Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Report: A350 & A400M Reason For BAE Airbus Sale  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9536 times:

Brief fair use excerpt:

HUGE bills to tackle problems on some of Airbus's new projects persuaded BAE Systems to sell its 20% stake in the plane maker, industry experts believe.

Senior BAE executives have calculated that Airbus will have to find more than £5bn for research and development to solve design problems on the A350 twin-engined wide-bodied jet and extra spending on the new military A400 transporter.

Significantly, BAE's decision last week to pull out came on the day that Singapore Airlines, the world's second-biggest carrier, called for a total redesign of the A350 if it was to compete with its Boeing 787 rival.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=408177&in_page_id=2

[Edited 2006-04-09 19:06:30]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirbusCanada From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 330 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9257 times:

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
Significantly, BAE's decision last week to pull out came on the day that Singapore Airlines, the world's second-biggest carrier, called for a total redesign of the A350 if it was to compete with its Boeing 787 rival.

SQ is the world's second biggest carrier!!!!!!


User currently offlinePavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9220 times:

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
that Singapore Airlines, the world's second-biggest carrier

By nimber of passengers I would be surprised I it would be on TOP 20


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6938 posts, RR: 63
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9203 times:

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
a total redesign

I wish journalists wouldn't use, er, journalese. A "total" redesign? A total redesign?! Well, what would a partial redesign be? If SQ want a "total" redesign they want what?

Three Engines?
A biplane?
The engines mounted on top of the wings?
A plane made out of bamboo?

SQ are suggesting that Airbus would be doing themselves (and the airlines) a favour if they made the fuselage wider. That's a "total" redesign?

Sigh...


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9186 times:

I think your points are all valid, but they are not really the reason I think the article is significant. I was focusing on the fact that the investment was why BAE was selling out, not the smaller detail of SQ's comments.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineTIA From Albania, joined Mar 2006, 524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9101 times:

But why is BAE mentioning the A400 now? BAE knew what the R&D expenses for this plane were, and it wasn't something that Airbus decided to build suddenly, as it happened with the A350.

User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7212 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9054 times:

So, the rest of the article has to be accurate, even though what we can actually check is inaccurate. This is from the same stable that has predicted a UK house price crash for the last six years.

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
industry experts believe

Industry experts my arse.

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
Significantly, BAE's decision last week to pull out came on the day that Singapore Airlines, the world's second-biggest carrier, called for a total redesign of the A350 if it was to compete with its Boeing 787 rival.

The bae deal has been rumoured for months.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8946 times:

Quoting Pavlin (Reply 2):

By nimber of passengers I would be surprised I it would be on TOP 20

SQ are the 2nd biggest carrier in the world by market cap/market valuation after WN.... Smile

cheers.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25412 posts, RR: 86
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8899 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think this article puts it into much better perspective.

Even if British work on the A380 is "safe" and perhaps the A350, it is possible that any work on the A320 replacement will go elsewhere:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-2124890,00.html

Which will mean the end of British manufacturing's long association with civil aviation.

As trhe article says: Bye-bye Airbus. And also: Bye-bye Handley Page and Vickers and deHavilland and Avro.....

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8867 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 8):
I think this article puts it into much better perspective.

Even if British work on the A380 is "safe" and perhaps the A350, it is possible that any work on the A320 replacement will go elsewhere:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-2124890,00.html

Which will mean the end of British manufacturing's long association with civil aviation.

As trhe article says: Bye-bye Airbus. And also: Bye-bye Handley Page and Vickers and deHavilland and Avro.....

mariner

I just finished reading that article about a minute ago and I was going to link it here..but I guess you pipped me to the post.... Smile



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1576 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8542 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 9):
Which will mean the end of British manufacturing's long association with civil aviation

No. You watch them get into bed with Boeing.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25412 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8394 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 10):
No. You watch them get into bed with Boeing.

On the defense side? Yes. They may even do some civil aviation work, as a sub contractor.

But I seriously doubt they will ever be an owner, or part owner. If nothing else, too many defense secrets would then become available to a foreign entity/govenrment.

