EADS is Now AIRBUS

Michel Van

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
13 August 2007
Messages
7,148
Reaction score
6,518
One of biggest Aircraft and Military hardware manufacture EADS rename there self to AIRBUS
This not only that clients had problem with name EADS but also with there Products:

A380 problems
The Euro Hawk debacle
Euro Fighter Typhoon massive quality problems
the A400M Problem
the Super Puma...

So EADS want rename herself to AIRBUS, after restructuring plan in production and management...

Source german News magazine "Der Spiegel"
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/warum-eads-kuenftig-airbus-heissen-will-a-914089.html
 
while they're at it, they should drop the ridiculous "Cassidian" too...
 
Hmmm... Weird. We'll have to get used to it.

So basically the new Airbus company would simply encompass all the previous activities of Airbus Industries and EADS put together?
 
Yes,
"Airbus Group" will be formed by:
"Airbus" : commercial airplanes division
"Airbus Helicopters", former "Eurocopter" : civil & military helicopters division
"Airbus Defence & Space", former "Airbus Military" plus "Astrium" plus "Cassidian" : Defence, systems & military aircraft (A400M) division
 
Somehow "Airbus Typhoon" doesn't seem to me to have the same cachet, marketing-wise. Instead of conjuring up images of Maverick and Goose, I think of Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton.
 
The name change from EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) to Airbus Group makes me wonder if the company intends to sell or spinoff its defense, space, and helicopter divisions and concentrate on its commercial jet operations.
 
"Welcome to the New Airbus. Politicians, Keep Out"
by Carol Matlack
July 31, 2013

Source:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-31/welcome-to-the-new-airbus-dot-politicians-keep-out

For all the money and effort expended on corporate name changes, they rarely alter companies’ fortunes. (BlackBerry (BBRY), the former Research in Motion, is a case in point.) Airbus (EADS:FP)—the name adopted on July 31 by the former European Aeronautics Defence & Space Co.—could be an exception.

In taking the name of its biggest and most successful division, EADS is acknowledging that its effort to build a robust defense and space business has failed.

A key reason for that failure was interference by the European governments that hold stakes in the company. Last year, for example, a planned tie-up of EADS with Britain’s BAE Systems (BA:LN) was scuttled as politicians squabbled over divvying up the merged company’s operations.

The Airbus name underscores Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders’s determination to curtail such meddling. “It tells the politicians, ‘This is a commercial firm,’” says Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace consultant with Fairfax (Va.)-based Teal Group. “It could change how the company sees itself, and how customers see it.”

Airbus, operating in the fiercely competitive commercial jet industry, knows only too well the perils of letting national interests trump business considerations. A wiring snafu on its A380 mega jet, which cost the company more than $6 billion, stemmed from the fact that Airbus’s French and German factories had balked at adopting the same kind of design software. The debacle ultimately led to tighter integration of the Airbus division while allowing management to take steps—such as opening assembly lines in China and in the United States—that previously would have sent European politicians into a tizzy.

Airbus has benefited from some government involvement. World Trade Organization judges ruled in 2010 that Airbus had received billions in subsidies to help launch new models, including the A380. WTO judges also found that Boeing (BA) received $5.3 billion in illegal government aid. Both sides are appealing; in the meantime, the European Union says aid to Airbus has been discontinued.

Adopting the Airbus name is part of a broader restructuring by Enders, who is organizing the company into three divisions: commercial jets, helicopters, and a combined space and defense business. The stock rose as much as 3.3 percent on the news, to its highest level since EADS was formed in 2000 through the merger of German, French, and Spanish companies.

The plan calls for still-unspecified cost savings in the defense and space operations. By the end of this year, “We’ll know what concrete changes they’ll be making, whether they’re really going to shake things up,” says Nick Cunningham, an analyst at Agency Partners in London.

With its new name, though, Airbus has already signaled that it doesn’t want politicians calling the shots. “Interfering with a political creation like EADS came naturally,” Aboulafia says. “This could make the company easier to manage.”
Click to expand...
 
