https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... al-brexit/ says

Airbus has already begun hoarding parts and examining its supply chain in a bid to soften the blow of no deal or a hard Brexit, chief operating officer Tom Williams said at the Farnborough air show.

Rolls chief executive Warren East also said preparations are now underway to minimise the impact after Theresa May's Chequers proposals appeared to collapse on Monday.

Seems to be the first tangible impact of Brexit on UK the aviation industry, increased inventory costs due to early purchase of parts?

Lets keep it non-political and ask how much this will end up costing the industry.

Seem that businesses are finally starting to figure out Brexit is happening and that it will be a hard Brexit when it comes.

Revelation wrote:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/07/17/airbus-rolls-royce-stockpile-parts-amid-claims-criminal-brexit/ says

Airbus has already begun hoarding parts and examining its supply chain in a bid to soften the blow of no deal or a hard Brexit, chief operating officer Tom Williams said at the Farnborough air show.

Rolls chief executive Warren East also said preparations are now underway to minimise the impact after Theresa May's Chequers proposals appeared to collapse on Monday.

Seems to be the first tangible impact of Brexit on UK the aviation industry, increased inventory costs due to early purchase of parts?

Lets keep it non-political and ask how much this will end up costing the industry.

It were just the brexitiers that expect no increased cost, or lied about it. Everybody with a brain did expect it. Even only the customs border instead of the common market, without any added tariffs is expected to add 4% cost.
So a soft Brexit adds cost, a hard Brexit without a customs union adds lots of cost.

Siddar wrote:

Seem that businesses are finally starting to figure out Brexit is happening and that it will be a hard Brexit when it comes.

Hard Brexit or soft Brexit, both will add cost and businesses have been screaming about it, while brexitiers called it fear mongering.

Revelation wrote:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/07/17/airbus-rolls-royce-stockpile-parts-amid-claims-criminal-brexit/ says

Airbus has already begun hoarding parts and examining its supply chain in a bid to soften the blow of no deal or a hard Brexit, chief operating officer Tom Williams said at the Farnborough air show.

Rolls chief executive Warren East also said preparations are now underway to minimise the impact after Theresa May's Chequers proposals appeared to collapse on Monday.

Seems to be the first tangible impact of Brexit on UK the aviation industry, increased inventory costs due to early purchase of parts?

Lets keep it non-political and ask how much this will end up costing the industry.

Have you not been paying attention? Ryan air and Easyjet have been scrambling to create foreign subsidiaries and AOC's for the last 18 months

IMHO Airbus are to blame for their situation. What is the point of Tom Williams saying the success of the past is now at risk? Why did Airbus not make preparations for alternate certification of parts or suppliers? Why wait till 8 months are left before hoarding parts? Any political expert would have told them there is no way a deal is going to happen given the ill informed (i am being polite here) nature of the protagonists of this mess. Even today Airbus management is partly singing the praises of the Chequers deal instead of starting to build a wing factory in Germany or the U.S.. I know I am being harsh but if production stops next year it will be the airlines that end up paying the price even if Airbus compensates them.

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/07/17/airbus-rolls-royce-stockpile-parts-amid-claims-criminal-brexit/ says

Airbus has already begun hoarding parts and examining its supply chain in a bid to soften the blow of no deal or a hard Brexit, chief operating officer Tom Williams said at the Farnborough air show.

Rolls chief executive Warren East also said preparations are now underway to minimise the impact after Theresa May's Chequers proposals appeared to collapse on Monday.

Seems to be the first tangible impact of Brexit on UK the aviation industry, increased inventory costs due to early purchase of parts?

Lets keep it non-political and ask how much this will end up costing the industry.

It were just the brexitiers that expect no increased cost, or lied about it. Everybody with a brain did expect it. Even only the customs border instead of the common market, without any added tariffs is expected to add 4% cost.
So a soft Brexit adds cost, a hard Brexit without a customs union adds lots of cost.

You've made this up for your own agenda. 'Brexitiers' as you call them have never said that it would be easy, or that there would be no cost. They've always said that it wouldn't be easy at first, but eventually it would be worth breaking away from the EU. The UK with it's own trade deals, and laws.
Remaners on the other hand have been coming up with all sorts of s**t. about Brexit.

mjoelnir wrote:

Even only the customs border instead of the common market, without any added tariffs is expected to add 4% cost.
So a soft Brexit adds cost, a hard Brexit without a customs union adds lots of cost.

Thanks, I hadn't heard that estimate before.

