Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A400M Talks In Final Round  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12457 posts, RR: 25
Posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10359 times:

Since Airbus is no longer threatening to cancel A400M, and since the last thread is so long, and since the deal seems to be close to being made, it's time for a new thread.

A400M talks in final round says Sources familiar with the matter said most of the key financial aspects had been agreed, but EADS was proposing to delay installation of some advanced arms features and The sources said EADS also wants relief in a price inflation clause in the contract.

France sees Airbus military plane deal next week says "We can reasonably expect an accord confirmed by the states and the manufacturer," Teisseire said by phone. "We are in the negotiation on the details to reach something stable." He cautioned, however, that it would likely only involve an "accord in principle" _ not the far more complex task of rewriting the entire contract between the two sides. and The governments have agreed to put up euro2 billion (US$2.71 billion) to fill that gap, plus another euro1.5 billion in loan guarantees _which is the "best and final" offer that they will make, Teisseire said. But EADS, for its part, has agreed to put up just another euro800 million, officials say _ leaving a gap of euro900 million left to fill, officials have said."Details still ... must be worked out, but as to the overall principles of the architecture (of a deal), the willingness is there," Teisseire said.

Airbus uneasy over A400M rescue deal says A deal to rescue the A400M military transport aircraft was getting closer, the head of the group struggling to make the aircraft said yesterday. However, Airbus chief Tom Enders said the €3.5bn ($4.8bn) rescue package the European customers for the aircraft offered this week would not leave his group or its parent, EADS, in "a comfortable position". "We've made progress. It is undeniable," Mr Enders told the Financial Times. "I call it the bare minimum of what we need to continue the programme. There are still quite a few important questions and clarifications needed. "I think there's a good chance that we can come to an agreement. But you won't see me being enthusiastic. It would be good news for suppliers and employees, but financially and resources-wise it would remain a burden for years to come."

So to continue the analogy, Enders is saying EADS is trapped in a bad marriage but is staying in it for the sake of the children. It still remains to be seen exactly how many A400Ms will be built and what specifications they will meet. It's kind of strange to read that the parties feel a deal is close to being made, but many of the technical and financial details are still not resolved.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineea772lr From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10265 times:

I understand the that Airbus/EADS can't back out of the program-that'd be stupid at this point, but, how in the hell does a military transport balloon to the price tag it has?? Is it incompetent management? The plane will no doubt be an excellent plane, but for the cost???


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10266 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Enders is saying EADS is trapped in a bad marriage but is staying in it for the sake of the children. It still remains to be seen exactly how many A400Ms will be built and what specifications they will meet.

I just don't see any more international sales because this 'deal' will not really set the price per unit, because no one has agreed on the total capabilities, yet.

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
. It's kind of strange to read that the parties feel a deal is close to being made, but many of the technical and financial details are still not resolved.

I agree, this does not make any sense. So, how can a 'deal' be close at hand?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12457 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10230 times:

Quoting ea772lr (Reply 1):
How in the hell does a military transport balloon to the price tag it has?? Is it incompetent management?

The infamous PWC audit of A400M says:

Quote:

The budgeting process of Airbus parent EADS has consistently and significantly underestimated the costs of the A400M and concluded the current process has limited value.

So I think the answer to your question is "yes".

But it wouldn't surprise me to find out that upper management has been willfully neglecting to try to understand the true cost of the program, because they probably presumed the customer would not let the A400M fail. I think we're seeing that this was a bad choice. The customers won't let the A400M fail, but they seem to be in a position where they will not put in the funds needed to make the program truly succeed.

Quoting ea772lr (Reply 1):
The plane will no doubt be an excellent plane, but for the cost???

It's not clear at this point what the final plane will end up being.

I hope it ends up becoming a great plane.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I just don't see any more international sales because this 'deal' will not really set the price per unit, because no one has agreed on the total capabilities, yet.

It'll be interesting to see how EADS proceeds. It is being reported that EUR 1.5B will need to be repaid as commissions on each export sale. It's kind of a disincentive to sell them, no? EADS can just keep the money in the bank. And the commission is yet another thing that will make the A400M be a very expensive plane.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I agree, this does not make any sense. So, how can a 'deal' be close at hand?

Not sure either. It is being said that:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
"Details still ... must be worked out, but as to the overall principles of the architecture (of a deal), the willingness is there," Teisseire said.

but as the saying goes "the devil is in the details"...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10106 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
I just don't see any more international sales because this 'deal' will not really set the price per unit, because no one has agreed on the total capabilities, yet.

It'll be interesting to see how EADS proceeds. It is being reported that EUR 1.5B will need to be repaid as commissions on each export sale. It's kind of a disincentive to sell them, no? EADS can just keep the money in the bank.

So will any of the funds EADS gets from selling the 4 A-400Ms to Malaysa have to go towards the EUR 1.5B loan repayment? IIRC, Malaysa held fast to their original price per airplane of about $177M USD.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10075 times:

More smoke; no flames.
UPDATE 1-Buyers resubmit "final" A400M offer -Germany

Quote:
The spokesman said seven European NATO buyers were ready to accept a cost increase of 2 billion euros ($2.7 billion) for the transporter and to offer export guarantees of 1.5 billion euros.

However, they rejected further negotiations on financial or technical matters, he added.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12457 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9995 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 5):
However, they rejected further negotiations on financial or technical matters, he added.

Hmm, that's good news if that is what happens, since it means the A400M will be developed to meet the original specs.

However something tells me that just adding EUR 3.5B to the deal will not be not enough money to make that happen (Airbus was looking for EUR 4.4B thus the well-known EUR 0.9B gap), and that keeping all the rest of the financial and technical terms will be a tough pill to swallow.

Seems the governments are daring EADS to cancel the program.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinesejowa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9719 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
Seems the governments are daring EADS to cancel the program.

It looks very much so. Interesting that no compromises on the technical side are being considered, when that seems to be one major source of troubles.

Airbus is in a bind. I really hope that this kind of development distopia will not become a permanent fixture on either side of the Atlantic.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 9604 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 5):
However, they rejected further negotiations on financial or technical matters, he added.

Hmm, that's good news if that is what happens, since it means the A400M will be developed to meet the original specs.

However something tells me that just adding EUR 3.5B to the deal will not be not enough money to make that happen (Airbus was looking for EUR 4.4B thus the well-known EUR 0.9B gap), and that keeping all the rest of the financial and technical terms will be a tough pill to swallow.

Seems the governments are daring EADS to cancel the program.
Quoting sejowa (Reply 7):
It looks very much so. Interesting that no compromises on the technical side are being considered, when that seems to be one major source of troubles.

I agree, it looks like the 7 EU customers want EADS to blink and cancel the program. That way they get a sizable amount of money returned to them.

The technical issues are what makes the A-400M, without them, it is just a box carrier, and not worth the extra price. The EU cannot compromise on the specs that EADS has already agreed to, but then again, EADS cannot meet the specs for the amount of money being offered.

It seems EADS bit off more than they can chew with the A-400M project because the sales people wrote checks (made promises) the engineers could not cash.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14003 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9477 times:

Quoting ea772lr (Reply 1):
I understand the that Airbus/EADS can't back out of the program-that'd be stupid at this point, but, how in the hell does a military transport balloon to the price tag it has?? Is it incompetent management? The plane will no doubt be an excellent plane, but for the cost???

The usual thing with government orders: Companies underbidding by even going below estimated costs each other to get the order and then, when the governments can´t pull out anymore, suddenly demanding more money.

Then you´ll have, as in most military orders, governments interfering and changing specs several times during the design and manufacturing process. So both sides are at fault.

Jan


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9420 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 9):
Quoting ea772lr (Reply 1):
I understand the that Airbus/EADS can't back out of the program-that'd be stupid at this point, but, how in the hell does a military transport balloon to the price tag it has?? Is it incompetent management? The plane will no doubt be an excellent plane, but for the cost???

The usual thing with government orders: Companies underbidding by even going below estimated costs each other to get the order and then, when the governments can´t pull out anymore, suddenly demanding more money.

Then you´ll have, as in most military orders, governments interfering and changing specs several times during the design and manufacturing process. So both sides are at fault.

