Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 14371 posts, RR: 26 Posted (5 years 7 months 4 hours ago) and read 4850 times:
It seems the A400M fiasco has knock-on effects:
The daily Financial Times Deutschland - citing EADS documents - said Thursday that the Airbus arm wants some euro500 million ($680 million) from EPI Europrop International GmbH. It said EPI wants euro425 million from the Airbus arm.
It says the dispute centers on who is to blame for lengthy delays to the troubled A400M program
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12308 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 4817 times:
Well, I see EADS is far from finished in their quest to get more money for the A-400M program. The 500M Euro number is more than 25% of the money they are getting from the EU customer shakedown, oops I mean bailout. Now they are trying to shakedown EPI, when will they begin there shakedown attempt of US companies?
EADS has said the engine delays added about one year delay to the program that is delayed by more than four years, so is EADS 75% responsible for the delays?
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 14371 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 2 hours ago) and read 4782 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1): Well, I see EADS is far from finished in their quest to get more money for the A-400M program. The 500M Euro number is more than 25% of the money they are getting from the EU customer shakedown, oops I mean bailout. Now they are trying to shakedown EPI, when will they begin there shakedown attempt of US companies?
It's not clear to me if EADS started the process or if EADS is just countering EPI's claims.
In any case, it can't bode well for the "troubled A400M program (tm)".
There's a quote in the article from EPI saying "operationally it's business as usual."
Let's see, you are engaged in a serious dispute with your one and only customer, and your owners also have many other serious business relationships with your one and only customer, and it's business as usual, yes, operationally speaking?
It seems that is the way EADS likes their relationships with both partners and customers.
Now they have the pipe dream of selling 179 KC-30s ($35B-$40B +) and 118 A-400Ms (at as yet an undisclosed price, but surely much higher than the C-17) to the USAF, and we should just accept their "business models" for pricing, overruns, delays and relationships?
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 8394 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4631 times:
Obviously EADS if they continue to build th eA400M requires an engine, so if they are successful, either the profits per frame goes up or the price to teh customer goes down. The penalty would be paid over time rather thna bankrupt the engine supplier, especially since spare etc. will be needed over the life of thr program.
Question would be if EADS is successful, how does this affect the funds being provided by the various governments or it matters only to EADS.