"EADS to Adopt Airbus Name to Reflect Aircraft Unit’s Role"
By Andrea Rothman and Robert Wall
July 31, 2013

Source:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-07-31/eads-adopts-airbus-name-to-reflect-weight-of-commercial-aircraft

European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. (EAD) will adopt the Airbus name for the entire group to reflect the dominance of commercial aircraft and plans to combine defense and space operations to help weather shrinking demand.

EADS, which also reported earnings today that beat analyst estimates, said it will reorganize into three divisions, including civil aircraft, helicopters and defense and space. EADS rose as much as 3.3 percent to 45.75 euros, the most since it was formed and began trading in 2000.

Adopting its most recognizable brand for the entire group ends a decade-long attempt to create a balance between Airbus and other operations, most recently with last year’s proposed merger with BAE Systems Plc (BA/) that failed amid government opposition. Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders has since reshaped the shareholder structure to curtail political influence, and has vowed to make EADS more investor-driven.

“The renaming simply gathers the entire company under the best brand we have,” Enders said. Moving defense and space together will create a ‘one-stop shop for the air forces of the world.’’

EADS rose as much as 1.48 euros in Paris, and traded at 45.1356 euros as of 1:00 p.m. The stock has gained 52 percent this year, while Boeing Co. (BA:US) has advanced 40 percent.
Airbus Contribution

Earnings before interest and tax, goodwill impairment and exceptionals rose to 887 million euros ($1.18 billion) from 724 million euros a year earlier, as sales increased 3 percent to 13.95 billion euros. Analysts had estimated earnings of 803.7 million euros, according to a Bloomberg survey.

Airbus contributed 637 million euros to earnings, up from 391 million euros a year earlier as its sales rose 2 percent to 9.74 billion euros. Gross commercial aircraft orders will 1,000 aircraft, with deliveries at 600 to 610 units, EADS said.

The company maintained its outlook for Ebit before one-offs of 3.5 billion euros and earnings per share before one-off of about 2.50 euros, prior to the continuing share buyback.

The commercial aircraft division contributed about 70 percent of sales, which Enders said underscores the importance of the business in driving growth. With the restructuring, EADS has shed its earlier ambition to create an equal balance between Airbus and the other businesses in the group, he said.
Welcome Strength

“We welcome the strength and success of Airbus,” Enders said on a call with journalists.

Enders said the A350 wide-bodyprogram, while facing its most challenging period yet, is performing well after 92 hours of flight tests. The plane will fly 2,500 hours in total before the tests are complete. They must wrap up by next summer to get the aircraft into commercial service by autumn of 2014.

The reorganization announced today underlines EADS’s commitment to defense and space for the long term, and the restructuring is aimed at cutting costs in the absence of new large defense projects in Europe for at least the next decade, Enders said.

EADS’s cash position at the end of June was 5.9 billion euros after taking into account 1.8 billion euros already consumed to fund the share buyback program and the 2012 dividend payment of 468 million euros.

Besides helping EADS better present its array of military and space products in international markets, the restructuring is also aimed at tackling costs, EADS said. The group gave no details on potential job cuts, while saying workers council consultations and various other approvals will be required before the overhaul can come into effect.
Munich Base

EADS will examine what charges it may have to take before year-end to absorb the costs of integrating the defense and space activities as it targets a phased implementation of the reorganization due to start on Jan. 1 and completed in the second half of next year.

The changes are part of an effort to reshape a company that relies increasingly on civil airliners for growth as its military business suffers from European budgetary constraints. With the new defense and space unit remaining in Munich, EADS keeps one of three major businesses anchored in Germany, where government resistance, partly based on the absence of a planned local base, led EADS to abandon the BAE merger effort.

The company’s three businesses will now be known as Airbus, Airbus Defence & Space, and Airbus Helicopters. Bernhard Gerwert, 60, will be CEO of the defense and space unit.

