undefined | Better HN

0 pointswillvarfar1y ago0 comments

Why try to copy an engine which would enrage the US when you can simply replace it with an engine, a newer engine, that you already produce in Europe and Europe has soverign control over and can offer the Swedes the _right_ to produce etc? Just go talk to Rolls Royce in the UK or Safran in France.

0 comments

genewitch1y ago

Is Rolls Royce not owned by Ford motor company? Or is the aircraft engine part separate?

rkosk1y ago

After the original Rolls-Royce Ltd. went bust the British government bought up all it's assets and set up a new company in 1971. The automobile division was spun off as a separate company and sold off a few years later.

The engine company is Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc and ain't a subsidiary of anyone. It's the second largest manufacturer of aircraft engines after CFM.

BMW owns the modern car company and licenses the name and logo from the engine company.

genewitch1y ago

okay, but 8 of the top 10 shareholders (and four of the top four) in Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc are American. I'm not really sure "ain't a subsidiary" is quite what you make of it. I was incorrect, but i hedged, i guessed that the aircraft engine parts wasn't owned by ford, but i was not sure.

in the context of this discussion, if all american investors pulled out of Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc because they were tasked with copying an american engine... could Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc make that engine?

This is what american isolationism means and will look like.

3 more replies

willvarfarOP1y ago

The non-car parts are owned by Rolls Royce Holdings listed in the UK.

Presumably all future contracts would stipulate terms that avoid vetos etc.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse