4 ms·

These are some massive sub-assemblies being carted all over the world...it's surprising to me that there aren't more localized efficiencies, or that this global

These are some massive sub-assemblies being carted all over the world...it's surprising to me that there aren't more localized efficiencies, or that this global Lego set doesn't always have more missing pieces than its worth. Rear Fuselage: Hamburg, Germany Vertical Stabilizer: Stade, Germany Forward Fuselage: Saint-Nazaire, France Wings: Broughton, Wales Engines: Middletown, Connecticuit Final Assembly: Mobile, Alabama

omegant 9y ago
It's like this due to political reasons, nothing to do with eficiency.
- prplhaz4 9y ago
  But doesn't a business have to, at some point, meet a minimum level of efficiency to still be viable? Do subsidies and mandates make up for all that slack?
  - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
    It's not just subsidies and mandates, it's large government contracts on maybe not actually needed systems. See the F-35 as an example of this, which has parts manufactured in a majority of states meaning it's impossible for congress to nix this sort of program because it would cost constituents jobs. Also how it makes it harder for congressmen and women to vote against these sorts of deals because it would cost their constituents future jobs. I don't know about Airbus in particular but this is how it generally work with companies like Lockheed and Boeing.
  - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
    It's not just subsidies and mandates, it's large government contracts on maybe not actually needed systems. See the F-35 as an example of this, which has parts manufactured in a majority of states meaning it's impossible for congress to nix this sort of program because it would cost constituents jobs. Also how it makes it harder for congressmen and women to vote against these sorts of deals because it would cost their constituents future jobs. I don't know about Airbus in particular but this is how it generally work with companies like Lockheed and Boeing.
  - SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
    It's not just subsidies and mandates, it's large government contracts on maybe not actually needed systems. See the F-35 as an example of this, which has parts manufactured in a majority of states meaning it's impossible for congress to nix this sort of program because it would cost constituents jobs. Also how it makes it harder for congressmen and women to vote against these sorts of deals because it would cost their constituents future jobs. I don't know about Airbus in particular but this is how it generally work with companies like Lockheed and Boeing.
  - Jtsummers 9y ago
    Only if there's sufficient competition. Boeing does the same thing, spreading their components across most of the US (and into other countries) for the same reasons. It's an alternate to conventional lobbying. Instead of, "Hey Congressman here's $100,000 for your campaign." It's, "Hey Congressman, vote for aircraft X and I'll move to your state and create 2000 jobs. Don't, and I'll pull out the 2000 jobs that are already there."
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    This may be the minimum. I would think that building planes, as expensive as they are, would mean that you would want to sell them to everyone. In order to sell in a country, you probably have to commit to building (or assembling) some parts of it in that country. Breaking it up the way they did probably is as efficient as they can make it now. I guess we'll see in some years how that turns out financially for them.
- jrf6 9y ago
  The article also cited the lower wages in Alabama. The pay scale tops out at $23 an hour, and the workforce is not unionized.
  - jonknee 9y ago
    The $158m in incentives that Alabama paid were also part of it: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/big_incentives_at_stake_as_air.html http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/big_incentives_at_s...
    - howard941 9y ago
      As was the hope Airbus would land the Air Force tanker contract it lost to Boeing.
- sgift 9y ago
  Surprisingly, there was a report a few years ago that the distributed nature of Airbus also was more efficient. But yeah, it's mainly for political reasons.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Pretty sure that report was for political reasons as well.
    - sgift 9y ago
      It was an independent report that compared Boeing and Airbus, so I have my doubts.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        There hasn't been a professional sports stadium built, ever, without an "independent report" that said building a large concrete mausoleum employing mostly minimum wage workers for only part of the year, and with rich employees and owners that spirit most of their earnings out of state, wasn't the greatest economic benefit ever for their city.
- Geekette 9y ago
  Did you read the article? It's as much if not more for economic reasons: Airbus realized that it could get more lucrative US military contracts by having local bases and chose factory locations partly for historical trends (of having facilities serving military-industrial complex) as well as other factors like lower cost and tax subsidies from choosen locations.
tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago
The split is political. It can be quite inefficient: When the Airbus A380 was in development, the non-unified production caused severe delays because only at assembly did Airbus discover that the electric cables are not long enough to connect the different plane parts[1]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/business/worldbusiness/11iht-airbus.3860198.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/business/worldbusiness/11i...
- noir_lord 9y ago
  I'm trying to remember where I read about Airbus designing the plane in two different places and when they built the thing it turned out that one place was using version X-1 and the other X and that caused really subtle problems with alignment. I'm sure it was Airbus but I can't find the article. EDIT: Found it http://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700 http://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700 Offtopic but the "Catalogue of Catastrophe" is a damn good read http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=3 http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=3 Basically a "why things failed/cost a fortune that shouldn't" list for large projects.
JustAnotherPat 9y ago
You probably need a decent amount of engineers at each of those locations. Different types of engineers. I doubt you can convince enough of them to move to Mobile. Plus at the end of the day, how much more does it cost to ship assembled pieces vs. raw material?
- convivialdingo 9y ago
  Alabama has a long history of space & aviation engineering... you wouldn't have to go far to find experienced engineers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Space_Flight_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Space_Flight_Center

omegant 9y ago

It's like this due to political reasons, nothing to do with eficiency.

prplhaz4 9y ago
But doesn't a business have to, at some point, meet a minimum level of efficiency to still be viable? Do subsidies and mandates make up for all that slack?
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
  It's not just subsidies and mandates, it's large government contracts on maybe not actually needed systems. See the F-35 as an example of this, which has parts manufactured in a majority of states meaning it's impossible for congress to nix this sort of program because it would cost constituents jobs. Also how it makes it harder for congressmen and women to vote against these sorts of deals because it would cost their constituents future jobs. I don't know about Airbus in particular but this is how it generally work with companies like Lockheed and Boeing.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
  It's not just subsidies and mandates, it's large government contracts on maybe not actually needed systems. See the F-35 as an example of this, which has parts manufactured in a majority of states meaning it's impossible for congress to nix this sort of program because it would cost constituents jobs. Also how it makes it harder for congressmen and women to vote against these sorts of deals because it would cost their constituents future jobs. I don't know about Airbus in particular but this is how it generally work with companies like Lockheed and Boeing.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
  It's not just subsidies and mandates, it's large government contracts on maybe not actually needed systems. See the F-35 as an example of this, which has parts manufactured in a majority of states meaning it's impossible for congress to nix this sort of program because it would cost constituents jobs. Also how it makes it harder for congressmen and women to vote against these sorts of deals because it would cost their constituents future jobs. I don't know about Airbus in particular but this is how it generally work with companies like Lockheed and Boeing.
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  Only if there's sufficient competition. Boeing does the same thing, spreading their components across most of the US (and into other countries) for the same reasons. It's an alternate to conventional lobbying. Instead of, "Hey Congressman here's $100,000 for your campaign." It's, "Hey Congressman, vote for aircraft X and I'll move to your state and create 2000 jobs. Don't, and I'll pull out the 2000 jobs that are already there."
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  This may be the minimum. I would think that building planes, as expensive as they are, would mean that you would want to sell them to everyone. In order to sell in a country, you probably have to commit to building (or assembling) some parts of it in that country. Breaking it up the way they did probably is as efficient as they can make it now. I guess we'll see in some years how that turns out financially for them.
jrf6 9y ago
The article also cited the lower wages in Alabama. The pay scale tops out at $23 an hour, and the workforce is not unionized.
- jonknee 9y ago
  The $158m in incentives that Alabama paid were also part of it: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/big_incentives_at_stake_as_air.html http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/big_incentives_at_s...
  - howard941 9y ago
    As was the hope Airbus would land the Air Force tanker contract it lost to Boeing.
sgift 9y ago
Surprisingly, there was a report a few years ago that the distributed nature of Airbus also was more efficient. But yeah, it's mainly for political reasons.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Pretty sure that report was for political reasons as well.
  - sgift 9y ago
    It was an independent report that compared Boeing and Airbus, so I have my doubts.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      There hasn't been a professional sports stadium built, ever, without an "independent report" that said building a large concrete mausoleum employing mostly minimum wage workers for only part of the year, and with rich employees and owners that spirit most of their earnings out of state, wasn't the greatest economic benefit ever for their city.
Geekette 9y ago
Did you read the article? It's as much if not more for economic reasons: Airbus realized that it could get more lucrative US military contracts by having local bases and chose factory locations partly for historical trends (of having facilities serving military-industrial complex) as well as other factors like lower cost and tax subsidies from choosen locations.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago

The split is political. It can be quite inefficient: When the Airbus A380 was in development, the non-unified production caused severe delays because only at assembly did Airbus discover that the electric cables are not long enough to connect the different plane parts[1]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/business/worldbusiness/11iht-airbus.3860198.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/business/worldbusiness/11i...

noir_lord 9y ago
I'm trying to remember where I read about Airbus designing the plane in two different places and when they built the thing it turned out that one place was using version X-1 and the other X and that caused really subtle problems with alignment. I'm sure it was Airbus but I can't find the article. EDIT: Found it http://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700 http://calleam.com/WTPF/?p=4700 Offtopic but the "Catalogue of Catastrophe" is a damn good read http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=3 http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=3 Basically a "why things failed/cost a fortune that shouldn't" list for large projects.

JustAnotherPat 9y ago

You probably need a decent amount of engineers at each of those locations. Different types of engineers. I doubt you can convince enough of them to move to Mobile. Plus at the end of the day, how much more does it cost to ship assembled pieces vs. raw material?

convivialdingo 9y ago
Alabama has a long history of space & aviation engineering... you wouldn't have to go far to find experienced engineers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Space_Flight_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Space_Flight_Center