BAe job cuts - just the start?

[ORAC]

And this before the review is finalised...

Torygraph: BAE Systems to cut nearly 1,000 UK jobs as Government defence cuts loom (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7991747/BAE-Systems-to-cut-nearly-1000-UK-jobs-as-Government-defence-cuts-loom.html)

BAE Systems plans to cut almost 1,000 jobs, mainly in its military division, the British manufacturing giant announced on Thursday.

Union officials warned that the job losses in BAE's Military Air Solutions and Insyte (Systems Integrated System Technologies) divisions could be the "tip of the iceberg", as cuts to the Government's defence budget loom in next month's spending review.

The company said there could be 212 job losses at Brough, in East Yorkshire, associated with a reduction in workload, mainly on the Hawk programme, 26 job losses at Chadderton, Manchester, because of a reduction in workload in the large aircraft business, 55 job losses within the Harrier team at Farnborough, Hampshire, 149 job losses at Samlesbury, Lancashire and 298 job losses at Warton, Lancashire.

Kevin Taylor, managing director of BAE's Military Air Solutions division, said potential job losses were in manufacturing, engineering and associated support functions.

"These potential job losses result from the impact of the changes in the defence programme announced in December 2009, together with other workload changes," he said. "We appreciate this is difficult news and we are committed to working with employees and their representatives to explore ways of mitigating the potential job losses."

Rory Fisher, managing director of BAE's Integrated System Technologies division, said 206 jobs would be lost by the end of 2011..........

[Saintsman]

The company said there could be 212 job losses at Brough, in East Yorkshire, associated with a reduction in workload, mainly on the Hawk programme, 26 job losses at Chadderton, Manchester, because of a reduction in workload in the large aircraft business, 55 job losses within the Harrier team at Farnborough, Hampshire, 149 job losses at Samlesbury, Lancashire and 298 job losses at Warton, Lancashire.


Unfortunately these losses appear to be the result of a reduction in work load so perhaps not really unexpected. The problem will get worse when the review kicks in because there is little money available and we all know that BAES is not cheap.

In order to increase / maintain profit levels I imagine that they will increase their rates on the most essential contracts whilst suggesting that other contracts can be shelved which would help the MOD 'save money'.:hmm:

[641st]

Here we go.......:zzz:

[The Old Fat One]

Could be worse...the Saudi's could tell BAE to foxtrot oscar after all the grief we have hurled their way over the past few years....

[Caspian237]

BAE are shedding jobs? If you take a look at this article you'll see that the company has great plans for their Hawk Jet. Essentially the're planning on marketing the Hawk as a new USAF trainer.

BAE Sees USAF T-X Contest as Foothold - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4771531&c=EUR&s=TOP)

The final paragraph says,

"BAE plans to perform final assembly work on U.S. Hawks at a yet-to-be determined stateside location should it win the competition."

Less jobs in UK but potentially more jobs in the US? Call me a cynic but...blah!

[ian176]

You mean like they did for the USN T-45 Goshawks?

[Jetex_Jim]

Less jobs in UK but potentially more jobs in the US? Call me a cynic but...blah!

That'll be because the B in BAE is about as British as the B in BP.

[MrBernoulli]

BAeS has tended to treat the MoD as a pension fund, and successive governments have allowed that to continue. In the current climate, and with the projected cuts coming, BAeS will have to face some pain.

[glad rag]

Sad how some would gloat. Over the last 3 years aerospace workers have faced savage cuts at home and abroad.
Now that BAe are sharpening the axe, this could finally be the beginning of the end of ANY british aerospace manufacturing.

[LateArmLive]

Sad? I don't think losing the company that has constantly fleeced our government and armed forces for the past few years would be sad.
BAE Systems - flawed products, late, unfit for purpose and over-budget every time. We have been forced to buy over-priced crap from those jokers for far too long.

Sad for the workers, but not sad for the company. I would not miss their products for a minute.

[Col_onHF]

if this is what is happening BEFORE the SDSR, then i wonder what is next........ for a whole lot of what people think as the "back room boys" to be elbowed before the great chop; well, that's not looking good,
it looks like a case of "over and out"; no matter how you transmit it . . . . .

[simflea404]

What new aircraft have BAES ever built on their own? I can't think of any...

They have revamped lots of aircraft previously designed by Companies before the amalgamation of them all...but that is about it.

They have become a monopoly and cry "job cuts" whenever there is talk of less money...about time that they were involved with real competition instead of being allowed to waste so much money...bet the job cuts are in numbers of engineers and not the top heavy management.

No! I have never worked for them and never would!

[ian176]

late over-budget.

Its not just BAE that do this - How late and over budget is the wonderful JSF? The Americans are't much better despite some of the c**p posted on here...

[Kitbag]

BAE Systems - flawed products, late, unfit for purpose and over-budget every time. We have been forced to buy over-priced crap from those jokers for far too long.

