Merger Bae Eads

[whisky1953]

So glad this did not happen, Bae could not produce on the Nimrod contract, let alone a civil program. Too many managers with fingers in the Downing St pie, good old Chancellor

[salad-dodger]

very well reasoned, B&T about something per chance?

S-D

[GreenKnight121]

Yet another thread on the same subject... but less intelligent than the others.

[Lukeafb1]

Greenknight,

Since there has only been one reply to this thread, agreeing with the originator, I'd be interested in why you think 'intelligence' might be lacking.

It seems to be a trend in Pprune these days to denigrate virtually any view not held by you. As a matter of interest, do you have a view? :ugh::ugh:

[GreenKnight121]

The other two threads (now merged into one) contained posts discussing facts and the course of the political consideration of the merger and opposition thereto.

This thread, starting with a shorthand title (never a good sign) then consists of a 2-sentence post which is nothing more than a statement that:

1. BAe (incorrectly capitalized by the poster) is incompetent, and

2. The government is involved in BAe corruption, implying specifically that BAe controls the government's decisions.


No facts mentioned, just a conspiracy-theorist rant (although shorter than most).

[Heathrow Harry]

yeah but he's right........

[green granite]

whisky1953 that was a quick bite you got there. :ok:

[SRENNAPS]

GreenKnight121

I'm with you mate.

whisky1953 is probably a one post wonder just out to fish and stir:ugh::ugh:

Shame others cant see it:sad:

[SRENNAPS]

By the way whisky1953, we at EADS see BAe as a very competent company. I would also be saying that if I did not work for EADS. A merger for our two companies will work and it will happen in the future!

When I was in the mob I was part of a team embedded within Rolls Royce and BAe involved with Eurojet and Eurofighter (Typhoon to you). Trust me when I say that the only incompetence I saw came from our side and not the civilian side. I suspect a similar thing happened with Nimrod.

Can somebody explain to me how a Sqn Ldr, Wg Cdr or Gp Capt on a two year tour involved in industry is a greater expert on procurement than a civvie who has been involved in the industry for decades?

[iRaven]

SRENNAPS

I don't share your optimisin of their competence...

I have seen, first hand the company's inability to listen to the 'customer' as to what the 'customer' wants, in fact their arrogance made them tell us what they thought we wanted. We tried to use what they thought we wanted, it didn't work as we said it wouldn't in field trials. They then tried to get the Govt to put pressure on us to buy what we didn't want and then tried to tell us that if we didn't buy what we didn't want then they would have to make redundancies - at the same time that we were making plans to make our people redundant due to their over budget, late and under performing equipment that has been forced upon us for decades creating a 'black hole' in our budget.

If only they had listened to us, agreed to supply what we suggested we needed then we would not have had to buy American and make redundancies on both sides. :ugh:

Rant over, and out

iRaven

[SRENNAPS]

iRaven

If only they had listened to us, agreed to supply what we suggested

In my many years of experience within the RAF, working along side industry, and finally working within industry the one thing that I have learnt is that sometimes it is quite impossible to deliver what is suggested by the “customer” but more sadly is the fact that the “customer” does not have the experience or knowledge to understand why it is impossible to deliver the suggestion. And that my friend is the problem!

[NutLoose]

Trust me when I say that the only incompetence I saw came from our side and not the civilian side. I suspect a similar thing happened with Nimrod.

Err is this the same BAe that I seem to remember moved the sales offices for the ATP ( Advanced Technical Problem formerly known as the 748 in its previous incarnations ) to France where the staff were encouraged to push the ATR I believe, thus ensuring the ATP types consignment to histories dustbin.

[longer ron]

The same company that shut down the Hawk and harrier production facility down south years before it was necessary and even ended up flying brand new Hawk a/c out of a totally unsuitable and grossly short runway on their very first flight with no possibility of landing back...

And then they stitched up St Athan as well - leaving the RAF very short of in depth servicing capability...

[iRaven]

SRENNAPS

does not have the experience or knowledge to understand why it is impossible to deliver the suggestion

Funny how the Americans managed to deliver what we wanted on time, on budget and with the capability we were asking of our indigenous company then...:hmm:

iRaven

[SRENNAPS]

Let me give you an example:

I remember being in a meeting in Turin about EJ200 maintainability and testability. The requirement was that 95% of all LRUs on the engine had to have built in test and automatic detection of failure. It was also decided that the Con-Di nozzle petals would be LRUs. There were 32 petals involved and the Sqn Ldr “Engineer” at the meeting asked how the requirement of automatic detection of cracks would be met. It was explained that this was impossible to meet unless an elaborate electronic mesh, at huge cost, was placed on the petals. It was also explained that this had never been done before and it was not sure if it could be achieved. It was suggested that the petals were excluded form the %95 equation and a torch was used to inspect for cracks.
The Sqn Ldr “Engineer” would have none of this and demanded that the original requirement was met.

After several months of further meetings, wasted time and god knows how much additional cost to the project, common sense finally prevailed and the petals were not included in the equation.

And that is one reason why projects cost more and take longer to deliver. There are a million more!!

If by some chance the Sqn Ldr “Engineer” involved is here on pprune, I hope you remember and hang your head in shame.

longer ron

And then they stitched up St Athan as well - leaving the RAF very short of in depth servicing capability...

You might want to speak to a certain 2 star about that one. The only people that stitched St's was the RAF itself:ugh:

iRaven

Funny how the Americans managed to deliver what we wanted on time

Also funny how the Americans love Bae and somehow they manage to deliver on time to them:ok:

[longer ron]

I am sure RAF/MOD share collective blames but it takes 2 to tango and a 2 star did not force them to fly Hawks out of Brough thats for sure ;)

[Rigga]

I am afraid poor iRaven has unwittingly typified the MODs view on making "Specifications" with which they readily give with their own (promote me quickly) solutions and ignore advice that they are not actually the designing or manufacturing organisation.

Sure, all designers should listen to the client. But they should only do what the client says if the client is right. Most often the client does not even know what they want. Success is mostly due to the competence on both parties. Two incompetent parties will never make a good contract - in any industry.

[DX Wombat]

Slightly off thread but someone in the RAAF seems to have a sense of humour. ;) You will need to scroll down the page to about the halfway mark.
RAAF Hawk. (http://www.aviationwa.org.au/)

[soddim]

My time in MOD and STC convinced me that having light blue serving officers on two or three year appointments setting requirements and pursuing contract specs was the nub of the procurement problem. As a new incumbent I had little idea of how to work with the civilian companies involved and yet I was meant to be either making decisions or recommendations based on very little knowledge or experience and I answered to superiors who were way out of touch with what the front line really needed - and they, in turn, were moving rapidly upwards.

In contrast, my tenure with aviation companies later taught me that they had their own experienced professionals who not only understood the technology available but could relate it to the needs of the service provided that the service could specify that need coherently and not change their minds with each new serving officer in post.

Whilst BAE has its faults I think they pale into insignificance when set against the follies of the serving officers.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Most often the client does not even know what they want.

And therein lies the rub. Actually quite often the "customer" (God I hate that term) does know what they want. 3 very good examples: Boeing E3, Boeing C17, Macchi 346. In all 3 the "customer" was told they couldn't have what they wanted and they would have what the politicians decided they needed: Nimrod AEW 3; a big competition to ensure that the taxpayer got VFM and the Hawk T2.

Defence is often hamstrung by whichever procurement fad is in place at the time; Smart Acquisition being one of the worst. Despite knowing what they want, the customer has to break it all down to requirements and then allow industry to be innovative in meeting the requirement. Sadly you are not allowed to say: "I want a bigger, faster, more capable C130 - ooh look Mr Boeing makes one"; you now have to break what you want down to a list of individual requirements and key user requirements; usually written by a small team (often of 1) and people wonder why the goal posts move. "Damn I completely forgot about the xxxx requirement when I wrote original requirements; better add that to the list".

[Heathrow Harry]

what worries me is that BAe were obviously so s***scared about the future they rushed out to join EADS without even briefing their biggest shareholder ... as our financial friends say I think this is a "SELL" situation :eek::eek: