FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1963
1963 - 1378.PDF
200 FLIGHT International, 8 August 1963 CAN BRITAIN LEARN FROM FRANCE? organizations concerned with aviation. Even the CNEIAF, which brings together representatives of industry, specialist bureaux and Government in a sort of permanent round-table conference, acts only in an advisory capacity in policy planning. When comparing the administrative systems of different coun tries one must distinguish between organizations and their functions. I have already reminded you that the French have no Ministry of Aviation, and the functions and inter-relationships of many of the aviation agencies in France are a reflection of this basic difference between our two countries. In general, the relationship between the Ministry of Aviation and the British aircraft industry is excellent; and it already embodies the more important, aspects of the work shared among several organizations in France. Improvements that may be necessary in the relationship between the industry and the Government in the United Kingdom must be more effective in the context of the existing organization than through the creation of further agencies on the French model. Speaking with a politician's hat on for the moment, I am bound to say that it is gratifying to hear the Ministry so well spoken of. But, within the existing British organization, can you really envisage the Ministry of Aviation as a strategic and tactical authority—that is to say, one with responsibility for drawing up the long-term plan as well as for allocating and progressing contracts provided for in that plan? To use your own words, the "tactical" authority in France for allocation and progressing of Government contracts with the aircraft industry is the Direction Technique et Industrielle. In this country these duties are performed by the MoA, which also has some responsibilities in the "strategic" area. The concept of a single aviation planning body with full strategic authority seems unrealistic because it must be subject to the dictates of national economic and defence policies. Certainly no such authoritative body exists in France. Role of the SBAC If you feel that the present pattern of organization in this country is generally satisfactory, how would you say the SBAC fits into the picture ? In the present context the Society acts as a channel of communica tion between manufacturers and Government, and as spokesman for the views of the aircraft industry as a whole, in addition to the other duties which it undertakes on behalf of its members. It is broadly analogous to its opposite number in France, theUSIAS,but it has the added advantages of centralized discussion and direct access to Government departments. In any organization chart of British aviation, the SBAC would be drawn in a key position be tween industry and Government. In France the position is far from clear-cut; charts compiled and published there show numerous channels of liaison between the industry, its trade association, the administration, Government offices, export organizations and other bodies. Responsibilities overlap and inevitably there are frustrations which the French industry freely admit could be overcome if they, too, had a Ministry for Aviation to co-ordinate the Government's role. You recall that elsewhere I criticized the SBAC as being too insular; to what extent is their insistence upon an exclusively national display at Farnborough consistent with this criticism of insularity ? The objective of Farnborough has been to sell British goods— an insular occupation, but one for which I think no apology is required. A significant measure of the success achieved is that the number of representatives of potential overseas customers who have accepted the Society's invitation to Farnborough has steadily increased year by year, reaching in 1962 the remarkable total of 11 000. Direct effect on sales of any exhibition cannot be measured, but beyond doubt the SBAC Displays have made an important contribution to our export trade. For sound reasons, international co-operation has become the mode in aeronautical construction, and in the fact of the long list of agreements between British and foreign manufacturers, and the Society's own membership of AICMA, the British aircraft industry cannot be held guilty of insularity. Insofar as joint production pro grammes involve joint sales policies, e.g., the Concorde, the SBAC has gladly opened Farnborough's doors to sales and technical repre sentatives of the French partners of the British companies con cerned. The issue is whether we can do even better. I understand that some members of the industry feel that more might be done to ensure greater Government support. Sir Reginald Verdon Smith touched on this in the "Flight International" interview a fortnight ago. And the Air League spoke of the success of the French export organization, OFEMA [Office Francois d'Exportation de Material Aeronautique], and went on to recommend that the Board of Trade and the SBAC might do more together. What is your thought on that ? That is a difficult one. I must first make it clear that the grouping of the industry has done a great deal in the last year or two to give our export effort greater punch. But we are giving this problem of exports our very careful attention, and have one or two ideas in mind. That is as far as I can go at the moment. Concorde going well We have discussed some of the relative features and merits of the two national structures; would you say that any of the differences have emerged during the course of the production agreements between the two countries—on the Concorde project, for example ? The Concorde project is going extraordinarily well. Of course, it is primarily one between the two main contracting companies as far as the engineering is concerned. But in addition there is an elaborate procedure set up between the two governments to ensure the fair sharing of production under the fifty-fifty agreement. And there are very complicated safeguards drawn up by the Ministries. For example, there are five separate stages of provisional speci fications for an item of equipment before the final choice is made, and officials have the right to intervene at each of the five major stage reviews. This machinery is inevitably complicated, but the undoubted goodwill on the project is finding a way through or round every obstacle that has arisen. As to the differences between the two political and industrial structures, I have heard absolutely nothing of any difficulties arising from them. Whatever may be the social and commercial consequences of the supersonic transport, it is conceivable that this Concorde project may have a quite profound influence on the future development of Anglo-French collaboration, as well as on the structure of the British industry and its partnership with the State. For example, some kind of functional federalism may be a much more hopeful way of drawing closer to the European continent than the Common Market approach. Anglo-French Understanding It was good to get this additional and very confident assurance from Mr Bowyer that work was proceeding so well on the Concorde. One gets the impression from other sources that there has developed a very close personal understanding between General Puget, who succeeded M Hereil as president of Sud Aviation, and Sir George Edwards. That understanding, together with the enthusiasm of Dr Russell and his colleagues, and their counterparts from across the Channel, clearly can give a very considerable impetus to progress- But the non-engineering problems are far from insignificant. Apart from language there are all the questions associated with the calcula tion of costs—different wage-rates, fringe benefits, social benefits. When the bill is to be shared it is clearly important these factors are doubly important. Of course, these are early days yet for serious engineering prob- lems to emerge. If costs mount above estimates then presumabl the right of officials to "intervene" is more likely to be exercised. One gathers that provision for intervention, or interference, as se> out on paper is a little alarming. However, one hopes that progress continues to go well. There w little doubt that each side, both in the industrial and governmental spheres, will learn from the other. It will be interesting to put ;ornc of my questions again, after about two years' experience.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
