«

Graham <> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:42:16 -0500, Neil Ellwood,
><newsOqdndWV9rQ1nsLNnZ2dnUVZ7t-> expounded this theory:
>
>>> Do you know where that Mossie was originally built? (Many were built
>>> here in Montréal).
>>
>> Hatfield.
>
>I was an apprentice joiner in the late 50's early 60's and a number
>old the old guys I worked under had built Mossie's during the war.
>The manufacture was hived out to many joinery/building companies.
>The firm I worked for still had ply and spruce that was left over and
>there were dusty old jigs in odd corners. All gone now as the place
>was demolished for housing.


BAE Systems cynically closed its civil aircraft manufacturing
operation based at Hatfield in order to sell off the land for housing,
offices, a trading estate and a university campus. It was devastating
for the town which has become something of a wasteland with
structurally high unemployment. However, it must have given BAE
shareholders some short term pleasure.

It seems ironic that BAE Systems is now seeking to merge with EADS,
who make the Airbus range, to regain a foothold in civil aircraft
manufacture. At least, that is quoted in BAE Systems press releases
as one of the main reasons.

Graham <> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:36:32 +0100, Bruce,
><news: m> expounded this
>theory:
>
>> BAE Systems cynically closed its civil aircraft manufacturing
>> operation based at Hatfield in order to sell off the land for housing,
>> offices, a trading estate and a university campus. It was devastating
>> for the town which has become something of a wasteland with
>> structurally high unemployment. However, it must have given BAE
>> shareholders some short term pleasure.
>
>The only good thing to come out of that was the tunnel.


Did BAe (as it was then) pay for that?

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>Aah! Another opinion from "The respected Tony/Bruce".


Another claim I did not make.

You seem to have difficulty extracting the correct meaning from the
words people write. Have you considered adult education classes?

Probably not, as you (like Alan Browne) believe you know everything,
so there is nothing more to learn.

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> So BAE Systems in your opinion have acted "cynically".
> it seems you fall into the Romney camp believing that "Corporations are
> people" and are able to act "cynically".

> Phnyrkk, splutter, choke!!

Oh, Romney has a very good reason for that stance.
He's trying to become human, just as the bicentennial man ...

-Wolfgang

On 9/24/2012 7:10 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-09-23 10:19:19 -0700, Alan Browne
> <> said:
>
>> On 2012.09.23 12:36 , Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> BAE Systems cynically closed its civil aircraft manufacturing
>>> operation based at Hatfield in order to sell off the land for housing,
>>> offices, a trading estate and a university campus. It was devastating
>>> for the town which has become something of a wasteland with
>>> structurally high unemployment. However, it must have given BAE
>>> shareholders some short term pleasure.
>>
>> Completely ignores BAE Systems aerospace activities at large in the UK
>> which are tremendous - employing over 35,000 people in Britain alone and
>> over 100,000 worldwide.
>
> ...but "Tony/Bruce" has the inside track on all things.
>
>> Efficient business (a strong attribute of non government British
>> companies) means shuttering facilities and businesses that do not
>> earn. There is nothing cynical about a business decision that
>> inevitably puts people out of work.
>
> They probably even got some help from Romney, and we know just how
> cynical he is. Hell it is tough enough for him to express any human
> emotion.
>
>> Given Tony Polson's (aka "Bruce") history as a low level civil servant
>> it's entirely expected that he doesn't understand how successful
>> companies make money and keep people employed.
>
> That might explain his failure as a professional photographer, and why
> he is only permitted to deal with used equipment at his place of
> employment.
>
>>> It seems ironic that BAE Systems is now seeking to merge with EADS,
>>> who make the Airbus range, to regain a foothold in civil aircraft
>>> manufacture. At least, that is quoted in BAE Systems press releases
>>> as one of the main reasons.
>>
>> Of course it is. More civil business will even out their revenue over
>> time as well as to make them more competitive against companies like
>> Lockheed Martin who are BAE's sole larger competitor in defense and
>> Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon and EADS who are
>> narrowly behind.
>>
>> All of these companies are not only competing against each other, they
>> are also major suppliers to one another.
>
> Aah! More corporate incest.
>
>

Not exactly. All reasonably sophisticated bidders have capacity
considerations, including representations that no design will violate
patents. It is not uncommon for the gubberment requirements to include
features that only certain manufacturers can produce. These cross supply
agreements make low bidding feasible.

--
Peter