sekantThe article sounds more a way to put pressure on the Brits to get more deeply involved in Afghanistan than anything else. This has been going for quite some time, and you find similar articles/pressure in Canada and other countries.
And frankly, the Times is so accustomed to posting articles on a supposedly imminent and deep crack in the special relationship with the US (i.e. every time that the UK dares not do exactly what is expected of her by the US) that their credibility on this subject is lower than zero.
sekantIn the WSJ of today – report of first deliveries:
Boeing Co. may further delay first deliveries of its flagship 787 Dreamliner by at least six months to account for the recent strike by union machinists and other snags.
According to people familiar with the situation, Boeing officials are expected to announce later this month that first deliveries of the fuel-efficient jet might not occur until summer 2010, more than two years after the jet was originally scheduled to enter service. Boeing’s most recent schedule called for initial deliveries in the third quarter of 2009.
sekantNews release from Bloomberg in the IHT of today: “Airbus said Monday that the first flight of the A400M military-transport plane was unlikely to take place before the second half of next year as it struggled with engine difficulties”.
So, kudos to Old shape, we’re heading toward a new lenghty delay.
sekantNo, I say again, I didn’t mention the Engines.
Anyway, “Holiday” may have been the wrong word to choose. I don’t know what’s entirely in the mind of Airbus Military but a two year stop of production is more or less what I meant. That means a holiday for all those except those involved in the design of the critically poor areas.
The A380 issues were solveable, they just needed to throw labour onto it. Some of the A400 problems have no known answer until some mighty bright people have spent a lot of time in a Rugby Scrum around a desk. I’m sure they will be solved, Airbus tends to rise to the challenge and to hell with the cost. Unfortunately Airbus Military is not Airbus Toulouse, and the two do not talk or exchange knowledge. I hope they crack it, it’s got the potential to be a winner. I heard today that certain parts of the Engine programme can be de-risked, because the Seville team had put too high (We already knew this) requirements in the event of a siezure. In case you don’t know a siezure on a prop is far worse than a jet engine, and with that stonking great prop on A400 the turning moment is massive. If it siezed the force would be enough to rip the fwd nacelle off but just before it snaps there will have been massive twist applied to the wing. Not only structural problems but the twist could have caused a static reaction (CFRP) in places where there is presently no static protection.
I’m just glad all these problems of building a CFRP “Big” platform are being found and sorted on a Military craft, before they start putting 280+ pax up there.
Thanks for the information and sorry for the mix-up. Wondering after your post whether there are tensions between Toulouse and Sevilla??
sekantThere is more than enough of this joke ! 😡 Lordassap / globalPress is ruining this thread….His longevity is quite exeptional here…. What are doing the mods ???
I second Arthuro. Could the mods please do something about this. It is ruining the thread.
And I am French.
sekantI didn’t say engines, other posters did. Apart from the engines, there are lots of other problems….structural, electrical, electronic, weight….you name it, it’s gone awry on that aeroplane. Maybe the tyres are OK.
I also did not say that the Fat Herc will be flying, I said it will be nearly flying…..meaning that if A400 took a holiday then LM would pile on the design and prove programme and accelerate it in order to capitalise on the hole in the market. If they want the market that is….maybe they don’t (But why launch the Fat Herc anyway if that’s the case?)
You could say it’s just a rumour, but as I’m involved in the aeroplane then it is a hard rumour. And most of the rumours put about in the industry and MoD corridors tend to be purposelly leaked in order to soften the blow of the actual announcement.
Deino, the Fat Herc is a new aeroplane. The lessons learnt from the 130J can be passed onto the Fatty. Let’s hope they keep it metal not CFRP.
I said some time ago that the forces want a workhorse, to be thrown about the sky, bounced down garbage airstrips in Africa and grunts leaping out of the back with their kit. Airbus military are giving them a Rolls Royce but without the reliability or the cheap cost. The last remark is just a dig at the fact of the cost over runs on A400 are between 5 and 10 fold the targets, even for the early sets on the learning curve. The design/admin costs must be more than 10 fold.
