BAe job cuts - just the start?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
BAe job cuts - just the start?
And this before the review is finalised...
Torygraph: BAE Systems to cut nearly 1,000 UK jobs as Government defence cuts loom
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..........
Torygraph: BAE Systems to cut nearly 1,000 UK jobs as Government defence cuts loom
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..........
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.
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'.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
The final paragraph says,
Less jobs in UK but potentially more jobs in the US? Call me a cynic but...blah!
BAE Sees USAF T-X Contest as Foothold - Defense News
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."
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Now that BAe are sharpening the axe, this could finally be the beginning of the end of ANY british aerospace manufacturing.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 . . . . .
it looks like a case of "over and out"; no matter how you transmit it . . . . .
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Asia/Europe
Age: 64
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Secret base, SW
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
It had to stop some time!
....not that it actually got off to a good beginning..
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.
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.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Thank you for such a well written and well argued post. If only there were more like that on PPRuNe - whatever the topic.
JF
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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…
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).
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
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.
So please use that as a template when deciding the ethical robustness of this company.