BAE - EADS merger?

Skybird · 10-10-12, 01:52 PM

No, Jim, Germany already had seen job losses due to a restructuring at Airbus over the past years that was initiated by the French. EADS is currently led by the German half of the former French-German leadership duo, and although German, Enders actually was in clash with the German government, wanting it to step back even more and trying to sell this demand to the French side as well so that EADS would very well be free to dictate in the future to government the conditions of future business operations by EADS, including to make them pay even more, and externalize even more risks to public tax payers. It is to ber assumed that he also wants a lowering of arms control for exports. BAE on the other hand tried to secure for the British a dominant position in any business-related and security policy-related decision making, to reach slight advantage over the French, and bypass the Germans more or less completely by marginalizing them. I assume the German resistance was underestimated when having seen how easily Paris managed to push Berlin into giving way for French demands at Airbus in the past years. Germany has given up several key technology fields in the past, namely independent aircraft manufacturing (the French had Airbus, Britain had BAE), and nuclear technology for a Germ,n market (Siemens, and others). It seems Berlin was not willing to lose even more technological key areas, and jobs as well - every merger of this size costs jobs, and costs money. Also, most if not all mammoth mergers in the past have gone wrong, I think of Daimler especially. Next year is a German election year - having sold German jobs as EADS away and having lost influence at EADS and in security policy making as well, probably was a concern in Berlin as well. Fro what I read and heared today, nobody in Berlin wanted this merger, and all politicians are pretty much relieved that it got prevented. While the London stockmarket hoped for the merger, the German did noit - todays declaration of failure made several tech indices going upwards, so workers at EADS and German shareholders both are united in relief that the merger failed. Don't know what the London indices said about the story today.

The double-leadership at Airbus does not go smooth at all (France, Germany). Imagine how unsmooth it would have become with three major heavyweights rivaling at the top for influence. In the end, I think, this merger would have led to a dictating of costs and prices for which the taxpayers would have had to pay - again.

Jimbuna · 10-10-12, 02:02 PM

TBH, after reading this article it's hard to know what to believe

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...tical-concerns

Skybird · 10-10-12, 08:49 PM

I think that British and continental interests were extremely different in this.

Monsters like this simply have too much weight as if they would need to play under supervision of policy.makers. Such a big monster instead tends to tell politicians what policy to make. That already is a bad thing in itself that leads the basic idea of democracy ad absurdum. When it is a weapon-maker, then it becomes a humanitarian disaster. Weapon-makers have interest in selling weapons. <- This. And not one bit more. Having moral scruples in doing so, creates no profit.

Oberon · 10-10-12, 08:59 PM

I think British and continental interests have rarely seen eye to eye since the 1960s. We flit between Europe and the US as our closest friends and have been unable to choose either.
I fear one day this may bite us in the arse.

10-10-12, 01:52 PM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,680 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	No, Jim, Germany already had seen job losses due to a restructuring at Airbus over the past years that was initiated by the French. EADS is currently led by the German half of the former French-German leadership duo, and although German, Enders actually was in clash with the German government, wanting it to step back even more and trying to sell this demand to the French side as well so that EADS would very well be free to dictate in the future to government the conditions of future business operations by EADS, including to make them pay even more, and externalize even more risks to public tax payers. It is to ber assumed that he also wants a lowering of arms control for exports. BAE on the other hand tried to secure for the British a dominant position in any business-related and security policy-related decision making, to reach slight advantage over the French, and bypass the Germans more or less completely by marginalizing them. I assume the German resistance was underestimated when having seen how easily Paris managed to push Berlin into giving way for French demands at Airbus in the past years. Germany has given up several key technology fields in the past, namely independent aircraft manufacturing (the French had Airbus, Britain had BAE), and nuclear technology for a Germ,n market (Siemens, and others). It seems Berlin was not willing to lose even more technological key areas, and jobs as well - every merger of this size costs jobs, and costs money. Also, most if not all mammoth mergers in the past have gone wrong, I think of Daimler especially. Next year is a German election year - having sold German jobs as EADS away and having lost influence at EADS and in security policy making as well, probably was a concern in Berlin as well. Fro what I read and heared today, nobody in Berlin wanted this merger, and all politicians are pretty much relieved that it got prevented. While the London stockmarket hoped for the merger, the German did noit - todays declaration of failure made several tech indices going upwards, so workers at EADS and German shareholders both are united in relief that the merger failed. Don't know what the London indices said about the story today. The double-leadership at Airbus does not go smooth at all (France, Germany). Imagine how unsmooth it would have become with three major heavyweights rivaling at the top for influence. In the end, I think, this merger would have led to a dictating of costs and prices for which the taxpayers would have had to pay - again. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

10-10-12, 02:02 PM	#2
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,742 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	TBH, after reading this article it's hard to know what to believe http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...tical-concerns __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

10-10-12, 08:49 PM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,680 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I think that British and continental interests were extremely different in this. Monsters like this simply have too much weight as if they would need to play under supervision of policy.makers. Such a big monster instead tends to tell politicians what policy to make. That already is a bad thing in itself that leads the basic idea of democracy ad absurdum. When it is a weapon-maker, then it becomes a humanitarian disaster. Weapon-makers have interest in selling weapons. <- This. And not one bit more. Having moral scruples in doing so, creates no profit. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-10-12, 08:59 PM	#4
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	I think British and continental interests have rarely seen eye to eye since the 1960s. We flit between Europe and the US as our closest friends and have been unable to choose either. I fear one day this may bite us in the arse.