4 ms·

Lots of details on how they kept pressure up, skipped on important checks and procedure because it might slow things down, production numbers were way lower tha

by nolok 3y ago

Lots of details on how they kept pressure up, skipped on important checks and procedure because it might slow things down, production numbers were way lower than planned ... But is there any definite source or elements about why the numbers were so down ? Were the projection unrealistic ? And if yes was it because they pulled them out of their ass or because they needed the unrealistic high ones to get the sales ? Or were the numbers realistic but working with so many externalized subcontrators slowing things down ? I think I read something about, eg how they had to refuse so many of spirits' produce that it was slowing everything down, but by that much ? Another reason could be that the plane was harder to produce than expected but while I could buy that for the 787 I don't see how it can be remotely true for the MAXes, they were supposed to be a known quantities.

constantcrying 3y ago
One major reason for the pressure was the ebb and (still ongoing flow) of of demand for jet airplanes. During the pandemic air traffic was hit hard and the entire industry (which is much larger than Airbus and Boeing) started to prepare for a slowing down, including firing staff, retiring products and such. That slow down never really happened, instead there was a massive upswing in demand. Both Airbus and Boeing are currently racing to build as many planes as they can, as their customers are begging them to give them planes as soon as possible and as many as they can. This is exactly the kind of situation in which mistakes happen. Boeing and their suppliers needed to rehire staff and train them while having a huge pressure to get planes out of their factories. Somewhat funnily both Airbus and their suppliers have a much harder time firing staff, due to stricter EU employment regulations, meaning that they unintentionally were better off when demand started up again, nevertheless Airbus and suppliers are currently hiring massively as well.
- seszett 3y ago
  > Somewhat funnily both Airbus and their suppliers have a much harder time firing staff, due to stricter EU employment regulations, meaning that they unintentionally were better off when demand started up again, nevertheless Airbus and suppliers are currently hiring massively as well. I don't think stability is unintentional. You can see how France economically always "lags behind" other economies in good times, but is also barely affected in bad times. On average, over time, it just performs like the rest of the EU.
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    Sure, the goal of these employment laws is to create stability at the cost of a more dynamic market (Startups are very hard to do in the EU for some of those reasons). Although at the time Airbus would have liked to lay of many more employees, but couldn't. Which ultimately benefitted them. Also, such labor laws exist in Germany as well which is Airbuses other big country.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      > Startups are very hard to do in the EU for some of those reasons The biggest obstacle is not employment laws or environmental or other compliance crap. The biggest obstacle is getting funding, Europe doesn't have the sheer amounts of "dumb money" that the US has due to their pension/401k system.
      - p_l 3y ago
        And before, there was huge flows of money because USA didn't have to rebuild from war and instead spent on defense like crazy - which filtered down to building wider and wider rings of industry along Route 128, Silicon Valley, LA, etc.
  - OJFord 3y ago
    GP means it's not what 'Airbus and their suppliers' intended; the regulation stopped them from intended redundancies, which ended up being an advantage but not by their hand, forced on them.
    - seszett 3y ago
      Obviously, and what I meant is that it's intentional on the part of the state, even if individual companies wouldn't do that on their own.
      - OJFord 3y ago
        Obviously, and nobody's disputing that or saying anything to the contrary.
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
1) Their supplier network was a mess post-COVID, 2) they wouldn't budge on pricing, and 3) Boeing internal forecasts are, even in good times, generally worse than a coin toss. Wait, that last bit isn't quite right. Internal forecasts are generally flexible, rather than random, to adjust for the mood of the Overlord of the day. So if you get a stretch where the boss is feeling tetchy, forecasts suddenly start turning pretty good. It doesn't help that, at least anecdotally, the forecasting group's all been former executive assistants and people who were kicked out of systems engineering. Generally people on their way to somewhere else. Working anywhere in the Boeing procurement group is a career death sentence, there is just no scenario where you win that fight. The price is never low enough, the suppliers are never getting enough money, and eventually you're going to be the scapegoat for a shortfall somewhere, whether it be cash or off-spec parts or PWAs stuffed full of tinsel and compressed dander.

by nolok 3y ago

constantcrying 3y ago

One major reason for the pressure was the ebb and (still ongoing flow) of of demand for jet airplanes. During the pandemic air traffic was hit hard and the entire industry (which is much larger than Airbus and Boeing) started to prepare for a slowing down, including firing staff, retiring products and such. That slow down never really happened, instead there was a massive upswing in demand. Both Airbus and Boeing are currently racing to build as many planes as they can, as their customers are begging them to give them planes as soon as possible and as many as they can. This is exactly the kind of situation in which mistakes happen. Boeing and their suppliers needed to rehire staff and train them while having a huge pressure to get planes out of their factories. Somewhat funnily both Airbus and their suppliers have a much harder time firing staff, due to stricter EU employment regulations, meaning that they unintentionally were better off when demand started up again, nevertheless Airbus and suppliers are currently hiring massively as well.

seszett 3y ago
> Somewhat funnily both Airbus and their suppliers have a much harder time firing staff, due to stricter EU employment regulations, meaning that they unintentionally were better off when demand started up again, nevertheless Airbus and suppliers are currently hiring massively as well. I don't think stability is unintentional. You can see how France economically always "lags behind" other economies in good times, but is also barely affected in bad times. On average, over time, it just performs like the rest of the EU.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  Sure, the goal of these employment laws is to create stability at the cost of a more dynamic market (Startups are very hard to do in the EU for some of those reasons). Although at the time Airbus would have liked to lay of many more employees, but couldn't. Which ultimately benefitted them. Also, such labor laws exist in Germany as well which is Airbuses other big country.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > Startups are very hard to do in the EU for some of those reasons The biggest obstacle is not employment laws or environmental or other compliance crap. The biggest obstacle is getting funding, Europe doesn't have the sheer amounts of "dumb money" that the US has due to their pension/401k system.
    - p_l 3y ago
      And before, there was huge flows of money because USA didn't have to rebuild from war and instead spent on defense like crazy - which filtered down to building wider and wider rings of industry along Route 128, Silicon Valley, LA, etc.
- OJFord 3y ago
  GP means it's not what 'Airbus and their suppliers' intended; the regulation stopped them from intended redundancies, which ended up being an advantage but not by their hand, forced on them.
  - seszett 3y ago
    Obviously, and what I meant is that it's intentional on the part of the state, even if individual companies wouldn't do that on their own.
    - OJFord 3y ago
      Obviously, and nobody's disputing that or saying anything to the contrary.

MilStdJunkie 3y ago

1) Their supplier network was a mess post-COVID, 2) they wouldn't budge on pricing, and 3) Boeing internal forecasts are, even in good times, generally worse than a coin toss. Wait, that last bit isn't quite right. Internal forecasts are generally flexible, rather than random, to adjust for the mood of the Overlord of the day. So if you get a stretch where the boss is feeling tetchy, forecasts suddenly start turning pretty good. It doesn't help that, at least anecdotally, the forecasting group's all been former executive assistants and people who were kicked out of systems engineering. Generally people on their way to somewhere else. Working anywhere in the Boeing procurement group is a career death sentence, there is just no scenario where you win that fight. The price is never low enough, the suppliers are never getting enough money, and eventually you're going to be the scapegoat for a shortfall somewhere, whether it be cash or off-spec parts or PWAs stuffed full of tinsel and compressed dander.