CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4365 posts, RR: 6 Posted (3 years 7 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10524 times:
It looks like the A400Ms chances with the USAF are a bit dimmer. Congress just gave the military extra funding and with that $$$ the Air Force is getting
15 C-17s = 3.6 Billion = $240 mil a pop
18 C-130Js & 7 MC-130Js = 1.8 Billion = $72 mil a pop (It should also be said that the actual unit price of the C-130s is lower than that. The MC-130J is for AFSOC and will be replacing ageing Special Forces C-130s. An MC-130J is going to cost more than a standard C-130J)
Nice to see more Barneys and Hercs on the way to the ramp. While all communities are working hard in the GWOT, the Herc crews are pushing it to the max. Retiring some 1960s era 130Es and getting new shiny metal will be great. I think the next unit to convert to J models are some boys in Europe.
One rumor about the C-17s is that they are destined to Reserve or ANG units. I would personally love to see more 17s at McGuire and Travis AFB.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
NorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2281 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10525 times:
For comparisons sake, the A400 is listed at 100 million Euros or about $157 million. That price isn't accounting for the cost overruns due to delays that the A400 has suffered.
At those current prices it really doesn't make sense to buy the A400. 2 C-130Js can easily do the job of 1 A400 for less. 1 A400 can only do 50% of the work that a C-17 can while having a price that is equal to 65% of the C-17.
None of those calculations include the extra costs of adding the A400 to the inventory, training the pilots, training the maintenance crews, or keeping the extra spares to service them.
"Rapid decompression leads to involuntary exiting of the Aircraft"
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, RR: 72 Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10489 times:
Quoting NorCal (Reply 1): 2 C-130Js can easily do the job of 1 A400 for less. 1 A400 can only do 50% of the work that a C-17 can while having a price that is equal to 65% of the C-17.
Lot of jobs a C130 cannot do that an A400M can do, it does not have the volume or payload capacity, or the internal crane and winch on the A400M
Lot so jobs the A400 can do that are more than 50% of the C17 capacity, or jobs that the C-17 cannot do, e..g tanker.
The USAF went to Airbus asking them to bid on 115 MC/HC-130 aircraft replacement, they didn't want any part of it, the USAF had no choice but to go with LM.
The cost overruns on the A400ms are not being passed onto customers, they were fixed price contracts.
I think the A400M will end up with the USAF at some point, but they are only part of the market, over 3000 aircraft are in that market at the moment coming up for replacement (C130, C160, AN-12. IL-76/78).
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10476 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 2): The USAF went to Airbus asking them to bid on 115 MC/HC-130 aircraft replacement, they didn't want any part of it, the USAF had no choice but to go with LM.
I realise that with government subsidies Airbus really does not have to make any money but this is just too much to pass up. Got a source for that or is this just another one of your made up "facts".
As for the A400 in USAF service. It ain't happening. Why? Because at 150Million a pop any perceived advantages that the plane has are outweighed by the purchase price and the added cost of bringing a fifth type cargo aircraft into the inventory.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 2): The cost overruns on the A400ms are not being passed onto customers,
Of course not, Airbus is subsidized so they don't have to make a profit.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 2): but they are only part of the market
Just the largest single market for military transports, thats all.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, RR: 72 Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10460 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 3): I realise that with government subsidies Airbus really does not have to make any money but this is just too much to pass up. Got a source for that or is this just another one of your made up "facts".
There was a reference to the USAF abandoning the option of a competition in a recent Flight International article "C-130Js to be modified for the new role in the USAF", it was confirmed with people I know in EADS.
Quoting Alien (Reply 3): Of course not, Airbus is subsidized so they don't have to make a profit.
BTW see Boeing just got slapped with another US$250 million delay payment to Australia for the late wedegtails, I am not sure of the exact number, close to US$750 million in penalty payments now on 6 aircraft ?
Quoting Alien (Reply 3): Just the largest single market for military transports, thats all.
