Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Transportation Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Airbus 380 program woes. Who do you blame?
Herald1234    9/7/2007 4:07:32 PM
Article follows: then discussion. Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Herald1234       9/7/2007 4:17:07 PM
http://aecnews.com/articles/2035.aspx

Dassault Debacle in the A-380 program.
[Quote the article]:
Lessons For All CAD Users From the Airbus CATIA Debacle
Posted on Friday, September 29, 2006 9:16 AM

By Randall S. Newton
Editor-in-Chief

Bloomberg News is reporting this morning that the use of two different versions of CATIA 3D CAD software—versions that are incompatible at the file level—is largely to blame for significant delays on the Airbus A380 project.

“Airbus Vows Computers Will Speak Same Language After A380 Delay,” says the headline.

Software used to manage the design and manufacture of the 555-seat A380 at Airbus's Hamburg engineering center isn't fully compatible with that used at company headquarters in Toulouse, France, say current and former Airbus executives, including Charles Champion, who headed the A380 program until September. That's why hundreds of small changes to electrical wiring in the A380 snowballed into at least a year’s delay in delivering the world's biggest passenger aircraft and $2.5 billion in lost profit. Airbus Chief Executive Officer Christian Streiff may announce additional costs or longer delays for the A380 in coming days. The board of Airbus parent European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. meets today in Amsterdam.

The incompatible software products are CATIA V4 and CATIA V5, 3D CAD software from Dassault Systèmes. It is no secret that these two versions of CATIA are incompatible at the file format level, and it is nothing new for a CAD software company to update a file format in such a way that compatibility between versions breaks down. We know this well in AEC. Autodesk changes AutoCAD’s DWG format with every two or three annual releases. Bentley is still guiding customers through the transition between MicroStation V7 and V8 formats, even though MicroStation V8 first came out in 2001.

It would be easy to blame Dassault for this mess by criticizing their decision to change the file format in CATIA 5. Easy, but wrong. Doing so sends a really dumb message to software vendors: Don’t Innovate. How much productivity and new functionality would be lost from CATIA V5 if Dassault had stuck with the internal file format of the previous version? Quite a bit. Sometimes you just have to jump the chasm.

The real problem looks to be a lack of leadership at the top levels at Airbus. Somebody inside Airbus knew that engineers in Germany and Spain were using CATIA V4 while CATIA V5 was in use in the UK and France. Somebody made a decision not to push for a single compatible standard, or to at least invest in a translator system. As a result, Airbus has already announced earnings losses of $2.54 billion over the next three years, according to Bloomberg. I am sure the Airbus board of directors, meeting today in Amsterdam, would like to know Somebody’s name.

What can CAD users in general learn from this? First and foremost, either commit 100% to the use of your software, or find a different CAD standard that gives you the comfort you seek. Don’t be half-hearted. Aggressively demand the best from your vendor and then aggressively work internally to make your purchase work. Allowing different versions to co-exist in a design environment to avoid personnel issues may be penny-wise, but it is also certainly pound-foolish. Whining about lousy software without a will to invest in a solution is pathetic.

The second lesson is to plan ahead. In the case of Airbus, if an analysis showed there was good reason to continue using two different version of CATIA, there should have been a similar decision—made and implemented in advance—to guide how designs from the two versions would come together. All indications at the moment are that none of this happened. I say this knowing that the design work on the A380 started before the release of CATIA V5. It didn't take a crystal ball to know Dassault's plans for the future of the product line.

The third lesson is to directly address cultural issues regarding the use of design software. Time and time again I have heard engineering managers and CAD directors say the most difficult part of implementing new software is the resistance among the old guard. Why should engineers in Germany and Spain have been allowed to continue using CATIA V4 when engineers in France and the UK were already on CATIA V5? It only makes sense if appeasement is a core corporate value.

I can’t help but think of Foster and Partners in the UK, famed both for its striking designs and its aggressive use of design technology. They work closely with their CAD vendor of choice, Bentley, but it certainly is not a case of Fosters being spoon-fed everything Bentley has to offer. They push Bentley for certain tools, and Bentley wisely listens. Passivity in such a
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       9/7/2007 4:20:32 PM
Put the blame where it belongs-DASSAULT.

They supplied the CAD, they supplied vendor technical integration and inter-operation. They bungled the customer support up and down the line.

Herald
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

PowerPointRanger    The real fault   9/10/2007 10:21:59 PM
I think you can't ignore the whole flawed concept of Airbus.  Let's face it, when you have several very different countries combine their efforts for one company, you're going to have underlying difficulties:
1) Competing political interersts--in which countries will the factories be built or closed?
2) Different languages--even if the cooperating employees speak the same language, it may not be their native language and there could be a lot lost in translation.
3) Cultural differences--the different countries have different laws and traditions.  It would certainly be cumbersome to reconcile them.
 
In some respects, this software difference in the CAD for the A380 is an example of this and just how expensive and complicated such problems can be.
 
Boeing, in contrast, has no problems with any of this.
 
I would go beyond this, however, to say that Airbus obviously underestimated just how complex the A380 would be and overestimated their ability to handle it.  The physics of building an aircraft basically say the bigger an aircraft is the stronger it must be.  The wings have to be able to support a heavier load, which requires either stronger materials or a better design.  To their credit, Airbus did manage it, but they clearly underestimated how difficult/expensive it would be.
 