As the article says:

(i) "The move signals the end of direct British ownership of the manufacture of civil aircraft."

(ii) "....for BAE, there was no shortage of potential smaller acquisitions, describing the American defence market as a “target-rich environment”."

note: "defense market".

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8255 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 8):
Which will mean the end of British manufacturing's long association with civil aviation.

They're making a business decision. Do you think they should hang on for sentimental reasons?


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25412 posts, RR: 86
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8215 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 12):
They're making a business decision. Do you think they should hang on for sentimental reasons?

Huh? I am simply commenting on a fact of history.

And possible reasons for the potential loss of British jobs.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8179 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 11):
Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 10):
No. You watch them get into bed with Boeing.

On the defense side? Yes. They may even do some civil aviation work, as a sub contractor.

But I seriously doubt they will ever be an owner, or part owner. If nothing else, too many defense secrets would then become available to a foreign entity/govenrment.

I could see them investing in Boeing as part of a new strategic partnership. As for the civil, I don't know, so long as they don't break any confidentiality stuff with A, they could become one of Boeing's many suppliers.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5790 posts, RR: 47
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8179 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 10):
No. You watch them get into bed with Boeing.

I think you're spot on. BAE will link up with Boeing on some deense projects and this cooperation will expand to civil aviation soon enough. I don't think this will end British involvement in civil aviaton.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8060 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 10):
No. You watch them get into bed with Boeing.

um, Ruscoe, you were quoting me quoting Mariner, hence I didn't make that comment..

my comment was...

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 9):
I just finished reading that article about a minute ago and I was going to link it here..but I guess you pipped me to the post....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8019 times:

Mariner, I feel at least as sentimental as you about the 'old' British aircraft industry (especially De Havilland). But I don't think that a 20% stake in Airbus, without any representation on the EADS Board, was at all significant in terms of preserving that tradition.

I think Mike Turner is to be congratulated on putting the interests of his shareholders first. And it will have cost him. He won't be invited to many dinner parties at No. 10 for quite a while, and he won't need to bother with checking the 2007 New Year's Honours List; his name won't be on it!

[Edited 2006-04-10 05:30:26]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineElvis777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7300 times:

Howdy guys,

I too will miss their contribution. I remember reading as a child the "Shepherd' by Forsyth and I could picture the nifty looking lines of the vampire as it flew through the clouds and in the darkness.

Also, I must admit that the lightning is a tough looking bird!

Ok., so if Bae sells thei 20 who will build the wings? In other words I keep thinking that the wings are the most difficult part to design and it requires a a great deal of corporate knowledge. Will Bae sell that division to EADS? Or am I mistaken and is that already owned by them?

Peace

Elvis777



Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2505 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7229 times:

Amazing how Boeing's name got dragged into this! IMO, SQ's request to widen the A350 fuselage is a pretty significant one. It's not like you can just recast a wider metal tube!


Couple of questions:

- How badly will the BAe stock sale affect Airbus' cash on hand
- What other parts/components will be effected and who are the potential suitors to step in?



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25412 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7203 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What a curious post. I am not advocating that BAE maintain its stake in Airbus.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17):
But I don't think that a 20% stake in Airbus, without any representation on the EADS Board, was at all significant in terms of preserving that tradition.

My point was simply that it was all the Poms had. What else is there?

That the headline "Bye bye, Airbus" means more than simply "Bye bye, Airbus".

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 17):
Mariner, I feel at least as sentimental as you about the 'old' British aircraft industry

Why is it "sentimental" to note the possible passing of a tradition? One would as equally announce the arrival of the new.

It is what it is, and it is no more than that. But it is also no less.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineAviationAddict From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7127 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PM (Reply 3):
I wish journalists wouldn't use, er, journalese. A "total" redesign? A total redesign?! Well, what would a partial redesign be? If SQ want a "total" redesign they want what?

