doubt Airbus will continue to work dilligently to get these birds into their customer's hands ASAP.

Quoting Charliejag1 (Reply 4): It would be better to come out a month or two ahead of schedule than to announce a fourth round of delays.

Fingers crossed that this time that is exactly what they've done. Please dear creator let it be so!

At least all the systems in the plane can be put through their paces before EIS, the aircon, toilets, galleys, lights. Not sure about the IFE though

I don't know about a decade. Right now they are hitting a series of bumps in the road, but they will recover. Boeing has had some trouble in the past and they have fixed those problems.

This is not time for Boeing to start celebrating. Airbus will come out of nowhere and kill them when it comes time for the A320/737 replacements if they don't keep up their guard.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 5): What costs would there be if the A380 became available in March 2007 rather than October? And what kind of costs would there be if, instead of only one as currently planned, Airbus was able to deliver four at the same time?

SQ would not be impressed to have an A380 (or four!) dropped on their doorstep unannounced. "Surprise! Didn't expect that did you? Now pay us."

Any airlines needs months advance planning to schedule new aircraft on routes. Surprises, early or late, are not welcome.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): Recent history does not seem to favor such an outcome, but no doubt Airbus will continue to work dilligently to get these birds into their customer's hands ASAP.

I know. I was wondering if such a what-if scenario would be a "stunning success" that "proves" Airbus can work miracles (and thus fatten the order book as a result of this amazingly miraculous new-found competence/cooperation/coordination, etc.) or if it would just be the quiet close of a very embarrassing and frustrating chapter sort of thing.

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 8): Airbus will come out of nowhere and kill them when it comes time for the A320/737 replacements

Airbus better start learning how to build CRFP fuselage barrels for this to come true.

Maybe that's why it will take 10 years.

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 8): Airbus will come out of nowhere and kill them when it comes time for the A320/737 replacements

But the point is that Boeing is ahead of Airbus right now in the "replacement" game. 787 is coming in to replace 757/767/A300/A330 and so on. Once that is up and running, then they can look to other replacements. But, Boeing keeps coming out with new 737's so it will be quite a while until a replacement is needed. Airbus also is updating the 320's with the new winglets they are putting on.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 9): SQ would not be impressed to have an A380 (or four!) dropped on their doorstep unannounced. "Surprise! Didn't expect that did you? Now pay us." Any airlines needs months advance planning to schedule new aircraft on routes. Surprises, early or late, are not welcome.

I guess what's got me wondering about this is that SQ would have had all the planning in place already. They'd also have all the financing in place too. I'd also assume the flight crews would be in place, with cabin crews yet to be trained. The only thing they wouldn't have in place is the aircraft, but the whole point of having the aircraft is to make money. Presumably the A380 enables SQ to make more money in a given time than any other option which is why SQ would have bought the aircraft in the first place.

I can see where SQ might not want to give Airbus the appearance of joy, but if the A380 is a money maker as SQ sees it, why would they not want to put it in service sooner rather than later? I can understand a situation such as Qantas where, IIRC, they didn't want to receive the A380 in the low season - would SQ be in the same boat?

Perhaps I just don't understand the industry well enough...

Quoting Khobar (Reply 10): I know. I was wondering if such a what-if scenario would be a "stunning success" that "proves" Airbus can work miracles (and thus fatten the order book as a result of this amazingly miraculous new-found competence/cooperation/coordination, etc.) or if it would just be the quiet close of a very embarrassing and frustrating chapter sort of thing.

Not at all, the only thing it would "prove" would be that Airbus management are bumbling idiots who couldn't manage there way out of a paper bag.

Even now as we speak, SQ is speaking with lessors feverishly hoping to extend the leases on several of their own aircraft to help bridge them through this nightmare. Any inaccurate information that Airbus provides either shortening or lengthening the delay only costs SQ more $$$'s.

Quoting Charliejag1 (Reply 4): If anything, Airbus should say the delay is a little longer than they anticipate. It would be better to come out a month or two ahead of schedule than to announce a fourth round of delays.

