Nickname: Stevieboy

Review: I'm afraid it is down to ineptitude of the decision makers in the purchasing department at Airbus - or who coordinated the cross site implementation. Unfortunately, in these large organisations, the non-technical people who make these decisions do not seem to consult with the poor bs that have to WORK with the software and, if they do, its the loudest, most confident voice they listen to - rather than seeking a range of opinions from the users. Ford Motor Company has made similar mistakes, adopting the truly awful SDRC Ideas (I think there was a Ford family connection there) at the beginning of the millenium and not considering compatability issues with the various analysis softwares they also use.

Date reviewed: Oct 1, 2009 3:44 PM

Nickname: Lynn Grant

Review: This is not really surprising to me, having worked for General Motors 25 years ago. GM struggled for decades trying to unify the IT departments of its various divisions, with very little success. Separate companies that are brought together as one big corporation can be extremely tenacious about clinging to their old ways. I think the real management failure was misjudging how easy it would be to unify the companies.

Date reviewed: Oct 1, 2009 3:10 PM

Nickname: Camilo RINCON

Review: I'm doing a research on the Role of CAD/CAM in the 777 design process. We can find several times, on several websites the following affirmations about how CAD/CAM contributed to the 777 design: ? Elimination of more than 3000 assembly interfaces, without any physical prototyping ? 90% reduction in engineering change requests (6000 to 600) ? 50% reduction in cycle time for engineering change request ? 90% reduction in material rework My question is: Can someone tell me where can I find more detailed information on each (or at least some of) these differents points? Thank you very much

Date reviewed: Oct 1, 2007 9:42 AM

Nickname: MikeSar

Review: It is not coincidental that Mullaly, the Boeing president that drove the use of CATIA at Boeing, in the 1980s, in the first all-digital airplane, the Boeing 767, was rewarded with the challenge to rescue Ford. We can now expect a true robotics revolution -finally. When directors or presidents hear ONLY what they want to hear, the results have proven catastrophic, in aerospace and in the U.S. Government. We all need the humility and patience to learn and learn and learn, even after we retire.

Date reviewed: Jun 28, 2007 6:00 PM

Nickname: srs

Review: This is a good example to show that Airbus is not investing in aero engineering. Compare their rival, Boeing. Boeing is not into just building planes but also into aero engineering. They are coming up with the 787 Dreamliner, which is 70 percent composites. This is a breakthrough in the use of technology. Signed, a CATIA user.

Date reviewed: Nov 3, 2006 6:40 PM

Nickname: Int

Review: The problem is not CATIA (Computer Aided Three Dimensional Applications), when used correctly. Example: the Boeing 777 (1st digital aircraft). CATIA can reduce the number of DCRs (Design Change Requests) by 1/4 which means $10s of million - and of course CATIA saves a lot of time in the digital mock-Up. Back in the day, the aircraft companies used to have to design on paper and first make the parts from wood to see if everything fit properly (Form, Fit & Function) in the wooden mock-up. Problem #1: Decision makers are not design engineers, who have used CATIA and did not make the wise choice of integrating all the vendors to use the same version and the same Revision of CATIA. Problem #2: New aircraft have a mass need for design engineers. In order to achieve the high volume need for engineers, the aircraft company has to bring in contractors, better known a job shoppers, for their tendency to shop for hire rates. Airbus did not invite American job shoppers.

Date reviewed: Nov 1, 2006 7:46 PM

Nickname: M H

Review: I've been using Catia for many years, and have worked with more than one company who has made a transition from Catia V4 to Catia V5, even in the middle of a major project. (such as the A380) What I am hearing from Airbus is unprecedented. I have never witnessed such a dismal failure from any company, including their rival, Boeing, whom I have worked directly for, and as a 3rd party on many projects. Perhaps this will be a good lesson for companies in the future. That lesson being, standardize your design process, or choose capable vendors. No matter how much money it would have cost to retrain engineers, I can't imagine it could have ever cost more than what they're faced with now. A business must not be held hostage by the preferences of employees or suppliers. It happens far too often, but seldom with such far-reaching consequences. Matt Hanson Vice President Space Coast CAD Solutions www.cad-design-engineering.com

Date reviewed: Nov 1, 2006 3:42 AM

Nickname: PDESincer

Review: The story shows what can happen if there are incompatibilities in process and/or systems between companies. It is a pity that Airbus did not use the ISO STEP standard, which is a proven international solution for exchanging CAE data completely and unambiguously. STEP has been used in the US, Europe, and Japan for over ten years, by aerospace, cars and shipbuilders. The Eurofighter Typhoon uses STEP to move data between different systems at the partners -- over 100 delivered to date. Airbus uses STEP for the interface to the engines - which worked fine. The PDES consortium, based in Charleston, SC has provided a firm foundation for industrial deployment of STEP. See http://pdesinc.aticorp.org/ if you want to learn how to avoid your $6bn black hole.

Date reviewed: Oct 31, 2006 4:49 AM

Nickname: Citrite

Review: The use of Citrix software here would also be interesting. We'll be the first to tell you that today it isn't yet design grade performance, however, it is economically sound. At Citrix iForum this year we demonstrated new technology called Project Pictor which uses hardware rendering on the server to enable 5-10 users with smooth, workstation-like performance on a centralized server running the same version of CAD software. Apparently it will work with any standard OpenGL application. We've tested this with a number of customers and worked with Boeing on the technical evolution. Keep your eyes peeled for something from Citrix. On top of providing remote access to the same application for improved project collaboration, even over low-bandwidth, this architecture will also help protect intellectual property when 3rd parties are involved in the design process by obfuscating the need to distribute design copies everywhere.

Date reviewed: Oct 27, 2006 5:55 PM

Nickname: IVE

Review: To GTO - Thanks God you working in Pro/E. Feel the difference: try CATIA and ENOVIA and you'll understand soon everithing. My experience: I moved to CATIA three years ago from ProE (which I used for 7 years)and it is just amazing the amount of errors in it. I'd be glad to speak with you about my experience.(iektov@gmail.com).

Date reviewed: Oct 25, 2006 10:00 AM