Airbus-We have(another) problem:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aErjIVe4aym0

Originally Posted by muhandis89

Airbus-We have(another) problem:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aErjIVe4aym0

So the head of Airbus is going to throw his toys out of his pram and walk away?
This is becoming a soap operetta!

While I've always liked the idea of the A400, I think it's time the MoD binned it and bought some more C-17s.

Originally Posted by jonwilly

"The MoD budget is 60-70% military, 30-40% political slush fund."
Very interesting statement, please expand for little old me.
I know from Thai friends in Business that if they bid for a National approved contract they allow an extra 40% as er 'Grace & Favor', 30% for National interests and 10% for local administration, well so they say.
john

I visited an airplane manufacturer in New Zealand many years ago and was told by them they had to "bung" certain personnel in the Royal Thai Air Force in order to win a contract to supply trainer airplanes to same,which they did.

I guess a bit like Britash Aerospace and the Saudi Typhoons.

So, just to check I've understood all this properly...

Airbus have so little commercial sense, they've spunked their entire development budget up the wall and failed to deliver a finished product. Even the director of Airbus thinks it's unprofitable, and they want us to pick up the difference?

I'd hope that tomorrow morning, someone in MB is going to be on the phone to Lockheed. In the past we've killed better domestic projects, with less reason.

Originally Posted by RhodieBKK

Originally Posted by muhandis89

Airbus-We have(another) problem:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aErjIVe4aym0

So the head of Airbus is going to throw his toys out of his pram and walk away?
This is becoming a soap operetta!

New Maths hurt my head...what does this do to the price, per copy of a A400M? Are these becoming so costly we won't want to fly one, for fear of damage?

Originally Posted by RedCoat2009

Originally Posted by RhodieBKK

Originally Posted by muhandis89

Airbus-We have(another) problem:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aErjIVe4aym0

So the head of Airbus is going to throw his toys out of his pram and walk away?
This is becoming a soap operetta!

New Maths hurt my head...what does this do to the price, per copy of a A400M? Are these becoming so costly we won't want to fly one, for fear of damage?

It means the 'cheap' and much delayed A400M is now going to end up costing much the same as the far more capable and much bigger C-17 we already operate and love.

Is this not saying though that they want 20% more than was originally agreed to finish development. If that is all, then by the standards of most of our defence procurement it would seem like a minor success !

Originally Posted by Recruiting_Office_reject

Is this not saying though that they want 20% more than was originally agreed to finish development. If that is all, then by the standards of most of our defence procurement it would seem like a minor success !

26.5% over-run on a fixed price contract is not something to sniff at.

Moreover, the A400M was promoted as the 'new' way forward in defence procurement that would allow us to escape from all those 'orrible messy defence contractors that always seem to get their quotations wrong and then demand more money....

Oh dear!!!!

€25.3 billion for 180 aircraft is €140 million a pop. But, already the orderbook is dwindling (RSA and UK to name two) and thus the unit cost is rising.

Acknowledging that I am repeating myself . . . from Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:28 pm . . .

Originally Posted by RCT(V)

Originally Posted by fantassin

EADS builds case for A400M sale to USAF

By Stephen Trimble

EADS North America chief executive Sean O'Keefe today revealed three factors he believes could sway the US Air Force within five years to buy the Airbus A400M transport . . . . .

DATE : 11/12/09
SOURCE : Flight International

Yeah! Well it was my idea first.

I’d better get my invoice in the post to Mr O'Keefe, for the “blue-sky� (geddit!) thinking, and “out-of-the-box� advice.

Originally Posted by RCT(V)

Originally Posted by meridian

. . . . if you look at the serious military nations, they are all realising that the gold standard set by the C130 is no longer good enough. The USAF might be lukewarm about a replacement for the C130 because it would have to come out of their pointy jet money and the USAF long term budget is a train crash. The Army on the other hand think differently and are pushing for something in the 30 plus ton range

To say the A400 has been a flop is a rather silly comment as well, it has confirmed orders for about 160 airframes, even taking into account the SA cancellation and reduced order volumes.

So, the USAF/Govt does not want to fund the development of the C130 replacement.

If (yes, it’s a BIG “if� ), we could interest the USAF in A400 (the development costs of which have largely already been allocated and paid for by the development/partner nations), to what level would the unit cost be reduced - to everyones’ benefit - by the additional, significant, USAF orders?

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewto...start=320.html

“Bump-up-the-volume� of total sales. Drive down the “unit cost� of individual units sold, to everyones’ benefit. Best of luck to EADS North America chief executive Sean O'Keefe.