Airbus in trouble

[dchen]

Well, the long awaited Power 8 plan has been unveiled, and of course, the long awaited union protest also follows.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/airbus_dc;_ylt=A0WTUdwVPudFWnEAUAKfpWIB

Looks like the fate of Airbus may actually be in the hand of the union. It's kind of sad that the union doesn't look at the picture down the road.

This brings back the age old question. Is it good to have a company run by the government? And not just one, but multiple of them?

[Gannex]

Airbus is indeed in trouble, dchen, but I don't think it's because the company is "run by governments". Airbus is the victim of huge management blunders, especially with regard to wiring harnesses on the A380, and those blunders have nothing to do with governments; they're straigtforward mistakes made by senior management, and would have happened regardless of whether the company were privately or publicly owned.

Once A380 production ground to a complete standstill and orders for the huge aircraft started to look shaky, all hands at Airbus had to turn to mitigating that crisis as best they could. Design and manufacture of updated standard-sized airliners could not proceed, even though, as Boeing discovered to their delight, demand was very strong. So the conventional airliner market was left entirely to Boeing, while all Airbus could do is watch in despair and wonder if the A380 production line would ever get moving again.

It's hard for me to see how the government ownership of Airbus had anything to do with this.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I think the problem is that accountants run the world, not engineers :(

[dchen]

Airbus is indeed in trouble, dchen, but I don't think it's because the company is "run by governments". Airbus is the victim of huge management blunders, especially with regard to wiring harnesses on the A380, and those blunders have nothing to do with governments; they're straigtforward mistakes made by senior management, and would have happened regardless of whether the company were privately or publicly owned.

Once A380 production ground to a complete standstill and orders for the huge aircraft started to look shaky, all hands at Airbus had to turn to mitigating that crisis as best they could. Design and manufacture of updated standard-sized airliners could not proceed, even though, as Boeing discovered to their delight, demand was very strong. So the conventional airliner market was left entirely to Boeing, while all Airbus could do is watch in despair and wonder if the A380 production line would ever get moving again.

It's hard for me to see how the government ownership of Airbus had anything to do with this.


Just look at the reason behind Power 8 announcement. The reason is because Germany does not want Airbus to move the A350 fuselage work outside of Germany, even though France is better equip to work on composite fuselage. Also, both UK and Germany have threaten that if Airbus layoff is skewed to favor France, then they may cancel many of the contracts with EADS (parents of Airbus). That right there is direct influence from the government. Just read the last sentence of the article I linked in first post, because even European Transport official is saying government needs to stop influencing the work process of Airbus.

[Gannex]

I think the problem is that accountants run the world, not engineers :(

In this case, though, Jon Brown, it was the engineers who were to blame, not the numbers men. From what a friend was telling me (he's closely involved in the Boeing/Airbus competition), the design philosophy of the A380 was that, through the miracle of super-computing, no two planes need be the same. Each could be designed exactly according to the customer's needs, even insofar as having a completely customised electrical system throughout the aircraft.

This was an ambitious thought. On a Boeing 747, for example, there is a basic wiring system from which individualised variations can be made depending on the number of seats, etc. But on the Airbus, it was envisaged that each customer's wiring system would be designed from scratch, the computer translating the requirements into detailed specifications for manufacture by robots.

So the first few fuselages were ready to be wired and they found that the computer programme had not worked, and that every wiring harness was unuseable. Here is the real kicker, though. The only way to remedy the situation was to wire every aircraft entirely by hand, all three hundred miles of wire, or however much there is in each A380, had to be painstakingly snipped into millions of pieces of the right length, and assembled by electricians in the fuselage itself. No two harnesses could be the same, either, without failing to meet the contract.

While Airbus were waiting for the wiring to be done on the first few aircraft, manufacturing of other aircraft had to stop. There is only room in the factory for so many fuselages, and there was no room for more. So the entire production of the A380 stopped, for months, and now it's going on years.

Customers started to rebel. Lateness penalties are huge in most of these contracts, but even with payment of those penalties, some customers (Airbus is not saying how many) are refusing to keep their orders on the books and wait. Airbus has had to assure everyone that nothing, nothing will happen at Airbus until and unless the A380 starts moving again.

So updating the A320 has been virtually abandoned, and that aircraft, the bread-and-butter of the Airbus fleet, is now looking very old and out of date, while Boeing have done a fantastic job of improving the efficiency and environmental friendliness of their offering in the conventional market.

I may have some of this wrong, because I'm only repeating what I was told by this friend of mine who is involved in the business, but if I have understood the situation correctly, I would have to say, Jon Brown, that this is an engineering screw-up, par excellence, not a mistake of the accountants.

[dchen]

I may have some of this wrong, because I'm only repeating what I was told by this friend of mine who is involved in the business, but if I have understood the situation correctly, I would have to say, Jon Brown, that this is an engineering screw-up, par excellence, not a mistake of the accountants.

I can assure you it's not an engineering screwup. It's down right to the management screw up between Airbus Germany and Airbus France. The whole customization was too difficult was just a spin from Airbus, though it does have some truth to it. It's perfectly okay to customize the airplane, because some basic wiring will be the same (flight deck and standard flight hardware), and you can bet the customers get charge alot for the customization (same for both Boeing and Airbus).

