4 ms·

As a side note, I am still fascinated that Airbus is relatively well run and successful company, even though it's EU based, cross-border, with all the overregul

As a side note, I am still fascinated that Airbus is relatively well run and successful company, even though it's EU based, cross-border, with all the overregulation, bureaucracy and obstacles that come with that.

dtquad 2y ago
>it's EU based, cross-border, with all the overregulation, bureaucracy and obstacles that come with that That is because one of those things is not true. It's not very cross-border. The vast majority of Airbus R&D and manufacturing happens in Toulouse and Hamburg with each city focusing on specific plane models. Airbus is incredibly centralized and has been able to take advantage of that to deeply integrate R&D and manufacturing.
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  "That is because one of those things is not true." I will keep that in mind when seeing an Airbus Beluga again when in Hamburg.
  - eqvinox 2y ago
    All airplane manufacturers have giant supply chains spanning countries… Airbus just considers some of them maybe a bit more "integrated". I.e. the Spanish wing-skin manufacturing unit could just be a separate company. btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter [ed. wrong link]
    - piva00 2y ago
      I feel the main difference is that Boeing's management post McDonnell merge decided to consider their suppliers as simple vendors, spinning off Spirit, and taking away their direct oversight using supply contracts as a backstop. Airbus does more hands-on oversight of their suppliers, they have staff to check their work, is all part of an integrated QA system instead of the hands-off outsourcing approach Boeing took. At least that's what I understand from a very layman view of their processes, would love to be corrected if I'm wrong.
- detourdog 2y ago
  What a great technical dynamic duo DACHA with French style. My guess is this could only work in the airline industry where an efficient bureaucracy would be a competitive advantage.
- benhurmarcel 2y ago
  > The vast majority of Airbus R&D and manufacturing happens in Toulouse and Hamburg with each city focusing on specific plane models. A pretty significant part of R&D happens in Filton and Getafe too. And manufacturing is even more distributed. Also, plants do not focus on specific models at all, but more on specific parts and systems, across all models.
pdpi 2y ago
You have several misunderstandings packed in there. First off, one of the things the UE does accomplish is reduce the obstacles that come with cross-border work, and European bureaucracy is massively overblown as a problem. Insofar as it is a problem, US-style lobbying amounts to as much of an obstacle. E.g. with no Intuit lobbying involved, I have literally not filed taxes once in the last ten years, it's just completely automated and a non-issue for me. "Overregulation" is a sweeping generalisation, and pretty much irrelevant in this particular space: this is the aerospace industry we're talking about, it's one of the most tightly regulated industries worldwide. Airbus is not bogged down by any meaningful amount of red tape that Boeing is free from.
- detourdog 2y ago
  I used to believe that was true but I actually have a lot of concerns of the whatever the EU organization overseeing technology. I see that they could do great good but instead work up very specific regulations that few companies fit. Those types of regulations instead of broad thinking about integration. They are narrowly focussed on implementation details. What I have seen in the past 2 years fits the exact fears my crazy uncle warns about.
  - consteval 2y ago
    I disagree. The only difference between the EU regulatory landscape and the US is the EU cares much more about end-consumer protections. They work the same but in backwards directions: the EU starts with the end-consumer and works out how to implement that in the private sector. The US starts with the impact to the private sector and works out how that can help end-consumers. This means sometimes the EU will pass regulations that are difficult or abstract to implement. And this means the US will miss obvious regulations because they can't gauge the business impact. The current FTC is attempting to actually enforce some of these more obvious regulations now, and they're facing a lot of push back from the American private sector. Blocking huge mergers that monopolize the free market, disallowing one-sided contract clauses, banning outright lying to consumers... these are obvious, to me. It's been shocking just how much resistance they face.
Mountain_Skies 2y ago
Airbus is laying off a couple thousand employees. This might be a good thing for the company if those employees are truly bloat against what Airbus is currently producing but if they're quality resources that are being cut because some balance sheet needs to look better, it's a bad sign of what's to come.
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  Airbus layoff were in it's defense sector, not it's commercial sector, and one reason given is "rapid changes in warfare" which hints that Airbus builds the wrong weapons (helicopters etc.) - this might be a faster switch to drone warfare on Airbus side.
mmooss 2y ago
> I am still fascinated that Airbus is relatively well run and successful company, even though it's EU based, cross-border, with all the overregulation, bureaucracy and obstacles that come with that. If it doesn't add up, maybe it's the other side of the equation that's the problem: Maybe the flaw or surprise in the equation is not Airbus but the other side - the beliefs about "EU based, cross-border, with all the overregulation, bureaucracy and obstacles" - maybe those aren't what you thought and don't have the impact you thought. If the evidence doesn't match the theory, it's time to re-examine the theory. I say that because those beliefs about the EU are a dogma of American big business and its fellow travelers, which prefers the US where they have so much power (and so little regulation or tax) rather than the more democratic power in EU.
- acoard 2y ago
  But it seems like Airbus is the exception to the rule, by and large. For example, the Typhoon Eurofighter has had disappointing exports.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Every organization has some things that sell better than others. Is there evidence of an overall 'rule'?
KingOfCoders 2y ago
"with all the overregulation, bureaucracy" What most people do not understand, most of the regulation in the EU is to make trade easier. That is the main focus of the EU commission (not the parliament though, which brings in pro-people regulation like food regulations or GDPR). There is often the joke about the EU regulating bananas. People don't ask why this is regulated, they think it's "the idiots in the EU". The reason is easier trade. Because this way some dealer in Poland can buy a quality level of banana from someone in Spain and knows what they can expect to get. It's for easier trade. It's like having a standard API and language (e.g. SQL) instead of everyone doing their own. It's like lanugages generating LLVM IR (the IR is "regulated") so they don't have to write their own backend. Think of EU regulation more like OAuth.

dtquad 2y ago

>it's EU based, cross-border, with all the overregulation, bureaucracy and obstacles that come with that That is because one of those things is not true. It's not very cross-border. The vast majority of Airbus R&D and manufacturing happens in Toulouse and Hamburg with each city focusing on specific plane models. Airbus is incredibly centralized and has been able to take advantage of that to deeply integrate R&D and manufacturing.

