Safran finalises acquisition of Collins Aerospace flight controls business
Safran, which also makes landing gear, brakes and cabin interiors, said the transaction is expected to generate around $50 million of annual run-rate cost synergies by 2028.
Collins Aerospace business, which generated about $1.55 billion in revenue in 2024, will be consolidated into Safran electronics and defense from August 1, the company added.
'This acquisition offers a unique opportunity to solidify our position in mission-critical flight control and actuation functions and create a global leader in this domain," Safran CEO Olivier Andries said in a statement.
The European Commission cleared the transaction in April, nearly two years after the deal was first announced.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
How to boost your pension pot now if you have no savings at all
Warnings that millions of people are heading for a retirement crisis due to a shortfall in pension savings are nothing new, but a new government review aims to tackle the issue to prevent a 'tsunami of pensioner poverty'. It's estimated that a single person will need more than £14,000 for every year of retirement, while a couple will need £22,000 to maintain a minimum level of lifestyle. It sounds a lot, but it is achievable without the need to immediately start stuffing thousands of pounds a month into an account. But how do you get there if you haven't already started saving? Check employer contributions If you're already in work, the first thing you should do is check if your employer pays the minimum three per cent of your salary or higher – some may well offer to match your own contributions, but this might only happen if you opt to pay more. For example, if you're paying in five per cent, your employer could raise their contributions by an additional two per cent, and it won't cost you anything extra or remove anything from your pay packet. Do remember to ask if it means you change pension plan, provider or anything else though, to make sure it suits your needs. Focus on building an emergency savings buffer Next, it's time to get that money in place so you don't need to worry about unexpected bills or costs. Experts say you should ideally have between three and six months' worth of expenses in an easy-access account paying a good level of interest, to cope with things such as the loss of a job, higher-than-expected living expenses or a major outlay for repairs or purchases. Again, if you're just starting out, it's important to forget the eventual size of the pension pot and focus on the first steps. If you are starting with nothing, open a new savings account and start to pay money in weekly or monthly, whichever helps you stay on track best. The consistency of seeing it grow will help you get used to building a savings buffer, and it doesn't matter if that begins with £5, £20 or whatever else you can initially afford. Cut expenses if you need to; one pint of beer fewer a week is about £6-8 (depending where you live), which could add to your savings, and one unused subscription cancelled is a monthly boost of even more than that. Regularity and time will see you hit your goals. And, if you are really in need of a quick boost to your savings, you can consider changing banks. Several will offer over £150 in cash or bring other perks to your account if you switch your current account. Check here for details, and always ensure you choose a bank or building society right for your needs, not just which offers the most immediate funds. Pensions contributions are no different The same process can see you boost your pension pot once you've got a chunk of savings you're happy with – plus, if you're putting money into a personal pension, you'll get tax relief too. For example, if you're a basic rate taxpayer and you put £80 into a pension pot, the government will add £20. Again, it seems small, but do that monthly over a 40-year work career and it's an extra £9,600 being put to work for your future. 'Putting your money away in a pension is a good place to start, rather than a standard savings or investing account. You get the perk of government tax relief on the money and this will significantly boost your pot over time, particularly as you benefit from investment returns on your own money,' said Laura Suter, director of personal finance at AJ Bell. 'The money will be locked up until your pension age, which is currently 57. It means that you can't dip into the cash if you needed it in the short term, so you need to bear that in mind, but it also means that you can't be tempted to dip into it before retirement. Even small contributions each month can add up. Putting away £100 a month, which then gets topped up to £125 a month after tax relief, would be worth almost £52,000 after 20 years, assuming 5 per cent investment growth a year after charges.' What if you earn more but have no pension? Pension concerns are far from limited to those with low earnings. There are plenty of reports, for example, of NHS staff – who would typically get a large employer contribution – opting out of that pension plan to receive a larger immediate salary because the cost of living is so high. If so, trying to take advantage before any possible rule changes might be wise. If you're a higher- or additional-rate taxpayer – with income over £50,270 this tax year – then making use of the extra tax relief can provide a huge boost to your retirement pot. There, instead of the aforementioned 20 per cent relief, you can get 40 or 45 per cent (whichever tax band you are in). The government will contribute at the basic tax rate, as your pension provider will claim it for you, and then you are able to claim the additional amounts by noting your pension contribution when you complete a self-assessment form for the tax year. It has been suggested that such relief may change in future, which makes it important to utilise existing allowances, says Reme Holland, a financial planning partner at accountancy firm Albert Goodman. 'My top advice would be to act now while we know the available allowances and reliefs,' he said. 'For an additional rate taxpayer, you can receive 45 per cent tax relief on your pension contributions, there is the ability to use the last three years of unused allowances via a mechanism known as carry forward. If a flat rate of tax relief is introduced, that could make it far more expensive to fund pension contributions in the future.'