The problem Airbus ran into is that Germany and France uses different version of Catia. I believe German were still using V5, whereas French were using V4. That means the files are not compatible, so the engineers could not pull the two together and get on with wiring. The wiring on each of the first few aircraft was initially done blindly, but that's because they have no good CAD drawing to go by. It's purely down to politic of what each office wants to use, and trust me, engineers don't get a say on the software.

BTW, I can tell you these info are not my direct knowledge, but I do work very close within this industry...

[maxu05]

I wouldn't fly in one of those things after hearing about all the screw ups. I'll stick to booking my flights aboard Boeings fleet I think :)

[Gannex]

you can bet the customers get charge alot for the customization (same for both Boeing and Airbus)....
Not so. Boeing have never offered the same degree of customisation, and Airbus sold their first few A380's at very low prices. They originally planned to break even on delivery 300 or so, but now it looks like they'll have to sell far more than that to avoid losses; it's quite possible that the A380 will become another Concorde, never repaying its R&D costs, ever. A sad end for a bold venture.

[McLeagle]

I can assure you it's not an engineering screwup. It's down right to the management screw up between Airbus Germany and Airbus France. The whole customization was too difficult was just a spin from Airbus, though it does have some truth to it. It's perfectly okay to customize the airplane, because some basic wiring will be the same (flight deck and standard flight hardware), and you can bet the customers get charge alot for the customization (same for both Boeing and Airbus).

The problem Airbus ran into is that Germany and France uses different version of Catia. I believe German were still using V5, whereas French were using V4. That means the files are not compatible, so the engineers could not pull the two together and get on with wiring. The wiring on each of the first few aircraft was initially done blindly, but that's because they have no good CAD drawing to go by. It's purely down to politic of what each office wants to use, and trust me, engineers don't get a say on the software.

BTW, I can tell you these info are not my direct knowledge, but I do work very close within this industry...

For the record, it's the French who have V5 and the Germans V4.

Yes, it is a management snafu. If we worked for the same company and the manager asked you to type the first part of a letter in MS Word, and asked me to finish it, in my Wordperfect, you can imagine the result. Clearly a management screwup.

HOWEVER, when the guys in Toulouse got the wiring CAD files from Hamburg and couldn't "install" them in the digital 3D mockup, somebody should have thought, ah, gee, we might have a problem here. So the engineers are no less to blame.

And the governments also merit fingers being pointed at them. It's a long, long story... this whole project started with big stars in a lot of people's eyes - especially, political types. Here was a chance to show up Boeing and the Yanks! Development work started about 1994 and the go-ahead was given in 2000. Although, by 2000 Airbus/EADS had been restructured, internally it still operated like the old days of Aerospatiale, etc.... and management was highly influenced by political interventions. It worked OK for a while - while Boeing was asleep and making their own blunders and scandals, fuel was cheap, and 9-11 hadn't happened. After 9-11, there should have been some serious reflection as to the viability of the program - political and management lack of foresight. And it seems wrong moves were taken almost every step of the way - but the dream to surpass the 747 just kept the show going. Problems (like the wiring) were not recognized or swept under the carpet. It eventually caught up to them (them all - the management, the engineers, the politicos, and even the shop floor guys, who put the first few planes together, and didn't raise any big red flags - hell, the first plane flew in April 05, and the wiring problem didn't come to light till mid 2006. Talk about being asleep at the switch!!!!!!!! ).

And now they've postponed development on the A380F for 10 years. They still are afraid to face truths - a 10 year deferment is, to all extents and purposes, a cancellation, but they won't call it that. Idiots. Just forget the freighter - nobody wants it anyway - and concentrate on the pax version. And get your asses in gear on the A350. Thanks to John Leahy these guys are still in la-la land.

Pity really. They were doing really well. They'll pull through OK though; the A320 is selling like there's no tomorrow, and the 330 is holding it's own for now. Mind you, if they carry on with the A350 as they are, they could find the hot water they're in now not getting any cooler.

Cheers

[McLeagle]

Not so. Boeing have never offered the same degree of customisation, and Airbus sold their first few A380's at very low prices. They originally planned to break even on delivery 300 or so, but now it looks like they'll have to sell far more than that to avoid losses; it's quite possible that the A380 will become another Concorde, never repaying its R&D costs, ever. A sad end for a bold venture.

Original break even was 240. It was later upped to 280; before the major problems. It has subsequently been raised to 420, but with an internal rate of return half of what was expected - an accounting trick so they wouldn't have to say breakeven is probably the far side of 600. With the demise of the freighter, their 420 number will probably rise to maybe 450, though the true number will be north of 650 for sure. Keep in mind that their numbers are based on production rates of 48 per year - a figure they won't attain until 2009 or even 2010. And, most importantly, they have nowhere near the size of order book to sustain that kind of production.

VS has deferred their orders (6, till 2013, iirc). ILFC has pushed theirs back (10; 2015, iirc). FedEx canceled their 10 F models; UPS hasn't, but Airbus has effectively shîtcanned the program so kiss those 10 goodbye. Kingfisher's 5 are for 2014 or beyond (iirc). So with 166 orders, less the 10 UPS, there's only 156, and only 135 to be delivered before 2012. Trouble is, their revised production schedule calls for 132 complete by end 2010. They got a huge problem - and though no-one's been saying it, the whole Power8 thing is to save $$$$$ (or, I guess, €€€€€) because this A380 will never - NEVER - make money, and they know it. It won't be a disaster like the Concorde (still the most beautiful and amazing civil aircraft ever built), but it won't be a 747 either, or 707, or even DC-8. This thing has MD-11 written all over it, or L-1011.

