Sur le même sujet

• 

  27 novembre 2020

  Blast, un programme soutenu par Starburst qui veut faire exploser les startups françaises du spatial

  Plusieurs spécialistes de l'innovation se sont alliés pour créer Blast, le premier programme français d'accélération de jeunes pousses à fort contenu technologique dans les domaines de l'aéronautique, du spatial et de la défense afin de « faire émerger et d'accompagner une vingtaine de start-up par an ». Le programme réunit Starburst, premier accélérateur mondial dédié aux start-up de l'aéronautique, du spatial et de la défense (ASD), l'Office national d'études et de recherches aérospatiales (Onera), l'École Polytechnique et la SATT Paris-Saclay, dont le but est de développer la mise en oeuvre des innovations issues de la recherche académique. À l'origine du projet, qui sera formellement lancé en janvier, le constat du « manque d'un programme constitué en France dédié à l'accompagnement des projets deep tech (portant sur des technologies très avancées, NDLR) pour le secteur » de l'aéronautique, de la défense et du spatial, expliquent ses promoteurs dans un communiqué. Si les jeunes pousses dans ces domaines sont particulièrement actives aux États-Unis ou encore en Israël, le mouvement doit être « être renforcé en Europe et particulièrement en France », estiment-ils. D'autant que l'aéronautique, le spatial et la défense « portent par nature les caractéristiques du deep tech: de fortes barrières à l'entrée, un cycle de développement long et complexe et un caractère disruptif fort en cas de succès ». Des levées de fonds d'amorçage prévues Le programme doit permettre d'accompagner des projets correspondant aux besoins de l'industrie et de les pérenniser par des contrats commerciaux et des collaborations avec les industriels ou instituts publics. « L'idée, c'est de créer plus de start-up pour alimenter les futurs programmes aéronautiques, spatiaux et de défense », résume François Chopard, fondateur de Starburst, qui assurera la coordination du programme. Les domaines visés sont notamment ceux de l'aviation décarbonée, les plateformes de mobilité aérienne urbaines, l'intelligence artificielle, les technologies portant sur l'autonomie (capteurs, fusion de données), les services informatiques dématérialisés (cloud) sécurisés ou encore le spatial. Des levées de fonds « d'amorçage de deux à trois millions d'euros » sont prévues. Blast est l'un des dix programmes sélectionnés par le gouvernement à l'issue d'un appel à projets d'accompagnement de start-up à fort contenu technologique dans le cadre du Programme d'investissements d'avenir (PIA) Doté d'un montant maximal global de 9,6 millions d'euros, le soutien public, via Bpifrance, permettra des subventions allant jusqu'à 50% du coût du projet pendant les deux premières années. https://www.frenchweb.fr/blast-un-programme-soutenu-par-starburst-qui-veut-faire-exploser-les-startups-francaises-du-spatial/410612

