"They received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.  Therefore many believed."--Acts 17:11

Berean Christadelphians

Index

For Further Information Contact:  Jim Phillips

 
Berean Christadelphians
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 9 of 12     «   Prev   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   Next
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #121 
Bro Jim

There is one reason and one reason alone why I said that I would agree to disagree and that is this.   It is because of the way you reason.   e.g. You say bro Roberts writes in a contradictory way and in the very same post you said this you mentioned that in at least three places bro Roberts view was that it was historical/geographical, and in one place he says Tarshish could move.   You single out and choose the one time he said it could move in support of your arguments and you do this for one reason:  because it fits with your arguments despite knowing that this was not bro Roberts overall view/exposition.   That is not reasonable and not representative of someone's beliefs.

I have little problem with your explanations and your own expositions - I have a problem that you claim that they are the views of early Christadelphians when clearly they are not.

Bro Steve
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #122 

Hello bro. Steve,

Thank you for your explanation of why you agree to disagree. I’m afraid I may not have been altogether clear to you, in this matter. I did not mean to give you the impression that I thought that twice, perhaps three times bro. Roberts made the argument for Tarshish being an historical location and one time, he did not. Rather, I believe that the sum total of his argument agrees perfectly with the exposition of bro. Thomas. That is, bro. Roberts general teaching is that prophetic Tarshish/Tyre will be the modern nation which at the time of the end exhibits the characteristics of ancient Tarshish/Tyre. This is overwhelmingly bro. Roberts’ point of view, and it is the overwhelming view of other writers who he places in his magazine. The historical point of view you favor does not gain strength till after the death of bro. Roberts.

It is true that I only gave you the one example from bro. Roberts which completely contradicts your position. But I could expand that list to be at least as long as the one I presented for you from bro. Thomas. You have shown little interest to this point, in explaining the quotes from bro. Thomas which contradict your perspective. I therefore saw no reason to present a list from bro. Roberts.

I honestly never have had the feeling that you any problem with me for my quotes of bro. Thomas. If you had any problem with me for the way I quote bro. Thomas, I feel confident that you would have been able to put your complaints to words. But you have not once challenged the accuracy of my quotes, or the context in which I have set them out. You wrote that you were going to show I was out of context, but never did. Therefore I can only conclude that you have no problems with me. If you have any problem with me at all, it is only as the messenger. You have major problems with the message, that is, bro. Thomas’ exposition of prophetic Tarshish. Specifically, you reject his exposition of the Tyre/Tarshish type.

This is the difference from my view of bro. Thomas’ exposition, and yours. You were fine with bro. Thomas’ exposition when Britain fulfilled the types he elucidated. You are not fine with his exposition now that Britain no longer fits those types. I, on the other hand, was fine with his exposition when it fit Britain, and I am fine with it, now that it fits the US. And if another nation rises (quickly, I pray if it must be so) to play the role of Tarshish, I will be fine with that as well. Who is Tarshish is not relevant. That a Tarshish nation exists, heralding in the time of the end is what is important to me, and what I take encouragement from.

It must be further depressing for those who believe Britain must be Tarshish to have read the headlines in the Times on Line today.

Quote:

Britain faces humiliating Iraq withdrawal

British Forces will leave Iraq by the end of next July under a humiliating proposal that lumps the once-valued deployment with five smaller contingents, including those of Romania, El Salvador and Estonia

Iraq said they didn’t have the time to develop nation specific plans for withdrawal from these countries. Of course, they spent nine months hammering out a plan with the US which will keep US troops in Iraq (more importantly to us "beyond the rivers of Cush") through 2011.

If Britain is going to start acting like Tarshish, and the US is going to stop acting like Tarshish, one might expect that it should start soon. Today’s news heavily favors the US playing the role of Tarshish at the time of the end.

STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #123 
Dear Bro Jim,

I completely agree that things have to change in so far as Britain is concerned if she is to fulfill the role to the end.    The government announced just this week that they are delaying by a further two years the development of the two aircraft carriers currently being built, due to budget restrictions.    The pound is at an all time low against the euro, partially caused by a lack of confidence in the stability of our financial markets, and further compunded by the US' further cuts in interest rates which are at an all record low.