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Greenpeace hails Italy court ruling allowing climate lawsuit against energy company ENI to go ahead
Italy's highest court has ruled that a lawsuit brought by climate activists against Italian energy company ENI and its government shareholders can go ahead, in what Greenpeace said on Tuesday was a victory for efforts to pursue climate justice in Italy. In an ordinance released on Monday, the Court of Cassation rejected ENI's motions to dismiss the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds and ordered the case to be heard on its merits by a Rome tribunal. ENI, for its part, said that it was greatly satisfied with the decision, and it expected that the Rome court would ultimately 'dismantle' the climate activists' claims of responsibility. Greenpeace, environmental group ReCommon and a dozen Italian citizens had sued ENI and its two main government shareholders, the Italian finance ministry and development bank, in 2023 seeking damages for what they said were the effects of climate change. The plaintiffs cited their fundamental rights enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as Italy's ratification of various international climate accords and ENI's stated commitment to reaching climate reduction targets. ENI and the government sought to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional and other grounds, but the Cassation court ruled that the case could go ahead. For more than a century, scientists have known that large quantities of greenhouse gases, released from the burning of fossil fuels, go up into the atmosphere and heat the planet, leading to higher temperatures, rising sea levels and extreme weather events that are both more frequent and more intense. Around the world in recent years, individuals, climate activist groups and local governments have sued energy companies and governments to try to force them to take concrete action to curb greenhouse gas emissions and compensate for losses associated with climate change. Greenpeace and ReCommon called the ruling historic, saying it would impact current and future climate-related litigation in Italy. They say it brings Italian courts in line with other European countries that have recognized the rights of people to try to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for global warming through lawsuits, and called the ruling itself one of the most significant in climate change litigation internationally. 'No one, not even a colossus like ENI, can escape its responsibilities anymore,' the two groups said in a statement. 'Judges will finally be able to examine the merits of our case: those who pollute and contribute to the climate crisis must answer for their actions.' ENI said that it welcomed the ruling. 'The proceedings can finally resume before the Court of Rome, where the unfounded theories put forward by Greenpeace and ReCommon regarding the alleged responsibility of Eni for climate change-related damages will be dismantled, in a context that is rigorous and respectful of the law, rather than driven by the instrumental, unfounded, and often misleading slogans of the two associations,' ENI said in a statement. While the ruling doesn't enter into the merits of the case, Greenpeace and Recommon highlighted the judges' determination that Italian courts can have jurisdiction over claims about emissions by ENI subsidiaries in foreign countries, since in this case, harm allegedly occurred in Italy and decisions were made by the Italy-based parent company.
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Angela Rayner has got one thing right. Britain needs a tourism tax
I never imagined saying this but I agree with Angela. The Deputy Prime Minister wants cities to have more autonomy to run themselves as they do on the continent, where they thrive largely free of national government diktat. When their economic performance is rated against their European counterparts, English cities fall well short. In a league table measured by GDP per head and headed by Munich, only London and Manchester (just) make the top 40 from England. German cities have by some distance out-performed British cities since 2007. Key factors in their success have been supportive state governments and high levels of autonomy. In France, the 14 'communautés urbaines'' mainly perform better, with Lyons, Toulouse, Nice and Marseille all in the top 40. They exercise substantial delegated powers over waste, water, public transport, roads, economic development and the environment. Spanish and Italian cities do the same. Ours, by contrast, have undergone political reform, with elected mayors, but have not got much in the way of economic autonomy. England is the most centralised country in Europe and its great cities are prey to Treasury cheeseparing and ineptitude. They should be able to run their own affairs and be accountable to local voters for their actions. But the Treasury has never liked relinquishing its all-encompassing power and Ms Rayner's muscle-flexing has predictably been fought off by a Chancellor who can see someone after her job. This latest spat between the Cabinet duo was ostensibly over whether mayors should be able to impose tourist taxes, a suggestion that has roused howls of fury from predictable quarters. Usually I might have joined them; but actually a tourist tax is not a bad idea, albeit not for the reasons Big Ange gives. She sees the revenues as a way of topping up town hall coffers where they would no doubt be diverted into employing diversity officers and staging pride events. But there is a very good use to which the proceeds can be put, which is to support the continued free entry to museums and galleries. One of the few great achievements of the New Labour government was to remove charges in 2001. It has since been possible to visit the British Museum or the National Gallery for nothing. In New York you will pay $30 to go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and in Paris a ticket to enter the Louvre will set you back 22 euros. It is 25 euros for the Uffizi in Florence and 15 euros for the Prado in Madrid. If you have been to any of these recently you will not have noticed a dearth of visitors. In some of them you can hardly move. One of the arguments against reimposing museum charges is that it will put people off going yet this has not been seen elsewhere. Moreover, the heads of the great national institutions say they are getting increasingly into financial difficulties and cannot rely on a Government struggling with massive debt to bail them out. Nor is this just about London. The English Civic Museums Network says institutions across the country are in financial difficulties because of budget cuts and at risk of closure. The recent spending review allocated another £270m to the country's galleries but this is seen as inadequate to the task. Sir Mark Jones, a former director of the British Museum and the V&A, has proposed a £20 entrance fee to enter publicly funded museums across the UK, though they would remain free to British taxpayers (though how that would work without ID cards I am not sure). 'It would make sense for us to charge overseas visitors for admission to museums as they charge us when we visit their museums,' said Jones. Indeed, this country has everything back to front. You can get into the Tate for free but it costs £26 for an adult ticket to St Paul's Cathedral, and £10 for children, setting back a family of four more than £70 to visit a church. In Paris you can go to Notre Dame for nothing. The point is we should not want to charge for museums and galleries but the economic exigencies may prove overwhelming for a Chancellor looking to cut costs anywhere she can. Since most taxpayers don't visit a museum from one year to the next, why would they mind? The hospitality industry is said to be against a tourist tax; but if it was a hypothecated levy designed to support the museums and galleries would there be objections? If enough is raised it could be used to pay for more police, not detectives but dedicated beat officers. It is a bit odd calling for cuts in benefits because they are unaffordable while expecting taxpayers who never go near an art gallery to subsidise free entry for tourists. Is it seriously being suggested that a room tax of £5 a night, or one per cent on the total bill, would put off visitors to London where a West End show can set a family of four back at least £500? Does anyone say they are not going to Barcelona because it has a tourist tax? The reality for those working themselves into a fury about tourist charges is that their own taxes are paying for things they hardly use but which visitors, almost by definition, use all the time. That's why they come to cities like London or Bath or Oxford. The pressure for admission fees to meet high operations costs like maintaining buildings and conserving collections will only grow. The money comes from the taxpayer or generous philanthropists, but for how much longer? It could cost as much as £500m to restore the British Museum's buildings and create new facilities so that more of its eight million objects could go on permanent display. To raise funds, the galleries run regular 'blockbuster' exhibitions for which they charge exorbitant sums, often using works they already possess as the centrepieces. They also ask for voluntary donations at the door. Is it really such a bad idea to seek a contribution from tourists by way of a hotel room levy specifically earmarked for museum and gallery upkeep, especially if the alternative is to pay £20 to go in? For now Rayner seems to have lost the argument with the Chancellor but no doubt will be back.
