Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A400M Contract Amendment Negotiations  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 19694 times:

Since the other thread

Airbus Threaten To Cancel A400M (by Daysleeper Jan 7 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

is over 300 posts long, and since Airbus is no longer threatening to cancel the A400M, and since the other thread has drifted off topic, let's start a new one to discuss the ongoing A400M contract negotiations.

EADS and the A400M customers have signed a basic agreement, but both parties say that contract will be amended within weeks or months, and there are many complex open issues that will be addressed via amendments.

In the last thread, Lumberton posted the following news:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 308):
AW&ST has an update on the details still to be worked out on the "agreement". One of the unresolved issues is how many airframes will be canceled.

Settling A400M Contract Issues To Take Months

In summation, the article points out:


A) Even though a basic agreement has been signed the following issues still need to be resolved:

* Exactly how many A400Ms each country is buying
> FR is fully commited to 50
> UK is considering cutting 2-5 frames
> DE says it could weeks or months till they settle their total
> EADS is urging that the cuts be no more than 10 frames

* Exactly how legal labilities between the prime contractor and its suppliers will be resolved
> There is a dispute over EUR 500M between Airbus and EPI
> EPI is claiming EADS was late in delivering data needed for the FADEC development
> EADS CFO Ring hopes these can be resolved now that the basic agreement is in place
> EADS CEO Gallios warns discussions could drag out well beyond 2011

* Exactly who will be contributing to the EUR 1.SA)">5B "export levy facility"
> Government and industry sources put the A400M export potential at 300 units
> "Gallois suggests intense talks are underway with South Africa to get the former export customer back on board"

* Exactly what the repayment scheme will be for the EUR 1.SA)">5B "export levy facility"
> Money must be repaid but if the royalty payments are too high they will hurt export sales

* Exactly where the money will come from for the EUR 1.SA)">5B "export levy facility"
> France is considering creating a EUR 400B bond issue or tapping an existing aerospace fund
> No word on the other participants

* Exactly how much the accelerated predelivery payments will be

* How much military certification will cost
> The basic agreement only covers civil certification
> The military certification is more challenging than the civil certification

* Exactly what the aircraft delivery schedule will be
> FR gets 7 by end of 2014, 35 by end of 2020, 50 by end of 2024
> DE gets its first in 2014

* Exactly what the delivery schedule for enhanced capabilities will be
> There are three different deliveries planned largely based on delivery of more capable software

B) The impact on EADS:
* EADS is taking an EUR 4B loss on the core 180 unit program
* Auditors suggest another EUR 3.6B in program risk, but EADS feels they can manage the risk
* EADS will be subject to delay penalties if they do not meet the schedule in the revised agreement

C) Current testing status
* The first A400M is now splitting time between Toulouse and Seville in part to meet contract workshare requirements
* The second A400M is just about ready to join the flight test program


The things I found most interesting were the continued exposure EADS has with regards to vender lawsuits, managing risk to eliminate costs the auditors identified, the indeterminate number of frames to be bought, and future penalties should they not meet the newly agreed schedule.

Also the final shape of the "export levy facility" could be problematic. Much about its composition and funding remains to be determined. Basic math says EUR 1.SA)">5B over 300 frames is EUR 5M per frame, but repayment over 300 frames is mighty generous of the customers. Just the fact that Gallois is mentioning the efforts to get back the 8 SA frames shows how important even a small advance towards the 300 frame goal is.

The customers will be exposed if EADS does not meet the newly agreed schedule and if costs for military certification are not clearly spelled out.

[Edited 2010-03-16 11:46:55]


Inspiration, move me brightly!
150 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 19694 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
The things I found most interesting were the continued exposure EADS has with regards to vender lawsuits, managing risk to eliminate costs the auditors identified, the indeterminate number of frames to be bought, and future penalties should they not meet the newly agreed schedule.

Also the final shape of the "export levy facility" could be problematic. Much about its composition and funding remains to be determined. Basic math says EUR 1.SA)">5B over 300 frames is EUR 5M per frame, but repayment over 300 frames is mighty generous of the customers. Just the fact that Gallois is mentioning the efforts to get back the 8 SA frames shows how important even a small advance towards the 300 frame goal is.

Great points, and I agree, those are the most interesting points.

However, I just don't see how EADS can now give away and incentive package to SA for them to reorder 8 firm, and 6 option aircraft, esspecially since EADS was so "public" in their dispute with SA over why the order was cancelled. I don't see EADS being able to give the USAF enopugh incentive to buy 118 A-400s now, either.

Just where are these 300 international sales prospects for the A-400? Perhaps a better questionis what capabilities will the "new" A-400 have, and who will want them at the "new" price?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 19645 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
However, I just don't see how EADS can now give away and incentive package to SA for them to reorder 8 firm, and 6 option aircraft, esspecially since EADS was so "public" in their dispute with SA over why the order was cancelled.

I think SA has the incentive to keep the workshare. I think the past problems can be worked around. But I don't see EADS doing a "giveaway" kind of deal. Gallois has said the company will defend its cash reserve and its credit rating, and you don't do that by selling aircraft below cost. Also he doesn't want to establish a low price for this sale, because then the rest of the customers will want a similarly low price. Bottom line is there will be lots of talking needed to close this deal in a way that both parties can claim to have made a good deal. And if it closes, it'll be 8 down, 292 or more to go.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
I don't see EADS being able to give the USAF enopugh incentive to buy 118 A-400s now, either.