There are 1630 C-130s, 800 IL-76/78, 520 An-12s, and 177 C-160 all coming up for replacement. Of those, only about 520 are in the USA, seems the market outside the USA is about 2600 aircraft, about 5 times bigger than the US market.
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10444 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 4): There was a reference to the USAF abandoning the option of a competition in a recent Flight International article "C-130Js to be modified for the new role in the USAF",
That is a lot different than what you originally wrote. They abandoned it because there is no suitable alternative to the C-130J. It has nothing to do with Airbus.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 4): it was confirmed with people I know in EADS.
What I heard was confirmed by people I know in the Air Force.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 4): So is Boeing, tax breaks and indirect subsidies.
airbus gets all of that plus launch aid. Indeed Airbus is getting tax breaks from the state of Alabama for putting their finishing facility in Mobile.Airbus has been subsidized and protected by Europe for the past 35 years.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 4): BTW see Boeing just got slapped with another US$250 million delay payment to Australia for the late wedegtails, I am not sure of the exact number, close to US$750 million in penalty payments now on 6 aircraft ?
By the way, how many EADS executives are under investigation for insider trading?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 4): Of those, only about 520 are in the USA,
It's closer to 700, and I said the US Military is the largest single market. So your point is?
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, RR: 72 Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10405 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 5): They abandoned it because there is no suitable alternative to the C-130J. It has nothing to do with Airbus.
The only viable alternatives to the C-130J tanker, is the A400M. The USAF went to Airbus, and Airbus declined to participate, the USAF had no option but not to go ahead without a competition, hence LM.
They fully intended to run a RFP based competition.
Quoting Alien (Reply 5): What I heard was confirmed by people I know in the Air Force.
I have observed that you have made similar comments about the tanker from what you have heard from the USAF, none of it has panned out.
Quoting Alien (Reply 5): airbus gets all of that plus launch aid.
A repayable loan is not the same as a flat out subsidy, e.g. the A320 has paid back all of its repayable loan, and the governments still receive loyalty payment for every frame sold. No commercial loan agreement has it that good for investors.
Quoting Alien (Reply 5): By the way, how many EADS executives are under investigation for insider trading?
All of them, including former ones, none of them are above the law, and non have been found guilty of anything. Apparently that used to mean something somewhere.
We also keep seeing delay after delay in the 787 program, seems some people have one standard when Airbus is unable to predict things or give accurate market updates, and another when it is Boeing.
Quoting Alien (Reply 5): It's closer to 700, and I said the US Military is the largest single market. So your point is?
My apologies if that is the case, it still only represents about 22% of the A400M target market, they have captured about 5% of the market so far. EADS launched the A400M assuming it would build only a total of 400 aircraft with a demand for over 1000, and with no penetration into the USAF.
What is the C-130, MC-130P, MC-130W, AC-130H/U, EC-130H, EC-130J, MC-130E/H, WC-130, break up to get 700 ?
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 32 Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10090 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): A repayable loan is not the same as a flat out subsidy, e.g. the A320 has paid back all of its repayable loan, and the governments still receive loyalty payment for every frame sold. No commercial loan agreement has it that good for investors.
Two observations:
1) Why does everyone insist on calling it a "repayable" loan? Doesn't the word "loan", by its very nature, imply something that is repayable???
2) While no commercial loan agreement has it that good for investors, no commercial loan agreement has it that good for the borrower, either. They get the money and have to pay it back only if and when they sell each airframe, not on standard terms. And the final term, which I believe is 17 years, is far beyond anything available on the commercial bench. So if it was such a good deal for the investor, why aren't premier investors lining up to emulate these "repayable" loans, which are "that good for investors"?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): We also keep seeing delay after delay in the 787 program,
Maybe Boeing decided to take a page right out of Airbus' play book and imitate the delays on the A380, which have still not been sorted out.
Gsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10064 times:
Quoting CX747 (Thread starter): It looks like the A400Ms chances with the USAF are a bit dimmer.
