Melchett,

If only we sold them off to the highest bidder! What I suspect happened is probably slanderous or libelous!

Duncs:ok:

"sold" = given away in Tory language

Ahhh yes!.... the misleading statement of "Shareholders vote" = when 90% of the shareholders (holding 10% of the shares) do as the 2% of shareholders (who hold 90% of the shares) say.

As for foreign ownership of sensitive contracts, most of you will have heard of the Typhoon I guess.
Now let me see, I would imagine Captor and Dass on that particular aircraft are well up the manifoil tree. Selex Galileo/Finmeccanica have responsibilty for those and just happen to be an Italian company. In fact they inherited the whole of the expired GEC/Marconi empire. Amazing, but true.

Am I correct in thinking that it was actually EADS management that decided to take the RAF Tanker conversion work away from Cobham (and MOD had a contract that let it happen) when the going got a bit rough? We can be sure that this merger would protect British jobs can't we!

Equally interesting when one considers that a few years ago, Bae disposed of some of its interests in Airbus to become a subcontractor as opposed to a full partner.

In all honesty, if it goes through, I can see BAe upping sticks and leaving the UK once and for all once the Typhoon and F35 deals are done. Within 10 years. Especially if there are no other big projects forthcoming, ie further generation Astute/Trident replacement/Future Frigate, etc.

Pity how a great industry from post war, following nationalisation should end up like this, but there you go.

Word on the street has been for a while that BAE want to get out of UK shipbuilding. Any BAE / EADS merger would probably include that divestment.

The £500M (or thereabouts) question, is who would buy it?

One should like to think that something like this was about economies of scale, boosting productivity, expanding new markets and the like but, regrettably, I believe it is quite possibly driven by European and global politics more than by sound fiscal rationales.

The entire merger with EADS, from what I read, seems to lack any effective impetus from our side to preserve let alone protect British interests.

It seems to me as though Britain's aviation industry (in the proper sense of the word) was an idiosyncracy of the first half of the 20th century and which isolation from our modern world I find very sad.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-q...6/WC%2520s.png

BBC News - BAE-EADS merger: France and Germany 'must reduce stake'

I work for EADS Cassidian and to be honest I have no idea what the impact of a merger would mean to us.

However, I find it rather cynical of politicians to show an (a pretending??) interest in this when they have sold just about every other British Manufacturing company abroad over the years.
Hard talk from our politicians or just more hot air??

Yep! Good point, well made.

Less of a merger and more of a takeover methinks folks. EADS, with the strength of Airbus does not need a plan B and will, no doubt, continue on regardless if this proposed deal does not happen.

Have to wonder if BAE is in quite the same position and, if not, what its plan B might be. Doubt rumours, published in some of last week's media, of a merger with Rolls-Royce are true. True to say that stranger things have happened, I guess.

Also question whether the USG has changed its previously stated position regarding having little or no appetite to see a mega transAtlantic merger or acquisition. That would seem to rule out a takeover attempt by one of the big US companies.

Any thoughts fellow pruners?

It will be dragged out as long as HMG want it to. Two of BAE's biggest plants at Warton & Salmesbury are very close to safe(ish) Tory seats.

Don't be surprised to see HMG using their veto at least once safeguard "...vital specialist manufacturing jobs in cutting edge technologies..." And of course, votes.

Followed in a couple of years, by former Politicians gaining seats on BAe's Board who will oversee further reduction in the size of BAe with production transferring to Saudi Arabia where production of future projects will be completed in a far less time, under or on budget by 'slave' labour from South West Asia, with aforementioned ex-HMG Politicians retiring on huge hold plated pensions, after writing their own 'redundancy' packages contributing to nothing except expanding the desolation & destruction of specialist engineering in the North West of England.

Crystal ball firmly tucked away inside soap box & heading off to bed.

Bah Humbug!

That should be 'gold plated pensions'.

Sorry, a bit too much Cab' Sav'.

Good night.

A 13% shareholder, Invesco Perpetual, is also against the merger stating that BAE is a deal-junkie that ought to run its business better rather than seeking salvation through mergers and acquisitions.

BAE Systems is starting to look nastily exposed | Business blog

Amen to that.

Late to the thread, but if 90% of shareholders hold 10% of the shares,
and 2% of the shareholders hold 90% of the shares,
what do the remaining 8% of shareholder hold?

Look, I'm an old Rigga...wot d'you expect?

"Shareholders vote" = when 98% of the shareholders (holding 10% of the shares) do as the 2% of shareholders (who hold 90% of the shares) say.

Of course a cynic might say it is much easier to hide your losses and mistakes in a bigger organisation.

Could it be that BAE is trying to retain the bulk of its manufacturing capability and avoid losing yet more manufacturing staff through yet more redundancies?

Sharing with other manufacturing organisations may give some respite from recent order-book figures.

Well it could offer possibilities / mass to develop competitive european fighters, fighterbombers, UAV and e.g MPAs. In timeframes that prevents us from filling in yesterdays requirements for tommorow, at double the costs. Or buy from the well financed US brothers.

What this suggests is that BAe's numbers are truly awful - there is no point in getting into bed with EADS to help the defence side as they are principally civie providers

presumably BAe have run out of projects they can mis manage and grossly over charge on