philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Aug 7, 2019 9:58:27 GMT 1
So the main problems seem to hit outfitting rather than the FAL. Unless you consider outfitting as a stage in final assembly. It's just a matter of words  . |
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Aug 7, 2019 10:42:56 GMT 1
Hopefully they don't repeat the customer cabin configuration chaos of the early A380s again. With the A350 they are stricter and that seems to work better.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Aug 7, 2019 10:50:52 GMT 1
So the main problems seem to hit outfitting rather than the FAL. Unless you consider outfitting as a stage in final assembly. It's just a matter of words . It is a huge difference. If the problems are pre FAL or at the FAL you produce fewer frames. If the problem is with outfitting you have frames visibly standing around waiting, what seems to be the case in XFW. I have heard a new explanation, not online, for TLS reaching such high MSN, while XFW is in far lower MSN. A320 getting reassigned to be A321 by customers, is leading to XFW is getting the former MSN projected for TLS and TLS is getting new MSN up the row. |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Aug 7, 2019 15:31:31 GMT 1
It is a huge difference. If the problems are pre FAL or at the FAL you produce fewer frames. If the problem is with outfitting you have frames visibly standing around waiting, what seems to be the case in XFW. Yes, it's different from a spotter's or enthusiast's point of view, but for a customer's it's the same delivery delay. I have heard a new explanation, not online, for TLS reaching such high MSN, while XFW is in far lower MSN. A320 getting reassigned to be A321 by customers, is leading to XFW is getting the former MSN projected for TLS and TLS is getting new MSN up the row. That's a very convincing explanation ! |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Aug 7, 2019 15:57:12 GMT 1
It is a huge difference. If the problems are pre FAL or at the FAL you produce fewer frames. If the problem is with outfitting you have frames visibly standing around waiting, what seems to be the case in XFW. Yes, it's different from a spotter's or enthusiast's point of view, but for a customer's it's the same delivery delay. I have heard a new explanation, not online, for TLS reaching such high MSN, while XFW is in far lower MSN. A320 getting reassigned to be A321 by customers, is leading to XFW is getting the former MSN projected for TLS and TLS is getting new MSN up the row. That's a very convincing explanation ! Regarding the pre FAL / FAL or after FAL outfitting delay, it could also be a big difference for Airbus and the customer. If it is a supply line problem, the missing pieces come and pretty soon the frame gets delivered. If it is a pre FAL / FAL problem it takes more time to rectify and it holds up all production. |
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Aug 8, 2019 9:02:50 GMT 1
The A321neo is now a long range product. That means more complex cabins more work just bigger aircraft. It might be tricky to modify a high pace standard medium range aircraft production line to now accomodate business class seats and cabins, tanks and satellite IFE and such in the same production time. On top there is the cabin flex complexity with sections and parts. No surprise that they take longer and need to get used to it.
Best thing might be to separate A321LR and XLR production from the rest of the family maybe?
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Aug 8, 2019 9:16:23 GMT 1
The A321neo is now a long range product. That means more complex cabins more work just bigger aircraft. It might be tricky to modify a high pace standard medium range aircraft production line to now accomodate business class seats and cabins, tanks and satellite IFE and such in the same production time. On top there is the cabin flex complexity with sections and parts. No surprise that they take longer and need to get used to it. Best thing might be to separate A321LR and XLR production from the rest of the family maybe? I can really not see why Airbus should give up the flexibility of being able to run all versions over the same FAL. The configuration of the fuselage, the right version of the ACF, must be done pre FAL. Business class seats and so on, are installed in outfitting, ACTs are also simply installed. I can still imagine, that the main problem at Airbus, is simply waiting for delayed stuff, like for example the seats. We have seen that for wide body frames. In addition to all that, a lot of the current ACF are HOV at this time. |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Aug 8, 2019 9:22:00 GMT 1
The A321neo is now a long range product. That means more complex cabins more work just bigger aircraft. It might be tricky to modify a high pace standard medium range aircraft production line to now accomodate business class seats and cabins, tanks and satellite IFE and such in the same production time. On top there is the cabin flex complexity with sections and parts. No surprise that they take longer and need to get used to it. Part of the problem seems to be that Airbus increased the degree of cabin customisation. Did they go too far as they did with the A380, or is it just a difficult transition ? Best thing might be to separate A321LR and XLR production from the rest of the family maybe? That would mean introducing one (or more) dedicated A321neo assembly line(s). Airbus could do that in XFW, where it has four lines, but I doubt it would solve a problem which lies at the end of the process, in outfitting. |
|
. 
