BAES v EADS Merger?
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 643
Likes: 0
From: Glasgow
Dead in the water due to politics:
BBC News - BAE-EADS merger cancelled amid political impasse
BBC News - BAE-EADS merger cancelled amid political impasse
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 11
From: Darling - where are we?
And now it's time to consider the future of the board of directors and execs at BAe. Frankly, this was never going to happen - far too much in the way of national and political interests at stake before you even start to take into account the thoughts of the Pentagon. And the movement up / down of the respective share prices once the announcement was made really told its own story of who would have been the likely benefactors of such a merger.
I would suggest that to appreciate such a fact did not take the wisdom of Solomon, the brains of an archbishop or require you to be a rocket scientist. So for the board to think otherwise, to my mind, points to a serious failure of appreciation and lack of judgement. Is that something we can really afford at the highest levels of (like it or not) a strategically significant organisation?
I would suggest that to appreciate such a fact did not take the wisdom of Solomon, the brains of an archbishop or require you to be a rocket scientist. So for the board to think otherwise, to my mind, points to a serious failure of appreciation and lack of judgement. Is that something we can really afford at the highest levels of (like it or not) a strategically significant organisation?
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 36,145
Likes: 5,739
From: Falling off the end of the thread
As one person on TV commented, if they were that desperate to get back into the Civil airline business again, why did they sell their share of EADs in the first place except to make a quick buck, Seems like they thought they could have their pie and eat it... Was never going to happen.
Last edited by NutLoose; 11th October 2012 at 18:26.
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: Westerham, Kent
Although he doesn't realise it, Cameron has an opportunity to re-shape the UK's aviation industry.
I would begin by culling the entire upper level of BAe's management, drafting a new corporate constitution which sets out some pretty basic and decent business values and by recruiting those with a track record of being able to manage professionally.
I would begin by culling the entire upper level of BAe's management, drafting a new corporate constitution which sets out some pretty basic and decent business values and by recruiting those with a track record of being able to manage professionally.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 378
Likes: 2
From: london
CG: Short (Ha!) of Nationalisation, HMG can't re-shape anything. If PM were to instruct MoD (or Vince Cable's Industry lot) to meddle, large bills would waft their way.
A proposed merger/takeover has lapsed. A daily event. Bankers and other leeches have lost fat fees. Bankers and hacks are pontificating about Plan B -such as merge with RR. Why? On this occasion, the Do Nothing Option is entirely legitimate. Instead of adding to the agenda of Main Board, flicking through Business Units' performance - 4 minutes each 4 times a year, some Units might now be unloaded. A daily event for conglomerates.
That's what BAES became when moving into Orange, Rover, Royal Ordnance...One of those was seen as fast flowing cash, the other 2 as Land Banks. BAES is not in the Britsh aero industry. There is no British aero industry. SBAC long ago became the Single British Aircraft Co. When he was at Defence Hoon (c.2003) declared this firm had no patrimony: when selecting sources he would be blind to its B. When they sold their Airbus SAS position, they themselves deleted the AE, to become a Systems Co. They then sold to Finmeccanica such (ex-Marconi et al) black box manufacture as remained. Today (bae)S plc is a trader of a portfolio of assets - Companies, trying to minimise ownership of touch labour. So are Boeing, LMAC, NG. Some operating Units retain engineering flair, despite, not because of any central Corporate culture. Those can/will be sold profitably, the laggards gently expiring. It does not matter in the slightest whether the buyer of a switched-on Unit is Brit or Timbuktu. Its jobs will stay onshore for exactly as long as that makes financial sense to the proud owner. Ministers cannot influence any of this, because they must buy the best kit for the job. Not prop up jobs on kit no-one wants.
A proposed merger/takeover has lapsed. A daily event. Bankers and other leeches have lost fat fees. Bankers and hacks are pontificating about Plan B -such as merge with RR. Why? On this occasion, the Do Nothing Option is entirely legitimate. Instead of adding to the agenda of Main Board, flicking through Business Units' performance - 4 minutes each 4 times a year, some Units might now be unloaded. A daily event for conglomerates.
That's what BAES became when moving into Orange, Rover, Royal Ordnance...One of those was seen as fast flowing cash, the other 2 as Land Banks. BAES is not in the Britsh aero industry. There is no British aero industry. SBAC long ago became the Single British Aircraft Co. When he was at Defence Hoon (c.2003) declared this firm had no patrimony: when selecting sources he would be blind to its B. When they sold their Airbus SAS position, they themselves deleted the AE, to become a Systems Co. They then sold to Finmeccanica such (ex-Marconi et al) black box manufacture as remained. Today (bae)S plc is a trader of a portfolio of assets - Companies, trying to minimise ownership of touch labour. So are Boeing, LMAC, NG. Some operating Units retain engineering flair, despite, not because of any central Corporate culture. Those can/will be sold profitably, the laggards gently expiring. It does not matter in the slightest whether the buyer of a switched-on Unit is Brit or Timbuktu. Its jobs will stay onshore for exactly as long as that makes financial sense to the proud owner. Ministers cannot influence any of this, because they must buy the best kit for the job. Not prop up jobs on kit no-one wants.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 57
From: Anglia
Completely correct!
BAE SYSTEMS is probably more akin to being 140 different companies working under a single Logo but linked to a single share system. Their methods, management targets and even profit margins may be different from other branches under the same Logo
BAE SYSTEMS is probably more akin to being 140 different companies working under a single Logo but linked to a single share system. Their methods, management targets and even profit margins may be different from other branches under the same Logo
Last edited by Rigga; 13th October 2012 at 21:28.
