The end of history, and over 1000 jobs.

In summary, the closure of Woodford Aerodrome by BAE Systems marks the end of 85 years of aerospace history and will result in over 1,000 job losses. The closure also includes job cuts at other locations, with a total of 630 jobs at Woodford, 205 at Samlesbury, and 170 at Warton. The closure is seen as a shame, as the Lancaster bomber played a significant role in WWII and will now be lost as a piece of heritage. The closure is attributed to a restructuring and cost-cutting measures, with some suggesting that it is due to the company's mismanagement of projects. However, others argue that it is simply a way for the company to receive more taxpayer money.
  • #1
PhoenyxRising
9
0
This is really sad news.

The home of the lancaster bombers are abt to close down. Forever.
"Woodford Aerodrome, the home of the Lancaster bomber, is to be closed by BAE Systems,
ending 85 years of aerospace history and prompting more than 1,000 job losses at Europe’s largest defence company. " I got this from http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article6836056.ece"

Apparently up to 630 jobs could go at Woodford, with a further 205 at Samlesbury, and 170 at Warton, both near Preston, Lancashire.

I really don't know. I mean shouldn't they at least try keep one of them open, maybe make a history museum from it or something.

Im not just looking at the job cuts here either, these aircraft were a major part of history during ww2. They were the most important bombers and used in missions like the Dambusters raid in 1943 and the bombing of the Tirpitz, the German battleship, in 1944.

This really is a shame. Even though the premises are probably going to be sold to developers, this is a huge piece of heritage that going to be lost.

By the 2012 there are going to be a lot more people looking for http://www.careers-jobs.eu/aerospace-jobs
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It's always sad to see the big historical names go. I just got to see a Lanc fly this summer again. It's always tough to see what happens to historical aviation sites after time passes. It just doesn't seem right. For example, on Long Island, NY (where I used to live) the airfield that Charles Lindbergh took off from is now a mall. The one thing I would keep in mind is that the Brits have a great tradition of military museums and preserving the past. I would think the Lanc will be paid its due respect.

The cold hard fact is that most companies go out of business unless they keep up with the times. It sounds like this is a restructuring, so it may no t be as bad as it may seem.
 
  • #3
Difficult to feel too much sympathy for BAe.

They are closing because they just finished a project to upgrade some Nimrod ASW aircraft.
The project was called Nimrod 2000 and was supposed to deliver the planes in 2000 (doh) they will now enter service in 2010.
It was going to cost 2Bn GBP for 21 planes but has actually cost twice that for 9 - making the $6-700M/plane the most expensive aircraft in the world. And that's just the upgrade, it doesn't include the cost of the original planes which are Avro Comets, chosen for this job to prop-up the preceding 'vital to the national interest' aircraft maker when they couldn't sell them to the public.

Still soon the forces in Afghanistan, who are short of helicopters and uniforms will have a fine anti-submarine warfare plane.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Its sad because so many people will lose their jobs at once but not as bad because at least they will have time to look for other work and explore their options unlike the people that were made redundant over night!

They already proposed 500 njob cuts earlier this year in Leeds and Telford as well! Something isn't quite right - is there no more work coming in or something?

I don't understand why the project is running so behind or has proven to be so expensive compared to the initial plans? Hmmmm...
 
  • #5
Because like (almost) all defence projects it's really just a big taxpayer handout to the company.
This is the same outfit that delivered eurofighters on time for Gulf war I by the simple method of declaring the final assembly line to be an RAF base - and so counting half assembled airframes on the factory floor as in-service.

BAe, most of whose employees are in the USA and most of whose business is in the USA pulls out the same line about it being vital to the UK's national security every time some project becomes a complete joke.
But it's interesting that after putting Bns of taxpayer money into a project to secure these vital skills, they are happy to lay them all off as soon as the project is delivered.
 
  • #6
mgb_phys said:
Because like (almost) all defence projects it's really just a big taxpayer handout to the company.
This is the same outfit that delivered eurofighters on time for Gulf war I by the simple method of declaring the final assembly line to be an RAF base - and so counting half assembled airframes on the factory floor as in-service.

BAe, most of whose employees are in the USA and most of whose business is in the USA pulls out the same line about it being vital to the UK's national security every time some project becomes a complete joke.
But it's interesting that after putting Bns of taxpayer money into a project to secure these vital skills, they are happy to lay them all off as soon as the project is delivered.

That says it all then really doesn't it?

They are no different to all the other money grabbers out there! Its a wonder places like this actually exist you know? Horrible what they can get away with when you think about it!
 
  • #7
mgb_phys said:
Because like (almost) all defence projects it's really just a big taxpayer handout to the company.
This is the same outfit that delivered eurofighters on time for Gulf war I by the simple method of declaring the final assembly line to be an RAF base - and so counting half assembled airframes on the factory floor as in-service.
That takes a big set of brass ones.
 
