Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[BigDUSA 71]

If these companies spent less time in courts worrying about who pays for what ,they could use all their energies making better and cheaper Airplanes.

 

Easy to sell cheaper airplanes when the EU taxpayer subsidies R&D, cost of production, etc.

[BigDUSA 71]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US aerospace giant Boeing lashed out Monday at Germany's plans for a multibillion-dollar loan to develop Airbus's A350 airliner, ahead of a WTO ruling on EU aid to its European arch-rival.

 

With a final World Trade Organization ruling on US accusations of unfair EU subsidies expected as early as Tuesday, Boeing criticized the German government's move to provide 1.1 billion euros (1.49 billion dollars) toward the development of the A350.

 

"On the eve of such an important decision, it is unfortunate and disappointing to see news reports quoting a senior German official saying that Germany is prepared to provide 1.1 billion euros for the development of the Airbus A350 -- a move that flies in the face of both the expected WTO decision and the rules-based global trading system we've all endorsed," Ted Austell, vice president of Boeing's executive, legislative and regulatory affairs, said in a statement.

 

A senior German economic ministry official said Sunday that the government was ready to grant a 1.1 billion euro loan to develop the A350 passenger aircraft.

 

"As far as we are concerned all pre-conditions have been met and the funds are available," said Peter Hintze, parliamentary state secretary at the ministry of economics, in a statement implying that the conditions were in line with WTO rules.

 

Airbus, a division of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), intends to launch the A350 as a rival to Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner.

 

The 12-billion-euro (16.3-billion-dollar) program is supported by four partner nations: Britain, France, Germany and Spain.

 

France has announced support of 1.4 billion euros (1.9 billion dollars) and Britain is contributing 400 million euros (542 million dollars).

 

The Spanish government remains in discussions with Airbus over its funding offer but reports say it could be around 300 million euros (406 million dollars).

 

Boeing's Austell also referred to reports of Airbus calling for a negotiated settlement ahead of the WTO ruling.

 

It is "curious, although not unexpected" to see such reports only 24 hours before the ruling, he said.

 

On Monday, Rainer Ohler, a spokesman for the France-based Airbus, urged the US and EU to enter negotiations to find "a system that satisfies everyone."

 

The WTO treats disputes at the government level, and the Boeing-Airbus case pits the US against the 27-nation EU.

 

"As US officials have repeatedly made clear, there's a place for negotiations, but not on programs and actions declared inconsistent with WTO obligations," Austell said.

 

"Illegal European subsidies have done great harm to the US aerospace industry. It's time to level the playing field and let companies compete on product, price, innovation, and customer support without market-distorting government subsidies."

 

Some analysts believe a clear-cut WTO judgment was unlikely given the complexity of the case.

 

The US filed the WTO complaint in October 2004, alleging that an accord that allowed the EU to provide up to a third of development costs of new airliners was no longer valid since Airbus was now a major industry player and not the fledgling firm when the deal was struck.

 

The EU has also filed a complaint against the US on multibillion-dollar state aid to Boeing. A first interim ruling in that case is due to be delivered in June, according to the WTO.

[Samsonite 181]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62M20E20100323

 

"UPDATE 3-WTO tells EU to stop illegal Airbus subsidies

Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:37pm EDT

 

European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V.

EAD.PA

€14.69

-0.31-2.07%

11:36am GMT-0700

 

The Boeing Company

BA.N

$72.18

+0.27+0.38%

3:00pm GMT-0700

 

* WTO calls on Europe to end aircraft subsidies

 

* Airbus says ruling rejects most U.S. claims

 

* Civil aviation market worth $3 trillion over next 20 yrs

 

* WTO to rule on EU countersuit on aid to Boeing by end June

 

By Jonathan Lynn and Tim Hepher

 

GENEVA/PARIS, March 23 (Reuters) - A World Trade Organization panel called on Tuesday on the European Union to end illegal subsidies to Airbus (EAD.PA), ratcheting up the stakes in the multi-trillion-dollar large aircraft market.

 

The call came in a confidential 1,000-page ruling by the WTO panel in one of two cases in the trade dispute involving arch-rivals Boeing (BA.N) and EADS subsidiary Airbus.

 

The European Union said Tuesday's ruling was only part of the puzzle and it was premature for one side to claim victory.

