QinetiQ - PPP float or die
 

Recent press releases and coverage in the FT would indicate a degree of concern with both investors and the management of the Q company worried about a rights issue on the 49% available stock.

The past years results of a £92m loss and the current obvious lack of non-military work at BD et al indicate some hard financial truths.

It would appear that to a man the military element at BD believe the AT&E PPP venture is doomed to failure.

Industry obstructiveness is not helping the case.

Where are things about to go, who knows? :confused:

Well lets see, what happened to Railtrack?

I suspect that technical staff at QinetiQ, DERA, DTEO, A²E² need not panic - they'll still be needed by whoever picks up the pieces. As to the commercial and senior managerial staff. Well, I was in Salisbury on Saturday and noticed that Mcdonalds was advertising for staff.

Sadly the people really responsible, Sir John.C and various politicians who decided this would be a good idea will no doubt not suffer at-all.

Oh I am glad I now work in civil aviation.

G

They have a bigger problem.

A lot of their support services are sub-contracted. With a lack of work comes a lack of practice and in certain safety critical professions this means skills being eroded. QinetiQ have said they will resolve this by marketing themselves more favourably to the military, to the extent that they will offer facilities cheaper. Now common sense dictates that if you do this you WILL bring in more business, so you don't actually lose out. However, they're very slow at putting it into action. Indeed it's safe to say that marketing within the organisation is non-existent. Any organisation that tries to charge a £1000 landing fee for an Islander is proving that they haven't got a clue about what they are trying to achieve.

Things may improve when you get rid of the dead wood that still hold onto the Civil Service 'I work for the Government I've got a job mentality' - but I think we all know that these people are so firmly entrenched that it's not going to happen. I have seen it first hand when they say 'yes we'll improve things' and then do nothing about it. There is one site where Operational staff spend more time on Risk Assessments, VDU Assessments, Health & Safety questionnaires and other similar items than they do on their prime job. Reams and reams of paper b***s**t being produced for no real reason. This is not a problem for the staff concerned because there's very rarely any aircraft to actually work with at this site - HOWEVER - when something as rare as an aircraft visiting the site happens then these staff are not up to full competency - and we're talking CAA Licence holders here. It is DANGEROUS and Morale amongst these people is at an all time low.

And what do QinetiQ site management do? Just bury their heads in the sand and push a bit more paper around, without addressing the real problems.

The organisation, in my opinion, is doomed to failure, and I for one am glad to be escaping from its clutches in the near future.

CM

[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Chilli Monster ]

Noting your profile CM, it appears you may work in BDN tower, in which case may I share a story. Probably before your time.

The scene: some years ago, I was a BDN trials officer running a crosswind trial. I had gone into work in a suit as usual, discovered it was out of crosswinds for everybody else, so I pressed the go-button.

First job, down to the tower (still in suit, and some non-ICAO neckwear that colleagues will know me for) with a set of pro-formas. Explain carefully to duty controller the need, during coming sortie, for detailed data from anemometers at the point of each T/O and Ldg. Controller listens, appears to understand, and takes proformas.

I go an change into flying kit, meet Dragcurve (my TP at the time), brief sortie, pre-flight a/c, start-up, taxi-out.

Whilst taxiing out, the following exchange occurred: -

Twr: "Gauntlet xx, tower"
DC: "Tower, Gxx, go"
Twr: "Gxx, we just had your boffin up here and he wants all these numbers written down. Do you really want this".
DC: (pause) "Hang on, he's just here, I'll ask him"
G: (Thumbs up)
DC: "Gxx, affirmative, the information is required"

It has to be said, the tower were ever so punchy for the remainder of the morning. But it does make the point that BDN is a test facility first and an airfield second. I'd love mind you to know why the Concorde went to Brize, how much were QQ going to charge BA for that?

G

MoD moves QinetiQ funding goalposts
:confused:

Any developments here, are they going to close BD and sell it for housing?. .Qinetiq stil in exisence in AT and E?

Suit.........

Anyone wandering the streets of AT&E will tell you all is not well in QinetiQ land.

QinetiQ hates AT&E - too many military types. .AT&E hates QinetiQ. .The customer has always hated BD so this has not got any better.

Now it would seem QinetiQ would like to divest itself of this costly venture outside the core business.

Predications pse?

From today's FT:

<a href="http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/article.html?id=020205001445&query=qinetiq#docAnchor02020500 1445" target="_blank">Difficulty over valuing defence laboratories </a>

These Venture Capitalists may be reprsented by a familiar face...

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4339359,00.html" target="_blank">US investment firm may bid for Qinetiq stake (Guardian, Jan21)</a>

Oh, and this turned up in a search on the Grauniad site as well:

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4296193,00.html" target="_blank">One year on: The helicopter tester </a>

Who'd've thought it - the meeja have found out that it's not just steely eyed testy-pilots what work at BD...

Ladies: Form an orderly queue. :) :) :)

This will be the same company then that hires an aircraft from Lyneham to enable its pilots to maintain currency, when it has one of its own sitting on the pan, but its bean counters charges itself too much to be able to use it, so yet another perfectely servicable airframe goes unused!. . <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> . .Well she was servicable last time I was in her, but that was a few months ago. <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

Thanks for replies various.

Done a little research of my own on this outfit, it seems a little more positive than the word on the street might suggest;

£97m loss was put down to cost of privatisation.

Even though Qinetiq as a whole made a loss AT and E made a profit and are actually expanding with an increasing contribution from non MOD work.

If they get a long term T and E contract from MOD then surely they may be worth a little flutter shares wise if they float? Who else can do it after all?

Suit....in investing mode.

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Suit ]</p>

DTWH,

Just read your post, it is mind boggling. Presumably they are doing all the good things to keep said aircraft airworthy, hence it is costing money to leave it on the ground. At least the crew won't have those awful butty boxes with the mystery meat pies. Or will they...?

Keep your chin up old bean.

I get the picture and from the outside looking in I can see where the gripes come from. I am curious ....... what could Q'q possibly do to improve their working and business relationships within the defence sector?

I am an ex-miltary pilot who now works in the corporate comms industry, searching for an angle to try and pose a few questions that might improve the whole position.

I would love to be more specific but it would compromise clients and I'm just keen to get the feel again from the grass roots.

If you aren't happy posting here please email me

all the best

eden - energy driven eccentric nirvana

Matt Black. .I saw Her on Sunday, and have spoken to her ex ground crew. The answer is Q are spending the least amount of time, money and effort on Her as possible.. .Or put another way, can't afford to run Her, so if there ever was a need for Her to fly again, would probably cost too much to sort out the snags that inevitably occure when you dont use em regularly. <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

With the growing fiasco with our new platform, those in Ivory Towers that masterminded the demise of our old mount, are starting to realise the huge mistake they have made. Now paying the same if not more for an aircraft that can do considerably less (apart from reach FL350 for a short while) However, politics and vested interests (and the fact that they have spent £millions already on the conversion) sadley mean that the chances of using the best aircraft for the job, are now almost neglagable.. . <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> . .and I cant spel thiss time in thu mornin.

Hi DTWH,

Sorry to hear about that. I'm tempted to put a "Police Aware" sticker on her when I'm down there this week.

Remember the ceiling chart Scruggs Aerospace sent out on the new platform? The one where their aeroplane was the only one that made it over the top of the mountain. Presumably it was an accidental ommission on their part to mention their comparison was drawn against aircraft with half the number of engines...

But maybe we're both being cynical!

BTW, did JK ever get his rocket back before they chopped all the trees down?

MB,. .No JK lost the projectile, and his end of the world now sinking into the ditch TAG have dug to improve drainage off the old Western Sqn Pan.. .New sport involves Lilt bottles and dry ice! :)

Rumour control has it we may actually find out where the new wonder "jet" will be based this week. Then again......... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> . .Quick laugh. The boffins have anounced they want to go out to Hawaiai to take part in a big international science experiment. We have looked at getting the new wonder "jet" there. Ooops!! Cant go west about, aint got the legs. From the figs Waste of Space have given us, may make it by going the long way round via Fiji and Christmas Island, but only if we stip all the kit out to lighten it, and send it all by sea!!! Funny but it has been suggested that we freight the kit out on a certain long nosed Herc (going the quick way), but told not to, as that would rub the great and the good up the wrong way! :)

DTWH,

What are the rumoured basing options for this endurance and ceiling challenged now out of production mature 4 jet? Woodford? Farnborough? Boscombe Down?

............and WHY can't you consider using Snoopy for the freigher task? Qinetiq are looking at alternative commercial taskings for the beast to earn dosh, why not this?

Suit...........

Still waiting on an "official" announcement from BAES as to our new home. Rumour control has short list of:. .EGPK, EGCD, EGBE or EGTC or probably some where completly different.. .As for Snoopy, yes I know QintiQ want to use her for other trade, but the politics in our new joint partnership would not lose face and be seen to be using her. We have suggested, why not fit kit back on for transits, when taking pack up out for the new wonder "jet", however, that got shot down as well!. .and we have to make this new thing work?!?!?

Miricles we do, the impossible.............. . <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Hi DTWH,

Sorry about JK's velocity-bottle. I feel responsible, 'cos he was demonstrating said projectile to me when a stray crosswind took it o'er the fence. If he's still upset, I'll buy him a nice lollipop.

Typical of the boffins to start talking about Hawawi after I get assigned a job flying a desk. D'Oh!

On a more serious note, has anyone thought about joint programs with the Americans?

Hi MB,