A400M project cancellation?

[Gliderpilot]

Look at http://www.ftd.de/unternehmen/industrie ... 56422.html

What are your thoughts?

[NCB]

The A400M is an expensive, useless transport. It costs more taxpayer money than it saves.
There are better aircraft out there, like the Antonov AN-70.

40 ton payload, same speed, 40% less fuel burn and 60% cheaper than A400M.

[smokejumper]

I think Airbus is bluffing but here's a story from ABC News: See: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9478991

Story:
Airbus Considering Dropping A400M Military Plane
Airbus considers dropping A400M European military plane project just weeks after maiden flight
By EMMA VANDORE
The Associated Press
PARIS



Story removed for copyright reasons, please read the link

[Bralo20]

They better cancel the project... It's not the fault of the governments that EADS can't build the A400M they promised in the time foreseen for the project neither is it the governments fault that EADS miscalculated the project and sold the frames to cheap...

Sorry but EADS is a company like many others that must meet contracts... If they can't meet it they should cancel but don't expect that the customers will pay extra...

To bad since I find the A400M a nice plane but there are other choices available.

[tolipanebas]

They better cancel the project... It's not the fault of the governments that EADS can't build the A400M they promised in the time foreseen for the project neither is it the governments fault that EADS miscalculated the project and sold the frames to cheap...

Sorry but EADS is a company like many others that must meet contracts... If they can't meet it they should cancel but don't expect that the customers will pay extra...

To bad since I find the A400M a nice plane but there are other choices available.

Actually, the delay to the A400M is largely due to the engines, which were selected by the customers on political grounds... Don't blame EADS for something they had no influence over.

Also, there are no other viable options available to the A400M, the project is too important for the participating nation's economies from an industrial point of view, so I'd expect that in the end they will just pay the extra bill, all the rest is just muscle flexing.

So in short: pay extra end shut up! I know I definitely want my country to do just that!
The less dependant we are on US built planes, the better really.

[Conti764]

So in short: pay extra end shut up! I know I definitely want my country to do just that!
The less dependant we are on US built planes, the better really.

What is Belgiums share in the A400M? Or are they just getting dependant ons Anglogermanfrench built planes?

[jan_olieslagers]

What is Belgiums share in the A400M?

On the "buyer" side: 6 Belgian + will also operate one for GD Luxemburg.
But perhaps you meant the "supplier"side? Can't help you there.

[sn26567]

But perhaps you meant the "supplier"side?

Belgian association Flabel is a shareholder at the level of 4,44% in Airbus Military Company (AMC).
Flabel was set up by several Belgian industrial companies: 25% Sonaca, 25% Asco, 25% Barco, 17% Sabca, 8% Sabca Limburg. I guess that each of these companies is building some parts for the A400M.

[regi]

And there are more companies involved. Quitesome smaller specialised subcontractors.

[regi]

The A400M is an expensive, useless transport. It costs more taxpayer money than it saves.
There are better aircraft out there, like the Antonov AN-70.

40 ton payload, same speed, 40% less fuel burn and 60% cheaper than A400M.

This An-70 project doesn't really come of the ground. 1 crash and 1 heavely damaged prototype. Is that what you call "a better aircraft" ?

The Russians pulled out of it already.

[NCB]

This An-70 project doesn't really come of the ground. 1 crash and 1 heavely damaged prototype. Is that what you call "a better aircraft" ?

The Russians pulled out of it already.

Name the reasons of the first crash and the reason of the second accident, then think again.
Airbus also lost a A330 prototype in its early days, it didn't prevent it from becoming a succes.

Russia is back in the game since MAKS '09:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -step.html

Who'd be stupid enough to drop the future most succesfull, fuel efficient transport aircraft of the history?
Wait until military has to go "green". The A400M is worthless compared to this bird:

[Gliderpilot]

The A400M is an expensive, useless transport. It costs more taxpayer money than it saves.
There are better aircraft out there, like the Antonov AN-70.

40 ton payload, same speed, 40% less fuel burn and 60% cheaper than A400M.

I'm not sure the Antonov is the better aircraft, it is sure a comparable (and competitive?) aircraft.

Where do you get the fuel burn data from? From Antonovs site you can see that the fuel burn of the An70 is 20% lower than comparable (Antonov) Jets. The Antonov are not really know as fuel efficient and I highly doubt that the A400M fuel burn is 20%+ higher that those jets.

I'm not really pro Airbus/EADS, but I really think they should not cancel the program. Already so much (taxpayer) money is invested, that we (as Europeans) can't get really out of it anymore.
In the past there have been over budget and big delayed aircraft that turned out to be a succes (but also many that didn't ). So don't give up all hope.

