Airbus Back On Track?

Thorben · Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:02 am

Earlier, Airbus had a severe crises.

-The A380 was late again and again.

-The A350 was rejected by major customers like SQ and and ILFC and publicly bashed by their bosses.

Currently, there is a lot of good news.

-The A380 weight and wiring problems are solved, deliveries will start next year, even surpassing the latest schedule seems likely. Then, big money will come in.

-The A350XWB has been launched, it will be available four or five years later than the 787, but it will also be four or five years younger. The 787 may have more orders, but major players like CX, LH, AF/KL, BA, SA)">AA, SA)">UA, IB, SU, TG, EK, EY, SA, AZ, BR, CA, etc. have not yet made their decision. In addition, 75% of the orders for the 787 are the -8 version, some carriers might combine that with the A359 and A3510. Besides, Airbus does offer a cargo plane and also has some substantial customers like US, JJ, SQ, QR or IT.

-The A32X are selling like crazy, even building 40 per month would not make the five-year backlog smaller.

-The A330 is still selling strong, it seems likely that its line will continue until the A350 enters service. The A332F will be launched soon, that will provide for additional income. It seems to me that this levels the lack of A340 sales out. Airbus could sell more A340s by lowering the price, but why do that when the same line makes more money with the A330s?

-Airbus updated its spreadsheet on December 1st. Normally they need at least a week before they do that. They seem to be picking up speed.

After all, it seems to me that the crises comes to an end.

BR076 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:18 am

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):
After all, it seems to me that the crises comes to an end.

I agree

but

You will be got so flamed for this statement Big grin

SA7700 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:23 am

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):
SA, AZ, BR, CA, etc. have not yet made their decision

To my knowledge SA is not looking for widebody twins, but quads.

Rgds

SA7700

Stitch · Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:23 am

The news as of late is certainly better, but Airbus still needs to gain control of their configuration process on the A388 to ensure they can get those planes out the door.

And we still know pretty much nothing about the A350XWB other then Airbus saying it will be fantastic, but they said the same thing about the A350NSWB.

The news is certainly positive, however. But the proof, as they say, is in the CFRP panels and the wiring. Wink

Thorben · Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:27 am

Quoting BR076 (Reply 1):

You will be got so flamed for this statement Big grin

Don't worry, I'm used to it.

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 2):
To my knowledge SA is not looking for widebody twins, but quads.

Maybe, but when the choice is between the 787 and the A350, it'll be hard to get a quad.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):

I agree, the proof is still to come, this far we rather have indications.

BlatantEcho · Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:28 am

I'm not trying to stir up any dirt here, but the A350 being 5 years younger isn't worth much here. This isn't an alum. plane with 5 more years of R/D in it.

This is a next generation aircraft built without complete next generation materials, 5 years later.

---
That said, it does sound like Airbus has been having things go it's way. A32X production is great.

The A380 might just take to the skies in commerical service soon, and even at $4B and 2+ years over budget, it will certainly be a moral victory. Airbus healthy and focused is the best thing for the aviation community.

11Bravo · Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:40 am

"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Winston Churchill, 1942

Sill quite a ways to go to get "back on track" IMHO. The problems at Airbus weren't created over-night and they're not going to be solved over-night either.

LHStarAlliance · Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:57 am

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):
After all, it seems to me that the crises comes to an end.

I agree , they are solving the problems pretty good.

Yet airbus is in a better position as boeing , they have :

320: they´ll start new generation soon and still selling very very good

330 :selling good , freighter comming out soon.

350XWB: For 777 , 330 , 340 , 747 better engines than 787 so better economics. More space . Also freighter

380 : Very Large Aircraft will not sell as good as 350 or 330 but some Airlines still have options on it and I highly doubt that no more airlines will buy it .
Wiring problems solved.

So now Boeing is in a better position , but Airbus is coming ! And well-equipped!

EI321 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:06 am

Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 5):
This is a next generation aircraft built without complete next generation materials, 5 years later.

What materials will the A350 have that are less 'next gen' then the 787?

Being 14 years later than the A330 has not exactly affected the 787's sales prospects. All of airbus' successful models came later than their Boeing or MDD counterparts.

Thorben · Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:09 am

Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 5):
I'm not trying to stir up any dirt here, but the A350 being 5 years younger isn't worth much here. This isn't an alum. plane with 5 more years of R/D in it.

This is a next generation aircraft built without complete next generation materials, 5 years later.

I disagree. It will have a slightly higher percentage of composites than the 787, which is not all composite either. Airbus only choses a different approach. They'll have their reasons, maybe the maintenance is really a lot easier. Airbus has a lot of experience with composites.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 6):
Sill quite a ways to go to get "back on track" IMHO. The problems at Airbus weren't created over-night and they're not going to be solved over-night either.

Not over night, but the second half of 2006 saw a lot of positive aspects.

Stitch · Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:10 am

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 7):
Yet airbus is in a better position as boeing , they have:

320: they´ll start new generation soon and still selling very very good

We're assuming the A320E will launch. Airbus may not want to devote the capital to it since the returns aren't looking as good as before (now like 2-3% instead of 5% greater efficiency). That being said, increase production should win them more orders thanks to greater availability.

Quote:
330 :selling good , freighter coming out soon.

The A332F should sell well, even in the face of 767 and A330 passenger-to-freighter conversions, though the sales window on the A330 itself is closing.

Quote:
350XWB: For 777, 330, 340, 747 better engines than 787 so better economics. More space. Also freighter.

We're not sure how much better the XWB's engines are going to be. The original Trent 1700's used, I believe, the same core as the Trent 1000's going on the 787. I don't expect RR to play too fast and loose with the Trent XWB's core vis-a-vis the Trent 1000's.

Also, we don't know how the XWB's economics are going to come out, though they should be good. It's pretty much a given they should be better then the 777's and they will probably be very close (a bit better or worse) to the 787's. The 787 will probably be the more advanced platform, and will have benefited from lessons learned and efficiencies gained in five years of active service before the first A350XWB takes to the skies.

Quote:
380: Wiring problems solved.

That remains to be seen. Airbus felt that way in the past, yet ended up taking additional delays on the problem.

LHStarAlliance · Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:14 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
we don't know how the XWB's economics are going to come out, t

In farnborough Airbus said that the economics will be better than the 787s economics.

sstsomeday · Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:18 am

I agree that there are three very good developments:

1) The 350 has been green lit, and Airbus needs it badly, and customers say they want it.
2) The 380's wiring issues apparently have been solved.
3) Airbus is seeking risk partners and developing (if I am reading my news correctly) more outsourcing. I think the Chinese assembly line (320) is a good idea, at least in the short term.

Also, the tremendous success of the 320 (and the success of the 330) are proving to be lifesavers at the moment.

The challenges are:

1) DEFINING/designing the 350 so that it will offer some of the lofty claims that the salesmen are selling at the moment.

2) Increasing the production rate of the 380 for the first few years.

3) Recouping the loss of billions of Euros due to the 380 delay. This means acquiring more orders, as well as pumping up production.

4) Streamlining their management, and removing the lugubrious and inefficient government thumb(s) they are under, as well as any inefficiencies born of having originated as a multinational consortium.

So I believe the pressure is on at Airbus, in the next few years, to aggressively meet these challenges. The news IS good, but they are not out of the woods yet.

I predict it will take several years before they get back to par with Boeing regarding the value of their respective annual orders.

Lokey123 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:33 am

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 11):
In farnborough Airbus said that the economics will be better than the 787s economics.

And because Airbus says it that makes it true. Can you make some comparisons please to back that up? Which model A350 are they comparing to which model 787? what assumptions go into this comparison, I'll believe when I see and even then it is open to scrutiny.

GBan · Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:42 am

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):
-The A380 weight and wiring problems are solved, deliveries will start next year, even surpassing the latest schedule seems likely. Then, big money will come in.

I think the problems have been solved and they will be on track when they are on track (with deliveries), not when they announce it.

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 11):
In farnborough Airbus said that the economics will be better than the 787s economics.

Quoting Lokey123 (Reply 13):
And because Airbus says it that makes it true. Can you make some comparisons please to back that up? Which model A350 are they comparing to which model 787? what assumptions go into this comparison, I'll believe when I see and even then it is open to scrutiny.

It wont't be true because Airbus says it, but Airbus will have to make it true to sell this plane.

ksupilot · Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:45 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
The news is certainly positive, however. But the proof, as they say, is in the CFRP panels and the wiring. Wink

And we have yet to see how those panels will work out. In another thread there was a post that stated that Boeing was thinking of using CFRP panels, but found that really you would be left with "black aluminum" as you would need all the heavy hardware and whatnot to join them together.

