4 ms·

But why is Airbus so much better ?

by xwolfi 3y ago

_heimdall 3y ago
I don't known nearly as much about thisyhud specifically, but I've seen compelling arguments for how the Boeing merger really damaged leadership and the company as a whole. I can't vouch for that personally, but it was convincing to me. Moreover though, if my original argument is right, the failing system of regulation will fail slowly (presumably then all at once). The FAA and other bodies involved in the air industry may be broken, but it still takes a kick to push a company over the edge. A company like Airbus could continue to operate extremely well despite the broken system, though I'd argue with enough time they will be hit by it as well.
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
Germans. OK, seriously though, when it comes to outsourcing, it's because Airbus/CASA rigorously defined systems interfaces and all sorts of other stuff before outsourcing design. I've been a part of the supplier chain there, and it's intense, but it means your part's got a good shot of slotting in the first time. 787 - and a whole truckload of BDS work - it's less "strict systems interface" and more "what is systems interface". You can get decades pass where the part still doesn't fit.
- calf 3y ago
  So then is the 787 considered a safe plane? Compared to the 777 and 747? I've read many positive comments by flyers, but less focusing on its safety.
  - MilStdJunkie 3y ago
    It might be now? Honestly, it probably is, given the reworks. But the problem with the Eight, at least initially, was the way the suppliers were organized. Or, more specifically, how they weren't organized. Boeing had flushed through a half dozen generation of Systems Engineers in the aughties, and no one really had a half chance to get familiar with anything that was laid down before. Suppliers generally took their best guess and went with it - that's where we were, at the time, because it proved completely impossible to make any contact with a person at Boeing who knew what the FMS data bus was . . or, on most days, even what a FMS data bus was. So we guessed either ARINC429 or ARINC664 and got (mostly!!) lucky. There were also some . . ah, I don't want to say "bad" . . so let's say, "non-technical" SEs . . who advocated for their own vision vis a vis SE and supplier management. In short, this was a giant mish mish, and, speaking for myself, it colored my personal perception of Systems Engineering as a discipline to this day. While you get some real SE rockstars, you also get an epidemic of shysters with mild sociopathy, and it takes good, technical leadership to tell one from the other. Keep in mind this was . . sheesh . . almost two decades ago, so take it all with a grain of salt.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      System Engineering is a technical profession. I honestly don't think is does anyone any good to avoid calling nontechnical SEs bad at the job. The truth is important especially when it leads to the development of metal tubes that fly 150+ people through the air at hundred of miles per hour. With that said, a nontechnical SE is a sign of a fundamentally broken system and org. Someone had to hire them for the role. Meaning they were interviewed and deemed fit for the role, likely with room to grow given more experience and opportunities to learn from. While I would say a nontechnical SE is bad st their job, stopping there doesn't fix the problem at all and its important that the context of why they had that job isn't lost.
dotnet00 3y ago
They've probably just managed to avoid gaining such an extreme cost cutting culture that Boeing management is believed to have. Probably also less openly corrupt politicians over in Europe. Congress-critters don't even really make an effort to hide that they're at Boeing's beck and call.
cpursley 3y ago
Fewer MBAs in Europe.

But why is Airbus so much better ?

by xwolfi 3y ago

But why is Airbus so much better ?

I don't known nearly as much about thisyhud specifically, but I've seen compelling arguments for how the Boeing merger really damaged leadership and the company as a whole. I can't vouch for that personally, but it was convincing to me. Moreover though, if my original argument is right, the failing system of regulation will fail slowly (presumably then all at once). The FAA and other bodies involved in the air industry may be broken, but it still takes a kick to push a company over the edge. A company like Airbus could continue to operate extremely well despite the broken system, though I'd argue with enough time they will be hit by it as well.

MilStdJunkie 3y ago

Germans. OK, seriously though, when it comes to outsourcing, it's because Airbus/CASA rigorously defined systems interfaces and all sorts of other stuff before outsourcing design. I've been a part of the supplier chain there, and it's intense, but it means your part's got a good shot of slotting in the first time. 787 - and a whole truckload of BDS work - it's less "strict systems interface" and more "what is systems interface". You can get decades pass where the part still doesn't fit.

calf 3y ago
So then is the 787 considered a safe plane? Compared to the 777 and 747? I've read many positive comments by flyers, but less focusing on its safety.
- MilStdJunkie 3y ago
  It might be now? Honestly, it probably is, given the reworks. But the problem with the Eight, at least initially, was the way the suppliers were organized. Or, more specifically, how they weren't organized. Boeing had flushed through a half dozen generation of Systems Engineers in the aughties, and no one really had a half chance to get familiar with anything that was laid down before. Suppliers generally took their best guess and went with it - that's where we were, at the time, because it proved completely impossible to make any contact with a person at Boeing who knew what the FMS data bus was . . or, on most days, even what a FMS data bus was. So we guessed either ARINC429 or ARINC664 and got (mostly!!) lucky. There were also some . . ah, I don't want to say "bad" . . so let's say, "non-technical" SEs . . who advocated for their own vision vis a vis SE and supplier management. In short, this was a giant mish mish, and, speaking for myself, it colored my personal perception of Systems Engineering as a discipline to this day. While you get some real SE rockstars, you also get an epidemic of shysters with mild sociopathy, and it takes good, technical leadership to tell one from the other. Keep in mind this was . . sheesh . . almost two decades ago, so take it all with a grain of salt.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    System Engineering is a technical profession. I honestly don't think is does anyone any good to avoid calling nontechnical SEs bad at the job. The truth is important especially when it leads to the development of metal tubes that fly 150+ people through the air at hundred of miles per hour. With that said, a nontechnical SE is a sign of a fundamentally broken system and org. Someone had to hire them for the role. Meaning they were interviewed and deemed fit for the role, likely with room to grow given more experience and opportunities to learn from. While I would say a nontechnical SE is bad st their job, stopping there doesn't fix the problem at all and its important that the context of why they had that job isn't lost.

dotnet00 3y ago

They've probably just managed to avoid gaining such an extreme cost cutting culture that Boeing management is believed to have. Probably also less openly corrupt politicians over in Europe. Congress-critters don't even really make an effort to hide that they're at Boeing's beck and call.

cpursley 3y ago

Fewer MBAs in Europe.