On the heels of this morning’s A330-200F announcement in Mobile, AL, I had an opportunity to sit down with Airbus North America Chairman Allan McArtor and Chairman and CEO of EADS North America, Ralph Crosby. We discussed a number of topics during the phone interview on both the commercial and defense fronts.
I started off with a question about potential growth in Mobile that went beyond just the A330 Freighter. Airbus is targeting 10 A330/A340 a month coming off the line by 2009 or 2010. In addition, they’ve said they also want 13 A350s per month in Toulouse by 2015. The last piece here is that Airbus has also said that they the A330 is a complimentary aircraft in the widebody offering and they, are going to continue producing the popular twin at the same time as the A330. The long preface, brought me to this question, is there enough room at Toulouse to assemble both the A330 and A350 at the pace Airbus wants, and if not, would the A330 passenger model end up on a final assembly line in Mobile?
McArtor felt it was an, “Interesting theory and…it was always possible.” He agreed that, “there would need to be additional capacity created for the A350 and long range A330/A340…and that [Airbus] hasn’t tried looking into it yet.”
I then asked about the status of negotiations with General Electric about bringing a second engine offering to the A350. This has been a sticking point for potential A350/787 customer Air France/KLM which requires all its aircraft to be powered by General Electric engines.
Mr. McArtor, started by saying, “We’re disappointed that GE hasn’t joined the program yet.” Adding, “We’re confident that issues are being worked through. It hasn’t happened yet, but we believe it will.”
When asked if the discussions were being held for a power plant for all variants or just the -800 and -900, Mr. McArtor confirmed that, “We’re looking at supplying an engine for all variants.”
Turning to the narrowbody market, I asked about the 2015 target that Boeing had identified for its 737 replacement, and whether or not that had expedited Airbus’ planning for a single aisle offering to compete.
McArtor, felt that propulsion was the lynch pin around which any replacement has to occur. The goal, McArtor felt, was to deliver 20% improvements in efficiency over today’s narrowbody aircraft.
“We will need a power plant for next generation short range airplane, but there’s no power plant yet. The geared turbo fan could be candidate, but without a power plant that can deliver what we’re looking for, there’s no point in building a plastic airplane right now.”
I steered the conversation back to the tanker, asking about eventualities if the tanker doesn’t go entirely or in part to Northrop Grumman and EADS and would the A330 freighter plan remain in place for Mobile.
Crosby, stuck to the confident company line, “We’re not planning for failure here. The Most important step we have to take, the wolf nearest to the door, is the tanker. What we’ve seen in the media today is we want to the reduce risk with industrial capability by adding to [the Mobile factory] with freighters. We’re looking at one and a quarter airplanes a month and if that goes down we have to change our industrial plan. It is the beneficial thing to do for us and it’s conditioned on making the investment on investment with KC-30.”
I followed up by asking about the potential of foreign tankers finding their way to Mobile for final assembly. Crosby, leaving the door open, quickly added that, there are “Other possibilities, but until a customer discloses [an order] we really can’t comment”
I pressed on and asked about future arrangements with Spirit Aerosystems on A350 program participation and the ongoing plans to divest from the Euro Zone which has caused so much financial discomfort for EADS and Airbus.
McArtor reaffirmed the Power8 plans without mentioning Spirit directly, “We have every intention of accelerating our investment to the dollar zone companies. It’s hard to believe the US is considered a low cost producer now…We are actively working to recruit more dollar based suppliers.”
I asked McArtor and Crosby about the potential risk associated with opening greenfield sites and to compare and contrast the experience that Boeing has had in developing in a similar environment as Boeing has done with the 787 Dreamliner.
McArtor drew the distinction this way, “Boeing has new partners and new technologies. What we’re doing is we’re building something in a new location; we know how to build A330s already. We have a great deal of confidence in Mobile and the workforce here.” Adding, “The risk is almost minuscule.”
The interview concluded with a question whose answer will likely shape the next year of the tanker battle: If Boeing does get the contract, can we expect to see a protest?
Crosby, always on message, and with a level of snark fit for a blogger, replied, “By who, the warfighter?”
on January 14, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply
So that was EADS ace under their sleeve. The A330 is coming to the U.S.! More high paid jobs, more jobs (needed), more investment and confidence (needed) from a high profile company, wow!. They only need a little push and go from the USAF and we will see A330s coming out from Sweet Home Alabama!
on January 14, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply
Something tell me that Airbus hasn't outlined the Airbus NSR (New Short Range) yet. TLS haven't done its job, didn't they learnt from the 4-years advantage of the 7E7 project?
on January 14, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply
Using the card game metaphor, I believe the trump here is that the Honorable Senator Shelby happens to be on the Appropriations Committee. Pure coincidence, I'm sure...
on January 16, 2008 5:27 AM | Reply
So the tanker contracts are submitted and Airbus neglected to state in their proposal that they would move A330 production to the US...If this isn't grounds to disqualify them I don't know what else could! If Boeing were to add to their contract proposal after a submittal, we would probably see another executive locked up in prison.
Shame on Airbus for chumming the water in advance of the announcement...