BoeingVista wrote:

Have you not been paying attention? Ryan air and Easyjet have been scrambling to create foreign subsidiaries and AOC's for the last 18 months

I deserve that, I guess. I tend to think of those things as one-time hits, but I could be wrong.

If they would be adding 4% or more per flight I'd probably pay a lot more attention to them.

If they did I think we'd hear British airlines screaming as loud as Airbus has been.

ap305 wrote:

What is the point of Tom Williams saying the success of the past is now at risk? Why did Airbus not make preparations for alternate certification of parts or suppliers? Why wait till 8 months are left before hoarding parts?

We have:

Airbus CEO Tom Enders wrote:

‘The sun is shining brightly on the U.K. The English team is progressing towards the final, the RAF is preparing to celebrate its centenary, and HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] still has no clue, no consensus on how to execute Brexit without severe harm.’

Ref: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/airbu ... 2018-07-06

It suggests to me at least that Airbus was expecting there to be a Brexit without severe harm, and is now disappointed.

I'm not sure why they had that expectation. Maybe Airbus was given assurances.

Luftymatt wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/07/17/airbus-rolls-royce-stockpile-parts-amid-claims-criminal-brexit/ says


Seems to be the first tangible impact of Brexit on UK the aviation industry, increased inventory costs due to early purchase of parts?

Lets keep it non-political and ask how much this will end up costing the industry.

It were just the brexitiers that expect no increased cost, or lied about it. Everybody with a brain did expect it. Even only the customs border instead of the common market, without any added tariffs is expected to add 4% cost.
So a soft Brexit adds cost, a hard Brexit without a customs union adds lots of cost.

You've made this up for your own agenda. 'Brexitiers' as you call them have never said that it would be easy, or that there would be no cost. They've always said that it wouldn't be easy at first, but eventually it would be worth breaking away from the EU. The UK with it's own trade deals, and laws.
Remaners on the other hand have been coming up with all sorts of s**t. about Brexit.

If you can show me one pro Brexit voice before the vote warning of difficult times for the UK after Brexit. Any such argument was answered with project fear.

Luftymatt wrote:

You've made this up for your own agenda. 'Brexitiers' as you call them have never said that it would be easy, or that there would be no cost. They've always said that it wouldn't be easy at first, but eventually it would be worth breaking away from the EU. The UK with it's own trade deals, and laws.
Remaners on the other hand have been coming up with all sorts of s**t. about Brexit.

That my friend is revisionist bullshit, sorry but there is no other word for it.

Vote leave insisted that there would be no cost to leaving the EU and that nothing would change with either business conditions or with UK / EU citizens living and working in UK or Europe it was an obvious lie but one that swallowed by millions of people.

I don't really understand the level of delusion that leads people to write what you did, any google search will show you the statements made by the leaders of both campaigns.

Brexit means the UK will be a free market with its currency no longer pegged to the Euro. As such, market forces will dictate the value of the British pound and ultimately the price Airbus will pay for British sourced parts and services.

The risk for Airbus is if the pound rises in value against the Euro instead of decreases. If this is the case the cost to manufacture aircraft with parts sourced from the UK could rise. Placing a tarrif on UK sourced parts could have the exact opposite effect of what it is suppose to achieve.

We could be witnessing the beginnings of the demise of the European Union.

You can always dream

Since when the pound was pegged to the euro ?

travelhound wrote:

Brexit means the UK will be a free market with its currency no longer pegged to the Euro. As such, market forces will dictate the value of the British pound and ultimately the price Airbus will pay for British sourced parts and services.

Wrong, the pound is in no way pegged to the value of the Euro -the UK withdrew from the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992 and has been free floating currency ever since.

What is interesting is the pounds decline in value against the dollar and the euro since the referendum - whilst good short term for UK exports, the value of the UK is already worth significantly less as a direct result of Brexit.

BoeingVista wrote:

Revelation wrote:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/07/17/airbus-rolls-royce-stockpile-parts-amid-claims-criminal-brexit/ says

Airbus has already begun hoarding parts and examining its supply chain in a bid to soften the blow of no deal or a hard Brexit, chief operating officer Tom Williams said at the Farnborough air show.

Rolls chief executive Warren East also said preparations are now underway to minimise the impact after Theresa May's Chequers proposals appeared to collapse on Monday.

Seems to be the first tangible impact of Brexit on UK the aviation industry, increased inventory costs due to early purchase of parts?

Lets keep it non-political and ask how much this will end up costing the industry.

Have you not been paying attention? Ryan air and Easyjet have been scrambling to create foreign subsidiaries and AOC's for the last 18 months

Ryanair is not a British airline.

JCTJennings wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Revelation wrote:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/07/17/airbus-rolls-royce-stockpile-parts-amid-claims-criminal-brexit/ says


Seems to be the first tangible impact of Brexit on UK the aviation industry, increased inventory costs due to early purchase of parts?

Lets keep it non-political and ask how much this will end up costing the industry.

Have you not been paying attention? Ryan air and Easyjet have been scrambling to create foreign subsidiaries and AOC's for the last 18 months

Ryanair is not a British airline.

And that's their problem. Since so far, with only a few months to go, nobody knows whether the UK will remain in the ECAA or not, they don't know if as an Irish airline they will be able to operate flights from the UK to anywhere other than Ireland, or UK domestic flights. For them, a "foreign subsidiary" would be a UK based one.

Deleted

Not getting into the Airbus vs Boeing but I heard an interview on our local radio in Surrey the other day from Farnborough and a key person (Sorry can't recall his name) from Boeing said they where investing more in the uk and it's supply chain. Read what you want into that but maybe they are also stockpiling or they have more confidence. There's always two side to a story/debate.

Sure they are. After the US, Britain is the most important country in the english speaking world.

Nose and nose with NYC, or slightly ahead of it, London is one of the most important cities, if not most important city, in the world.

There are two financial capitals of the world: London and NY. I could make arguments for which one is more important.

Back to the case at hand...marriages end and it will be bumpy for a bit. London and England will be fine. Better than fine.

The EU will be fine too. Frankly, they have bigger problems than Britain leaving.

There’s not a threat of a continental European city unseating London in status of financial
power. It is laughable to claim that.

Airbus, Boeing and airlines will do what they have to do to have continued access to the most important region in Europe.

BoeingVista wrote:

Luftymatt wrote:

You've made this up for your own agenda. 'Brexitiers' as you call them have never said that it would be easy, or that there would be no cost. They've always said that it wouldn't be easy at first, but eventually it would be worth breaking away from the EU. The UK with it's own trade deals, and laws.
Remaners on the other hand have been coming up with all sorts of s**t. about Brexit.

That my friend is revisionist bullshit, sorry but there is no other word for it.

Vote leave insisted that there would be no cost to leaving the EU

It was even worse that that: statements that the UK would get back money owed them by the EU - on top of the extra NHS millions from saved EU funding costs. Revionist in the extreme...

Olddog wrote:

You can always dream

Since when the pound was pegged to the euro ?

About twenty years ago - briefly - when the ERM was preparing for the Euro's issue. The pound crashed out, and the anti-EU bashfest began.

This sounds a lot like the hysteria over Y2K. Afterward, everyone looked around saw what really happened (next to nothing) shrugged and went on with their lives.

BoeingVista wrote:

Luftymatt wrote:

You've made this up for your own agenda. 'Brexitiers' as you call them have never said that it would be easy, or that there would be no cost. They've always said that it wouldn't be easy at first, but eventually it would be worth breaking away from the EU. The UK with it's own trade deals, and laws.
Remaners on the other hand have been coming up with all sorts of s**t. about Brexit.

That my friend is revisionist bullshit, sorry but there is no other word for it.

Vote leave insisted that there would be no cost to leaving the EU and that nothing would change with either business conditions or with UK / EU citizens living and working in UK or Europe it was an obvious lie but one that swallowed by millions of people.

I don't really understand the level of delusion that leads people to write what you did, any google search will show you the statements made by the leaders of both campaigns.

Luftymatt is quite correct, any move away from the EU would come with certain hardships, everyone knew that. But those hardships are
nothing compared to having endure being led by Berlin via Brussels. The red-herring bandied about forever here in the UK that those that
voted leave didn`t know what they were voting for is both shameful & insulting, & the media here have taken full advantage of any opportunity
to portray leavers in that light & worst. It was a straight forward vote, yes or no. No choice of a soft Brexit or hard, no customs union, no
"what if we leave what will Airbus, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, ESA, or the chip shop down the road do"? Democracy rules here & most elsewhere
so we must leave, any other course would be to go against that ideal. Your response to Luftymatt was totally disrespectful because he was
right on the money, the vote leave outcome came as a massive shock to those who think our nation is nothing without the EU. The majority
have put that shameful thought to bed.

Tedd wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Luftymatt wrote:

You've made this up for your own agenda. 'Brexitiers' as you call them have never said that it would be easy, or that there would be no cost. They've always said that it wouldn't be easy at first, but eventually it would be worth breaking away from the EU. The UK with it's own trade deals, and laws.
Remaners on the other hand have been coming up with all sorts of s**t. about Brexit.