But hey, a lot of EEC jobs are depending on it so it needs to carry on. The nightmares of the A400 can be avoided on the A350. CFRP is not the panacea it was thought to be. From the evidence I’ve seen so far, the weight saving is negligable by the time you’ve added all the Lightning strike protection system onto it. The major stress bearing components are of course still metal anyway. The cost of making CFRP “Structural” parts is outrageously more expensive than bending ally or hogging out an ally billet. I say Structural because the class 2 and 3 stuff like panels, undercart doors and the like are possibly a little cheaper, in these cases the part count is reduced too. And of course the fire damage is a far greater risk, so anywhere there is heat or the potential of heat there is a lot of Titanium, Stainless Steel or ablative paints. The carbon fibres will melt at the temperature of the sun but the resin will go at about 265 degrees C. That’s cold in terms of a fire. All this fire retarding is very heavy and the ablative paints are very expensive. Basically, for the massive extra cost, is the weight that is actually saved worth it? This is a very important question. Boeing are of course finding out the same problems on the 787.In some cases the higher cost is worth it, where there really is a weight saving. I know of a Customer that is prepared to switch from an Ally part to a CFRP part and be prepared to pay $1,000 per lb for it. His part is presently 48lb, the CFRP version will be 36lb but with a vast part-count reduction. He is prepared to pay an extra $12,000 for that part, because saving 12lb on it is an obvious improvement in weight but it is also a critical CofG consideration because the part is behind the main gear. Basically if he saves 12lb there then he can reduce (I think it was 8lb) from a counterbalance near the nose.
Thank for the information.
You said in your previous post that the A400m may have to take a two years holiday, which is why I took it that you meant it would have to wait two more years for the engine to mature.
But I find your previous statement and this post a somehow contradictory. If, as you are saying in this post, the A400 has significant electronic, electrical and weight problems, the A400 will not take a holiday but, on the contrary, ways will have to be found to correct those defficiencies. And if what you are saying is correct, the fact that the Engine is not on time gives Airbus the time to correct those issues.
And I am a bit sceptical with the fact that the A400 would be plagued by so many issues. This is basically the same arguments that were used against the A380 when it was developped – that Airbus had weight problems, electronic issues…. Yes, the A380 was delayed, but for none of the reasons that were advanced up to first flight.
I agree however with the fact that we consistently develop gear which is way too technologically complex (and therefore expensive) for what we want in fact use it for.
sekantAlmost certainly it would. P&W motto is “Dependable Engines”.
The latest A400 news is that it may have to take a 2 year holiday. The worst is that it could be cancelled. IMO if they do have a “Stop work notice” for two years it will then be cancelled. We can’t keep labour on pegs for two years, the whole team(s) will disperse and find other work. In two years the “Fat Herc” will be nearly flying, and that platform has pedigree and sound engineering to build upon.
I’ll be mightily interest in you sharing your source as the engine taking two more years to mature. Is that hearsay or do you have hard evidence??
sekantHas Airbus reached the break even point yet with the A380 order book
No break even point is around the 400th unit. So far, 200 ordered and 50 options.
sekantso if this is the case, how does turkey get away with air attacks on kurds, israel on who ever they think neccessary? being an ally is like family, through thick and thin, not just the good guys. France pulling out of NATO was like taking the bat and ball home because people don’t do what you want.
.
1. The US is much more restrictive in terms of what can you do with your plane. Just ask the Brits about the issue of access to source code for the F-35, and this is one example among many. The US is also much more likely to embargo delivery of parts (ie stuff require to maintain the planes) if the recipient country dares elect a regime that does not meet the US political litmus test (ie if people dare elect a country a bit more to the left like in Venezuela).
2. You may want to enlighten us as to when France withdrew from NATO. Because the reality is that we never did and have been bound by article V. from 1949 to this day (I take it that you mistake the fact that we pulled out from the integrated military command – but that does not amount to withdrawing from NATO, far from it).
sekantArthuro,
The only allegations of bribery in Saudi Arabia relate to the earlier Al Yamamah (Typhoon/Hawk) programme and those charges remain unsubstantiated. The UK’s senior law officer decided that there was insufficient evidence to justify further action, and the circumstances of the payments (from HMG to the Saudi MODA, using BAE as the channel, but with all payments authorised by the UK government) have been made pretty clear.
Here, you must be kidding. The inquiry in Al-Yamama has been discontinued for political reasons. Smarmy Blair himself said it when explaining the reason for discontinuing the inquiry: “Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine. That strategic interest comes first.”
In other words, the inquiry was discontinued because the Saudis threatened the British government, including the threat of not going through with the EF deal. And there you have a clear link between the EF deal and corruption.
The French are not saints in the field of corruption, but an holier than tho attitude from the Anglo-saxon is simply laughable.
sekantThere is a similar Dassault/Mirage heritage in Brazil, and in the Gulf States, and indeed in Switzerland. I’d suspect that those existing links are important in Brazil, significant in the Gulf, and less so in Switzerland.
