|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Jul 23, 2019 8:07:52 GMT 1
I wouldn't mind moving it, but from which post exactly?..
|
|
sciing
in service - 1 year
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,502 
|
Post by sciing on Jul 23, 2019 16:14:01 GMT 1
The above discussion is entirely about A320 family production (mainly A320neo family). It should be moved to the relevant thread, in my opinion. It is about XFW production issues. I still disagree that it is an engine issue! Starting point was a management change for the A320 program. I see still no reason to move it and already disagreed such request in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by ca350 on Jul 23, 2019 16:21:25 GMT 1
Since we've been talking about XFW production issues, what about moving those posts to "A320 Assembly Lines in Hamburg - Germany" thread under A320family sub-board?
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jul 23, 2019 20:57:38 GMT 1
Since we've been talking about XFW production issues, what about moving those posts to "A320 Assembly Lines in Hamburg - Germany" thread under A320family sub-board? Sciing connects it to the change in management, that is why he wants that discussion here. |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jul 24, 2019 0:23:39 GMT 1
The above discussion is entirely about A320 family production (mainly A320neo family). It should be moved to the relevant thread, in my opinion. It is about XFW production issues. I still disagree that it is an engine issue! Starting point was a management change for the A320 program. I see still no reason to move it and already disagreed such request in the past. OK, you say it is a XFW production problem. What is your guess, rumor, information about what is slowing deliveries in XFW post FAL? Because the frames we are talking about are delayed post FAL. The only idea, apart from engines I would have, is rework, but there have been no indication for that. Frames farmed out have mostly been ntu and prepared for a new owner. |
|
sciing
in service - 1 year
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,502
|
Post by sciing on Jul 24, 2019 6:23:09 GMT 1
It is about XFW production issues. I still disagree that it is an engine issue! Starting point was a management change for the A320 program. I see still no reason to move it and already disagreed such request in the past. OK, you say it is a XFW production problem. What is your guess, rumor, information about what is slowing deliveries in XFW post FAL? Because the frames we are talking about are delayed post FAL. The only idea, apart from engines I would have, is rework, but there have been no indication for that. Frames farmed out have mostly been ntu and prepared for a new owner. There were 6 frames send to DRS for structural rework. At the moment MSN 8839 is in DRS for „fuselage“ work. An these were not ACFs. There are around 35 frames (more than a month) spotted with engines but taxi, RTO or FF not done, yet. This number quite steady since months. The actual MSNs in XFW are far behind any other FAL. TLS is now over 91xx, BFM and TSN are in the mid 90xx, but there XFW highest FF is below 9000. The production list has some holes around 9000 and 9100. And the numbers for XFW is lower for MSN 90xx, so I guess there were already some MSNs skipped. |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Jul 24, 2019 13:07:21 GMT 1
OK, you say it is a XFW production problem. What is your guess, rumor, information about what is slowing deliveries in XFW post FAL? Because the frames we are talking about are delayed post FAL. The only idea, apart from engines I would have, is rework, but there have been no indication for that. Frames farmed out have mostly been ntu and prepared for a new owner. There were 6 frames send to DRS for structural rework. At the moment MSN 8839 is in DRS for „fuselage“ work. An these were not ACFs. There are around 35 frames (more than a month) spotted with engines but taxi, RTO or FF not done, yet. This number quite steady since months. The actual MSNs in XFW are far behind any other FAL. TLS is now over 91xx, BFM and TSN are in the mid 90xx, but there XFW highest FF is below 9000. The production list has some holes around 9000 and 9100. And the numbers for XFW is lower for MSN 90xx, so I guess there were already some MSNs skipped. A lot of the frame delivered now have been seen without engines not very long ago. That frames once had engines does not matter a tiny little bit, as it is known that engines were removed to be refurbished, before the frames did a FF or after a few flights. This engine rework has been slow, because of not enough capacity and I assume the removal has been done according to to the ability to refurbish them. Also numbers of new engines did not go to newly build frames, but to keep already delivered frames flying, while engines were refurbished. That of course explains only P&W, but we know also that CFM is slow delivering, not only to Airbus but also to Boeing before the grounding. Fuselage problems should hit any FAL as that should not be FAL specific apart from perhaps faulty fuselages stay in XFW and are not delivered to the other FALs. 6 frames send to DRS for structural rework is not a number explaining 30 to 40 frames being late. Airbus has never produced strictly according to MSN row, as you well know, so one FAL putting out higher MSN numbers does not really tell anything. I am still waiting for any problem that you can define. Everything else is your interpretation of observations and I have a different interpretation pointing to a well known problem, that is still not completely solved. |
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 24, 2019 14:44:19 GMT 1
XFW is the only FAL that makes A321s ?
|
|
sciing
in service - 1 year
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,502
|
Post by sciing on Jul 24, 2019 15:23:41 GMT 1
XFW is the only FAL that makes A321s ? Mobile makes A321, too. |
|
sciing
in service - 1 year
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,502
|
Post by sciing on Jul 24, 2019 15:30:56 GMT 1
There were 6 frames send to DRS for structural rework. At the moment MSN 8839 is in DRS for „fuselage“ work. An these were not ACFs. There are around 35 frames (more than a month) spotted with engines but taxi, RTO or FF not done, yet. This number quite steady since months. The actual MSNs in XFW are far behind any other FAL. TLS is now over 91xx, BFM and TSN are in the mid 90xx, but there XFW highest FF is below 9000. The production list has some holes around 9000 and 9100. And the numbers for XFW is lower for MSN 90xx, so I guess there were already some MSNs skipped. A lot of the frame delivered now have been seen without engines not very long ago. That frames once had engines does not matter a tiny little bit, as it is known that engines were removed to be refurbished, before the frames did a FF or after a few flights. This engine rework has been slow, because of not enough capacity and I assume the removal has been done according to to the ability to refurbish them. Also numbers of new engines did not go to newly build frames, but to keep already delivered frames flying, while engines were refurbished. That of course explains only P&W, but we know also that CFM is slow delivering, not only to Airbus but also to Boeing before the grounding. Fuselage problems should hit any FAL as that should not be FAL specific apart from perhaps faulty fuselages stay in XFW and are not delivered to the other FALs. 6 frames send to DRS for structural rework is not a number explaining 30 to 40 frames being late. Airbus has never produced strictly according to MSN row, as you well know, so one FAL putting out higher MSN numbers does not really tell anything. I am still waiting for any problem that you can define. Everything else is your interpretation of observations and I have a different interpretation pointing to a well known problem, that is still not completely solved. DRS does maybe only a small part of the rework? One last question, why are XFW Deltas A321ceos late? MSN 8822 was seen with engines and painted almost 4 months ago March 30th and did not move! The issue is not limited to neos, I am repeating me! |
|