But as bro Thomas pointed out in Elpis Israel, the foreign affairs of Britian would be directed by the Most High, against their will if necessary, to bring about the regathering of His chosen people and we have seen this fulfilled, which we all agree on, in a marvellous fulfillment of Ezekiel's "dry bones" prophecy (ch 37).    If Yahweh has mapped out for Britian to fulfill the role of Tarshish to the end, then this end will be brought about.    I likewise acknowledge the same concerning the US - if the US is the prophesied Tarshish, then Britain will remain a weaker nation to the time of the end.

The recession is really taking a grip in the UK.   I received a call yesterday from a large client (Wales' second largest company) asking if I am prepared to do work for them in January on the condition they pay me in April.   I was talking with another client lunchtime who was telling me that they are receiving large cancellations from certain industrial sectors who are cutting right back on all services considered non-essential.   Tough times are ahead.

Bro Steve
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #124 

President-elect Obama made campaign promises relative to building up troops in Afghanistan.  No one was completely sure if this was rhetoric, or something he was seriously interested in.  This article leans towards the latter.

 

 

Quote:

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The top U.S. military officer said Saturday that the Pentagon could double the number of American forces in Afghanistan by next summer to 60,000 - the largest estimate of potential reinforcements ever publicly suggested.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that between 20,000 and 30,000 additional U.S. troops could be sent to Afghanistan to bolster the 31,000 already there.

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #125 
America's request that Britain also increase their position in Afghanistan was not well received in London, sending worries to Washington that Britain may be losing interest.  Fox News, quoting the Sunday Times, reported:

Quote:

As the United States prepares for a troop surge in Afghanistan in the new year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and senior commanders are concerned that the British government lacks the “political will” for the fight.

NATO Commander General John Craddock said last week that Britain must put more troops into Helmand province to defeat the Taliban insurgency.

In an interview with The Sunday Times at NATO’s supreme headquarters in Mons, Belgium, he said Gordon Brown’s announcement last Monday that more troops would bolster Britain’s 8,100-strong force in Afghanistan by March was not enough. Although planning is under way to send up to 3,000 extra troops to Afghanistan next summer if required, Brown committed only 300 in his statement.

 

The American leadership is concerned that war wearied Britain will soon find Afghanistan as unpopular as was Iraq. He needs to be concerned that the current President-elect may find identically the same situation.

 

Quote:

A senior American defense adviser said Gates and US commanders were frustrated by the British response to their request for help. “They’re looking at the British government pulling out of Iraq and wondering, ‘Do they have the stomach for Afghanistan?’ Gates is concerned about the level of resources needed and the lack of political will to reinforce them.”

 


The American Democratic Party was very critical of President Bush, always claiming that the war was in Afghanistan, not Iraq.  To some degree, they have unwittingly painted themselves into a corner that will be very embarrassing for them to escape.  President-elect Obama promised he would win in Afghanistan, even if it meant taking the war into Pakistan.  He promised he would capture or kill Osama Bin Ladin.  His campaign rhetoric was essentially, that President Bush fought the wrong war, and that the right war was Afghanistan. 

 

He was praised for this rhetoric by all sides of the American Left, but a large portion of the left has no more taste for war in Afghanistan, than they do for war in Iraq.  How he handles this will be interesting.  He has certainly not made the American anti war movement very happy up to this point.  H appears set to follow his rhetoric.

 

50-60,000 US troops beyond the Rivers of Cush by Spring.  Another 8,000 from Britain.  And a President seemingly locked into a position of keeping them there.  Many folks questioned bro. Thomas' including of Afghanistan in the Southern Alliance.  It was difficult, 10 years ago, to come up with a scenario which made it in the interests of the West, to go to Afghanistan.  Bro. Thomas' conclusion was based upon the Alexandrine type, and all indications are that he was correct:

 

Quote:
But the Lion-power of Britain has not yet attained the full extent marked out for it by the finger of God. The annexation of Persia and Khush, or Khushistan, to the Gogian empire, will doubtless cause England to strengthen herself in Afghanistan and Dedan, by treaty or otherwise, that she may command the entrance to the Persian Gulf, so as to prevent the King of the North from carrying war into the heart of India by land or sea. Possessing Persia and Mesopotamia, the apprehension of the dominion extending still further southward, perhaps to the very shores of the Red Sea, and so outflanking her by the Straits of Babelmandeb, will also be a powerful motive for the merchants of Tarshish and its young lions to take maritime possession of the Gulf of Persia, the Straits, and the Red Sea to Suez. --Daniel. pg 94

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #126 
The US is ready to install the next 20,000 troops in Afghanistan:

 
Quote:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan —  Afghanistan's southern rim, the Taliban's spiritual birthplace and the country's most violent region, has for the last two years been the domain of British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers.