With European governments spending less on defense, EADS’s new division will need to focus on growing markets in Asia and the Middle East, facing off against rivals such as Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT:US) Combining all defense-related assets may help the company streamline its offerings in new markets.

“Pooling the space and defense entities Airbus Military, Astrium and Cassidian is the group’s response to the changing market environment with flat or even shrinking defense and space budgets in the Western hemisphere,” EADS said.
Click to expand...
 
The most interesting bit I found in these articles is that EADS was mainly a political invention, where Airbus Group intends to focus on the corporate aspect and keep politics away. Wishful thinking maybe, and surely tough to implement, but a change of viewpoint that is revealing.
 
can't think of anything more macho then defense systems provided by a 'bus' company.
 
Richard Aboulafia also just wrote in Forbes an article about the ills of the American rotorcraft industry called "Boom to Bust". The seismic wake of the global economic down-turn will continue to impact for a while I think.
 
From HeliOps magazine page on Facebook.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/HeliOpsMagazine
 

Attachments

  • 972301_10151765442666023_850152632_n.png
    972301_10151765442666023_850152632_n.png
    232.1 KB · Views: 188
"Job cuts loom as EADS changes name to Airbus"
By Tim Hepher and Cyril Altmeyer

Source:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/job-cuts-loom-eads-changes-163348996.html

PARIS (Reuters) - EADS (EAD.PA) will take the name of its flagship brand Airbus and target higher profits by combining defense and space units, Europe's top aerospace group confirmed on Wednesday, in a move that could involve job cuts.

Nine months after bowing to political opposition to his attempt to merge with UK arms firm BAE Systems (BAES.L), Chief Executive Tom Enders declared civil jets the main "growth engine" for EADS investors, who pushed shares to new highs.

After unveiling a strong batch of commercial earnings that included a rise in Airbus order targets, Enders did not rule out job cuts in the group's 45,000-strong defense and space operations, which will be based in Germany.

"It (the reorganization) means some real restructuring, but we are forced to do it: the defense business is ... shrinking in Europe," he said.

The company warned the move could lead to restructuring charges later in the year - a standard sign of layoffs ahead. But it also deferred politically sensitive decisions until after German elections in September by promising a detailed review.

The changes will come into affect starting from January 1, allowing time for what could be lengthy talks with unions.

"To keep the company economically successful, the restructuring must take place in a socially acceptable way," Ruediger Luetjen, head of the company's European works council and a representative of trade union IG Metall, told Reuters.

STANDOFF

The company is already on a potential collision course with the German government over the allocation of jobs for Airbus A350 jets, in a dispute that shows few signs of easing.

People familiar with the matter say Airbus is unwilling to give guarantees over the share of work on the latest jet as long as Germany holds back a development loan. Berlin, for its part, wants guarantees about work on future Airbus projects.

"The German government will work closely (with EADS) during the upcoming restructuring process and will place great importance on Germany's interests as an industrial location," Economy Minister Philipp Roesler said.

EADS was formed in 2000 from a merger of French, German and Spanish assets that incorporated passenger jetmaker Airbus, founded three decades earlier and now a global rival to Boeing.

The name EADS - originally European Aeronautic, Defense & Space Co - was never widely recognized and the group has long discussed changing its name to Airbus. But politics have until now made it difficult to tinker with Europe's leading symbols.

Enders hopes the decision to unite under a globally recognized brand will galvanize the rest of the business from space rockets to helicopters and encrypted communications.

EADS will be called Airbus Group and will combine defense and space activities in one division together with Airbus Military transporters, currently twinned with passenger jets.

Eurocopter, the world's largest commercial helicopter maker, will also be renamed Airbus Helicopters.

'NOBODY AUTONOMOUS'

The decision to co-opt the Airbus brand may test a delicate balance between 'old EADS' and the Airbus division, where CEO Fabrice Bregier is widely seen as Enders' future successor.

Industry sources noted the unit is keeping the one-word name "Airbus" rather than a more hierarchical divisional title like that of its direct counterpart, Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

But by uniting defense and space and rallying behind one brand, EADS is adopting much of the look and feel of its rival, where planemaking has traditionally had less independence.

