N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6226 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2987 times:
BAe is not in the same boat as EADS:
1. They're British. That makes them special in the eyes of the US, whether France likes it or not.
2. BAe has a substantial base of US stockholders. This is due to their rapid-fire acquisition of US firms in in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
3. Because of those acquisitions, BAe has a ton of US employees. This also means that, unlike EADS, contracted work is very likely to be performed by Americans, or at least the value of the contracts is probably offset by the work BAE's American staff performs for other governments.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Alien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2968 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 3): They're British. That makes them special in the eyes of the US,
Whatever are you talking about? "Special" in what way?
Quoting N328KF (Reply 3): 3. Because of those acquisitions, BAe has a ton of US employees. This also means that, unlike EADS, contracted work is very likely to be performed by Americans, or at least the value of the contracts is probably offset by the work BAE's American staff performs for other governments.
An the money is still controlled and the major decisions for the company are still made by foreigners. Calling BAE American is like calling my sister just a little bit pregnant.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2917 times:
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 2): Do you have a similar list for the Euro side of things? Not trying to start a holywar, just genuinely curious.
TIA
I wish I had one; I'd certainly post it. It would be an informative comparison. Perhaps someone out there could assist? Of course, for the comparison to be valid, and to put the flow in perspective, it would have to indicate the Airbus countries' purchases from the U.S., rather than all of Europe.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 4): So are we arguing that EADS should partner with BAE and Northrop Grumman for the tanker contract?
Umm...no. There are (and have been) those who felt that we "owe" the tanker deal to EADS to "balance" out all those purchases of U.S. kit over the years. I'd bet if one goes a little further down the list one would find Rolls Royce....
[Edited 2009-02-10 02:23:25]
[Edited 2009-02-10 02:25:22]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6226 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2866 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 5): Whatever are you talking about? "Special" in what way?
I am referring to the special US/UK relationship that has existed for years.
Quoting Alien (Reply 5): An the money is still controlled and the major decisions for the company are still made by foreigners. Calling BAE American is like calling my sister just a little bit pregnant.
That may be true in most circumstances, but this is an exception. Whether you like it or not, BAE is not held to the same rules that EADS or Thales are, and the facts that I have already mentioned are the reasons.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2858 times:
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4657 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2822 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 5): Whatever are you talking about? "Special" in what way?
The USA was born of the British Colonies, we have a common language, a lot of our laws come from "English Common Law", we have a common heritage.
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 8): Are you saying that they don't repatriate profits?
I would say that a hell of a lot of the moneny stays here due to the direct employment of people here in the USA.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9242 posts, RR: 42 Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2576 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6): There are (and have been) those who felt that we "owe" the tanker deal to EADS to "balance" out all those purchases of U.S. kit over the years.
You might be right but I've never seen it. What I have seen is that EADS should not be excluded from US military contracts "just because they're foreign", since other countries have no problem buying military hardware from the US.
Daedaeg From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 651 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2496 times:
I remember not long ago BAE's CEO even toyed with the idea of moving the headquarters to the U.S., considering their revenue was becoming more dependent on Pentagon expenditures than the defense ministry in the U.K.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2396 times:
Quoting Daedaeg (Reply 11): I remember not long ago BAE's CEO even toyed with the idea of moving the headquarters to the U.S., considering their revenue was becoming more dependent on Pentagon expenditures than the defense ministry in the U.K.
Don't know about the headquarters thing, but they certainly didn't take their time bailing out of Airbus when they could--despite the scorn of many on a.net!
Slightly OT, but isn't Rolls Royce moving a headquarters to Singapore?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9257 posts, RR: 96 Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2336 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter): For the information of all those who think we're obligated to give the tanker deal to EADS to "balance the books".
I'd be delighted to understand what on earth BAE Systems has to do with EADS and tankers...
Quoting N328KF (Reply 7): I am referring to the special US/UK relationship that has existed for years.
Some would seem keen to ignore it, but it (still) exists (more than ever in my "underwater" world - every year that passes makes BAE Systems Submarines and GD Electric Boat look more like "partner" organisations).....
Quoting N328KF (Reply 3): 3. Because of those acquisitions, BAe has a ton of US employees.
50 000 and climbing, compared to 35 000 in the UK (including me) ...
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 8): Are you saying that they don't repatriate profits?
BAE are a net injector of cash into the USA, not a repatriator, and have been for years.
True, executive decisions are made in the UK, but it appears to me that for the last 10 years, and the forseeable future, the USA has done nothing but benefit from BAE systems increasing contribution.
I could of course be biased, but I'm trying not to be..
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2316 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 13): d be delighted to understand what on earth BAE Systems has to do with EADS and tankers... scratchchin
I was referring to remarks on several of the two zillion tanker threads that stated, inferred, implied, and/or declared that the U.S.A.F. should rightly award the tanker contract to EADS to "balance" all the purchases that Europe made since the beginning of the Cold War. No, I am not going to search and dig them up. The comments are out there.
As noted earlier, I would be delighted to retract this if someone could show me where there was an imbalance of German, UK, French & Spanish purchases of defense related equipment from U.S. firms. The F-35 deal with the UK involves considerable offsets, so what's left? C-17s and C-130s for the RAF? Fair enough. What about the other 3?
BAE's ranking in the hierarchy of DOD contractors proves that there is as much of an open door policy in U.S. defense procurement as anywhere in any market of consequence. As I said earlier, I suspect Rolls Royce can't be very far down from the top 10 either.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6226 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2285 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 14): The F-35 deal with the UK involves considerable offsets, so what's left? C-17s and C-130s for the RAF?
The F-35 deal just illustrates my point further. In this, the UK workforce is not considered an "offset" arrangement but a full of the partnership. More than any other F-35 customer, the UK presence is integral to the project. Just look at the fact that they're called Tier I, and the other countries are Tier II or Tier III.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9257 posts, RR: 96 Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2254 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 14): I was referring to remarks on several of the two zillion tanker threads that stated, inferred, implied, and/or declared that the U.S.A.F. should rightly award the tanker contract to EADS to "balance" all the purchases that Europe made since the beginning of the Cold War. No, I am not going to search and dig them up. The comments are out there
I know they are, but that's Europe - what's that got to do with us?..
Edit - and back on a serious note, when you look at what BAE Systems inc. builds for the USA, in the USA, with a USA labour force - and exports FROM the USA, using its USA facilities and workforce, I'll ask again seriously this time, what's BAE Systems got to do with EADS and the tankers.
I'll bet my house that the US content of BAE Systems Inc's products is higher than the Boeing 767 tanker, never mind the NG/EADS offering....
Quoting N328KF (Reply 15): Just look at the fact that they're called Tier I, and the other countries are Tier II or Tier III.
Must admit, the way EB and ourselves interface now was inconceiveable 10 years ago. From our unique standpoint, the "relationship" is closer now than it ever was
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2221 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 16): I'll ask again seriously this time, what's BAE Systems got to do with EADS and the tankers.
BAE Systems, in and of itself? OK, probably not a lot. But the fact that a foreign registered company is in the top 5 of defense contractors says a lot IMO as an example of the openness of the U.S. defense market, a lot. As I said, I was addressing those who said that the tanker deal should go to Europe because of all the European purchases of U.S. defense equipment in the past. Since BAE Systems is a UK registered company, and last I looked, the UK is generally sited in Europe, it appears DOD is already purchasing quite a bit from at least one European company.
I will ask again, as for the balance issue, what is Germany, France, and Spain currently purchasing from U.S. companies for their defense industries?
[Edited 2009-02-14 04:56:52]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9257 posts, RR: 96 Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2207 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 17): Since BAE Systems is a UK registered company, and last I looked, the UK is generally sited in Europe, it appears DOD is already purchasing quite a bit from at least one European company
The debate appeared to me to be about "offset".
And if BAE Inc are making equipment for the US armed fores in the USA, using US facilities and US workforce how is that in any way an offset for "European" countries buying US made equipment for their armed forces?
I have no particular horse in the "offset" race itself, by the way. That would be a bad reason for the USAF to procure the KC30 in my opinion. They should buy it because it's a better operational fit and/or better value.
As far as I am aware, BAE Systems does not export in any meaningful way from the UK to the USA
In particular, its worth noting that just about ALL of BAE Systems growth since 1999 has been based in the USA.
BAE Systems Inc is the single biggest foregin INVESTOR in the US defence (defense?) industry - since 1999 the flow of cash INTO the USA made by BAE Systems has been HUGE
(if you want to talk "offset", you might want to think about how that has worked going the other way....)
The Corporate Governance section is pretty interesting too..
Quote: As per its Special Security Arrangement, BAE Systems Inc. operates as a semi-autonomous business unit within BAE Systems controlled at a local level by American management
This requirement is written into the corporate governance of BAE Systems inc. It is a pre-requisite of BAE Systems Inc being......
The 5th biggest US defense contractor - note US, not UK
Rightly, the US government would not permit it to operate any other way.
Sorry to come across as a bit "funny" about this, my friend.
But I think BAE Systems Inc is a poor example to put forward to support an argument about offset. There are probably better ones...
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2181 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 19): But I think BAE Systems Inc is a poor example to put forward to support an argument about offset.
Peace it is! You've convinced me that BAE systems isn't the best example.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9257 posts, RR: 96 Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2165 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 20): Peace it is! You've convinced me that BAE systems isn't the best example.
We'll have to see if we can find a better one
No offence was intended by the way.
Out of interest, I know it's quite common to find employees who are all too keen to dump on their employer - I've done it myself.
And I'm sure BAE Systems has its warts like all other major companies.
But I stand in awe of the way our board have delivered their stated strategy, reduced their dependency on the UK MOD, re-engineered their relationship with the UK Government after JW screwed it up, managed the integration of Marconi, British Aerospace, UTC and a whole host of other companies into a single entity, with shared values, shared beliefs, and a "team" spirit the like of which I've never come across before in big organisations.
Doesn't matter which country, or what the company sign used to say over the door, walking into a BAE Systems facility anywhere in the world feels like coming home. I truly take my hat off to the guys at the top who have managed to do this. It is no small feat.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3182 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1115 posts, 
From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9242 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
