3,000 jobs to go at Waste O'Space
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
teeteringhead
If you had read the post properly you would have noticed that I specified the Mk5 Jet Provost which was a BAe development of the Hunting Jet Provost Mk4; I flew both Mks as a QFI.
The early RAF 125 Executive Jets (400 and 600 Series) were Hawker Siddeley but the later series were BAe and the 146 never went into production as a Hawker Siddeley aircraft - it entered production as the BAe 146 and I would point out that I collected BAe146 ZD 695 from Chester on 16 September 1983.
If you had read the post properly you would have noticed that I specified the Mk5 Jet Provost which was a BAe development of the Hunting Jet Provost Mk4; I flew both Mks as a QFI.
The early RAF 125 Executive Jets (400 and 600 Series) were Hawker Siddeley but the later series were BAe and the 146 never went into production as a Hawker Siddeley aircraft - it entered production as the BAe 146 and I would point out that I collected BAe146 ZD 695 from Chester on 16 September 1983.
Last edited by cazatou; 27th Sep 2011 at 11:24.
when did Phantoms get to fly off Eagle?
In 68-ish I think, in initial trials for compatibility with UK deck gear. Never operationally, although that's another story......
In 68-ish I think, in initial trials for compatibility with UK deck gear. Never operationally, although that's another story......
If you had read the post properly you would have noticed that I specified the Mk5 Jet Provost which was a BAe development of the Hunting Jet Provost Mk4; I flew both Mks as a QFI.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Westerham, Kent
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence cuts are fine except when a conflict arises. In Britain's case what would she do if something were to occur on the international stage which demanded our response and what if more than one conflict were to arise - how would the Britain of 2011 cope?
Or was it?
Hawker Siddeley carried out the original design in 1973 using the designation HS.146, but soon abandoned the project as a result of the world economic downturn resulting from the 1973 oil crisis. Low-key development proceeded, however, and in 1978 British Aerospace, Hawker Siddeley's corporate successor, re-launched the project. The 146 type number comes from the original de Havilland designation sequence, which was continued by Hawker Siddeley when the former became a subsidiary of the latter. The type name "Avro RJ" superseded "BAe 146" in 1993.
While I might have poked fun at 't Bungling Baron Waste O'Space, a mythical character somewhere between a Victorian mill owner and a bumbling incompetent interested more in clog-dancing and whippets than 'owt else, inspired by the cartoonist Bill Tidy, may I extend my sympathies to all those made redundant at BAES in these troubled financial times.
Last edited by BEagle; 27th Sep 2011 at 17:47.
BEag’s 
Having experienced such a situation at Woodford, being both a supervisor of redundancy and part of it, this is not a subject to be taken lightly.
I am both intrigued and heartened that the redundancies were not timed as an immediate a knee jerk reaction to government policy and project cancellations. This might reflect positive awareness of personnel issues and a realistic appreciation of the economic climate, which in part has been seen in other divisions.
Having experienced such a situation at Woodford, being both a supervisor of redundancy and part of it, this is not a subject to be taken lightly.
I am both intrigued and heartened that the redundancies were not timed as an immediate a knee jerk reaction to government policy and project cancellations. This might reflect positive awareness of personnel issues and a realistic appreciation of the economic climate, which in part has been seen in other divisions.
RAFEngO.....................
Nice vids - thank you.
The F-4 was a proper military fighter. Never flew it, but would have loved to.
If you wanted to do carrier flying properly, then, in its day, the F-4 was the way to go!!
The F-4 was a proper military fighter. Never flew it, but would have loved to.
If you wanted to do carrier flying properly, then, in its day, the F-4 was the way to go!!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was very interesting that none of those I know in BAES took any joy in the recent redundancies announced in the Armed Forces, and not just out of self-interest.
Those of you who appear to delight in the misery caused by this latest BAES announcement, reality check.
Do you really think it's the guys that organised the contracts, were responsible for cost overruns, involved in junkets etc that got the 'good news'? They're too far up the food chain.
The redundees are mainly the manufacturing staff and they too have mortgages, kids, HP and all the other paraphenalia of modern life.
They aren't getting a year's notice either.
There are no winners here, they're losers all. I doubt the country will be any better off either as we're all being shagged by the banks and government (of any flavour).
Those of you who appear to delight in the misery caused by this latest BAES announcement, reality check.
Do you really think it's the guys that organised the contracts, were responsible for cost overruns, involved in junkets etc that got the 'good news'? They're too far up the food chain.
The redundees are mainly the manufacturing staff and they too have mortgages, kids, HP and all the other paraphenalia of modern life.
They aren't getting a year's notice either.
There are no winners here, they're losers all. I doubt the country will be any better off either as we're all being shagged by the banks and government (of any flavour).
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: England
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what a surprise (not), the company who decided to get out of civil aircraft by selling their 30% stake in Airbus and invest the proceeds into defence, even though we were already seeing military budgets contracting all round the World. They obviously felt that they would continue to enjoy the luxury of Government contracts where it was impossible to lose money.
Meanwhile Airbus goes from strength to strength. The only consolation is that "waste o space" can no longer destroy careers in Filton and Chester.
Meanwhile Airbus goes from strength to strength. The only consolation is that "waste o space" can no longer destroy careers in Filton and Chester.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Delight is far from my emotion on this.
However, there comes a time when you have to admit that you just can't do it. As a nation, that is, not any individual component thereof in isolation. Nimrod 3, Nimrod 4, carriers and aircraft in shambles, even harking back to the much-vaunted TSR2 that never was. Between military user-specifier, MoD defence management and British defence industry, it's been a clusterf*** for decades.
However, there comes a time when you have to admit that you just can't do it. As a nation, that is, not any individual component thereof in isolation. Nimrod 3, Nimrod 4, carriers and aircraft in shambles, even harking back to the much-vaunted TSR2 that never was. Between military user-specifier, MoD defence management and British defence industry, it's been a clusterf*** for decades.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bongodog and Roadster,
I can't argue with your viewpoint, I agree with most of it.
But this 'Waste of Space' isn't the poor sods taking this hit, they just worked for not particularly good wages (yes, they were volunteers, I know, but just like HM Forces).
The 'responsible' ones are well away from this 'payback'.
I can't argue with your viewpoint, I agree with most of it.
But this 'Waste of Space' isn't the poor sods taking this hit, they just worked for not particularly good wages (yes, they were volunteers, I know, but just like HM Forces).
The 'responsible' ones are well away from this 'payback'.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right here, right now
Posts: 270
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My feelings go out to those at BAE Systems that are loosing their jobs. Even if the company are to blame for things like the MRA4 fiasco, the blame would lie at the top, not with the workers on the production floor where the majority of the cuts will come.
We also need to remember that less employees means less work being done. Less work being done means fewer parts needed. Fewer parts needed means those firms supplying the parts will also be affected. How many others outside BAE Systems will also be loosing their jobs as a direct result of this? My thoughts go out to them too
MFC
We also need to remember that less employees means less work being done. Less work being done means fewer parts needed. Fewer parts needed means those firms supplying the parts will also be affected. How many others outside BAE Systems will also be loosing their jobs as a direct result of this? My thoughts go out to them too
MFC