My 2 cents. Cheers

[dchen]

For the record, it's the French who have V5 and the Germans V4.

Cheers

Thanks, I meant V5 for French and V4 for Germany.

And just my opinion, I think Airbus needs to seriously think about their composite panel A350 design. I am not sure what they are trying to do, but composite is never meant to be build similar to an aluminum structure. You will lose alot of advantage of composite with the method they are proposing. I wonder if they don't have the manufacturing capability to build a true composite barrel?

[edv]

AH, the Concorde. I do wish they could somehow bring that one back.
It suffered a demise that it did not deserve, IMO.
I loved flying in that thing. Oh the caviar....

[Roamy]

I don't know why this is so surprising. 'Frogs" can't fly. In the airbus I was in the chief pilot sits in the left seat. the joystick is on the left side of the cockpit. 90 % of the pilots are right handed so nice that you build in this disadvantage when hauling around zillions of people. go figure

[McLeagle]

Thanks, I meant V5 for French and V4 for Germany.

And just my opinion, I think Airbus needs to seriously think about their composite panel A350 design. I am not sure what they are trying to do, but composite is never meant to be build similar to an aluminum structure. You will lose alot of advantage of composite with the method they are proposing. I wonder if they don't have the manufacturing capability to build a true composite barrel?

I agree completely. Imagine building a fiberglass boat with panels. That's good for more than just a laugh :D :D

You're also right about them not having the capability to do barrels; but then again, neither did Boeing a couple of years ago. They're looking at 6-7 years of development - they can develop the necessary capability in that time frame easily.

Frankly, I think it comes down to hubris on their part. They (especially that jerk Leahy) originally said they weren't building anything, that the A330 was better than the proposed 787. They called the 787 a Chinese A330 or a Plastic A330. Said plastic was not for planes (despite them building the A400M wing of CFRP). Then they said they'd do an A330NG, with new engines, and that would beat the Boeing. Then they introduced the A350, in aluminum. Talked about the problems of CFRP - ramp rash and whatnot; decried it's "unfixability"; said aluminum was better. Then A350 v2.0, aluminum with CFRP wing. Then several more variations, until they got it "right" at Farnborough - the A350XWB, but still metal fuselage - and still bitching in the airline industry. Finally, so far, the panel plane A350XWB. They just don't want to concede that Boeing was right and they were wrong. Expect an announcement of a barrel-build plane within a year; I have heard it's on the drawing boards - pardon me, on the Catia v5.0. Don't know how they'll save face though. :)

Another thing I find inexplicable. When they announced the XWB version, they said it is also to compete with the 777. That is A350-800 vs. 787-9, A350-900 vs. 777-200, A350-1000 vs. 777-300. Now granted that the XWB (eXtra Wide Body) is about 20 cm wider than the 787, but it is about 25 cm narrower than a 777. Calling this plane extra wide is chutzpah of the grandest variety. And they've left out a viable competitor to the 787-8 - Boeing's biggest selling model. They just don't get it.

Therein is a clue to their management problem.

Cheers

[McLeagle]

I don't know why this is so surprising. 'Frogs" can't fly. In the airbus I was in the chief pilot sits in the left seat. the joystick is on the left side of the cockpit. 90 % of the pilots are right handed so nice that you build in this disadvantage when hauling around zillions of people. go figure

The right-handed guys are supposed to be co-pilots and sit on the other side :p : :D
Only southpaws can be Captains ;)

[Roamy]

thats even more scary cuz only 10% are real captians

[McLeagle]

Too late to edit my original post (3rd above ^^^). Addition posted here.

Edit -- I should add that there is a case to be made for panel construction - if the panels are the full length of the plane or pretty near so. At least, say top and bottom panels, or sides are full length. This would eliminate the circumferential joints between barrels, and the thickened or reinforced parts at the edge of the panels where they are joined, become, in effect, logitudinal stringers, adding to the overall strength of the structure. Unfortunately, you'd then need very, very long autoclaves. It is doable, but most likely not the most efficient way.

[dchen]

Too late to edit my original post (3rd above ^^^). Addition posted here.

Edit -- I should add that there is a case to be made for panel construction - if the panels are the full length of the plane or pretty near so. At least, say top and bottom panels, or sides are full length. This would eliminate the circumferential joints between barrels, and the thickened or reinforced parts at the edge of the panels where they are joined, become, in effect, logitudinal stringers, adding to the overall strength of the structure. Unfortunately, you'd then need very, very long autoclaves. It is doable, but most likely not the most efficient way.

If that's their intention, I would think they may as well build the entire circumference continuously. The reason is that loads are not going to be just longitudinal, so you need something that supports the loads in other directions. By having long panels like that, you will be able to form longerons fairly easily, but the longerons will need to be construct specially to carry loads in the normal direction, which longerons are not designed to do. So it won't be able to support much radial loads (hoop stress), or tangential loads (as a component of bending load), only axial loads. Besides, the amount of fasteners you need for that kind of construction will probably offset the advantage of using composite.

I agree with you, I think Airbus is just trying to admit they are wrong without actually admitting it. With the trouble they are going through, I am almost at a point where I don't think we'll see A350 anytime soon. It's already behind the 787 by so many years, I think they may as well spend their time developing it right instead of rushing it out.

[Gannex]

Original break even was 240. It was later . . . raised to 420 . . . though the true number will be north of 650 for sure. Keep in mind that their numbers are based on production rates of 48 per year . . . And, most importantly, they have nowhere near the size of order book to sustain that kind of production.

VS has deferred their orders . . . ILFC has pushed theirs back . . . FedEx canceled their 10 F models; UPS hasn't . . . Kingfisher's 5 are for 2014 or beyond (iirc). So with 166 orders, less the 10 UPS, there's only 156 . . . This thing has MD-11 written all over it, or L-1011.
Thanks, McLeagle for this very interesting information. I have a couple of dumb questions though: who are VS, ILFC and Kingfisher? FedEx and UPS, I know, but those others are a mystery to me.

I can't add anything to the fascinating discussion you've been having with dchen, except to throw in a little of the pilot's perspective. Cathay Pacific, who operate both Boeing and Airbus equipment, were recently toying with the idea of placing fresh orders with Airbus for the A380. I was hearing about the internal discussions within the airline from a senior training captain there whom I used to fly with decades ago, and who is still a close friend. This very experienced pilot told me that he, and most of his colleagues, did everything they could to dissuade Cathay management from ordering the A380. He has thousands of hours on both Boeing and Airbus products, and he vastly prefers Boeing. Airbus aircraft, he says, are over-engineered, clever, but too clever by half. The fly-by-wire joysticks on the captain's left are a perfect example of this. Impressive engineering, especially when you hear how the pilot can modify the the gain rate, supposedly enabling him to give the stick precisely the feel that he prefers. But is it really an improvement over the traditional control columns that Boeing still use? Or is it just a case of showing off flashy technology to no purpose other than looking more advanced than the Americans?

As you probably know, Cathay Pacific did not end up ordering the A380.

[dchen]

Thanks, McLeagle for this very interesting information. I have a couple of dumb questions though: who are VS, ILFC and Kingfisher? FedEx and UPS, I know, but those others are a mystery to me.

I can't add anything to the fascinating discussion you've been having with dchen, except to throw in a little of the pilot's perspective. Cathay Pacific, who operate both Boeing and Airbus equipment, were recently toying with the idea of placing fresh orders with Airbus for the A380. I was hearing about the internal discussions within the airline from a senior training captain there whom I used to fly with decades ago, and who is still a close friend. This very experienced pilot told me that he, and most of his colleagues, did everything they could to dissuade Cathay management from ordering the A380. He has thousands of hours on both Boeing and Airbus products, and he vastly prefers Boeing. Airbus aircraft, he says, are over-engineered, clever, but too clever by half. The fly-by-wire joysticks on the captain's left are a perfect example of this. Impressive engineering, especially when you hear how the pilot can modify the the gain rate, supposedly enabling him to give the stick precisely the feel that he prefers. But is it really an improvement over the traditional control columns that Boeing still use? Or is it just a case of showing off flashy technology to no purpose other than looking more advanced than the Americans?

As you probably know, Cathay Pacific did not end up ordering the A380.


Gannex, IFLC is an airplane leasing company. The biggest one in the world I believe. They were the one who got Airbus to change the design of the A350, along with Singapore. They will buy airplanes from both Boeing and Airbus, then lease out to airlines out there. I think VS may have been VA, or Virgin Atlantic, because I believe they delayed the delivery of their airplane. I forgot who Kingfisher is, but probably another airline that ordered the A380.

I do agree that Airbus has quite an impressive cockpit. However, I still belive the KISS principle. Keep it simple stupid!!! If there is no need to go to the level of sophistication Airbus does, I don't know if it makes sense for them to do that. It's just more things to go wrong.

[BDunnell]

Airbus' current difficulties are not down to the concept of national ownership per se. However, there are very real problems relating to workshare between the different countries involved, and these are unquestionably political, rather than the fault of the Airbus management. Airbus' structure, even after Power8, is far from ideal. Looked at in harsh commercial terms, there is no reason for the company to retain a presence in the UK now that BAE Systems has sold its stake, yet it does. It would be far more sensible to relocate the UK manufacturing element to France or Germany, or, better still, move the whole lot into one country. Of course, the likes of Boeing outsource much of their production to companies around the world, in Boeing's case as far afield as Romania and South Korea, but don't forget that Airbus does this too. There is no question in my mind that Airbus would be a more efficient operation, and less prone to the effects of political infighting, if it was to be a one-country operation. The same would have been true of Eurofighter during its development process - the development of the EF2000 was slowed down no end by political, rather than company management, wrangling, mostly on the part of the Germans.

As for the specifics of Airbus' products, I don't think modernising the A320 family is necessarily a leading priority. It seems to be doing very well without any such moves, to the extent that Airbus has been a victim of its own success, with early delivery slots for new aircraft being very hard to come by.

