Article

2008-05-08 Europe

Airbus continues its long, slow downward spiral

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-05-08 11:10|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 "The A380 is already two years behind schedule because of wiring problems caused by mismatched design software. The problem wasn't discovered until the planes were on the assembly line."

When we were building the Mars lander, JPL hired a friend of mine to take all the CAD drawings and virtually put everything together. Sure enough, some parts did not fit. The parts were redesigned (correctly this time) before the lander was built.

This kind of mistake is inexcusable for Airbus.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2008-05-08 11:32|| 2008-05-08 11:32|| Front Page Top

#2 I really want to know what mismatched design software, because I call BS. That just does not happen (whole airframe wise), and if it did, I'd be seriously concerned about the rest of the bird.

Shifting to low cost is a losing game. By the time they shift, and have the quality and productivity back to where it was pre-shift, they'll be toast.

The war between Boeing and Airbus has already strained the subs just about as much as they can take. The 'radical measures' as they say, of finding new suppliers is joke. The re-qual time alone will make it out of this production cycle, and coupling that with forcing the subs to go low-cost adds to the time greatly.

EADS is spewing BS, and the industry knows it.

Also, stop bitching about the Dollar / Euro. You had decades of that advantage plus all the extra funding from the governments. The shoe is on the other foot now, so deal.

Posted by bombay">bombay 2008-05-08 11:55|| 2008-05-08 11:55|| Front Page Top

#3 Is this the one with the aluminum wiring?

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2008-05-08 12:05|| 2008-05-08 12:05|| Front Page Top

#4 Low bid and quality are contradictory propositions without good contract oversight. Inspection and oversight are easy things to "short" if the budget is under pressure.

I'm wondering how this all affects the A330 tanker proposal. Any rumors?

Posted by tipover 2008-05-08 12:33|| 2008-05-08 12:33|| Front Page Top

#5 Actually, going low bid / low cost country will force more inspection oversight into the manufacturing.

They'll have to re-qual, and that means source inspection and first article on everything. This will slow things up, cause a lot of re-work, and a lot of expedite.

Airbus / new subs, will be spending out the wazoo just to keep up with where they were.

Three to five years later, yeah, they may be lower cost and acceptable quality, but that is way to late for A380.

Posted by bombay">bombay 2008-05-08 12:46|| 2008-05-08 12:46|| Front Page Top

#6 About a year ago whith the dollar declining obvious and Airbus was looking for competant manufacturing facilities in the US, Boeing should have already bought the Boardwalk and Park Places of aircraft construction and then either sold it to errorbus at premium prices or starting making their own product, really turn the screws.

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-05-08 12:55|| 2008-05-08 12:55|| Front Page Top

#7 bombay, that assumes the company doing the outsourcing ( at any level) will send knowledgeable folks to do the necessary oversight, audits, FAIs, etc. Many times it is simply a : Are you qualified to (fill in a spec here)?"

If yes, send me a copy of your cert, love and kisses, Joe Customer.

and inspection doesn't build anything in; it merely stops the production run. until the suits in mahogany row yell, then the parts ship with non conforming paper hung on them. i present the 787 'travel work' debacle as exhibit A.
(AS/ISO auditor of >20 yrs)

Posted by USN, Ret. 2008-05-08 14:36|| 2008-05-08 14:36|| Front Page Top

#8 Delays are inevitable when the company has a 36 hour work week and everyone takes 60 days off per year.

Posted by DoDo 2008-05-08 16:21|| 2008-05-08 16:21|| Front Page Top

#9 Understood USN ... but a slight nit pick.

I was not speaking in-process, nor was I speaking, final or internal ISO/AS910x programs.

Source and First Article. That would come from Airbus themselves, and they would cream the new sub / outsource, which we both know THEY LOVE to do.

Plus this scenario is full re-qual of new lines in a low cost, and my point still stands.

Believe me, I understand where you are coming from. Especially as ISO/AS is only as good as your specific program and inspectors.

Having recently gone the rounds of major product moves and outsources for LM, Boeing and Gulf (Airbus too, but nothing compared to the first three) to low cost country, I can say they WILL catch things.

Original points stand however, Aribus can't seep under the rug in a new line scenario, will have tons of re-work and expedite (per your comment, inspection is after manufacutring) and will cost themselves more time and money than A380s limited window allows for - even if they get a non-conformance waiver from engineering ;)

Posted by bombay">bombay 2008-05-08 16:24|| 2008-05-08 16:24|| Front Page Top

#10 BB: I get those questionnaires from all the primes: please tell me how wunnerful you are.

They buy off whatever i send them, they send the check, we send the parts.
in a former life we referred to it as FIFIFIL: F*ck It Fly It, Fix It Later.

i have had 3 'annual re-quals' cnx'ed by at least 2 primes this year, and there are at least 2 others that have outsourecd their OWN supplier auditing process.
we agree on the macro, and are disagreeing about whether those dark specs in the potatoes are fly shit or pepper; there needs to be more oversight up front, including and especially during design.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2008-05-08 17:28|| 2008-05-08 17:28|| Front Page Top

#11 Oh yeah, I fully agree design side; esp. with Airbus recently.

I'm just saying, re-qual, in LCC, is going to be stringent (than an existing sub, this is a given). Take the LCC out of the equation, and yeah, agree with you mostly ... though re-qual with a new facility / line on an existing sub is still going to be more stringent in the begining, than existing sub with existing processes esp. per delegated inspection programs.

And the point still stands, EADS is spewing BS.

The solution is not new subs, nor LCC, nor, especially, new subs w/ LCC. Even if the corners are completley cut and it is slap em / ship em, they'll still spend more and run out of time.

I still contend new subs, in an LLC, will have more oversight than old subs and an established line.

Posted by bombay">bombay 2008-05-08 17:57|| 2008-05-08 17:57|| Front Page Top

#12 ***Fast

***Good Quality

***Reasonable Cost

Pick any two out of three. It's a start, heh.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2008-05-08 20:03|| 2008-05-08 20:03|| Front Page Top

#13 OK BB, we can agree on one thing EADS is shorthand for BS. Other topics warrant a debate over mass quantities of femented beverages

Posted by USN,Ret. (from home) 2008-05-08 23:50|| 2008-05-08 23:50|| Front Page Top

23:57 McZoid
23:52 McZoid
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:50 USN,Ret. (from home)
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:26 JosephMendiola
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:11 JosephMendiola
23:08 Secret Master
23:00 Abdominal Snowman
23:00 Procopius2k
22:59 Abdominal Snowman
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:39 Abdominal Snowman
22:39 JosephMendiola
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:29 g(r)omgoru
22:23 JosephMendiola
22:22 Gromoling Dark Lord of the Sith7535
22:21 JohnQC
22:12 JohnQC
22:11 OldSpook