XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Nov 1, 2016 16:18:13 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Nov 2, 2016 14:55:07 GMT 1
Here is a graph version of the A350 ships sets by quarter with more history, I prefer it !
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Nov 22, 2016 1:59:47 GMT 1
Airbus is still confident of meeting its 2016 production targets. The situation regarding cabin interior supplies has improved, and is now 'under control'. I asked questions about it recently in another thread, but we did not have an answer then. “On the [buyer furnished equipment] suppliers like seats, galleys that sort of thing we are working through those problems and they are getting back under control,”. This quote is from a Flightglobal article which has already been linked to in other threads. www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-ramping-up-to-meet-production-targets-431655/ |
|
|
|
Post by aviationrookie on Nov 22, 2016 10:46:05 GMT 1
Are all the frames currently in Cabin fit and which are rolled out be delivered in 2016?
|
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Nov 22, 2016 10:48:46 GMT 1
Lufthansa is expecting their first before christmas.
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Nov 24, 2016 14:26:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by aviationrookie on Dec 27, 2016 17:26:24 GMT 1
Hope everyone had a great Christmas..
Though I may sound amateur but is there any specific reason for building a350 only at Toulose and not both Toulose or Hamburg?
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Dec 27, 2016 19:11:16 GMT 1
One site only is always more efficient, though how much exactly is debatable.
The main reason for building the A380 on two sites was to placate both governments, at a time when they had a lot of influence inside the company. Now that Airbus is independant, such concerns take a back seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Dec 28, 2016 0:01:20 GMT 1
One site only is always more efficient, though how much exactly is debatable. The main reason for building the A380 on two sites was to placate both governments, at a time when they had a lot of influence inside the company. Now that Airbus is independant, such concerns take a back seat. One site for FAL is much cheaper, the body join and wing join rigs and machinery are not cheap. One set of staff in one place is also cheaper / more efficient then two sets of staff in two locations. |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Dec 28, 2016 2:04:06 GMT 1
One site for FAL is much cheaper, the body join and wing join rigs and machinery are not cheap. One set of staff in one place is also cheaper / more efficient then two sets of staff in two locations. If you have two sites, you don't have to duplicate investments or labour. For instance, the A380 is assembled in TLS and fitted out in XFW. There is no duplication. Even transfer flights are not an additional expense, they are also used as test flights. Two sites however mean more overhead costs. This is the main waste associated with two sites. |
|
