Hate to disagree with you, but the Airlines I deal with, and there are many, are totally at a loss of what to expect next. In fact one VP told me he has given up trying figure out what the hell is going on.
These rumours are publicized widely and are seriously read as published in Aviation journals.
None of this inspires any confidence in what Airbus is saying, and as a consequence whatever they say now is suspect!
Airbus A350XWB Version 29
Moderator: Latest news team
Maybe that’s the saddest situation of all.
All the Airbus bashing aside,, the incomprehensible continuing theme for them has been the refusal to listen to what the people that buy the product have been saying.
The last major change the airlines had to go public. Now we are hearing the same rumblings that they have been told that they have to match Boeing to be competitive.
Something else I picked up on. Boeing has throttled way back on the ramp up. Two issues,
1. With all the delays (and maybe anticipating more Airbus response delays) Boeing simply does not have to ramp up fast to have slots available when airlines need them. Huge savings to them, both in this product and having that cash and resources available for the next launch.
2. The suppliers were having problems meeting what was in front of them, and its a huge leap for all involved. That would have been more money for them before any was coming in, as well as Boeing resources. So, lots of pressure off them as well.
With all the Airbus delays, they are just killing themselves, and setting Boeing up to beat them up further.
That again raises the question, at what point does Airbus have to abandon the A380, as that’s the only product they can sacrifice, and still be a major player. If you aren’t going to get any money out of it for 20 years, do you give it up and put that money into a objective that will?
And I do not disagree there is a market there, but its how much of a market? Is it worth it? If they did not have the A380, they simply would buy more A350-1000s or 777-300s, ore a few 747-8s. A lot more of the former though.
All the Airbus bashing aside,, the incomprehensible continuing theme for them has been the refusal to listen to what the people that buy the product have been saying.
The last major change the airlines had to go public. Now we are hearing the same rumblings that they have been told that they have to match Boeing to be competitive.
Something else I picked up on. Boeing has throttled way back on the ramp up. Two issues,
1. With all the delays (and maybe anticipating more Airbus response delays) Boeing simply does not have to ramp up fast to have slots available when airlines need them. Huge savings to them, both in this product and having that cash and resources available for the next launch.
2. The suppliers were having problems meeting what was in front of them, and its a huge leap for all involved. That would have been more money for them before any was coming in, as well as Boeing resources. So, lots of pressure off them as well.
With all the Airbus delays, they are just killing themselves, and setting Boeing up to beat them up further.
That again raises the question, at what point does Airbus have to abandon the A380, as that’s the only product they can sacrifice, and still be a major player. If you aren’t going to get any money out of it for 20 years, do you give it up and put that money into a objective that will?
And I do not disagree there is a market there, but its how much of a market? Is it worth it? If they did not have the A380, they simply would buy more A350-1000s or 777-300s, ore a few 747-8s. A lot more of the former though.
Your view is totally correct! I must remind everyone that everyone including Boeing wants Airbus to survive and succeed! It's to everyones advantage that Airbus make it through this seemingly worsening mess they have found themselves in.Maybe that’s the saddest situation of all.
As we all know Airbus has some very difficult times ahead, many will suffer, employees, suppliers, and on and on. No one wants to make things worse than they already are, but sometimes Airbus is it's own worse enemy.
We all know the involvement of many countries involves large amounts of money, and they of course want to protect their investments and jobs in their countries, but all must share equally in the pain to ensure that Airbus has a chance to recover from its troubles.
Some massive layoffs and plant closures are looming, everyone must feel for those employees and suppliers that will be hurt, and hopefully their sacrifice's will ensure the survival of Airbus.
And for those of you who are too young to remember Boeing went through somewhat the same turmoil although for different causes:
http://www.historylink.org/essays/outpu ... le_id=1287
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
-
keen_watcher
- Posts: 31
- Joined: 23 May 2006, 00:00
Cannot agree more with bits44 last posting. Once a redundant employee of the avaiation industry a while ago, I just want both major manufactures to be successful and provide plenty of job opportunity.
Unfortunately, it seems a long and painful struggle, especially for salaried employees of AB and contractors is right at the door. See story below:
DATE: 02/02/07
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
Thousands of Airbus Deutschland employees protest after works council reveals Power8 plan to cut up to 8,000 jobs in Germany
By Helen Massy-Beresford
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ut-up.html
Unfortunately, it seems a long and painful struggle, especially for salaried employees of AB and contractors is right at the door. See story below:
DATE: 02/02/07
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
Thousands of Airbus Deutschland employees protest after works council reveals Power8 plan to cut up to 8,000 jobs in Germany
By Helen Massy-Beresford
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ut-up.html
On the people end, I whole heartedly agree. You put a part of a big part of your life into something, and then have it wrecked. The big guys aren’t the ones that get hurt, they always walk away with lots of bucks, good old boy networks get them other jobs, and the mess is left of the common person to survive.