 

"A fuller picture will only emerge with the release of the interim report in the EU case against subsidies to Boeing which we expect to be issued in the coming months," EU trade spokesman John Clancy said in a statement.

The ruling, covering EU support for Airbus challenged by the United States, said some of the financial aid at issue amounted to prohibited export subsidies and should be stopped within 90 days, several sources familiar with the ruling told Reuters.

 

This included part of the European funding for Airbus's flagship 525-seat A380, the world's largest airliner.

 

Other support that caused injury to U.S. planemakers should also cease, the panel ruled, but set no deadline.

 

Airbus acknowledged the WTO had found some subsidies and said it might appeal against this ruling, but asserted the panel had rejected 70 percent of U.S. claims.

 

The ruling does not mean the end of the dispute, which dates back decades. The WTO is due to rule by late June in the countersuit brought by the EU against U.S. support for Boeing.

 

Both sides could drag out the litigation into next year and beyond with appeals and new disputes over compliance.

 

"As in all other trade conflicts, resolution will finally only be found in trans-Atlantic negotiations," Airbus said in a statement.

 

 

MIXED VERDICT

 

Boeing insists the two cases are separate and hopes the ruling will stop the EU from subsiding Airbus's new A350 plane.

 

But Airbus said the ruling would not affect funding for the A350 -- strictly correct as the panel decided the new airliner was out of its terms of reference, which only covered aid up to 2006. Washington will likely argue a precedent was set, however.

 

In such complex cases the conclusions rarely go one way, and the panel did find that some support for Airbus, such as loans from the European Investment Bank or debt forgiveness by Germany, did not amount to subsidies, the source said.

 

But it did say that many other forms of support -- in some cases at least -- did amount to illegal subsidies. These included infrastructure spending, equity ownership, equity infusions, and some research and development spending, sources familar with the case said.

 

"The panel has now confirmed what we have always said: reimbursable loans are a legal instrument and they have not caused one single job loss to the U.S. aerospace industry," Airbus spokeswoman Maggie Bergsma said.

 

"Airbus has brought competition, ensuring healthy choice for our customer airlines," she said in a statement.

 

There was no immediate comment from U.S. officials or Boeing.

 

The report will not be published for several weeks or months as it awaits translation into French and Spanish, but a confidential copy of the document was handed to the U.S. and EU trade missions in Geneva.

 

While both parties are bound to secrecy until publication, more details are likely to trickle out as the two sides seek to influence the debate over government subsidies for aircraft.

 

Subsidy rules lie at the heart of the battle for dominance of the market for civilian aircraft which aerospace firms estimate will be worth $3 trillion over the next 20 years.

 

The United States argues that Airbus got a total of $205 billion in unfairly priced loans and other benefits from France, Germany, Spain and Britain over two decades -- making the case by far the biggest international trade dispute.

 

Final resolution of the two cases will define the rules of the civil aviation market, where Airbus and Boeing have together nearly $1 trillion of aircraft on their order books, for years to come. (Additional reporting by Bate Felix in Brussels and Doug Palmer in Washington; editing by Janet Lawrence)"

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62M20E20100323

Edited March 23, 2010 by Samsonite

[TheFiend 1,181]

I know one thing..... I would rather my taxes were used to support European jobs via loans/subsidies to Airbus instead of paying some dodgy politicians pocket expenses claim....

[jacko 8,776]

I know one thing..... I would rather my taxes were used to support European jobs via loans/subsidies to Airbus instead of paying some dodgy politicians pocket expenses claim....

Or on welfare and legal services for illegal immigrants who in a few years will be planning how to get bombs on those subsidised aircraft! Edited March 24, 2010 by jacko

[sinbinjack 244]

Easy to sell cheaper airplanes when the EU taxpayer subsidies R&D, cost of production, etc.

And the American government has never assisted American companies?. I have no wish to enter a debate on a subject I know very little about (technically speacking) and I wont but. governments are there to assist their own citizens and that is just a fact of both life and politics.

[wacmedia 277]

Declare a Year of Impoliteness in Paris?

 

.

 

Hi,

 

Capital cities are always less friendly than other areas. I'm sure people in Mogadishu aren't as friendly as people in the Somalia countryside.

[jacko 8,776]

Hi,

 

Capital cities are always less friendly than other areas. I'm sure people in Mogadishu aren't as friendly as people in the Somalia countryside.