Same reasoning applies.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Just where are these 300 international sales prospects for the A-400?

Someone at EADS braver than I predicted 1100 prospects between now and 2025:



AWST is projecting 300 sales, but not saying over what period these would happen.

Personally, I have a hard time seeing how this will happen in between now and 2025. For every two frames in the original batch, various export nations are expected to buy three frames?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Perhaps a better question is what capabilities will the "new" A-400 have, and who will want them at the "new" price?

I don't think that will be come clear till at least first delivery in 2013, maybe later.

And second order data like how much it costs to maintain the all-new EPI engines in military use will be even later.

Another great link from Lumberton implies:

- 2013: First delivery (not 2012, so now five years late)
- 2014: Air drop
- 2015: Ariel refueling
- 2016: Low-level flight with terrain following

So presuming things go to schedule there won't be any hard data about the full-blown A400M till 2016.

[Edited 2010-03-16 12:43:26]


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 19604 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Just where are these 300 international sales prospects for the A-400?

Someone at EADS braver than I predicted 1100 prospects between now and 2025:



AWST is projecting 300 sales, but not saying over what period these would happen.

Personally, I have a hard time seeing how this will happen in between now and 2025. For every two frames in the original batch, various export nations are expected to buy three frames?

Oh, I agree. They must be smoking some really good shit at EADS.

The chart shows sales of some 325 airplanes to customers like China and Russia, and 400 over all in NA, all by 2025?

On the bottom of the chart it says "plus deliveries of 192 A-400Ms to current customers". Obviously this is not an updated chart. They are predicting total sales of nearly 1300 airplanes in just 15 years.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 19587 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Someone at EADS braver than I predicted 1100 prospects between now and 2025:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
They are predicting total sales of nearly 1300 airplanes in just 15 years.

So the total market is about 1100 of which EADS hopes to sell 500.

Not unrealistic IMO looking the age of the current fleets and the lack of serious competition. (unless you think the KC390 is in the same segment)

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Portals/1/Gallery/8-M-2010-001_low.jpg


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 19529 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 4):
So the total market is about 1100 of which EADS hopes to sell 500.


The obsolete chart would imply that it's either 1300/500 or 1100/300.

It's obsolete because it includes the 192 initial order figure, which was true when the Italians were still in the program, which puts it somewhere around 2003.

As for the current AWST article, all that's being said is:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Government and industry sources put the A400M export potential at 300 units


The main issue with regard to contract negotiations is the repayment terms for the ELF ("export levy facility (tm)").

We don't know if the ELF must be paid in complete by a certain point in time, or if more money is to be paid based on time (i.e. something akin to interest is going to be charged).

Thus in turn we don't know how much will EADS need to tack on to the price of each A400M to repay the ELF, which will impact the price of the export A400Ms.

The sources in the article feel there's only another 300 export sales out there for EADS to gain, which means to recover the EUR 1.5 ELF EADS will presumably have to add EUR 5M to the price of each export A400M.

Unfortunately the sources don't bound this projection by time nor state the basis for the projection.

The article just tosses it out there as what its total projected sales are, presumably till A400M becomes obsolete.

Quoting keesje (Reply 4):
Not unrealistic IMO looking the age of the current fleets and the lack of serious competition.


Given the "founding fathers" are having a hard time keeping the initial order at 180 frames, I don't think it's realistic to see 300 export orders by 2025.

That'd be 20 new export orders a year for fifteen years starting right now, or 30 frames a year over 10 years after full functionality is achieved.

From the above, FR won't get all it's birds till end 2024, so one wonders exactly when delivery slots could be made available, and I presume the ELF will be repaid at delivery time, not order time, so ELF repayment depends on production rate.

I just chose the 2025 date arbitrarily from the chart.

It'll be interesting to find out when the ELF must be paid off, if ever.

I suspect that's one of the details that's still being negotiated.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 19290 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 4):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Someone at EADS braver than I predicted 1100 prospects between now and 2025:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
They are predicting total sales of nearly 1300 airplanes in just 15 years.

So the total market is about 1100 of which EADS hopes to sell 500.

Not unrealistic IMO looking the age of the current fleets and the lack of serious competition. (unless you think the KC390 is in the same segment)

Actually, the first quote belongs to Revelation's reply #2.

But EADS may well indeed want to sell another 500 units. The question is who will buy them?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Just where are these 300 international sales prospects for the A-400?

Someone at EADS braver than I predicted 1100 prospects between now and 2025:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Government and industry sources put the A400M export potential at 300 units


The main issue with regard to contract negotiations is the repayment terms for the ELF ("export levy facility (tm)").

We don't know if the ELF must be paid in complete by a certain point in time, or if more money is to be paid based on time (i.e. something akin to interest is going to be charged).

Thus in turn we don't know how much will EADS need to tack on to the price of each A400M to repay the ELF, which will impact the price of the export A400Ms.

The sources in the article feel there's only another 300 export sales out there for EADS to gain, which means to recover the EUR 1.5 ELF EADS will presumably have to add EUR 5M to the price of each export A400M.

