No tax paid by Rolls Royce in 2012

[elster]

el stovey said:

London424 said:

el stovey said:

traxx said:

Dont British Airways buy GE?

BA have (or have ordered) RR engines on the

B787
B777-200
B767
B757
B747

A380

But BA are owned by IAG. IAG are Spanish registered, so sales are likely to be through there...not the UK.

International Consolidated Airlines Group, S.A. is a British-Spanish multinational airline holding company headquartered in London, United Kingdom and with its registered office in Madrid, Spain.

IAG has a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange.

Virgin Atlantic have RR on

A380
A340-600
B787

Thomson,Monarch,Thomas Cook, Jet2, Titan all have RR on

B757
B787

Then consider all the Armed forces Rolls Royce powered bits of kit. All the power stations, ships, offshore platforms that have RR gas turbines.

I think it's likely RR are selling plenty of engines in the UK.

My comments were in response to

traxx said:

Dont British Airways buy GE?

Easyjet planes are Swiss owned iirc

So actually all their sales are overseas

Edited by el stovey on Monday 4th March 23:46

They will be. Airbus and Boeing are not British.

Secondly not many Aircraft operators buy their aircraft. They buy them on finance.

Other than that, all perfectly relevant points.

[munky]

elster said:

Secondly not many Aircraft operators buy their aircraft. They buy them on finance.

Indeed, often owned by investment banks. Crankedup should remember that next time he's on a plane

[DJRC]

munky said:

What I find funny, is that the same people (or media) moaning that Starbucks should pay tax where their sales are, also seem to be moaning that Rolls Royce should be paying tax where they are based, not where their sales are. Er, right.

I'm sure we all agree that RR is a great company, and we're glad that we have a company that's successful at a global level. Jolly good that it was bailed out by the government then, isn't it?

RR on the aero side has effectively been govt funded since it was founded. Except that back in the good old days we regarded having *our* own world leading aero engine maker as a good thing and worth putting money into. Old fashioned idea I know.

[toppstuff]

munky said:

elster said:

Secondly not many Aircraft operators buy their aircraft. They buy them on finance.

Indeed, often owned by investment banks. Crankedup should remember that next time he's on a plane

Or a ship. Usually funded by the big horrible banks as well.

[munky]

toppstuff said:

munky said:

elster said:

Secondly not many Aircraft operators buy their aircraft. They buy them on finance.

Indeed, often owned by investment banks. Crankedup should remember that next time he's on a plane

Or a ship. Usually funded by the big horrible banks as well.

Yes. I love the Bloomberg function that tells you how many ships a bank has, their names, what they carry and the real time map that shows you where they are right now! Some of them, anyway.

I see RBS owns 9 ships including 3 oil tankers and 2 LNG.

[toppstuff]

munky said:

Yes. I love the Bloomberg function that tells you how many ships a bank has, their names, what they carry and the real time map that shows you where they are right now! Some of them, anyway.

I see RBS owns 9 ships including 3 oil tankers and 2 LNG.

Cool. Whats the command?

[ClaphamGT3]

Its my understanding that aero engines are not usually owned by the airlines but are leased - often on separate agreements to the airframe - on 'power by the hour' flexible price leases, so presumably the engines are sold to asset finace companies, who could be based anywhere.

Happy to be proved wrong by any aviation experts on here

[AlexS]

IIRC there are no lease companies involved with Power by the Hour. The engines are supplied direct from RR.

[elster]

AlexS said:

IIRC there are no lease companies involved with Power by the Hour. The engines are supplied direct from RR.

Pretty sure Power By The Hour does not involve engines, only servicing.

A lot of the major engineering is outsourced, so I would expect the contracts would be through the contractors rather then the airline being exposed to them.

[mcdjl]

munky said:

who wants to tell him?

Oh good, someone has.

Pop into their factory, which is in England by the way, and ask to buy a car. See what happens

Last time i was in their factory they did have a rather lovely car in the lobby. I think it's owner wanted it back to go on your so it's not there any more. It was heading for 100 years old mind you.

[Talksteer]

DJRC said:

munky said:

What I find funny, is that the same people (or media) moaning that Starbucks should pay tax where their sales are, also seem to be moaning that Rolls Royce should be paying tax where they are based, not where their sales are. Er, right.

I'm sure we all agree that RR is a great company, and we're glad that we have a company that's successful at a global level. Jolly good that it was bailed out by the government then, isn't it?

RR on the aero side has effectively been govt funded since it was founded. Except that back in the good old days we regarded having *our* own world leading aero engine maker as a good thing and worth putting money into. Old fashioned idea I know.

Not really, RR's biggest customer is the US government. But several of the larger airlines and aeroplane leasers are equally as important as the UK government.

As it currently stands the reason RR has paid no corporation tax is because it spent £670 million in R&D in the UK. If we want R&D spending in the UK then a tax break of 130% is a good idea and it's a good idea for one of the largest spenders to take this tax break.

Edited by Talksteer on Friday 8th March 00:09

[DJRC]

Talksteer said:

DJRC said:

munky said:

What I find funny, is that the same people (or media) moaning that Starbucks should pay tax where their sales are, also seem to be moaning that Rolls Royce should be paying tax where they are based, not where their sales are. Er, right.

I'm sure we all agree that RR is a great company, and we're glad that we have a company that's successful at a global level. Jolly good that it was bailed out by the government then, isn't it?

RR on the aero side has effectively been govt funded since it was founded. Except that back in the good old days we regarded having *our* own world leading aero engine maker as a good thing and worth putting money into. Old fashioned idea I know.

Not really, RR's biggest customer is the US government. But several of the larger airlines and aeroplane leasers are equally as important as the UK government.

As it currently stands the reason RR has paid no corporation tax is because it spent £670 million in R&D in the UK. If we want R&D spending in the UK then a tax break of 130% is a good idea and it's a good idea for one of the largest spenders to take this tax break.

Edited by Talksteer on Friday 8th March 00:09

Customer yes. Funding? Not quite. RR gets a st load and always has from the Uk govt, just as BAES always has. Commercial sales on the balance sheet and funding are very different. I can reel of at least a cpl of 100 million quid of funding thats gone RR's way from HMG that doesnt theoretically appear on RR's balance sheet, without even thinking about it. It has always been thus and hopefully will continue. For some of us, this is our industry and employers.