That's about to change.

In what amounts to an Afghan version of the surge in Iraq, the U.S. is preparing to pour at least 20,000 extra troops into the south, augmenting 12,500 NATO soldiers who have proved too few to cope with a Taliban insurgency that is fiercer than NATO leaders expected.

New construction at Kandahar Air Field foreshadows the upcoming infusion of American power. Runways and housing are being built, along with two new U.S. outposts in Taliban-held regions of Kandahar province.



That should put the US troop strength at 50,000.  Lots of troops beyond the rivers of Cush.
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #127 
A long time ago, this thread actually started out observing the US phenomena which is Sarah Palin, now, former governor from Alaska.  Of the Tyre State, it is said that her daughter will be there to celebrate Christ's victories with a gift.
"Psa 45:12 And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift;..." 

Mrs. Palin has now resigned the governorship in Alaska, in her words:

Quote:
After staying out of the public eye for most of Saturday, a day after abruptly announcing she would soon give up her job as governor, Palin indicated on a social networking site that she would take on a larger, national role, citing a "higher calling" to unite the country along conservative lines.

"I am now looking ahead and how we can advance this country together with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint," the former Republican vice presidential candidate wrote in a posting on her Facebook page. Palin's spokeswoman, Meghan Stapleton, confirmed Palin wrote the entry.

Mrs. Palin has been attacked by progressives in both the Democratic and Republican Party, for her staunch conservative/ pro US Constitution values.  She is anti abortion, believes in creation, and also that Christ will return to the earth in her lifetime.  In spite of attacks from both outside and within her party, she remains the greatest fund raiser for the Republicans, and a very big stick for them to now use to advance the conservative cause in the 2010 elections, and sets herself up to run for President in 2012.  She currently has a 73% approval rating among Republicans.

Her speech at the Republican Convention in 2008, is regarded as one of the best campaign speeches ever, not unlike the Obama speech at the Democratic Convention of 2004.  Polls (which mean nothing at this time) show her running fourth, behind pro choice mayor Rudy Giuliani, Gov. Mitt Romney and Gov. Huckaberry, who she has already eclipsed politically in the previous campaign.

This is important as the current administration founders badly.  The economy drives all elections.  The current administration has gambled on Keynesian economics which has never worked.  Their projections that unemployment would not go over 8% (and it is now 9.5%) and that the economy would recover in the second half of 2009, (the World Bank over the weekend, issued a warning that the economy may not even recover in 2010) will crush the Democrats in the midterm elections.  

The blame game has begun with Vice President Joe Biden saying over the weekend

Quote:
ABC News reported:

Big admission from Vice President Joe Biden today.

"The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy," Biden told me during our exclusive "This Week" interview in Iraq.

Biden acknowledged administration officials were too optimistic earlier this year when they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at 8 percent as part of their effort to sell the stimulus package. The national unemployment rate has ballooned to 9.5 percent in June -- the worst in 26 years.

It has been pointed out elsewhere that the US is not as aggressive in the world under the current administration as they have been.  Nor are they as supportive of Israel as they have been.  I'm not sure, at this point, that any of that is actually true.  President Obama has given that impression, but as we have learned with him in his first six months, you have to watch what he does, not what he says. 

But even if that turns out to be the case, certainly this is no worse than the four years of Jimmy Carter, or the first two years of Bill Clinton in relation to the military and the US support of Israel.  Following both of those presidencies, the US moved very conservative, and staunchly pro Israel. (President Clinton reversed course in the middle of his term, the results of a crushing defeat in his first midterm election!)  And Mrs. Palin quiting Alaska to elect conservatives into the House and Senate, and then running herself would quickly change the American dynamics.  

Jim

 

STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #128 

Hi bro Jim,

I posted a long article here last week and then my machine bombed out before I could click on the "post message" button.    I couldn't bring myself to re-type it!

The articles centred around the huge delays in building Britain's naval ships and also around the whole attitude of Britain in dumbing down the whole defence approach, and wanting to cut budgets right, left and centre.    However, I obvioulsy still agree with bro Thomas in his writings in Elpis Israel when he says that it matters not what the foreign policy of Britain is at any one moment in time, for that policy will be driven by the Almighty when the time arrives, against Britain's will if necessary.

