FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 1430.PDF
226 FUG Hi International 16 August 1962 King Soud of Saudi Arabia has taken delivery of his personal DH Comet 4C which was recently flown by John Cunningham, DH director and chief test pilot, to Taif near one of the royal residences. The aircraft is specially furnished with a "finely appointed day-and-night suite," and has additional seating in the aft cabin for fifty AIR COMMERCE BOAC's FREIGHTER PROBLEM FOR some months now there have been reports, on which BOAC have not wished to comment, that the corporation is negotiating with Canadair for the delivery of two CL-44s, for operation this autumn. A note about the implications, and about BOAC's all-freighter needs in general, appeared in Flight International for June 7, page 885. The CL-44 would bridge the gap between the DC-7F, of which BOAC have two, and the jet freighter which the corporation must have sooner or later (and not too much later than Pan Am and TCA put their 707-320C and DC-8F mixed-traffic jets to work). The two 44s would have to be leased, since BOAC could not write off an investment of some £3m in two or three years—an obsoles cence rate which the existence of rival jet freighters would call for. Even if there were no other complications, the Treasury would not be likely to approve the purchase of more new aircraft by BOAC at this time. But there are other complications. Facing perhaps a £12m loss on 31 semi-retired Britannias (see page 221), BOAC now apparently need to spend money on two Canadian-built developments of the Britannia. The irony of the situation is accentuated by the fact that BOAC's chairman, Sir Matthew Slattery, was the chairman of Shorts when the decision to go ahead with the Belfast freighter was taken. Three years ago (Flight, September 4, 1959) he said that the Belfast was com mercially the right aircraft to build, and that BOAC might eventu ally be expected to buy it. The RAF order for ten Belfasts was placed, just before the 1959 election, partly to help unemployment in Northern Ireland and—as emerged in the recent Commons debate on the aircraft industry—on the assumption that civil orders would be forthcoming to enable the programme to break even. But Sir Matthew cannot now be of help to his old firm, which is in such urgent need of more orders for the Belfast, since the civil version could not be available to BOAC for two or three years. Is there any compromise which, even at this late hour, might achieve what the earlier co-ordination of requirements might have achieved? Is there a compromise that would (a) solve BOAC's urgent all-freighter needs? (b) avoid the acquisition of CL-44s when BOAC's fleet of Britannia 312s is on the brink of redundancy ? and (c) provide work for Shorts? Before BOAC asked Douglas to convert two DC-7Cs to DC-7F standard, an investigation was made into the possibility of con verting Britannia 312s to all-freight configuration. The cost per aircraft, it is believed, would have been about double the Douglas price (£116,500 per aircraft) for converting DC-7Cs on their Santa Monica production line. Shorts, of course, engineered and built a score of big-door, heavy-floor Britannias for the RAF, so they would obviously be technically well placed to convert, if the price were reasonable, some of BOAC's Britannia 312s—a conversion that should, incidentally, give these aircraft a better resale value. So it is reasonable to expect, if CL-44s are to be added to BOAC's fleet, that good reasons will be given why a new lease of life for some of the cerporation's Britannias is not possible. FAA DISCUSS MID-AIR COLLISION SOME details were released at a recent FAA sponsored symposium of progress with various approaches to the mid-air collision prob lem. Study is essentially centred on three systems. Firstly, the computer-based Collision Avoidance System (CAS) that would detect aircraft, evaluate the collision threat, and deter mine the avoiding action which could then be executed either automatically or by a human pilot. Secondly, the less complex Pilot Warning Instruments (PW1) which would alert the pilot to aircraft in the same "altitude segment" and provide sufficient information for the pilot to take evasive action. Tough electronic problems with both these systems suggest that regular use might be many years ahead; and whilst a PWI installation may cost about $1,000, CAS equipment may cost as much as 830,000. The third sphere of FAA work centres on making aircraft more conspicuous. Two possible conclusions are that anti-collision lights should be standardized in intensity, quality and positioning, and that ventral collision lights might have dot-dash flashing signals indicating aircraft altitude. OBJECTION TO BEA'S OBJECTION DURING the Air Transport Licensing Board's hearing into BKS's application for renewal and extension of their licence to operate services between London and Bilbao, the Board rebuked BEA for their "manifestly standard" letter of objection. The Board pointed out that it could not be argued that there was no need for a service which had operated with fair success for several years, and that BE A's services to Bordeaux and Biarritz could hardh be prejudiced by a service to an important Spanish destination more than 100 miles away. No decision on the application had been made as this issue went to press. IRISH POSTSCRIPT A CLOSER look at the annual accounts for Aer Rianta—the state- owned holding company which owns Aer Lingus and Aerlinte and which manages Dublin airport—suggests that the chairman's opening remark about his airlines' profitability ("both companies earned financial surpluses in their operations") might well need interpretation. A note on the report appeared in last week's issue. The basic facts are that Aer Lingus and Aerlinte are shown as making "a surplus on operating account" of £im on revenues of £10m. As the report admits, this does not allow for interest on the £10m capital tied up in the two airlines: this could reasonably be estimated to be about ££m. Nor is the development expenditure capitalized by Aerlinte allowed for. Although the accounts refer to an appropriation of £150,000 from 1961-62 profits to meet deve lopment expenses carried forward from earlier years, no mention is made of the fact that £156,000 of Aerlinte's 1961-62 expenses have been carried forward to future years. If allowance is made for these two points, then the combined results for the two airlines is converted from a profit of just under £im to a loss of over £ m. It appears, too, that Dublin airport does not allow in its accounts for interest on capital and depreciation. Bearing in mind that Dublin's revenues only just cover out-of-pocket expenditure, it seems that the main user—Aer Lingus/Aerlinte—is getting off lightly as far as airport dues are concerned.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
