noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jul 8, 2014 1:24:21 GMT 1
I am amazed by some of the comments upthread, asserting that BC either does not want this aircraft type anymore or cannot finance it ! This is pure fantasy ! Have no doubt, BC has secured funding for its A380 purchases. At this stage, aircraft have been built, BC already has had huge progress payments be paid to Airbus, obviously by some banking institution, so definitely there is no funding problem. It is also too late to back out of the deal, BC would suffer huge losses. BC is not a bankrupt company, it is a going concern! The frames cannot just be transferred to another buyer, they are reserved for BC, which has ordered them, and they are going to be stored until building can be resumed. What has happened is a problem with some buyer furnished equipment (BFE), which can be long lead items. We don't know which equipment is concerned, but I am not surprised that a new supply takes several months ... This is unfortunate, but errors do happen (would you have believed the A380 programme could be endangered by wiring issues?). I suppose BC hoped the problem could somehow be fixed without rejecting the supply (hence the transfer to XFW), but Airbus determined there was no way to do that safely (remember that sentence in BC's explanations). Of course, Airbus is not going to comment on a customer's blunders ... One point may have been omitted by BC, though : the delay may be useful to them, if they are struggling to get ready to start the A380 operation. How did you determine that 'Airbus determined there was no way to do that safely'? Who actually decides the criteria is met for a Ferry Flight to Hamburg? What is different now to reverse that decision? |
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Jul 8, 2014 4:49:52 GMT 1
That's a good question, I think the decision of ferrying a frame from TLS to XFW depends on so many variables, most likely including expected delivery-time, availability of bays at XFW, readiness of the frame regarding to ground tests (TLS), all most likely doubled by flight-test teams opinion (if there has been an issue during FF?...) I guess then the only way a frame would eventually land back at TLS if it was planned to ferry to XFW, is if there has been an issue during FF... I wouldn't include MSN155(OZ) and MSN158(EK) for example in this instance, it more seemed to me that both those two conducted the FF and then landed back at TLS for some work or some inspections/checks, but no evidence has ever showed this though...... My double-negation on MSN162 was to reuse one of the former posts' expression, to clarify it I do also think Skymark is very much interested in the A380 and can do lots with it, but just need a little time to adjust to markets and long-haul operations...  |
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jul 8, 2014 5:04:14 GMT 1
That's a good question, I think the decision of ferrying a frame from TLS to XFW depends on so many variables, most likely including expected delivery-time, availability of bays at XFW, readiness of the frame regarding to ground tests (TLS), all most likely doubled by flight-test teams opinion (if there has been an issue during FF?...) I guess then the only way a frame would eventually land back at TLS if it was planned to ferry to XFW, is if there has been an issue during FF... I wouldn't include MSN155(OZ) and MSN158(EK) for example in this instance, it more seemed to me that both those two conducted the FF and then landed back at TLS for some work or some inspections/checks, but no evidence has ever showed this though...... My double-negation on MSN162 was to reuse one of the former posts' expression, to clarify it I do also think Skymark is very much interested in the A380 and can do lots with it, but just need a little time to adjust to markets and long-haul operations... Thanks My point about Ferry Flights was meant to make an assumption that the items to allow the aircraft to be out-fitted, especially for a HOV, would actually exist in XFW. It might be 'wise after the event', but if the hardware was not shipped to XFW then there would be little point in the transfer. MSN162 was reluctant to fly to XFW, so it does make you wonder who decided there was some point in the Ferry Flight |
|
|
|
Post by helios91 on Jul 9, 2014 8:03:51 GMT 1
|
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jul 9, 2014 11:05:50 GMT 1
Have no doubt, BC has secured funding for its A380 purchases. At this stage, aircraft have been built, BC already has had huge progress payments be paid to Airbus, obviously by some banking institution, so definitely there is no funding problem. It is also too late to back out of the deal, BC would suffer huge losses. BC is not a bankrupt company, it is a going concern! ............... What has happened is a problem with some buyer furnished equipment (BFE), which can be long lead items. We don't know which equipment is concerned, but I am not surprised that a new supply takes several months ... I suppose BC hoped the problem could somehow be fixed without rejecting the supply (hence the transfer to XFW), but Airbus determined there was no way to do that safely (remember that sentence in BC's explanations). Of course, Airbus is not going to comment on a customer's blunders ... One point may have been omitted by BC, though : the delay may be useful to them, if they are struggling to get ready to start the A380 operation. Excuse me chopping up your post and making further comment I would have to take issue with what appear to be assumptions in your post. Having finance to build the frames does not mean they have the financial support to operate the frames as intended. The problem is stated to be 'BFE'. The statement seems very non-specific. A few sweeping comments and Airbus keeping their heads down. How many companies in the world are competent enough to make interior fittings? Is