But, in the past 4 years since most A-400Ms were ordered, how many customers have requested changes to their original contract specs.?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12457 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9349 times:

The entire "Die Weld" interview that captured Ender's comments used in the thread starter has been published.

I've started a thread in general aviation:

Interview With Airbus CEO Tom Enders (by Revelation Feb 21 2010 in Civil Aviation)

Hope you find it as interesting as I did.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30908 posts, RR: 87
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9279 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
Hmm, that's good news if that is what happens, since it means the A400M will be developed to meet the original specs.
Quoting sejowa (Reply 7):
It looks very much so. Interesting that no compromises on the technical side are being considered, when that seems to be one major source of troubles.

So is the extra monies Airbus Military has been demanding just to put the current A400M into production? As I understand it, that plane is not able to meet the original contracted specifications due to various reasons.

Or will this money be used to make later tranches of A400M's meet the contracted specifications?

And are the Export Credits there to ensure Malaysia takes delivery, or is it to try and generate new export sales to new customers?


User currently offlinesejowa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9251 times:

Stitch, this reminds me of the Kremlinology of yore. I wish the answer to those very basic questions was clear.

Airbus has not ever said the A400M meets the original specs. (We know that, but hunger for details.)

They are angling towards deferral of some capabilities and delivery of a first tranche that doesn't fulfill all stipulated specifications. The customers clearly feel, and are putting the pressure on, that all A400M's should be delivered to contractual spec. This per all the recent reports in the press.

1.5 Billion Euros highly speculative export credits: see the following article exerpt:

MALAYSIA will not have to fork out extra money for the four Airbus Military A400M air-lifters that it signed for in 2005.

This means that the Malaysian A400M will cost around RM600 million each, some RM43 million cheaper than the aircraft list price. The list price of the A400M is US$190 million (RM643 million).


Source: http://www.mmail.com.my/content/1883...-a400m-price-tag-stays-rm600m-each

Somethings gotta give!

Enders: Es ist richtig, dass die Industrie vor sieben Jahren Dinge versprochen hat, die, wie wir heute wissen, nicht realistisch waren. Es geht nun darum, eine für beide Seiten akzeptable Lösung zu finden. Denn Fehler haben nicht nur wir gemacht, Fehler gab es auf beiden Seiten

Translation: "It is correct that the industry promised things seven years ago that, as we know today, weren't realistic. The goal should now be to find a solution acceptable to both sides, since we aren't alone in having erred."

>Will you manage to deliver the first plane three years after first flight?

Enders: Das ist der Plan - und das halte ich für realistisch. Wir werden erst die Serienproduktion aufnehmen, wenn die Testflüge einen ausreichenden Reifestand des Fliegers belegen. Wir wollen nicht die Fehler wie bei der A380 wiederholen.

Translation: "That's the plan, and I think it's realistic. We will only begin with serial production when the testflights have proven a sufficient level of maturity of the plane. We do not want to repeat the same errors as on the A380."

Just like Boeing's 747-8 (sheesh, profitability only way past 400 deliveries), the A350 may suffer from a distant sibling's derailed development.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14003 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9221 times:

So why did Airbus make unrealistic promisses? Of course to get the order in the hope that later the governments will see the project as too big to fail and will add the missing money.
Remember back then Germany was flirting with the idea of buying a westernised version of the Ukrainian AN-70 freighter, which existed even back then already in prototype.

Jan


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9186 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 14):
Remember back then Germany was flirting with the idea of buying a westernised version of the Ukrainian AN-70 freighter, which existed even back then already in prototype.

I know it's almost an "article of faith" on a.net that the AN-70 would have served the Luftwaffe better, but what is it that makes supporters think that the engines on the AN-70 would have fared any better than the A400M's. To this day, the AN-70 is not in service with any air force. I know that there was talk of Antonov and Boeing doing a JV and proposing this to the USAF; obviously, that got "overtaken by events".

From what I read, the AN-70--if it met all promised performance parameters--would have been "best in class". Also from what I have read, it left a lot to be desired.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12457 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8950 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 14):
So why did Airbus make unrealistic promisses? Of course to get the order in the hope that later the governments will see the project as too big to fail and will add the missing money.