That is the essential point, our purchases have bee political rather than vfm. It would not matter what name the manufacturer had, as long as British jobs were secured, the government would buy from it. You are confusing poor, lax departmental procurement processes with good business practice on behalf of BAe.

[deeceethree]

Despite the political shenanigans, Kitbag, BAe have always taken advantage of the system and fleeced the taxpayer. BAe promises lots, delivers little, and always late. And they are well practised at regularly coming back to the table with a begging bowl - somehow it is never their fault that they 'underestimate' what is required in a project. Strangely, but no doubt due to the political angle, the MoD has always proffered more hand-outs.

It had to stop some time!

[L J R]

Will this mean the end to the Mantis.?.:yuk:....not that it actually got off to a good beginning..

[tucumseh]

Call it luck if you will but I’ve seldom had to deal with BAeS. I try to avoid overt criticism of the defence industry as I’ve seen firsthand how appalling MB is at articulating requirements; and the deliberate dumbing down of MoD procurement.

But I’ll break a habit for BAeS. I realise that, as in MoD, people are going to suffer now for the sins of a few higher ups who will no doubt retire disgracefully with a whopping package. I have no doubt the vast majority of their staff are conscientious, as in MoD.



But I have always found it unsavoury that they act as a retirement home for retired senior MoD staffs, to be wheeled out at the first hint of a squabble over time, cost or performance. The pressure they exert, both political and personal, is palpable. The resources they can muster is truly impressive; all paid for by MoD of course. The last time I worked on a programme on which they were involved I quickly realised they knew exactly what the risks were (they’re not daft), identified who in the MoD team also understood them, and concentrated their efforts on undermining those staffs. They knew what very few senior staffs in MoD want to admit – that MoD project teams are often “upside down” in that the Programme Manager seldom knows or understands basic detail; and certainly not risk management. He’s the boss, so he must know it all, right? Wrong. He is often pliable and his career strategy is supine appeasement. The upshot is often a slack contract with most risks owned by MoD. But, crucially, very often these risks have been identified on day 1 within MoD, but ignored. But that isn’t the end of the problem. They will sit back knowing MoD’s team will be disbanded inside a year and the replacements will almost certainly falter, because MoD simply doesn’t have sufficient trained staff, the will, pay structure or Personnel system to provide the continuity we pay industry to provide (or used to!). Then they pounce.



It isn't as simple as saying "British Waste of Space". When it comes to wasters, MoD proudly leads the way.

[John Farley]

tucumseh

Thank you for such a well written and well argued post. If only there were more like that on PPRuNe - whatever the topic.

JF

[641st]

A simplified view nevertheless…

BAE (PLC), who are answerable to their shareholders, are recruiting people with the required skill sets, carrying out their business – bidding for contracts, providing services & products (under said contracts) re-negotiating where necessary and maximising profits (as expected by said shareholders). A few points…


It’s up to BAE to recruit people with the skill sets they require, if they can make use of ‘retired senior MoD staffs’, as a business can you blame them?
I can’t for the life of me see where a PLC has any obligation to lead a customer the size of MOD by the hand through detailed contract negotiations. MOD should be quite savvy by now; they’ve been at it for long enough.
Why would BAE be liable if MOD can’t get their house in order wrt specifications?
Any contract re-negotiations have to be agreed by both parties (& paid for).
BAE are not a charity they are a business the same as any other & must pay any penalties they incur (and avoid them if they can).Don’t get me wrong, BAE are far from being squeaky clean, but to use them as the whipping post for MOD shortcomings is a tad unfair methinks.

[Two's in]

While you are all carefully stepping around the elephant, let me point out where it is. This is a company that bribed, coerced, and bought influence on multiple contracts with foreign governments. This is a matter of judicial and public record. When the Serious Farce Office attempted to bring what would have been a prosecution that even those chumps couldn't screw up, Tony "wanna buy a used Nimrod" Blair told the SFO to cease and desist, as Tony's boss in Riyadh didn't fancy admitting to all this.

So please use that as a template when deciding the ethical robustness of this company.

[barnstormer1968]

tucumseh.

Many people will say that the Bae top execs have no bottle, and make poor decisions.

I find this odd, bearing in mind you said they have:
"higher ups who will no doubt retire disgracefully with a whopping package."

That sounds like an exciting life. Do they retire with large pensions too:E.

[tucumseh]

641st

What you say is largely true (in my limited experience).


Going through your list the concept of “partnering” sprung to mind. When this was announced anyone with a CV longer than 3 half-day seminars (which was but a slack handful) knew what was coming. It would be used by MoD as an excuse to dumb down even more, relying on companies to provide the skill sets, lead MoD by the hand through contract negotiations, tell them what is wrong with the specs and so on. As you say, it doesn’t work because they are not a charity.


But I’d argue that many companies don’t “pay any penalties they incur”. Last time I tried to invoke a penalty clause I was told by one of the supine appeasers I mentioned that I must “leave the company (not BAeS, think France) alone or else they won’t make a profit on the job”. Where they were failing was something he thought irrelevant (yes, airworthiness and safety) so I ignored him. He promptly agreed a contract amendment to pay a few million to change the design (so that it complied with regs) when a price of £50k had already been agreed. How was this paid for? A yet-to-be-developed “highly desirable” design feature was sliced off the contract.

I have to say though, that the majority of companies I’ve dealt with (and that runs to hundreds) do not behave in this way. You tend to find it is the big ones. I specifically exclude Westland from this criticism. Nothing but admiration for the way they cope with the way they are treated by MoD.

[BEagle]

tuc - see PM. You were right....;)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Ah, tucumseh; you beat me to it. Remember this document? [ARCHIVED CONTENT] Procurement and Industry (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/+/http://www.mod.uk/issues/sdr/procurement_industry.htm)

We are all "partners" now. :rolleyes: It's really SMART.

[Fatnfast]

Two`s In, are you really so naive as to believe other defence suppliers from the US , France etc. do not offer any inducements, financial or otherwise; in order to sell their wares? By the way, this is accepted practice in some parts of the world. BAE were pursued with vigour on this matter by the US.
Was it that the US wanted to scupper Typhoon sales to Saudi, or am I just growing cynical as I get older ? :=

[tucumseh]

GBZ

Stop it. I'm having palpatations just thinking about that nonsense. When they introduced "Smart Procurement" we were told it was "embarrassing" that projects could be delivered to time, cost and performance (or better) using an "old" process. Suddenly the word was to delay projects that were on target, as meeting the ISD set the bar too high and Users would expect it all the time. (Unreasonable lot, aren't they?).



Beags

Thanks. Explains a lot, doesn't it? (Sorry folks, thread drift).

[davejb]

Tucumseh has, as is often the case, hit the nail quite squarely.

As for the trough/pig issue -
It isn't just 'wrong', it's actually a bit stupid to blame BAE for doing whatever they can to improve the lot of BAE - and it's more than naive to suggest that offending British fraud guidelines when dealing with middle eastern government procurement outfits is somehow wrong...when everyone else cheats it's bloody stupid to play by a set of rules nobody else is playing by.

If our own procurement system were more robust, and staffed by people who had half a brain and only limited veniality, then we'd get what we needed at the right (ish) price. Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime I reckon...

[Jetex_Jim]

By the way, this is accepted practice in some parts of the world. BAE were pursued with vigour on this matter by the US. Was it that the US wanted to scupper Typhoon sales to Saudi, or am I just growing cynical as I get older ?

Perhaps, but you also need to keep up with the news.. The reason the US were so agressive in pursuit of this was because, post 911, they take the whole issue of money laundering very seriously, especially in the Middle East and most especially in Saudi, where Ben Laden comes from.

Hence the help the Serious Fraud Office received from the USA regarding BAE backhanders to the Saudi Royals.

[simflea404]

Keeping well away from the bribes that may go on...and coming back to the competence/engineering capability of the Company...

I have no disrespect for the Engineers at BAES, who are more than competent at doing their jobs...but they can only do what they are told...and I think they are often told not to think too much at an engineering level...and more on the Company profit level...

As for MOD moving the "goal posts"....this is more to do with..."Okay we are late...but we will give you this extra in a few months time"

[Ogre]

Having worked both sides of the fence, and been one of those on the flight line complaining about the civillians, I have to say I know now what they are up against. I've worked on a number of projects which, because of the complexity of the work involved, have lasted more than a few years before the product is delivered. One of the problems we've had to face is the fact that the face of the customer tends to change with regularity as each new incumbant is posted in and the old one moves off to pastures new. Not that the old one necessarily did a bad job, but the new one has his (or her) own idea of what they want, and does not necessarily understand what the old one had in mind.

Time and time again we see a change in requirements, schedules etc, yet we as the engineers have to make do as best we can.

Much as I hate to say it, the civvy companies are there to make money and keep the shareholders sweet. I get a little hot under the collar with those who are currently serving and do not appear to underastand that the majority of us (and many of my current and former colleagues are ex-servicemen and women) know what you need, want to give you what you need, but what you need is not necessarily what your masters asked for or what our managment are prepared to give.

2p supplied, can I have a receipt please

[641st]

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_11081519556.html (http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_11081519556.html)

“…a retirement home for retired senior MoD staffs, ...” Post #17.

Not just MOD….. It must work…

[Jetblast Jim]

There is a huge amount of spare capacity in the company that could do with being axed, but it will be the wrong people that go. As has already been said the senior managers will take care of themselves and get rid of the life blood of the organisation.