Unfortunately the sources don't bound this projection by time nor state the basis for the projection.

The article just tosses it out there as what its total projected sales are, presumably till A400M becomes obsolete.

If the possibility of anorther 300 units becomes a reality, that brings the total production run to 484 airframes. Is that enough to break even on a program currently at some 31B Euros (about $43.4B USD)?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
From the above, FR won't get all it's birds till end 2024, so one wonders exactly when delivery slots could be made available, and I presume the ELF will be repaid at delivery time, not order time, so ELF repayment depends on production rate.

I just chose the 2025 date arbitrarily from the chart.

It'll be interesting to find out when the ELF must be paid off, if ever.

I suspect that's one of the details that's still being negotiated.

I have no doubt that EADS does not need to repay the entire 1.5B Euros ELF until the program is terminated, which may not be for 30 more years, or it could be next year. At this time, no one really knows, but I'm sure Keesje will tell us.

Keesje, in your picture, the second A-400 (closest to the camera and without the customer flags on it), has an open hatch or panel on top of the fuselage, at the trailing edge right wing root. Do you know what that panel or hatch is for? Perhaps maintnenace access to hydraulic or electrical systems? Or does it access the cargo compartment, possibly an emergency escape hatch?


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 19159 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Keesje, in your picture, the second A-400 (closest to the camera and without the customer flags on it), has an open hatch or panel on top of the fuselage, at the trailing edge right wing root. Do you know what that panel or hatch is for? Perhaps maintnenace access to hydraulic or electrical systems? Or does it access the cargo compartment, possibly an emergency escape hatch?

TB, I guess they are doing some testing on the APU..

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airbu...-Industrie/Airbus-A400M/1620447/L/


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 19149 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 7):
I guess they are doing some testing on the APU..

Wow, that looks like a pain in the butt to maintain; not very maintenance friendly if you need a crane to come pull out your APU when it needs changed...horrible decision to put it there IMO.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 18996 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 7):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Keesje, in your picture, the second A-400 (closest to the camera and without the customer flags on it), has an open hatch or panel on top of the fuselage, at the trailing edge right wing root. Do you know what that panel or hatch is for? Perhaps maintnenace access to hydraulic or electrical systems? Or does it access the cargo compartment, possibly an emergency escape hatch?

TB, I guess they are doing some testing on the APU..

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airbu...47/L/

Thanks Keesje.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 8):
Wow, that looks like a pain in the butt to maintain; not very maintenance friendly if you need a crane to come pull out your APU when it needs changed...horrible decision to put it there IMO.

It does seem to be in an odd place. IIRC, the C-130, C-5, and C-17 (also the C-141) had/have their APUs in the wheel well sponsons. Maybe the sponsons on the A-400 have other things inside, besides the MLG?


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 18948 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
It does seem to be in an odd place. IIRC, the C-130, C-5, and C-17 (also the C-141) had/have their APUs in the wheel well sponsons. Maybe the sponsons on the A-400 have other things inside, besides the MLG?

Either that or the APU is too big to fit in the gear pods and there really isn't any other place to put it. Although when they designed the aircraft, they could have easily made the sponsons bigger, as they did on the C-17.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 18946 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 10):
Either that or the APU is too big to fit in the gear pods and there really isn't any other place to put it. Although when they designed the aircraft, they could have easily made the sponsons bigger, as they did on the C-17.

IIRC, the original C-17A design (before the ER version) had a longer left side sponson, which housed the APU. When the C-17ER version came out, the right side sponson was lenghtened to the same size of the left side. But I don't know if anything is inside the right sponson extension, or if it is an empty dry bay.


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 18837 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
IIRC, the original C-17A design (before the ER version) had a longer left side sponson, which housed the APU. When the C-17ER version came out, the right side sponson was lenghtened to the same size of the left side. But I don't know if anything is inside the right sponson extension, or if it is an empty dry bay.

You have your sides reversed; the right side has the APU (Aircraft Right). The left side was only lengthened on a few birds; even the new builds coming off the line still have a shorter pod on the left side. The rumor I heard is that it was originally attempted to put a fuel tank in that pod, but that idea was thrown out due to safety concerns. Regardless, all of the new builds are considered ERs, and have the short sponson on the left side. http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA--...oeing-C-17A-Globemaster/1615439/L/ this picture of 7182 shows that the left side is considerably shorter than the right.


User currently offlinefsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 18767 times:

You want to sell 300+ units. Negotiate with China to open a line in Shanghai to license build the A400. China would be responsible to pay for the labor and materials and EADS gets a 30 million Euro fee for each copy. I know this is a crazy idea but I figured I would throw it out there.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 18528 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
* Exactly how many A400Ms each country is buying
> FR is fully commited to 50
> UK is considering cutting 2-5 frames
> DE says it could weeks or months till they settle their total

In German Defense Cuts Loom as Merkel Fights Record Budget Deficit we find:

Quote:

German lawmakers beginning four days of budget debate in Berlin today are preparing to cut defense spending by 1.5 percent, or 450 million euros ($617 million) this year, parliamentary documents show. That includes 100 million euros less for European Aeronautic, Defence and Space Co.’s A400M plane and cuts to the NH90 helicopter, made by a group including EADS’s Eurocopter SA unit and Finmeccanica SpA’s AgustaWestland.