KingOfCoders 2y ago
"That is because one of those things is not true." I will keep that in mind when seeing an Airbus Beluga again when in Hamburg.
- eqvinox 2y ago
  All airplane manufacturers have giant supply chains spanning countries… Airbus just considers some of them maybe a bit more "integrated". I.e. the Spanish wing-skin manufacturing unit could just be a separate company. btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter [ed. wrong link]
  - piva00 2y ago
    I feel the main difference is that Boeing's management post McDonnell merge decided to consider their suppliers as simple vendors, spinning off Spirit, and taking away their direct oversight using supply contracts as a backstop. Airbus does more hands-on oversight of their suppliers, they have staff to check their work, is all part of an integrated QA system instead of the hands-off outsourcing approach Boeing took. At least that's what I understand from a very layman view of their processes, would love to be corrected if I'm wrong.
detourdog 2y ago
What a great technical dynamic duo DACHA with French style. My guess is this could only work in the airline industry where an efficient bureaucracy would be a competitive advantage.
benhurmarcel 2y ago
> The vast majority of Airbus R&D and manufacturing happens in Toulouse and Hamburg with each city focusing on specific plane models. A pretty significant part of R&D happens in Filton and Getafe too. And manufacturing is even more distributed. Also, plants do not focus on specific models at all, but more on specific parts and systems, across all models.

pdpi 2y ago

You have several misunderstandings packed in there. First off, one of the things the UE does accomplish is reduce the obstacles that come with cross-border work, and European bureaucracy is massively overblown as a problem. Insofar as it is a problem, US-style lobbying amounts to as much of an obstacle. E.g. with no Intuit lobbying involved, I have literally not filed taxes once in the last ten years, it's just completely automated and a non-issue for me. "Overregulation" is a sweeping generalisation, and pretty much irrelevant in this particular space: this is the aerospace industry we're talking about, it's one of the most tightly regulated industries worldwide. Airbus is not bogged down by any meaningful amount of red tape that Boeing is free from.

detourdog 2y ago
I used to believe that was true but I actually have a lot of concerns of the whatever the EU organization overseeing technology. I see that they could do great good but instead work up very specific regulations that few companies fit. Those types of regulations instead of broad thinking about integration. They are narrowly focussed on implementation details. What I have seen in the past 2 years fits the exact fears my crazy uncle warns about.
- consteval 2y ago
  I disagree. The only difference between the EU regulatory landscape and the US is the EU cares much more about end-consumer protections. They work the same but in backwards directions: the EU starts with the end-consumer and works out how to implement that in the private sector. The US starts with the impact to the private sector and works out how that can help end-consumers. This means sometimes the EU will pass regulations that are difficult or abstract to implement. And this means the US will miss obvious regulations because they can't gauge the business impact. The current FTC is attempting to actually enforce some of these more obvious regulations now, and they're facing a lot of push back from the American private sector. Blocking huge mergers that monopolize the free market, disallowing one-sided contract clauses, banning outright lying to consumers... these are obvious, to me. It's been shocking just how much resistance they face.

Mountain_Skies 2y ago

Airbus is laying off a couple thousand employees. This might be a good thing for the company if those employees are truly bloat against what Airbus is currently producing but if they're quality resources that are being cut because some balance sheet needs to look better, it's a bad sign of what's to come.

KingOfCoders 2y ago
Airbus layoff were in it's defense sector, not it's commercial sector, and one reason given is "rapid changes in warfare" which hints that Airbus builds the wrong weapons (helicopters etc.) - this might be a faster switch to drone warfare on Airbus side.

mmooss 2y ago

> I am still fascinated that Airbus is relatively well run and successful company, even though it's EU based, cross-border, with all the overregulation, bureaucracy and obstacles that come with that. If it doesn't add up, maybe it's the other side of the equation that's the problem: Maybe the flaw or surprise in the equation is not Airbus but the other side - the beliefs about "EU based, cross-border, with all the overregulation, bureaucracy and obstacles" - maybe those aren't what you thought and don't have the impact you thought. If the evidence doesn't match the theory, it's time to re-examine the theory. I say that because those beliefs about the EU are a dogma of American big business and its fellow travelers, which prefers the US where they have so much power (and so little regulation or tax) rather than the more democratic power in EU.

acoard 2y ago
But it seems like Airbus is the exception to the rule, by and large. For example, the Typhoon Eurofighter has had disappointing exports.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Every organization has some things that sell better than others. Is there evidence of an overall 'rule'?

KingOfCoders 2y ago

"with all the overregulation, bureaucracy" What most people do not understand, most of the regulation in the EU is to make trade easier. That is the main focus of the EU commission (not the parliament though, which brings in pro-people regulation like food regulations or GDPR). There is often the joke about the EU regulating bananas. People don't ask why this is regulated, they think it's "the idiots in the EU". The reason is easier trade. Because this way some dealer in Poland can buy a quality level of banana from someone in Spain and knows what they can expect to get. It's for easier trade. It's like having a standard API and language (e.g. SQL) instead of everyone doing their own. It's like lanugages generating LLVM IR (the IR is "regulated") so they don't have to write their own backend. Think of EU regulation more like OAuth.