Feb
21
Airbus needs a ‘Troubleshooter’
Filed Under Boeing/Airbus | 4 Comments
Maybe it would be someone like Sir John Harvey-Jones in his day or another character of the presence and ability of a corporate ‘Red Adair’. Either way, Airbus need a firm hand on the tiller guided by a vision of its future that obliterates rampant national interest from the agenda. It is one thing to know where a solution should lie, quite another to identify the hand that would receive the approval of all the vested interests involved. Have they got, or will they get the best man for the job?
Boeing is not a stranger to industrial and structural problems but they weathered them without major disasters (that we got to hear about.) Airbus must do the same and move on but they face problems from just about every quarter with a massive project that is behind schedule, overweight, unfinished from a design point of view and whose future is still very much in the balance. Airbus might refute that claim but if they cannot resolve size and shape issues, they cannot produce aeroplanes. If a major customer withdraws they may well be left with a stricken giant and who would want to stand beneath such a creature and try to catch it as it falls?
Politics is woven into the Airbus/EADS structure in a way that it is not (quite) with Boeing. Where States provides funding and national prestige is involved, look for political interference and cover up in the name of political expediency which is always short term. Jacques Chirac, plagued by his own problems refuses to criticize the managers at Airbus, but states that ‘there are problems’ and that ’steps will be taken.’ What steps I wonder, and when?
When did government interference ever solve problems? Meddling by civil servants most often produces more muddle, something that Airbus and EADS badly need to avoid.
I believe that Boeing needs Airbus to survive and even thrive. Was it William Pitt that said, “The most valuable asset to a government in power, is a powerful and able opposition.”
Something there for us all I think.
Your analysis is dead on, but I think the problems at Airbus are far more serious than whats going on right now.
Airbus is not being run as a business but rather a make work project for the EU, the much touted launch aid has provided billions of Euro to Airbus and they have spent it putting plants all over Europe. Now its crunch time and with Airbus drowning in red ink they must cut and cut deeply.
The problem now is a wall of distrust between France and Germany and to a lesser degree Britain, from reports I have heard the level of infighting in the boardroom is near fisticuffs, with no accord possible at all.
Airbus is in no-win situation, in fact its so bad that Airbus may have to be split up, get all the governments out of the sphere of influence and run it as a stand alone business.
Hi Ken, welcome,
Do you think there might just be some circles that cannot be squared? How do governments withdraw from involvement in a project this big?
Airbus just has to succeed, failure would produce a loss of face far too large to swallow and job losses on a scale that could not be tolerated politically.
No, I think EADS/Airbus has to be made to work and the realities faced because the spectre behind the door is just too terrible to contemplate.
Broken down into units broadly representing national interests Airbus would founder as the loss of trust and acrimony brought on during any split would kill it dead imho.
As for an EU work creation project
in order to produce, almost from scratch, a company able to take on Boeing it was necessary to invest heavily. Airbus is subsidized, but only in the same way that massive companies vital to the national interest are subsidized elsewhere – with government contracts and research grants. Boeing is famous for receiving those in spades over the years. But hey, I don’t want to perpetuate a running argument over the trade war here! 
Thanks for the input Ken.
Norman
Nicely said Norman. I think both Boeing and Boeing’s customers need a thriving Airbus.
It is no small task to restructure a company though, I think. But is that the challenge Airbus faces, or this more like restructuring a small government?
Having dealt with government on the airport level and at the FAA level here in the states, I can’t imagine worse people – OK, not all of them luckily – than government employees to run anything that sounds like a business.
But again, isn’t Airbus more like a government agency than a for-profit company? Since you know the players in Europe better than I, who do you have who might take on that task?
Thanks Rob,
It’s difficult to get a feel for the factory floor and the attitudes that prevail there. I base my thoughts on what I read both in the press and between the lines. What I hear from other sources laces through that combination. As for Government employees… what matters to them is job retention, theirs and those of their political masters. Bring down heat on their heads and…
What is more important is the mindset in the executive washrooms. A number of them must be government ‘place men’ and their willingness to compromise and restructure has to be in doubt. Beyond that I just don’t know enough about the detail to comment further. We need an Airbus man here.
It is difficult to overstate the inter-nation rivalry and deep seated suspicions that exist across our borders. An example of this is of course Concorde. If you new of the machinations during Concorde’s final months in service you would blanche. Gallic ‘maneuvering’ of Shakespearian proportions worthy of a movie if the echoes around Heathrow are to be believed.
I still believe that Airbus has no option but to come back fighting, the government(s) no option but to support the project and invest; too much is at stake to do otherwise. When the cheque book comes out it will probably ignite a furious exchange between the US and Europe again. The US Government/Boeing might be looking at the situation believing that a coup-de-gras is but a sanction away. I think that would be a misreading of the wills of the Europeans, as much as we distrust each other, we collectively distrust the US and it’s motives even more. But don’t worry Rob, love has its part in that relationship too!
Fascinating isn’t it? I wonder if Ken has had any more thoughts?