I think it could also be said the other way: the governments were not willing to give Airbus/EADS an open-ended, cost-plus-profit contract. Enders is now saying that they should have, but that's pure revisionism.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8711 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 16):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 14):
So why did Airbus make unrealistic promisses? Of course to get the order in the hope that later the governments will see the project as too big to fail and will add the missing money.

I think it could also be said the other way: the governments were not willing to give Airbus/EADS an open-ended, cost-plus-profit contract. Enders is now saying that they should have, but that's pure revisionism.

Well, back in 2005, when most orders for the A-400M came in Airbus and the EU customers were talking about how great the deals were, and how capable the airplane will be. Airbus, at the time thought the fixed price was the best way to fund, then sell the airplane.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12457 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8678 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Well, back in 2005, when most orders for the A-400M came in Airbus and the EU customers were talking about how great the deals were, and how capable the airplane will be. Airbus, at the time thought the fixed price was the best way to fund, then sell the airplane.

Then I'd agree with Enders's comment that they were daft to sign the contract.

I wonder why they'd think it'd be better to have a fixed price contract?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8476 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):
I wonder why they'd think it'd be better to have a fixed price contract?

Maybe blackmail just to get the orders knowing they would need to go through a budget fight like they are in now?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12457 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 8342 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Maybe blackmail just to get the orders knowing they would need to go through a budget fight like they are in now?

Who knows?

The pessimist in me says if this is true, then if the current agreement comes to fruition, it'll have to be renegotiated too, since EADS is coming up a billion or so Euro short of where it said it needed to be and we're still three years away from first delivery. Hopefully things will go smoothly but there are a lot of things the customers expect from this plane and any significant issue could blow up the budget which Enders was describing as "the bare minimum" back when he was expecting EUR 1B more than the current deal contains.

As for the agreement, a German defense ministry official is now saying they have not gotten the written reply from Aibus to their final offer that they have been asking for, and a different unnamed source is saying a deal will be announced Thursday.

It seems the market is reacting negatively to the German news:

Quote:

Shares in Airbus parent EADS rose 1 percent in early trade on Wednesday but slipped back after the German statement and at 0920 GMT were down 1.66 percent.

The tentative deal is the one we've already heard of: EUR 2B in cash and EUR 1.5B in advances/credits/loans/whatever so EADS can write them off.

Reportedly EADS will be writing off another EUR 1.7B for the A400M on top of the EUR 2.4B they've already written off, leaving them EUR 4.1B in the hole on A400M three years before first delivery.

The report also says:

Quote:

EADS is also waiting for a key U.S. announcement on Wednesday on the terms of a new $35 billion contest to supply a fleet of aerial tankers to the Pentagon. EADS and its partner Northrop Grumman won a previous competition, but the decision was overturned on appeal from rival Boeing.

Ref: http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxn...727&subject=general&action=article



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 8317 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 20):
The report also says:

Quote:

EADS is also waiting for a key U.S. announcement on Wednesday on the terms of a new $35 billion contest to supply a fleet of aerial tankers to the Pentagon. EADS and its partner Northrop Grumman won a previous competition, but the decision was overturned on appeal from rival Boeing.


Ref: http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxn...ticle

That makes it sound like EADS wants to use the KC-X contract to help fund the A-400M contract/developement. That is something the American public, Congress, DOD, and the USAF will never allow.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2223 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 8305 times:

All parties have agreed to save the A400M!
The additional cost of 5.2bn€ shall be shared between customers and manufacturers...
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wirtscha...tung-fuer-den-A400M/story/12544581
http://www.faz.net/s/RubEC1ACFE1EE27...E0A6123~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12457 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 8281 times:

Another report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8534248.stm

Quote:

Spanish Defence Minister Carme Chacon said that the seven countries involved and the planemaker EADS, owner of Airbus, had reached an agreement.

Further technical details would be agreed on Thursday[, she said.

The A400M is 5bn euros ($7.25bn; £4.5bn) over its initial budget as a result of weight and engine problems.

The announcement came at a meeting of European Union defence ministers in Majorca.