The Swiss are smart cookies, and I’d expect them to cut through the hype. Will they see Typhoon as being close to ready for multi-role, or still very much an AD fighter? What will they make of Rafale? Would they be happy to be potentially a first/only export customer, even if they do like it?
The Swiss have threatened to make a lot of their decision making/evaluation public, which should be interesting. 😀
The Swiss are likely to go Grippen, because that is the one aircraft that most closely meet their needs. They might go EF for political reason (easy to see why, Germany is their most important neighbour from an economic standpoint and politically, and on top of it you also please three other major European countries). Rafale has no chance whatsoever and Dassault is simply losing its time (I am not even speaking of the scandal that was linked to the purchase of Mirage III, although here it has to be said that the fault is not Dassaults).
sekantOne should always see that France
– had to start from zero after WW2
– was financially similarly constrained (including colonies)
– did also develop nuclear bombs and stuff in parallel.But why did France come out so much better, at least when you call independent better?
I guess the British government (or industry) failed in installing an effective organization that kept and maintained the knowledge and was adequately funded by the government. Just look what France built as aircraft in the 50ies (nothing truly advanced), in the 60ies (starting to become better), in the 70ies (establishing position) and finally now.
There are two factors that you would need to take into account if you want tocontrast the UK and France:
– the fact that the French have long been committed to retain a large degree of independence vis-Ã -vis the US, at least to a far greater degree than the British. I don’t know to what extent a French participation in the F-35 would have been possible or would be possible in a future programme of this nature (although with Sarko, one can fear the worst) given the issue of access to source code.
– the fact that the French state has a tradition of being more interventionist than its British counterpart. I can’t see a situation, for instance, where the French state would at least not try to salvage its car industry if it was about to go down. That’s probably why you have a larger number of national industrial champions in France (at least as far as I can see it, but I stand to be corrected).
sekantSomehow linked to the issue of this thread – article dated 1st november
The future of Boeing’s workers
——————————————————————————–
RichardAboulafia.com
Dear Fellow Aviation Tourists,
I grew up in Long Island. Somebody had to. It wasn’t without its consolations. LI was a major cluster of aircraft production, with a proud legacy of important planes, some of which helped win World War II. I tried to total it all and gave up after I got well above 30,000 aircraft. Unfortunately, the last Long Island plane – a Grumman F-14D – was delivered in 1992, eleven years after I moved away. That final plane affected me then, and it still affects me today. You see, aviation centers are almost impossible to create, but they can easily be destroyed. I think Seattle will be the next to go.
First, let’s define major cluster, or supercenter, or whatever. There are five aviation clusters in the world: Dallas-Fort Worth, Montreal, Puget Sound/Seattle, Toulouse, and Wichita. These zones either have one huge, dominant player (Seattle and Toulouse) or enough players to reach a similar level of critical mass (Fort Worth, Montreal, Wichita). There are many other important aviation sites – from Savannah to São Jose Dos Campos to Shenyang – but these five clusters are responsible for about 65% of the world’s aircraft production – roughly $80 billion in new deliveries. They also perform huge volumes of MRO, spares, development, and aero-engine work.
These clusters are historical legacies, created by wartime needs. In Europe, the last cluster and most historic clusters relate to Germany. To fight Germany, all of Great Britain and Northern Ireland became a giant aviation cluster. France located almost all of its aviation sites far from Germany, in Toulouse and the Southwest. Most of Russia’s aviation industry was also moved far away from Germany. Today, strangely, Germany’s aviation work is moving away from Germany too.
Aircraft clusters are fragile. Three of the biggest historical clusters– the UK, Southern California, and Long Island – no longer have major aircraft industries (although all retain a respectable presence in aerospace). The last UK civil jet was delivered in 2001, and after the Eurofighter and Hawk lines close, UK aircraft production will cease. The last California-built civil jet (a 717) was delivered in 2006. The last military jet (a C-17) will be delivered in the next five years.
These three clusters didn’t die because the market imploded – the end of World War II and the Cold War were painful, but the civil market has enjoyed long term growth. They died because manufacturing disaggregated and airframes became less important. The first trend meant that planes were assembled from structures built elsewhere. Britain gave up jetliners but got to build jetliner wings. The second trend meant that electronics and other components absorbed a greater part of each aircraft’s value. That also helped disaggregate aircraft manufacturing, along with lower transport costs and globalized trade links. When former 787 program manager Mike Bair proposed a supersite for future aircraft production (see my November 2007 letter), he was actually proposing a move back to the days before these developments transpired. Whether or not Bair had a good idea, the history of the aircraft industry has consistently moved against this concept.