To me, the Obama episode to-date, is interesting not from the point of view of what he has done or said, or what he hasn't done and said, but the significance of how things can change in a very short space of time.   Obama has power and he generally has the support of the American people at the moment, just as Tony Blair did when he came into power in 1997.   They can move things along swiftly without the blockades you get when the people don't support you.      As for his support for Israel, I wonder whether Israel feels that he supports them less, and therefore what we see in the media is accurate?   Or, are the realities very different and just completely mis-reported?   I don't know about American news, but the BBC is so biased toward the Palestinians, its very difficult to get any objective feel for what is really going on in the region.


One thing we know is that the words of Genesis 12 "I will bless them (plural) that bless thee and curse him (singular) that curseth thee" have been executed by the Almighty many times.   If Obama is truly turning his back on the Jews, then he may have some trouble ahead of him which he hasn't bargained for.

Bro Steve

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #129 
There is no doubt that should the US take a position hostile to Israel, that the US would be punished for it.  I personally harbor little doubt any more, that President Obama would like to take a hostile position towards Israel.

His problem, like so many things in the world right now, is that he has very little room to move.  He significantly carried the US Jewish vote in the 2008 elections.  He can't alienate that vote.  So, he has taken the political stand of Israel's Labor and Kadima party.  It is hard to show him an antisemite, when he takes a position of at least 40% of the Israelis.  President Jimmy Carter acted similarly, and his true feelings were not exposed till after he retired.  President Carter showed himself so antisemitic, that his Jewish supporters who continued to support him, and work in his library after his career was finished, resigned in mass in protest against him.

Similarly, it is hard to cut military spending in this country, because the cuts have to go through Congress, and the individual Congressmen will defend their share of the pie.  Therefore, the "cuts" to the US military under President Obama, has resulted in military spending rising from $515 Billion in 2008 to $534 Billion in 2009.  Now, this is called a "cut" because President Bush had projected the largest ever increase in the military budget to $559 Billion.  So it was a cut in the projected rate of increase.  But not a real cut.

The US system is much bulkier than the British.  The US President does not have the power of the British Prime Minister.  And the US laws are for more restrictive of what the government can do.  And the US judicial system is far more powerful, than the British judicial system, in how it can enforce law and restrain the President. 

In short, President Obama cannot make the changes you suggest he will make at this time.  He really needs the US economy to turn around to have any hope of being able to do so.  With the economy continuing to slide, unemployment poised to go over 10%, and his vice president saying they misread the economy; the Democrats are poised to take a real bath in the 2010 elections, which will stop any chance that President Obama has of continuing his course.

This is where it will all get quite interesting.  President Obama subscribes to an economic theory called Keynesian.  It essentially says that if the government pays a man to dig a hole, and then pays another man to fill in the hole, the money payed the men goes into the economy and creates growth. 

Keynesian economics stands in opposition to supply side economics, which says that growth occurs when individuals create something, or some service that did not previously exist.  (A nation of shop keepers.)

Now, supply side economics appeared to work great for 25 years (1982 thru 2008,) till the real estate bubble blew up, in the end of 2008.  Keynesian folks claimed that it didn't work at all, but only seemed to work due the the recession that preceded its implementation, creating pent up demand.

If you look at President Obama's stimulus plan, and the way the money was distributed, you can see that he has intentionally created this deep recession, so as to create the pent up demand Keynesian's think led to the 1982 recovery.  The stimulus plan is set to spend most of its money from 2010 to 2012 which happen to be election periods.  So if Keynesian economics work, this should work well for President Obama, and we may see the US move away from Israel, and be punished by God for it.  But if Keynesian economics is flawed, a part of the "college makes you stupid" elitism which exists in this country, then the economy could look quite ugly come 2010, and lead to a change in political direction, and return the US to a "nation of shopkeepers" as bro. Thomas described the Tarshish state.
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #130 
Hi there bro Jim

Bro Steve Armstrong and family will, God Willing, be joining us in London next Tuesday at the British Museum.    As we visit different places afterwards, especially the Tarshish Lion in Trafalgar Sq, and the nation of shops in Central London, we'll try our best to think of how these compare to the symbols of America    A few days later Steve and family are planning a visit to the Tin capital of Britain.

If only they had more time, we would show them Plymouth, to really drive home Britain's position as "king of the seas".

If any brother or sister is ever coming to the UK and would like to spend time at the British Museum, then please let us know ... we are always happy to meet there and visit for the day.

