Airbus Threatens To Scrap A400M

Quote:

---

Airbus has threatened to scrap the A400M heavy transport project unless its customers, seven European countries, agree, by the end of the month, to help cover the huge cost overruns it has piled up. The big four-engine turboprop flew for the first time Dec. 11 but the controversy over Airbus' demand that customers accept a 25-percent price increase still hasn't been settled. Airbus CEO Tom Enders issued an ultimatum on Tuesday, warning that the company will simply drop tools rather than shoulder the whole burden. "We need to stop this constant drain on resources," Airbus said on Tuesday. "We've asked the governments to take their share of the burden and this needs to be done as soon as possible."

Germany is the largest customer for the transport and is also reported to be the holdout in the negotiations, a charge it denies. The airplane is about three years late and Airbus missed a first flight deadline in 2009. The stakes are high for all concerned. If Airbus drops out, it will have to pay back about $8 billion in seed money provided by the governments and admit failure in its attempt to break into the defense market dominated by U.S. companies. On the other hand, without the airplane, the European countries will remain without the heavy airlift capacity they need for their own requirements and for their NATO commitments.

---

http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/Airb ... 795-1.html

NATO just bought C-17s, and i really don't see why any european country today needs the lift capacity. i say scrap away. there is even talk of killing the A380 program. perhaps the likes of concorde are not lost....

Ahh, 25% is nothing. Haven't they ever seen the cost-overruns produced by American military contractors? :lol:

I wish Airbus would make a civilian version, that would look amazing in airline colors 8) The only Airbus I've liked aesthetically speaking, since the A340 classic and A330-300 back in the early 90s...


I really hope they scrap that A350 and make a tri-holer :wink:

Im amused. I hope they do drop it. All it is going to do is prove that Airbus is an inefficent company. They are always asking goverment to sholder their costs. What is new here? They practicly drop their pants half the time to get orders in the books. I am not going to say they make a garbage product though all around. The A320 series is a truely fantastic product but right now Airbus has more than they can chew and with goverments the world over tightening the drawstring it leaves little room for extras. Besides, why did the wing need to be entirely composite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

Im amused. I hope they do drop it. All it is going to do is prove that Airbus is an inefficent company. They are always asking goverment to sholder their costs. What is new here? They practicly drop their pants half the time to get orders in the books.

---

If not for Boeing's military division they'd probably be in a similar situation. I think that was the point of the A400M...a way to get gov't subsidies under the radar.

Well now they sure are not doing it too under the radar. That is for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

Im amused. I hope they do drop it. All it is going to do is prove that Airbus is an inefficent company. They are always asking goverment to sholder their costs. What is new here? They practicly drop their pants half the time to get orders in the books. I am not going to say they make a garbage product though all around. The A320 series is a truely fantastic product but right now Airbus has more than they can chew and with goverments the world over tightening the drawstring it leaves little room for extras. Besides, why did the wing need to be entirely composite?

---

No doubt there's a lot of Euro-pride driving some of the company's projects, but despite the A380's bad timing, and now the A400M dilemma, Airbus aircraft continue to sell well worldwide. The problems with those 2 programmes doesn't mean they are garbage products or anything remotely close to it. Despite the operating inefficiencies a multi-national and govt' backed company like Airbus might face, not too long ago Boeing was trying to play catch-up. The A330-200 was a hit and was selling like crazy until Boeing announced the 787. The only thing Boeing had been selling around that time were the 737 and 777 series. The 717, 757, 767 and 747 managed very few sales during the past decade. Possibly Airbus could be more efficient in some areas, but its aircraft have sold very well and had to have made a good profit. The A320 first flew in 1988, and is still stealing sales from the much newer 737NGs, not too shabby.

Boeing hasn't been too efficient as of late itself. The international "parts" consortium for the 787, brought them long delays and resulting order cancellations (probably some heavy discounts as well) besides compensation payments to customers. If B had a few gov'ts involved in it, who knows... they'd possibly be more "inefficient" than Airbus lol

I totally agree. The 330-200 is a fantastic jet. I think had the 787 not appeared when it did the 330-200 might have gone on to become the most popular widebody built. However....... The A380 didnt need to be built. The A340-600 is a constant problem child for performance related issues and the 340-500 is as well. I know Boeing has it's share of divots but they are a private company top to bottom and the US goverment does not finance Boeing Commerical Aircraft though some of the cash from the mil side I am certain ends up in the others coffers. Boeing has it's share of issues but we would likely laugh in their face if they came to our goverment and did the things Airbus does. It's not A vs. B here. It's comparison of practice.

