posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:38 AM
Originally posted by aaaaa
doesn't even know how to explain how reducing the amount of outsourcing reduces costs, but this is the latest:
- Perhaps it's a matter of recognising overall and total costs along with a sensible regrouping and consolidation to ensure a more consistent
product and one that is produced more efficiently.
What point is there in acheving an initial spectacular low price for a component only to find that later it can't be produced at a consistent quality
at that low price and requires 5x the price in fixes, replacements and rebuilding?
As SilentVulcan mentioned in his thread regarding the wiring it is clear some suppliers have failed to produce the product required - and paid for.
It must therefore make sense to prune out those suppliers unable to guarantee a consistent supply of 'to quality/spec' product.
Certainly the report makes clear that Airbus expect the costs of administering many fewer out-side suppliers to be a significant saving and to have
worth-while streamlining effects alone.
This is nothing new, many large-scale manufacturers regularly review the situation regarding component supply and sometimes sweeping and wholesale
changes are a fact of life in the component supply business.
Certainly it would make sense that as products like passanger aircraft get ever more complex and higher spec then fewer and fewer outside suppliers
will be able to meet the contract specifications.
The only sensible course of action would then be to reduce the number of suppliers and/or bring work back 'in-house', which it appears they may well
Sometimes contracting out makes sense and sometimes it doesn't.
Sometimes it saves you money and sometimes it can cost you a lot of money.
Is that particularly difficult to understand?
......or would you rather go back to talking ridiculous nonsense about Airbus being "busted" and/or about to leave the aircraft manufacturing
business some time soon?
[edit on 7-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]