That my friend is revisionist bullshit, sorry but there is no other word for it.

Vote leave insisted that there would be no cost to leaving the EU and that nothing would change with either business conditions or with UK / EU citizens living and working in UK or Europe it was an obvious lie but one that swallowed by millions of people.

I don't really understand the level of delusion that leads people to write what you did, any google search will show you the statements made by the leaders of both campaigns.

Luftymatt is quite correct, any move away from the EU would come with certain hardships, everyone knew that. But those hardships are
nothing compared to having endure being led by Berlin via Brussels. The red-herring bandied about forever here in the UK that those that
voted leave didn`t know what they were voting for is both shameful & insulting, & the media here have taken full advantage of any opportunity
to portray leavers in that light & worst. It was a straight forward vote, yes or no. No choice of a soft Brexit or hard, no customs union, no
"what if we leave what will Airbus, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, ESA, or the chip shop down the road do"? Democracy rules here & most elsewhere
so we must leave, any other course would be to go against that ideal. Your response to Luftymatt was totally disrespectful because he was
right on the money, the vote leave outcome came as a massive shock to those who think our nation is nothing without the EU. The majority
have put that shameful thought to bed.

Nope, and what you've just written is also revisionist bullshit.

You seem to contend that the country didnt care if Airbus, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, ESA leave the UK, thats clearly not true a lot of brexiters are scared for their jobs, they were lied to and told that the companies wouldn't leave.

Its also obvious bullshit that 17 million people voted for the same thing, the UK government can even get 22 ministers to agree what they voted for, 3 have since resigned after they signed up to what they propose to put to the EU.

I cannot respect delusional people, but you are good for a laugh

Tedd wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Luftymatt wrote:

You've made this up for your own agenda. 'Brexitiers' as you call them have never said that it would be easy, or that there would be no cost. They've always said that it wouldn't be easy at first, but eventually it would be worth breaking away from the EU. The UK with it's own trade deals, and laws.
Remaners on the other hand have been coming up with all sorts of s**t. about Brexit.

That my friend is revisionist bullshit, sorry but there is no other word for it.

Vote leave insisted that there would be no cost to leaving the EU and that nothing would change with either business conditions or with UK / EU citizens living and working in UK or Europe it was an obvious lie but one that swallowed by millions of people.

I don't really understand the level of delusion that leads people to write what you did, any google search will show you the statements made by the leaders of both campaigns.

Luftymatt is quite correct, any move away from the EU would come with certain hardships, everyone knew that. But those hardships are
nothing compared to having endure being led by Berlin via Brussels. The red-herring bandied about forever here in the UK that those that
voted leave didn`t know what they were voting for is both shameful & insulting, & the media here have taken full advantage of any opportunity
to portray leavers in that light & worst. It was a straight forward vote, yes or no. No choice of a soft Brexit or hard, no customs union, no
"what if we leave what will Airbus, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, ESA, or the chip shop down the road do"? Democracy rules here & most elsewhere
so we must leave, any other course would be to go against that ideal. Your response to Luftymatt was totally disrespectful because he was
right on the money, the vote leave outcome came as a massive shock to those who think our nation is nothing without the EU. The majority
have put that shameful thought to bed.

Vote leave declared no hardships, more money, better live for everybody, milk and honey overall. Now it is tried to wiggle out. The premises of vote leave was everything bad happening in the UK was, because of the EU and immigration. Nobody than would have to look at the results of UK internal policies.

Now people are looking at the hardships. Even if the UK will make new trade deals with other countries, even if all taxes and customs are set to zero there, it will not compare to buying and selling in a common market, it will mean added cost for exporters and importers. But the biggest problem is the UK loosing its huge market for services in the EU, where the UK players could operate in any country without restrictions, in the same way they operate in the UK. No trade deal outside the EEA will offer similar conditions.

There should be new slogan for vote leave, ears and eyes firmly shut and shot yourself in the foot, you will walk better.

BoeingVista wrote:

You seem to contend that the country didnt care if Airbus, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, ESA leave the UK, thats clearly not true a lot of brexiters are scared for their jobs, they were lied to and told that the companies wouldn't leave.

To date, which companies have actually left?

It is impossible to avoid politics in this topic.

Anti Brexit people (including those in positions of authority), are intent on ensuring pain on those who had the temerity to vote to leave.

Pro Brexiteers are gonna claim that there is minimal pain.

MHO is that this is a p!$$!ng contest among corporations and governments that are "too big to fail." This really isn't hard.....if there is will to do it.

exFWAOONW wrote:

This sounds a lot like the hysteria over Y2K. Afterward, everyone looked around saw what really happened (next to nothing) shrugged and went on with their lives.

I'm not in IT myself (if you are, I defer to your greater knowledge) but I have a LOT of friends who are and the consensus among them is that it was precisely because of the hysteria that IT professionals took it seriously and mitigated what could have been significant damage to many companies. People I know in IT still talk about that. The company I worked for decided to implement an SAP ERP system (often described as a "corporate root canal") because even that was seen to be easier than Y2K-proofing our bespoke legacy VAX Basic system. Y2K probably wouldn't have been The End of Civilization as We Know It, but there might have been noticeable deleterious effects if it weren't for the timely intervention of the IT community, for whom I have a huge amount of respect.

The sad fact is that few in UK politics or media understands how the EU even works. Pro-soft Brexit Tory advisor Richard North has daily examples of this in his blog EU Referendum, including many that involve the aviation industry.

Brussels is full of bullsitters flinging out bullsit laws. So is Westminster.

Its a case of pick your poison.

Personally, if the EU was wound back 20 years, I'd be in favour of it. But, like entropy, Brussels has continually accrued greater and greater powers - far beyond the original remit - even though it could be argued most within the continent are not in favour of them continuing to do so [hence the various repeated referendums on EU treaties].

Is the single currency a good idea? It is for Germany economically, and its handy for travelling. Other than that, very unconvinced it benefits pretty much any other country - the inability to set interest rates and brake a national economy is a major problem.

Can Brexit work? Unlikely as at least one side does not desire a fair compromise.

Is Brexit the right thing to do? IMO the EU's continued bureaucracy [the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy] can only lead to economic uncompetitiveness in the long term - the real question probably is - is it too early?

Socrates17 wrote:

I'm not in IT myself (if you are, I defer to your greater knowledge) but I have a LOT of friends who are and the consensus among them is that it was precisely because of the hysteria that IT professionals took it seriously and mitigated what could have been significant damage to many companies. People I know in IT still talk about that. The company I worked for decided to implement an SAP ERP system (often described as a "corporate root canal") because even that was seen to be easier than Y2K-proofing our bespoke legacy VAX Basic system.

Within IT, it was a fairly unique time.

Systems admins could dictate to the CEOs what they wanted (needed) to do.

Which was used to reset infrastructure even if the cost of migrating was enormous 'cos the IT guys could just say "well Y2k..." and the execs thru ignorance would have no choice but to say "OK".

I suppose one detrimental thing about Y2k is that the x86-64 instruction set came out about 6 years too late.


By and by large now, its back to the prior attitude of "minimum spend" - which is fine right up till the point the infrastructure collapses.

Amiga500 wrote:

Brussels is full of bullsitters flinging out bullsit laws. So is Westminster.

Its a case of pick your poison.

Personally, if the EU was wound back 20 years, I'd be in favour of it. But, like entropy, Brussels has continually accrued greater and greater powers - far beyond the original remit - even though it could be argued most within the continent are not in favour of them continuing to do so [hence the various repeated referendums on EU treaties].

Is the single currency a good idea? It is for Germany economically, and its handy for travelling. Other than that, very unconvinced it benefits pretty much any other country - the inability to set interest rates and brake a national economy is a major problem.

Can Brexit work? Unlikely as at least one side does not desire a fair compromise.

Is Brexit the right thing to do? IMO the EU's continued bureaucracy [the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy] can only lead to economic uncompetitiveness in the long term - the real question probably is - is it too early?

The single currency has nothing to do with Brexit.

Of course Brexit does nor work as the vote leave promised.

If you run a small company selling equipment all over the world, you really appreciate the harmonizing of rules and regulations in the EU / EEA. People often forget, that a new EU rule or regulation often comes instead of a heap of different national rules. One standard instead of 27 or 30 if we look at the EEA. Their has been highly publicized a few strange regulation, but little talk about the thousands that work well. The biggest joke is the UK, one of the most regulated country in the world, complaining over too much regulation.

"...Brussels has continually accrued greater and greater powers - far beyond the original remit..."

Funny, just replace the word Brussels with Ottawa, and that would be the axact same complaint many Québécois have around here...

JamesCousins wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

You seem to contend that the country didnt care if Airbus, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, ESA leave the UK, thats clearly not true a lot of brexiters are scared for their jobs, they were lied to and told that the companies wouldn't leave.

To date, which companies have actually left?

https://wtop.com/europe/2018/03/a-look- ... exit-vote/

Anyone that used their UK operation as their EU HQ will have no choice but to leave. May not leave entirely, but as seen in the article above, they may move a substantial portion of their workforce.

JamesCousins wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

You seem to contend that the country didnt care if Airbus, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, ESA leave the UK, thats clearly not true a lot of brexiters are scared for their jobs, they were lied to and told that the companies wouldn't leave.

To date, which companies have actually left?

To date has the UK actually left the EU?

But if you cannot see that companies are currently moving people, capital and operations to the mainland you clearly live in a cave without the internet or a TV.

jfklganyc wrote:

Sure they are. After the US, Britain is the most important country in the english speaking world.

Nose and nose with NYC, or slightly ahead of it, London is one of the most important cities, if not most important city, in the world.

There are two financial capitals of the world: London and NY. I could make arguments for which one is more important.

Back to the case at hand...marriages end and it will be bumpy for a bit. London and England will be fine. Better than fine.

The EU will be fine too. Frankly, they have bigger problems than Britain leaving.

There’s not a threat of a continental European city unseating London in status of financial
power. It is laughable to claim that.

Airbus, Boeing and airlines will do what they have to do to have continued access to the most important region in Europe.

Ironically, London voted to remain in the EU, along with Scotland and N.Ireland.

Besides, financial services are not that difficult to move, since most of them are electronic. It's not like a company would have to lug tons of gold bullion across the channel.

The physical location of the office is pretty much irrelevant.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

"...Brussels has continually accrued greater and greater powers - far beyond the original remit..."

Funny, just replace the word Brussels with Ottawa, and that would be the axact same complaint many Québécois have around here...

...and Albertans.

BoeingVista wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

You seem to contend that the country didnt care if Airbus, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, ESA leave the UK, thats clearly not true a lot of brexiters are scared for their jobs, they were lied to and told that the companies wouldn't leave.

To date, which companies have actually left?

To date has the UK actually left the EU?

But if you cannot see that companies are currently moving people, capital and operations to the mainland you clearly live in a cave without the internet or a TV.

You're clearly smart enough to realise that companies are proactive, are you seriously suggesting in March 2019 there's going to be an endless list of reactive companies moving abroad..?

zjbk757 wrote:

Anyone that used their UK operation as their EU HQ will have no choice but to leave.

Pure speculation on your part. The article starts with Unilever's decision, which they themselves stated had nothing to do with the Brexit vote.

mjoelnir wrote:

The single currency has nothing to do with Brexit.

You'd be surprised - the use of the Euro - and the massive problems it has caused for Southern Europe - is no doubt a factor in the "little englander" attitude of many.

They see (rightly or wrongly) the Brussels institutions as being largely of benefit to Germany, the Eastern Europeans and no-one else.

So, the single currency is one (of many) factors that influenced the attitude of those that voted leave.

mjoelnir wrote:

If you run a small company selling equipment all over the world, you really appreciate the harmonizing of rules and regulations in the EU / EEA.
People often forget, that a new EU rule or regulation often comes instead of a heap of different national rules.

You speak as if its impossible for countries within Europe to harmonize rules outside of the mechanisms of the EU.

Some of us hoped the instead of Brexit those so inclined had successfully pushed for legislation and temporary subsidies to allow other members to escape the Euro and to reform immigration. Both were and are serious problems. The later problem is somewhat intractable.

Amiga500 wrote:

Socrates17 wrote:

I'm not in IT myself (if you are, I defer to your greater knowledge) but I have a LOT of friends who are and the consensus among them is that it was precisely because of the hysteria that IT professionals took it seriously and mitigated what could have been significant damage to many companies. People I know in IT still talk about that. The company I worked for decided to implement an SAP ERP system (often described as a "corporate root canal") because even that was seen to be easier than Y2K-proofing our bespoke legacy VAX Basic system.

Within IT, it was a fairly unique time.

Systems admins could dictate to the CEOs what they wanted (needed) to do.

Which was used to reset infrastructure even if the cost of migrating was enormous 'cos the IT guys could just say "well Y2k..." and the execs thru ignorance would have no choice but to say "OK".

I suppose one detrimental thing about Y2k is that the x86-64 instruction set came out about 6 years too late.


By and by large now, its back to the prior attitude of "minimum spend" - which is fine right up till the point the infrastructure collapses.

This still illustrates my point, despite all the hype, no airplanes fell out of the sky, the power didn't go out, the banks opened on-time, etc. Some had to do a lot (because they let their infrastructure lag), others only a little. Some were going to these things anyway, it just changed the timetable a little. We didn't wake up Jan 01 in the dark ages again. After Brexit, we won't be rebuilding Hadrian's Wall. Sure, there will be another layer of bureaucracy to deal with, but they did it before.

JamesCousins wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

To date, which companies have actually left?

To date has the UK actually left the EU?

But if you cannot see that companies are currently moving people, capital and operations to the mainland you clearly live in a cave without the internet or a TV.

You're clearly smart enough to realise that companies are proactive, are you seriously suggesting in March 2019 there's going to be an endless list of reactive companies moving abroad..?

Oddly you don't seem to be smart enough to realise that companies are proactive... They are moving jobs, capital, assets and headquarters offshore daily. Its in the news dude. None of them need the publicity that comes with brexit so they are doing without fanfare.

Personally I am now hoping for a hard very disorderly brexit, you want it have it and enjoy it. Theres no talking to you guys logically about brexit you are going to have to live it, so live it.

PS I left the UK some time ago..

BoeingVista wrote:

Personally I am now hoping for a hard very disorderly brexit, you want it have it and enjoy it. Theres no talking to you guys logically about brexit you are going to have to live it, so live it.

Who said I wanted a hard, disorderly Brexit? When you say 'you guys', you're talking about 17.4 million people.

BoeingVista wrote:

PS I left the UK some time ago..

Hasta la vista

BoeingVista wrote:

Theres no talking to you guys logically about brexit you are going to have to live it, so live it.

PS I left the UK some time ago..

Gee thanks for lumping the rest of us (the - increasing - majority of the electorate who didn't actually vote for this) in the lurch amongst the illogical!

Just going back to the original topic (and keeping it non-political as per OP's wishes); what would be the logistic / economic issues in stockpiling RR parts ahead of the Brexit?
At some point, wouldn't that be better to just swallow the (possible) additional administrative burden (4%?) by the new border?

FWIW, I find this "4% adm burden" assessment quite high.
Here (within the NAFTA zone), that "burden" was considered at less than 2%. (Not anymore though, as we now have to manage what items enter into those new "security" duties imposed by the giant pumpkin - oops sorry, no politics!)

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Just going back to the original topic (and keeping it non-political as per OP's wishes); what would be the logistic / economic issues in stockpiling RR parts ahead of the Brexit?
At some point, wouldn't that be better to just swallow the (possible) additional administrative burden (4%?) by the new border?

FWIW, I find this "4% adm burden" assessment quite high.
Here (within the NAFTA zone), that "burden" was considered at less than 2%. (Not anymore though, as we now have to manage what items enter into those new "security" duties imposed by the giant pumpkin - oops sorry, no politics!)

You stockpile because just in time does not work anymore. You fight delays, not cost. You add cost over and above the 4 % due to storage. The added cost does have little to do with the EU. Do you really believe that in the UK customs brokers work for free? What do you think it cost clearing parts first through customs for export and on the other side for imports? That is the cost for leaving the common market, completely apart from duties and regulations.

You can not compare it to NAFTA, you have to compare to having left NAFTA.

mjoelnir wrote:

You stockpile because just in time does not work anymore. You fight delays, not cost. You add cost over and above the 4 % due to storage. The added cost does have little to do with the EU. Do you really believe that in the UK customs brokers work for free? What do you think it cost clearing parts first through customs for export and on the other side for imports? That is the cost for leaving the common market, completely apart from duties and regulations.
You can not compare it to NAFTA, you have to compare to having left NAFTA.

I totally agree with you that you must have sufficient stocks to account for the worst expected customs delays.

But past that level (or "at some point" as I used earlier), warehousing costs (and obsolescence risks + dormant capital costs), are WAY higher than those expected customs burden costs.

(FWIW despite NAFTA, we still must use custom brokers, and overall costs are still nowhere near 4%. Outside NAFTA, agree that's another ball game)

I sincerely doubt that it only just occurred to Airbus that things might get a bit wonky after Brexit. They have been working on contingency plans, not only since the vote, but since the vote was announced. I have no doubt that they have been working very hard behind the scenes, taking all possibilities that they can think of into account.

Airbus is stockpiling because if the brown hits the fan, they still have a business to run, contracts to fulfill and customers to satisfy.

Just as Airbus should take Brexiteers at their word about leaving the EU, the UK should take Airbus seriously about leaving the UK if it is no longer competitive to keep production there. All the UK has to do to get them to stay is make up any shortfall they otherwise would have gotten if the UK remained. Of course, that takes cash which would have to come out of the multi hundreds of billion pounds windfall that is supposed to accompany Brexit.

JoeCanuck wrote:

the UK should take Airbus seriously about leaving the UK if it is no longer competitive to keep production there. All the UK has to do to get them to stay is make up any shortfall they otherwise would have gotten if the UK remained.

