The chief executives of Airbus and EADS have warned they may cancel the development of the A400M if the military transport’s customers do not make further contributions to the programme.
Tom Enders and Louis Gallois gave the stern warning at EADS’ New Year press conference on 12 January in Seville, where the four-engine turboprop military transport aircraft took its maiden voyage on 11 December last year.
Gallois said that a final decision on the fate of the aircraft will be made by 31 January. By then, EADS and Airbus hope to be in negotiations with their current government customers.
A total of 180 A400M aircraft costing approximately €20bn (£18bn) have been ordered by seven European countries, including the UK.
Customers are now being asked to provide more money to keep the programme active, although chief executives Enders and Gallois were unwilling to divulge the total contributions they will be asking for.
Enders did, however, stress the importance of keeping the A400M programme alive, which employs 40,000 across Europe.
The A400M has undergone several delays over the years due to miscalculations on the aircraft’s weight-carrying capabilities and engine problems.
Gallois did admit that several mistakes were made throughout the development process. Those mistakes included entering into a fixed-price contract with European customers, underestimating the technical challenges of the aircraft and agreeing to an ‘unreasonable timescale,’ he said.
Well, that should be a lesson learned. Winning contracts at any price is not always a good thing and Airbus/EADS are now paying the price. Although ulimately, it will be the Airbus employees who will pay the price and end up without jobs, just because their masters decided to beat the competition at any cost.
Sounds like a Boeing employee having a rant!
With something to lose should the A400M project be cancelled then I cannot be considered impartial. The point I would like to make is that everything has a price and the original Airbus people who agreed the price per A400M have since left having significantly mucked UP. Clearly, Airbus cannot just accept this and suffer a significant financial impact. The aircraft is complex but as so far has demonstrated a fantastic step change in miltary transport flexability. A comprimise is needed else the UK RAF will suffer and thus our troops in Conflict-Tension-War operations. PS: and then there is the dependency on America products, C-130, C17, I would rather have an A400M
Unfortunately price of “technological step changes” of such magnitude in the last 2 years of our current global society has increased dramatically.
Money has to be shared over many different pots by governments. Who could have predicted the cost to governments of the world’s two major conflicts?
Decisions to continue projects such as this have been made correctly in the past on perceived threats and requirements.
As we see the issues and failings of military equipment in field, will governments have the insight and leadership to make the right decision over the A400M?
The previous comment reads as though it comes from a politician.Lots of words without actually saying anything.
Developing and maintaining a viable European alternative to U.S.manufacture must ultimately be a very good investment.Remember that the cost over runs were spent on R&D , keeping skilled people in work .The money did not go the same way as in the much vaunted “financial industry ” (sic) that
is held up as the wave of the future .
Buy cheap in the short term and pay dear in the long.