[Lyulka]

The Antonov is a wonderful plane, no doubt about that. If it will ever reach production? Don't think so...
Antonov can not show that they are capable to run a full scale production of a big plane since 20 years, the main problem of most aircraft producers in the CIS. Not a single Western country will take the risk to order now as long as other options are available. And the Russian Air Force is currently interested in everything, as long as they don't need to invest, and if a substantial part of the business ends up in Russia.

Apart from that it seems that Antonov is currently occupied starting the re-launch of the AN-124 line (again). At this moment I would be surprised to see this company moving from a few frames per year to full scale production of 2 completely new aircraft (An-124 production requires the complete production/supply line to be kicked awake again) on top of what they are currently doing. It would be spectacular, but seems rather difficult to me.

On the A400M: I believe an extra investment can be justified. A lot of nations are looking for replacement of the C130 and can be interested in this plane, but might be waiting to actually see it in production. That's the only point from which delivery schedules and prices are reliable nowadays. I strongly believe this plane can play a major role as a military cargo transporter in the future, not just in Europe.

Therefore as a nation, I would make sure I make an investment deal with EADS, so that I get the extra money back over time in case the project goes strong. Not just pay extra for the planes I ordered.

Apart from that: give me a major new aircraft project that did not sustain significant delays and incur extra costs...

[NCB]

I can guarrantee you that the AN-70 and the AN-124NG will be mass-produced very soon.
Antonov is capable of running mass production if there is demand, the problem was in demand.
They can't run a factory producing 20 x AN-124NG per year only for Volga Dnepr. That's what I'd call stupid, don't know about you.

The AN-70 has no orders, hence, no mass-production... until now.
I know for sure that this decade (2010-2020) will see raining orders for Antonov and global recognition of their aerospace know-how.

The Russians are very bad at marketing and selling products. Just look at that awful colourscheme on the AN-70! They are also not so famous for operating product support, but that could change.

The AN-70 was designed to European specs, but no, the politicians wanted to keep the money home and decided to toss around 20 billion euro's for a useless aircraft. As far as I'm concerned, the A400M's only fancy feature is its hometheater-style panoramic EFIS.

[jan_olieslagers]

NCB,
Please be aware that Antonov is neither Russian nor a maker of planes. They are Ukrainian, and they are a design bureau. Their homeplace is at Kiev Gostomel aerodrome. But production of most Antonov designs is done by Aviant on Sviatoshyn aerodrome. Then again, Aviant also produces (or produced) Tu-334's, and An-148 is also manufactured in Russia.

All this doesn't make your words untrue, though: the USSR had no commercial spirit, and it develops only slowly in the former socialist countries.

[NCB]

I've spent entire days of my life scratchpading Antonov designs, I'm sure I noticed the flag, but thanks anyway. Oleg Antonov is proudly waving down at you from heaven.

Both AN-70 and AN-124 are joint Ukrainian-Russian projects funded by Russian money and the AN-70 is also assembled in Russia as was the AN-124. Antonov is no longer owned by the Soviets and it's still financed by Russian money, plus Ukraine will lose even more share on the future programs due to bad economical shape.
The ones marketing the aircraft for export are the Russians, the Ukrainians barely have any influence.

So factually, you're wrong to say that I'm wrong.

One of my posts on another forum:

posted Wed Aug 19 2009 and read 6539 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 204):
Sorry to break the magic bell, but 2 of the noisy AN-70s crashed. 1 was rebuild. The engine problems were never completely solved. The aircraft flies for nearly 20 yrs is not fully certifified, is full of eighties sovjet technology and nobody thought about after sales support yet.

But Europe wants a state of the art, realible fully supported mlti purpose machine for the next 40 yrs.

To be fair, 1 of the AN-70's crashed due to a collision with the chase plane, 1 was due to engine failure but was rebuilt.

The engine problems are almost solved.
The AN-70 should be fully operational by 2012, maybe sooner.
The technology is quite advanced, with large application of composite materials, FBW controls.
I am of opinion that a military transport doesn't need all the shiny digital gadgets, it needs to lift as much capacity as possible from short dirt strips, be flexible, fast and efficient.

In comparison, the A400M has weight problems, costs 3 times more, will probably burn alot more fuel and not achieve the target of carrying 32 tons, 30% less than AN-70.
Said otherwise, the 70% cheaper AN-70 carries 50% more "payload" while burning less fuel.
Though A400M creates many hundreds of jobs, the savings they could make out of buying AN-70's instead, could have supported thousands of jobs... market protectionism comes at a price and proved very expensive this time.

Oh by the way, Keesje loves or works for EADS, so he's the one in a magic bell.

Another useless comment like that and this would probably be my last post on this website. If you can't keep the level up, debate with a wall. I work on give-and-take principles: many people read my comments and learn new things.
If that is not appreciated and waists my time, while I don't learn anything, then you should probably continue your simple basic debates about useless things and imagine the perfect world you don't live in.

[regi]

I've spent entire days of my life scratchpading Antonov designs, I'm sure I noticed the flag, but thanks anyway. Oleg Antonov is proudly waving down at you from heaven.

Both AN-70 and AN-124 are joint Ukrainian-Russian projects funded by Russian money and the AN-70 is also assembled in Russia as was the AN-124. Antonov is no longer owned by the Soviets and it's still financed by Russian money, plus Ukraine will lose even more share on the future programs due to bad economical shape.
The ones marketing the aircraft for export are the Russians, the Ukrainians barely have any influence.

So factually, you're wrong to say that I'm wrong.

One of my posts on another forum:

posted Wed Aug 19 2009 and read 6539 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 204):
Sorry to break the magic bell, but 2 of the noisy AN-70s crashed. 1 was rebuild. The engine problems were never completely solved. The aircraft flies for nearly 20 yrs is not fully certifified, is full of eighties sovjet technology and nobody thought about after sales support yet.

But Europe wants a state of the art, realible fully supported mlti purpose machine for the next 40 yrs.

To be fair, 1 of the AN-70's crashed due to a collision with the chase plane, 1 was due to engine failure but was rebuilt.

The engine problems are almost solved.
The AN-70 should be fully operational by 2012, maybe sooner.
The technology is quite advanced, with large application of composite materials, FBW controls.
I am of opinion that a military transport doesn't need all the shiny digital gadgets, it needs to lift as much capacity as possible from short dirt strips, be flexible, fast and efficient.

In comparison, the A400M has weight problems, costs 3 times more, will probably burn alot more fuel and not achieve the target of carrying 32 tons, 30% less than AN-70.
Said otherwise, the 70% cheaper AN-70 carries 50% more "payload" while burning less fuel.
Though A400M creates many hundreds of jobs, the savings they could make out of buying AN-70's instead, could have supported thousands of jobs... market protectionism comes at a price and proved very expensive this time.

Oh by the way, Keesje loves or works for EADS, so he's the one in a magic bell.

Another useless comment like that and this would probably be my last post on this website. If you can't keep the level up, debate with a wall. I work on give-and-take principles: many people read my comments and learn new things.
If that is not appreciated and waists my time, while I don't learn anything, then you should probably continue your simple basic debates about useless things and imagine the perfect world you don't live in.

NCB, you told me to get a life. But if you interrupt forum discussions with strange remarks you must accept the reactions.
Calling the An-70 better than the A400 provokes reactions. Accept it. Calling the A400 useless is over the edge.
But now you make it personal, as if you are our victim. Sorry, you started it.
I have made some mistakes on this website before and received a email message from the moderator.
If you have something usefull to say, make a contribution to this site, please go ahead. But be careful with remarks that you want to leave us. That remark can also provoke off topic reactions

[LX-LGX]

Oh by the way, Keesje loves or works for EADS, so he's the one in a magic bell.

Another useless comment like that and this would probably be my last post on this website. If you can't keep the level up, debate with a wall. I work on give-and-take principles: many people read my comments and learn new things. If that is not appreciated and waists my time, while I don't learn anything, then you should probably continue your simple basic debates about useless things and imagine the perfect world you don't live in.

Don't you think it's about time you stop telling that others are stupid, post "useless comments", debate about useless things", ...? Everyone who disagrees with you gets the same reply, and the above proofs it's not only on luchtzak.be, but also on other forums on which you're active.

Don't you think it's about time to accept that others are more informed then you in many aspects of aviation? Recent example on luchtzak.be, after your funny A319-program: trans-Atlantic flights for SN. Every professional in Belgian aviation knows that Boston was the best route for Sabena, specially the BOS-yield in Y. But seems you were still on the school banks when Sabena was flying to the USA, so you refuse to accept that. Same is happening in this topic, with your unrealistic view on Antonov and your disregard towards the importance of economical compensations for A400M orders.

And finally: "learning new things from you"?? The only thing I've learned so far, is that field experience (i.e. tolipanebas) overclasses by far information that you find on internet.

Another useless comment like that and this would probably be my last post on this website.

Actually, we'll miss you, because there isn't much laughing in our business for more then a year already. So a funny post here every now and then is wellcome.

[sn26567]

Gentlemen, could we please exchange views in a civilised manner, without calling others stupid or ignorant. All of you are contributing to this forum with valuable input. Let's keep it that way

Everyone is entitled to express his opinion, and everyone else is allowed to disagree. But let's keep polite in our statements and responses.

PLEASE! Thanks in anticipation for your contribution and your compliance.

[NCB]

Goodbye Luchtzak members.
LX-LGX has proved that it isn't worth posting around here.