“These are prestigious projects,” Jan Techau, an analyst at the NATO Defense College in Rome, said in a phone interview. “You could say if the Germans aren’t able to afford it, who can?” At the same time, Merkel’s coalition says “the budget is so strained, you have to take it from somewhere.”

DE was in for 60 frames when the program was causing the customers EUR 20B.

For round figures that was 20B / 180 = EUR 111M per frame.

So let's presume DE was into the program for 60 * 111M = 6.6B total.

After recent increases it's EUR 23.5B / 180 = EUR 130M per frame.

And from the above, they're taking 100M off the table too.

So we can project that DE will be spending 6.5B total at 130M per frame.

Which would lead to DE taking 50 frames instead of 60.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 18375 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 14):
DE was in for 60 frames when the program was causing the customers EUR 20B.

For round figures that was 20B / 180 = EUR 111M per frame.

So let's presume DE was into the program for 60 * 111M = 6.6B total.

After recent increases it's EUR 23.5B / 180 = EUR 130M per frame.

And from the above, they're taking 100M off the table too.

So we can project that DE will be spending 6.5B total at 130M per frame.

Which would lead to DE taking 50 frames instead of 60.

That would be assuming EADS would eat the remaining difference between the increase to 23.5B Euros and the known current costs of 31 B Euros of the program. It also assumes that German still gets all the features they originally wanted. That 7.5B Euro difference is going to come from somewhere. Fewer firm orders will not cover it, and a unit price increase may reduce the number of units even more, and not only from Germany as I doubt the UK can afford much more of a unit price increase without reducing their order for 25.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18318 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
That would be assuming EADS would eat the remaining difference between the increase to 23.5B Euros and the known current costs of 31 B Euros of the program.

EADS has already written off EUR 4.2B and claims it can find a way to save another 3.6B.

This is mentioned above:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):

B) The impact on EADS:
* EADS is taking an EUR 4B loss on the core 180 unit program
* Auditors suggest another EUR 3.6B in program risk, but EADS feels they can manage the risk

Not sure if this is how it will end up.

It's pretty certain that EADS is just going to eat the 4.2B EUR it's already written off.

How much of the 3.6B savings they can achieve is yet to be determined.

Note that:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
> EADS is urging that the cuts be no more than 10 frames

10 frames are 5.5% of the 180 frame run.

The customers are putting an extra 3.5B on the table which is a 17.5% price increase which in theory could be eliminated by an order reduction of 31.5 frames, a lot more than the 10 that EADS is urging.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offline727200er From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 18262 times:

So EADS expects to sell 400 frames in NA? I am wondering where they expect this to happen. Canada has already voted with our limited funds, 4 C-17s thank you. Mexico is questionable, and so is the US. I'm sure the USAF could find a use for the aircraft, but with recent push orders from Congress for more C-17s I really don't see it happening unless the USAF has a very specific need that is full filled here. Well as said this is an old chart so it's basically irrelevant. Interesting saga really, and too bad as the Aircraft itself is quite interesting.


"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 18193 times:

Quoting 727200er (Reply 19):
So EADS expects to sell 400 frames in NA?

No. They see a market requirement for A400M type aicraft in NA. They hope to sell 500 A400M's worldwide.

   It's brand new technology in all areas
   It can cruise at M .7 at 40.000 ft over long distances
   It can night fly low and fast without VFR
   It can be put down on real soft & short strips
   It is autonomous on the ground & can unload itself with minimum crew
   It can refuel helicopters
   It can refuel fighters
   It can move serious vehicles & medium helicopters  

There's no existing aircraft that can do all. A clean sheet design would be necessary to compete.

Arrival at TLS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQYX3htS03o


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18093 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 20):
It's brand new technology in all areas
It can cruise at M .7 at 40.000 ft over long distances
It can night fly low and fast without VFR
It can be put down on real soft & short strips
It is autonomous on the ground & can unload itself with minimum crew
It can refuel helicopters
It can refuel fighters
It can move serious vehicles & medium helicopters

It also has not demonstrated any of those capabilities yet. It has reached .7 M at FL-400, but only foir a short test flight. EADS has said some capabilities will not be met and some will have to come much later.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18034 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
It also has not demonstrated any of those capabilities yet.

Somehow 787, A400M, 747-8 & A350 sold 1500 before they flew. Apparently paper prove has some value from some OEM's..

Which Airbus or Boeing projects failed to meet their targets in recent decades? MD11 initially.. ?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17991 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 20):

It's brand new technology in all areas
It can cruise at M .7 at 40.000 ft over long distances
It can night fly low and fast without VFR
It can be put down on real soft & short strips
It is autonomous on the ground & can unload itself with minimum crew
It can refuel helicopters
It can refuel fighters
It can move serious vehicles & medium helicopters

There's no existing aircraft that can do all.

Correct, and as KCTB points out, the A400M can't do so either, yet, and depending on how the negoitations go, perhaps never.

To try to keep this thread focused, do you have any more info on when it may do some of these things?

The best info we have is:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):

- 2013: First delivery (not 2012, so now five years late)
- 2014: Air drop
- 2015: Ariel refueling
- 2016: Low-level flight with terrain following

And EADS has quite often hinted that "night fly low and fast without VFR" is one of the things that is driving the cost of the A400M so high.

OTOH it's one thing that DE in particular insists on keeping in the program.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17956 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 22):
Which Airbus or Boeing projects failed to meet their targets in recent decades? MD11 initially.. ?

The MD-11 was not a Boeing project, it was an MDD project develpoed before Boeing bought them out. You may have noticed that Boeing ended production of the MD-11? It was in all the newspapers.

Quoting keesje (Reply 22):
Somehow 787, A400M, 747-8 & A350 sold 1500 before they flew. Apparently paper prove has some value from some OEM's..

Would the A-400 have sold 180 airframes if they were not bought by the company owners? How many A-350s have the EU governments bought?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):
Correct, and as KCTB points out, the A400M can't do so either, yet, and depending on how the negoitations go, perhaps never.

To try to keep this thread focused, do you have any more info on when it may do some of these things?

Perhaps, Revelation, you should have asked him for recent info, not some link from 4 years ago that is no longer relevent. Maybe some info no older than about one month? Keesje has a habit of using very old links to support his information, as he likes to live in the past.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 17966 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
The MD-11 was not a Boeing project, it was an MDD project develpoed before Boeing bought them out. You may have noticed that Boeing ended production of the MD-11? It was in all the newspapers.

Yes, and the same is true for C-17.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Perhaps, Revelation, you should have asked him for recent info

Yes, I do want up to date info.

From what I can tell some do hold a vision of the current A400M based on what it was supposed to become, which is their right.

And it seems the current contract allows for an A400M that can get to the original goals but after much more money and time has been invested.

That's another interesting thing about the current state of the contract. It allows folks to say pretty much anything they want to say about the A400M till all the amendments are made, when we should know a lot more about what the A400M will actually be.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offline727200er From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 17928 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 25):
That's another interesting thing about the current state of the contract. It allows folks to say pretty much anything they want to say about the A400M till all the amendments are made, when we should know a lot more about what the A400M will actually be.

Could not have said it better myself.

This is the thing, if the plane is capable of all these things, then great! Unfortunately even EADS says it ain't gonna happen soon. Too bad really as some of these things are what make the plane so interesting, and without them it's just a compromise in capability between the C-17 and C-130J. I'm still looking forward to the final word when the negotiations are settled.