[McLeagle]

Thanks, McLeagle for this very interesting information. I have a couple of dumb questions though: who are VS, ILFC and Kingfisher? FedEx and UPS, I know, but those others are a mystery to me.

I can't add anything to the fascinating discussion you've been having with dchen, except to throw in a little of the pilot's perspective. Cathay Pacific, who operate both Boeing and Airbus equipment, were recently toying with the idea of placing fresh orders with Airbus for the A380. I was hearing about the internal discussions within the airline from a senior training captain there whom I used to fly with decades ago, and who is still a close friend. This very experienced pilot told me that he, and most of his colleagues, did everything they could to dissuade Cathay management from ordering the A380. He has thousands of hours on both Boeing and Airbus products, and he vastly prefers Boeing. Airbus aircraft, he says, are over-engineered, clever, but too clever by half. The fly-by-wire joysticks on the captain's left are a perfect example of this. Impressive engineering, especially when you hear how the pilot can modify the the gain rate, supposedly enabling him to give the stick precisely the feel that he prefers. But is it really an improvement over the traditional control columns that Boeing still use? Or is it just a case of showing off flashy technology to no purpose other than looking more advanced than the Americans?

As you probably know, Cathay Pacific did not end up ordering the A380.

Sorry. I should not have used IATA codes on a non-airline forum. Every airline has a 2-place alphanumeric code. There are also ICAO codes (mostly 3-place, iirc), but they don't seem to be used much, except by ICAO, I guess. I spelled out Kingfisher, because I didn't know its code (just looked it up). Kingfisher is an new (upstart?) airline recently started in India by Vijay Mallya of the Mallya - Kingfisher Beer fortune. He ordred 30 or 40 A320s, some 330s and 340s, too, and 5 380s. I personally don't believe it will last - not long enough to get those 380s, anyway. Still, there are alot of people in India, and more everyday in the more affluent classes, so he may pull it off.

VS = Vigin Atlantic
FX = Fed Ex
5X = UPS
IT = Kingfisher
CX = Cathay Pacific

http://www.airlinecodes.co.uk/

ILFC is not an airline, hence no code; it is International Lease Finance Corporation founded and still led by Steven Udvar-Hazy - the world's largest aircraft lessor (or 2nd largest; GECAS may be bigger, I don't recall). Anyway, they own over 800 or so planes. If they won't buy your plane, it means there's no market for it - and they cancelled their 5 A380Fs - changed them to pax (pax=airline lingo for passengers) versions. They also deferred the whole order (10) of A380s to 2013 or whenever, meaning they had no lease prospects and couldn't take $3 billion worth of planes to have them sit on the ground. No other lessor has ordered the A380, either.

And while I'm on the A380's prospects, I have serious doubts that EK (Emirates) will take their entire order. They have 45 on order; they just ordered 40+ 777s and are looking at 100 787s or A350s. I'll grant you that airline travel is booming, and EK is growing like gangbusters, but IMHO, it will all run into a brick wall in the (not too distant??) future. Their business model is based on the big hub in Dubai, and , IMHO, soon, with the traffic increasing tremendously and new airlines sprouting up everywhere in Asia, people will be flying direct to their destination and bypassing Dubai. And on the A380 itself, its business case is the cheaper cost per airline seat mile (CASM), but that only happens if you actually have 500+ people on every flight. I am not convinced this will happen - especially as the 787 (and maybe A350) offers the same low CASM, and far more flexibility.

And those 45 EK planes are better than 25% of Airbus' order book - also not good for Airbus.

As for CX buying the A380, i'm sure they've tossed it around; if you are a major airline and haven't given it some thought, you're stupid. However, like BA (British) and a few others they didn't bite. After the plane is in service, if it proves to be a winner you'll see a few more orders; however I remain dubious it will ever break even.

When the 747 came out, it was successful, not because it could carry twice as many people, but because it could fly twice as far. It was the only craft that could fly almost twice as far as anything then in the sky. Today, several craft have the same or more range than the A380. And the whole raison d'être of the 787 (and Airbus' own 350) is to fly 8000+ nm (A380=8000nm). Would you rather fly from, say, Manchester, UK to Bangalore, India and have to change planes at Heathrow and Dubai, or fly direct? There was a time when the "hub" model was the only financially viable way. With the 787, it is small enough that it can be filled on such a thin route, yet it still gives the cost savings of the jumbos. And the jumbos can't fly to these smaller airports, nor are the routes from those cities popular enough to fill those planes. 747 pax version sales started petering out 10 years ago - there was a reason! Airbus wasn't paying attention. And on top of it all, Boeing has now introduced a slightly larger 747 (747-8) that will eat into some 380 sales. Boeing's plane, being an upgrade of the existing 747, is rather cheap to develop compared to the clean-sheet design of the 380. And more than that, Boeing has already accumulated many freighter sales for that plane, and will get many more. If they never sell a pax version, they'll still make money. Unfortunatly, Airbus' 380F is a dog (too light floor loading) and as discussed before, is basically dead. And BTW, Boeing have sold a few pax 747-8s already -- 20 to LH (Lufthansa). And I am certain you'll see them at CX and BA as well. As the thread title says, Airbus is in trouble; this A380 program is like a knife in its gut. And the lack of a current competitor to the 787 is driving the knife in deeper and twisting it.

