FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1957
1957 - 1693.PDF
PLIGHT, 15 November 1957 781 THE INDUSTRY'S DILEMMA A Review and Some Practical Suggestions: Lord Weeks' Address at Air League Luncheon IN our news pages last week we reported salient points fromthe forthright speech delivered by Lt-Gen. Lord Weeks ofRyton. Lord Weeks, who is a director of Vickers, Ltd.,parent company of Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft), Ltd., was speaking at an Air League luncheon on November 4 at the MansionHouse, with the retiring Lord Mayor of London, Col. Sir Cullum Welch, presiding. We now give a more detailed report. After commenting on the fact that the aircraft industry "has toconduct its affairs in the full glare of public opinion," and remark- ing that, in view of the risk of damaging British prestige abroad,Ministers and others should abstain from making technical pro- phecies and that airline operators should refrain from publiccriticism of their suppliers (and vice versa), Lord Weeks said: — "The first point I want to make is really a follow up of some ofthe comments that Lord Swinton made a year ago, in connection with the organization of the Service and other Ministries, and inparticular his recommendations for a Minister of Defence with (as he put it), real and effective power over all the Services. Nowthis recommendation has to a large degree been accepted; you have a Minister of Defence with greater powers and you havehad a White Paper which has evolved from his creation. I wonder how much you like it? "The theory of organization of the defence Services and Supply,and of their possible integration, is something on which it is difficult to keep individual blood pressures at a low level. It isa highly contentious subject, and the main difficulties in arriving at a real solution are: (a) that the people who should be thinkinghave not really got time to think; and (b) that the kind of defence that we have to provide for is difficult to forecast. "In ten years' time, whether it will be a guided-missile era or af ballistic missile era, where will the responsibility lie? I may add: : who will be responsible for 'space' technology? We have had; enough to shake us in the last 24 hours [a reference to the launch- ing of Russia's second satellite—Ed.]. I find it hard to believethat in ten years' time we shall need a large War Office, a large Air Ministry and a large Admiralty. The Ministry of Supplyoccupies the extraordinary position of being interposed, especially as regards the Army and the R.A.F., between the user and theindustry which has to make the equipment; and it has very few friends. "If there is any truth whatever in the accusation that the aircraft: industry has been feather-bedded in the past, it is partly due to \ the policy of the Ministry of Supply. Having worked with it from I outside as an industrialist, and alongside and partially in it duringthe war, I feel it is the wrong conception, though I acknowledge the excellent work and ability of some of the highly qualifiedtechnical people in the Ministry. "I can only suggest that somebody should endeavour to workout what realignment of responsibility and organization should be adopted to cover the Services and their supply—starting withthe Minister of Defence as the focal point. The accent should be more on overall defence self-sufficiency and not so much on Serviceself-sufficiency." White Paper's "Faulty Conclusions" Returning to the subject of the White Paper, which he charac-terized as "a courageous document" in that it faced the economic facts, the facts of the H-bomb, and the technical facts implicit inrocket progress, Lord Weeks said he believed that the conclusions drawn from those facts would eventually be proved faulty in afew vital respects. "The White Paper," he continued, "has hit the Services very hard, in all sorts of ways; and as far as the air-craft industry is concerned it has given us a signpost along a very desolate road. Just what we are up against in the industry, bothfrom a military and a civil angle? First, in the military field: — W A reduction in the total money to be spent on research and develop-'vv?ent—wkkk means a cut as far as the industry is concerned. w The abandonment of further supersonic bombers—a further cut in K the industry.