Bro Steve
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #131 
Hi bro. Steve,

My daughter, sis Jaymie, has just returned from lovely visits with the Armstrongs, sandwiched around the Richard gathering. She flew into and out of Edmonton. She said she had a wonderful time.

I would suggest that a Museum is the best (arguably the only) place to see the British Tarshish lion. 8>)
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #132 
A huge story on Afghanistan is breaking this morning, as CBS news reports that Obama will give the generals the 40,000 men they say they need to continue the war there.  That will take the US commitment to 100,000 men.

The White House is denying the story, but CBS says the announcement will be made after the China trip, and before Thanksgiving.

Those who have read this thread will see that Afghanistan (and northern Iraq) is the land beyond the rivers of Cush, which is occupied by Tarshish.
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #133 

Global Finance: Britain Is No. 1

By Leona Liu

London has officially dethroned New York as the world's top financial center, according to an index released this month by the Geneva-based World Economic Forum [WEF].

The WEF's 2009 Financial Development Index ranks 55 countries on the sophistication and stability of their financial systems and markets. The nations were evaluated according to more than 120 criteria, ranging from the favorableness of their institutional and business environments to the size of their equity and bond markets, and from their technology infrastructure and human capital to the ease of obtaining consumer and commercial loans.

Perhaps the biggest surprise in this year's study -- the second release of an annual index launched in 2008 -- was that Britain rose to the No. 1 spot despite its economic troubles, up from No. 2 last year. Britain was buoyed by the relative strength of its financial markets, particularly in foreign exchange and derivatives, and by its world-beating insurance coverage.

The other headline news -- though perhaps not as surprising -- was that the U.S. fell from No. 1 in 2008 to No. 3 this year. While the country is still by far the world's wealthiest, financial instability and a noticeably weakened banking sector pulled down its scores. The No. 2-ranked country, Australia, jumped nine rungs in the rankings, thanks to its greater financial stability, low sovereign debt, and ready access to consumer credit.

France and Germany rank 11th and 12th

The results of the study will undoubtedly fuel the ongoing debate as to whether London or New York is the top dog in global finance and markets. Britain's elevation to No. 1 could be short-lived. The country continues to be weighed down by recession, while the U.S. reported a return to growth in gross domestic product during the third quarter of 2009. Britain's institutional environment also could weigh on its ranking next year: The government has been criticized in recent months for excessive intervention in the financial sector, and there is rising concern over increased regulation and higher tax rates, which could encourage London-based hedge funds and other financial intermediaries to move elsewhere.

To be sure, the total scores for most developed nations fell sharply, due to the effects of the credit crisis -- and those that suffered the most from lowered financial stability were among the largest industrialized economies. France and Germany, which held top slots in last year's index, fell out of the top 10 altogether, landing at 11th and 12th place, respectively. The sheer size and global nature of these countries' financial systems exposed them more than others to the effects of the downturn.

The fall of such countries as France and Germany allowed developing nations such as Brazil, Chile (CHILE.SN - news) , and Malaysia to close the gap on their Western counterparts. Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at New York University and the leading academic for the study, wrote in a summary: "For some of these developing countries, it was a result of learning from the mistakes of past financial crises, while for others it reflected the relative lack of complexity and global integration of their financial systems."

Yet emerging economies have a way to go before they catch up with more developed rivals. Some suffer from underdeveloped infrastructure, murky legal and regulatory regimes, or weak corporate governance. Few score well on financial access for consumers and small businesses, as measured by the availability of credit and the penetration of retail banking services such as savings accounts, microcredit, ATMs, branch offices, and point-of-sale financial services.

top nations still hold a vast edge

Aside from the relative strengthening achieved by developing countries, the most intriguing result for the researchers who put together this year's study was that Australia leapfrogged over the U.S. "While we expected the relative stability of the Australian banking system to strengthen the country's ranking, we were surprised at just how significantly its overall ranking jumped," says James Bilodeau of the World Economic Forum, who co-authored the study with Roubini.

Apart from Australia, all of the countries in this year's top 10 saw significant declines in their overall scores. This highlights how badly the economic crisis shook most major financial systems. What allowed countries such as Britain and the U.S. to remain near the top of the list, despite big hits to their financial stability, was the breadth of other factors taken into consideration. Although their markets have been volatile, these and other top-ranked countries still offer deeper pools of capital, more financial transparency, and a host of other institutional and infrastructural advantages that will likely keep them among the leaders in financial development for years to come.