I was just making a comparison that despite Airbus socialist/govt backed Euro style is different from what we're used to here, they still make aircraft with the specs airlines want. The A380 concept this late was more about pride than real market demand, it's about 15 years too late to be a sure success. I have no idea what Emirates is thinking and doubt we'll see them operating 50 A380s for long, if at all. It's all about timing, the 717 would've been a great DC-9 replacement if MDD had made it 10 years earlier.

Like you said, this is about the worst time for governments to want to put up cash for an A400M, especially with cost overruns.


ps nice youtube link, never seen the video for it haha, classic tune

I agree with you. Airbus is all about the pride on the 380 product. EK wont ever fly 50. Maybe 20 tops if they even keep them around. Dubai is hurting VERY badly right now and the markets are drying up there. Honestly, the 717 could have even 5 years earlier been a sure fire success. It would probably have sold VERY well too in the last decade as well but Boeing didnt want to detract from the 737-600 sales. In fact though it was the biggest mistake they could have made. The 736 is very overweight for an airplane of it's size. The Canadian's can fly it and make a buck because they use it for charter ops. In scheduled service the airplane is inefficent. The 717 on the other hand is very versatile in how it can be configured seating wise and though its a douglas twin jet it is very advanced. It was a shame that they cut the nose off that product. Allegiant I think in its current form might have been a prime customer not for the fact that they are a douglas jet carrier but because it would fit their mission plan very well and has supurb performance from what I know.


BTW thanks. That song is my theme song so to speak. Love it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

. Allegiant I think in its current form might have been a prime customer not for the fact that they are a douglas jet carrier but because it would fit their mission plan very well and has supurb performance from what I know.

---

But doesn't Allegiant just buy 2nd hand?

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cancidas

NATO just bought C-17s, and i really don't see why any european country today needs the lift capacity.

---

That's fine if they want to rely on NATO (or similar) exclusively. I believe there is much to be said for maintaining some form of sovereign force.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Turner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cancidas

NATO just bought C-17s, and i really don't see why any european country today needs the lift capacity.

---

That's fine if they want to rely on NATO (or similar) exclusively. I believe there is much to be said for maintaining some form of sovereign force.

Tom

---

i can certainly understand what you mean. Poland just picked up 5 C-130s to add lift capacity to their fleet of C-295s, don't know of any other countries needing the same. i also can't think of any other nations that really NEED the A400M.

Another analyst predicted Thursday that Airbus will not cancel anything.

Quote:

---

Despite problems, Airbus won't cancel its A400M military transport and A380 super-jumbo airliner programs, Innovation Analysis Group wrote Thursday.

"There have been a spate of reports suggesting Airbus cut its losses on the A400M and A380," IAG wrote. "These are not crazy suggestions on a purely financial basis. But, as we know, Airbus and its parent are not driven by purely financial considerations."

---

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/arc ... blog_last3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

I agree with you. Airbus is all about the pride on the 380 product. EK wont ever fly 50. Maybe 20 tops if they even keep them around. Dubai is hurting VERY badly right now and the markets are drying up there. Honestly, the 717 could have even 5 years earlier been a sure fire success. It would probably have sold VERY well too in the last decade as well but Boeing didnt want to detract from the 737-600 sales. In fact though it was the biggest mistake they could have made. The 736 is very overweight for an airplane of it's size. The Canadian's can fly it and make a buck because they use it for charter ops. In scheduled service the airplane is inefficent. The 717 on the other hand is very versatile in how it can be configured seating wise and though its a douglas twin jet it is very advanced. It was a shame that they cut the nose off that product. Allegiant I think in its current form might have been a prime customer not for the fact that they are a douglas jet carrier but because it would fit their mission plan very well and has supurb performance from what I know.


BTW thanks. That song is my theme song so to speak. Love it.

---

Allegiant looked at the 717, not enough seats for their liking

The 717 had other problems such as timing, both Boeing & Airbus were building families of aircraft with different ranges & of course, McDonnel Douglas was on the tailend of the RJ boom, the 717 was not classified as a RJ jet, and several of the 717 customers went out of business.

Yep, unfortunately the 717 was available a little too late. By the time it entered service, airlines no longer wanted a "DC-9 replacement". Instead, RJs and the A319 killed it. The latter is of similar size but with much more range. To be successful in the 2000s the 717 needed to have more range or be slightly smaller/or both. MDD wasn't doing that good financially and decided to modify an existing fuselage/wings like they did with the MD-11. With the supply of money Airbus has at their disposition, surely MDD could have developed an all-new RJ or A319 competitor.

Wonder if the A400M could do as a freighter, like a civilian C-130 variant. The C-17 was offered to civilian operators, but no orders.

I think at one point ElAl was looking very hard at C17's but it would have probably made it very hard to disguise those weapons shipments from the states me thinks.

Mike, I don't recall the entire order sheet for the 717 though I assume one of the carriers you mean is TWA. I am still suprised AA didnt keep the 717 orders TWA had on the books. It was a shoe in for a F100 replacement. Now there is a HUGE capacity gap in their fleet between the CRJ-700 at Eagle and the 737-800's. It might have ment less 50 seat flying too. I know everyone wants frequency but no one wants to pay the value of the trip so 50 seaters are a waste of money. So instead of Eagle flying 4 or 6 jungle jets a day from LGA to bumblefudge USA they could fly 2 or 3 717's but than again I am not in their fleet planning department or any other airlines for that matter so it is all arm chair quarterbacking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

Mike, I don't recall the entire order sheet for the 717 though I assume one of the carriers you mean is TWA. I am still suprised AA didnt keep the 717 orders TWA had on the books. It was a shoe in for a F100 replacement. Now there is a HUGE capacity gap in their fleet between the CRJ-700 at Eagle and the 737-800's. It might have ment less 50 seat flying too. I know everyone wants frequency but no one wants to pay the value of the trip so 50 seaters are a waste of money. So instead of Eagle flying 4 or 6 jungle jets a day from LGA to bumblefudge USA they could fly 2 or 3 717's but than again I am not in their fleet planning department or any other airlines for that matter so it is all arm chair quarterbacking.

---

TWA, Vuleamex, Hartland were some other customers that cancelled 717 orders.....

Hartland.......... wasnt that another Bill Diffenderffer project?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

Mike, I don't recall the entire order sheet for the 717 though I assume one of the carriers you mean is TWA. I am still suprised AA didnt keep the 717 orders TWA had on the books. It was a shoe in for a F100 replacement. Now there is a HUGE capacity gap in their fleet between the CRJ-700 at Eagle and the 737-800's. It might have ment less 50 seat flying too. I know everyone wants frequency but no one wants to pay the value of the trip so 50 seaters are a waste of money. So instead of Eagle flying 4 or 6 jungle jets a day from LGA to bumblefudge USA they could fly 2 or 3 717's but than again I am not in their fleet planning department or any other airlines for that matter so it is all arm chair quarterbacking.

---

TWA's lease payments and terms were equivelent of someone with a credit score of -450. AA couldn't get a deal from Boeing so they dumped them...

Problem with the 717 was it had an old wing design, no family of products and the fact TWA went bust. When TWA was purchased by AA and AA didn't want the 717s it put BRAND new product on the market for second hand prices. What motivation did AirTran and Bangkok Air have to go and order more product from the factory. It really was a series of things that made a great plane become a total market failure.

Quote:

---

Problem with the 717 was it had an old wing design, no family of products and the fact TWA went bust

---

The MD-90.

If they were counting on VuelaMex (which never got off the ground) to get orders... By the time Heartland aka Skybus started up the 717 was out of production.

I still would've thought the plane would become more popular in Europe on intra-European routes, more so than the US. The A319 (unfortunately and not surprisingly being European, won handily). But it's also more versatile and can be used on long range/thin routes. Bangkok air is replacing them with A319s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayi757

If they were counting on VuelaMex (which never got off the ground) to get orders... By the time Heartland aka Skybus started up the 717 was out of production.

I still would've thought the plane would become more popular in Europe on intra-European routes, more so than the US. The A319 (unfortunately and not surprisingly being European, won handily). But it's also more versatile and can be used on long range/thin routes. Bangkok air is replacing them with A319s.

---

VuelaMex had orders on the books, in fact we trained a bunch of crews and 717 aircraft were painted in the VuleaMex logo scheme, Heartland had orders on the books as well......

If Aloha & Hawaiian merged, which almost happened, the 737-200 would have been retired & more 717 aircraft would have been ordered.