Lokey123 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:11 am

Quoting GBan (Reply 14):
It wont't be true because Airbus says it, but Airbus will have to make it true to sell this plane

I think that the plane will sell regardless of whether it's true or not. The question then becomes how much of them will, to who, and at what price. Besides when there's a duopoly in a market of this size and value I don't think that either player stands to lose their shirt, maybe just some pissed customers.

redflyer · Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:24 am

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):
Currently, there is a lot of good news.

Be prepared for some additional bad news coming Airbus' way via the A400M...

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2006/12/03/afx3223263.html

BoomBoom · Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:32 am

Quoting Thorben (Reply 9):
Not over night, but the second half of 2006 saw a lot of positive aspects

Like delaying the A380 by another year?

The compensation payments and profit warnings?

The Virgin A380 deferral (cancellation)?

The Fedex A380 cancellation?

This has been a disastrous year for Airbus no matter how you parse it or spin it.

brendows · Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:44 am

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 11):
In farnborough Airbus said that the economics will be better than the 787s economics.

Airbus said the exact same thing about the first few versions of the A350, but did the airlines buy that? No. Don't believe something just because Airbus' PR department says so. When more info about the A350XWB is released, we'll know a little more. But when it comes to the A350XWBvs787, it doesn't look to promising (lifting more weight=higher fuel burn.)

BlatantEcho · Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:51 am

I'm simply saying that if this was a normal aluminum plane, then YES, the A350 would have a few more technologies, more advanced this and that, just because it's 5 years newer.

However, it's a carbon fiber world now. Look at industries that currently use carbon on large capital projects. Look at yachts made of carbon/nomex.

Nobody is using panels and attatching them to a skeleton. The companies that aren't capable of full uniform carbon lay-up, don't even bother with carbon, they stick with traditional fiberglass and epoxy/vinylester.

If your competitor has the capability to weave a complete barrel, and 5 years later, you can't weave a complete barrel, your best efficeny gain will be increasing size to lower seatmile costs. This is not the same as structural efficency from 5 more years of R/D and new technology.

Engine technology might be the best bet for the A350, but after a bunch of companies have dropped piles of money on new generations of engines (Gen X, etc) I don't know if you're going to get the same leap from the 787 engines to the 350 engines as you did from 767 to 787 engines.

[Edited 2006-12-03 20:53:04]

hb88 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:53 am

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 15):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
"The news is certainly positive, however. But the proof, as they say, is in the CFRP panels and the wiring."

And we have yet to see how those panels will work out. In another thread there was a post that stated that Boeing was thinking of using CFRP panels, but found that really you would be left with "black aluminum" as you would need all the heavy hardware and whatnot to join them together.

It's not just the presence of cfrp in an airframe, it's how it is used. In any case, a proper comparison between the panel approach and the fibre-wound barrel approach can only be made once you know the relative dimensions of the panels and the internal fuselage structure etc. I don't think it's quite as simple as adding in the hardware to join the panel sections and concluding that it will be inferior/heavier than a segmented barrel design. Remember that even a spun barrel section needs significant hardware to support the internal fuselage structure, centre section, reinforcing around doors, as well as the circumferential joins etc.

I wonder that in certain configurations, there might be relatively little between the Boeing and Airbus approach - particularly as bonding technologies have come a long way and the panel approach might allow slightly more flexibility in load tailoring than a mandrel spun barrel in some configurations - although the Boeing technique looks locally quite flexible.

A "black aluminium" approach is characterised by simply substituting cfrp for metal in an airframe and not exploiting the non-isotropic properties of cfrp materials and components. I don't believe the Airbus approach is going this way as, while the panel technique looks superficially like black metal, as has been written elsewhere, there are some interesting opportunities to take advantage of cfrp properties.

LHStarAlliance · Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:53 am

Quoting Brendows (Reply 20):
Airbus said the exact same thing about the first few versions of the A350, but did the airlines buy that? No. Don't believe something just because Airbus' PR department says so. When more info about the A350XWB is released, we'll know a little more. But when it comes to the A350XWBvs787, it doesn't look to promising (lifting more weight=higher fuel burn.)

I just say that they have said this . For sure they have to prove this first .

About new engines : Maybe they get EA and RR or RR and GE to build a new engine that could be used then also for a possible 389.

Stitch · Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:58 am

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 11):
In Farnborough Airbus said that the economics will be better than the 787s economics.

And yet when Boeing and members of this board say the 748's economics are better then the A388's, they are pilloried...

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 15):
And we have yet to see how those panels will work out. In another thread there was a post that stated that Boeing was thinking of using CFRP panels, but found that really you would be left with "black aluminum" as you would need all the heavy hardware and whatnot to join them together.

Airbus has noted how easily their design will be to fix via replacing damaged panels, so I tend to think that using glue or embedding an Al-Li "edge" that could be laser-welded to the sub-frame won't happen because of the time needed to remove it. So I can only guess they will rivet it to the frame like is done now.

Also, I wonder if Airbus' design won't be more likely to suffer "ramp rash" then Boeing's, hence forcing Airbus to offer an easy replacement system. Take, for example, two paper towel cardboard tubes. And accept up front that this is not a perfect analogy and it is not offered as a compelling argument. Wink

Unroll one and leave the other rolled-up. Take a butter knife or a spoon and give a good stab to the rolled-up tube. Chances are it won't even dent, much less be sliced. Yet use the same amount of force on the unrolled tube, and it will go right through. The cardboard layered on top of each other offers more strength and resilience to impact then when it is laid flat.

Therefore, Airbus may need to use thicker panels or denser (and heavier) CFRP compounds to provide the same levels of damage resistance Boeing's "continuous rolled" CFRP barrels offer.

Again, until we see some data, we don't know. It's freely conjecture on my part, but many have been critical how successfully Boeing's process will resist damage and I believe that Boeing's process could very well be stronger then Airbus', which means if Boeing needs to worry about damage, Airbus does even more-so.

EI321 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:04 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 18):
The Virgin A380 deferral (cancellation)?

What have they ''(canceled)''

??????????????

jacobin777 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:17 am

Considering the previous Airbus CEO Christian Strieff stated that Airbus is almost a decade behind, I think its way to premature to say "Airbus is back"...

While I'm confident Airbus will eventually get back on track, they have a daunting task in front of then..

The A340's are but dead. The A380 sales are basically stagnant (especially for new customers)...the A350XWB is still not defined...the A320 is selling evenly with the B737's...The A330's are selling well...but some are being sold because of costly A380 delays..which means profit margins on those will be razor thin...

hb88 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:22 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 24):
Also, I wonder if Airbus' design won't be more likely to suffer "ramp rash" then Boeing's, hence forcing Airbus to offer an easy replacement system. Take, for example, two paper towel cardboard tubes. And accept up front that this is not a perfect analogy and it is not offered as a compelling argument. Wink

Unroll one and leave the other rolled-up. Take a butter knife or a spoon and give a good stab to the rolled-up tube. Chances are it won't even dent, much less be sliced. Yet use the same amount of force on the unrolled tube, and it will go right through. The cardboard layered on top of each other offers more strength and resilience to impact then when it is laid flat.

Therefore, Airbus may need to use thicker panels or denser (and heavier) CFRP compounds to provide the same levels of damage resistance Boeing's "continuous rolled" CFRP barrels offer.

Nice analogy! But I don't think that's quite how it works. The Airbus structure wouldn't behave as an 'unrolled tube'. The local strength (wrong word, but you know what I mean) of a cfrp panel and a mandrel spun cfrp section is probably not all that different. In the spun variant, the main advantage comes from not having a seam or join laterally, although you would have a series of fairly substantial circumferential joins which could be a potential weakness as much as the Airbus panel join is assumed to be. Thus a barrel section provides a 'global' strength gain in terms of containing internal pressure and to a lesser extent handling flight loads locally around the structure (try bending or twisting your cardboard tubes laterally and radially). I think the local intra-laminae bonding is probably much the same for both structures depending on the fibre/resin proportions - even possibly pretty much identical if they use same or similar prepreg or other material in laying up the panels/laying the tape on the mandrel. IMO, the fibre orientation is probably the more significant effect at work here, not the locally 'infinite' length of the barrel (tube design) fibres.

So, I'm guessing if you took a whack at a Boeing fuse barrel and a hypothetical Airbus fuse panel, you'd get much the same damage. I don't think one is locally inherently more damage resistant than the other or there would be any real reason to assume that this is the case.

I'm sure a composites guy will correct me if I'm wrong, but that is my gut feeling.

hb88 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:28 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 25):
Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 18):
"The Virgin A380 deferral (cancellation)?"

What have they ''(canceled)''

VS haven't canceled anything.

However, some people on a.net have decided that when VS deferred their order, they really meant cancellation. Someone should email SRB to point out his mistake
sarcastic

billreid · Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:32 am

I do not what is in your Coolaid!

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):

After all, it seems to me that the crises comes to an end.

The crisis is long from over.......
If it was this easy there would have been no crisis....

Truth be told, the A350 is at a terrible disadvantage. No airline is in a position to simply wait an extra decade at a competitive disadvantage. The B787 sales will explode after the holidays. For every A380 sold B will sell 30 B787's. The A380 is a 200 order acft. The B787 is a 1,200-1,500 order acft.

The A350 is timed poorly.

What would you do as an airline, hang on to old technology and sink eight to ten years behind your competitors? I think not...

The A350 is nothing less than a place holder to reduce the price on the B787. The same reason the B748I was introduced, to reduce the sales price of the A380.

Adria · Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:34 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Also, we don't know how the XWB's economics are going to come out, though they should be good. It's pretty much a given they should be better then the 777's and they will probably be very close (a bit better or worse) to the 787's. The 787 will probably be the more advanced platform, and will have benefited from lessons learned and efficiencies gained in five years of active service before the first A350XWB takes to the skies.

Considering that the EIS will be 5 years later and that Airbus will also benefit from additional time the only way the A350XWB is going to be successfull is that it will be better than the 787

leelaw · Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:53 am

Quoting HB88 (Reply 28):
However, some people on a.net have decided that when VS deferred their order, they really meant cancellation.

Nevertheless, the second, rather lengthy deferral (deliveries commencing in 2013) by VS of its A380 order should be just as disturbing as an outright cancellation to proponents of the business case in favor of operating the A380.

Why isn't VS anxious to take-on BA by offering "incomparable levels of luxury" to pax at competitive prices allegedly afforded by operating the A380 (the nascent "flagship of the 21st century"), to steal away as much traffic (particularly premium passengers) as possible? If the flying cruise-ship scenario is indeed a viable and compelling business strategy, shouldn't VS be after the earliest possible delivery slots and placing follow-on orders, instead of cutting and running twice?

sstsomeday · Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:02 am

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 11):
In farnborough Airbus said that the economics will be better than the 787s economics.

But the aircraft is not yet defined, so that claim is not yet verifiable nor does it come from any available statistics.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 12):
The challenges are:

1) DEFINING/designing the 350 so that it will offer some of the lofty claims that the salesmen are selling at the moment.

Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 21):
If your competitor has the capability to weave a complete barrel, and 5 years later, you can't weave a complete barrel, your best efficeny gain will be increasing size to lower seatmile costs. This is not the same as structural efficency from 5 more years of R/D and new technology.

I wonder if it's Airbus' intention to utilize the more composite-heavy wing technology they have learned from the A400M to narrow the 787 composite advantage?

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 26):
Considering the previous Airbus CEO Christian Strieff stated that Airbus is almost a decade behind, I think its way to premature to say "Airbus is back"...

And he only lasted 100 days when he tried aggressively to change the management dynamic of that company, and make some of the hard, cost-saving choices that are needed. There seems to be some serious internal/government resistance to necessary management streamlining and regional job cuts.

Quoting Adria (Reply 30):
Considering that the EIS will be 5 years later and that Airbus will also benefit from additional time the only way the A350XWB is going to be successful is that it will be better than the 787

I don't know if it has to be "as good or better" than the 787 to be reasonably successful. I think it may be successful simply by taking a healthy market share away from Boeing because it will be:

1) Almost as good as the 787
2) An improvement over 777 and 330.
3) larger than the 787 (different market)
4) Keeping the prices down by bringing competition
5) and an "Airbus." (Some airlines seem predisposed, against all other considerations, to buy Airbus no matter what.)
6) Commonality to other Airbus-heavy fleets.

It's a pretty large market (long range, next gen twins), so I suspect Airbus only needs about 35% of it to make a profit (my completely unsubstantiated guess.)

By the way, everybody is talking composite, composite, composite. I wonder if Airbus will go with "no-bleed" engines to reduce 787's lead?

mariner · Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:13 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 26):
Considering the previous Airbus CEO Christian Strieff stated that Airbus is almost a decade behind, I think its way to premature to say "Airbus is back"...

