Noray wrote:Before you start holding lessons: Please stop mixing up $ and €, otherwise there's no chance at all that you come to a useful result.
I have been very clear on what currency I am using. Keesje’s original vague and unsubstantiated 25 billion was the one value that has lacked a currency. I note I didn’t use a currency for the 4.5 billion which was referenced in the defence news article I quoted previously, that was obviously in US as indicated in the article.
Noray wrote:Now that's creative accounting on your side. The sources say that there was a 3.5 billion euro bailout in 2010, and I don't ignore this at all. We don't know to which phase of the project this gets added internally by the different parties, so we must add it to the initial total of € 20 billion. The penalties that we've heard of are much lower than what you suggest.
At the very least we can use the below quote from Revelation from Reuters, an article that you quoted!
Revelation wrote:tells us the expensive asset has cost EUR 20M (original budget) + EUR 3.5B (customer bailout #1) + EUR 7B (Airbus writeoffs) so far, with Airbus coming back for more concessions presumably because the bleeding hasn't stopped yet. Hard to find that extensive savings, IMHO. Maybe the customers will tell us more about its cost effectiveness after bailout #2.
So even there we are looking at a total development cost that includes 3.5 billion Euro bailout, plus 7 billion Euro in Airbus write-offs. Add that to the original estimates and you are easily approaching 15 billion Euro in dev costs. Add the cost to build 180 aircraft at 152 million Euro each, 27 billion Euro and we approach a far more realistic figure for total program costs. Any way you want to cut it, the program is not what Keesje claimed and that 15 billion Euro is right in the region I have stated numerous times of 300% of initial projections.
Noray wrote:What Airbus has to account for in their financial reports is not only the actual costs, but also the risks that arise from the program. A cost risk for Airbus can be a cost risk for the customers as well; in case of possible penalties it's unknown which side will bear the costs in the end. So all your math is futile.
Mate, the costs are clear. That Airbus chooses to account for their costs via accounting means that allows them to improve their bottom line is their issue, not mine.
Noray wrote:We do know that there are sources that say the project is "now costing well over 30 billion euros."
Now we are getting somewhere… Finally recognition of what the total program costs potentially are. I’m not sure why it has taken so long to get to this point.
Any idea where the additonal EUR 10 billion plus in costs has gone?