Perhaps Big Cities is a better definition. The crowds do it to you.... those New Yorkers maintain a sweet disposition though!

[BigDUSA 71]

Boeing said Sunday that it completed its ultimate-load wing up-bending test on the 787 Dreamliner. The test involved loads applied to the airframe to replicate 150% of the most extreme forces the aircraft is expected to encounter, with the wings flexed upwards by 25 feet in the test. Initial results of the test on the long-delayed plane were positive, Boeing said.

 

Full results of the test may takes weeks to produce, the company said, noting that the test program on the 787 has been more robust than any conducted on a Boeing ( BA - news - people ) commercial jetliner.

[Samsonite 181]

Boeing said Sunday that it completed its ultimate-load wing up-bending test on the 787 Dreamliner. The test involved loads applied to the airframe to replicate 150% of the most extreme forces the aircraft is expected to encounter, with the wings flexed upwards by 25 feet in the test. Initial results of the test on the long-delayed plane were positive, Boeing said.

 

Full results of the test may takes weeks to produce, the company said, noting that the test program on the 787 has been more robust than any conducted on a Boeing ( BA - news - people ) commercial jetliner.

The wings on the 787 are amazing. Here is a photo of the test:

 

[TheFiend 1,181]

Boeing said Sunday that it completed its ultimate-load wing up-bending test on the 787 Dreamliner. The test involved loads applied to the airframe to replicate 150% of the most extreme forces the aircraft is expected to encounter, with the wings flexed upwards by 25 feet in the test. Initial results of the test on the long-delayed plane were positive, Boeing said.

 

Notice the lack of mention about the fact that it needed the wing fixings redesigned.

[Samsonite 181]

Notice the lack of mention about the fact that it needed the wing fixings redesigned.

Notice the fact that this is the first time they tested it to the 150% level. Interesting, don't you think (no, you wouldn't) they caught the problem early on?

BTW, didn't the airbust a380 fail that test? Didn't the a380 wing fail at 145% ?

Edited March 31, 2010 by Samsonite

[TheFiend 1,181]

Notice the fact that this is the first time they tested it to the 150% level. Interesting, don't you think (no, you wouldn't) they caught the problem early on?

 

If it had been designed right in the first place they wouldn't have had to redesign it, and the first flights wouldn't have been delayed as much!

[Samsonite 181]

If it had been designed right in the first place they wouldn't have had to redesign it, and the first flights wouldn't have been delayed as much.

Lame. Very lame.

Anytime you build a new airplane, especially using new technologies, you will have to make changes here and there as you go along. During the test flight phase new problems may be discovered and then fixed. That is what test flights are all about.

 

Now, if you really want the best modern example of something NOT being "designed right in the first place" take a look at the airbust a380.

Let us see.... if first flew, when was it... 5, that is FIVE, years ago, but didn't go into service until 2 years later. Yet, now, after FIVE years, it is still having trouble both in production, they have yet to meet a yearly production goal, and it has a less than sterling record at the gate and goes "tech" (delayed or canceled flights) on a regular basis. When a new aircraft first enters service some problems are expected, but after FIVE YEARS in the air the a380 is turning into a white elephant.

So, sorry, charlie.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Samsonite

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Now, if you really want the best modern example of something NOT being "designed right in the first place" take a look at the airbust a380.

 

The 28 months between the 787 being rolled out and actually getting off the ground takes some beating. I know it was just a slight problem of ensuring the wings stayed attached to the cigar-shaped bit, but it's a basic requirement for an aeroplane I would've thought.

[BigDUSA 71]

The 28 months between the 787 being rolled out and actually getting off the ground takes some beating. I know it was just a slight problem of ensuring the wings stayed attached to the cigar-shaped bit, but it's a basic requirement for an aeroplane I would've thought.

 

Same thing could be said about the 380 wiring harness fiasco.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Same thing could be said about the 380 wiring harness fiasco.

 

Not really. The A380 was flying before the harness issue reared its head.

[BigDUSA 71]

Not really. The A380 was flying before the harness issue reared its head.

 

Really? Same engineering foul up for both companies.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Lame. Very lame.

Anytime you build a new airplane, especially using new technologies, you will have to make changes here and there as you go along. During the test flight phase new problems may be discovered and then fixed. That is what test flights are all about.

 

Now that is lame...

 

The wing attachment are fundamental to the design of an aircraft...... you would have thought they could have designed them correctly in the first place, after all Boeing have many years experience in building aircraft.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Really? Same engineering foul up for both companies.

 

Really. See Post #1 and 4.

 

 

 

 

[BigDUSA 71]

Really. See Post #1 and 4.

 

 

 

 

Dig up four year old posts. OK and your point is? Do you have a point?

[Samsonite 181]

"Initial production of the A380 was troubled by delays attributed to the 530 km (330 mi) of wiring in each aircraft. Airbus cited as underlying causes the complexity of the cabin wiring (100,000 wires and 40,300 connectors), its concurrent design and production, the high degree of customization for each airline, and failures of configuration management and change control.[43][44] Specifically, it would appear that German and Spanish Airbus facilities continued to use CATIA version 4, while British and French sites migrated to version 5.[45] This caused overall configuration management problems, at least in part because wiring harnesses manufactured using aluminium rather than copper conductors necessitated special design rules including non-standard dimensions and bend radii; these were not easily transferred between versions of the software.[46]

 

Airbus announced the first delay in June 2005 and notified airlines that deliveries would be delayed by six months.[45] This reduced the number of planned deliveries by the end of 2009 from about 120 to 90–100. On 13 June 2006, Airbus announced a second delay, with the delivery schedule undergoing an additional shift of six to seven months.[47] Although the first delivery was still planned before the end of 2006, deliveries in 2007 would drop to only 9 aircraft, and deliveries by the end of 2009 would be cut to 70–80 aircraft. The announcement caused a 26% drop in the share price of Airbus's parent, EADS,[48] and led to the departure of EADS CEO Noël Forgeard, Airbus CEO Gustav Humbert, and A380 programme manager Charles Champion.[45][49] On 3 October 2006, upon completion of a review of the A380 program, the CEO of Airbus, Christian Streiff, announced a third delay,[45] pushing the first delivery to October 2007, to be followed by 13 deliveries in 2008, 25 in 2009, and the full production rate of 45 aircraft per year in 2010.[50] The delay also increased the earnings shortfall projected by Airbus through 2010 to €4.8 billion.[45][51]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380

 

They didn't deliver 25 in 2009 and it is doubtful they will deliver 45 in 2010. Only 26 have been delivered

since the first was handed over to Singapore Air 2 1/2 years ago.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Samsonite

[BigDUSA 71]

EVERETT, Wash. – Boeing Co. says the stress tests for its new 787 jetliner's wing and fuselage went as planned.

 

On March 28, workers at Boeing's Everett, Wash., plant bent the wing of a special test 787 by 150 percent of the most extreme forces it would experience in flight — about 25 feet upward at the wing tip. They also pressurized the fuselage to 150 percent of its maximum normal operating condition.

 

The head of the 787 program, Scott Fancher, said in a news release Wednesday that a thorough analysis of the results showed the aircraft performed as designed.

 

Chicago-based Boeing has been testing the new plane for more than three months, after production delays and problems with carbon-fiber composite materials put it nearly three years behind schedule.

QUOTE

[TheFiend 1,181]

The head of the 787 program, Scott Fancher, said in a news release Wednesday that a thorough analysis of the results showed the aircraft performed as designed.

 

But it didn't perform as the aircraft had been "originally" designed - otherwise they wouldn't have had to modify the design, would they?

 

If they had designed it correctly the first time they wouldn't have needed to modify it to pass the stress tests!

 

This is what happens when something has been rushed to meet unrealistic deadlines.

[Samsonite 181]

But it didn't perform as the aircraft had been "originally" designed - otherwise they wouldn't have had to modify the design, would they?

If they had designed it correctly the first time they wouldn't have needed to modify it to pass the stress tests!

This is what happens when something has been rushed to meet unrealistic deadlines.

All part of the process of building a new aircraft, be it Boeing or that government public works program called, airbust.

Read back a couple of posts about the those geniuses at airbust and the a380. They all couldn't even be bothered to use the same version of the CAD software, and to this day, 2 1/2 years after the first delivery, they still haven't been able to build them on schedule.

Any real company dependent on real profits to stay in business would have had no choice but to shut the project down a long time ago.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Samsonite