Boeing has in excess of 450 orders for the 787. Airbus, had 100 orders for the original A350 from loyal Airbus customers; they are no longer building that plane - they are building a larger and more expensive A350XWB, and so far only AY (Finnair) has reupped for that one (9 planes, iirc) and they got 'em for the same price as the old plane. Airbus is making no profit on those planes... and now all the other customers want the same old contracted price... This may yet turn out to be as big a fiasco as the A380.

As for the "joystick" cockpit of the Aibuses, I can't say, as I've never flown one (have not flown anything larger than a Navajo Chieftain). I've heard most pilots don't have a problem with it. For comparison, when PCs first came out with the mouse, I swore I'd never be able to use it - hated it in fact - now it's second nature and rather automatic. However, to agree with you, I can't work that mouse very well with my left hand ;) I suppose if I had to, I might get used to it.

BTW, if you think I am harsh on Airbus, you should check out this website (http://www.****france.com/read.html?postid=2455528&replies=12).

Sorry for going over the usual 2 cent limit. Cheers.

[BDunnell]

And on top of it all, Boeing has now introduced a slightly larger 747 (747-8) that will eat into some 380 sales. Boeing's plane, being an upgrade of the existing 747, is rather cheap to develop compared to the clean-sheet design of the 380. And more than that, Boeing has already accumulated many freighter sales for that plane, and will get many more. If they never sell a pax version, they'll still make money.

Boeing, unlike Airbus, refuses to disclose the point at which their aircraft programmes will break even. I have my doubts as to whether the 747-8 would break even on the basis of freighter orders. The 747-8 freighter is an expensive proposition - this is why there is still a healthy market for 747-400 freighter conversions. However, I have no doubt that the passenger (or Intercontinental) variant will notch up some more big orders soon, so I can't see Boeing worrying about the programme failing.


As for the "joystick" cockpit of the Aibuses, I can't say, as I've never flown one (have not flown anything larger than a Navajo Chieftain). I've heard most pilots don't have a problem with it.

This is generally my understanding. I would imagine, though, that some pilots may have lingering doubts over Airbus' reliance on fly-by-wire after the early A320 accidents in the late 1980s.

[McLeagle]

Airbus' current difficulties are not down to the concept of national ownership per se. However, there are very real problems relating to workshare between the different countries involved, and these are unquestionably political, rather than the fault of the Airbus management. Airbus' structure, even after Power8, is far from ideal. Looked at in harsh commercial terms, there is no reason for the company to retain a presence in the UK now that BAE Systems has sold its stake, yet it does. It would be far more sensible to relocate the UK manufacturing element to France or Germany, or, better still, move the whole lot into one country. Of course, the likes of Boeing outsource much of their production to companies around the world, in Boeing's case as far afield as Romania and South Korea, but don't forget that Airbus does this too. There is no question in my mind that Airbus would be a more efficient operation, and less prone to the effects of political infighting, if it was to be a one-country operation. The same would have been true of Eurofighter during its development process - the development of the EF2000 was slowed down no end by political, rather than company management, wrangling, mostly on the part of the Germans.

As for the specifics of Airbus' products, I don't think modernising the A320 family is necessarily a leading priority. It seems to be doing very well without any such moves, to the extent that Airbus has been a victim of its own success, with early delivery slots for new aircraft being very hard to come by.

I agree in essence with what you say, except for that last bit (which I emphasized).

The A320 is Airbus' bread and butter. It is the only thing that is keeping the company afloat.

The 380 is in trouble; it won't have profits for years, if ever. The 340 is dead; EK have canceled their remaining orders and VS have deferred theirs for years. Only the recent LH order is a sign of hope, but this plane is essentially for the history books now. The 330? Recent sales have been at bargain-basement prices and as "compensation" for late delivery of 380s. It will keep going for a while, but is no longer bringing home any bacon. The 350 is going to be a money pit for the next 7 or 8 years. Whereas Boeing developed the 787 in 4-5 years and at a cost of roughly $10 billion, Airbus is allocating $12+ billion and 6-7 years, not to mention the couple of years and ~$1 billion they've already flushed on the A350 v1.0, v2.0... where are they now? I think it's v7.0.

You're right about the success of the 320, and it has led the market for several years, but last year, the 737 outsold it. And with 777, 787, 747F sales going strong, Boeing has more wiggle room on 737 pricing, and regardless how good a plane the 320 is (and it is), Boeing will be making the A320's life difficult.

Here is the real problem for Airbus. The 787 will fly this year and be in service in 2008. The thousands of engineers that will be finished with that program will go on to the 737RS or Y1 - the 737 replacement. It will be a new composite plane with new more efficient engines (to be available in about 5-6 years). It will kill the 320 (and 737), like the 330 did to 767, and 787 to 330/340. And Boeing can afford to fund this development with strong revenue from 747F, 777, 787 and 737 itself. Meanwhile, Airbus is pouring engineering resources and $€$€$€ into the 350. Even if it re-engines the 320 when those new jets are available, the new 737RS (or whatever they call it... 797?) will eat it alive. Embraer is already chewing the lower end of the Airbus market (A318), and are looking at slightly bigger planes (as are Bombardier, and the Russians).

