Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 10/19/2006 View Wed 10/18/2006 View Tue 10/17/2006 View Mon 10/16/2006 View Sun 10/15/2006 View Sat 10/14/2006 View Fri 10/13/2006
1
2006-10-19 Europe
Initial Airbus cuts aimed at German staffing, operations
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2006-10-19 01:15|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 "However, the 2003 agreement with German labor unions rules out firing any regular staff in Germany until 2012."

My boggle just blew up. I am now without boggle. *sniff*
Posted by .com 2006-10-19 01:47||   2006-10-19 01:47|| Front Page Top

#2 ;-)
Posted by RD 2006-10-19 04:00||   2006-10-19 04:00|| Front Page Top

#3 heh these Airbust posts are a nice RB feature..maybe Zen can leave us some spicy Ramadan chips and dip while we pause to enjoy the turkey! ;-)
Posted by RD 2006-10-19 04:01||   2006-10-19 04:01|| Front Page Top

#4 the 2003 agreement with German labor unions rules out firing any regular staff in Germany until 2012.

No firings? Well, what about layoffs, then? That's a different beast altogether.

Let me check the source. AP. Well, surprised I am, I say.
Posted by gromky 2006-10-19 12:42||   2006-10-19 12:42|| Front Page Top

#5 Late word yesterday from Boeing siad they were going to stretch the latest 747 PAX variant to equal the 747-8 freighter and add 17 more seats to it. That doesn't bring it into 380 equivanency, but narrows the gap and it is availalbe in 2 years, it will take Airbust (thanks for that new nym) that long to get the wiring right (allegedly). Airbus also announced today that they were looking at closing, selling plants and outsourcing. it remains to be seen if anything comes of that. I am betting too little too late.
Posted by USN, ret. 2006-10-19 14:09||   2006-10-19 14:09|| Front Page Top

#6 It is really amazing to see the meltdown of airbus and see it happening so quickly and to such a great degree. They seem to have structural issues that make emerging from this situation very, very difficult, if not impossible. Boeing's market share of the commercial airliner market should skyrocket over the next 10 years.
Posted by remoteman 2006-10-19 14:39||   2006-10-19 14:39|| Front Page Top

#7 Reading your post, remoteman, it just hit me that Airbus is something of a microcosm of the EU itself - the lousy management, failure, promise unfulfilled - and even perhaps the canary of the EU coalmine.
Posted by .com 2006-10-19 14:46||   2006-10-19 14:46|| Front Page Top

#8 Airbus did well for a while when the airplane market was growing. Now it's more competitive and while they have massive government subsidies, what they don't have is product. For that they need competent management, a workforce that can produce and designers who want to create inspiring airplanes.

Interesting how the world market has shaken this out -- in a normal reality, this would cause people in Europe to start asking what they're doing wrong and how might they do things better. In our reality it means they'll try to regulate the world more so as to protect themselves.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2006-10-19 14:59||   2006-10-19 14:59|| Front Page Top

#9 .Com, I think that is an accurate read. If they have structural impediments dictated by society, ie not able to fire workers until 2012, then they are going to sink. Likewise their collective management that is grounded in the multi-national governmental "ownership" of the "company. Yes, much like Brussels telling the people that Europe's socialist structure cannot continue but being utterly unable to do anything about it. Canary in the coal mine indeed.
Posted by remoteman 2006-10-19 14:59||   2006-10-19 14:59|| Front Page Top

#10 The only market they'll have is themselves - and anyone whose arm they can twist. We see something of the same in China and Russia, too. Coercive and uncompetitive - yet they seem to think they are engaged in a controlled form of (dare I say it) capitalism. As if they needed to tame it, first.

Look at how they deal with true multinationals, such as Microsoft. They have to bully them, extort them, I doubt they can conceive of any other way.

Without the bona-fide competition, it's shit, and they're shit. Funny thing is, they know it, too, but don't care. Control, and via that, self-interest and corruption are more important. It's actually simple cowardice.

Ah well, sorry - woolgathering.
Posted by .com 2006-10-19 15:34||   2006-10-19 15:34|| Front Page Top

#11 Surely the UN will be called upon to level Boeing the playing field? All this dreadful competition can't possibly good for the entitlement community union shop stewards Eurocrats industry!
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-10-19 15:44||   2006-10-19 15:44|| Front Page Top

#12 Wonder if they are considering outsourcing to Boeing?
Posted by RWV 2006-10-19 15:46||   2006-10-19 15:46|| Front Page Top

#13 They are also interested in the military side of the business; the upcoming USAF KC-135 Tanker Replacement Aircraft. Airbus has teamed with Northrop Grumman (and I so used to like the Ironworks) to compete w/ Boeing and their 767 (and now 777 derivatives). That was a smart move, and they have also targeted one of the poorest areas of the US in which to build / finalize / modify the aircraft; Alabama.
So today on the Boeing website ( a regular daily stop is mandated for me there) they have a press release extolling what they (Boeing) contributes to the state's economy. If one wasn't aware of the tanker contract, you might just note that as "today's feel good" piece, but since Airbus is on the ropes commercially for new product, nothing says good old American Capiatalism like a swift kick while you're down. Keep it up Boeing! Concur with earlier postings about lack of necessary business resolve to fix the place; i have said before (elsewhere) that Airbus needs to decide if it is an aircraft manufacturer or a multi national jobs program. With the revelations yseterday, i think my question was answered (fewer hours, no RIF/ layoffs, firings).
Posted by USN, ret. 2006-10-19 15:46||   2006-10-19 15:46|| Front Page Top

#14 It's a shame, really, for all the aviation fans out there. What Airbus is shooting for is what Boeing accomplished in the 60's: the 747, one of the biggest milestones in civil aviation.

Like it or not, double-decker airliners are in the future for travel between hub cities. Which is what the A380 is intended for.
Posted by Rafael 2006-10-19 16:17||   2006-10-19 16:17|| Front Page Top

#15 BTW, there's a great thread on this topic right now on www.airliners.net:

Is Airbus Going To Go Out Of Business?
Posted by Rafael 2006-10-19 16:27||   2006-10-19 16:27|| Front Page Top

#16 Late word yesterday from Boeing siad they were going to stretch the latest 747 PAX variant to equal the 747-8 freighter

Good. I never understood why the passenger version was shorter. Aside from manufacturing issues, when passenger life is over (if Boeing sells any), they can be converted to freighters with the same cargo volume as dedicated freighters.

For the tanker competion, I think the 767 only offer is inferior to the A330, old tech and end of life. The 767 and 777 offer is better as it relieves more of the cargo aircraft shortage and the 777 has the wingspan top refuel 2 Navy/non-US fighters with drogue and hose (big shortage). I would like to see immediate purchase of the 777 cargo/tanker followed by a 787 tanker/cargo.

Interesting the German plants are basically laying off 1000 workers. I wonder if there will be anything evquivalent at Toulouse.
Posted by ed 2006-10-19 16:52||   2006-10-19 16:52|| Front Page Top

#17 Too big, too prestigious to fail. The national money pumps will soon kick in.
Posted by Shipman 2006-10-19 17:02||   2006-10-19 17:02|| Front Page Top

#18 Re"...purchase of the 777 cargo/tanker followed by a 787 tanker/cargo." right now with the fat order book for 3 variants of the Dreamliner, i do not think Boeing is too interested in diverting the necessary engineering resources from PAX development to a freighter / tanker version. Composite design is not as simple as aluminum; you just can't add another stringer or a metal doubler around a cutout, but rather the entire loads encountered by the structure must be evaluated. What may appear simple turns out to be not so. Perhaps some day i can be less obtuse. think of it as trying to install a header in a ground floor of a house for a new door without placing jacks on the ceiling to hold the thing up while you take the chain saw to the wall. but i agree, a freigther / tanker 787 would be a killer move, once again capitalizing on commonality of systems and basic crew training.

Posted by USN, ret. 2006-10-19 18:17||   2006-10-19 18:17|| Front Page Top

#19 lol, RD. but I read it as Airburst
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-19 18:29||   2006-10-19 18:29|| Front Page Top

#20 Death by a thousand cuts
Posted by Captain America 2006-10-19 20:44||   2006-10-19 20:44|| Front Page Top

13:08 Unating Sleater5673
23:56 Broadhead6
23:53 Broadhead6
23:50 Zenster
23:48 Snuns Thromp1484
23:47 Old Patriot
23:45 Broadhead6
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:38 anonymous2u
23:37 Old Patriot
23:35 anonymous2u
23:33 FeralCat
23:31 Icerigger
23:30 11A5S
23:27 Icerigger
23:26 Old Patriot
23:26 Snuns Thromp1484
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:24 Icerigger
23:24 Broadhead6
23:21 Barbara Skolaut
23:18 Broadhead6
23:17 JosephMendiola
23:17 Barbara Skolaut









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com