Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses

Date:         23 Dec 96 22:48:03 
From:         Paul Michaels <mides@celtic.co.uk> (Paul Michaels)
Organization: The Scottish Internet Supplier
References:   1 2 3 4 5
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) wrote:
>...
>What I find more difficult to judge is the case of Rolls-Royce aero engines.
>RR went bankrupt developing the RB-211. The  British government rescued
>them, & injected lots of cash. The loans have now been paid off, and the
>company has been privatised. It seems to be a successful player in the
>engine market (without the need for BA to be 'leaned on' to buy RR engines).
>Was this a good and fair use of public money? or not?

That depends on whether or not you were living in Derby when they went
bust. You're never going to unravel the subsidy thing, there's too
much at stake for people to view anybody else's govt input as fair.
There's no such thing as free trade at this level.
What the Rolls-Royce thing shows is that because a company goes bust,
it doesn't necessarily mean that they should be left to die. There was
a lot of ill-feeling in Derby about the term 'lame duck' that was used
by the British Govt at the time when they were resisting calls for
help. It probably saved the taxpayer money to rescue Royce's because
of the even larger numbers that would have been out of work and
claiming benefits (and disillusioned which brings about other
expenses) otherwise.

--
Paul Michaels, Aberdaugleddau (Milford Haven), Wales
    Paul Michaels<mides@celtic.co.uk>