Airbus indeed is going to have to perform some miracles - and their structure, as you say, may preclude that. One saving grace - the airline industry needs 2 healthy competitors; no-one wants to be at the mercy of Boeing (or Airbus), so the industry itself will probably keep buying enough Airbi to keep it alive. Good luck to them.

Cheers

[BDunnell]

On reflection, I agree with you.

[dchen]

Just to follow up. UPS has officially cancelled their A380F. Looks like that program is dead in water, since Airbus themselves are putting a hold on the development of the freighter.

I think it's healthy to have 2 strong competitors in the market, but I really have to wonder how Airbus will get out of this hole. The Power 8 makes sense, but how are they going to defeat the union without losing more money?

[Dave B]

Would you rather fly from, say, Manchester, UK to Bangalore, India and have to change planes at Heathrow and Dubai, or fly direct? There was a time when the "hub" model was the only financially viable way. With the 787, it is small enough that it can be filled on such a thin route, yet it still gives the cost savings of the jumbos. And the jumbos can't fly to these smaller airports, nor are the routes from those cities popular enough to fill those planes.

And that, in a nutshell, is the biggest problem the 380 faces. It will always have limited routes because only a handful of airports will have the facilities to handle it.

[dchen]

And that, in a nutshell, is the biggest problem the 380 faces. It will always have limited routes because only a handful of airports will have the facilities to handle it.

Here is another thing I am sure most people will not look forward to. Board an A380. I already hate boarding a 747, and that's only at about 383 passenger capacity (per the arrange of the airline I take), so imaging boarding an extra 150 passengers.

Not to mention you have Emirate who has asked for all coach version, meaning 800 passengers. And at one time they asked for the stretch version!!! I don't know if I want to be in a cramp place with that many people...

[bowler]

UPS have now cancelled since delivery dates extended from 2009, to 2010, then 2012, now later after resources diverted to pax planes.

[Gannex]

Here is another thing I am sure most people will not look forward to. Board an A380. I already hate boarding a 747, and that's only at about 383 passenger capacity (per the arrange of the airline I take), so imaging boarding an extra 150 passengers.

Not to mention you have Emirate who has asked for all coach version, meaning 800 passengers. And at one time they asked for the stretch version!!! I don't know if I want to be in a cramp place with that many people...
I'm with you on this one, dchen. As a passenger, I am not looking forward to the 380 at all. My son, fifteen, can't wait, and keeps asking when the first opportunity to book a seat will be. I, fortunately, have been able to tell him, completely truthfully, nobody knows. So in that sense, I'm delighted at all the troubles they're having getting the A380 into passenger service.

I'm old enough to remember the first B-747 flights. I was urged to get on one, if I had any choice, and I couldn't wait to do it. It was awesome, so different from anything I'd ever been on before -- two aisles!!! Space!!!!

No similar excitement for me attends the launch of this god-forsaken giant.

Which brings me to Concorde.


AH, the Concorde. . . . I loved flying in that thing.

I never set foot in Concorde, and could never understand why others wanted to, or, having experienced it, wanted to do it again. That aircraft is tiny, by airliner standards, with very small windows and must have been an awful place to spend a couple of hours. Can fancy champagne and knowing, without any sensation of it at all, that you are flying quickly, make up for an otherwise unpleasantly small cabin? edv, can you explain what the appeal was, because I could never understand it.

[tinchote]

I don't know why this is so surprising. 'Frogs" can't fly. In the airbus I was in the chief pilot sits in the left seat. the joystick is on the left side of the cockpit. 90 % of the pilots are right handed so nice that you build in this disadvantage when hauling around zillions of people. go figure

In any Boeing plane (and in any plane where pilot and copilot sit side by side), the pilot has to fly with the left hand while he does anything else (flaps, throttle, etc.) So I don't see the big difference.

In any case, in one of those planes the pilot does very little "flying", if by that you mean use of the controls. And in an Airbus, the computer will limit any manouver before it exceeds the plane's limits, so it is not really necessary to be gentle with the commands. It's not romantic, but it is very efficient.

[Gannex]

. . .in an Airbus, the computer will limit any manouver before it exceeds the plane's limits, so it is not really necessary to be gentle with the commands. It's not romantic, but it is very efficient.
Airbus boasts about its safety overrides which, as you say, limit control surface movements and, supposedly, prevent clumsy pilots from overstressing the airframe or losing control. But is this really a safety benefit? When is the last time you read a headline saying that a Boeing 737's wing had broken off as the pilot pulled up too abruptly from a dive, or that a 747 hit the ground after a pilot inadvertently scrubbed off altitude by banking the aircraft at 80 degrees for minutes on end? These stability overrides are a solution to a non-problem, designed to appeal only to marketing executives. It is typical of Airbus. Too much cleverness; too little substance.

[tinchote]

Airbus boasts about its safety overrides which, as you say, limit control surface movements and, supposedly, prevent clumsy pilots from overstressing the airframe or losing control. But is this really a safety benefit? When is the last time you read a headline saying that a Boeing 737's wing had broken off as the pilot pulled up too abruptly from a dive, or that a 747 hit the ground after a pilot inadvertently scrubbed off altitude by banking the aircraft at 80 degrees for minutes on end? These stability overrides are a solution to a non-problem, designed to appeal only to marketing executives. It is typical of Airbus. Too much cleverness; too little substance.


Could be. But I remember a couple of friends, both airline pilots, commenting how easy it was, on an Airbus, to achieve the optimum rate of climb.

As for pilots overshooting their aircraft's capabilities, the first case that comes to mind is the B52 five to ten years ago. One of the biggest accidents in Argentina's history was in 99, a 737 did the take-off run with the flaps up. The pilots, several crew members and many passengers died.

I could probably spend time searching for examples. But I don't think it's the point. When you put a couple hundred persons lives at stake, no security is too much.

[A Scotsman]

I don't understand why aircraft still use huge copper wiring looms anyway. Surely the way forward has to be optical networks which can carry far more data. Lockheed developed an optical buss network some years ago and that was flight trialled in a C130..

One of my sons is a composite structures boffin and did work for Airbus but now works for Boeing.. Talking to him he says all the real knowledge about composite structures is in Airbus UK which of course we no longer own.

Anyway I think the future of aviation is here www.eclipseaviation.com (http://www.eclipseaviation.com) . These look like a lot more fun!

[Gannex]

One of the biggest accidents in Argentina's history was in 99, a 737 did the take-off run with the flaps up. The pilots, several crew members and many passengers died.
I think these genius pilots would have crashed even in an Airbus, tinchote!

[Gannex]

I don't understand why aircraft still use huge copper wiring looms anyway. Surely the way forward has to be optical networks which can carry far more data. Lockheed developed an optical buss network some years ago and that was flight trialled in a C130.

Optical networks might be fine for moving data, but what about electricity? Can you transmit electrical power down optical fibres?

If you can send electricity down an optical fibre, why would that be cheaper or easier to work with than wire?

[tinchote]

I think these genius pilots would have crashed even in an Airbus, tinchote!

I tend to agree. Although it was not totally their fault. The company had such lousy maintenance, that false sensor alarms were common. In this case the pilots run the full extent of the runway with the alarm beeping about the flaps being up, and still they kept attempting to take-off. It looks like they were used at their copkit beeping at them :mark:

On the other hand, the pilot had failed several times at the simulator in previous years :eek:

By the way, there is a movie about this accident, where the director is a former pilot of that company, that quit a few months before the accident, precisely because of the poor maintenance. The movie is called "Whisky Romeo Zulu". I don't really know if there is an English version.

[Gannex]

I used to live on those kind of movies. I was so sad that I used to take Nat'l Transportation Safety Board accident reports to bed at night.

[A Scotsman]

Optical networks might be fine for moving data, but what about electricity? Can you transmit electrical power down optical fibres?

If you can send electricity down an optical fibre, why would that be cheaper or easier to work with than wire?

No you can't but you can simplify the electrical grid considerably by making it in effect a sort of ring main that supplies power to everthing that needs it and using an optical ring main to carry the instructions to switch things on and off and collect data. In theory then you only need two cables - one optical, one electrical.. You wouldn't do that in practice of course because you'd want to ensure lots of redundancy although with optical busses even if you cut it the data still gets to where it should because it runs bidirectionally.

Optical fibres are beginning to be used in cars. I was over in Germany a couple of years ago at the Mercedes research centre (which is the size of a small town) and they showed me some work they were doing using plastic fibre optic cables for interconnecting hi fi and other stuff..

In fact I seem to remember someone telling me that either Boeing or Airbus has been using or experimenting with these for interconnecting these new LCD screens some aircraft have got on seat backs for watching movies...

[McLeagle]

<snip>
In fact I seem to remember someone telling me that either Boeing or Airbus has been using or experimenting with these for interconnecting these new LCD screens some aircraft have got on seat backs for watching movies...

If I'm not mistaken, the Boeing 787 was originally going to use wireless signals for all the IFE (in-flight entertainment - the LCDs on the seatbacks) and even for some other functions. I haven't kept abreast, but I believe the idea was shelved because of reliability problems (or something??). However I won't be surprised to see wireless for non-operational functions in the near future, once they get these problems resolved. There is a weight savings there, as well as less labor and complexity in the original installation.

Fibre optic control "wiring" already exists in many non-aviation situations. Again, I'm not up-to-date, but I believe there is already significant inroads in aviation as well. Its implementation is not too difficult - if you want to move a rudder, let's say, you send a signal (data) via fibre optics to the back of the plane where an electric motor, powered from the closest buss, responds accordingly. If these are tiny motors, or solenoids, operating hydraulic valving, the power consumption is minuscule, and thus the electrical wiring thinner and lighter.

I'll stop here because this subject is, well... endless, I think.

Cheers

[dchen]

One of my sons is a composite structures boffin and did work for Airbus but now works for Boeing.. Talking to him he says all the real knowledge about composite structures is in Airbus UK which of course we no longer own.

Anyway I think the future of aviation is here www.eclipseaviation.com (http://www.eclipseaviation.com) . These look like a lot more fun!

In term of commercial production, perhaps the composite expertise is in UK, but in term of military composite, I can pretty much guarantee that's in US. Remember, Boeing has a huge defense unit that has dealt with some of the most advanced composite aircrafts ever built.

I think everyone is looking forward to Eclipse's airplane flying. However, I think many are also looking forward to Honda Jet. It'll be interesting to see how that market shape up.