"I am able to tell you with great satisfaction that we have reached an agreement in principle," Mrs Chacon said.

But an EADS spokesman told the BBC that "this doesn't seem like a big breakthrough to me" because of all the details that still need to be agreed

A spokesman for the UK's Ministry of Defence said he expected a joint statement from all involved by Thursday afternoon.

"We are waiting for all the partner nations to agree on a single statement" before commenting, he told the BBC.

So it seems the Spanish defense minister has jumped the gun with a pre-announcement.

And as earlier reports, it's an agreement in principal, yet details still are being worked out, but it's pretty clear an agreement in principal will be announced Thursday.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 8260 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):
And as earlier reports, it's an agreement in principal, yet details still are being worked out, but it's pretty clear an agreement in principal will be announced Thursday.

That sounds more like each side has agreed on what amount of money needs to be put into it by the customers and EADS, but that is all. They say nothing about the finally agreed price tag for each airplane, nor what it will be capable of doing as far as what missions it will/can do.

There are still major disagreements, as far as I can see.

This is still a major stumbling block between the customers, and is directly related to what each country now wants for capabilities. Also, is Enders still threatening to cancel the entire program? Or is he bluffing?

"Airbus chief executive Tom Enders had told the BBC the company would consider ending the programme if European governments failed to provide more money.

Seven countries - Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey and the UK - have ordered 180 A400M aircraft in total between them.

Under contracts signed ahead of the start of the programme six years ago, Airbus has agreed to sell them the planes for a fixed price.

There had been a split between those countries who want the aircraft built and in use quickly - notably the UK and France - and those who would prefer to proceed more slowly to spread the cost, in particular Germany.

The A400M, which is designed to fly troops and equipment, is supposed to replace ageing military cargo carriers in several European air forces.

It had been due to go into service last year, but will not take to the skies until 2012 at the earliest. The delay led to South Africa cancelling an order for eight planes."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8534248.stm

This sounds like EADS has already torn up the 2005 contracts.


