Talk:EADS

Company, not consortium

EADS is not a consortium, while Airbus used to be one. A consortium is just an alliance of companies, EADS is a single company. David.Monniaux 23:54, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Military Aircraft division

In my attempt at improving the layout of the subdivision section, I tentatively outlined the Mil. Aircraft div. as consisting of Eurocopter and Dassault. Is this correct or not, and if not could someone more knowledgeable fix it? --Wernher 23:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great aircraft pictures!

Hey, thanks ≈1.0E06 to H1523702 for entering the two EADS airplane photos into the artice; IMO, they greatly improved it (made it much more visually appealing)! :-) --Wernher 23:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Locations

Anonymous edit before mine rearranged the locations (and broke the layout slightly by eliminating a <br>). Rearranged and added Spain to match the listing on EADS' site:

the road to the formation of EADS was paved with many partnerships and joint projects at Aerospatiale Matra, CASA and Dasa

European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V.
Le Carré · Beechavenue 130-132 · 1119 PR Schiphol Rijk · The Netherlands

EADS Deutschland GmbH · 81663 Munich · Germany
EADS France S.A.S. · 37, boulevard de Montmorency · 75781 Paris Cedex 16 · France
EADS CASA · Ava. de Aragón, 404, 28022 Madrid · Spain

From History of EADS: European Partnerships

-- JHunterJ 12:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Airbus percentage

This article says EADS holds 75% of Airbus, but Airbus says Airbus is jointly held by EADS (80%). --Abdull 18:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even the main body text of this article says 80% too, which is correct. The 75% was my mistake when updating infobox. Nice catch. Mark83 18:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Here's a thought. This article is really short. Let's face it...Aérospatiale-Matra was only created to facilitate the creation of EADS. It lived a very short life. Perhaps we should merge this article with EADS and include it as a section? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. It was a major company - short lived or not. European defence mergers can be extremely confusing, having a link and separate article for Aérospatiale-Matra allows the various companies and mergers to be explained clearly. I'm not sure about "was only created to facilitate the creation of EADS". BAe sought a partner for its missile division for a very long time, including Thomson-CSF. Mark83 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

EADS NA Defense Security and Systems Solutions, Inc. link added to EADS website.

What relationship does this company and link have with European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V.?

EADS is our parent company. We are based in Texas and fall under EADS North America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gam2121 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Criticisms should be documented

One should perhaps get some external links documenting the 'arms dealing' criticisms of EADS -- the criticisms shouldn't just stand there as is.
--Wernher 14:23, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In addition, the section on cluster bombs is primarily an over-emphatic denounciation of the criticism. Gyre 01:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Inadequate Citing

I have several pieces of coursework due at the moment so I dont have time to check, and/or cite all the statements here, but the article needs to be referenced properly. Aslapnatickle 13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

EADS Deutschland?

I've seen the company referred to this on a number of sites. Is there any difference between it and EADS proper? Does it develop projects independenlty of EADS France or EADS Italia? 74.106.24.62 (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Subsidiaries

Shouldn't ATR be listed as one?

Yes it should and it is. Xionbox^₪ 06:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

BAE merger

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/business/article/uk-says-prepared-to-veto-eads-bae-merger Time is running out before a UK regulatory deadline of Oct. 10 for a blueprint of the deal,

That's the first I've heard about that. Does anybody have a more detailed ref on the Oct 10 matter? Hcobb (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Acquisitions and mergers of UK companies is regulated by the The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers.

"The Code" which the Panel uses "has been developed since 1968 to reflect the collective opinion of those professionally involved in the field of takeovers as to appropriate business standards and as to how fairness to shareholders and an orderly framework for takeovers can be achieved ....The Code is based upon six General Principles, which are essentially statements of standards of commercial behaviour."[1]

The "deadline" of Oct 10 is due to rule 2.6 of the code:

"(a) Subject to Rule 2.6(b), by not later than 5.00 pm on the 28th day following the date of the announcement in which it is first identified, or by not later than any extended deadline, a potential offeror must either:

(i) announce a firm intention to make an offer in accordance with Rule 2.7; or

(ii) announce that it does not intend to make an offer, in which case the announcement will be treated as a statement to which Rule 2.8 applies, unless the Panel has consented to an extension of the deadline."[2]

Mark83 (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Describe as "dutch" in opening sentence?

An editor is very keen to add the word "dutch" [sic] to the opening phrase "The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company N.V. (EADS) is a global pan-European aerospace and defence corporation" to turn it into "The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company N.V. (EADS) is a global pan-European dutch aerospace and defence corporation". To me this doesn't seem appropriate. The article already says where the company is headquartered, and the section EADS#Financial_information doesn't seem to support describing it particularly as a Dutch company. I'm not going to revert him again at this stage, but the views of other editors would be welcome. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

EADS is not a dutch company, I think the name says that already. I fully support what you wrote. --Julian H. (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Separate article for EADS and Airbus Group

I've been bold and moved the article back to EADS, and created a new article for Airbus Group. EADS was structured far differently than Airbus Group will be, and I think the differences will be better illustrted by having separate articles. - BilCat (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Internal division reorganization or no, it seems to me that this was a hasty split that should have had more discussion. Companies reorganize divisions all the time, and change names frequently, too. Performing such moves simultaneously is actually a pretty common thing. But we don't typically have different articles for one continuous company nregardless of renaming or reorganization. I believe the articles should be remerged. oknazevad (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree they should be remerged it is the same company just a new name, as said many companies restructure and there is no need to have the two separate articles. Mark999 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

To further illustrate, the press, such as the Reuters article], has characterized it as just a renaming, so there really is no justification for a split. I'm going to tag for merging. oknazevad (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see how you write the combined article to keep the pre- and post-restructuring material without making it too confusing and convoluted. Have you done the merge already in a sandbox to show how the final product will look? - BilCat (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Mostly just copy the history and other material into the Airbus Group article, while putting the organizational list here under a heading like "former divisions". With the caveat that some former units are the same as the current ones, just renamed. Not too difficult at all.oknazevad (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the merged article, seen here, the history narrative went together quite easily, but the long list of units from before the reorganiztion seems pointless, so I left it out, especially since it is unsourced. Seems just too detailed for a broad overview in a general interest work like wikipedia; someone who wants to know every detail of how the company is structured should look to the company's own sources instead of here. I also wonder about the level of detail on some of the financial history; Wikipedia is not a business news daily worried about short term fluctuations in the stock price and some of the events seem to have had little long term impact. In a similar vein, we'll need to make sure the executives section is up-to-date with the reorganization; as it stands the info is at least six months old. Thinned out some irrelevant external links, too. Take a look.

Regardless, though, the articles need to be merged, as it is factually incorrect to say it is a different company when it is not.oknazevad (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

New article for EADS

Support new article for "EADS" - I tried to start a new article for EADS, even though the previous article was moved without BROAD consensus. @N2e: tried requesting that the article for Airbus Group be reverted back to EADS (stating "The multi-page move that was done to change the EADS page to Airbus Group should be undone while the Merge discussion continues"), but this did not happen. If you think about it, it begs the question, "What would happen if someone were to move Airbus Group to EaDs and there was no consensus"? I have tried requesting that the issue be taken to WP:AFD, but this was not done. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I still support separate articles, but all revert-warring with the other user will do do is get you both is blocked for edit warring. The best thing to do at this stage is to undo your own edits, add a splt header to Airbus Group, and open a discussion for the split on its talk page. - BilCat (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus supporting the move of Airbus Group back to EADS. That's not the same as saying that there was no consensus for the merge/move to Airbus Group.

The fact that the sources plainly that it is the same company renamed, not a different company in any way shape or form, makes this illogical and factually incorrect split utterly unneeded. Plus the article has been stable for 9 months, so there was clearly a stable consensus to have one article. You should not have reverted my restoration of the redirect at all, but gone immediately to the talk page. That would have been a proper following of WP:BRD, as you made a bold move, and were reverted to the status quo. It shouldn't take an additional revert cycle for you to start the discussion. And the redirect should remain in place until the discussion concludes, as that was the previous status quo state.

Also, what does AFD (which is "articles for deletion") have to do with this? No one is proposing a deletion of the redirect, just that it be restored to pointing to the article it has pointed to stably for the last 9 months.

You, as the proposer of a change to the status quo, must provide compelling evidence for changing it. Mere procedural claims, which are incorrect, do not trump facts. And you're incorrect. The discussion ended months ago. There's no reason to prolong factually incorrect claims. EADS is not a defunct company! Airbus Group is not a new company! They're the same company! There's absolutely no compelling evidence to split the article again in contradiction to the verifiable reliable sources in the article itself stating plainly that they are the same company. oknazevad (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not "incorrect" to have more than one article for all of a company's incarnations, and there is nothing in WP's guidelines that mandates only one article. It's handled on a case by case basis. In this case, a historical snapshot of the company as EADS is useful to the encyclopedia in my opinion, and that of at least 2 other users. - BilCat (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with BilCat. There is no particular reason per Wikipedia policies and guidelines that would prevent the historical company that was EADS for a decade and a half from having it's own article. In fact, the details of the EADS company rather logically go into that article, while only a high-level summary of the "EADS chapter" of history would need to be in whatever the remains of that company might be called at some later time. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's totally redundant having two articles. This is evident by that fact that the EADS page recreated is just a repetition of what is now at Airbus Group (almost verbatim). If history had been different and EADS merged with BAE Systems for example it would make sense to have an article for 'Old EADS' and a new one for 'EADSBAE'. As it its a company simply changed its name... why complicate things? Mark83 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply - First of all, this was a notable reorganization of the company. Second, many articles about corporations have separate articles about their histories. Third, [3] shows that there are several companies and products that bear the "EADS" name.

One article to discuss the well known EADS organization, and another to discuss the reorganized company seems reasonable to me. This is why I proposed putting this to WP:AFD. Additionally, since it was requested by User:N2e that the article be moved back to EADS during the previous move discussion (which N2e would likely have done had he been able to do so), the article was not moved back to "EADS" per WP:BRD like it should have been, even though it was stable for months, if not years. Also, what is now at Airbus Group is a "repetition of what" was at EADS before the premature move. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To reply in logical order -- 1st I never said it wasn't a notable reorganization, but this could still be covered at Airbus Group. 2nd yes a separate article may be appropriate if it's large enough (this isn't). 3rd - I don't really know what point you're trying to make there. And finally I'm not saying having two articles is 'unreasonable', I just see it as more logical to cover it all at Airbus Group considering the history isn't complicated or especially tortuous (i.e. keep it simple if at all possible). Mark83 (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I'm trying to address your previous point that "...the EADS page recreated is just a repetition of what is now at Airbus Group (almost verbatim)." However, I'm being reverted. It makes sense to me to have differences in the articles so we can see how they look. - BilCat (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Mark, in moving some of the history to the EADS article, it is evident that there isn't a large amount of material. However, some content was lost, as has been a concern of mine all along. Mainly this is the organizational structure of EADS before the rebranding, which is different enough to be noteworthy of keeping somewhere. How could this be addressed if the articles were re-merged? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that there should be one article at Airbus Group with a history section to deal with the time it was called EADS (i.e. it is the same company). However if the consensus is to have two articles I totally agree that it should be what you are trying to achieve - and EADS article with the full history and an Airbus Group article post-rename. Mark83 (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)