Before the tanker fallout the A400 had no chance. Now it has only gotten worse. Don't read to much into the Air Force's request for information. That was only to see if the airplane had any systems the Air Force would want to develop for their lifters.
It will be C-17's and C-130's until their Boeing and/or LM successors come on line.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9755 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 4): Quoting Alien (Reply 3):
Of course not, Airbus is subsidized so they don't have to make a profit.
But, Boeing HAS to make a profit. Boeing is a publicly traded company, I myself own 1000 shares. That is the main difference between EADS/Airbus and Boeing.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 4): BTW see Boeing just got slapped with another US$250 million delay payment to Australia for the late wedegtails, I am not sure of the exact number, close to US$750 million in penalty payments now on 6 aircraft ?
That fine is the final agreement between Boeing and the RAAF, and is the second fine, for a total of $500M AUS (not US). Boeing has the choice of providing a 7th Wedgetail or paying the contract delay fine..
Quoting NorCal (Reply 1): For comparisons sake, the A400 is listed at 100 million Euros or about $157 million. That price isn't accounting for the cost overruns due to delays that the A400 has suffered.
So, the A-400M would have cost the USAF (if bought) about $7M (each) more than the more complex KC-45A?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): Quoting Alien (Reply 5):
What I heard was confirmed by people I know in the Air Force.
I have observed that you have made similar comments about the tanker from what you have heard from the USAF, none of it has panned out.
I have said the same thing, too. Those I talk to in the USAF do not want to have to fly the EADS or NG products.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): Quoting Alien (Reply 5):
airbus gets all of that plus launch aid.
A repayable loan is not the same as a flat out subsidy,
There is a difference between "launch aid", "subsidies", and "loans". "Launch aid" is what Boeing got for helping to launch the B-787, that agreement sends back a portion of the sale of each aircraft to those people/countries, this 'aid" is not directly repaid, it is a risk sharing agreement. "Subsidies" is what a government gives out on the agreement it is repaid, essentially an interest free loan. A "loan" comes from private and public corporatiopns and individuals, and has an agreed repayment date and interest.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 6): What is the C-130, MC-130P, MC-130W, AC-130H/U, EC-130H, EC-130J, MC-130E/H, WC-130, break up to get 700 ?
Not sure if this is waht you are looking for, Zeke. This is old (September 2004), and does not include C-130J versions.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6355 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9751 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): But, Boeing HAS to make a profit. Boeing is a publicly traded company, I myself own 1000 shares. That is the main difference between EADS/Airbus and Boeing.
and EADS is not ? Better tell my step dad that he was fooled as he bought EADS shares.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9717 times:
Quoting Columba (Reply 12): and EADS is not ? Better tell my step dad that he was fooled as he bought EADS shares.
But, EADS shares are not open to everyone on the stock market. The "average" Joe Sixpack cannot buy EADS like he can Boeing (at least not in the US).
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 24 Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9716 times:
I believe that one can purchase EADS' shares under "EADSF.PK".
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Wvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 498 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 9464 times:
I dont think the US will choose the A400 for several reasons one we already have the C17 while it may be over kill in some missions its a very adaptable aircraft and proven. The US will continue to operate the C130J until the wings fall off by then a US manufacture will come up with a replacement or an upgraded c130. My moto is if it aint broke dont fix it, the C130 has done well for the US for years while the A400 while maybe in time will do as good its still unproven. In the meantime I for buying more C17's. The US isnt lacking in transport knowledge.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6197 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9395 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13): But, EADS shares are not open to everyone on the stock market. The "average" Joe Sixpack cannot buy EADS like he can Boeing (at least not in the US).
You can't easily in the US unless you arrange for a Euro-denominated account with your broker. However, with the NYSE/Euronext merger (EADS is listed on Euronext), their intention is to merge the actual market operations so that you can buy stocks currently listed on both. There are other exchanges with the same plans (NASDAQ and OMX are much closer to this...)
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4365 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 6561 posts, 
From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3287 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
