FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1921
1921 - 0166.PDF
expectations, and, as we have said, it seems to be the solution of the " housing problem " in so far as it concerns airships. That safely out of the way, the next consideration is whether or not airships can be operated as a paying proposition when used for the conveyance of passen- gers and goods. As to that, we have the experience of the German lines, which are said to have paid well before the War, while the two comparatively small ships that have been working recently are also said to be commercially successful. Our own airship ex- perts say they can actually compete with the steam- ship lines between England, Egypt and India. They say they can carry passengers to India in about five days for the fares charged by the steamer companies, and show a handsome profit. If they can really make good their figures, there should be a strong temptation to commercial groups to find the money to take over the ships and run them. On the face of it, the bargain is a good one. They pay nothing for the ships, and are only asked to give adequate guaran- tees that they will actually operate them. That is so far as our information goes. There may, of course, be more behind the offer of the Government than meets the eye, in which case the proposition must be judged upon its actual merits. In connection with the discussion of the future of civil aviation, there is one aspect which should be kept well in view. The opponents of a subsidy to the industry ask of'what use it is to attempt to bolster up a movement which is commercially unsound from the start, and which can never show a return to the shareholders who may be so misguided as to risk their money in it. Now, this is a complete fallacy. Commercial aviation can, pay—it does pay. The cross-Channel services, operated with converted war machines for the most part, paid their way and showed a profit—small, it may be, but nevertheless a profit." With the machines especially designed for commercial purposes which are coming along now it will be possible in the future to conduct services not only at a profit but at a handsome one at that. The question will naturally be asked: If this is true, then why does civil aviation require subsidising by the State ? The answer is not far to seek. It requires assistance over the lean time there must be while the public is being educated up to the true possi- bilities of aerial transport. Rome was not built in a day, nor can the public be induced to break away from habits and traditions of travel simply on the bare fact that a new method .of transport has been perfected. The process of change-over from steamer and railway travel to the air must be gradual—more gradual than any similar change has ever been in the past, because we are now asking people to entrust themselves and their property to a new medium altogether. They are perfectly well used to travel by sea and land—they have travelled for centuries over the surface of both—but the air is a different matter entirely. Much educative work will have to be done. Clubs and societies must be founded in every great centre of population whose purpose will be to instruct the travelling public on subjects connected with air travel. More active work, in the shape of what we will call propaganda flights, will have to be undertaken. In a word, a truly comprehensive scheme of education must be worked for all it is worth. Then, gradually MARCH IO, 192I at first, but gathering volume as time goes on, we shall see public confidence in air travel grow until it will be as much a matter of course for the traveller to go by air as it is for him to take train or motor- car to cover his journey now. Then the industry will not only be able to do without extraneous help, but it will be one of the greatest revenue-producers in the country. But it cannot live in the face of heavily- subsidised foreign competition unless the State is prepared to do as much for a vital industry as France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and the rest, with more forethought than we seem to possess, are doing now. • • • One of the most interesting, as well The Future as the most vaiuable, contributions Air Power *° *ke discussion on the future of air power is the series of articles on the subject recently contributed to the Daily Telegraph by Gen. Brancker. He naturally approaches his subject from the point of view of the specialist in aerial War, believing thoroughly in the new arm and that it is destined to usurp the functions, as we have understood them in the past, of armies and particularly of fleets. As to the latter, he is quite uncompromising and says plainly that, in his view, the first duty of the Air Force of the future will be the attainment of the command of the air—which will include the surface of the sea—and, by virtue of that command, to protect our own soil and our commerce, while attacking that of the enemy. Naturally enough, that is not the view which is held by naval experts, either in this country or abroad. In endeavouring to arrive at a conclusion based upon reason, we must bear in mind that every development of physical science has been initially condemned by the " experts" of the period. The Navy was to be ruined by the advent of the steam engine! The breech-loading gun was condemned and the Navy actually went back to the muzzle-loader after ships had been armed with the more modern weapon. It was easier in those days to retrograde than to improve what was a valuable invention, even though crude in its application. The torpedo was of no account and could never be reliable. As to the submarine, the attitude of the experts was summed up in what was said by one of very senior rank to Admiral—then Lieut.—Sueter, who was a pioneer of the submarine as he was of aircraft: " Very pretty, but nothing but a toy." The army authori- ties condemned motor transport, because it was unreliable and would frighten generals' horses! Aviation itself was damned with bell, book and candle right up to the eve of the War. Yet we have seen each of these inventions and innovations develop into a decisive factor in War. The submarine nearly beat us at sea. The aeroplane made it possible for us to win on land. It is certainly within the mark to claim that it was the Allies' air supremacy that made the final break-through and the defeat of Hun hordes a practical possibility. Yet we are still slow to learn, and if we are to judge by the present attitude of the Government towards aviation, we are content to ignore the lesson so bitterly learnt and to allow " economy," save the mark, to stand in the way of security. Fortunately, there are still those who, like Gen. Brancker, add an abiding faith in aircraft to the ability to state the case in an informative, educative manner. It is only by the creation of a sufficiently weighty public opinion that we shall get the Government to do anything.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
