Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Airbus cost cutting starts with temporary staff

36 posts in this topic

I think we're talking about free-lance sub-contractors selling their skills to EADS/Airbus and not to sub-contracted companies who are delivering components to a programme. Different kettle of fish.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy/company I worked for previously was a free-lance sub-contractor and then hired me. Dont see mcuh of a difference in the end everybody is in the same kettle.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some report on the news saying that job losses should be split equally between French and German workers. So it looks like the Brits should be ok ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like the rats are jumping a perceived sinking ship, lets hope not too many more cancel.

 

"Fedex has cancelled its order for Airbus aircraft and switched its order to rival Boeing instead.

Fedex Express said it had cancelled its order for 10 Airbus A380-800F superjumbo because of delivery delays"

 

link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6126206.stm

 

Airbus order book so far looks like this:

 

A380 ORDERS SO FAR

Emirates: 43 aircraft

Lufthansa: 15

Qantas: 12

Air France: 10

Singapore Airlines: 10

International Lease Finance: 10

UPS: 10

Thai Airways: 6

Virgin Atlantic: 6

Korean Air Lines: 5

Etihad Airways: 4

Qatar Airways: 2

China Southern Airlines: 5

Kingfisher Airlines: 5

Malaysia Airlines: 6

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure if these figures are still correct.

 

Read last week that Emirates might be cancelling an order - unconfirmed though.

 

Anybody got more info?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pity.  To fly on its a great aircraft and my favourite in the sky at the moment.

 

But in the end the airlines failure to get enough seats in it.  Only ~500 - ~550 (some even less).  Considering the cost of purchasing and operating it then it really wasn't enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dj_jay_smith said:

It's a pity.  To fly on its a great aircraft and my favourite in the sky at the moment.

 

I've flown 3 times on A380 (each time from SFO to FRA).  It really is the quietest airliner I've been on (although the A340-600 comes close).  I've often wondered why Airbus / Lufthansa don't push the advantage of the quietness.

 

On of my club members is a VP at Airbus (I won't say which division as that would identify him - he was recently saying that much of the development work that went into the A380 also flowed into the A350.  One reason for the lack of interest in A380 / B747 is that due to change in the ETOPS requirements there are now very few routes that require 4-engined jets and of course the maintenance required on 4 enginers is - errr - more than on a twin.

 

The A350 is apparently selling well and is performing well in service (but he said that some years ago about the A380!).  What the A380 did was to kill the B747 off.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, HEM said:

...

 

 What the A380 did was to kill the B747 off.

 

I don't think so, because not enough were sold.

 

The 747 was killed off by the new twin-jets that are also killing of the A380.  It is just that as the 747 was an older aircraft, less efficient, and carried fewer passengers than the A380 that it died first.

 

The great improvement in fuel economy, the improved ETOPS ranges, and that they can fly more 'thinner' routes which suits a lot of business passengers, have all contributed towards this.  And with the next gen of 777x aircraft offering even better capacities, with the -9 supposed to carry more than 400pax, then the efficiencies are even greater.

 

The A350 is a nice aircraft as well. For a passenger it is much better than the 787 (despite the 787 getting all the hype!).  Not that I have flown either much, as my flying over the past years has reduced greatly.

 

 

BTW:  Do you know what ETOPS means?  "Engines Turn, Or Passengers Swim."!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read, the main problem is that with its four heavy engines, the A380 is just too thirsty, making it uneconomical on nearly every route compared to other, more streamlined aircraft. Apparently they were overengineered, to permit their use in the planned extended version as well (which never materialized).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aircraft is just too heavy full stop!

 

The full length double decker makes it heavy.  Therefore it needs bigger wings and a bigger tail fin, which means more weight, and to carry all this over such a long distance (it have a very good range), means more fuel, so more weight!   Which means more powerful engines, which means more weight! 

 

The A380 is > 100,000 KGs heavier than the latest 747-8.  > 200,000 KGs more than the 777, and nearly 300,000 KGs more than the 787-10.

(all weights fully loaded)

 

The 777 actually has the most powerful engine of any commercial aircraft (and the 777x will have a more powerful one!), but it of course only needs two of them.

 

The A380 was supposed to have a larger brother.  So there is also some over-engineering to accommodate this.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, dj_jay_smith said:

The A380 was supposed to have a larger brother.  So there is also some over-engineering to accommodate this.  

And funnily enough there was also over-engineering for the smaller brother. There were initially plans for a -700 version and the tail fin has to be bigger on a shorter aircraft to compensate for losing an engine. So they sized the tail fin of the entire series for the -700 and ended up with something another 2 meters taller than required for the -800.

 

So, for this one part at least, there is a smaller aircraft -> bigger tail fin-> more weight :P 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maarsch said:

And funnily enough there was also over-engineering for the smaller brother. There were initially plans for a -700 version and the tail fin has to be bigger on a shorter aircraft to compensate for losing an engine. So they sized the tail fin of the entire series for the -700 and ended up with something another 2 meters taller than required for the -800.

 

So, for this one part at least, there is a smaller aircraft -> bigger tail fin-> more weight :P 

 

I am surprised to here that, as I thought that the -700 version was killed off very early and hence they had a chance to change this in the design.

 

But I did hear that they had to make the tail fin much bigger than they wanted, as wind tunnel tests on models showed problems on such a large aircraft with a smaller one. 

And if you look at the aircraft, then the tail fin is massive, even in comparison to the rest of the aircraft.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dj_jay_smith said:

And if you look at the aircraft, then the tail fin is massive, even in comparison to the rest of the aircraft.

There's one (just VTP) in front of one of the restaurants at Airbus Hamburg and as you bus by it it's really big.

And then after you leave the bus you can walk up to it (it's just there between road and parking lot) and it just keeps growing.

It's 22 meters tall, I think.

I've had brushes with the A320 and A330 VTPs for work and at 6.xm and 7.2m high they're pretty big already.

Then there's the A380. Damn.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0