Still, this is no time for complacency. "The drop in scores for both the U.K. and the U.S. indicate that their leadership is potentially in jeopardy," says Bilodeau. "The potentially worrisome finding is the degree to which scores have dropped and their lead relative to other countries has diminished."

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #134 
Can you explain the meaning of this, or do you want me to.  And don't leave out the terms Sarbanes-Oxley.

Jim
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #135 

Airbus parent EADS reports Q3 loss on WEAK DOLLAR

BY EMMA VANDORE

AP Business Writer

PARIS -- EADS, the parent company of plane maker Airbus, on Monday said it lost euro87 million ($130 million) in the third quarter, due partly to the weak dollar, and warned that troubled aircraft programs could further weigh on earnings in the fourth quarter.

Still, the company said it expected demand in its key markets to improve in coming months as the economic downturn eases.

The third quarter loss, its first in two years, compares to a euro679 million profit a year earlier.

EADS said it was unable to give a full year forecast for earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) - the measure analysts watch most closely - because of "ongoing uncertainties on the magnitude of the potential" charges on its A400M military transport airplane and its A380 superjumbo programs.

"New programs require our utmost attention," CEO Louis Gallois said in a statement.

European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. had been targeting positive EBIT in the second half, while expecting it to be lower than the euro888 million booked in the first half because of higher research costs and the foreign exchange rate impact.

EBIT in the July-September period fell 77 percent to euro201 million, lower than the euro231 million forecast by analysts in a Thomson Reuters poll. Revenue was down 2 percent at euro9.5 billion.

"The negative currency impact is higher than expected," said Oppenheim Research analyst Winfried Becker, who is expecting "another poor quarter" to come.

"There is a substantial risk that a further financial burden from the A400M might appear maybe in final quarter, maybe 2010, and this also could happen possibly for the A380 program."

For the full year, EADS said revenue could fall compared to 2008 if there is a further decline in the dollar.

The weaker dollar puts the European jet maker at a competitive disadvantage to U.S. archrival Boeing Co. because more of its cost base is in euros.

EADS said currency hedging that helped earnings in previous quarters is weakening.

The company is also struggling to regain control of its A400M military transport airplane program, for which it has booked euro224 million in charges so far this year. That brings the total charges for the much-delayed program to euro2.4 billion.

The final figure will depend on the outcome of contract re-negotiations with the governments who ordered the plane. The maiden flight is planned for "around the end of the year," EADS said.

The company said it regretted the decision of South Africa to withdraw from the A400M program, canceling its order for eight aircraft.

Gallois said the A380 program is "still a matter of concern" and the subject of production and financial reviews. However, in a conference call with analysts, CFO Hans Peter Ring said the financial impact in the fourth quarter "won't be an extremely large number."

The company is reviewing its production plans and said a couple of deliveries scheduled for this year will shift into early 2010 as the superjumbo program struggles with "continuing production instability" and requests for delivery postponement from customers.

EADS sounded an optimistic note regarding the future of the aircraft market, saying it is "cautiously envisaging an improvement of the economic and market conditions in the next months."

October traffic suggests the worst is over in terms of falling passenger and cargo traffic, it said.

Shares in the company rose 1.4 percent to euro13.34 in Paris midday trade as investors welcomed the brighter outlook.

EADS said it is sticking to Airbus' target of 300 gross aircraft orders this year and 490 deliveries.

Ring, the CFO, said Airbus still has a "slight overbooking" in 2010.

In a separate announcement Monday, Airbus said Yemenia Airways has ordered 10 A320 aircraft in a deal with a list price of $700 million, its second of the Dubai Airshow. On Sunday, Airbus said it would sell 12 A350 XWB aircraft to Ethiopian Airlines.

EADS' net cash position fell to euro8.1 billion compared with euro9.2 billion at the end of 2008. Airbus customer financing has "remained limited" so far this year, but EADS said it expects this to increase in the fourth quarter.

Ring said that customer financing needs this year should be around or below euro800 million, less than the euro1 billion anticipated.

Airbus, which accounts for around two-thirds of EADS' revenue, reported a 3 percent decline in third quarter revenue to euro6.2 billion and a 99 percent decline in EBIT to euro4 million.

Asked about EADS and its partner Northrop Grumman Corp.'s chances with the $35 billion Air Force contract for aerial refueling tankers, Ring said Airbus believes it has the "superior product."

But he said EADS may be disadvantaged against rival Boeing Co. by new specifications on price that don't favor its larger aircraft, which would cost more to run over its lifetime.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.