FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1959
1959 - 1184.PDF
FLIGHT, 24 April 1959 575 The Aircraft Industry—A National Asset... itself but of all other fields of commercial enterprise. The acquisition oftechnical knowledge was an intangible which could not be evaluated, and whilst present government policy might be economically desirable iti juld also lead to a drastic decline in our aviation export business. Criticism of the aircraft industry for its prodigality with public fundshad been common, but it was often overlooked that the industry's partici- pation in Britain's defence had been sought in artificial circumstancesand loaded with exacting requirements. There was hardly an aircraft < ompany in the United Kingdom which was not broadening its scope."Whether the problem is to be overcome by group formation, by diver- sification or re-deployment," Mr. Woodley concluded, "it will never besaid of the aircraft industry that it tamely lay down and died." THE DISCUSSION BY custom there was no discussion on the Lord Sempill paper andremarks from the floor were confined to the papers read by Mr.Woodley and by Mr. Peter Mascfield—the latter an exemplary ad lib discussion supported by first-rate colour slides.Commenting on Mr. Masefield's remark that there was a market for only ten British supersonic aircraft, Mr. W. E. W. PETTER (Folland) saidthat a manufacturing decision would be a purely political one. The problem was how to employ 80,000 skilled people, but a supersonictransport and the TSR.2 could swamp our manpower. He knew from experience that big technical jumps could not be made without a riskof failure and he agreed that a committee (and not only a technical body) should be set up to study the questions. In reply Mr. Masefield saidthat he thought the cheapest way of carrying, say, 100 people might be to make an unpressurized aircraft powered by two large piston-engines.MR. ERIC TURNER (Blackburn) said that he was encouraged that almost for the first time there was agreement within the industry itself. Weought to take advantage of lower labour costs in the United Kingdom to produce a very cheap-tc-operate aeroplane in quantity. MR. A. VINES (Fairey) advocated a British "aerial tramp steamer" forthe transport of goods all over the world. MR. SPENCER (Jessops) asked Mr. Masefield why, if three supersonic air transports were going to carryall the British transatlantic traffic, how he could justify his remark that 100 units were needed to make the manufacturing price economic.Mr. Masefield replied that that was why he thought that supersonic transports were not worth while. Discussing Mr. Woodley's lecture, MB. H. G. GREGORY (Fairey) askedif the lecturer could distinguish between the impact the aircraft industry had made on other industries and its own diversification. MR. M. SEAMAN(British Oxygen) asked was it not the r61e of the learned institutions to be precise policy-forming bodies and MR. J. V. CONNOLLY (ManagementCentre) asked if it might not be a good thing to reduce the progress in nuclear and aircraft engineering in order to advance technical researchin other fields. INAUGURAL SPEECHES AT the inaugural luncheon on April 16, under the chairmanship ofJ. B. Turner, M.I.Prod.E., the speakers were the Worshipful the Mayor of Southampton, Alderman R. R. H. Hammond, O.B.E.', J.P.,and Air Chief Marshal Sir Claude Pelly, K.C.B., C.B.E., M.C., A.D.C., Controller of Aircraft, Ministry of Supply. Sir Claude said: "I believeit is worthwhile pointing some contrast between the situation which seemed to face the aircraft industry after the publication of the 1957 WhitePaper on defence, and now, after the White Paper of 1959. By the time the 1959 Paper was published, we had instructions to proceed withthree major military projects—the TSR2, a medium-range freighter and a large long-range freighter. In the research and experimental field,there is considerable interest in short-take-off and vertical take-off possibilities and in advanced helicopter designs. In the civil field therehas been considerable activity and many of our aircraft firms have applied their resources to the design and building of civil aircraft. A possibleventure into the supersonic civil field is exercising many people's minds. "I therefore think it fair to deduce that there is much challengingwork ahead for the aircraft industry—though some reduction in produc- tion capacity from the expansion period of the Korean war is inevitable.""The real significance of the industry to this country," continued Sir Claude, "is that it blazes the trail of advanced technical development.Because the specifications for aircraft and aero-engines are so exacting; because international competition for airline traffic is so intense, andbecause the ultimate limits of achievement in aeronautics are a challenge to anyone's imagination, the aircraft industry is continually reaching outinto the unknown [for] technical knowledge which others can, and do, use." OPEN FORUM NOTHING could have been more symptomatic of the real issuesfacing the industry today than the tenor of prepared and spon- taneous questions put to a panel consisting of Lord Douglas of Kirtleside(B.E.A.), Mr. Eric Turner (Blackburn), Mr. Peter Masefield (Bristol), Mr. Stanley Woodley (Vickers-Armstrongs), and ably chaired by Pro-fessor Richards of Southampton University. In viewing The Importance of the Industry in the National Economy almost all the questionerswere concerned with developments in air transport, and the few excep- tions dealt with matters of research. Dealing with the possibilities ofRussian competition in the civil aircraft field, Lord Douglas said that he had been to Moscow and his impression was that Aeroflot wouldextend both across the Atlantic and across the world. They had got some very good aeroplanes including one—the Tu-114—that providedan answer to mass travel at cheap fares and would make an impact on civil air transport. Air. Masefield commented that the Russians werestill commercially naive, but he was sure that they would learn very quickly. He did not see that they would be able to sell airliners to western countries for some time because of the difficulties of getting a UnitedStates C. of A—it had been a big problem for British manufacturers and they had worked to American requirements. They might, hethought, undercut IATA fares on the Atlantic and "bust the thing wide open." The next question, which the chairman described as "put by some-body with his tongue in his cheek" was: In view of the low fares now being offered by charter operators would it be advantageous to abolishBritish scheduled operators completely? Lord Douglas commented that if the questioner had meant that more aircraft might be sold and cheaperfares introduced, he was wrong. To abolish scheduled airlines would have the opposite effect to that intended. Fewer new aeroplanes wouldbe sold and the service to the public would be poorer. Mr. Dixie Keen thought that the real point of this question was "should the industrygo whole-heartedly for aircraft that would provide the cheapest possible air travel" and he asked for comment on what Mr. Masefield had des-cribed in his spoken paper as "the great divide"—the choice between supersonics or low speed, low fare, mass travel. • Lord Douglas thought that the country should attempt to stay inboth camps. It was desirable to make high speed aeroplanes, but we had got to stay in the business of mass travel. Mr. Masefield said that we should progress in both directions. Tackledin the right way there were prospects of manufacturing aeroplanes that would get fares down to half the present costs, but the industry had gotto be asked by an airline to design the right aeroplane. Fast aeroplanes would have to be big and they would inevitably be expensive to operatebecause their costs per aircraft-mile were high. Low costs per seat mile were of little consequence if aeroplanes had to operate with emptyseats during the off-season. "I would like to agree," said Mr. Turner, "that the industry must develop air transport aircraft with the airlines."The supplementary question was then asked "Suppose government support was given either in the direction of speed and prestige, oreconomy and profit. Which would the panel choose?" Both Lord Douglas and Mr. Masefield opted for mass travel. Mr.Masefield added that large production runs came in the realm of low- cost travel; and that made possible the fulfilment of managementresponsibilities in keeping workers employed. But to achieve this there would have to be support by the government on an international scale.If we could offer a return ticket to New York for, say, £70, we would be in for a real tussle with the U.S., and would need government support.The panel was next asked if they agreed with the mergers of air- craft firms. "They are complete nonsense," said Mr. Turner—"politicalclaptrap by those who don't understand industrial organization." Amalgamations without large orders were nonsense, they meant lessand less work for bigger and bigger units. The only size was the right size. If we got into the supersonic transport field, only then wouldsuccessful collaboration and mergers come. Mr. Masefield agreed. He suggested that mergers were an attempt to avoid the unpleasant factthat some firms would have to go out of business. There was no sense in merging if there was less work to do. One idea was to make availablemore capital, but this was a misconception because manufacturing jobs in the industry were not attractive enough to raise public money. Work-ing arrangements made to provide greater technical resources or more shop floor capacity could be sensible, but a wide amount of spread-out work was inefficient and led to higher overheads. What structural re-arrangement within the industry would be needed,the panel was then asked, to tackle an M = 3 aeroplane, and did the panel support the idea of an industry committee to work out ourdestiny? "It is the men themselves that matter," commented Mr. Masefield.Informed, aggressive and knowledgeable men were wanted to decide the course the industry should take. Government nominees were notrequired. Private or nationalized, it did not seem to him to matter who owned the industry because it depended upon the people who reallyran it. The time was ripe for a fundamental review of our objectives with a type of Brabazon-Cadman committee on the operational andindustrial aspects of aviation. Of the structure of the industry, Mr. Turner said that a supersonictransport could not be built with equal partnerships between firms. There must be a final design authority and the leader would be thebiggest company. Several questions were asked from the floor about the possibilities ofmanufacturing a profitable aeroplane to perform on stages of under 200 miles. The panel agreed that operations over these distances wereextremely difficult to make profitable. The problem was inherent with short distances; handling costs and landing fees—however economicalthe aeroplane—occurred too frequently for an airline to make money. Very limited discussion was forthcoming from the question "Did thepanel agree with the recommendations of the Supersonic Air Transport Committee?" It seemed dear that they did not; and the chairmancommented that they were unanimous that any body set up to study the future course of the industry, must examine considerations ofeconomics and prestige as well as what was technically feasible. Of the several questions on research and associated questions thatwere asked, the panel agreed that more research was needed in methods of production. Mr. Woodley emphasized this point on several occasions.Mr. Masefield made the point that electrics were not good enough. They were unreliable and research in production engineering mighthelp to make them simpler and better. Mr. Woodley also suggested that for production research laboratories were required, not just space on theshop floor. Finally, and on a lighter note, the panel were asked the provocativequestion: "If your son wished to enter the aircraft industry would you advise him against it?" First off the mark was Lord Douglas, whocommented that he had no son but he did have a daughter, and he intended that she should be the first woman captain in B.E.A. Mr.Turner and Mr. Woodley thought that if they had sons and they were unwise enough to be engineers, they could hardly get a better training,and Mr. Masefield summed-up by suggesting that aircraft engineering was, always had been, and always would be one for dedicated enthusiasts.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
