Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
700p by Xmas
If anyone is interested in reading my full take on this - it's rather simple.
Boeing, although using RR Trent on some aircraft, decided at an early stage to use GE. That is why Airbus has always equated to RR and Boeing has always equated to GE when layman's read the news.
With RR not being narrow body (at the moment) that also equates to any news of short haul not being relevant to RR.
BUT! And I know I keep bring up the CMD (which I watched online throughout the whole day), Mid to Long term progress for RR PLC is a reintroductory to narrow bodies - something Tufan is passionate about.
Anyone, like Turkish Airlines, would have seen this. The monopoly of Boeing and GE within narrow bodies is over as we all know , and those wanting a deal when RR (Airbus) get back to compete on the narrow bodies will no doubt be softening any future deals with existing wide body aircraft. We know that - we do don't we? it's common sense!
The HUGE increase in revenue Tufan proposes is due to this increase down the line. Certainly not at my goal of £7 come Feb 2025, but 2027 and thereafter, RR and Airbus will be the single unit of supplier for narrow and wide body aircraft - I'll be very surprised is an entity isn't set up to purchase Boeing at some stage.
I feel I need to apologise for my misspelling.
Allowed not aloud... as per the 1st post.
Sorry
Fully understand that Eusebius and you may well be correct.
But if what you say is correct "technology transfer" then I have to conclude that RR hold the cards.
You seem to 'know your beans' so I won't be educating you on the 10 year R&D RR still hold from 2010 (and prior), under Warren East where they decided to implement such R&D that funds are now interested in - in essence, they spent money in research whilst others spent it on marketing (GE to name one of many).
In my humble opinion, the 10 year R&D RR PLC committed to is now showing worth, and with the Turkish order, I consider it to not be an open playing field..... as others, they have concluded to worth of this R&D and are therefore interested in being part of the game so to speak.
I wish I had the links to show you from 2020 et al that showed the true worth of the R&D from big investor implications.... alas, I haven't but what the Turks are now instigating is EXACTLY what interested parties of RR PLC where way at the time.... "If only they weren't junk status [as RR was at that time], we'd be investing, based on their R&D".
I'm sure its available through Google somewhere, but the R&D that RR PLC put in place all those years ago make it heads and shoulders the right choice for any entity going forward in partnership.
Hell, it's the only reason I've held them since 2020.
I'll try and find some links. 👍
Obviously, we don't know the terms yet, but this is part of a technology transfer of sorts and Airbus and Rolls may get some form of licensing fee. But I don't think you can have it both ways - ie, you can either charge a license fee or you can build an sell an engine, not both. Don't forget that the Rolls model is like the old Gillette model - it's the spares and service.
Neck on line, but I don’t agree Eusebius.
Very eloquent I have to say but you’re suggesting Turkey use RR R&D with no payment/licence?
I am aloud to dream.
Your explanation is clear and totally makes sense.
I am using my small business experience and trying to make it fit.
Thanks for your experience and clarification..
Would be nice, but not possible. I imagine a company will be formed in Turkey, and the Turkish government or its agencies will hold a large stake, possible majority. Airbus and Rolls will be the other shareholders. Most of the "turnover" mentioned will relate to parts engineered by Airbus - air-frames, avionics etc. Rolls will be a minority shareholder, and profits will flow through to the consolidated accounts pro rata with its holding in the company. No profits in early years. So, a great piece of business, but not transformative the way your calculations suggest.
You can say that again 😉
So
20,000,000,000 USD equates to £17,249,000,000
Divide by 5 (yrs) = £3,449,800,000
So that's the 'turnover'
Estimated 12% profit... £413,976,000
THATS got to be the BIG DEAL??
So
20,000,000,000 dollars equates to 17,249,000,000
Divide by 5 (yrs) = £3,449,800
So that's the 'turnover'
Estimated 12% profit... £413,976,000
THATS got to be the BIG DEAL??
Would make