Airbus admits further delay on A380
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's just the standard problems and delays there are on any large aircraft program, but magnified according to the scale of the problem. All the same shrill voices were heard when the 747 nearly brought Boeing down, and helped Seattle into recession. But it recovered and became a money spinner. The 380 is the plane for the future- the 747 design has been stretched out as far as it will go, eventually customer acceptance of a 40 year old design will peter out. If Airbus comes through the forthcoming financial crisis, it will have a winner on its hands. Just think back to the days of the pre-war biplane passenger aircraft to the 747 entry into service. We've covered that same period since 747 entry into service! Has the human race stopped progressing?
But Foergard was, I think, a bit naughty. His deputy did not try the same thing out of respect for his company and integrity. His head will roll, as it should.
But Foergard was, I think, a bit naughty. His deputy did not try the same thing out of respect for his company and integrity. His head will roll, as it should.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SEA (or better PAE)
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello all.
For those of you mentioning 20% weight increase, just think how much "weight penalty" will this generate with the future operators.
20% is excessive, from my experience. This would be a huge mishap allowed only to programs that have full government support (like JSF, for example).
Even in that case someone has to be responsible and heads would already roll, I am quite sure about that.
Just a reminder for all of you: MD11 sunken McD because of an error in performance (lower range then expected).
What do you think would happen with A380 that has 20% of increased weight (vs. design weight)?
My guess is that they did not go more then single digits above max design weight. Since for A380 they did their structure with mostly "zero margin" (proved by the wing test mishap) I do not see such increase of weight possible.
Otherwise they would have to account for up to 20% of margin while designing which is excessive (and expensive, as well!).
So it is really hard to believe that 20% increase in weight is one of A380 problems.
For those of you complaining about how Long Beach facility doesn't show any McD memorabilia how about a feeling from people who used to fly Douglas airplanes when mc came in and bought them? I am sure that it was more or less the same.
Mc attributed nothing to the commercial side of the factory, they have just helped to bring down the whole thing. Too bad.
Cheers,
For those of you mentioning 20% weight increase, just think how much "weight penalty" will this generate with the future operators.
20% is excessive, from my experience. This would be a huge mishap allowed only to programs that have full government support (like JSF, for example).
Even in that case someone has to be responsible and heads would already roll, I am quite sure about that.
Just a reminder for all of you: MD11 sunken McD because of an error in performance (lower range then expected).
What do you think would happen with A380 that has 20% of increased weight (vs. design weight)?
My guess is that they did not go more then single digits above max design weight. Since for A380 they did their structure with mostly "zero margin" (proved by the wing test mishap) I do not see such increase of weight possible.
Otherwise they would have to account for up to 20% of margin while designing which is excessive (and expensive, as well!).
So it is really hard to believe that 20% increase in weight is one of A380 problems.
For those of you complaining about how Long Beach facility doesn't show any McD memorabilia how about a feeling from people who used to fly Douglas airplanes when mc came in and bought them? I am sure that it was more or less the same.
Mc attributed nothing to the commercial side of the factory, they have just helped to bring down the whole thing. Too bad.
Cheers,
Vapilot,
You said "Let us hope this will not be the end result. A weakened Airbus is not good for the airlines, Boeing or EADS".
Fully agree. Or for the downstream partners, employees, public at large etc et al.
Point is, politics consisting of the achievement of consensus, it's not really the best way of appointing managers. There's probably a law (a la Murphy or Sod) whereby the more politics you have at the top of the system, the less effective management's going to be. For some reason I'm led to believe that EADS has a fair amount of political input at the top. And as most of us know, when the sh!t hits the fan in a politically topheavy company, things slow down.
That is not to belittle the technical excellence of the engineers and managers who actually make it all work at Airbus. It's just that, usually, a less politically dominated company will probably be more expeditious in facing and solving the problems, techy or commercial, without having to worry about parliamentary or congressional hearings.
So, as to "what the French Government has to do", good luck! I just wish it was the actual shareholders deciding.
I agree with Rainboe as well re standard problems on new aircraft. Not so much with Singleseater; throwing money at a problem is a solution, yes, and that may eventually (probably will) be the solution found by EADS. But it's an emotional response and one could expect to see a lot more money thrown than is really necessary.
You said "Let us hope this will not be the end result. A weakened Airbus is not good for the airlines, Boeing or EADS".
Fully agree. Or for the downstream partners, employees, public at large etc et al.
Point is, politics consisting of the achievement of consensus, it's not really the best way of appointing managers. There's probably a law (a la Murphy or Sod) whereby the more politics you have at the top of the system, the less effective management's going to be. For some reason I'm led to believe that EADS has a fair amount of political input at the top. And as most of us know, when the sh!t hits the fan in a politically topheavy company, things slow down.
That is not to belittle the technical excellence of the engineers and managers who actually make it all work at Airbus. It's just that, usually, a less politically dominated company will probably be more expeditious in facing and solving the problems, techy or commercial, without having to worry about parliamentary or congressional hearings.
So, as to "what the French Government has to do", good luck! I just wish it was the actual shareholders deciding.