Again, this is for everyone. If you suddently tell an Airline they can have the A380 tomorrow instead of next year they won't be happy. There are MAJOR logistics. You can't simply deliver them early. In this business you are on schedule or you aren't. If you're ahead then you sit on the planes till the delivery date.

*PLUS* They would lose even more credability because they would have LIED. This isn't Walmart folks.

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 8): I don't know about a decade. Right now they are hitting a series of bumps in the road, but they will recover. Boeing has had some trouble in the past and they have fixed those problems.

He was very specific where they were behind Boeing. Basically logistics and management skills (in English).

Quoting Charliejag1 (Thread starter): According to Christian Streiff, Airbus will need a full 10 years to catch up with Boeing's product development.

All I can say is, be carefull about making comments like that. This industry can change at the drop of a dime. Just a mere 2 years ago, it was Boeing that had some catching up to do. Who would have though back then that it would catch up and surpass Airbus so quickly? Even last year, people were praising Airbus' low production costs compared to Boeing due to their ultra efficient and streamlined manufacturing system, which Boeing is emulating in their 787 program.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 16): All I can say is, be carefull about making comments like that. This industry can change at the drop of a dime. Just a mere 2 years ago, it was Boeing that had some catching up to do. Who would have though back then that it would catch up and surpass Airbus so quickly? Even last year, people were praising Airbus' low production costs compared to Boeing due to their ultra efficient and streamlined manufacturing system, which Boeing is emulating in their 787 program.

Who would have thought? One guess..... Boeing.

Cheers

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 16): All I can say is, be carefull about making comments like that. This industry can change at the drop of a dime.

Pretty sad they are coming from the CEO of Airbus then! Better tell him you know the industry and Airbus better than he does   Seriously, he's talking about their corporate culture.

The reason Boeing caught up so fast is Airbus was rotting from the inside out thanks to numerous issues that hung around since the company was put together. And no one had the balls (or brains) to fix them. By him calling them out he's directly impuning the idea that 'everything is ok' and he's doint it on purpose.

I wasn't sure what to make of this Streiff character, but if he keeps making the hard decision and keeps saying the things no one wants to hear, but needs to anyway, I may just have to move him WAY up my list. "I like the cut of your jib son"

Quoting TrevD (Reply 14): Even now as we speak, SQ is speaking with lessors feverishly hoping to extend the leases on several of their own aircraft to help bridge them through this nightmare. Any inaccurate information that Airbus provides either shortening or lengthening the delay only costs SQ more $$$'s.

I'd have thought since Airbus is the cause of the problem, Airbus would pick up the tab. Of course that would be between Airbus and SQ, but I wouldn't expect such an arrangement to be considered "unreasonable".

My guess right now is that SQ will likely hold on to their current 747-400 fleet as long as possible, even after the 777-300ER's start arriving in numbers over the next few years. They'll cross their fingers that Airbus will get the A380 problems resolved soon and SQ can take delivery of at least 5 planes to start long-range service by the end of 2007.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 18): I wasn't sure what to make of this Streiff character, but if he keeps making the hard decision and keeps saying the things no one wants to hear, but needs to anyway, I may just have to move him WAY up my list. "I like the cut of your jib son"

Yes Iagree, he probably has got what it takes, but who is going to give ground, the French or the Germans. The biggest long term problems lie in the structure and all indications are that their is plenty of politics going on there.

Ruscoe

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 21): Yes Iagree, he probably has got what it takes, but who is going to give ground, the French or the Germans. The biggest long term problems lie in the structure and all indications are that their is plenty of politics going on there.

Prognostications like "we're 10 years behind" and the like are a good way to get people to shut up just long enough to say the really important stuff. Sometimes the best way to get the attention of a room full of arrogant drama queens is to out drama queen them  

I expect the more fighting that goes on politically, the louder and more dire Mr. Streiff's statements will get. If he keeps it up I might even have to start cheering for him LOL

Quoting Khobar (Reply 13): why would they not want to put it in service sooner rather than later? I

Planning.

An introduction of a new aircraft such as this, requires a huge amount of planning...months (or even years!), in advance.

You can't keep moving the timeline.