I am seriously mixed feelings about competition, and despite what Boeing says, if Airbus just went away, they would be happy.
100% agreed that the competition is what pushes the quick improvements. But the question or issue is, it always comes at a big price. When I got out the door each day, I am not betting my whole existence on my work. I can have bad days and weeks, and still be fine.
Boeing or Airbus, each time they invest in a new aircraft, they are gambling that they got it right. That means they are gambling with people livelihoods as well. How many companies last 50 years? Ford is on the rocks and may well not survive. Yea, they did it to themselves, but who takes it in the shorts?
And what would we have if they didn’t push it. It would still be pretty even, a fairly big Boeing, smaller Lockheed and MD. Incremental, no huge disruptions, no need to farm out the work overseas. I am extremely parochial. I would rather see a very well off United States. I don’t want to see my country become like China, India or the horribly poverty stricken African countries.
Microsoft gives their people a very nice stable living with a monopoly. Sure they aren’t quite as slick as Apple, but do they care? They can pick and choose ideas over time, put them in the next operating system. People who have worked out a relationship with Microsoft for employment, do not have to worry about it all going to India.
So, yes things improve, and they also are hugely disruptive and wreck peoples lives and existence’s. Is it really worth it? I grew up in the 50s, things were stable, icons like Pan Am were there to stay. I look back now, and Pan Am is gone, Eastern is gone, Western is gone, Lockheed is out of commercial aircraft, MD is gone. Lots of people have lost their jobs, houses, husbands and wives, divorce and suicides and mental illness. Many have no health insurance, and those like me pay for their own. Where does it really get you?
Growing up, we only went someplace every 5-10 years, but when I needed to, or really wanted to, I could get there. It wasn’t cheap, but you could do it. Now hoards of people flow willy nilly from one end of the country and the world to other. The overwhelm the local communities, trash the place, foul the air, wreck beautiful spots. I like the old days, when maybe it took you 5 years to save up to get there, but when you did, it was still beautiful, not overly crowded and when you left, another person came in, not 2500 off a cruise ship.
So, I don’t think this is a good thing. I know it’s the way it is, and I am not going to rant and rave about it until I loose touch with reality. I still have to get up and go to work. But I think it needs to be kept in mind, that all this completion has enormous consequences, and they happen to the people least able to survive or overcome them. And I hope someday, it gets through, that when the last cheap source of labor is gone, that there is a middle ground we are better off in.
I am seriously mixed feelings about competition, and despite what Boeing says, if Airbus just went away, they would be happy.
100% agreed that the competition is what pushes the quick improvements. But the question or issue is, it always comes at a big price. When I got out the door each day, I am not betting my whole existence on my work. I can have bad days and weeks, and still be fine.
Boeing or Airbus, each time they invest in a new aircraft, they are gambling that they got it right. That means they are gambling with people livelihoods as well. How many companies last 50 years? Ford is on the rocks and may well not survive. Yea, they did it to themselves, but who takes it in the shorts?
And what would we have if they didn’t push it. It would still be pretty even, a fairly big Boeing, smaller Lockheed and MD. Incremental, no huge disruptions, no need to farm out the work overseas. I am extremely parochial. I would rather see a very well off United States. I don’t want to see my country become like China, India or the horribly poverty stricken African countries.
Microsoft gives their people a very nice stable living with a monopoly. Sure they aren’t quite as slick as Apple, but do they care? They can pick and choose ideas over time, put them in the next operating system. People who have worked out a relationship with Microsoft for employment, do not have to worry about it all going to India.
So, yes things improve, and they also are hugely disruptive and wreck peoples lives and existence’s. Is it really worth it? I grew up in the 50s, things were stable, icons like Pan Am were there to stay. I look back now, and Pan Am is gone, Eastern is gone, Western is gone, Lockheed is out of commercial aircraft, MD is gone. Lots of people have lost their jobs, houses, husbands and wives, divorce and suicides and mental illness. Many have no health insurance, and those like me pay for their own. Where does it really get you?
Growing up, we only went someplace every 5-10 years, but when I needed to, or really wanted to, I could get there. It wasn’t cheap, but you could do it. Now hoards of people flow willy nilly from one end of the country and the world to other. The overwhelm the local communities, trash the place, foul the air, wreck beautiful spots. I like the old days, when maybe it took you 5 years to save up to get there, but when you did, it was still beautiful, not overly crowded and when you left, another person came in, not 2500 off a cruise ship.
So, I don’t think this is a good thing. I know it’s the way it is, and I am not going to rant and rave about it until I loose touch with reality. I still have to get up and go to work. But I think it needs to be kept in mind, that all this completion has enormous consequences, and they happen to the people least able to survive or overcome them. And I hope someday, it gets through, that when the last cheap source of labor is gone, that there is a middle ground we are better off in.
This is some interesting commentary. There are some obvious inacuracies, but a pretty realistic outlook.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/ ... airbu.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... st_15.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/ ... airbu.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... st_15.html
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
RC-20 wrote "Boeing or Airbus, each time they invest in a new aircraft, they are gambling that they got it right. That means they are gambling with people livelihoods as well. How many companies last 50 years? Ford is on the rocks and may well not survive. Yea, they did it to themselves, but who takes it in the shorts?
Agree wholeheartedly. In an industry where big bucks and long lead times are the rule, this is the situation. Aircraft manufacturers have to conceive new products, develop preliminary designs and specifications, and then market them to the customer airlines, while promising certain capabilities and results many years out. Initial airline customers commit to the product sight unseen, but they get guarantees as to the performance.
The manufacturers have to sink $10's of billions into development and design, with no hope of seeing a dime until delivery (other than downpayments). 4-5 years out, when they deliver the product, things might have changed (economics, markets, customers, etc.) and then they might make money.
Big exposure and risk, just like going to Las Vegas with a big wad of money!! But in the end you are right - if things go bad, the execs walk away with big wallets while the workers get unemployment checks (for only 6 months).
Agree wholeheartedly. In an industry where big bucks and long lead times are the rule, this is the situation. Aircraft manufacturers have to conceive new products, develop preliminary designs and specifications, and then market them to the customer airlines, while promising certain capabilities and results many years out. Initial airline customers commit to the product sight unseen, but they get guarantees as to the performance.
The manufacturers have to sink $10's of billions into development and design, with no hope of seeing a dime until delivery (other than downpayments). 4-5 years out, when they deliver the product, things might have changed (economics, markets, customers, etc.) and then they might make money.
Big exposure and risk, just like going to Las Vegas with a big wad of money!! But in the end you are right - if things go bad, the execs walk away with big wallets while the workers get unemployment checks (for only 6 months).
Unfortunately for the 350 program, the main game going on at EADS/Airbus at the moment is about France trying to gain control of the Corporation.
These industrial political fights spill over into management and the general workforce, and divert everybodies attention from the real task at hand.
If Power8 results in more German job losses than French then expect some real industrial trouble.
Cheers
Ruscoe
These industrial political fights spill over into management and the general workforce, and divert everybodies attention from the real task at hand.
If Power8 results in more German job losses than French then expect some real industrial trouble.
Cheers
Ruscoe
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
This is most true! France is trying to grab the lion's share of the Airbus pot with production and design facilities. Current headlines just seem to confirm this and Germany is trying to keep it's production base safe. such Machevellian maneuverings do nothing to help the success of Airbus as a whole. Airbus was conceived as a political project and thus it remains!Ruscoe wrote:Unfortunately for the 350 program, the main game going on at EADS/Airbus at the moment is about France trying to gain control of the Corporation.
These industrial political fights spill over into management and the general workforce, and divert everybodies attention from the real task at hand.
If Power8 results in more German job losses than French then expect some real industrial trouble.
Cheers
Ruscoe
Lots of interesting rhetoric you guys, but you all miss the point.
If Airbus came up with an A350 built like the Junkers JU87, provided they gave performance guarantees that were acceptable, they would buy it.
The methodology of production is academic, all the airlines want are acceptable operating costs.
Airbus, just like Boeing, have made guarantees prior to design freeze.
Technology has given them this facility, and as an example, the A380, despite being slightly obese, has met its parameters, OFF THE DRAWING BOARD.
Cheers
Achace
If Airbus came up with an A350 built like the Junkers JU87, provided they gave performance guarantees that were acceptable, they would buy it.
The methodology of production is academic, all the airlines want are acceptable operating costs.
Airbus, just like Boeing, have made guarantees prior to design freeze.
Technology has given them this facility, and as an example, the A380, despite being slightly obese, has met its parameters, OFF THE DRAWING BOARD.