their anonymous supplier already producing interiors for other A380 operators? Are Skymark looking at the anonymous manufacturer fixing or replacing items? Many questions hidden behind what the statement DIDN'T say. I can't see why Airbus couldn't make a statement without 'having to comment on a customer's blunders'. Your last point seems to be the relevant one. Skymark do not have any more milestone payments to make for a while. Equally, hiding non-operational frames in Toulouse would be preferable to having liveried frames lying idle in public. (Reminds me of Thai airways attempting to hide the livery of one of their planes which had an unsuccessful landing at Bangkok!) Even so, according to the statement, MSN162 and 167 should both be ready for the start of out-fitting before year end. Any further delays will be telling. |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jul 9, 2014 12:26:32 GMT 1
... The problem is stated to be 'BFE'. The statement seems very non-specific. A few sweeping comments and Airbus keeping their heads down. How many companies in the world are competent enough to make interior fittings? Is their anonymous supplier already producing interiors for other A380 operators? Are Skymark looking at the anonymous manufacturer fixing or replacing items? Many questions hidden behind what the statement DIDN'T say. I can't see why Airbus couldn't make a statement without 'having to comment on a customer's blunders'. ... Noistar, I see from your comments that you probably don't have much business experience. There is no way such issues can be openly discussed in public as you would like. For instance, it would be a serious error for BC to identify the supplier involved (either directly by citing the name of the company, or indirectly by being specific about the cabin equipment concerned). It could be that BC's specs were incorrect or unclear in the first place, and that the blame cannot be entirely pinned on the supplier. If Skymark were to identify a supplier, that company would be forced to reject the allegation that they are at fault, which would trigger a public dispute making it difficult to sort out the issue. Discreet and confidential discussions are much more efficient, this is a general rule of business, but I suspect that rule is even more important in Japan, for cultural reasons. As regards Airbus, they should not embarass a customer with an unsollicited public statement. Their only role is to determine whether BC's BFE is adequate to fit out an A380, or not. At most, they can help with confidential advice on practical solutions. We might however have more information much later, when the aircraft have been delivered. |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jul 9, 2014 12:46:43 GMT 1
It also could be a design issue, in such case the supplier is probably not at fault. The company behind the Skymark A330 and A380 cabin seats is LIFT Strategic Design. lift.aero/lift.aero/liftwork.htmlIt's an issue between Airbus and Skymark, they are not required to inform the general public. |
|
noistar
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 388
|
Post by noistar on Jul 9, 2014 14:32:19 GMT 1
... The problem is stated to be 'BFE'. The statement seems very non-specific. A few sweeping comments and Airbus keeping their heads down. How many companies in the world are competent enough to make interior fittings? Is their anonymous supplier already producing interiors for other A380 operators? Are Skymark looking at the anonymous manufacturer fixing or replacing items? Many questions hidden behind what the statement DIDN'T say. I can't see why Airbus couldn't make a statement without 'having to comment on a customer's blunders'. ... Noistar, I see from your comments that you probably don't have much business experience. There is no way such issues can be openly discussed in public as you would like. For instance, it would be a serious error for BC to identify the supplier involved (either directly by citing the name of the company, or indirectly by being specific about the cabin equipment concerned). It could be that BC's specs were incorrect or unclear in the first place, and that the blame cannot be entirely pinned on the supplier. If Skymark were to identify a supplier, that company would be forced to reject the allegation that they are at fault, which would trigger a public dispute making it difficult to sort out the issue. Discreet and confidential discussions are much more efficient, this is a general rule of business, but I suspect that rule is even more important in Japan, for cultural reasons. As regards Airbus, they should not embarass a customer with an unsollicited public statement. Their only role is to determine whether BC's BFE is adequate to fit out an A380, or not. At most, they can help with confidential advice on practical solutions. We might however have more information much later, when the aircraft have been delivered. I hope we can agree (but probably not  ) that the Skymark statement has sufficient smoke and mirrors to make (almost) anything possible. an airframe making an unnecessary flight seems strange to say the least. Why did it take so long to transfer, just to clutter up space at XFW, just so it could return to Toulouse. possibly a hundred and one valid reasons to make everything a set of unfortunate, speculative coincidences. time will tell of course, but my (figurative) money is on post-manufacture money. |
|
Festus
Final Assembly Line stage 1
Posts: 272
|
Post by Festus on Jul 9, 2014 14:45:04 GMT 1
I remember, that some A380s of Singapore Airlines couldn't be delivered, because of problems with the supplier of their seats. Does anybody remember how many months these had to be stored and which supplier this was?
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jul 9, 2014 15:02:55 GMT 1
|
|
) that the Skymark statement has sufficient smoke and mirrors to make (almost) anything possible.