After some delay on deliveries in July and August, this is
the realistic plan for next A350 deliveries based on the current FAL status.
Source: Airbus
The delay in the 3Q/2015 is planned to be recovered during
4Q/2015.
From the initial delivery plan defined in the beginning of the year
(Q1/2015:#1, Q2/2015:#3, Q3/2015:#5, Q4/2015:#6+2) current delivery plan more
challenging for last months of the year (Q1/2015:#1, Q2/2015:#3, Q3/2015:#2,
Q4/2015:#9+2).
Source: Airbus
Next
deliveries will be as follow:
In September:
(currently on the flightline)
·
MSN15
Vietnam Airlines
·
MSN8
Qatar Airways
Source: Jujug Spotting
In October:
(currently on the flightline)
·
MSN11
Qatar Airways
·
MSN16
Vietnam Airlines
·
MSN18
Finnair
In November:
(currently painted, on interior completion and engines installation phase.)
·
MSN13
Qatar Airways
·
MSN17
Vietnam Airlines
·
MSN19
Finnair
Source: Airbus
In December:
·
MSN20
Finnair
·
MSN12
Qatar Airways
·
MSN24
TAM
Source: Jujug Spotting
This is to
comply with Airbus official deliveries target. But internally, FAL and
flightline have the objective of 2 additional aircraft that are currently in
painting and structural assembly phase:
·
MSN22
Finnair
·
MSN21
Qatar Airways
Source: A380_TLS_A350
The official
target of Airbus is to deliver 15 aircraft n 2015. But Finnair and Qatar
Airways are expecting their MSN22 and MSN21 by Christmas.
I think msn 8 has been at the delivery center about 2 weeks now..
ReplyDeleteSo the penny has finally dropped, Airlines want their aircraft,not in FAL. After all the reports of laggard delivery rates Airbus is beginning, only beginning to realise that they need to get a bloody move on, if only not to loose more orders. 15 by years end, well thats equates 1.25 aircraft delivered per month this year. Now to get really serious and make it 5 deliveries per month next year would really help to show Airbus means business- good luck.
ReplyDeleteJohn Russel
ReplyDeleteWith Airbus potentially going 2 beyond announced schedule
your comments are unreasonable in scope and tone.
What was your position on 787 delivery stream ( er dribble ) at the time ...
Well unknown the 787 did have an excuse,remember the batteries? Well Boeing made up for that! As to production rates of the A350 might I suggest you look at this website:
Deletehttps://sites.google.com/site/a350xwbproduction/production-list
Here you can see the Airbus planned production rate. I would suggest,if this rate was true then Airbus by now should have built 53 a350 aircraft. They have not obviously, so someone has moved the goal posts. I dont think my comment was unfair.
Let's compare the 787 "dribble" to the A350 medicine dropper. My sources are All Things 787's Delivered 787 List and ABCD List's A350 Production List. Both Boeing and Airbus delivered 1 airplane on the last month of the quarter they started deliveries. So comparing deliveries by each following quarter should make for a fair comparison, methinks.
DeleteBoeing 787 deliveries by quarter after first delivery:
1st quarter (Q4 2011): 2
2nd quarter: (Q1 2012): 5
3rd quarter (Q2 2012):: 6
4th quarter (Q3 2012): 12
Airbus A350 deliveries by quarter after first delivery:
1st quarter (Q1 2015): 1
2nd quarter (Q2 2015): 3
3rd quarter (Q3 2015): 2 projected (none so far)
I certainly don't think Airbus is going to deliver 9 in Q4 but I could be wrong. Delivering 9 would mean 150% more deliveries in 3 months over the previous 9 months. That would be a spectacular recovery! Even if they manage to deliver 9, it would mean 15 deliveries the first year. Boeing managed 25 deliveries in their first year.
Stupid is what stupid does, right?
DeleteProduction rate does not mean completed airframes or delivered airframes. Production rate is at the airframe component Level. For example, in 2014 Spirit Aerosystems delivered mid-fuselage and wing components for 16 A350s. That number seems to square well with the production rate of one per month from the end of 2013 - increased to 3 per month by the end of 2014.
Page 19:
http://www.envisionreports.com/spr/2015/10119FE15E/1d1300c18aa2441fb5812170942894fc/Spirit_Aero_Systems_AR_03-17-15_secured_v2f.pdf
-
A350 production list:
From the end of 2013 = 1 A350 per month
From the end of 2014 = 3 A350 per month
From the end of 2015 = 5 A350 per month
From the end of 2016 = 7 A350 per month
From the end of 2017 = 10 A350 per month
If Airbus delivers the rest of all of the batch 2 airframes that's in the inventory (AFAIK; MSN numbers 007 - 21) in 2015, and if they also successfully managers to deliver one or two of the batch 3 aircraft (MSN numbers > 21), then 2015 would IMJ be a good year.
I see no show-stoppers to prevent Airbus in 2016 and 2017 delivering A350s at a much higher rate.
http://aviationweek.com/blog/a350-charge-batch-batch
John has a point. 9 months in with 5 aircraft is not fast but I don't assemble aircraft. And to be fair, as bad as the 787 was, it pumped out 34.5 aircraft in the first 9 months of '12. (if you Want to count the 3 that were Squeezed out in the last days of Dec in' 11. The best thing to do is wait until the end of the year. Then we'll know what the hell Airbus is doing. Sooner or later something will give. Either the planes start flying out of Toulouse or voices will get louder.
ReplyDeleteThanks for a report on the production status. Nice to see Airbus admitting there are delays. Any idea what is causing the delays? Supply chain, seats, defects?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jet.Fuel.773-er: Boeing sure began delivering 787s once they started delivering. Airbus hasn't been able to do that. They've gone two months (July and August) without a single delivery.
A story here on May 1 quoted Leeham News that there could be 17 total deliveries by the end of 2015 (15 more in 2015 plus the two already delivered at the time). I think they'll have 2 in Q3 and 5+2 in Q4. I don't believe in whatever miracle pill they think they have that will allow them to deliver more in 3 months than the previous 9 months put together.
Again, production rate does not mean completed airframes or delivered airframes. Production rate is at the airframe component level.
DeleteI see no reason why Airbus shouldn't be able to deliver at least 11 more A350s this year - or more than 200 percent more in 3 months than the previous 9 months combined.
Perhaps, you and John Russel just like to spread FUD.
Rgds, Karl
Addendum
DeleteAs for using the 787 as datum please do keep in mind that it’s much more sound to stretch out the development period and avoiding the pitfalls of clogging up the production lines with hardware not meeting certification standards, which was the case for the 787. That's one of the major reasons behind the recurring production losses (on top of 787 development costs), which stood at over $26 billion in January and will likely reach $30 billion, and possibly beyond.
Rgds, Karl
I'm not out to spread FUD. I'm just an amateur aficionado looking for answers. And, I got the answer I wanted: At the beginning of the year Airbus thought it would deliver 5 aircraft in Q3. So far there have been no deliveries in Q3 and the delivery estimate has been revisited. Why? I don't know. Maybe they decided to implement changes for the third batch before MSN017? I don't know.
DeleteYou may be right. Airbus might be able to deliver 9 aircraft in Q4. It looks like September may have up to 4 deliveries. If there are 3 in November and 2 in December you have the 9. It is still possible, but I won't be holding my breath.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the difference with the A350 vs. the 787 production ramp-up is that Airbus waited until they were done with the test programme to begin the production ramp-up from one to three per month. Airbus is doing exactly what they were saying for the ramp-up in order to ensure that quality will not be sacrificed at the expense of quantity. Fixing defects post-production is an extremely expensive thing of doing it - and it has cost Boeing many billions of dollars on the 787 programme in order to have had to modify 787s post-production (i.e. lack of fasteners, electrical fire onboard ZA002, terrible "teens", 787-grounding due to the fire stemming from its lithium-ion batteries, etc., etc.).
DeleteIn contrast, what you're currently seeing on the A350 programme and the batch-2 airframes, are some post-production modifications that haslong since been planned for. Again, once Airbus is through with the batch 2 airframes, the production output will rapidly increase.
http://aviationweek.com/blog/a350-charge-batch-batch
-
Finally, please do check out the A350 programme update from June 2013 in the link below - just before the first flight (page 24). There you should be able to see for yourself that for the last two years, Airbus hasn't made any real changes to the production schedule. Once Airbus stetched out the development period by 12 - 18 months - starting in 2010/2011 - they've been pretty consistent on being conservative on the production ramp-up.
http://www.atn.aero/content/p1389.pdf
Rgds, Karl
I'm not here for FUD, all I want is to see is Airbus compete with Boeing and yes there is the point that 'going slow to get it right' might be creditable but at what cost? Airbus started this programme way back in 2004 and after a drubbing by the Airlines and the leasing companies it decided to build an all new aircraft,not the A330-200 lite it started with.