Jimbo

Airbus' best course of action? Cede the midmarket to the 787, roll out a 350-lite (heavily based upon the 330 which is still a great aircraft), fast track EIS on it and whore it out to keep the lines going (much as with the 767 they'll still get orders, it'll just be an also-ran airplane).

There're airlines that'll NEVER go Boeing for whatever reason. So they capture that market and plow all R&D not dedicated to the 380 to the A31x/32x narrowbody replacement.

Boeing stole a march with the 787. If Airbus insists on developing the 350XWB they damn and doom themselves to playing eternal catch-up. Once the 787 is bagged Boeing will likely hunker down on the 737 replacement. That is Airbus' chance to take the initiative, momentum and mindshare back.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 3): Is he assuming that Boeing will stand still or continue to be a moving target? There was talk on another thread (by a European poster) that Herr Enders said in an interview that Airbus was still considering the launch of the A350XWB. In other words, no decision yet.

More to the point, he implied that they might not actually launch it due to the problems that Airbus is having right now.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 5): I hear you, but do the airlines in question have a choice with regards to their timelines? They can't purchase new aircraft to fill the void - at best they can reorganise their plans to make do in the meantime until the A380 comes on line. For example, Singapore are now scheduled to get their first A380 in Oct. 2007. So presumably SQ draws up a contingency plan and puts it in place. What costs would there be if the A380 became available in March 2007 rather than October? And what kind of costs would there be if, instead of only one as currently planned, Airbus was able to deliver four at the same time?

There is always the possibility of interim lift. Either as a concession from Airbus, or earlier delivery slots from Boeing.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 13): I can see where SQ might not want to give Airbus the appearance of joy, but if the A380 is a money maker as SQ sees it, why would they not want to put it in service sooner rather than later? I can understand a situation such as Qantas where, IIRC, they didn't want to receive the A380 in the low season - would SQ be in the same boat?

My guess is that SQ got the ultimate you scratch my back, I scratch your deal with Airbus. They commit to the A380 and A350, get them for a song, and Airbus scores it's (only) point on the 787 to this point.

Quoting Kanebear (Reply 24): Airbus' best course of action? Cede the midmarket to the 787, roll out a 350-lite

Agree about the Lite 350 Kanebear,
Streiffs comment about being 10 years behind is very brutally honest. I don't think we will ever see a 350XWB, at least in its current form. A 330, which is 6 tonnes lighter than the current 330 should be an attractive aircraft, and not cost nearly as much, and keep the line going until Airbus produce their first CRP craft.

Ruscoe

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 16): This industry can change at the drop of a dime. Just a mere 2 years ago, it was Boeing that had some catching up to do. Who would have though back then that it would catch up and surpass Airbus so quickly?

Could it be that Boeing was only behind in the minds of A.net folks and not in actual fact?

Perish the thought!!

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 27): Could it be that Boeing was only behind in the minds of A.net folks and not in actual fact? Perish the thought!!

I maintain behind on the surface only. Airbus had issues, no one knew them yet though. Just as well for Boeing. The perception forced them to clean house and now they are much healthier for it.

Quoting Kanebear (Reply 24): Once the 787 is bagged Boeing will likely hunker down on the 737 replacement.

In terms of the work Boeing has to do it seems that they have already hunkered down a bit - their 787 development was called a "joint 787 - Y3 development program" in one article several months ago. Y3 may be somewhat on a back burner, but Y1 looks like it has had a lot of attention since the 7E7 program started.

The problem, as I understand it, will be the engines. I have no doubt that the major 737 users, like WN are putting a lot of pressure on the engine manufacturers - and have been for some time now. A company like GE would be hard put to place more resources on engines for the XWB when WN & Gang are banging on the door. I look for the 787 to be taken care of (and the 748) and then the focus is going to be on Y1, and whatever Airbus comes up with if it is compatible.

As for the comments from Streiff - I believe that he has come down hard recently as he has a board to move off dead center. There is no way the board is going to like making some of these decisions, even if it is their duty, so announcements and leaks will to some degree support them. That and the leak that Streiff will resign if the board doesn't move forward.