I agree with Rainboe as well re standard problems on new aircraft. Not so much with Singleseater; throwing money at a problem is a solution, yes, and that may eventually (probably will) be the solution found by EADS. But it's an emotional response and one could expect to see a lot more money thrown than is really necessary.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broadreach,
You have me wrong, I do believe AB will throw money around. However it will be at the airlines in the form of payments for late deliveries and below quote performance. I do not however believe it will be a long term solution. AB problems will only be fixed by a serious restructure in the board room.
You have me wrong, I do believe AB will throw money around. However it will be at the airlines in the form of payments for late deliveries and below quote performance. I do not however believe it will be a long term solution. AB problems will only be fixed by a serious restructure in the board room.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by taffman
The filter does not appear to be in the drop down list for thread tools
The Aquatone Article
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread should be closed and sent to the Pprune Hall of Fame. It's a classic of its kind, a double helix of two intertwined threads, one a fairly serious discussion about power politics in the EADS and Airbus Boardrooms, the other a farcical dialogue between a number of parties who appear to be seriously debating the possibility that the A380 is about 20% above its OEW target.
In this business you live or die in the last 3-4%, whatever the measure - load factor, burn, range, OEW, you name it.
The only exception in aviation in my experience are the members of the Spotting Community, and yes, on average, they are indeed about 20% overweight.
In this business you live or die in the last 3-4%, whatever the measure - load factor, burn, range, OEW, you name it.
The only exception in aviation in my experience are the members of the Spotting Community, and yes, on average, they are indeed about 20% overweight.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus having finacial problems
Turbulent times troubling Airbus
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5105312.stm
'Very concerned'
Firstly, Airbus announced last week that production problems meant customers would have to wait longer than expected for their new aircraft.
This was because the company had been trying too hard to meet wide-ranging demands from its customers, according to analyst Kieran Daly of Air Transport Intelligence.
"Airbus and indeed Boeing have been very concerned about this issue for a long time now," Mr Daly says.
"They've been warning the airlines, but the airlines tend to take the view that if they're going to buy the aircraft then it needs to be exactly what they think they can achieve for their passengers.
"In the end Airbus wants to please the airlines as best it can and maybe they were too indulgent early on. Now they're really wrestling with it."
Dave F.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5105312.stm
'Very concerned'
Firstly, Airbus announced last week that production problems meant customers would have to wait longer than expected for their new aircraft.
This was because the company had been trying too hard to meet wide-ranging demands from its customers, according to analyst Kieran Daly of Air Transport Intelligence.
"Airbus and indeed Boeing have been very concerned about this issue for a long time now," Mr Daly says.
"They've been warning the airlines, but the airlines tend to take the view that if they're going to buy the aircraft then it needs to be exactly what they think they can achieve for their passengers.
"In the end Airbus wants to please the airlines as best it can and maybe they were too indulgent early on. Now they're really wrestling with it."
Dave F.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Real World (TRW)
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another nail in the A380 coffin.
Is this another nail in the Airbus A380 coffin?
With airlines acutely aware of every dollar they spend, this is probably one more factor that is going to make the A380 undesirable.
With airlines acutely aware of every dollar they spend, this is probably one more factor that is going to make the A380 undesirable.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More trouble for Airbus.........
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/27/news...reut/index.htm
Forget the fact the QR are announcing an order for 20 777's. If the boss there loses his cool with Airbus it could all be over............
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/27/news...reut/index.htm
Forget the fact the QR are announcing an order for 20 777's. If the boss there loses his cool with Airbus it could all be over............
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: N Yorkshire, UK
Age: 76
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lost his Cool!!!
Originally Posted by CanAV8R
More trouble for Airbus.........
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/27/news...reut/index.htm
Forget the fact the QR are announcing an order for 20 777's. If the boss there loses his cool with Airbus it could all be over............
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/27/news...reut/index.htm
Forget the fact the QR are announcing an order for 20 777's. If the boss there loses his cool with Airbus it could all be over............
years agoPZU - Out of Africa
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Real World (TRW)
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is just increased cover due to the number of passengers carried
The airlines themselves?
Or their "customers"?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only assume that many of these posts knocking the A380 and other new aircraft are from people who have only been around aviation for five minutes.
You should hear what the said about the 707 what with engines falling off when you applied full power and the need to stop in Gander for fuel when westbound etc etc. And as for some of the other aircraft now succesfully in service....!
Given time, any problem can be sorted.
You should hear what the said about the 707 what with engines falling off when you applied full power and the need to stop in Gander for fuel when westbound etc etc. And as for some of the other aircraft now succesfully in service....!
Given time, any problem can be sorted.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines want to reduce seat mile costs, and airports have limited slots available. Best way to address both of those is with big aeroplanes.
That's why the A380 (especially when stretched - looks very short and stumpy in its present guise) has a great future. NIH from the US won't matter. This century belongs to the far east - 20th century was the US's, 19th was the UK's.
SSD
That's why the A380 (especially when stretched - looks very short and stumpy in its present guise) has a great future. NIH from the US won't matter. This century belongs to the far east - 20th century was the US's, 19th was the UK's.
SSD
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
This century belongs to the far east - 20th century was the US's, 19th was the UK's.
SSD
SSD
I personally foresee a long and fruitful career for the A380 and its many derivatives, once the oil price goes over 100 US a barril.