Enders dismissed media "rumors" about such sensitivities and is seen likely to avoid clashing with Bregier. But he ruled out a return to fiefdoms that beset EADS under past managements.

"Nobody is autonomous on this planet. I have a board and the same goes for division heads in the group," he told reporters.

Powered by commercial demand for Airbus planes, second-quarter EADS operating profit rose 23 percent to 887 million euros on revenue of 13.945 billion, up 3 percent. Airbus makes up two thirds of sales and is expected to remain dominant.

Analysts were expecting profit of 839 million euros.

EADS raised the 2013 order target for passenger jets by 25 percent to more than 1,000 aircraft, as reported by Reuters earlier in July. Other targets were unchanged.

Shares in EADS closed up 1.4 percent at 44.89 euros.

The new order target puts Airbus on course to beat its 2012 gross order tally of 914 jetliners. Industry sources say business in the pipeline suggests it could reach 1,200 orders.

Airbus is battling to regain leadership of the $100 billion annual jet market after Boeing grabbed top spot last year.

Strategy chief Marwan Lahoud said all divisions would join efforts to increase margins to 10 percent by 2015, from a group average of 5.6 percent in the first half of this year.

That would bring EADS roughly in line with Boeing, though the comparison is blurred by accounting differences that allow the U.S. company to spread some costs over a longer period.

Enders said testing for the A350, the newest Airbus jet, was going "very, very well" but the project remained challenging.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe the real reason that European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. N.V. (EADS) and Eurocopter became Airbus Group and Airbus Helicopter is that the company intends to locate additional operations outside of Europe. The company already has an A320 assembly plant in Taijin, China, an A320 assembly plant in Mobile, Al., and American Eurocopter plants in Grand Prairie, TX and Colombus, MS. Perhaps the company is looking at lowest-cost regions? The name change may be a message that the company wants to be seen as a global company rather than strictly a European one.
 
And now it is the reality. Airbus EC145? Airbus Eurofighter? Airbus Eutelsat? I am not sure what they are smoking but I want it too.

Working for several years as a marketing director in an international company the only thing I can say is that (all of) this rebranding experiments are a pure idiotism. Sorry for the word but it is the most illustrative one. Dropping the trademarks such as Eurocopter or Astrium? They are mad!
 
Matej said:
Dropping the trademarks such as Eurocopter or Astrium? They are mad!
Click to expand...

Yes, but didn't we also say the same thing...
... when they dropped SNCASO and SNCASE for Sud-Aviation?
... when they dropped SNCAN, Arsenal, SFERMAS and SNCAC for Nord-Aviation?

And later on...
... when they dropped Nord Aviation and Sud Aviation for Aerospatiale?
... when they dropped Messerschmitt, Bölkow and Blohm for MBB?


And later on still..
... when they dropped Aerospatiale and MBB for Eurocopter?


And of course I could have taken many other examples... such as Curtiss being lost in the North American identity, then NAA into Rockwell, then Rockwell into Boeing... Or De Havilland disappearing within Hawker Siddeley... Then HS into British Aerospace... then BAe becoming BAE Systems...

Every merger of any sort is a loss of identity, a narrowing of vision, one less chance for alternative. I never see a merger as a gain. Only financiers do... The handful of industry giants that exist now have absorbed and killed off the identity and heritage of hundreds of companies that deserved more than a footnote in history.

That's why I don't know why you're surprised. In ten years time they'll announce the merging of SAAB and BAE Systems with Airbus and everyone will go mad over it. It's just history repeating itself. In fact, it's like the Highlander movies. In the end, there can only remain one...
 
I read in an economics book that the name EADS is the best example for a bad branding name. Made up of the letter of a longer name. Nobody connects anything with it. That changed a little bit over time, but to rename the whole company according their strongest brand name makes sense. Hopefully things like North American Eurocopter will disappear!
 
