JAL orders 31 A350's
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAL orders 31 A350's
BBC News - Airbus and Japan Airlines agree landmark $9.5bn deal
The deal is a blow for Boeing, which has dominated Japan's aviation market.
"This is Airbus' largest order for the A350 so far this year and is the largest ever order we have received from a Japanese airline," said Fabrice Bregier, chief executive of Airbus.
"I must say that achieving this breakthrough order and entering a traditional competitor market was one of my personal goals."
According to the deal, JAL also has an option to purchase an additional 25 planes.
"This is Airbus' largest order for the A350 so far this year and is the largest ever order we have received from a Japanese airline," said Fabrice Bregier, chief executive of Airbus.
"I must say that achieving this breakthrough order and entering a traditional competitor market was one of my personal goals."
According to the deal, JAL also has an option to purchase an additional 25 planes.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mistake
JAL's biggest mistake was buying the 787 what a Lemon of an aircraft, light weight, cant carry much and not that more fuel efficient than a 767-300. The A350 will see the end of the 787, Boeing poor support for the disastrous introduction, the band aid fix on an dangerous electrical system and the lack of line support...Good on JAL for seeing the light!
Airbus wins big in Japan...
JAL decided to defect over to Airbus from Boeing in the purchase of new aircrafts.
Also reported in that article, ANA may also switch over to Airbus for their replacement of their B777.
Boeing?s Dreamliner nightmare continues as Japan Airlines defects to Airbus ? Quartz
Also reported in that article, ANA may also switch over to Airbus for their replacement of their B777.
Boeing?s Dreamliner nightmare continues as Japan Airlines defects to Airbus ? Quartz
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: LHR
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hardly surprising. Once bitten twice shy as they say.
I guess it's a sign that developers such as Boeing should take note on.
Airlines ultimately aren't interested about teething problems now in this commercially pressured environment. When a delay costs hundreds if not thousands of pounds a minute airlines just won't tolerate having their fleets grounded, the bad press and the what seems to be long string of problems let alone the delivery delays. If it were a car you were buying you'd be unlikely to buy another so Boeing can't be shocked.
We as aviation folk know the importance of safety and the difficulties of introducing a new technology but the hard truth I think is that the CEO cares very little about it. If you aren't seeing money from it, it's a liability and you can't afford that in this day and age.
Radical change is a gamble and Boeing lost unfortunately.
Safe flying
Tech_log
I guess it's a sign that developers such as Boeing should take note on.
Airlines ultimately aren't interested about teething problems now in this commercially pressured environment. When a delay costs hundreds if not thousands of pounds a minute airlines just won't tolerate having their fleets grounded, the bad press and the what seems to be long string of problems let alone the delivery delays. If it were a car you were buying you'd be unlikely to buy another so Boeing can't be shocked.
We as aviation folk know the importance of safety and the difficulties of introducing a new technology but the hard truth I think is that the CEO cares very little about it. If you aren't seeing money from it, it's a liability and you can't afford that in this day and age.
Radical change is a gamble and Boeing lost unfortunately.
Safe flying
Tech_log
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the articles I've read have JAL bigwigs making it very clear that this is not a response to the B787 issues. What they have said is that having a single-supplier fleet is now an anomaly in the civil aviation market, and JAL are simply following suit.
That said, it's a very positive story for Airbus, and it can't be denied that so far the A350XWB project has been an exemplary tale when it comes to learning from past mistakes and applying the lessons learned. Of course, it's still very early days - and even Airbus themselves are advising caution alongside confidence.
Also worth mentioning is that we've seen the A320 programme overcome considerable adverse PR in the early days to become one of the most successful short-haul types in the world, and the A380's much-publicised teething problems also seem to have been largely consigned to the past. Not to mention that the 747 project almost sank Boeing in its first years and as such, it would be inadvisable to count Boeing out just yet,
That said, it's a very positive story for Airbus, and it can't be denied that so far the A350XWB project has been an exemplary tale when it comes to learning from past mistakes and applying the lessons learned. Of course, it's still very early days - and even Airbus themselves are advising caution alongside confidence.
Also worth mentioning is that we've seen the A320 programme overcome considerable adverse PR in the early days to become one of the most successful short-haul types in the world, and the A380's much-publicised teething problems also seem to have been largely consigned to the past. Not to mention that the 747 project almost sank Boeing in its first years and as such, it would be inadvisable to count Boeing out just yet,
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 8th Oct 2013 at 15:28.
The bit about single-supplier is of course not correct. Probably the largest purchaser of airframes in Asia in recent years has been Air Asia - and they have bought exclusively Airbus. Ryanair and Southwest are exclusively Boeing. So not an anomaly at all.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM - perhaps I should have said "something of an anomaly".
Comments were based on this article:
JAL Chairman: 100% Reliance on Boeing 'Abnormal'
Comments were based on this article:
JAL Chairman: 100% Reliance on Boeing 'Abnormal'
"When I first became chairman of JAL in February 2010 I found out that 100 percent of Japan aircraft were made by Boeing - I felt that was abnormal."
He added, "In a normal market there is tremendous risk from relying on one vendor. In order to provide good products at good prices, at lower prices a dual vendor system is a must."
He added, "In a normal market there is tremendous risk from relying on one vendor. In order to provide good products at good prices, at lower prices a dual vendor system is a must."
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following that logic Boeing's big mistake was to rely solely on Yuasa for the big batteries.
It leaves a somewhat shallow taste about Japanese economical ethics. First provide a flawed product to a bigger project, then abandon it for its competitor because of teething problems.
It leaves a somewhat shallow taste about Japanese economical ethics. First provide a flawed product to a bigger project, then abandon it for its competitor because of teething problems.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were a lot more issues with the B787 programme than just the battery problems. Stories have been coming out of the woodwork detailing significant failures in management of the project (and others) at all levels. However, given that Airbus had similar issues - most recently during the A380 project - and learned from them to apparently make the A350XWB project run much more smoothly, I'm sure it's within Boeing's ability to turn things round in a similar fashion - as long as management are honest with themselves about where the problems lie.
I don't want this to get into an A vs B argument, but I believe a difference between the two was that when Airbus discovered the A380 wiring harnesses had been mis-manufactured, and did not fit, it was treated as an engineering problem, with engineers coming up with a solution. Problems in the plant at Boeing, ever since the corporate office was moved from on the property to 2,000 miles away, are treated with a brush-under-the carpet, watch the next quarterly earnings, glossing it over with Wall Street is all that matters, management attitude.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not interested in an A v. B urinating contest either - and while there is truth in what you're saying, solving the wiring issue at an engineering level was only part of the solution as a whole. What needed to (and apparently did) happen was a wholesale no-blame review of the management processes around specification, design and manufacture to prevent a recurrence of the problem on the next project.
Airbus have a distinct advantage in this regard, because they've been using a multinational and multi-lingual supply chain since the inception of the original consortium - or earlier, if you include the experience with Concorde - and so will tend to be better prepared for this kind of process overhaul (though Boeing have been sourcing heavy engineering from Japan since the late '70s). Boeing will hopefully overcome the issues they've been having as long as management are prepared to open all the potential cans of worms. It should, however, be noted that most of the manufacturing issues brought to light seem to stem from Boeing's suppliers within the US.
Airbus have a distinct advantage in this regard, because they've been using a multinational and multi-lingual supply chain since the inception of the original consortium - or earlier, if you include the experience with Concorde - and so will tend to be better prepared for this kind of process overhaul (though Boeing have been sourcing heavy engineering from Japan since the late '70s). Boeing will hopefully overcome the issues they've been having as long as management are prepared to open all the potential cans of worms. It should, however, be noted that most of the manufacturing issues brought to light seem to stem from Boeing's suppliers within the US.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 9th Oct 2013 at 14:26.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It leaves a somewhat shallow taste about Japanese economical ethics. First provide a flawed product to a bigger project, then abandon it for its competitor because of teething problems.
Anyway, JAL's A350 order does not exclude the 777X - they will almost certainly order 777-9X in due course.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, JAL's A350 order does not exclude the 777X - they will almost certainly order 777-9X in due course.
usually in engineering projects you will find that problems can be traced back to incomplete or incorrect specification
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But in all seriousness it seems that the operating environment specified was too narrow - after all, if the units hadn't passed Boeing's and the FAA's requirements and testing then they wouldn't have been fitted to the aircraft. Conditions faced on the line seem to have been outside the boundaries of the original spec.
The point being that no matter which company was contracted to develop and build the battery systems, if the spec was the same then they'd have still had the same problems vis. battery fires.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 11th Oct 2013 at 15:08.
