A400M and B787 – Two Steps Too Far?

After endless delays and cost overruns, the Airbus A400M military transport finally took off for the first time on 11th December 2009. The Airbus and EADS stakeholders have always promoted their brainchild as the most versatile hardware in its category. Indeed, many technology leaps make it a class of its own.

The A400M started as a political project by several European countries. Others with aerospace ambitions such as Turkey joined later. Three drivers can be identified:

1. Maximized synergies resulting from common hardware in as many European countries as possible
2. Technological sovereignty and autonomy of supply of the countries behind the project, and
3. Maximized push for inventions as a way to increase the competitive edge on the world market

Available and cheaper solutions  such as the Antonov AN-70 were discarded by the European military and aerospace stakeholders. The A400M became disruptive in the three crucial areas of any complex project. These are

1. Design of the produce or layout of the issue
2. Methods or technologies associated with its operation or practice
3. Way of delivery or implementation

In the case of the A400M examples for the first are the engines and propellers. The materials illustrate the second. The Airbus-style decentralized production never praticed on a military transport at such a scale before characterizes the third.

Warnings against this triple disruption came early. Usually, projects disruptive in all three fields are bound to fail or at least to run into major difficulties. There are numerous illustrations for this in aerospace. One example is the U.S. supersonic transport Boeing 2707.

Regardless of the promises of the A400, only two export customers have been attracted. One of them, South Africa, has  cancelled its order for budgetary and timing issues.

The ambition to “rip the envelope” through a triple disruption has left many hopes unfulfilled in the U.S. as well. Indeed, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner has been plagued by difficulties of implementation, delays and – although never admitted – budget overruns. Let us hope that the maiden flight now announced for the 14th of December 2009 will boost the morale in Seattle as well.

In both cases, the warning by Jon Ostrower who has followed aerospace trends for years for Flightglobal, cannot be taken seriously enough: It is important to remember first flight is a milestone. What comes next is the hard part. This may cause many nightmares to come in Toulouse and Sevilla, respectively Seattle and Chicago.

What can we learn from these debacles? Throughout the history of technology, offering better alternatives to the current situation have been the main driver for new ideas. To become a “game changer”, the invention has to become an innovation. It has to be adopted by the target public.

The classical way to convince has been attractive features of the produce, latest technologies and functionalities and efficent manufacture and supply. Optimizations and disruptions are nonetheless risky. The more the adopted solutions are complex, the higher the risk of failure.

If we change one of the three aspects, we usually create an attractive optimization. It may be added functionalities to a mobile phone, ecofriendly materials or lower prices through streamlined production. In aerospace the many aircraft families such as the A320 or Boeing 737 are illustrations. Two simultaneous changes are complex and resource consuming but manageable. Examples are the IPhone, the hybrid car or just-in-time logistics. An aircraft-related example is the A380 where the size and the ways of production were innovative. The overall layout of the aircraft remained conventional. In case we introduce a new produce, rely on new technologies and new ways of production or supply, our project management runs against complexities sometimes far too high to be manageable. Our venture will either fail altogether or will suffer endless setbacks. The A400M and the Boeing 787 illustrate the latter. May they serve as warnings to any daunting entrepreneur or project manager, whatever product or service he promotes. Or, do you see things otherwise? Looking forward to a heated discussion.

Daniel Stanislaus Martel