So it is your view that they are falling further behind?

mariner

BoomBoom · Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:13 am

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):
-The A380 weight and wiring problems are solved, deliveries will start next year, even surpassing the latest schedule seems likely.

I thought the A380 was still more than 5 tons overweight. What is the source of the information that the wiring problem has been solved? And won't only one be delivered next year?

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):
-Airbus updated its spreadsheet on December 1st. Normally they need at least a week before they do that.

This is a great achievement?
This puts them back on track?

I'm sure Boeing is worried about this! rotfl

Rheinbote · Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:16 am

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):
Currently, there is a lot of good news.
[...]
After all, it seems to me that the crises comes to an end.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but the crisis would come to an end only if the underlying problems were solved - you can't do that in days or months, it will take years.

Apart from that, how do you conclude that the wiring problems are behind A? First delivery of the A380 is scheduled now for October 2007, ramp-up during 2008 will reach a trickle only.

To me it looks like the 350XWB will be five years late, and will require about 50% more R&D funding than the 787. Let's hope the money is spent on leap-frog approaches, but so far I fail to see any.

jacobin777 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:40 am

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 32):

And he only lasted 100 days when he tried aggressively to change the management dynamic of that company, and make some of the hard, cost-saving choices that are needed. There seems to be some serious internal/government resistance to necessary management streamlining and regional job cuts.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 33):

So it is your view that they are falling further behind?

Possibly..yes....

Considering the 787-8 is substantially outselling the 787-9, Airbus is leaving a large hole in their platform.....that's just my opinion...

Airbus believes larger planes are going to be needed...so I'm not surprised what direction they want to head...but so far, the facts have stated otherwise..

hb88 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:11 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 36):
Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 32):

"And he only lasted 100 days when he tried aggressively to change the management dynamic of that company, and make some of the hard, cost-saving choices that are needed. There seems to be some serious internal/government resistance to necessary management streamlining and regional job cuts."

checkmark

It's not surprising there is/was resistance - no organisation wants to cut headcount.

In any case, many if not most of Strieffs original recommendations are being implemented in Power8 - including the less palatable ones.

grantcv · Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:13 am

It seems that every six months Airbus trots out good news and it looks like their problems are behind them. But after a few weeks, reality sets in and things look worse than before. Remember all the orders they pulled out of the hat a year ago. Remember Farnborough.

BoomBoom · Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:24 am

Quoting HB88 (Reply 37):
In any case, many if not most of Strieffs original recommendations are being implemented in Power8 - including the less palatable ones.

The last I heard there was considerable resistance to job cuts. Has something changed in this regard?

mariner · Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:51 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 36):
Considering the 787-8 is substantially outselling the 787-9, Airbus is leaving a large hole in their platform.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I thought whichever way they went they would leave a hole in their platform.

mariner

hb88 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:52 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 39):
Quoting HB88 (Reply 37):
"In any case, many if not most of Strieffs original recommendations are being implemented in Power8 - including the less palatable ones."

The last I heard there was considerable resistance to job cuts. Has something changed in this regard?

It depends on where you consider the resistance to be coming from. Job cuts are still of course politically unpalatable, but depending on the country, IMO the internal view has become somewhat "more realistic". In the through-the-looking-glass world of EU employment law, there can be workforce reduction, it just takes time and needs to be implemented according to process... it's all about process (where's that jaded, cynical smiley...).

jacobin777 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:51 am

Quoting HB88 (Reply 37):
In any case, many if not most of Strieffs original recommendations are being implemented in Power8 - including the less palatable ones.

We'll see what happens..

Quoting Mariner (Reply 40):

I thought whichever way they went they would leave a hole in their platform.

Unless the A350 is a dismal failure, which I think it won't be...they will get a very good ROI....

[Edited 2006-12-04 00:59:42]

BoomBoom · Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:03 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 42):
We'll see what happens..

Yes, while there may be a consensus within the company management on implementing job cuts and closing or selling plants, I haven't heard the politicians say the same.

Quote:
In a statement, EADS said funding for the new plane would come "predominantly from the company cash flows" but gave no details. Its success would depend on the successful implementation of cost-cutting plans at Airbus. It gave no timetable for when it would go into service.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aerospace/2003457794_airbus02.html

It depends....

sstsomeday · Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:16 am

Quoting HB88 (Reply 37):
In any case, many if not most of Strieffs original recommendations are being implemented in Power8 - including the less palatable ones.

If true, that's good news for Airbus. That is just as important as the launch of the 350 and fixing 380 production problems and sales deficiencies.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 43):
Yes, while there may be a consensus within the company management on implementing job cuts and closing or selling plants, I haven't heard the politicians say the same.

This is key. And it might be an uphill battle, what with government appointees (if I understand correctly) on the board.

It's ironic that the very forces which helped create EADS, which has become an aerospace giant, are now hindering it.

Stitch · Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:27 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 30):
Considering that the EIS will be 5 years later and that Airbus will also benefit from additional time the only way the A350XWB is going to be successful is that it will be better than the 787.

If it's in the same ballpark as the 787, it should do fine. Many A330 and A340 operators will prefer to stick with Airbus and if Airbus can offer them a comparable product and a comparable price, I see no reason why those carriers won't go for it.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 36):
Considering the 787-8 is substantially outselling the 787-9, Airbus is leaving a large hole in their platform..that's just my opinion...

It appears to be a calculated risk on Airbus' part to try and head off Y3 and secure A332, A333, and A343 replacement orders. The A332 was a larger plane then the 763ER which is why Boeing still sold a couple hundred of them even after the A332 entered service. While the 787-8 is not the "only" replacement for the 767-300ERs of the world, it is the "best" and many 763ER operators are choosing it. As such, Airbus' penetration of this market has already happened about as good as it will with the A332 and the A358 offers a direct upgrade and replacement path for those planes.

Quoting HB88 (Reply 37):
It's not surprising there is/was resistance - no organization wants to cut headcount.

Oh if only that was true here in the good ol' U, S, of A. Sad

glideslope · Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:13 am

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):
-The A32X are selling like crazy, even building 40 per month would not make the five-year backlog smaller.

You can't survive being a One Pony show. Increasing 6 airframes per month is no small project. Boeing got caught up in this in the ealy 80's. They learned a valueble lesson. EX: Turning down WN to sneak 2 frames in front of another customer. The 380 is far from EIS. The 350 XWB is looking like 2015, no operator wants a new 346, and the 330F is about it with that A300 kin.

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):
-The A380 weight and wiring problems are solved, deliveries will start next year, even surpassing the latest schedule seems likely. Then, big money will come in.

No new operator will oder a 380 until they see at least 12-18 months of reveneu with several carriers= years. No one believes Airbus' press releases unless they are in a Quantum Universe.

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):
-Airbus updated its spreadsheet on December 1st. Normally they need at least a week before they do that. They seem to be picking up speed.

More due to the scheduled, then canceled EADS Board meeting. There has been no official launch. Simply and agreement on the most current EU Bail Out program.

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):
After all, it seems to me that the crises comes to an end.

It's just getting started. The WTO is next. Don't hatch you 350 Big Boy yet.
bigthumbsup

jacobin777 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:50 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 45):
358 offers a direct upgrade

Key word.."upgrade"..many carriers might not want to upgrade the amount of seats...actually, given how well the 788 is selling, many aren't.

Add the AA's, UA's, DL's. BA's of the word...then add all the potential A300's and A310 operators...Boeing will have another 500 sold right there

BoomBoom · Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:10 am

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 44):
And it might be an uphill battle, what with government appointees (if I understand correctly) on the board.

I can't imagine any govt. "launch aid" coming without strings attached. Why should French and German taxpayers money be spent to send jobs to other countries?

trex8 · Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:48 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 48):
Why should French and German taxpayers money be spent to send jobs to other countries?

because sometimes its better to lose 1 job rather than 2 or 3 or 4

PADSpot · Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:20 pm

Quoting Thorben (Thread starter):
In addition, 75% of the orders for the 787 are the -8 version, some carriers might combine that with the A359 and A3510.

That is in my opinion the real surprise. Boeing put the main emphasis on the 220-300pax range, while the A350XWB is more targeted at the 250-350+pax range. With 75% of the orders being for the 787-8 it seems that customers are sort of waiting for the bigger A350XWB and for now just seeking replacements for 767-2(ER)s, 757s, A310s, A300s. After all it might not be all too bad that the A350 is coming 4-5 years late.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net