*(c) The supersession of fighter aircraft beyond the P.I by guided fnissiles; again an alteration in the impact on certain parts of the u industry.'W The development of ballistic rockets—which may help only certain specialized parts of the industry." Lord Weeks said that his principal comments on these fourfactors were: — (a) The aircraft industry cannot exist in a competitive world without•Vk\ e?uate ^un<^s being allocated for research and development. I a reSards supersonic bombers, I don't know what can defeat a'V ?7 y'ng suPerson'c bomber, so I hope a rep-ieve may be possible. (<•) In the case of the supersonic fighter, and also the supersonic bomber,II the opinion of the aeronautical correspondent of The Times (on October 17) is correct, it does appear that some sort of reprieve is contemplated: he mentions the probability of a specification for an operational aircraft of advanced design for either Fighter or Bomber Command. He also states that an interesting condition, believed to be attached to this invitation to tender, is that two or more firms should co-operate in the design and development."I think the timing may be too optimistic and that the manned aircraft may still have a long life ahead of it; in the present pro-gramme there is, in my view, a danger that the overlap between the exit of the manned aeroplane and the entrance of the guidedmissile may be too short." Turning to civil aircraft, the speaker quoted the White Paper: To be effective, the Central Reserve must possess the means of rapid mobility. For this purpose a substantial fleet oj transport aircraft is being built up in R.A.F. Transport Command."This," he continued, "is an implied promise; I hope it will be implemented by ordering the best aircraft for the job. The Govern-ment always strongly asserts that it believes in a strong aircraft industry. If it does, it must not run away from the consequencesand ensuing responsibility." Civil Aircraft and Transport Command Lord Weeks then enumerated "some of the difficulties that weare up against in the civil field": — "(1) The United Kingdom—a British David—is up against a Goliath—die United States—from the point of view of resources and utiliza- tion. The U.S.A. has a domestic civil market equal in operating ,capacity to all the rest of the world's scheduled airlines put together. I equally know that the American aircraft industry is up against adifficult time also. "(2) The U.S. aircraft industry in 1956 was the largest employer oflabour of any manufacturing industry in the United States, and it operates on the back of enormous government orders. The total outputof civil aircraft in 1956 was only about one-eighth of the total turn- over, and civil aircraft are bought in large numbers by the military.If my figures are correct, the military Air Transport Service flew 1.2 million hours in 1956; I don't know Transport Command hours,but they must obviously have been minute by comparison. "(3) The provision of finance for the development of a new civil aircraftassumes such large figures that few firms are capable of tackling it It is also very unfortunate that the financial position of world airlines,partly due to the fact that no one has the guts to raise fares, is deteriorating at a time when it must find enormous amounts of newcapital to finance the jet age. "(4) Export sales more often than not depend on some sort of creditsystem or arrangement, as very few operators are flush with cash. In this respect die Export Credits Guarantee Department of Her Majesty'sGovernment wants a real shake-up to enable business to be done at greater speed, and I suggest it should take a broader view of the riskelement. "In spite of all this," continued the speaker, "I start from theconviction that we are skilful and able enough to hold our own in what is one of this country's most vital industries."After touching on several miscellaneous topics, including the possibilities for VTOL and supersonic airliners, and the status ofthe Corporations ("I am entirely in favour of increasing the pro- portion of traffic which could be allocated to the independentcompanies") Lord Weeks returned to the immediate problems of aircraft constructors. They were faced with a variety of courses: —"The years of experience which are required to build up a civil aircraft business, together with the great financial resources andskilled manpower and other facilities, mean that probably only about three U.K. firms can compete in the world's civil marketsfor medium to large aircraft with any hope of getting orders. "The first and proper course could be amalgamation, whichcould involve grouping and/or absorption of some of the smaller units by their bigger brothers, as far as airframe construction isconcerned. "In any contemplated amalgamation it is essential to strengthenby every possible means those parts of the industry which have shown themselves capable of earning exports. The work must goperhaps to those who are 'too busy to do it' rather than to those who can't get anything else. Someone has got to ensure that ourtechnical resources in men and equipment are properly used and that the brains are in units which have the equipment and financeready to use them fully. "Amalgamation and/or absorption must, therefore, be highlyselective, and should also apply to the engine makers. I have a feeling that an aircraft constructor should not be an engineconstructor. "A second alternative is a sort of half-way house by which acombination of companies get together to carry out a project; it is a step, but cannot be the ultimate goal. (Concluded at foot of page 786)
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