• 

  17 juillet 2020

  Airbus CEO Faury Sees Huge Uncertainties In Market Recovery

  Jens Flottau July 14, 2020 Guillaume Faury became CEO of Airbus Group in April 2019 after just over a year as president of the company's commercial aircraft business. With only one year in the job behind him, the 52-year-old has to steer Airbus through the worst crisis commercial aviation has ever faced, cutting costs where possible while protecting substance where needed. Faury met with Aviation Week Executive Editor for Commercial Aviation Jens Flottau at Airbus headquarters in Toulouse. With air travel all but impossible throughout the spring, it was their first in-person meeting in several months. AW&ST: You cut production by around 40% to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. When do you expect a recovery? We don't think we'll see 2019 delivery rates again before 2023 to 2025. We made a very early [production cut] in the beginning of April because we had to. There was a lot of guessing and assumptions, but it turned out we were not too wrong. We still will be making minor adjustments, as in normal times. We have growing clarity for the short term—2020 and 2021. It's more difficult to assess when the recovery will come. The single-aisle market will recover before the widebodies. So your initial guess was pretty accurate? For the short term, yes. We still think that 40 narrowbodies per month is the right rate for 2020 and 2021. It might change a bit, but not significantly. I am not suggesting I know where it will be in 2024. I don't. We have models and are preparing to be able to ramp up again. It is likely that the recovery will see massive demand, so the ramp-up will have to be steep. I see that in 2022 or 2023, a bit later for widebodies. But we have to be super-humble. The shape of the traffic recovery itself is still to be seen. There should be a relatively stable recovery in the summer and the second half for domestic flights, and long-distance travel should have largely recovered by the middle of next year. This is the kind of timeframe we need on the traffic side for us to resume 2019 deliveries between 2023 and 2025. Are you assuming a second coronavirus wave in your models? There will be small second waves, but we are not assuming a major second wave next winter as big as 2020 in terms of impact on traffic. As long as there is no vaccine, there will be ups and downs, small confinements and reopenings. You plan to eliminate 15,000 positions within one year. To what extent is there a danger that Airbus is losing substance and experience that it needs once the demand returns? We cannot escape the developments affecting the airlines and the industry as a whole. This crisis is unprecedented, and its scale requires us to adapt quickly to the new market environment to secure the future of our company. Going through this transition, we will work with our social partners in order to limit the social impact of our COVID-19 adaptation plan. We will rely on the full set of measures available while retaining our skills, competences and know-how as much as possible so we can be ready to meet our customer demand when the market recovers. You are still in the middle of deferral discussions with your customers. We are working with all customers. There are as many different situations as we have customers, and it changes almost every day. The situation is extremely difficult. Any new agreement will be painful but has to be acceptable for everyone. That is the balance we need to strike. There was a point in time when the customers really had difficulties defining the way forward. They were grounded; some of them had no liquidity for the coming months. They had to go through their own crisis management. The timing differed, depending where on the globe they were based and when they were impacted by COVID-19. Some now have a defined battle plan, and others are still negotiating the situation. Sometimes we have intermediate agreements with them to gain more time. We are getting more visibility, and everyone is betting on a certain speed of traffic recovery. But we are still negotiating with a lot of uncertainties in front of us. EasyJet recently negotiated a very precise agreement with you that detailed the new delivery sequence. Is that the kind of blueprint deal that you are trying to achieve with every customer? Yes, that is what we are trying to achieve with airlines—new contractual agreements that give visibility to the customer and to us. Given reduced production rates, is the current industrial footprint with assembly lines in five different locations sustainable? We will not invest money now to restructure when we know that we have a setup that works. It's more complex than our competitor's, and that comes with benefits that will be very important in a more fragmented world. Being very American in the U.S. in Mobile, Alabama, and being a strong partner in China in Tianjin will have value. Airbus has learned over the years to manage complexity. It is one of our strengths. We have to live with less revenue in the short term, but in the long term aviation will come back. Although Airbus has cut the A330neo production rate to two a month, Faury has confidence in the program in the medium and long term. Credit: H. Gousse/Airbus Speaking of the short term, small aircraft seem to be benefiting from the lower traffic volumes. Do you think that there will be a behavioral shift—with airlines no longer focusing on unit costs but on trip costs and thus smaller aircraft? The business model of airlines is mainly fixed costs and variable revenues. When you are in a stable environment, you are more interested in costs per seat-kilometer. When there is risk, you have to minimize your exposure, therefore you focus on cost per trip and smaller modules. I think that is what we will see for the next few years. Smaller planes on the same routes, point-to-point as much as possible. Small modules with long range are likely to be a winner, at least for a certain period of time. The A220 and the long-range versions of the A321neo should really make a lot of sense, along with the A350 for longer distances. Airbus has cut the A330neo rate to two a month. Its biggest customer, Air Asia X, is facing difficulties, and the in-service fleet is relatively young. Is the program now in question? No. The rates are lower, but some of the production slots are for military variants, which de-risks the program. The A330neo is not more impacted than others. It's an aircraft with good economics. That we had to cut rates now doesn't say anything about the medium and long term. We'll stick with that product, to be very clear. On top of COVID-19, Boeing is also facing the problems with the 737 MAX. Will that lead to a permanent shift of market share in Airbus' favor? We have seen so many changes since the end of 2018, when Boeing was unreachable, that we have to remain humble. We are focusing on our customers and not really thinking about market share for the moment. Obviously, today's market share reflects the grounding of the MAX, but Boeing is working on getting it back into service, and when it is, the picture will change again. Are you concerned that Boeing might somehow find the money to launch a clean-sheet successor to the MAX sooner than expected? That question was on the table before COVID-19, but the pandemic is pushing it off the table. I don't see anyone launching a new plane with this level of uncertainty on so many fronts, in particular a competitor [focused on] returning the MAX to service. It is for them to say what they intend to do, but I think their priority is somewhere else. How much will Airbus benefit from the termination of Boeing's deal to acquire a controlling share of Embraer's commercial aircraft business? It depends on what happens. They will have to find a way forward. Their previous plan was to sort of mirror what we did with the A220, and it made sense from my point of view. Events have led to a different situation. This raises questions for Boeing probably to a bigger extent than for Embraer. The French and German governments released financial support packages for the industry that are tied to technology targets. Will these force the industry to accelerate innovation? We played a role in the discussions with the government. [The package] is designed to develop the technologies to prepare for the next generation. Obviously, the post-COVID-19 world will be even more focused on the environment. We're not being forced; it is an opportunity. It is not designed to launch programs and therefore not related to your question about a new plane. It is designed to prepare the launch of a new plane at a later stage with a package of technologies that does not exist today and that we need to develop and mature. COVID-19 is in some respects slowing us down [in making] big investments for which you need certainty and visibility. But it is an accelerator when it comes to increasing your agility and flexibility to adapt to future trends. So, it seems the first target is a regional aircraft? Ah, people are trying to give different names to what we are doing. We are focusing on technologies, designed for the next generation of planes. It has not been decided what will be the first program. It will probably be at the low end of the market, but I can't tell you where. But there is a timeline the French government has defined? Ask them. I can tell you what we discussed with them and what we think is reasonable. It is the entry into service of the first fully decarbonized plane by 2035. It is really something I believe in because it means launch of the program in 2027 or 2028. We have to mature the technologies by 2025; then you have two years to prepare the launch, consult the suppliers, define the general architecture and work the business case. Will the aircraft cover the whole range of the narrowbody segment, from the A319 to the A321XLR? Probably not. Single-aisle is now a very broad segment. Our competitor wanted to cover it with a MAX and the [new midmarket airplane]. We would be wrong to try to think of the aircraft of the future by looking at today's structure of the market. There seems to be a push toward hydrogen technology rather than electric flying. Yes. However, the two are not opposed. A hydrogen car is an electric car with the energy stored in hydrogen instead of batteries. The difference is not the powerplant, but in energy storage. When we go to hydrogen in aviation, we have two different ways to use it on board. One would be to burn hydrogen and the other to run on a fuel cell, which is like a car or train powerplant on a plane, with many more constraints. Airbus and Rolls-Royce launched the E-Fan X demonstrator project in 2017 to explore electric propulsion, but Airbus ended the project in late April, saying it “has developed a more focused roadmap on how to progress on our ambitious decarbonization commitments.” Credit: Airbus Which option do you prefer? We don't know yet. They probably don't have the same timeframe, complexity or investment requirement. That's why we're looking at different routes. We can accelerate [the process] by looking at all of them at the same time. There is more investment going into innovation now and not only in aviation. There is cross-fertilization with other means of transport. We are on the hydrogen council with many other industries including cars, shipping, energy—everybody is there. Without COVID-19 and the government initiatives it triggered, would you have talked about entry into service in 2035? We were already on the 2035 assumptions. I think I said a year ago that in order to reach our target to halve emissions by 2050, we needed entry into service around 2035 of planes that are significantly decarbonized. The acceleration is probably around the idea that we are pursuing several paths in parallel, which is not necessarily what we had in mind six months ago. How hopeful are you that European defense cooperation is going to stabilize your military business? Eurodrone is going in the right direction and paves the way for the [Future Combat Aircraft System (FCAS)], which is going from a German-French cooperation to a German-French-Spanish project. These are real European defense projects in which Airbus plays a big role. I think we have the DNA to make them successful. Europe feels the need to prepare for the sovereignty of the future, which includes the air and space power to protect your territory from the skies. I am very happy and optimistic that this is moving forward. What is happening [politically with the U.S.] unfortunately accelerates the fragmentation of the world, leading to the need to protect ourselves—to ensure the security of Europe with European means and tools and systems. It makes a lot of sense for us to be in defense, space and helicopters. A year ago, I made a firm statement that we are an aerospace group that is not only about commercial aviation. This crisis proves that it is very important to have different pillars and maybe grow defense and space more than before. Life in France is slowly returning to normal after the COVID-19 lockdown. How has your daily routine changed? We all went through the same experience, adapting week by week. What was particular to Airbus is that we are exposed to the rules of the many, many countries in which we are operating. One of the many challenges we had to face when we put together a crisis group to handle the situation was getting access to all the different rules. We have a very complex and synchronized supply chain, and with countries introducing lockdowns at different times and with different rules, it was super-complex. We largely had to work remotely. One of the big risks during the lockdown was losing control of the production system. Were you mainly in Toulouse? I was stuck in Paris at the very beginning, then I was in Toulouse, and then I started to commute. We had to organize private aircraft so we could bring the management team together. Now we are traveling again on commercial airlines. https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/video-interviews/airbus-ceo-faury-sees-huge-uncertainties-market-recovery

• 

  16 avril 2020

  Technology alliances will help shape our post-pandemic future

  Martijn Rasser There's no question the post-corona world will be very different. How it will look depends on actions the world's leaders take. Decisions made in coming months will determine whether we see a renewed commitment to a rules-based international order, or a fragmented world increasingly dominated by authoritarianism. Whomever steps up to lead will drive the outcome. China seeks the mantle of global leadership. Beijing is exploiting the global leadership vacuum, the fissures between the United States and its allies, and the growing strain on European unity. The Chinese Communist Party has aggressively pushed a narrative of acting swiftly and decisively to contain the virus, building goodwill through ‘mask diplomacy', and sowing doubts about the virus' origin to deflect blame for the magnitude of the crisis and to rewrite history. Even though the results so far are mixed, the absence of the United States on the global stage provides Beijing with good momentum. Before the pandemic, the world's democracies already faced their gravest challenge in decades: the shift of economic power to illiberal states. By late 2019, autocratic regimes accounted for a larger share of global GDP than democracies for the first time since 1900. As former U.K. foreign secretary David Miliband recently observed, “liberal democracy is in retreat.” How the United States and like-minded partners respond post-pandemic will determine if that trend holds. There is urgency to act — the problem is now even more acute. The countries that figure out how to quickly restart and rebuild their economies post-pandemic will set the course for the 21st century. It is not only economic heft that is of concern: political power and military might go hand in hand with economic dominance. At the center of this geostrategic and economic competition are technologies — artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, and 5G — that will be the backbone of the 21st century economy. Leadership and ongoing innovation in these areas will confer critical economic, political, and military power, and the opportunity to shape global norms and values. The pre-crisis trajectory of waning clout in technology development, standards-setting, and proliferation posed an unacceptable and avoidable challenge to the interests of the world's leading liberal-democratic states. The current crisis accentuates this even more: it lays bare the need to rethink and restructure global supply chains; the imperative of ensuring telecommunication networks are secure, robust, and resilient; the ability to surge production of critical materiel, and the need to deter and counteract destructive disinformation. This is difficult and costly — and it is best done in concert. Bold action is needed to set a new course that enhances the ability of the world's democracies to out-compete increasingly capable illiberal states. The growing clout of authoritarian regimes is not rooted in better strategy or more effective statecraft. Rather, it lies in the fractious and complacent nature of the world's democracies and leading technology powers. In response, a new multilateral effort — an alliance framework — is needed to reverse these trends. The world's technology and democracy leaders — the G7 members and countries like Australia, the Netherlands, and South Korea — should join forces to tackle matters of technology policy. The purpose of this initiative is three-fold: one, regain the initiative in the global technology competition through strengthened cooperation between like-minded countries; two, protect and preserve key areas of competitive technological advantage; and three, promote collective norms and values around the use of emerging technologies. Such cooperation is vital to effectively deal with the hardest geopolitical issues that increasingly center on technology, from competing economically to building deterrence to combating disinformation. This group should not be an exclusive club: it should also work with countries like Finland and Sweden to align policies on telecommunications; Estonia, Israel, and New Zealand for cyber issues; and states around the world to craft efforts to counter the proliferation of Chinese surveillance technology and offer sound alternatives to infrastructure development, raw material extraction, and loans from China that erode their sovereignty. The spectrum of scale and ambition this alliance can tackle is broad. Better information sharing would yield benefits on matters like investment screening, counterespionage, and fighting disinformation. Investments in new semiconductor fabs could create more secure and diverse supply chains. A concerted effort to promote open architecture in 5G could usher in a paradigm shift for an entire industry. Collaboration will also be essential to avoiding another pandemic calamity. Similar ideas are percolating among current and former government leaders in capitals such as Tokyo, Berlin, London, and Washington, with thought leaders like Jared Cohen and Anja Manuel, and in think tanks around the world. The task at hand is to collate these ideas, find the common ground, and devise an executable plan. This requires tackling issues like organizational structure, governance, and institutionalization. It also requires making sure that stakeholders from government, industry, and civil society from around the world provide input to make the alliance framework realistic and successful. No one country can expect to achieve its full potential by going it alone, not even the United States. An alliance framework for technology policy is the best way to ensure that the world's democracies can effectively compete economically, politically, and militarily in the 21st century. The links between the world's leading democracies remain strong despite the challenges of the current crisis. These relationships are an enduring and critical advantage that no autocratic country can match. It is time to capitalize on these strengths, retake the initiative, and shape the post-corona world. Martijn Rasser is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/04/14/technology-alliances-will-help-shape-our-post-pandemic-future/