FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1953
1953 - 0131.PDF
and AIRCRAFT ENGINEER First Aeronautical Weekly in the World Founded 1909 No. 2297 Vol. LXill. FRIDAY, 30 JANUARY 1953 ED/TOR MAURICE A. SMITH, D.F.C. ASSISTANT EDITOR H. F. KING, M.B.E. ART ED/TOR JOHN YOXALL Editorial, Advertising and Publishing Offices: DORSET HOUSE, STAMFORD STREET, LONDON, S.E.1 Telegrams, Flightpres, Secfist, London. Telephone, Waterloo 3333 (60 lines.) Branch Offices: COVENTRY 8-10, Corporation Street. Telegrams, Autocar, Coventry. Telephone, Coventry 5210. BIRMINGHAM, 2 King Edward House, New Street. Telegrams, Autopress, Birmingham. Telephone, Midland 7191 (7 lines). MANCHESTER, 3 260 Deansgate. Telegrams, Hiffe, Manchester. Telephone, Blackfriars 4412 (3 lines). Deansgate 3595 (2 lines). GLASGOW, C.2. 26b Renfield Street. Telegrams, lliffe, Glasgow. Telephone, Central 1265 (2 lines). SUBSCRIPTION RATES Home and Overseas: Twelve months £3 3s. Od. U.S.A. and Canada, $10.00. BY AIR: To Canada and U.S.A., six months, $16. IN THIS IS SUE: Aircraft Intelligence - - 135 Sabre 136 Sabre Cut-away Drawing 142 Wit and Wisdom at Boscombe Dinner 148 By Viscount to Wahn - 150 Divided They Stand . . . R EFERRING to reports that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. might be combined, the chief executive of B.E.A. found it necessary, not long ago, to reassure his staff that there - was "absolutely no truth in rumours of such an inefficient and costly move." Once more, however, a possible merger is reported to have been suggested in "influential quarters," producing further alarm and despondency—particularly among the staffs concerned. Employees of the two Corporations now display a keenness unmatched, we believe, in any other State undertaking, but a renewed uncertainty as to their future will inevitably discourage them. This sort of instability is unfortunately still to be found in branches of British aviation. If a merger is to be effected, " 'twere better it were done quickly." But whether any real advantages would result is definitely open to doubt. Most of the arguments advanced in favour do not hold water. It has been implied, for example, that, because Holland requires no purely internal air services, we in Britain could dispense with B.E.A. One might as easily quote the success of America's domestic airlines as proof that B.O.A.C. is unnecessary. The sharp distinction between the operations of the two airlines proves that there is nothing artificial about the division of Britain's main air-transport activity into two spheres—overseas and European. Such a division would be just as essential if there were, in name at least, only one Corporation. It is also suggested that a B.O.A.C.-B.E.A. merger would reduce the number of air craft-types in service. Admittedly, the need for greater use of fewer designs is evident; B.O.A.C. are at present obliged to use six completely different types, and B.E.A.'s fleet is, for the time being, almost as diverse. Much of the Corporation's present equipment is to be replaced by modern machines better suited to their route-patterns, and for this very reason the Comet, Viscount and Britannia are in production or newly in service. It would be tempting, but incorrect, to assume that the trend (at present apparent in Europe) to work medium-range routes with long-range aircraft means that medium- range airliners are no longer required. When a mainliner earns its keep on long-haul routes it can also profitably fill in time on convenient "local" routes; but it cannot bring cheap air transport to practically any point 200-1,000 miles from its base. For example, a machine such as the Viscount would be necessary to permit a return fare of only £6 between London and Scotland (assuming that no excessive tax is imposed on kerosine). The same aircraft could fly to Rome within 40 minutes of Comet time, carrying more passengers and burning less than half as much fuel. Despite the proved efficiency of such modern medium-range aircraft, nobody would seriously advocate their use on long distance routes in preference to larger and faster machines specially designed for this purpose. The suggestion that all regional services be operated by long-haul aircraft as an incidental part of long-haul operations shows a serious lack of appreciation of both operating economics and traffic demand figures; for short-haul work, smaller units and higher frequencies are advisable, and the passenger demands for long and short distances are so different that a combination could only result in gross inefficiency. An amalgamation of the two State^ airlines might well bring some administrative economies, but this is true of any sphere of industry in which activities are duplicated. The merger would probably mean a saving in senior-executive salaries (though not as great a saving as some might suppose) and reduction of expenditure in a number of departments. On the other hand, there would be a break in the continuity of manage ment essential to commercial success. A vast, single monopoly—such as this merger might produce—is too liable to become over-centralized, unwieldy and unimaginative. It might never be possible to revive the team-spirit and competitive outlook which has been built up so painstakingly. Over the past few years, reorganization of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. has been essential. To demand further violent disruption shows lack of faith not only in the Corporations' staffs but in the future of British air transpoit as a whole. Costly lessons have been learned, and the airlines promise to pay their way. Now that we have produced aircraft which can link cities, countries and continents efficiently, and profitably, almost un limited opportunities appear—opportunities which can best be exploited by the two State airlines together with the private operators. B
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