ReplyDeleteMy main problem with Airbus is that they dont listen to their customers needs,as Clark of Emirates displayed when he cancelled the 70 A350's,mainly because Airbus wouldn't listen to his gripes about the A350-1000 whereas Boeing let him make most of the decisions regarding the 777-9x performance figures. Clark wants large aircraft to help in the through put passenger numbers, so he wont pick the 787 or the A350-900. He'll pick the 777-9x and the A380neo (if Airbus ever get round to annoucing it) So my gripe about deliveries really comes down to what seems to me and others that Airbus does not seem to be on the same page as Boeing.
400 seat market < 350 seat market < 300 seat market
DeleteAirbus optimised the wing on the A350 for the 300 - 350 seat market. The A350-1000 will merely use a slightly modified wing with a larger trailing edge in order to resize the wing for additional payload and range. However, the wing is not large enough for an A350-1100 haveing the same payload and range as the 777-9 - which is what Clark wanted. Clark is already onboard on the A380 programme. Why should Airbus have optimised the initial A350 models - With the stretch model having the same size as the 777-9, when the market for 300 - 350 seats is significantly bigger? There's no way Airbus would have been able to develop the A350-900, A350-1000 and an A350-1100 - with the latter having a significantly bigger wing - in the time span in question. IMJ, it's also smarter to see what the competitor's response is before showing all your cards.
In fact, the wing on the 777-9 will be about 20 percent larger in area than the wing on the A350-1000. A direct Airbus response to the 777-9 should IMO be targeted towards EIS some 5 years after EIS of the 777-9. It could be a 10 - 11 frame stretch of the A350-1000, incorporate a larger wing - all new, or one that's derived from the one on the A350-1000. It should have an engine that would have about a 5 percent lower fuel burn than the GE9X engine on the 777-9. If such an A350-1100 would be developed, IMJ it would cut short the production life cycle of the 777-9.
Furthermore, the A350-900 is a direct replacement for the 777-200ER and it has about 10 percent greater capacity than the A340-300. The A350-1000 will be a direct replacement for the 777-300ER and A340-600. In addition to growth, that seems to me to be quite a big market.
In order to be able to compete with the A350-1000, the 777 not only had to be made bigger, but Boeing has had to invest upwards of $10 billion additional on the programme. That's more than half the cost of an all new wide-body airplane.
Finally, as for being on the same page; is Boeing on the same page as Airbus on single aisles?
Rgds, Karl
Early production rate comparisons between the 787 and the A350 are invalid because of the extensive delays in the 787 programme. 787s were stockpiled for reworking and while certification issues were sorted out. Early 787 were delivered from stock - the planes were years old at the time of delivery.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very interesting point. I know a lot of the "trouble teen" planes haven't been delivered yet, but I didn't know how many planes delivered were stockpiled planes. So I did some research and this is what I found out.
DeleteMSN006 was the first A350 to be delivered. Based on a story by Aviation Week dated Oct. 22, 2013, MSN006 went into final assembly sometime on November of 2013 and was delivered some 13 months later on December 2014.
Boeing delivered its first 787, LN 8 Sept. 25, 2011. This was an "early-build" airplane, one of the many stockpiled planes you talked about. LN8 went into final production on July 30, 2009, more than 2 years before it was delivered. The second plane delivered was LN24 which went into final assembly on June 24, 2010 and was delivered on October 13, 2011, almost 14 months later. This delivery time was very similar to MSN006.
To test your hypothesis that "early 787 were delivered from stock" let's consider any aircraft that stated final production on or after Oct. 1 2010 (about a year before first delivery) as non-stockpiled aircraft. That means any deliveries of LN27 or earlier are considered stockpiled. During the first year, 6 of those airplanes were delivered: LN7, LN8, LN9, LN23, LN24, and LN27. By this criteria, that means Boeing delivered 19 787s in the first year that were later builds. Those 19 are still more than the 15 Airbus plans to deliver in the first year. (It remains to be seen how many they actually deliver, whether they be more or less.)
In actuality, LN23 was considered by Boeing as the first production-ready aircraft that went into final assembly. LN7-LN22 are considered early-builds that require considerable work before delivery. During the first year Boeing only delivered 3 early-build planes. In fact, of the 16 planes that require major rework, only 6 have been delivered. 10 of them remain stockpiled. So Boeing actually delivered 22 "new" airplanes the first year.
As a side note, I find the arguments in defense of Airbus to be very interesting. However, I'm a bit more pragmatic about such things. Production costs, profit margins, efficiencies, and the like mean nothing if you can't delivery your product and collect money from your customers. Once they start delivering, things should go very well for Airbus.