(Edit)

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 27): Perish the thought!!

It'll get worse if Boeing brings in a string of nice 748i orders over the next 5 - 6 months.  

[Edited 2006-10-05 05:34:15]

[Edited 2006-10-05 05:35:24]

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 27): Could it be that Boeing was only behind in the minds of A.net folks and not in actual fact? Perish the thought!!

Not really. Airbus, as long as they don't have a cash or credit meltdown will be fine as long as they find some way to launch the A350. The exact same thing could have been said about Boeing before the 747.

That being said, Boeing went for (and apparently got) the brass ring last time they the restructured. Something to to said for crisis, it clears the mind, and fixes the cobwebs in the business.

Airbus has been isolated to reality long enough. They are coming back to it in one sudden jolt. They have a liquidity problem (Cash + Credit), a technology problem (350) and a prodiction problem (the A380). They have to start there.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29): Quoting Kanebear (Reply 24): Once the 787 is bagged Boeing will likely hunker down on the 737 replacement. In terms of the work Boeing has to do it seems that they have already hunkered down a bit - their 787 development was called a "joint 787 - Y3 development program" in one article several months ago. Y3 may be somewhat on a back burner, but Y1 looks like it has had a lot of attention since the 7E7 program started.

I think that where boeing "got it right" ( not that anyone else got it wrong) was when they went ahead with a project to introduce newer tecnhologies , fashion newer manufactering techniques and production line improvments over the entire spectrum of their future aircraft designs - project yellowstone was to fashion technolgy for all 3 of their expected aircraft programs ( and some like the 747-8 which might take from it) , such an integrated approach is what IMO is what give them the edge , with every succesfull technology that the introduce they can cut dev. cycles for the next aircraft to incorporate that technology , for all we know the Y1 and Y3 might only be 36 month programs ( i believe the 787 is 48 months).

As far as the engine makers go it depends upon timing for them aswell as they would also want to deliver something that works well for the Y1 type aircraft because at the end of the day it is there " bread and butter"

Quoting ZschocheImages (Reply 12): Airbus also is updating the 320's with the new winglets they are putting on.

I just read that they won't be doing this after all. They discovered that while the winglets did provide efficiency gains, there is a need to strengthen the wings, leading to more weight, and reducing any gains. So the A320E is off to a bad start.

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 32): I just read that they won't be doing this after all.

Where did you read this?

Couple points I need clarification on.

1. I thought Airbus had already ceeded the mid-range market to the B787
The A350XWB based on its size is meant to compete with the B777-200

2. Boeing is now "considering" the B787-10 to prevent the A350XWB from
killing their B777-200

A A330-lite would mean that Airbus is back to the original A350 which some thought was a "good enough" a/c to get a portion of the mid-range market. It is correct that their are some customers who will not buy Boeing and the A330-lite would sell, just look at the order books for the original A350, far as I know, none of those airlines have cancelled their orders even though the new a/c is in a totally different class.

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 8): I don't know about a decade. Right now they are hitting a series of bumps in the road, but they will recover. Boeing has had some trouble in the past and they have fixed those problems. This is not time for Boeing to start celebrating. Airbus will come out of nowhere and kill them when it comes time for the A320/737 replacements if they don't keep up their guard.

Very balanced post, well done.   

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 11): Airbus better start learning how to build CRFP fuselage barrels for this to come true.

Did you know the central wingbox and the tail cone from the A380 are made from one piece CRFP and are one of the biggest CRFP parts ever made?  

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 32): So the A320E is off to a bad start.

The winglets program doesnt have to do with the A320E Program.

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 32): Quoting ZschocheImages (Reply 12): Airbus also is updating the 320's with the new winglets they are putting on. I just read that they won't be doing this after all. They discovered that while the winglets did provide efficiency gains, there is a need to strengthen the wings, leading to more weight, and reducing any gains. So the A320E is off to a bad start.

The most annoying type of post on this site. I am sure it was not your intention to leave us without a link to you knowledge. SHARE please.

hi EbbuK and autothust,

THe link where the eads decided to drop thw einglets is as follows:
"Tipping Point: Winglets fall of a320 upgrade path, but airbus investigates other enhancements" By Rober Wall, Paris, Aviation Week And Space Technology, October 2, 2006, pp 43.

It a nutshell it says the winglets would have required modification to the wing structure adding weight negating any advantages of the windlets....

Autothrust: One of the biggest cfrp's yes... But yet different. In other words eads is not up to par with this (Barral , load bearing,..). I think Rheinbote and Astuteman have had this discussion before if you care to ask someone from your side of the ocean..

Peace

Elvis777

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 36): Quoting Grantcv (Reply 32): Quoting ZschocheImages (Reply 12): Airbus also is updating the 320's with the new winglets they are putting on. I just read that they won't be doing this after all. They discovered that while the winglets did provide efficiency gains, there is a need to strengthen the wings, leading to more weight, and reducing any gains. So the A320E is off to a bad start. The most annoying type of post on this site. I am sure it was not your intention to leave us without a link to you knowledge. SHARE please.[/quote [quote=Kanebear,reply=24]There're airlines that'll NEVER go Boeing for whatever reason. So they capture that market and plow all R&D not dedicated to the 380 to the A31x/32x narrowbody replacement.

I'll back up his post...and also, while I understand the frustration with not being able to provide a link, I'll add that I can't either because it comes from a source that requires passwords etc...I tried Google to see if I could get an open source and nada...sorry.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 34): 2. Boeing is now "considering" the B787-10 to prevent the A350XWB from killing their B777-200

Actually, the -10 is in direct response to customers like Emirates demands several years ago that have demanded the upsized 787. It is not in response to the A350WXB even tho it will serve in that capacity. Boeing's strategy is to give the customers what they want and let Airbus decide their product structure as to their own strategy. So the product strategies of both comapnies have differed considerably. Hence the A380, the demise of the Sonic cruiser and the rise of the 787.

As I said before in numerous posts, Airbus' real problem, future strategy and success as a company will be determined by the narrow body replacement. The A350/787 competition is history and Airbus can not risk having that replay in the narrow body replacement. With both the A32X and Y1 taking shape for a mid 20teens EIS means that while they have some time to get it right. They better start planning right now and not drop the ball like the A380 and A350. And thats a hard task given their constrained resources with the A380, A400 and A350 development needs. It is more important than the A350WXB, and IMO, more important than the A380. One interesting possibility is to see what engine the aircraft will be designed around. P&W has announced that they will have an unducted prop fan available several years before the proposed CFM/GE replacements of traditional HBR ducted engines. But that would mean a totally different configuration for the whole family of aircraft, i.e. rear mounted engines, maintenance, training etc. That engine promises greater efficiency and an earlier entry date. If Airbus would be willing to take a chance on the airlines adopting that configuration, they could have an EIS several years in advance of Boeing's date of 2015. That is if Boeing doesn't do it first...Given the possiblity of really putting Airbus under the gun is almost too tempting to miss, IMO...I know its being looked at very seriously. So we'll see what happens, it should be apparent by 2010.

For me, Mr. Streiff's comments are a bit vage. I'm not sure if he is talking about how Boeing goes about developing a new product, and delivering it within 4 years, or that it would take 10 years to match Boeing in the 787/777 market.

Cheers

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 38): P&W has announced that they will have an unducted prop fan available several years before the proposed CFM/GE replacements of traditional HBR ducted engines. But that would mean a totally different configuration for the whole family of aircraft, i.e. rear mounted engines, maintenance, training etc. That engine promises greater efficiency and an earlier entry date.

Are you sure about that? I was pretty sure UPFs were pretty much out because of current noise regulations. I was pretty certain P&W was gunning for a geared turbofan for the nextgen narrowbodies. Allow every spinning section to run at it's own ideal rotational speed, keep the rotating parts as small and light as possible...it's just getting that reduction gearbox to be safe and reliable that would be the issue. It promises huge efficency gains if it works though.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 11): Airbus better start learning how to build CRFP fuselage barrels for this to come true.

Or even better, let Boeing prove that the technology is safe and reliable and then go for it, if it's worth it.