"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
25 Galaxy5007 : The C-17 was developed well before the Boeing buyout; but C-17s are still selling and rolling off the production line....not the same in that sense.
26 Revelation : I think the part you didn't quote right after is more on-topic. It seems DE is cutting back A400M by EUR 100M which isn't a lot compared to the EUR 6
27 srbmod : Please keep the discussion to about the A400M, not the C-17. If you wish to discuss the C-17 in regards to the A400M, do so in separate thread.
28 Revelation : It very well might be, and I certainly hope it will be, especially in terms of value delivered to the taxpayer. The problem is that no one knows what
29 Stitch : I don't think that is really the case. EADS knows what capabilities they cannot deliver in the initial tranche and they know how overweight the airfr
30 Post contains links Revelation : Right, I'm sure EADS has a good idea what they can and cannot do technically, and they will know even more with time, but the links in #0 and #2 poin
31 KC135TopBoom : Correct, however, their current experience is most based on commerical aircraft, not military. I agree as EADS gains more experience and confidence i
32 Stitch : Well the AviationWeek article just mentions how many aircraft each air force will take and how Airbus Military and it's suppliers will work out there
33 Revelation : It'll be interesting to see if countries can "opt out" of the later tranches or not. Indeed. Hopefully that means Airbus has put the time to good use
34 KC135TopBoom : What will be the additional costs for each new capability?
35 Post contains images keesje : I think we Europe has been building militairy aircraft for 100 years under dozens of legendary brands, mergers and multinational projects, but the wi
36 KC135TopBoom : Correct, but did all that "cooperate knowledge" transfer to EADS? No, it did not. EADS will one day make very good and reliable military aircraft, I
37 Post contains images A342 : But nearly all companies which built those which built those aircraft, and in consequence, the engineers who built them, ended up in the EADS. Your a
38 Post contains images astuteman : Naughty Boy. And not yet banned either. Depends on the flag, I guess..... I'll take the advice/instruction offered and respond elsewhere rgds
39 KC135TopBoom : Oh, of course, ban everyone who is critical of EADS? He makes a valid point. So can we now get back to the details of the sales contracts EADS is dic
40 Post contains images astuteman : Funnily enough, my tongue-in-cheek point was more aimed at the fact that a post that IS critical of EADS has been left in (and riddled with inaccurac
41 Post contains links keesje : Irrelevant, it were the same folks & facilities. The knowledge/ experience was there. - FW190: Focke-Wulf merged with Weserflug into Vereinigte F
42 KC135TopBoom : Correct, most of the German scientists who developed aircraft and rockets went to the US or USSR. Very few of them returned to Europe later in their
43 Post contains links N328KF : Looks like, with the new pricing, the Royal Air Force will take 22 instead of 25 A400Ms: http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...ll-take-part-in-loan-c
44 keesje : Seems a pragmatic approach to me. They can cancel 1, 2 or 3 to keep the budget tight. Or order additional ones later on. ( as happened to the USAF C-
45 N328KF : All of this while they are adding C-17s? I would say that the RAF has decided that the low/medium/high mix is best for them.
46 Post contains links keesje : I think the relatively low number of A400m's they ordered compared to Germany and France has indeed to do with their C-17s, MRTT's and C130J's, altho
47 KC135TopBoom : We shall see, won't we? Do we know the sizes of each different vehicle model? Will some fit in the C-130J/J-30 and others fit in the A-400? That will
48 Post contains links Revelation : Yes, but it'd be easier to get to 500 if they didn't loose orders from the home market: Germany Weighs ‘Slight’ Reduction in A400M Orders So, the
49 Post contains links keesje : No, its the open competition in which US General Dynamics beat UK BAE (-500 jobs) to win the light tank deal, replacing the Scimitars in the British
50 KC135TopBoom : Are you sure about that? I have seen nothing to say the A-400 can do that, now that EADS changed the specs. and still is forcing the customers to tak
51 Post contains links Revelation : How do you define medium tank? Wiki's definition said that the term was used in WWII for Panther IV, M4 Sherman and T-34 tanks which are in the range
52 zeke : Unprepared and unpaved are not the same, the C-17 cannot land on unprepared strips, it can and does land on unpaved strips that are of the required s
53 N328KF : BAe is not considered a "foreign" company by many in the US, at least not to the same extent that EADS or Thales is. The fact that their US sharehold
54 KC135TopBoom : Since you have seen it, I assume it is public? Can you send a link? This EADS presentation with a 25 ton payload, did it include air refueling for th
55 Post contains links Revelation : Bloomberg reports no final contract till the end of May: Other sources have UK down for -3, France firm at 50 and Germany "mulling over" reducing its
56 Post contains links and images Revelation : Small update on the contract side of things: Ref: http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fr...siness%20Report&fArticleId=5496118 I guess there's no big
57 KC135TopBoom : I like the double talk from Mr. Gallois; "The first A400M, manufactured by EADS aircraft unit Airbus, is expected to be delivered to France in early
58 Post contains links and images A342 : "ILA: A400M heads for Berlin debut" http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-a400m-heads-for-berlin-debut.html "In addition to potentially stripping so
59 KC135TopBoom : Perhaps, and perhaps not. Time will tell. What Air Forces around the world will need and worry about is the unique configueration they need in an A-4
60 Post contains images A342 : So tell us a bit more. Apart from the terrain following system, which promised capabilities won't the customers get?
61 Post contains links and images mffoda : "Airbus A400M loses capabilities in new deal" http://www.the-daily-politics.com/ne...00m-loses-capabilities-in-new-deal "Some capabilities — such a
62 KC135TopBoom : I thought the original A-400 design was for a 37 tonnes cargo load. But I believe EADS said last year it will not meet that requirement, either. They
63 Revelation : Indeed, quite confusing. Your first article above says: And in its base form it's 31.5 tonnes, 42 tonnes with full armor.
64 zeke : They are they same, the two payloads you have quoted have to do with the type of mission rather than the payload capacity. For a tactical mission the
65 Post contains links Revelation : Apparently certain people in the DE government are unhappy that EADS is not sharing the wealth with its smaller suppliers: http://www.futurespros.com/
66 Post contains images astuteman : I'm not sure why my previous reply to this was deleted, (perhaps reality has no place on an A400M thread? ) So the customers themselves say that the
67 Post contains links keesje : KC135TB, you have argued for years on forums that the A400m has taken a severe hit in payload, making it uncompetitive for the price. All false? BTW
68 Revelation : Very interesting stuff, keesje. Some dark clouds in the future? A pretty graphic description of how much money the overrun represents: It still amaze
69 Post contains images A342 : But if the robber opts for 200 or 500 Euro notes, the case for a C-17 acquisition vanishes.
70 Post contains images Revelation : If they go for gold bullion, it seems the AN-225 is in order!
71 Post contains links art : Quite a comprehensive history of the A400M program here: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100608/tts-uk-air-a400m-ca02f96.html
72 Post contains links Revelation : Seems Germany is considering taking a smaller number of A400Ms: Germany drafts EUR 9bn defence savings plan This doesn't match a characterization mad
73 santafejay : He's been breathing way too much carbon-tet!
74 A342 : Wrong quote here!
75 Revelation : Yes, the correct quote is:
76 Post contains links Revelation : Not so much fun these days for those in finance, management, or those developing the FMS, I'm afraid: Ref: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Sec...-sti
77 KC135TopBoom : Yes. Yes. Yes.
78 Post contains links Revelation : In http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLD...=RSS&feedName=tnBasicIndustries-SP (posted by Lumberton) we read: This must be immensely frustrating to
79 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : A company with lots of frustration?
80 Post contains links Revelation : In http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1286974736.html which is an article about how difficult it is to decide to offer a new engine option for the A32
81 Post contains links keesje : Germany's Defence Ministry says it has made a breakthrough in a financing dispute over the Airbus A400M military transport plane. "In the course of ne
82 KC135TopBoom : The key word in that Reuter's story, Keesje, is SHOULD. I think you agree with that. That tells me the negotiations are still at some type of impass.
83 Post contains links Revelation : Report stating the oft-delayed contract amendment was agreed upon yesterday, Thu 4 Nov: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6A41I020101105 Nothing r
84 KC135TopBoom : If no significant changes since March, why did it take 8 months to reach an agreement? Something stinks here. Which is why no one would be interested
85 Post contains links kanban : here's some other information the following news http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Deal-r...A400M-apf-2698999474.html?x=0&.v=3 implies that there will
86 Post contains images Lumberton : Yes, a few less. For me, the key word in that statement is "potentially". The KC-390 will suck the oxygen out of many of the C-130 replacement market
87 Post contains images kanban : don't tell Keesje!!! it will break his heart!
88 Post contains links keesje : We have a new price for the A400M about E168 millions. Nowhere the kind of money paid for C-17s. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/...llion-tag-for-
89 Post contains links JoeCanuck : 168 x 1.4 = $235,200,000 / A400 http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4307 1,528.5 / 8 = $191,000,000 / C-17
90 328JET : LOL. That is a great calculation! Airbus would be really happy to sell their products to non-european countries in the way you have calculated... But
91 JoeCanuck : What's so difficult about the calculations? They are based on current exchange rates. 1 euro = 1.4 dollars. That means, in US dollars, for every Euro,
92 Post contains links and images keesje : Did you read the following link too? http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/...llion-tag-for-c-17-can-be-cut.html This is a bit extreme. During the last
93 KC135TopBoom : You forgot to read, in that link; "Boeing now says that India could actually pay far less." "Business Standard has examined requests, placed to the U
94 Post contains links kanban : some details are now emerging of the final contrat settlement http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNLDE6A82AU20101109?rpc=44 I like the idea of holding s
95 KC135TopBoom : The EU coustomers can only hold back 2% of the price per airplane. The price is some E168M Euros (not the E118M Euros mentioned in the link), that is
96 kanban : per plane yes, but times 170... it's over 570M euros (or did eveybody buy these in dollars like commercial a/c?)
97 KC135TopBoom : Still, it is not much over the entire sale, EADS still gets to keep 98%. But, I expect France to fully pay for their 50 on order and Luxemburg to ful
98 kanban : agreed, however that might be their total profit .... although I suspect there wil be no profit at all.
99 KC135TopBoom : Perhaps you are right, but if EADS can just break even on the A-400, they will see that as 'profitable' enough.
100 Post contains links Lumberton : This report from the FT Deutschland, discusses a rebate between two and sixteen percent. Note also the 2018 operational date. http://www.bloomberg.co
101 Post contains links Lumberton : WRT the export potential of the A400M, bookmark this one. An study by PWC says 280; EADS, to no one's suprise, disagrees and says its "between 400 and
102 KC135TopBoom : That means no tanker version until at least Dec. 2018. I would be very surprised if even the suggestion of 280 A-400s (by PWC) happened. All potentia
103 kanban : bill for worst case scenario, and pocket the profit if things look up no refunds though (did SA ever get theirs?) Note how much lower the Total expor
104 Post contains images keesje : Revelation pitched this incorrect feeling in replay 2. The graph says there is market requirement for 1100 A400M type aircraft. However "never let fa
105 KC135TopBoom : Wow, as many as 1100 + C/KC-390s?
106 keesje : Ha, now I see you were one that jumped to incorrect conclusions too.
107 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : It is not just me. It seems RAF Wing Commander Roger Green had a lot to say about the A-400 in the summer of 2005. In addition to what several people
108 Post contains images keesje : Coming from someone that regularly dismisses sources of 1 yr before from others.. The A400M carries think that don't the C130 to places the C-17 can'
109 kanban : I'm curious, as I read the posts and remember those on the thread that got cancelled (because of personal attacks), it seems to me that one party sai
110 Post contains links and images keesje : New A400 videos on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHRScJL74rc If you need a 20t platform the C130 is the safest choice. Nobody can need a unp
111 Revelation : Well, since (a) you posted that chart originally, and (b) you keep telling us the C-17 and C-130J lines are going to close any day now, what inferenc
112 kanban : I suspect the 1100 production goal is being used to reassure the existing operators that this export loan will be profitable in the long run... the PW
113 JoeCanuck : Smart operators don't land their very expensive planes on unimproved fields anyway. The smart ones air drop or skid the loads out, without landing. A
114 Revelation : The 1100 number was Airbus's estimate of the replacement market that the A400M could address. It was made years ago, during the giddy (hallucinatory?
115 Lumberton : I asked this earlier, but the question seems to have been caught up in a dust up and was deleted, so I will ask again: If one orders an A400M today, w
116 kanban : at least unless they worked a deal with existing customers to swap positions for earlier deliveries.... That would allow Britain and/or Germany to sl
117 KC135TopBoom : I'll bet the UK reevaluates their decision to retire the C-130Js in 2020. The UK would gladly sell all 22 of their production slots to anyone wanting
118 Post contains images keesje : There's enormous pressure from the French, UK and German Airforces to replace their Transall / Herc's. No doubt they will claim their first few years
119 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The C-130 is the world's best airlifter into unprepared runways, at up to 20t. No one is going to use an A-400 into unperpared runways at weights mor
120 kanban : guys, we've been over and over who can do what on what kind of field, who is more expensive, etc... we've been over and over what cargoes each can car
121 Post contains links Lumberton : EADS CFO, Hans Peter Ring, says: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12254984 The thread with the cute chart got deleted. How many less is tha
122 Post contains images kanban : 600-700, but as our good friend points out that total was the number by the end of the century....
123 JoeCanuck : Which century...?
124 zeke : EADS did not "tout" any number. They added up the number of C-160, C-130, AN-12, and IL-76 that were in service at the time, and the presented a numb
125 kanban : Zeke... I think the problem was the chart was presented by itself and out of the original context.... it makes sense now...
126 keesje : The chart (reply 2) was always clear. Some for some reason repeatedly mixed up market size and A400M prospects..
127 Revelation : They labeled the chart as "Market Requirement" instead of "Potential Aircraft for Replacement" as you suggest. That implies each player would be repl
128 KC135TopBoom : Here is the discussion back in replies #1, #2, #3, and #4 from Revelation, Keesje, and me. Not when there are other choices like the C/KC-390, CX-2 (i
129 keesje : I think the 500 ship production run is forecasted in post 1 and in reply 121, pretty consistent. Some here tried to take numbers for a ride for obvio
130 Post contains links zeke : They stated on the prior slide that a "An impressive Market Segment" which consisted of "3130 Medium size transports in service, in storage and on or
131 Revelation : Still doesn't change my point that it's only a market requirement if we presume one for one replacement, which is doubtful. At one point we're talkin
132 zeke : Then whoever the "we" is has failed to look at the overall presentation, it does not indicate just a single replacement type. Again this is like some
133 Revelation : Nice spin, but what they really want is the plane to meet the original specs on the original budget and the original schedule. The "export levy facil
134 zeke : The member nations have expressed a desire that they are more concerned at getting airframes in service as their current fleets are stretched. Many h
135 Revelation : Of course they are, because Airbus could not deliver the planes on the original schedule or budget.
136 zeke : If member countries could have been able to predict the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, as well as the multitude of natural disasters, the aircraft w
137 kanban : I think that assumption is a stretch also... pun intended Yes the current fleet usage is above peacetime projections... however what military only pr
138 zeke : None, however not many plan for long term, long distance operations either. That is why i think Australia, Canada, and the UK purchased C-17s. If Ira
139 Revelation : The A400Ms were ordered in 2003 for 2009 delivery. The reason the OCCAR fleets are stretched are that their replacements are already past due and wil
140 KC135TopBoom : Not to mention the additional maintenance costs needed by the older C-130s and C-160s the OCCAR countries are needing to replace. There is still no g
141 Post contains links Revelation : Back to the state of the A400M contract. http://www.eads.com/dms/eads/int/en/...2010/Roadshow%2520November2010.pdf says: Negotiations agreement conclu
142 Post contains links mffoda : The Register and this Lord Gilbert have some pretty awful things to say about the A400M program. Does anyone know how this guy is regarded in England?
143 KC135TopBoom : My guess is since he has been in various elected and appointed government positions for 40 years, he is regarded quit well. I like the part about the
144 Post contains links keesje : Lord Gilbert is very experienced, he's 83 yrs old. "First, I believe that we can and should spend a lot more money on defence. "The stories that are b
145 KC135TopBoom : Thanks, Keesje.
146 Post contains images 328JET : I read a great printed article in "Flug Revue" today. The whole program makes progress! The A400M will be certified (civil) in one year from now. It w
147 Post contains links mffoda : I was just looking through the UK Ministry of Defence's major projects report for 2010 on the following site: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1...1
148 Post contains links and images mffoda : "Partner Nations Approve A400M Contract" http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...tions%20Approve%20A400M%20Contract AviationWeek provides more details.
149 Revelation : Interesting, and the AvWeek article you point to in #148 says: To bad M. Morin was not more forthcoming about what the heck that means! Which has as
150 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Flyaway price of the C-130J is $66M USD, and the flyaway cost of the C-17A is about $200M USD (international sales, which typically include "packages
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
EADS, EPI Seek Damages Over A400M Engine posted Sat Mar 13 2010 06:14:25 by Revelation
A400M Delays Feed C-130J Sales posted Sat Mar 6 2010 08:36:01 by Revelation
A400M Talks In Final Round posted Fri Feb 19 2010 07:07:12 by Revelation
Airbus Threaten To Cancel A400M posted Thu Jan 7 2010 05:32:56 by Daysleeper
India Cancels Contract For Midair Refuellers posted Wed Jan 6 2010 07:01:25 by Golfradio
A400M Flight Test Prototypes posted Mon Jan 4 2010 08:48:13 by Keesje
A400M Flight Test Program posted Tue Dec 22 2009 05:12:18 by Kmz
A400M First Flight Dec 11th posted Wed Dec 9 2009 04:22:50 by R2rho
Airbus Militairy MRTT, A400M Next A320 AEW? posted Mon Nov 30 2009 14:54:28 by Keesje
Airbus A400M First Flight & Future Prospects posted Tue Nov 17 2009 01:13:44 by Keesje