noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Feb 24, 2013 11:48:05 GMT 1
Hi
Bearing in mind how complex and expensive the engines are, is the Production rate of Boeing and Airbus going to be dependent on Engine supply.
I don't know how long it takes to manufacture an engine, but it would seem that they cannot just be rushed to keep up with the plane manufacturers demands
|
|
|
Post by eastmids13 on Feb 26, 2013 12:29:02 GMT 1
Noistar,
Too a large degree you are correct...however your point is true for all large, long lead-time, complex components within the supply chain, whether produced internally & externally. Too try to maximise profitability most suppliers will not want to put in more capacity than they need to, ramping up (or down) takes time & costs money, as does surge capacity.
Engines by their very nature have more risk than many of the other components (especially when considering mods or scrap rates)...however something as simple as fasteners can be equally problematic (& have proved so in the past) if basic QC is not in place or capacity has been miscalculated. I'd expect Boeing & Airbus to have strong supplier development teams monitoring this continually. In automotive teams are deployed to any high risk supplier that impact production significantly...this need is even more important in aerospace where transparency is critical.
Thus I agree with you, engines could effect rate, however it may equally be a smaller 2nd or 3rd tier supplier who is flying just below the radar. 787 rate increase when they fly again will unveil more of these issues as A380 rates stabilise. A380 probs will probably be around the mix of engine or the cabin customisation - Emirates aircraft should become easier & easier to build (though more pressure on Engine Alliance for capacity).
Sorry the reply is a bit long & maybe over simplified!
|
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Feb 27, 2013 10:56:51 GMT 1
Eastmids13
If I read your post correctly, it seems that you share my view that plane manufacturers are not really in control of production rates.
I wonder how much 'behind the scenes activity' there is to ensure a required flow of additional components.
It does seem that claims to increase production concentrate on the sticking together of pieces to make an aircraft shape. The bits that actually turn the shell into an aircraft would appear to be outside the plane manufacturers' control.
Ah well, it's an expensive man's game, so I'm sure everything sits neatly together. It's when things get pushed that problems may occur.
|
|
|
Post by eastmids13 on Feb 27, 2013 12:59:25 GMT 1
Morning Noistar,
I wouldn't put it as strongly as that... ;-)
For sure in the mid to long-term the manufacturers/OEMs will set the planned build rate - these decisions are (or at least should normally) discussed with key suppliers well in advance due to the long lead-times that you have identified & the fact that there is significant cost in putting in more capacity than is actually needed. Each OEM will have a procurement/supply chain team confirming that suppliers have capacity can support this rate, part of this activity will be to identify those suppliers that cannot have an action plan in place to close the gap in capacity/quality control.
The next key step (which many industries over look) is managing that plan & addressing problems - there will always be suppliers behind plan, the success of any rate rise will depend on ensuring sufficient focus on those suppliers - with the volume of components in each aircraft it would be inexcusable to have significant delays when 99.9999% of components are ready on time, to the right quality. In rate reductions, as we may see on 747-8 it should be around cost management.
Once the project side is done it is to ensure that the suppliers can perform week in week out (i.e. could metrics around delivery on time/quality/scap rates/material availability etc & ensuring problems are highlighted & resolved before impacting production). 737/777/A320/A330 should all be very slick at this due to build rates.
Key is any supply chain is difficult to manage, the more complex it is the harder it is to manage (eg number of suppliers, variations on offer (airlines/configurations/mods etc), distance (face to face mtgs a lot easier, logistics) & even language/culture (assumptions, holidays)). Managing the Belugas for the next 10 years or so is apparently the focus of a lot of activity in supporting all of this activity & we may already have seen the impact of the wing ferry getting grounded for 7 days in that convoys were split, if this part of the water borne logistics chain was capacity constrained then that would be 1 A380 dropped.
Given the proportion of the cost in supply chains, managing them as you infer is critical to the profitability of a model (or any other product for that fact). Critical decisions on 'crown jewels' etc are key on managing cost going forwards, in other industries original outsourcing decisions do not always pay off due to the impact on production & the increased cost of managing the extended supply chain...the current UK horsemeat scandal is an example of where in the short to mid-term capacity & cost will be impacted by loss of control of the supply chain...the magnitude of the 787 impact will be seen in the next 6-12 months.
Again, apologies for the excess, your points in general are true, but the OEMs will dictate rate (on advice by key suppliers) - the key is the execution of the plan & the ability to identify & resolve problems which is the crux of the control of production rates (at an acceptable cost) - given EADS's results this morning they appear to be doing it well currently!
|
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Mar 10, 2013 2:51:59 GMT 1
Bearing in mind the safety and criticality aspect of the engines, does anybody have any idea how near to capacity the engine manufacturers are? Now that the A350 is looming, another engine type will require resources. Is the A330 going to remain in parallel production with the A350, at least in the short term? If so, this is additional resource. I assume engine construction requires technical skills acquired via significant training. I hate to be obsessed with the engines, but it is frightening to think what a misguided management priority could do. I assume an engine manufacturer wouldn't want to be publicly identified as 'the weakest link' in the supply chain
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Mar 10, 2013 12:09:44 GMT 1
Existing engines have established production lines. When manufacturers design them, they build in a capacity for expansion allowing them to answer any surge in demand. Therefore it boils down to a matter of time before an increased pace is implemented.
As regards new engines, the development effort includes the design and building of new production lines (or, possibly, the conversion of older facilities). Usually, problems are performance shortfalls or reliability issues rather than production capacity.
My general feeling is that engine manufacturers are among the most reliable suppliers. Except when they encounter design issues, they are not the weak link in the production line.
|
|
|
Post by eastmids13 on Mar 12, 2013 18:25:18 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by addasih on Oct 22, 2013 18:40:04 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Oct 22, 2013 23:18:52 GMT 1
Rolls-Royce's RB3025 future family of engines is going to be partly funded by the UK government and the European Union. So, subsidies are challenged when received by airframe manufacturers, yet approved when they go to engine manufacturers ! I cannot grasp the consistency ...
|
|
kronus
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,144
|
Post by kronus on Apr 23, 2015 15:28:34 GMT 1
|
|