In truth, there is a big difference between what is technically feasible and what is commercially shrewd.  Just look at the Concorde--a technical feat, but a commercial disaster that never made a profit.  The A380 has proven to be technically feasible, but so far is looking commercially marginal at best.  It may not turn a profit for a decade and the investment has been enormous.  That investment money could have been better spend in many different ways, such as making an A350 that buyers actully wanted or a successor to the A320, which is their best seller, but is an old design and is quickly approaching obsolesence.
 
Let's face it, the A380 was a disaster waiting to happen.
 
 
Quote    Reply

John G       9/13/2007 12:21:37 PM
I dont agree with you PPR. Like the article says it is in an organisations best interests to innovate and push the boundaries of what is possible. The Airbus formular has worked brilliantly for many years and it is much much to early to start hammering nails into A380s or Airbuses coffin just yet. The Plane will be around for decades and we will have to see how it does in the coming years to see whether or not it is a failure. As for Concorde though a technical marvel at the time what purpose did it serve... none it carried less people and at an increased charge at the spec of any First class flight it made no business sense and still doesnt.
 
I agree with Herald in one aspect that Dassault as integrator should take some responsibility, however the responsibility must also lie internally with project managers and the like who did not identify the problem/potential problem earlier.
 
Quote    Reply

PowerPointRanger    PPR responds   9/18/2007 9:04:31 PM
To say that Airbus worked brilliantly is overstating things a bit.  They have become a major player in the world thanks to a lot of government financial help and a willingness to offer kickbacks to buyers--not exactly the traits of a "brilliant" commercial enterprise.  In fact, I very much doubt Airbus would have survived its recent A380 debacle without a government infusion of cash.
 
Will the A380 make a profit?  Probably, in a decade or so, if it doesn't suffer any other big problems.  But what I am saying is the amount of money they have spent on it will not see a return for perhaps a decade and the money they will make will be small compared to what they would have made had they invested the money in smaller projects like the A350 or an A320 upgrade. 
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       9/22/2007 10:14:16 AM
PPR, it was my understanding that the A380 delays resulted from problems in the wiring, since they'd allowed their customers free reign over what was put in and how.

There was that problem when the wing broke at a slightly lower load than that calculated. If anyone has details on how that was resolved, I'd be interested. I think there was a slight redesign.

Worth noting, if we're going to start laying into Airbus again, that Boeing are shaping up to be late on delivery of the 787. That and Boeing get plenty in covert government subsidy. The profit on those cost-plus defense R&D contracts has to go somewhere.
 
Quote    Reply

Kuniralf       9/23/2007 3:58:34 AM
'Will the A380 make a profit?  Probably, in a decade or so, if it doesn't suffer any other big problems.  But what I am saying is the amount of money they have spent on it will not see a return for perhaps a decade and the money they will make will be small compared to what they would have made had they invested the money in smaller projects like the A350 or an A320 upgrade.'

Depends on global economics and currency exchange ratios as well. If the EUR stays strong, it will be harder to sell European products including A380. However that does not mean that Airbus and especially the French part need some serious restructuring, see Herald1234' postings here and elsewhere.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       9/23/2007 5:50:29 AM

Put the blame where it belongs-DASSAULT.

They supplied the CAD, they supplied vendor technical integration and inter-operation. They bungled the customer support up and down the line.

Herald
 

 

I disagree, this is obviously a problem from the Airbus side.
 
You need to have anal-retentive attitude on software version control for any large project.
 
As for file translation programs, they can probably go from version 4 to version 5 just fine.  Don't bet anything you will miss on a translation from 5 to 4.
 
p.s.  If you think Dassault's CAD software versions have compatibility problems, check out the new version of MicroSoft Office.

 
Quote    Reply

FJV       9/23/2007 6:48:10 AM
Blaming the software is cheap.
- Any problems in sharing the designs between versions would show up the moment you share drawings.
- I'm pretty sure that engineers would point out such problems early on (it's their job to see such problems).
- Effectively handling such problems is unglamorous and expensive, so instead I would not be suprised if people got told to just get
  the job done with the stuff they got and quit whining or lose their job.





 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin    On customization and profitability   9/23/2007 9:38:08 AM
I 'm not too sure of the software issue. But on the issue of allowing A380 customers to specify their own cabin specs and configurations.

Either :

1) Airbus was so confidant of their manufacturing capabilities (bare in mind that at the time of sales, the factories and assembly sites in Germany and France were not even ready yet) that they thought they could produce customized planes with no production delays?

2) As the Airbus 380 would require almost every airport to refurbish terminals and in some cases runways to faciliate the surge of passengers arriving requiring considerable investments, besides those of the new aircraft, Airbus offered up the customization options to sweeten the deals?


Profitability

Well now that the first Airbus 380 will be in operation soon for SAL next month, the operational, ease of use and reliability issues of the A380 will become known. And if it is good, then they will get more orders. Even if it is a good aircraft, but for some reason the business model does not work and the airlines cannot fill up the extra seats? Then things can go south for the A380.

It just does not work out if you build it they will come, as Boeing may be building or cooking up something new soon.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics