BAE Systems sells stake in Airbus
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: guernsey
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WeatherJinx
So you're suggesting we throw our hand in, admit that we're crap managers and continue to allow foreign capital to repatriate profits whilst we empty the cupboards of all our assets?
Originally Posted by WeatherJinx
I'm not suggesting we become protectionist and insular, just that we should nurture and sustain our 'national champions' a little better, not just whore everything out to the highest bidder all the time.
Bringer of Wx
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kuningan
So what, exactly, are you suggesting? Set up 'Strategic Champions' like France - our very own 'strategic yogurt maker'.......?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, come on Muppets. Rolls Royce/GE gets locked out of the JSF alternative engine market and Tony goes Ape. A couple of weeks later BAE wants to raise £3bn so muh that its willing to sell the Airbus wings work...
Why?
Because something is for sale in the US defence market, which is far more juicy, probably as a result of George W's best international buddy spitting his dummy over the RR-GE engine deal. Pratt have got sole maker of the engines for the JSF and the Brits, and RR and GE have lost out bigtime.
BAE Systems suddenly move to raise £3bn.
They need that money to invest in something that GWB and the Pentagon have in their gift. I don't know what it could be, from next generation spy satellites, to Subs to UCAVs.
Bleating about Blighty no longer making airliners is to take a narrow minded, backward looking, little England, sentimental view of the world that thank god does not prevail amongst the people running UK PLC who know that investing globally is far preferable to investing nationally.
AP
Why?
Because something is for sale in the US defence market, which is far more juicy, probably as a result of George W's best international buddy spitting his dummy over the RR-GE engine deal. Pratt have got sole maker of the engines for the JSF and the Brits, and RR and GE have lost out bigtime.
BAE Systems suddenly move to raise £3bn.
They need that money to invest in something that GWB and the Pentagon have in their gift. I don't know what it could be, from next generation spy satellites, to Subs to UCAVs.
Bleating about Blighty no longer making airliners is to take a narrow minded, backward looking, little England, sentimental view of the world that thank god does not prevail amongst the people running UK PLC who know that investing globally is far preferable to investing nationally.
AP
Bear Behind
Are you guys for real.
Ever heard that "knowledge is power"?
This is merely a step in the direction of losing the ability to design and manufacture "things" - whatever these "things" may be.
The Chinese are extremely good at making things. But not so hot at designing things indigenously - witness the aircraft they have in production now, mainly copies of Soviet aircraft (for the military) or licence built Western machines. They will learn to design, too. And we will have forgotten.
Maybe you don't like it, but the aerospace industry is a strategic industry. When that knowledge is gone it will take a long time to get back. Selling Britain's industrial base up the river leaves us only with the ability to trade other people's goods. Yes, Britain makes parts for aircraft (some rather major - engines, landing gear, though even the latter is French owned). Oh good. Let's all rest easy knowing that the Chinese are producing weapons with guidance systems designed in Britain, shall we?
It's more than a tad worrying when you look at the long term view. We're certain there'll never be a cause to re-arm, are we? If we had to, would we know how? The world can change overnight - it has before!
Ever heard that "knowledge is power"?
This is merely a step in the direction of losing the ability to design and manufacture "things" - whatever these "things" may be.
The Chinese are extremely good at making things. But not so hot at designing things indigenously - witness the aircraft they have in production now, mainly copies of Soviet aircraft (for the military) or licence built Western machines. They will learn to design, too. And we will have forgotten.
Maybe you don't like it, but the aerospace industry is a strategic industry. When that knowledge is gone it will take a long time to get back. Selling Britain's industrial base up the river leaves us only with the ability to trade other people's goods. Yes, Britain makes parts for aircraft (some rather major - engines, landing gear, though even the latter is French owned). Oh good. Let's all rest easy knowing that the Chinese are producing weapons with guidance systems designed in Britain, shall we?
It's more than a tad worrying when you look at the long term view. We're certain there'll never be a cause to re-arm, are we? If we had to, would we know how? The world can change overnight - it has before!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AbeamPoints
They need that money to invest in something that GWB and the Pentagon have in their gift. I don't know what it could be, from next generation spy satellites, to Subs to UCAVs.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am amazed.
BAE Systems does NOT make the wings for Airbus - and has not done so for several years.
EADS has owned 80% of Filton and Chester - sorry Broughton for years. Just like BAE Systems has owned 20% of Bremen, Hamburg, Toulouse, St Nazaire...
The wings for each and every Airbus are designed and made by a company called Airbus - in the UK.
Just like the tailplane and lots of other bits are designed and made in Spain - by a company called Airbus.
And the fuselage, loads of other bits and some final assembly is made or performed in Germany - by a company called Airbus.
And other partners spread all around the globe send very clever hi-tech bits to Europe - to a company called Airbus.
On an emotional level, as an ex-HSA & BAe person, I find it very sad that BAE Systems is selling its share in Airbus.
But why would Airbus 'pull out of the UK' - as much of the UK press and many contributors to this thread would seem to think? Airbus is striving to push technology, innovation and production as far and fast as it can. Can anybody make a business case - and that's really is what drives this industry - to scrap all the skills and facilities that exist in the UK and re-invest in re-generating those skills and re-creating those facilities on the south east side of the ditch? How long would that take and why would anyone do it? Where is the benefit to Airbus? Does anybody really think that having BAE Systems as a sleeping shareholder has had any influence over such decisions in the past?
We live in Europe. We work in Europe. The UK is part, at least within Airbus, of Europe. Its market is worldwide. Airbus is a truly European company that happens to have its dominant shareholder based in the Netherlands with ownership in Germany, France and Spain. Think out the box and put parochialism in its place.
Emotionally I find it very sad indeed, but I do not believe it will change Great Britain's position within Airbus one iota.
Edited to correct a factual error - oops!
l
BAE Systems does NOT make the wings for Airbus - and has not done so for several years.
EADS has owned 80% of Filton and Chester - sorry Broughton for years. Just like BAE Systems has owned 20% of Bremen, Hamburg, Toulouse, St Nazaire...
The wings for each and every Airbus are designed and made by a company called Airbus - in the UK.
Just like the tailplane and lots of other bits are designed and made in Spain - by a company called Airbus.
And the fuselage, loads of other bits and some final assembly is made or performed in Germany - by a company called Airbus.
And other partners spread all around the globe send very clever hi-tech bits to Europe - to a company called Airbus.
On an emotional level, as an ex-HSA & BAe person, I find it very sad that BAE Systems is selling its share in Airbus.
But why would Airbus 'pull out of the UK' - as much of the UK press and many contributors to this thread would seem to think? Airbus is striving to push technology, innovation and production as far and fast as it can. Can anybody make a business case - and that's really is what drives this industry - to scrap all the skills and facilities that exist in the UK and re-invest in re-generating those skills and re-creating those facilities on the south east side of the ditch? How long would that take and why would anyone do it? Where is the benefit to Airbus? Does anybody really think that having BAE Systems as a sleeping shareholder has had any influence over such decisions in the past?
We live in Europe. We work in Europe. The UK is part, at least within Airbus, of Europe. Its market is worldwide. Airbus is a truly European company that happens to have its dominant shareholder based in the Netherlands with ownership in Germany, France and Spain. Think out the box and put parochialism in its place.
Emotionally I find it very sad indeed, but I do not believe it will change Great Britain's position within Airbus one iota.
Edited to correct a factual error - oops!
l
Last edited by saman; 9th Apr 2006 at 06:56.
Some more money for Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ici
Age: 56
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article in todays Observer newspaper:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...750110,00.html
I must admit I'm a little suprised this thread was moved,
Fuji
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...750110,00.html
I must admit I'm a little suprised this thread was moved,
Fuji
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Meon Valley
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But can / would the man Blair put a stop to this. Does UK Plc still have a golden share. Even if so, the only way to stop a private company from this action is to control 50.1 % of the stock and put your own board in place.
And we all know about the Labour promise to re-nationalise the railway in '97. (I always thought this could have been done by just letting the franchises expire, after all they were 7 years to start with, would not have cost the 20 hospitals of 20K police they said it would at the time, not that we ever got those things)
And we all know about the Labour promise to re-nationalise the railway in '97. (I always thought this could have been done by just letting the franchises expire, after all they were 7 years to start with, would not have cost the 20 hospitals of 20K police they said it would at the time, not that we ever got those things)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind, Britain leads the way in creating new jobs in the Social Work, Quango and Traffic Warden industries.
The reality is that once out of Airbus, all will look well for a time until decisions are made on the construction locations for the successor to the A 320 and we can then expect to see the end of heavy aircraft manufacturing processes in the UK. In any US alliances the UK can expect to be subtly, and not so subtly, maginalised as is clear from history stretching back to the original De Havilland/Boeing discussions on a trijet airliner , the reported US insistance on the demise of the TSR 2 in exchange for support of Harold Wilsons " Pound in your pocket" to the current the current US refusal to allow the UK to get into the heart of the JSF computer software and the unilateral Bush termination of the joint RR/GE engine for that aircraft.
The aviation manufacturing future for the UK does not look good, but then there are opportunities for social workers, traffic wardens etc in which we can be the pride ( despair?)of the world.