That's indeed the smartest move UK could make. Taking over the "hard Brexit" risks from Airbus.

exFWAOONW wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Socrates17 wrote:

I'm not in IT myself (if you are, I defer to your greater knowledge) but I have a LOT of friends who are and the consensus among them is that it was precisely because of the hysteria that IT professionals took it seriously and mitigated what could have been significant damage to many companies. People I know in IT still talk about that. The company I worked for decided to implement an SAP ERP system (often described as a "corporate root canal") because even that was seen to be easier than Y2K-proofing our bespoke legacy VAX Basic system.

Within IT, it was a fairly unique time.

Systems admins could dictate to the CEOs what they wanted (needed) to do.

Which was used to reset infrastructure even if the cost of migrating was enormous 'cos the IT guys could just say "well Y2k..." and the execs thru ignorance would have no choice but to say "OK".

I suppose one detrimental thing about Y2k is that the x86-64 instruction set came out about 6 years too late.


By and by large now, its back to the prior attitude of "minimum spend" - which is fine right up till the point the infrastructure collapses.

This still illustrates my point, despite all the hype, no airplanes fell out of the sky, the power didn't go out, the banks opened on-time, etc. Some had to do a lot (because they let their infrastructure lag), others only a little. Some were going to these things anyway, it just changed the timetable a little. We didn't wake up Jan 01 in the dark ages again. After Brexit, we won't be rebuilding Hadrian's Wall. Sure, there will be another layer of bureaucracy to deal with, but they did it before.

I certainly hope you're right, but Y2K was a case of people taking an issue seriously. Admittedly, over-seriously, but that's better than being blasé which is what seems to be happening here. Yes. The issues can be resolved. It'll be complicated, but it can be done. But in order to do that, you have to have learned something about them first which it seems the politicians and the media in the UK seem to be unwilling or unable to do, even though the EU has laid them out quite clearly. For instance, Commons just passed an amendment requiring that the UK government negotiate for the UK to remain in the EMA, the European medicines regulatory network, apparently oblivious to the fact that membership is currently limited to EEA/EFTA nations. European legislation would have to be changed in order for May's government to do that, and (as you know) doing anything in the EU takes time. May's team can negotiate all they want, but the UK will not be part of that regulatory system until at least a majority (maybe a consensus, I don't know) of EU governments agrees to change the relevant treaty. The EMA headquarters, btw, has to now relocate from London to Amsterdam.

From Richard North, who as I pointed out before supported Leave, this morning: http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86937

JamesCousins wrote:

zjbk757 wrote:

Anyone that used their UK operation as their EU HQ will have no choice but to leave.

Pure speculation on your part. The article starts with Unilever's decision, which they themselves stated had nothing to do with the Brexit vote.

Companies typically don't wade directly into politics. You're seeing companies in the US being forced to make tough decisions because of Trump's tariffs, but in public statements, they're constantly sidestepping the issue. Why would a company have their EU HQ located in a country that is not (or will not be) in the EU? I don't think anyone knows how many companies will truly leave because nobody knows what kind of trade agreement will hatch between the two parties. The longer the UK and EU go without coming to an agreement, the more skittish corporations will become. They're not going to stick around forever, only to find out they've been screwed. Many will likely play it safe and flee the unknown. People can complain about the EU being difficult, but anyone that thought that wouldn't be the case entering in to this was delusional.

zjbk757 wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

zjbk757 wrote:

Anyone that used their UK operation as their EU HQ will have no choice but to leave.

Pure speculation on your part. The article starts with Unilever's decision, which they themselves stated had nothing to do with the Brexit vote.

Companies typically don't wade directly into politics. You're seeing companies in the US being forced to make tough decisions because of Trump's tariffs, but in public statements, they're constantly sidestepping the issue. Why would a company have their EU HQ located in a country that is not (or will not be) in the EU? I don't think anyone knows how many companies will truly leave because nobody knows what kind of trade agreement will hatch between the two parties. The longer the UK and EU go without coming to an agreement, the more skittish corporations will become. They're not going to stick around forever, only to find out they've been screwed. Many will likely play it safe and flee the unknown. People can complain about the EU being difficult, but anyone that thought that wouldn't be the case entering in to this was delusional.

Head offices are easy to move...factories are harder...but not impossible. One of the main trade complaints from the west is outsourcing production overseas. Airbus already has some production in China...and before the EU starts gloating about maybe getting all of the UK production after Brexit, if they are going to move anyway, Airbus is just as likely to move at least some of the production to Asia.