Being a journalism major I'd have to say that wasn't even "journalese", it was just plain poor journalism. One of the first things they teach you when you start a journalism career is minimalism; make your point in the least amount of words and leave out any superfluous words. A redesign is a redesign, period, no partial or total about it.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1576 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7058 times:

Sorry Jacobin777.

At least a couple of legendary names live on in Hawker deHavilland, which is an Australian based company formed by the merger of CAC (Commonwealth Aircraft corporation), GAF (Govt Aircraft Factories) and deHavilland Australia.
It is now wholly owned by Boeing, but also does work for Airbus amongst others.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7020 times:

Quoting Elvis777 (Reply 18):
I could picture the nifty looking lines of the vampire as it flew through the clouds and in the darkness.

Also, I must admit that the lightning is a tough looking bird!

Elvis777, there were a lot of promising British designs in the early postwar years. Arguably, the man who finally set the British aircraft industry on its path of decline was a Defence Minister named Duncan Sandys. He'd had some involvement with countering the V2 rocket in WW2 and (vindicating the saying that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing') he formed the opinion that manned aircraft were no longer needed. So he proceeded to withdraw all government support for manned aircraft research, and put it into ICBM development instead:-

http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~dav4is/people/SAND1312.htm

Never mind - BAE still has the Harrier, which remains a 'winner'. I believe that the USMC remains as happy as the RAF to have them around.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineCPairDC10 From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6468 times:

Dont BAe want a piece of the JSF programm.....?? if im correct in thinking this is Boeings doing.....I think we have to read between the lines here......

25 PM : I think they already have a pretty substantial piece, don't they? I don't see the 20% Airbus stake as being linked to JSF.
26 CPairDC10 : If boeing say that they get no JSF if they are in the Airbus group.......
27 VV701 : BAE are not mentioning the A400M as a reason for selling out. It is 'industry experts' who have raised this issue. Some of us do not have a high rega
28 PM : Forgive me but I just can't see it.
29 A319XFW : BAE only recently sold their Aerostructures business that did the civilian aerostructures to Spirit Aerostructures. IIRC the only civilian aircraft b
30 Post contains links Atmx2000 : Boeing is not the JSF lead manufacturer, Lockheed is. There was also this from last year: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai.../money/2005/09/12/ix
31 Post contains images Art : What, no chance of becoming Lord Mike on January 1st? That's a bit of a sacrifice to make. However I think he may be able to console himself with the
32 GDB : BAE want to exit the commerical market, full stop. That is what this is all about. It's not finalised yet, and while it's unlikely he will, the Trade
33 FlyCaledonian : And which has just been retired from service early by the Royal Navy!
34 GDB : Not the Harrier GR.7/9's though. The evergreen BAE Hawk still sells, much updated, the most successful all British military aircraft post war, by a ma
35 Kaneporta1 : Funny these 'experts' blame the 350 and A400M, when the Nimrod 2000 is still to enter service. It's called Nimrod 2000 for a reason by the way.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Laughable Commentary On The BAE Airbus Sale posted Sat Jul 1 2006 02:12:59 by Glom
AC & WJ Report Higher System Load Factor For AUG posted Wed Sep 7 2005 21:18:44 by DFORCE1
Reason For Go To Deal Exclusively With Airbus? posted Fri May 3 2002 11:06:53 by Widebody
Good New For Both Airbus & Boeing! posted Sat Jan 6 2001 02:27:01 by OlympicA340
Good News For Both Airbus & Boeing! posted Sat Jan 6 2001 02:05:43 by OlympicA340
Does P&W Have A Chance For Future Airliners? posted Thu Nov 23 2006 02:14:12 by 1337Delta764
Silverjet Buys Flyjet & Source Aircraft For Launch posted Mon Oct 2 2006 19:05:43 by Gilesdavies
Baby Seats & New Rules For Carry-Ons posted Sat Aug 12 2006 05:47:48 by SCEagle
Bogus "security" Reason For Limiting Front Lav Use posted Sat Aug 5 2006 19:19:06 by Tugger
EK: A350/B787 Decision Not For 6 Months posted Wed Jul 19 2006 06:35:24 by PanAm_DC10