State and local politicians can help defend clusters – look at Washington State’s tax breaks and incentives for Boeing. But politicians can’t create new clusters. The three biggest US state aerospace initiatives have accomplished very little. Alabama’s Airbus tanker efforts have been frustrated. Florida got some Embraer work, but the ACS program’s collapse and the DayJet disaster thwarted any real achievement. Then there’s New Mexico’s imbecilic Eclipse support, a failure in a class by itself. Efforts to create clusters outside the US have been failures too (although if Embraer’s business jet initiative works out São Jose Dos Campos will get there). Aviation is a defensive business.
Back to Seattle. IAM 751 undoubtedly has some legitimate grievances. Over the years, Boeing management has shown that it knows as much about labor relations as the producers of Predator III knew about science fiction. It doesn’t matter. This strike, following myriad others and with little hope of improved relations, will almost certainly precipitate a BCA exit. Over the next ten years, BCA will move to southern states with weaker unions and right-to-work laws that diminish union power. As the car companies realized, it’s easier to train flexible workers than it is to work with experienced but inflexible workers. Even the international auto makers have located in right-to-work states. Organized labor, like central air conditioning, has provided an enormous boost for economic development in the southern US.
This move will likely happen in phases, with new programs such as 737-X and 777-X established elsewhere and the 787 line shifting locations. Bair’s proposed supersite is the opposite of what will likely happen. The Puget Sound aviation cluster won’t be moved in one giant piece; rather, like every other ex-cluster, it will disaggregate. The final assembly lines will move to right-to-work states. Outsourced major airframe sections will continue to be shifted to multiple locations, either abroad or to right-to-work states.
Seattle has a much more diverse economy than it did 30 years ago when everything revolved around Boeing. The city won’t wind up like Detroit after the car guys left. Nevertheless, a BCA departure will hurt. Union manufacturing jobs provide a good wage, benefits, and a pension to workers who don’t need a university degree. My dad was a union man, albeit a white collar one. After the war, in a time when the government still cared about veterans, the GI bill gave him vocational training. He had his job for over 50 years with great benefits and a pension. That’s the kind of story you almost never hear these days. Those IAM 751 members may well have legitimate grievances. They also have little appreciation for the fragility of what they’ve got.
Southern California provides a good historical lesson for Seattle’s future. After LA ceased to be one of the world’s biggest aviation hubs, the economy survived, but much of the middle class disappeared. The area was left with a mix of lower paid service economy jobs and higher paid information-age jobs for people with degrees (the only thing left in the middle was government jobs). The extreme simplification: a mix of lawyers and the people serving them lattes.
I doubt any kind of settlement will prevent this BCA departure. When the striking Boeing machinists return to work, they should start saving for the future. If they want their children to have the same standard of living that they enjoy, they will need a university education. Even if the next generation follows the BCA lines to Texas, or wherever, they won’t have what the machinists have now.
As for Long Island, all that’s left are a few good museums, some aircraft electronics and component businesses, and a great special supplement in Newsday covering the last F-14 (July 21st 1992; available for a fee on Newsday’s website). And back here in right-to-work Fairfax, Virginia, we’ve updated the Citation Series, A380, Embraer’s Phenom/Legacy series, the C-5, CRJ series, and the Premier One. Have a great month.
Yours, Until Industry Analysts Unionize,
Richard Aboulafia
sekantIn fact easy access with RER B and then shuttle. Or métro and then shuttle. It goes fairly smoothly. The only thing, if you need to buy tickets it’s better to come not too late to avoid queuing up.
sekant“Rant mode ON”
Well, the short and uncomplicated answer his, in Saudi Arabia twenty years ago, there were some greased Arabian hands with British pounds, in Brasil the “Partido dos Trabalhadores” got a very substantial “help” from “French” sources (yes, Dassault) for the first Lula´s Presidential campaign…
The entire FX1 process, with Dassault having a “free hand” by means of Embraer was as rotten has most weapons deal´s in the world (a LOT).“Rant mode OFF”
Cynical? Me?! :diablo:
Do you have any sources regarding the Dassault/Lula claim?? Press articles, reports et al. ????
Sign In