25 Post contains links Revelation : Reuters, via Straits Times had an interesting report on what things EADS was unhappy about: And today's Telegraph has more detail: So EADS wants a cha
26 NAV20 : Ironically, EADS could probably have 'won' themselves another year of grace by delaying the A400's first flight a while. Up till then one could not h
27 Post contains links NAV20 : PS - it turns out that the various countries have ALSO agreed to a further Euro2B. in price increases. That takes the total 'injection' to Euro5.5B. "
28 Post contains links Revelation : Thanks for the excellent explaination. I'm surprised the press never raised this point. Clearly it gave the customers a good amount of leverage over
29 KC135TopBoom : Correct. It seems the senior EADS folks are very concerned of the future value of their own EADS stock holdings. Because the plan is to come back for
30 Post contains images Revelation : Some further thoughts: I kind of blew over this point. Not only did the press raise this point, perhaps EADS didn't realize this internally? As you sa
31 Post contains images NAV20 : Sorry, Revelation. Can't resist saying that I can only wish that someone would 'turn the screws' on me by only offering me a mere Euro5.5B..........
32 Revelation : If you presume the EUR 1.5B of repayable loans will end up being a gift, it's really a 17.5% price increase. Yes, some are talking about how many Her
33 Post contains links ArabAirX : Some more details here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Haggli...illion-rb-4102767263.html?x=0&.v=1
34 Revelation : Some interesting stuff: Sounds spot on to me. That's progress. That's a big problem. Oy, that's a huge problem. Glad someone is claiming to have seen
35 Post contains images NAV20 : Re-reading the various articles, I think I'm wrong and you're right, Revelation - that the 'Euro2B.' element is not a direct payment but a 10% price
36 Post contains images Baroque : You mean just like RLI then?
37 Revelation : Yes, EADs wants to be sure that "individual nations should not weaken their support" and Spain is raising the specter of renegotiating work shares to
38 KC135TopBoom : You'r right, I didn't look at it that way. Yes, this is putting one customer against another, in hopes of getting more jobs in their country and taki
39 NAV20 : My father used to love Gilbert and Sullivan - who were, in many ways, pioneers in the fields of 'farce' and 'satire.' But I think that even they woul
40 Revelation : Good point. It's pretty crazy of them to think that the customers would want the same number of planes given these planes may not be able to perform
41 Post contains links Revelation : This just in: http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxn...70&subject=economic&action=article It says the UK is in for 200M of the 1.5B but wants it
42 Post contains links and images NAV20 : And the decision IS - no decision........ This is a statement issued by EADS itself on its website:- "In reaction to unsolicited press reports regardi
43 Revelation : So it seems the Spanish defense minister and some well-respected a.net members both popped the champagne bottles a bit early. As above all that's bee
44 ArabAirX : Wasn't an outcome due to have been decided at the end of January? Here we are in March...this thing will not be cancelled, despite what may/or may not
45 KC135TopBoom : Yes, but EADS and the customers keep having meeting to extend the deadline to their next meeting.
46 Lumberton : That's been my opinion all along, and is the consensus here. The question always was how much pain the customers were willing to bear to keep this th
47 KC135TopBoom : It seems to me they are enjoying it. I no longer thing they want to kill the A-400M, nor does EADS. So the politicians will find a way to save face,
48 Post contains links Revelation : Another week, another set of meetings: Ref: http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...s/Money/Story/STIStory_496561.html Presumably these meetings are to
49 NAV20 : Apart from auditing, EADS annual accounts presumably require many thousands of copies to be written up, typeset, proof-read, printed, and bound? It's
50 KC135TopBoom : I don't think the 8 March meeting will solve anything and EADS will have to release their bleak report on 9 March. To me, that is part of the EADS str
51 Revelation : How good are the signs? Seems good enough to release numbers, presumably, but not enough to give anyone much confidence in those numbers. Will they t
52 Post contains links Revelation : Yes, another round of talks will happen Friday, with people from both the customer's side and from EADS: Ref: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...
53 Post contains links Lumberton : They will be discussing that and more. If this Reuters report is correct, Spain wants jobs in the UK moved if the Brits don't deliver on their share
54 Revelation : Them's fightin' words !!! Let the Dons come over and try to take the wing jigs, says I !!! Maybe we'll get to see Astuteman's handiwork in action ! I
55 Post contains links Lumberton : Howard Wheeldon seems to agree. Here's a longer version of the article I posted with more details, like the Spaniards offering to pay to move the mac
56 XT6Wagon : reading between the lines, Activism is paying forign companies to source goods and services from your country. Protectionism is supporting your own n
57 KC135TopBoom : They have to find something, as you are right, what they are doing isn't working. Until next year? More like "do as the EU says, not as it does".
58 Revelation : Spain better be careful, they may see a Trident II fly out of that open door headed towards Sevilla!
59 Post contains images NAV20 : Slightly 'deep' philosophical point. I rather think that that quote sums up what is wrong with the 'pan-European' EADS-Airbus approach. In the end, a
60 Revelation : Not to go too far off topic, but that's what I thought we were getting with the F-35. We had two brilliant teams produce two amazing (in their own di
