Rob P Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Seems that the delays and costs are causing concern. The chief executive of Airbus has warned that he is prepared to cancel production of the company's A400M military transport plane. Tom Enders told BBC World that he would consider ending the programme if European governments failed to provide more money. "We cannot complete the development of this aircraft without a significant financial contribution," he said. More Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Séan Pádraig Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Too far gone to be canned.. this is a begging bowl request... It's a great looking aircraft I have to say, and the A380... mad idea but looks the dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I say let them scrap it. I dont want to give them anymore tax payers money. They have had enough already. Some one get on the phone to the US and increase Herc & C-17 orders! Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Whilst I think the 400 is a nice looking aircraft, I do love the Hercs and C-17s. Is the 400 THAT much better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avro683 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I agree about the Hercs but how much longer can they go on for? Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stringbag Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Too far gone to be canned.. Didn't stop the TSR-2 from getting the chop. I hope it goes ahead personally as I think it looks better than the current transport aircraft by a mile. Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnT Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I read the bit about the UK and France wanting the new kit quickly but the Germans wanting to delay and spread costs over a greater number of years. Sound familiar anyone? Last time round the Brit taxpayer ended up paying more for a fighter that arguably was too late to service and more expensive than it needed to be due delays caused by one party who will remain nameless. Lets hope that lesson has been learned and this time we go and build a replacement aircraft with our Euro allies albeit one I think that is already running late?? Perhaps we should exclude certain partners due their track record for procrastination and internal politicking. Please note - this is not a Euro swipe gripe but just an observation that collaberation projects can only work if all the partners agree and then sing the same tune - and to the same tempo JohnT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I agree about the Hercs but how much longer can they go on for?Tony No Tony I mean get new Hercs and New C-17's I read the bit about the UK and France wanting the new kit quickly but the Germans wanting to delay and spread costs over a greater number of years. Sound familiar anyone?Last time round the Brit taxpayer ended up paying more for a fighter that arguably was too late to service and more expensive than it needed to be due delays caused by one party who will remain nameless. Lets hope that lesson has been learned and this time we go and build a replacement aircraft with our Euro allies albeit one I think that is already running late?? Perhaps we should exclude certain partners due their track record for procrastination and internal politicking. Please note - this is not a Euro swipe gripe but just an observation that collaberation projects can only work if all the partners agree and then sing the same tune - and to the same tempo JohnT Wow Eurofighter all over again! I seriously hope the Germans dont drag us down this road again. Also like John no slur intended to any Germans out there. Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Is the 400 THAT much better? nah, but it's built here Once more, the same problem "cost vs. employment". Airbus wanted it with P&W engies, it would have beed ready earlier and cheaper, but some governements wanted european engines. If they allowed the P&W engines, some people would have ranted about the loss of technology and employment over here. So, whatever you choose, it's wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 I say let them scrap it. I dont want to give them anymore tax payers money. They have had enough already.Some one get on the phone to the US and increase Herc & C-17 orders! Julien Because giving taxpayers' money to American firms is so much better than giving taxpayers' money to European firms ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickers McFunbus Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Whilst I think the 400 is a nice looking aircraft, I do love the Hercs and C-17s. Is the 400 THAT much better? It offers more load carrying capability than the Herc in greater numbers than we could ever afford of C17. It also does it in a modern, reasonably aerodynamically efficient airframe (compared to the 50+ year old aerodynamics of the C130!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Because giving taxpayers' money to American firms is so much better than giving taxpayers' money to European firms ... But can we get more for the said money from the Americans than Airbus? Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now