The reality is that once out of Airbus, all will look well for a time until decisions are made on the construction locations for the successor to the A 320 and we can then expect to see the end of heavy aircraft manufacturing processes in the UK. In any US alliances the UK can expect to be subtly, and not so subtly, maginalised as is clear from history stretching back to the original De Havilland/Boeing discussions on a trijet airliner , the reported US insistance on the demise of the TSR 2 in exchange for support of Harold Wilsons " Pound in your pocket" to the current the current US refusal to allow the UK to get into the heart of the JSF computer software and the unilateral Bush termination of the joint RR/GE engine for that aircraft.
The aviation manufacturing future for the UK does not look good, but then there are opportunities for social workers, traffic wardens etc in which we can be the pride ( despair?)of the world.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAe is a recognised abbreviation
No BAE Systems (let's get it right gents) staff are at risk. All personnel involved with Airbus work for Airbus UK. The plant at Broughton will not suddenly close overnight and if it suddenly isn't UK owned, so what? So long as it continues to employ British workers in Britain.
As for all the "shareholder" cheap jibes, I assume those making them do not own such items?
Oh, and as for this thread being in here, simply see it as a reflection on the seriousness of PPRuNe as an aviation website. Once upon a time, it would have been elsewhere.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well guys and girls - as the 'co-receiver' of this thread, I agree with you, but the boss himself has deemed this a 'Spotters' item, so best PM Danny and ask for a move? Alternatively you are more than welcome to carry on this important discussion here.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely one of the factors which would induce a "non British owned" Airbus to maintain the existing UK-based Airbus sites is the fact that every major country they operate in is one more they can get launch aid from?
Note the way Bombardier put the squeeze on the UK for Cseries launch aid, on the grounds that it would help the Shorts plant; Bombardier is hardly a UK company but held out the begging bowl - and got some cash chucked in it too, IIRC. As long as Broughton and Filton are there, Airbus can continue the long tradition of "give us cash or the wing design work moves" started by BAe.
Note the way Bombardier put the squeeze on the UK for Cseries launch aid, on the grounds that it would help the Shorts plant; Bombardier is hardly a UK company but held out the begging bowl - and got some cash chucked in it too, IIRC. As long as Broughton and Filton are there, Airbus can continue the long tradition of "give us cash or the wing design work moves" started by BAe.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. In 1992 EU/US did the Large Transport Aircraft Undertaking to constrain Launch Aid. At that time the sole such machines ever to have recovered their R&D were Viscount, 707 (aided by 820 military),727, 737. Since then add A300B, 747. Airbus Industrie said the narrow- body range did, but persuaded fond Govts. to rollover Levy recovery for A330/340, double-or-quits. You take a long term view and wait for the spares. The purpose of making aeroplanes is to make money. Period. But try to spread the burden.
2.The WTO Case arises due to lapse of the LTAU and will severely embarrass Boeing, because this market is distorted. Watch for Embraer/Bombardier to settle theirs quick. Taxpayers don't want to subsidise anything, now, least of all aeroplanes.
3. BAE see US Defense Budget as where the money is, and have an unprecedented chance of getting a fair go at it, because they have taken time to understand how that game is played. Airbus Industrie's parent EADS' owners DaimlerChrysler and Lagardere would just love to be in that place right now, are trying, but labour under French Protectionism (Danone strategic yoghurt).
4. If you know better than BAE Management how to service capital at rates proper for 20-year new product risk exposure, take your capital (shareholder)/time (employee) to that other 'ole. This is a business that no sane man would enter - ask the ghosts of Convair/S.Diego, Lockheed/Burbank, MDC/LA; nor stay in if a nice man offers a get-out card. The customer for most of BAe.'s last solo civil effort was BAe.(Asset Management): 146/RJ would have taken Prestwick/Chadderton down with it if there had been no military cushion in Nimrod MRA4.
5. EADS presumably believes they will be able to service another few £Bn. capital by bringing open-source into the next wing design, and the next wing production Lot. Airbus SAS will buy from the best source - as they have since about 1995, when harsh winds blew away fixed workshares. Chunks now come from China, Russia, anywhere that wins. Maybe UK sites will win those bids, just as they have won bits of Boeings, open-source. If not, then not...but that would be so, with or without a BAE 20% equity stake. Don't confuse site of best design, with site of best-value supply.
2.The WTO Case arises due to lapse of the LTAU and will severely embarrass Boeing, because this market is distorted. Watch for Embraer/Bombardier to settle theirs quick. Taxpayers don't want to subsidise anything, now, least of all aeroplanes.
3. BAE see US Defense Budget as where the money is, and have an unprecedented chance of getting a fair go at it, because they have taken time to understand how that game is played. Airbus Industrie's parent EADS' owners DaimlerChrysler and Lagardere would just love to be in that place right now, are trying, but labour under French Protectionism (Danone strategic yoghurt).
4. If you know better than BAE Management how to service capital at rates proper for 20-year new product risk exposure, take your capital (shareholder)/time (employee) to that other 'ole. This is a business that no sane man would enter - ask the ghosts of Convair/S.Diego, Lockheed/Burbank, MDC/LA; nor stay in if a nice man offers a get-out card. The customer for most of BAe.'s last solo civil effort was BAe.(Asset Management): 146/RJ would have taken Prestwick/Chadderton down with it if there had been no military cushion in Nimrod MRA4.
5. EADS presumably believes they will be able to service another few £Bn. capital by bringing open-source into the next wing design, and the next wing production Lot. Airbus SAS will buy from the best source - as they have since about 1995, when harsh winds blew away fixed workshares. Chunks now come from China, Russia, anywhere that wins. Maybe UK sites will win those bids, just as they have won bits of Boeings, open-source. If not, then not...but that would be so, with or without a BAE 20% equity stake. Don't confuse site of best design, with site of best-value supply.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The writing is on the wall for Airbus UK, end of the line for Chester and the wings. With the A350 coming under fire from two big leasing companies and now major customers such as Singapore Airlines, for not coming up to scratch and it being a fudge, Airbus saying that when it has bought Bae’s bit it will simplify the structure of Airbus, A340 not selling because it does not meet the figures, the jobs situation in France and Germany, the likes of Chirac with his obsession with protectionism for France, he will have Chester shut and the whole issue moved to France to make him look good in the next elections due in 2007. He will not be in power but his sidekick will that just lost so much face in the CPE fiasco. They need some thing to make them look good to the people in France. Also a good way to take a swipe at president blair, take that you bounder. How dare you little upstart do things to make us look stupid. Chirac only has to open his mouth to confirm what every body thinks any way. But back to Chester, it will take a while but it will happen. Watch the news guys.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The writing is on the wall for Airbus UK, end of the line for Chester and the wings.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of politics in this and you know how much sense politicians make. The reduction of transportation costs makes a lot of sense. Think how much is tied up in moving all that metal around just to please governments and like. With no direct British intervention, why not. Could save a small fortune and off set over run in development costs now and future projects. Bean counters triumph over common sense mate. Work skills & expertise in North Wales mean nothing to bean counters.
Think back to the issues of dredging the basin where the wings are loaded. Only needs the environmentalist to kick off again and Chester is once again high and dry. Gun to the head in some ways waiting to go off. Not a good way to plan for the long term future. Need the more direct approach the French take, sod you, we are building it and that will be in France.
Think back to the issues of dredging the basin where the wings are loaded. Only needs the environmentalist to kick off again and Chester is once again high and dry. Gun to the head in some ways waiting to go off. Not a good way to plan for the long term future. Need the more direct approach the French take, sod you, we are building it and that will be in France.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Taffman
Work skills & expertise in North Wales mean nothing to bean counters.
Work skills and expertise can be relocated (if willing to go and if the offer is right.)
The major issue facing many companies in engineering is how to recruit and retain such talent.
I'm not saying that Chester will transfer to anywhere else, but the people who tell the beancounters what to do in a smart business tend, in my experience, to be very aware of the skilled people in the business and their contribution.
Work skills & expertise in North Wales mean nothing to bean counters.
Work skills and expertise can be relocated (if willing to go and if the offer is right.)
The major issue facing many companies in engineering is how to recruit and retain such talent.
I'm not saying that Chester will transfer to anywhere else, but the people who tell the beancounters what to do in a smart business tend, in my experience, to be very aware of the skilled people in the business and their contribution.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is, just how many of those who have worked tirelessly for BAe at Chester would want to relocate, lock stock and barrel to France. Not many me thinks. It’s a permanent job, not a jolly on expenses with a paid trip home every so many weeks. You end up with local wages below may be what you are used to.
As for the skills aspect, it the British system that keeps the standards high and rightly so. The European way is very much different with domestic electricians being allowed into the aviation world to build aeroplanes, garage mechanics to assemble major parts. Give them six days of training and you are in. A lot cheaper as well, bean counter stuff again. Semi skilled staff is the norm now, not the highly trained apprentices of Britain with college courses to back it up.
As for the skills aspect, it the British system that keeps the standards high and rightly so. The European way is very much different with domestic electricians being allowed into the aviation world to build aeroplanes, garage mechanics to assemble major parts. Give them six days of training and you are in. A lot cheaper as well, bean counter stuff again. Semi skilled staff is the norm now, not the highly trained apprentices of Britain with college courses to back it up.