Nickname: Dr. Atomic

Review: Part 2: The manufacturing of components at different locations isn't a problem. The prototype and possibly the subsequent prototypes should have been done in one location to work out the various tolerance issues before being handed off to the final manufacturers as a debugged whole. Yes, you will always have problems like these, but they should be worked out on your local workbench before being handed off to a distant factory. No amount of coordination will eliminate manufacturing errors completely but a problem that cost hundreds of thousands or possibly millions could have been avoided had the process been centralised and then distributed complete rather than relying on the assumption that providing hopefully correct data will result in a usable finished product. Dr. Heinrich Atomic

Date reviewed: Jul 4, 2006 6:11 PM

Nickname: Dr. Atomic

Review: Part 1: Given they may have had political reasons for dividing up the manufacturing duties between countries it hasn't come without penalities. The initial prototype was almost killed before it was constructed by components that were found to be very far (relatively) out of tolerance by several centimeters due to manufacturing errors. While the engineers did figure a solution, I believe that the distance between the design and manufacturing teams contributed to this almost deal-killing problem. Thankfully engineers were able to perform a workaround quickly enough to deliver the prototype in time for a make-or-break demonstration. This problem would have been discovered sooner if the manufacturing / testing had been done at one location. Computers be damned, it's the ability to "play" with the various components together at one time that allows these sort of problems to be discovered sooner. While the error didn't scuttle the A380's premier, it could have.

Date reviewed: Jul 4, 2006 6:07 PM

Nickname: Boko

Review: Thanks BOB -- learned something today. I understand the B787 is built on >80% composite materials -- is that something to worry about?

Date reviewed: Mar 24, 2006 5:12 PM

Nickname: BOB

Review: Boko needs to get a clue what he's talking about. The Airbus 380 in nothing like the Boeing 787. The Airbus 350, currently in the planning stages, will likely be a competitor to the upcoming Boeing 787, and both are much smaller than either the A380 and the B747.

Date reviewed: Mar 22, 2006 8:48 PM

Nickname: Bill

Review: I recently flew from Atlanta to Paris (Delta-Air France) and back, and was pleasantly surprised by the Airbus plane's roomy leather seats, with a TV screen in front of each seat. The restrooms were twice as large as any other plane I've ever flown. Watch out, Boeing: these guys are doing a good job.

Date reviewed: Mar 18, 2006 3:14 AM

Nickname: Mike Maurice

Review: Airbus' distributed manufacturing model can be easily dismissed as being the result of political forces at play, but one should be cautious with such a conclusion. Other high tech sectors, such as the automobile industry, use similiar logistic chains. Prefabricated parts are produced all over the world and then shipped to a final assembly location. Geographic distribution of production processes pays tribute to the fact that in the age of high tech, you cannot expect to find specialists for each and every part of your product in one single location. You have to use human resources all over the world. The cost advantages from specialization often far outweigh the transportation costs.

Date reviewed: Mar 17, 2006 6:07 AM

Nickname: yashodeep

Review: I think this is a classic example of globablisation and a clear manifestation of the "Global Village." However, Airbus must have stretched its logistical tendons to the limit. It may cost the company dearly as its customer base increases.

Date reviewed: Mar 16, 2006 9:27 AM

Nickname: Otto

Review: Ridiculous!

Date reviewed: Mar 15, 2006 7:21 PM

Nickname: Boko

Review: People are all mixed up over this Behemoth. Do we have more to fear over the 380 vis a vis the Boeing near- equivalent 787? Does size increase alone introduce new safety concerns?

Date reviewed: Mar 14, 2006 7:40 PM

Nickname: Sid

Review: Sounds really stupid to manufacture the parts in the sponsor countries, custom-build transport vehicles, close a highway for a couple of days every month and assemble the plane away from water. Looks like Airbus could have saved its customers a bundle of money, instead of pleasing the governments of its shareholders!

Date reviewed: Mar 14, 2006 7:29 PM