EADS and BAE Systems in merger talks

scorza

scorza

scorza

Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19576907

Don't like the idea of this happening. For one I expect it'd result in thousands of job losses across the UK and I think there needs to be more competition in the defence industry not less.

BTW, how do you pronounce EADS? Newsreaders have either been pronouncing it ee-ay-dee-ess or eeds. I always thought it was ee-ads
 
Will the merger result in the disappearance of the BAE name?

I suppose they might consolidate some business functions, but I can't see how there would be thousands of jobs being cut as surely that would be seriously detrimental to BAE?

I would have pronounced EADS as I would have with BAE, by saying the characters individually.
 
Indications are that the two corporate identities would still exist - for now at least.

I couldn't see there being many immediate job losses as the current programmes would theoretically be ringfenced. A lot of these programmes are built on specific headcounts etc and given that BAE are currently predominantly working for the one customer (i.e UK mod) that would be likely to remain unchanged until such time as new contracts are let. I could see the biggest threat (in terms of job losses) being to the air side of things, but then it's already been hit pretty hard.

Will be interesting to see what comes of it, there are all sorts of hurdles in the way of this happening but if it does it may be the kick up the backside certain areas need. Of course it could also just result in an even bigger, even fatter organisation with the same problems multiplied up many times.
 
Energizer Bunny said:
We pronounce the letters individually. What logic is there for thinking an abbreviation requires pronunciation in the same way a normal word does? You don't call BAE 'Bay' I'm guessing?
Click to expand...

To be honest, it's one of those things that's way down on our list of things to worry about :p

It just seems natural to say E-ADS and BAE (no we don't say bay). Not saying it's right, just saying that's how it is round here!
 
Interesting.

It definitely seems like they'd still exist as separate entities, but for how long who knows.

Might well result in some job losses as well :S But BAE hit the news quite regularly it seems for job losses....

Would be more intrigued about what the competition commission would say to be honest.

kd
 
It'll be interesting to see if, as has been reported by Handelsblatt, the US Government need to approve the deal (as do the UK, France and Germany) and whether they would, as it obviously affects Boeing.

oh and as for:

scorza said:
BTW, how do you pronounce EADS? Newsreaders have either been pronouncing it ee-ay-dee-ess or eeds. I always thought it was ee-ads
Click to expand...

I'd probably go for ee-ay-dee-ess, being an acronym
 
Last edited:
I'd expect the US would have to approve the deal as it will impact current joint contracts. There are all sorts of stumbling blocks, will be interesting to see how it pans out.
 
Spuj1988 said:
It just seems natural to say E-ADS and BAE (no we don't say bay). Not saying it's right, just saying that's how it is round here!
Click to expand...

That's the way it is here mostly, although some people use E-A-D-S. We work with them and they seem to use E-A-D-S themselves but we are lazier and why use four syllables when you can use two?

I'm undecided about this. It could reduce costs and so on, but reduces competition a fair bit and would almost certainly involve job losses (although hopefully only senior management types). I don't see what the end goal is - I do not believe that they will ever be competitive in the US for sales of platforms due to politics and yet I can see no other reason for merging into some giant EU defence company.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out - EADS have kept themselves with fingers in many pies. BAE have sold off most of their business that wasn't associated with platforms (mainly Airbus and the defence electronics businesses). This would bring BAE into a partnership with a company doing things BAE previously said it just wants to buy from subcontractors.
 
rodenal said:
Indications are that the two corporate identities would still exist - for now at least.

I couldn't see there being many immediate job losses as the current programmes would theoretically be ringfenced. A lot of these programmes are built on specific headcounts etc and given that BAE are currently predominantly working for the one customer (i.e UK mod) that would be likely to remain unchanged until such time as new contracts are let. I could see the biggest threat (in terms of job losses) being to the air side of things, but then it's already been hit pretty hard.

Will be interesting to see what comes of it, there are all sorts of hurdles in the way of this happening but if it does it may be the kick up the backside certain areas need. Of course it could also just result in an even bigger, even fatter organisation with the same problems multiplied up many times.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised, BAe sell more to the US DOD than they do to the MOD - 40% of their revenue comes from the US, 30% from the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom