Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BAE And Airbus Parent In Talks To Combine?  
User currently onlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6108 times:

Has anyone seen this article or have any other news regarding this potential hook-up?

http://blog.al.com/press-register-bu...eport_bae_and_airbus_parent_i.html

Quote: "Report: BAE and Airbus parent in talks to combine"

European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., the parent of Airbus SAS, is in negotiations with BAE Systems Plc about a combination of the two companies, Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the talks.

The talks are at an advanced stage, with the two companies exploring a combination that would allow London-based BAE to maintain its independence to sell into the U.S. defense market, according to Bloomberg.

A final deal hasn't been reached and an agreement may still fall through, according to the report.


edit:

And here is the Bloomberg link with more details...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...mbination-in-aerospace-revamp.html

[Edited 2012-09-12 09:06:16]


harder than woodpecker lips...
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6079 times:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19576907

It's on the BBC website as well.

A fascinating development, the various European aerospace companies have had loads of joint ventures and mergers/splits over the years...

A bit of a U turn by BAE who sold their stake in Airbus to concentrate on US defence sales, maybe they're regretting it...



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinegoosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6072 times:

Would be a dreadful move by BAE. They suffer from poor management but this would be terrible. Hope its not true.

User currently offlineholzmann From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6046 times:

DER SPIEGEL is salivating at the prospect of the two forming a (mainly German) company that could trump BOEING:

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unt...handeln-ueber-fusion-a-855476.html


User currently onlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6013 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 1):
A bit of a U turn by BAE who sold their stake in Airbus to concentrate on US defence sales, maybe they're regretting it...

They sold their 20% stake in Airbus several years ago, and now they would be a 40% stake of EADS/Airbus. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad deal for BAE? Although BAE stock jumped up 12% on the news...   



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5994 times:

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 2):
Would be a dreadful move by BAE. They suffer from poor management but this would be terrible. Hope its not true.

On the contrary, I think this merger would be excellent for the UK.

In my opinion, BAE made a HUGE error when they relinquished their 20% stake and put all their eggs into the defence market. Tumbling defence budgets and an ever decreasing order backlog means they have to diversify their portfolio.

It would also be good news for Airbus workers in the UK as it would in all likelihood grant them a little peace of mind as regards to job security in the long term (I'm aware of the UK Govt and EADS wing work agreement post share sell).

For those who like to reminisce, there is an excellent report available on the UK parliamentary record website (hansard) from 2007 that goes into a lot of detail about the BAE share sell. Search under:

House of Commons
Trade and Industry Committee
Recent developments
with Airbus
Ninth Report of Session 2006–07
Volume I

[Edited 2012-09-12 09:29:05]

User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4736 posts, RR: 39
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5749 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Wall Street Journal is reporting this story as well but I cannot insert the link into this post without damaging the post.  

So possible interesting developments could be going on in the European Aviation Industry.  


User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3642 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5713 times:

How would this not trigger European anti-trust rules?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5679 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
The Wall Street Journal is reporting this story as well but I cannot insert the link into this post without damaging the post.

The WSJ is behind a paywall, so you cannot directly link. Use Google News, which will bypass it and display the article.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5658 times:

As others have said, BAe made the baffling, if not unfathomable decision to sell off its stake in Airbus, pinning its hopes on the defence market. This was at a time when military programmes were already being squeezed with military budgets les than half what they once were in terms of GDP.

There was a fear at the time that the sale of their Airbus stake might see Airbus withdrawing work from the UK, fortunately this has not been the case and EADS have proved to be a good employer. The same cannot be said for BAe whose declining military workload has seen widespread redundancies and closure of some sites. Others are only a shadow of their former selves.

Hopefully this merger will work to the advantage of both parties. Airbus should be able to utilise some of the surplus capacity that BAe have a s a result of military contraction, and BAe can provide technology which EADS might not have.

Just hope that the senior management at BAe are given a P45 rather than the keys to a larger executive office.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5643 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 5):
In my opinion, BAE made a HUGE error when they relinquished their 20% stake and put all their eggs into the defence market. Tumbling defence budgets and an ever decreasing order backlog means they have to diversify their portfolio.

????

I'd suggest that BAE's strategy in the period from considering selling the Airbus stake has worked very well.

They have broken their utter dependency on UK MOD (which was THE strategy).
They've become the 3rd largest defence (or is it defense) contractor in the USA, and made far more money in the US defence market in the period than their stake in Airbus would have in the same period.

BAE operating margin has been pretty much double-digit for a whie now.
It for sure wasn't at the time they sold the Airbus stake.....

Quoting mham001 (Reply 8):
How would this not trigger European anti-trust rules?

I'm guessing some special rules apply when it comes to defence and national interest..

rgds


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4736 posts, RR: 39
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Use Google News, which will bypass it and display the article.

Thanks for the tip!  


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15739 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5524 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
I'd suggest that BAE's strategy in the period from considering selling the Airbus stake has worked very well.

I agree. I'm not sure where this idea that not having a hand in civilian markets is awful. It hasn't hurt Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, or General Dynamics (if you don't count Gulfstream) and it hasn't hurt BAE.

Counting on European defense markets is a bad idea, but defense as a whole is still a pretty good business.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5494 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
The WSJ is behind a paywall, so you cannot directly link. Use Google News, which will bypass it and display the article.

The Moderators recommend using one of the various link shortening services whenever a link to a source is not posting properly (The Wall Street Journal is among a handful of newspaper sites whose links do not render correctly. Even WSJ stuff posted on Yahoo is prone to this.).

EADS has to work on increasing their US military contract numbers anyway they can, and this is a no-brainer of an acquisition for them. Now whether this deal goes through, who knows.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5460 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 9):
As others have said, BAe made the baffling, if not unfathomable decision to sell off its stake in Airbus

It was neither baffling, unfathomable, or ill-judged.......

BAE made it very clear what the drivers were, and have done exactly what they said they would do.

Making the USA a defence "home market" was one of the best decisions the business has ever made.....
IMO  

Rgds


User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5397 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
????

I'd suggest that BAE's strategy in the period from considering selling the Airbus stake has worked very well.

They have broken their utter dependency on UK MOD (which was THE strategy).

You're right. Now they're relying on the Saudis. I believe BAE are still waiting for the Saudis to sign the Salam Eurofighter programme.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
They've become the 3rd largest defence (or is it defense) contractor in the USA, and made far more money in the US defence market in the period than their stake in Airbus would have in the same period.

How long will that last? The picture painted in the annual reports is bleak.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 10):
BAE operating margin has been pretty much double-digit for a whie now.

That's one of the few positives.

I maintain my view that BAE selling their stake was short sighted, but I guess hindsight is 20/20.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5111 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 9):As others have said, BAe made the baffling, if not unfathomable decision to sell off its stake in Airbus
It was neither baffling, unfathomable, or ill-judged.......

BAE made it very clear what the drivers were, and have done exactly what they said they would do.

Making the USA a defence "home market" was one of the best decisions the business has ever made.....
IMO

Rgds

I know you have a vested interest as a BAe employee on the defence side of the business, but to my mind the decision to concentrate on defence was a classic case of short termism. each succesive generation of military equipment is procured in smaller numbers than its predecessor. How many Astutes are replacing the S & T class subs ? Remember the RAF ordering nearly 400 Tornados to be part of a fast jet fleet which also consisted of Harriers, Jaguars & Buccaneers. We now have a fast jet fleet a fraction of that size. The US military is also contracting fast.

If the move towards the US defence industry was such a good strategy, why now look to merge with the worlds largest Civil airliner business ?


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5018 times:

Clearly, and this isn't just hindsight, defense budgets are under threat, and have been for several years, whereas civilian sales have been expanding fast, so voluntarily exiting Airbus was a major strategy call. Against this, their 20% stake gave them little power in running the business.

40% of the combined business sounds reasonable, and maintains a reasonable split between the European partners, I wonder if EADS will try to take over Dassault?



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinesabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4977 times:

Great news!

A merger involving a share swap with EADS getting the controlling majority in the combined entity seems most likely.

I am sure NAV20 will just love this turn of events: BAE systems effectively absorbed into EADS! 

[Edited 2012-09-12 15:18:45]

User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4740 times:

I'm wondering if the combined entity will be called BEADS? 

I think that this is just the next logical step that lead to the merger of all of the UK aircraft manufacturers into BAe.


User currently offlineSQ22 From Germany, joined Feb 2012, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4710 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 17):
40% of the combined business sounds reasonable, and maintains a reasonable split between the European partners, I wonder if EADS will try to take over Dassault?

I think from an economic perspective that would make a lot of sense, but I doubt it from the French perspective, even if Dassault would be willing to sell there would be issues. Like with the unions and the government.

What about Saab Defence and Security? I think they have an agreement with BAE. Is it a distribution agreement?


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 days ago) and read 4412 times:

From a corporate point of view, BAE's US Defense business is definitely attractive for EADS, who sees it as a priority to grow in that market. For BAE, having a civilian side via Airbus & Eurocopter to compensate for cycles in defense spending is also good.

Whether its a good idea to create such a large company is another thing, IMO EADS is already very large and struggles to manage itself efficiently, making it larger and more complex will not help.

From the point of view of European Defense Ministries and taxpayers, this would be bad news as it creates a de-facto monopoly in many Defense sectors, and certainly in large defense projects. Alenia, Dassault, Saab, Thales & Co would be dwarfed and rendered insignificant. Competition would be provided by Boeing, LM or NG, but no intra-EU competition would exist.

As a taxpayer, I will not be happy if this merger goes forward.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 days ago) and read 4257 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 16):
The US military is also contracting fast.

Indeed, and this will be accelerated when the debts rise more as they do now.

How many projects has the Obama Administration canceled or downsized already ? Same for European Defence and British.

Only country's like Iran, Venezuela, India have massively increased their defence spendings in the last years. But mostly from Russia.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinevv701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7531 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3786 times:

Quoting sabenapilot (Reply 18):
A merger involving a share swap with EADS getting the controlling majority in the combined entity seems most likely.

My understanding is that a new holding company, 40 per cent owned by BAE Systems and 60 per cent owned by EADS, may be formed and that if this happens it will control the operational business units of both companies. I have seen no indication that the existing companies, business units or divisions of the two corporations would automatically be merged.

I do not know much about EADS. However BAE Systems comprises 12 separate Business Units. These range from "BAE Systems Australia" through "Maritime - Naval Ships" and "Maritime - Submarines" to "Land & Armaments" and "Military Air & Information". No doubt if an agreement is reached there may be some mergers at the Business Unit level. But equally it is possible that many of these Business Units will continue to operate as they do today with only a change in reporting lines.

Operationally - but not structurally - the combined business could turn out to look somewhat like IAG where BA and IB continue to operate separately even though IB handed over their BCN-LHR service to BA and BA are now sending aircraft to MAD to be painted, thus improving the efficiency of both airlines operations.

Structurally it seems possible (likely?) that shareholders may not be directly impacted. By that I mean that the quoted companies will remain owned as they are today, with BAE Systems holding 40 per cent of New Company shares and EADS holding 60 per cent.

In some ways this reflects the current EADS shareholding structure. Lagardere and the French government own 22 per cent of EADS between them, Daimler also owns 22 per cent (but has agreed to sell one third of this holding to the German government) and the Spanish government owns 5.5 per cent. However Daimler is, according to the BBC, considering taking this opportunity of selling in the market the other two-thirds of its current 22 per cent stake.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3029 times:

Quoting vv701 (Reply 23):

I do not know much about EADS. However BAE Systems comprises 12 separate Business Units.