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 41): Or even better, let Boeing prove that the technology is safe and reliable and then go for it, if it's worth it.

I think they have...just not on the civilian market. Who do you think made the center CFRP "wing box" on the B-2? I put that in quotes because, as a flying wing, the "wing box" is essentially the fuselage. It's not a small piece of hardware.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 15): Again, this is for everyone. If you suddently tell an Airline they can have the A380 tomorrow instead of next year they won't be happy. There are MAJOR logistics. You can't simply deliver them early.

Hear me. . .

As somebody said above, the planning for new planes takes months and months. I work in US Airways records and my office is intimately involved with aircraft returns and inductions, its a big job. My point is, since Airbus has announced a third lengthy delay, it would be horrible for them to announce a third. If I am an Airbus exec, I am ensuring that the we do not understate this delay. If I think it is between 8 and 11 months, I tell customers 11 (at least). I fully realize the logistical implications of finishing early, but it is better for Airbus to finish early than to have another delay. Of course, the ideal situation would be to finish right on time.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 16): All I can say is, be carefull about making comments like that.

Tell that to Mr. Streiff

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 35): Did you know the central wingbox and the tail cone from the A380 are made from one piece CRFP and are one of the biggest CRFP parts ever made? Yeah sure

The tail cone is a two piece unit.

The wing box may be the largest composite component ever made, but it's not made from one piece CFRP.

---
"The A380 uses a carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) structure for its massive wing box, which measures 7.8m x 7m x 4m – a first both for Airbus and for commercial aircraft of more than 100 seats. Five of the seven segments, whose walls are up to 45mm thick, including the forward, centre and aft spars and both of the double-layer upper and lower panels, were manufactured out of CFRP, consisting of 60 percent carbon fibre and 40 percent synthetic materials. In fact, 40 percent of the entire structure of an A380 and its components is to consist of composite materials."

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0311/FR0311b.htm
---
"Made mostly from carbon fiber composites, plus some aluminum ribs, the wing box represents a first for commercial aircraft of more than 100 seats."

www.designnews.com/article/CA6303104.html
---
"Thus, the A380’s high-integrity 8 m by 7 m by 2.4 m CFRP centre-wing box is being assembled largely automatically."

http://www.reinforcedplasticsbuyersg...feats/months_features/000041/show/
---
"Weight-saving techniques have also been applied to the massive centre wing box. The top and bottom skin panels, front, centre and rear spar and upper skin panels are all composite, with aluminium used for the upper beam, floor struts, and supporting main frame structure. Most of the composites in the wing box are carbonfibre reinforced plastics (CFRP), while the aluminium sections are mostly 7000 series alloys."

http://tinyurl.com/zsg6r
---

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 41): Or even better, let Boeing prove that the technology is safe and reliable and then go for it, if it's worth it.

By then it will be too late.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 1): Ya know, just as we saw Airbus spring a "December" surprise on everyone last year, I would not be too surprised if Airbus pulled a rabbit out of the hat and announced that the problems were actually less than they thought and that deliveries would now commence ahead of the revised schedule.

Uhh, well no. That won't happen. Streiff would go to jail if it did. It's against the law to say your company is doing very poorly, will need years to completely restructure just to make yourself look good when you pull successful numbers out of thin air. So I'm guessing if he says they have issues, they have issues, and there won't be any rabbits out of any hats.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 9): SQ would not be impressed to have an A380 (or four!) dropped on their doorstep unannounced. "Surprise! Didn't expect that did you? Now pay us."

Yep.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 11): Airbus better start learning how to build CRFP fuselage barrels for this to come true. Maybe that's why it will take 10 years.

I'm sure that's part of it. Boeing was fairly visionary in their development of CRFP.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 18): Pretty sad they are coming from the CEO of Airbus then! Better tell him you know the industry and Airbus better than he does Wink Seriously, he's talking about their corporate culture.

hahahahahaha. true

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 27): Could it be that Boeing was only behind in the minds of A.net folks and not in actual fact? Perish the thought!!

Boeing had some production issues in the 90s, some poor management issues as well. In terms of product development and product management, I'd say Boeing was never as bad as was popular to believe. Airbus was doing very well, but that was largely all on the back of the A320 program. One huge program can only carry a planemaker so far. Boeing for instance had 727, 737, and 747 running simultaneously in the 70s and 757, 767, 744, and 733/734/735 in the 80s, all of which were very successful programs. At airbus, even the success of the A330 program seems overhyped, as they sold what, roughly half as many A330s as Boeing has sold 767s?

Airbus has long been completely dependent on A320 - and it has worked because A320 has been that successful. Plowing the kind of money they did into A380 was a foreseeable mistake. Failing to realize what a threat - what a game changing aircraft 787 was - was a very very expensive mistake, and Airbus failing to get their act together and get A380 fixed, A350 under way, A400 back on track, and an A320 successor (not spruced up A320, new aircraft to replace A320 that can compete against boeing's clean sheet jet) will be serious for them.

Airbus has a very full plate. I think Streiff can pull airbus back together, but they are going to have to pick their priorities, cut their losses, it will be ugly for a while, and it will take time. Hopefully what will re-emerge from this process is an airbus like the one that created A300 and A320 - game changing, forward thinking aircraft.

There has been a lot of back-and-forth discussion what Airbus should do now to catch up with Boeing, especially against the B787 "threat". Let me throw in a couple of ideas about what Boeing could concentrate on to consolidate their leadership.

- First, concentrate all their talent to deliver the B787 flawlessly and on time. The B787 is an excellent platform for future development and will only get better with time. Just as B747-200 was much better than the B747-100, and the B777-300ER is much better than first generation of the B777s, the same will happen with the B787. If today's performance numbers of the B787 are excellent, 5 years down the road they will be simply unbelievable.

- Learn from the B787 development and use this know-how to develop a breakthrough Y3 that will "kill" the A350XWB (if it ever gets developed) and the A380 - not in terms of size, but yes in terms of economics.

- Simultaneously find a risk-sharing partner with deep pockets to develop the Y1. Use Boeing know-how to lead the design of the plane while the partner takes care of the detailed engineering, funding, and setting up of the supply chain to. I'm sure that several Japanese companies that are "drowning" in cash would be happy to jump it. A combination of Boeing's aeronautical technology with Toyota's manufacturing and quality excellence could be a killer combination.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 46): Uhh, well no. That won't happen. Streiff would go to jail if it did. It's against the law to say your company is doing very poorly,

If to the best of his knowledge at the time the assessment given was true, and the information on which the assessment was based later changes, I don't think a crime would be charged. I could be wrong, but I'd have thought it would only be a crime if he actually lied. Yes? No?

Quoting Elvis777 (Reply 37): "Tipping Point: Winglets fall of a320 upgrade path, but airbus investigates other enhancements" By Rober Wall, Paris, Aviation Week And Space Technology, October 2, 2006, pp 43.

Thanks Elvis. I will search that one out. Surprised I haven't seen it on flightglobal.com

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 38): I'll back up his post...and also, while I understand the frustration with not being able to provide a link, I'll add that I can't either because it comes from a source that requires passwords etc...I tried Google to see if I could get an open source and nada...sorry

cheers too for trying

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 38): Boeing's strategy is to give the customers what they want and let Airbus decide their product structure as to their own strategy.

No cheers here though. Both A & B have always had the customer in mind. Each have served the customers well and both have had big slaps when they've failed them.

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 38): As I said before in numerous posts, Airbus' real problem, future strategy and success as a company will be determined by the narrow body replacement.

Context here. the market is way too big for one manufacturer. The success of the 320 was not that it was launched at the same time as B's offering. In many ways it was because it wasn't. So don't get too carried away.

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 41): Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 11):Airbus better start learning how to build CRFP fuselage barrels for this to come true. Or even better, let Boeing prove that the technology is safe and reliable and then go for it, if it's worth it.

So good to hear from you. Can I ask how confident you are that the 350XWB will avoid the 380 problems getting to the customers? Does Streiff have a point about the current state of A's affairs? Thinking of you and all of Airbus's hard workers.