  • #8
FredGarvin said:
That takes a big set of brass ones.
It has been a somewhat farsical project - not entirely BAe's fault.
It's was meant to be a cheap air superiority fighter to deal with East German MIGS, basically an improved f16.
20 years later it's an expensive, pretty good but non-stealth air superiority fighter that can't do ground attack - ready to challenge the East German MIGS who are now on our side.
Because it was a multinational project with guaranteed buys by each country in return for a slice of the pork they are all committed to buying planes they can't use or afford.

The RAF is buying another 99 to mothball, the German airforce is being slightly more creative - it is selling the old East German MIGs and requipping the units with eurofighters.
So if the MIGS are sold to a country that ends up on the wrong side of the next axis of evil - the eurofighters might end up fighting them at last.
 
  • #9
http://www.eurofighter.com/et_tp_po.asp"

OMG the specs on this fighter are awesome. a mig won't stand up to that for much time I am afraid. Just comparing the specs is incredible. how tho do the eurofighters remain that agile fully loaded. have you seen its arsenal? geez.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Impressive indeed! It looks like Germany have the right idea though - sell off the old and in with the new!

lets hope the eurofighter and migs don't end up in any battle though!
 
  • #11
JoVieira said:
Impressive indeed! It looks like Germany have the right idea though - sell off the old and in with the new!
But the new is only necessary to deal with the old.
It's like Boeing getting a contract to develop a fighter to deal with the confederate army.
 
  • #12
mgb_phys said:
But the new is only necessary to deal with the old.
It's like Boeing getting a contract to develop a fighter to deal with the confederate army.
That is being suggested these days. Since most of the fighting is against forces that don't have air forces, why bother with the F-22 or F-35?
 
  • #13
An optimal (from a financial view) solution would be to sell the Taliban eurofighters!
 
  • #14
They'd use them for smuggling opium.
 
  • #15
FredGarvin said:
They'd use them for smuggling opium.
Well how else are they going to afford a $250M airplane?
 
  • #16
mgb_phys said:
Well how else are they going to afford a $250M airplane?

Can't argue with that logic.
 
  • #17
Hehe
 
  • #18
hi there, sorry for the delay :D been really busy lately. I did hoever see something interesting :D

The eurofighter tycoon is on display at the dubai airshow :D

http://www.ameinfo.com/216018.html" and apparently already been sold to a few countries..

anyhoo have a good weekend

Phoenyx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
PhoenyxRising said:
http://www.eurofighter.com/et_tp_po.asp"

OMG the specs on this fighter are awesome. a mig won't stand up to that for much time I am afraid. Just comparing the specs is incredible. how tho do the eurofighters remain that agile fully loaded. have you seen its arsenal? geez.

What "specs" are "awesome"? In what way won't a mig "stand up to that for much time"? Please don't text speek, or make generalized comments that are unsubstantiated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
It wasn't a question I had. I'm all for them. However, if you are holding up the IIAF's F-14s or anything else in their inventory as something to watch out for, I wouldn't hold my breath. The only two real air forces left to worry about are China's and Korea's.
 

What is "The end of history" theory?

"The end of history" theory, also known as the "end of history and over 1000 jobs" theory, is a concept proposed by political scientist Francis Fukuyama in 1989. It suggests that with the fall of communism and the spread of liberal democracy, humanity has reached the end of its socio-political evolution and there will be no more major ideological clashes or changes in the future.

How does "The end of history" theory relate to job creation?

According to Fukuyama's theory, the end of history and the dominance of liberal democracy will lead to a more stable and prosperous global economy, creating over 1000 jobs in various industries. This is because liberal democracies tend to have more open and competitive markets, which can stimulate economic growth and job creation.

Is "The end of history" theory widely accepted?

The theory has been met with both praise and criticism. Some argue that the rise of new global challenges, such as climate change and terrorism, disproves the idea of an "end of history". Others argue that the theory only applies to Western societies and ignores the cultural and political diversity of the rest of the world.

Can "The end of history" ever be proven?

Since the theory is based on philosophical and ideological arguments rather than empirical evidence, it cannot be proven in a scientific sense. However, some proponents of the theory argue that the spread of liberal democracy and the decline of authoritarian regimes support its validity.

What are the implications of "The end of history" theory for the future?

The theory suggests that there will be no major political or ideological changes in the future, which can have both positive and negative implications. On one hand, it may lead to more stability and peace, but on the other hand, it may also limit the potential for social and political progress. Additionally, the theory may also overlook the potential for new challenges and changes in the future that could challenge the idea of "the end of history".

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top