Cheers
Achace
-
keen_watcher
- Posts: 31
- Joined: 23 May 2006, 00:00
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
I agree. Political influence aside (and it does play a real part), an airline is looking for low life-cycle costs (purchase, fuel, maintenance, crew, spares, insurance, etc. costs). If the aircraft manufacturer will guarantee these costs with performance guarantees (and has a reputation for on-time delivery and product support), then the choice is simple.achace wrote:Lots of interesting rhetoric you guys, but you all miss the point.
If Airbus came up with an A350 built like the Junkers JU87, provided they gave performance guarantees that were acceptable, they would buy it.
The methodology of production is academic, all the airlines want are acceptable operating costs.
Airbus, just like Boeing, have made guarantees prior to design freeze.
Technology has given them this facility, and as an example, the A380, despite being slightly obese, has met its parameters, OFF THE DRAWING BOARD.
Cheers
Achace
Isn't it?
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
the last official rumour I heard was that Airbus were now seriously considering going to a wound composite ala 787, which is what I think customers wanted from the get go.
But on a serious note I've heard there may something announced along with the Power 8 program announcement!!!!!
But on a serious note I've heard there may something announced along with the Power 8 program announcement!!!!!
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
This level of Airbus fans versus Boeing fans is starting to produce an awful lot of tripe! 
Lets rationalize please!
Boeing designed the Sonic Cruiser, but no-one wanted it despite its technical merits.
Enter the 787 and bingo, they gave the airlines what they wanted, the results so far speak for themselves.
As a response, Airbus came up with the original 350, which just like the Sonic Cruiser, the airlines really did not like( I know they sold a few).
In response, they have now come up with the 350XWB, which appears to be turning a few heads, so perhaps they have it right.
The final design is not due until late next year, so please leave them to it.
Despite a lot of ill informed drivel appearing here, there are dedicated people at Airbus, just like at Boeing, who will come up with a technical solution that is commercially viable and acceptable.
Lets leave them to do their job.
Cheers
Achace
Lets rationalize please!
Boeing designed the Sonic Cruiser, but no-one wanted it despite its technical merits.
Enter the 787 and bingo, they gave the airlines what they wanted, the results so far speak for themselves.
As a response, Airbus came up with the original 350, which just like the Sonic Cruiser, the airlines really did not like( I know they sold a few).
In response, they have now come up with the 350XWB, which appears to be turning a few heads, so perhaps they have it right.
The final design is not due until late next year, so please leave them to it.
Despite a lot of ill informed drivel appearing here, there are dedicated people at Airbus, just like at Boeing, who will come up with a technical solution that is commercially viable and acceptable.
Lets leave them to do their job.
Cheers
Achace
I have said many times that i am both Airbus and Boeing fan. I am worried about the A350 and all of its delays. Aibus has fallen way behind Boeing in the widebody segment. I would love to see this bird fly while im still young 
Right now, US Airways has the A350 on order in whatever its final design will be. With the close coming expansion of US Airways, i dont think they will wait for the A350, since it has been pushed so far into the future
I dont think any other N American operators have ordered the A350 yet, right?
.
Right now, US Airways has the A350 on order in whatever its final design will be. With the close coming expansion of US Airways, i dont think they will wait for the A350, since it has been pushed so far into the future
I dont think any other N American operators have ordered the A350 yet, right?.
Theres nothing better than slow cooked fall off the bone BBQ, Texas style
Come on lets lighten up! this forum would be dry, uninteresting, and barely read if no one had an opinion, sometimes the info is wrong and thats ok, we all learn from mistakes, think how many things you have learned by being wrong!This level of Airbus fans versus Boeing fans is starting to produce an awful lot of tripe!
Lets rationalize please!
We all have favorite teams like "Real Madrid or Glasgow Rangers" and we can express our opinions on what we feel they are doing right or wrong, but in the end we are still fans.
Discussion, and opinions are what makes this interesting, and how better to hear others from around the world than to read it here.
If I want to read dry facts and figures I can go read technical manuals!
Have fun, lifes too short!
KT
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
You can't compare the Sonic Cruiser with the 350. The Sonic Cruiser was full of all kinds of new technology when it was proposed, which found it's way to the 787. The 350 was hardly any new technology at all.achace wrote: Boeing designed the Sonic Cruiser, but no-one wanted it despite its technical merits.
Enter the 787 and bingo, they gave the airlines what they wanted, the results so far speak for themselves.
As a response, Airbus came up with the original 350, which just like the Sonic Cruiser, the airlines really did not like( I know they sold a few).
In response, they have now come up with the 350XWB, which appears to be turning a few heads, so perhaps they have it right.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
An Airbus official spoke at a conference in Seattle. The Seattle newspaper reported on his talk . Go to:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... ource=mypi
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... ource=mypi