FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1917
1917 - 1272.PDF
it seems to shed a great deal of light on the methods of the Government in dealing with the labour situation, and, secondly, accepting Mr. Marston's statements as reflecting the facts on the attitude of a fortunately small section of the trade unions which is absolutely unable to see any further than its own immediate interests. Here is a clear case for the dilution of labour, as we pointed out last March when the original dispute referred to by Mr. Marston was at its height. Everyone but the Union was agreed upon that, and yet there has been no insistence upon such a process of dilution as was demonstrated to be necessary. On the other hand, as in the case of the Coventry strike, we have a body of workers engaged upon tasks essential to the conduct of the war which takes no account of the vital need of urging forward aircraft production or of the lives of those who are fighting its battles at the Front. All it cares for' is its own comparatively insignificant " interests," and in addition displays an utter lack of morality in that it will not accept the decisions of the arbitrator to whom it had agreed to submit its case. Really, there are no words in which to adequately describe the state of mind which apparently is responsible for these dire happenings at a time of crisis. We are the deadly enemies of bureaucracy. We are jealous of every jot and tittle of the freedom won for us by our forebears, and we regard with profound disquiet the battle that will inevitably be attendant on the regaining of the liberties that have been taken from us by the Defence of the Realm Act and other war measures. But for all that there is, we recognise, one cardinal end that must be attained, if we sacrifice in the task every one of our few remaining liberties and privileges, and that is the defeat of the Germans. We should regard it as a deplorable thing if the necessity arose for militarising the industries directly or indirectly connected with the output of munitions of war, but we had rather see that happen than that we should lose the war. In all seriousness we warn the leaders of labour who are responsible for these strikes and stoppages of work that this is what will inevitably happen if they are not careful. And when it does happen labour will find that public opinion— or that portion of public opinion which really counts— will have been entirely alienated and will be solidly behind the Government in any action it deems fit to take. Doubtless, the reply of the labour section concerned will be that to attempt to militarise essential industries would result in an industrial revolution. Well, we must take our chances of that. In any case, better to lose the war after having made a supreme effort to win it than to lose it by default. The ^e are S^d to kear t*1^ t^ie Afr Board Danger nas addressed a communication to the of . Aircraft Production Board of the ^Ve!i- United States on the subject of the tion. a~ dang** arising out of over-standardisa- tion of aircraft, a subject to which attention has frequently been directed in these pages. As to the usefulness of standardisation within limits there can be no two opinions, but it is quite possible for the keenness for output to work to our great disadvantage. In considering the problems attending the construction of aircraft, we have to keep it well before us that the design of to-day is likely to be rendered hopelessly obsolete by that of to-morrow, and it is thus folly of the worst description to put all DECEMBER 6, 1917. our eggs into the one basket. We are not implying that that is the policy which is being pursued in America, but we do think there is a danger that our Allies' enthusiasm for manufacturing efficiency and huge outputs might tend to lead them a little astray. Evidently this view is shared to some extent by our own authorities, and hence the warning which is said to have been given. No undue importance need be attached to the fact that the Air Board has thought it necessary to give America what may really be called a friendly tip. There is certainly no divergence of opinion between us and our Allies regarding the future of the war in the air. All that has happened is that a little advice, born of our greater experience of war, has been tendered by the one and accepted by the other in a spirit of absolute friendship. • • • The It becomes increasingly apparent that so far from our methods of achievingthe maximum possible output of Co-aircraft and other essentials of war ordination, having progressed as they should, there still remains a deplorable amount of waste of effort. In other words, the want of a proper system of co-ordinating manufacture does not appear to have deeply penetrated the minds ' of those whose business it is to secure that maximum which is agreed to be essential for the gaining of a speedy victory. We still muddle along, dissipating our efforts more or less aimlessly instead of striving and studying how every factory, every machine can best be turned to account in the common task. We have not arrived, if we may put it so, at standardisation of methods. Instead of treating aircraft production as a whole and regarding each separate factory engaged in its several branches as being departments of a single organisation, we appear to look upon them as entirely distinct estab- lishments—-as each being a sort of water-tight compartment, so to say. In this way, for example. Take the manufacture of aeroplane tanks as a case in point. Six hundred of these are perhaps required of a single type. The contracts for their manufacture are divided up in the proportion of two hundred, a hundred and fifty, a hundred, and three lots of fifty each. Now, that means six separate sets of patterns to be made and as many sets of jigs, and until these have been made none of the work can really progress. Obviously, if each of the six contractors were given a single part to make, the process of preparing to manufacture would be simplified by exactly five-sixths; a con- siderable saving of time would result ; the work of inspection would be reduced to a minimum ; and far greater all-round efficiency would result. It is a matter for the new Air Council to concern itself about and to put in order, and is one that we commend to the new Air Minister for his consideration. The King and Queen at Hendon. The following appeared in the Court Circular of December 4th:— " Their Majesties, attended by the Countess Fortes- cue, Major Reginald Seymour and the Earl of Cromer, visited thelntegral Propeller Co. at Hendon, and were received by Mr. Howard Voigt, managing director. V " The King and Queen afterwards proceeded to the Grahame-White Aviation Company, where they were received by Mr. Claude Grahame-White, chairman and managing director. Major C. S. Paulet, representing the Ministry of Munitions, was also in attendance." 1272
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