In similar way EADS has also several separate Business Units:

EADS North America

EADS Airbus

EADS Eurocopter

EADS Cassidian (Defense)

EADS Cassidian Air Systems

EADS Cassidian Systems

EADS Cassidian Electronics

EADS Missiles

EADS Test & Services

EADS Cassidian CyberSecurity GmbH

EADS Astrium (Space)

EADS Astrium Satellites

EADS Astrium Space Transportation

EADS Astrium Services

EADS Socata

EADS Military

EADS Sogerma Services

EADS Elbe Flugzeugwerke

EADS ATR



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3094 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 21):
From the point of view of European Defense Ministries and taxpayers, this would be bad news as it creates a de-facto monopoly in many Defense sectors, and certainly in large defense projects

I share these thoughts, and Pentagon will never accept having foreign governments involved in their subs, aircraft carriers and what else BAE does in the states. As a whole EU will lose defence business in US this way.

EU needs more internal competition not less, we all stand to lose by this deal. I don't know why so many cheer a monopolized defence sector, I don't think they want to pay more?

Saab will probably be gobbled up as well, a sad development in a EU I never wanted.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3082 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 25):
I share these thoughts, and Pentagon will never accept having foreign governments involved in their subs, aircraft carriers and what else BAE does in the states

May I suggest a good re-read of this sentence to spot the in-built contradiction?   ......

Rgds


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 26):
May I suggest a good re-read of this sentence to spot the in-built contradiction?

So you think Pentagon would accept having foreign governments involved in their future super secret military toys? BAE does not have this problem in its current form.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3072 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 21):
From the point of view of European Defense Ministries and taxpayers, this would be bad news as it creates a de-facto monopoly

EADS & BAE are the only companies in Europe which can ensure the technological edge we have in many areas and are competitive enough to challange US Defense Companies.

The European Market is just to small and is always getting smaller. If that means they will have a monopoly but can withstand Chinese, Russian and US competence, then so be it. I prefer the jobs and knowhow gathering in Europe then elswhere.

This is a good move i hope the merge will happen without problems.

Also the US Defense Market isn't very open either.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2946 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 27):
So you think Pentagon would accept having foreign governments involved in their future super secret military toys? BAE does not have this problem in its current form

I was trying to work out how you saw BAE as "not foreign" in the context of Pentagon contracts.......

The division BAE Systems (Inc) could be (and is) classed as a "domestic" supplier in the USA.
But the division EADS North America already shares that "US domestic" characteristic (as it too has to).

And if I'm not mistaken, EADS is already involved in a large number of US defence contracts in its own right, despite being "foreign". It may not quite have the US footprint of BAE, but BAE, like EADS, is NOT a US company

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 16):
I know you have a vested interest as a BAe employee on the defence side of the business

My opinion as stated has nothing whatsover to do with any sort of "vested interest".
It is an intellectual position, not an emotional one.

Rgds

[Edited 2012-09-14 03:36:03]

User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2912 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 29):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 16):I know you have a vested interest as a BAe employee on the defence side of the businessMy opinion as stated has nothing whatsover to do with any sort of "vested interest". It is an intellectual position, not an emotional one.

As its an intellectual position, you need to bear in mind that BAe's reliance on defence, saw turnover drop by 14% and profits by 7% in the last financial year.


User currently offlinevv701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7531 posts, RR: 17
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 days ago) and read 2756 times:

The perception that the likes of BAE Systems and EADS can successfully compete in a market where technological developments even challenge the world's largest defence manufacturers to compete on their own is surprising.

Consider the F-35. Its lead supplier is Lockheed-Martin. BAE Systems have significant involvement in the design, development of this weapons system. Amongst other contributions they have lead responsibility for the aft fuselage, both the vertical and horizontal tail surfaces and the folding wings of the naval version of the aircraft.

The perception that, while the giant Lockheed-Martin has needed to enter partnership with the likes of BAE Systems on the F-35 project, both BAE Systems and EADS can continue to separately and independently play long term significant roles in a market that shrinks but becomes technologically more complex(thus requiring higher investment) every year is dangerous. If Europe is to continue to have any long term role as an advanced defence equipment manufacturer in competition with the likes of Boeing and Lockheed Martin then it needs to grow its prime defence contractor(s).