61 A342 : According to the German media, an agreement has been reached (at least regarding financial matters). Details to follow.
62 Post contains links Revelation : Selected quotes from http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Financ...f-Airbus-A400M-apf-4058579869.html So it seems the deal is firm enough such that EADS can
63 Post contains links scbriml : And here they are: http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/20100305_a400m.html EADS will also take a €1.8b hit in their 2009 accounts. Looks lik
64 XT6Wagon : yes, I am disapointed that the Contract EADS signed has turned out to be worthless in the face of thier failures. Its another nail in the coffin of a
65 sejowa : I'm exceedingly happy that the financial controversy has been laid to rest (for now). Following this entire episode was quite dramatic, though, and br
66 Post contains images astuteman : no kidding. There is another term... One thing I can guarantee is that the failures are by no means ALL EADS. You might want to read some of the comm
67 Post contains images N14AZ : I checked this thread regularly to pick up some news about the A400M but I was very surprised, that not a single European a.net member took part in t
68 Post contains links Revelation : What's missing is the details of exactly how many frames will be procured and what level of functionality the frames will have. It'd also be nice to
69 Post contains links and images Lumberton : I agree that "usually" they are not especially WRT major weapons systems. However, I have worked very large service contracts that were well managed
70 rheinwaldner : This whole threads consists mostly of points that once have been made in the past....
71 Post contains links Revelation : This thread, as the title suggests, is just about the negotiations. That way those that are upset by them can just skip the thread. There are two som
72 Post contains links Revelation : The press release is out at http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/20100305_a400m.html As reported earlier, it's a "principle agreement" signed w
73 aeroLogan : Hey everyone. Long time reader finally decided to pony up the money and join. From my point of view this is a no-brainer from the European governments
74 EA772LR : I've got 1 simple question: WHY IN THE HELL IS THE A400M PROGRAM COSTING THE EU SO MUCH G*D D*MN MONEY!!?? For crying out loud? They're not building i
75 Post contains links Lumberton : The UK may cancel "two or three"; Germany is looking at a "slight cut" (whatever that means in numbers?) and may settle for less than advertised perfo
76 Revelation : It didn't take too long for the other shoe to drop. Wow, talking about "the small print taketh away": And: Some selected quotes First we read 10%... Q
77 Lumberton : I wonder who they are targeting? I've posted the USAF long range aircraft acquisition plan, which makes no mention of the A400M, recommends purchasin
78 Revelation : Hard to see where 300 frames are coming from when the locals are signing up for only 180 er 170 frames.
79 Stitch : There are plenty of C-130 operators in the world. If the A400M eventually meets / exceeds all of her performance targets, I could see many of them ad
80 Revelation : Not too encouraging. All of the above math doesn't even factor in the EUR 4.2B that EADS is already writing off which presumably will never be recove
81 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Maybe Al Queda will order a hundred or so? EADS' loss on 2009 has been announced as Euro763M. That's a rather bigger figure than most people have bee
82 XT6Wagon : I would agree... If the A400M was its old price. As it is, the C130 is just sooo much better of a deal for most nations with very limited budgets and
83 Post contains links Lumberton : I have no idea, but if LM doesn't build it, someone else will. Maybe this administration, with its stated commitment to the "infrastructure", knows t
84 Post contains links sejowa : Pertaining to above mentioned putative new transport, see Page 21 in the following document: http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/30year
85 Post contains images Revelation : Then maybe Airbus wouldn't be so careless about it's schedule and budget? On the other hand, no taxes to be paid on the profits. Somehow I bet the ex
86 Post contains images sejowa :
87 Post contains links NAV20 : They certainly did - in terms of a 'form of words' that enabled them to declare only a relatively-small loss for 2009. But whether they will get the
88 Post contains links Revelation : It's fascinating that the "deal that's not a deal" contains a "loan that's not a loan". Some interesting stuff on the impact to EADS from http://www.
89 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Tell me about it...... I like sometimes mentally to put myself into the other guy's place. In this case, that of one of the MPs in the contributing c
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A400M Talks In Final Round
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Israel In Talks With USA Over F-22 Orders posted Fri Apr 20 2007 13:46:49 by Keesje
UH-60 Down In West Virginia posted Thu Feb 18 2010 18:14:47 by FlyASAGuy2005
US Army Using UH-1Y In Afghanistan? posted Wed Feb 17 2010 13:39:55 by AirRyan
End Of Manned U.S. Space Launches Now In Sight posted Mon Feb 15 2010 13:55:39 by dxing
Shuttle Does Back Flip In Space! posted Thu Feb 11 2010 15:19:34 by BigPhilNYC
Vulcan In Cash Crisis. posted Thu Feb 11 2010 06:39:17 by readytotaxi
BAE To Pay 450 Million Dollars In Fraud Fines posted Mon Feb 8 2010 09:16:06 by Revelation
For First Time In 50 Years, No US Manned Space Flt posted Fri Jan 29 2010 08:53:24 by Dreadnought
Missing In Humanitarian Relief Action posted Fri Jan 15 2010 05:09:20 by Seefivein
'Fat Albert' C-130F In FWH Traffic Pattern posted Thu Jan 7 2010 13:08:29 by KC135TopBoom

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format