Stargazer2006 said:
Matej said:
Dropping the trademarks such as Eurocopter or Astrium? They are mad!
Click to expand...

Yes, but didn't we also say the same thing...
... when they dropped SNCASO and SNCASE for Sud-Aviation?
... when they dropped SNCAN, Arsenal, SFERMAS and SNCAC for Nord-Aviation?

And later on...
... when they dropped Nord Aviation and Sud Aviation for Aerospatiale?
... when they dropped Messerschmitt, Bölkow and Blohm for MBB?


And later on still..
... when they dropped Aerospatiale and MBB for Eurocopter?


And of course I could have taken many other examples... such as Curtiss being lost in the North American identity, then NAA into Rockwell, then Rockwell into Boeing... Or De Havilland disappearing within Hawker Siddeley... Then HS into British Aerospace... then BAe becoming BAE Systems...

Every merger of any sort is a loss of identity, a narrowing of vision, one less chance for alternative. I never see a merger as a gain. Only financiers do... The handful of industry giants that exist now have absorbed and killed off the identity and heritage of hundreds of companies that deserved more than a footnote in history.

That's why I don't know why you're surprised. In ten years time they'll announce the merging of SAAB and BAE Systems with Airbus and everyone will go mad over it. It's just history repeating itself. In fact, it's like the Highlander movies. In the end, there can only remain one...
Click to expand...

Seriously, does the customer really care if he is buying an Airbus Helicopters AH175 helicopter rather than a Eurocopter EC175? Will he decline the purchase because he doesn't like the name and model number? Does anyone beyond the marketing industry really care about brand equity and brand names?
 
Triton said:
Seriously, does the customer really care if he is buying an Airbus Helicopters AH175 helicopter rather than a Eurocopter EC175? Will he decline the purchase because he doesn't like the name and model number? Does anyone beyond the marketing industry really care about brand equity and brand names?
Click to expand...

If the name or designation of a product had no importance to the customer, then there wouldn't be a need for advertising. If you look at the history of aviation advertising, you'll be surprised at the number of catchphrases and slogans that actually talk about the company name ("you may not know our name but you know our products well", "a name to be reckoned with", "the name has changed but the commitment remains", that sort of thing — these I made up but you get the idea... if I took the time to properly research and list them, you'd be surprised). For some reason, and in aviation industry perhaps more than in many others (and perhaps because of a long history of name-changing and mergers), company names, brand names and product names are VERY important. The same applies in the automotive industry too. There are famous stories of infamous products that just flopped completely because of a bad name, a bad advertising campaign, a bad image. I know it's sad, a product ought to be assessed not at face value but according to its intrinsic value but that's how it goes...


Reaper said:
I read in an economics book that the name EADS is the best example for a bad branding name. Made up of the letter of a longer name. Nobody connects anything with it. That changed a little bit over time, but to rename the whole company according their strongest brand name makes sense. Hopefully things like North American Eurocopter will disappear!
Click to expand...

"EADS" was a bad name, not so much because it was an combination of initial letters... but rather because it couldn't easily be pronounced.

Although the English language just uses the word "acronym" for these, the French language makes a distinction between "un sigle" (a combination of initial letters used for the name of a brand, a company, a political party, a trade union, a project — they're all over, and French politicians/corporate executives, etc. just seem to love them and flaunt them in discussion!) and "un acronyme", a combination of initials which can actually be pronounced as if it were a proper word — there is even a rule that any such "acronyme" can be turned to small type after the initial or even completely as in the case of "sida" (the AIDS syndrom). I think this distinction is interesting because it helps to understand the difference between an acronym that is efficient and one that is not.

In my view "EADS" for a disaster for a company name. It can only be pronounced as "E-A-D-S" because if you pronounce it "eads" it sounds a bit like "AIDS"... Not a very desirable image for a company name! Acronyms such as DASA, NATO, SOCATA, AVRO, NASA or XCOR for instance are great because they can be pronounced as proper words and can therefore become part of our everyday language (surely a desirable feature for any commercial company). Acronyms where the letters have to be pronounced separately suck from a commercial perspective. But they're not good either if you want people to feel involved... What individual in their right mind would like to be part of something as unpronounceable as the EEC? Or now the UE? Not very sexy, eh? I know, some will contend that Americans feel very much part of the USA, which is pronounced as separate letters and not "youssa", but this one's been around for so long that it's become a word of its own!
 
According to Ms Julia Sailer, spokeswoman at Airbus Helicopters Donauwörth, Germany, the helicopters built there will still keep the model designation 'EC135' and 'EC145'. But i presume that the sucessors will get a new [font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]model designation. [/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Ms Sailer also said, that the new website 'www.airbushelicopters.com' will be up next week. Emails-addresses, Domains, Flyers, Business cards will be changed up to Summer 2014.[/font]

Source in German: http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/donauwoerth/Eurocopter-ist-Vergangenheit-id28286497.html
 
By the way Eurocopter still sells a lot of older models that carry the Aerospatiale (AS) in their name!
 
Stephane, I am not surprised, I am just saying that they are mad. That's all. They are for the third time in the last 15 years spending hundreds of milions of Euros for the very complicated, expensive and shortsighted re-branding and PR activities. They spend the money they should invest to the research or modernisation of the infrastructure. They had a big chance in 2000 to do the things right and they failed. As they failed in 2010 and as they are failing now. To use the most successfull activity to re-brand all the group? And what if in the next 10 years the possible A360 be just one big catastrophe? They will be re-branding once again? Making useless investments once again?

Dropping Aerospatiale and MBB for Eurocopter was a good choice in the era it was done - in the early 90s. It reflects that in that time the "European" product was simply better than just the national one. In 2000 they had a big chance for the proper re-branding as an international company, but for many (including political) reason they ended with "European", that simply does not work in the new global millennium.

Regarding the examples you used - yes, I am aware of the consolidation of the US and European industry, but to say it shortly, you named in some way only losers. The companies that were not strong enough to survive independently, companies that were too weak so they were forced to merge, companies that were eaten by other companies... I will name you another group: Dassault, SAAB, Antonov, Tupolev, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop...

Despite a minor name changes (like Lockheed Martin) did these companies changed their identity despite a bunch of merging/consolidating/migrating of the capital/changing of the legal form? No. For a reason. If you say EADS, some not very knowledgeable aviation fan wont have even the clue what the hell it really is, but if you say for example Lockheed, he will probably recognize the company as the manufacturer of the famous P-38, U-2, SR-71, F-117, F-22, F-35... A company with name, with history, heritage. Not an untrustworthy mutant that will disappear (sorry, re-brand) after the first sight of problems.
 
Matej said:
Stephane, I am not surprised, I am just saying that they are mad. That's all. They are for the third time in the last 15 years spending hundreds of milions of Euros for the very complicated, expensive and shortsighted re-branding and PR activities. They spend the money they should invest to the research or modernisation of the infrastructure. They had a big chance in 2000 to do the things right and they failed. As they failed in 2010 and as they are failing now. To use the most successfull activity to re-brand all the group? And what if in the next 10 years the possible A360 be just one big catastrophe? They will be re-branding once again? Making useless investments once again?

Dropping Aerospatiale and MBB for Eurocopter was a good choice in the era it was done - in the early 90s. It reflects that in that time the "European" product was simply better than just the national one. In 2000 they had a big chance for the proper re-branding as an international company, but for many (including political) reason they ended with "European", that simply does not work in the new global millennium.

Regarding the examples you used - yes, I am aware of the consolidation of the US and European industry, but to say it shortly, you named in some way only losers. The companies that were not strong enough to survive independently, companies that were too weak so they were forced to merge, companies that were eaten by other companies... I will name you another group: Dassault, SAAB, Antonov, Tupolev, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop...