It seems to me that the alternative is for the European defence industry long term to focus on low tech weapon systems and acting as a sub-cont actor to produce the less technologically advanced sub-systems for the world's major defence contractors' projects.

As for competition, it is competition that has driven BAE Systems and EADS into these talks.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 32, posted (2 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 30):
As its an intellectual position, you need to bear in mind that BAe's reliance on defence, saw turnover drop by 14% and profits by 7% in the last financial year.

Seems like a sensible time to make a move then, doesn't it?  

In all seriousness, I think this has been recognisable for quite some time.

However, big defence businesses like BAE (and EADS) can't just throw themselves into any old diversification - they just don't have the speed of response or flexibility required for most business environments.

BAE's approach to this is, I believe, to look for an "adjacency" based on core competences. And they have indeed done so, quite successfully. But it is a slow process. The link with EADS will help.

Anyone who saw "smart procurement" (    ) at work might understand some of the drivers behind BAE's exit from Airbus, and diversification out of the UK.
If they'd have done it 6 - 12 month's earlier, they'd have looked like geniuses, given the collapse in the market value of their share when the A380 delays were announced.
Even so, in truth, in the intervening 6 years, they haven't missed out on much financially from the position at which they exited Airbus, have they?
And they have benefitted hugely from the diversification into the "home markets", the USA in particular. If you want to make any real return in defence, the USA is the only real place to do so these days.
The Americans look after their defence industry......  

To me, now seems like an ideal time to get back into bed with EADS - certainly as far as Airbus goes. There's only upside in terms of financial performance from where they are now IMO.

The only thing BAE did wrong was to wait too long to leave Airbus IMO. As I said, if they'd have left 6 months earlier, they'd have got out at the top, and be getting back in at the bottom. dumb or what?  

As an aside, H1 2012 figures showed revenue down 10% and EBITA down only 3% on last year (from £968M to £939M. Margins have improved in the period.

Rgds


User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (2 years 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2629 times:

If it brings more jobs to the UK aviation sector than I'm all for it.

However, despite what has been said here I think them selling their Airbus stake in the past was not a good idea.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2427 times:

I think a merged BAE will actually lose jobs, Daimler and France will demand to be the guy who benefits the most like always.

Next would be to gobble up Saab too, bye bye gripen NG!

I cant see anything positive with concentration everything in EU, one plant, one budget one idea.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2330 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 34):
I think a merged BAE will actually lose jobs, Daimler and France will demand to be the guy who benefits the most like always.

Fortunately Daimler and France have treated UK manufacturing failry since taking over BAe's Airbus stake, no work has been lost from the UK at all. Why should it be any different if BAe and EADS merge ?


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...
S7 Reportedly In Talks To Scale Down Airbus Order posted Wed Feb 25 2009 14:18:54 by Addd
BE In Talks To Buy WW And BD Regional posted Sun Nov 30 2008 12:37:58 by BALHRWWCC
Eads In Talks To Sell Part Of Airbus posted Thu Nov 16 2006 07:41:00 by N1786b
Eads In Talks To Sell Part Of Airbus posted Thu Nov 16 2006 07:39:44 by N1786b
BA, AY, FM, EY And EI In Talks To Serve KUL posted Wed Sep 28 2005 21:09:17 by MAS777
Airbus In Talks To Sell A380 To 3 Chinese Airlines posted Thu Jun 16 2005 07:27:14 by Jacobin777
Saudia In Talks To Buy 777 And 747? posted Mon Mar 28 2005 22:19:55 by MrComet
Airbus In Talks To Sell 30 A320s To JetBlue posted Wed May 19 2004 18:19:27 by InnocuousFox
PDX In Talks To Start Service To Mexico/S. Florida posted Sat Aug 4 2012 18:06:32 by ANA787
Air Canada In Talks To Lease 5 B777-200LRs posted Sun May 27 2012 10:17:59 by pictues