Hacker News Reader

Comment by PaulHoule | Hacker News Reader

Airbus was a masterstoke of international politics as much as it was of technology in that it involved a high level of international cooperation that was completely successful. (Compare that to the corruption-driven procurement that left Superphenix with broken steam turbines)

Boeing’s outsourcing plan was quite similar in that it discouraged many countries that might have been able to enter the competition for airliners, say Japan, from doing so. Japan very well might have decided to subsidize and otherwise help domestic manufacturers but didn’t feel they had to because they made the tail of the Dreamliner.

View on HN

From the same article: ‘Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury, in a June interview, said the plane maker faces similar risks with its own suppliers—many of which Boeing shares. But he said Airbus has largely been able to avoid major problems with its quality-assurance approach.

“We are quite intrusive on what suppliers are doing,” Faury said. “We always have to remain very prudent and very humble—you don’t know what could hit you tomorrow.”’

… ‘When it [Spirit] needed to ramp back up, not only did Spirit have fewer people on site, the company had lost years of expertise. There were fewer experienced mechanics, but also fewer experts who could inspect the quality of their work. … Boeing’s demands for lower prices left Spirit strapped for cash as managers panicked over meeting increasingly demanding deadlines. Boeing routinely had employees on the ground in Wichita and conducted audits of the supplier.’

Leadership issue from Boeing : Completely disparaging and underestimating the deep skills of manufacturing and engineering through-and-through.

What was Boeing even auditing? And guess who’s left holding the bag of awfulness?

Can confirm. I worked as Airbus' tier 1 supplier and they were even accompanying us to manage our own supplier, which in hind-sight, ensured that things like this didn't happen.

That sounds a partnership: They’re there to help.

In essence, did Airbus help advise what sorts of corners could/couldn’t be cut?

The way the project was structured, it was in the interest of everyone to succeed since everyone paid for their own development cost and only made money when the planes were sold. Not the easiest client to work for mind you - I've been told that many companies flat out refuse to work with them, but again, thinking back, I think that's what made the project a success, although extremely stressful.

Some customers you can't afford to have and some you can't afford to lose, especially not the ones that help you to perform at (or even above, by educating you) your potential.

Yep - certainly lessons learned through painful experiences.

Supply chain management is incredibly challenging and it's interesting to see one school of thought moving away to vertical integration as an alternative solution and another doing just as well with suppliers (Airbus, Apple, ASML, etc).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com