Despite a minor name changes (like Lockheed Martin) did these companies changed their identity despite a bunch of merging/consolidating/migrating of the capital/changing of the legal form? No. For a reason. If you say EADS, some not very knowledgeable aviation fan wont have even the clue what the hell it really is, but if you say for example Lockheed, he will probably recognize the company as the manufacturer of the famous P-38, U-2, SR-71, F-117, F-22, F-35... A company with name, with history, heritage. Not an untrustworthy mutant that will disappear (sorry, re-brand) after the first sight of problems.
Click to expand...

Well, I can only agree with most of the above of course. But a look at the list of manufacturers you provide gives me a twitch. Dassault? They staunchly rejected any form of collaboration or association for 60 years only to find themselves absorbed into a giant European behemoth. Of course the name sticks, but is it not only a matter of time when it disappears? Think of the names Convair, General Dynamics, Douglas, McDonnell, Ryan. Surely you can't call these "losers". They were successful, respectable, credible... Yet their names eventually disappeared to the benefit of the "big three". SAAB? Are we talking about the company that has always made a point of going a different route to the extent that they had to kill off their automotive activity which was losing billions? Are the Gripen sales so big that the SAAB name and legacy are guaranteed to survive? Is the Rafale such a huge seller that the name Dassault is not in danger? I should think not.

As for Antonov, they are in a strange and unconfortable position. That was clearly visible at the Le Bourget show. While Russia gets the lion's share with a pavillion of its own and presumably lots of state money (sort of a big post-cold war era propaganda plan), the Ukrainian Antonov, like an "ugly little duckling" of sorts (I'm joking of course, that's not my opinion at all) gets a 25 square meter booth in a hidden corner of one of the least visited pavillions... Antonov acts as if they're still as big as in the Soviet era, constantly releasing new models, but do the sales follow? Without the Soviet military as a prime contractor, who can tell where Antonov will be in 15 years' time? They certainly are not "losers"... Yet I wouldn't bet on their survival, although I love that company and really do hope they can make it.

The way I see the future of European and Eurasian aviation, there will be probably only two major players in a couple of decades: one will be West European and the other will be Russian. Simple as that. Sad, but that's the way it's going everywhere else. And with the aggressive rise of Chinese aviation, you can bet that consolidating the existing companies into ever bigger groups will be seen as an acceptable alternative to losing markets...
 
Maybe it's just me, but I always pronounced it E-Ads (like electronic advertising), but I guess it's a moot point since they've been thrown under the (air)bus...
 
Airbus CEO warns of risk of collapse:
On September 22, 2020, speaking to the French radio station RTL, Guillaume Faury, the CEO of Airbus, said that the “business is potentially at risk” if the company does not take the right measures to bridge over the economic shutdown.
Click to expand...

www.aerotime.aero

Guillaume Faury: Airbus is in danger of collapse

The European aircraft manufacturer Airbus is in danger of collapse warned the company’s chief executive. It seems that the situation in the company is increasingly getting worse.
www.aerotime.aero www.aerotime.aero
 
Not quite collapse, shedding a tenth of its workforce is never ideal but its a long way from collapse.
What I'm reading is the same from CEOs the world over from all industries "governments give me money, money, money."

I'm not sure how feasible its going to be for governments to bankroll the pay of every worker and bail out every large company to keep it afloat in even the medium term. Money is being rapidly eaten up.
Here in the UK rail operator franchises have been cancelled, the companies now getting direct government contracts (hand-outs) for business as usual. As long as the magic money tress keep dropping their harvest I think companies like Airbus and Boeing are safe.
 
Aerospace has never been a safe haven for jobs. Only recently has this idea been strangely popularized among media and politics.
What aerospace do is making sure it has attractivity for talents (talents does not designate white collar in particular).
It remain to be seen how Airbus and other will cope with this new situation and particularly the attraction of regulating public agencies that invariably would lead to over regulation, hence tremendous cost increase for the new design, a critical onset of reconnecting with profits.
 
Hood said:
What I'm reading is the same from CEOs the world over from all industries "governments give me money, money, money."
Click to expand...
Certain companies were never weaned off the government's teat to begin with.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom