FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1964
1964 - 2261.PDF
278 FLIGHT! international, 20 August 1964 Letters Litters far these columns are welcomed, though "Flight Inter- natlonaF' does not necessarily endorse the views expressed. Name and address should be given, not necessarily for publication in full. Brief letters will have a better chance of early publication. of Commons that it was "impossible to believe . . . that the same company . . . could come to the conclusion that the number of aircraft needed ... was not 62 but 38." Every- body to date seems to have missed the one common factor in all these discussions and calculations, the BO AC planning staff. I hope Sir Giles Guthrie appreciates that the people who made the calculation that 62 aircraft were needed are virtually the same crowd who now say that only 38 are necessary. Hounslow, Mddx CHARLES PAGE BOAC and the VC1O SIR,—Having worked a little on the VC10 as a student, going through various departments at Weybridge, I must concur with Mr Abell when he says that "at the working level there is no lack of the will to make this fine aircraft a success" Flight International, August 6). Having seen the pride and considerable hard work devoted to the birth of each aircraft, the blow to the men's morale due to crass Government mismanagement must have been crushing. The Government have crawled out of the mess with a compromise which leaves this soaring giant dragging its wheels in the mud. With no clear-cut Ministerial decisions on aviation given to BOAC, to Vickers, or to the ATLB, as evinced in the columns of Flight International every week, from breakfast with Bacon to lunch with the Editorial, then it is no surprise to find British Aviation in its present sad state. Would it be too much to hope that the next Minister of Aviation, of whichever party, will be a man of guts and decision—perhaps another Beaverbrook ? Mr Abell raises the point of tailor-made aircraft. This need not necessarily mean a bad aircraft. If the airline itself is in the forefront of airline progress, then the aircraft it spawns will continue this progress. The great series of Douglas transports were all produced at the instigation of one or other of the major American airlines. Mr Abell instances the case of the Comet and BOAC. PanAm is now seen as the current trend-setter and thus the instigator of the Boeing 707's great success. But even this highly successful aircraft has undergone considerable growth and change to reach its present pre-eminent position. Confidence in the VC10 should not be lost, especially in view of its high serviceability record, safety, and Flight's new appraisal of the future requirements of BOAC's VC10 fleet. Hockley, Essex M. KENNEDY SIR,—The article "More Facts Needed" by the air transport editor (July 30) opens with criticism of the shortage of pub- lished figures by which to judge the BOAC VC10 affair. Unfortunately, however, the article invites just the same criticism for itself. The hub of the whole VC10 debate is the aircraft's operat- ing costs, and the article (in its last paragraph) cites costs/CTM with no reference to assumptions or to source of information. These costs, which every airline computes differently, are for up to three years in the future—so they cannot possibly be "the hardest hard facts." I doubt if it is right, either, to compare a passenger Super VC10 with a cargo 707. The article is, I'm afraid, well below the usual Flight International standard. Chichester, Sussex D. c. MCDOUALL [The air transport editor writes: It would have been more sen- sible to have used the phrase "probable hard facts." We agree that the hub of the whole VCIO debate is operating costs, and this was why we thought it worth trying to give a measure to the problem of how BOAC are going to match the decreasing operating costs of their competitors..] SIR,—With reference to the air transport editor's article questioning the number of aircraft BOAC really need Flight International, August 6), I would like to add a comment. He quotes Mr Diamond's statement in the House SIR,—Your various articles in Flight International for July 30, dealing with the VC10, were extremely interesting, especially "More Facts Needed," by your air transport editor. Do you not think that the time has come for a full appre- ciation of the VC10 and Super VC10, and a full comparison of operating costs with various marks of 707, DC-8, etc? A number of figures have been published and most of them do not seem to tally (see the New Scientist of July 23, page 199, and Time of July 31, page 55). Apart from giving realistic figures of operating costs, why not once for all explode the bogy and air the facts of the VC10 and Super VC10 having a "built-in" penalty due to its configuration. It is said that the VC10 is carrying a lot of dead weight which has been required for reinforcing the wing. What is the truth of this and is it not time that the matter were ventilated ? London NW3 . L. s. ARMANDIAS Military, Civil and Independent ATCOs SIR,—Mr Freeman ("Letters," August 6), must obviously have a rather limited knowledge of modern air traffic control, or he would know that there do not exist, in the RAF or at independent airfields, men capable of stepping into a strike-bound air traffic control centre and keeping the traffic flowing. This is not to belittle their skills in any way. Recovering supersonic fighters from the upper air is a very highly specialized job. Sorting out a conglomeration of assorted commercial traffic on a busy airways sector is another. Both take years to learn. Does Mr Freeman really think it possible to step from one job to another at the drop of a headset? Does he consider that the resulting control (whether of the fighter or the airliner) would even be safe, let alone expeditious? (Several airlines refused to fly to France while the military were in charge of the airways!) Does he believe that a tower controller used to VFR circuit traffic could handle London's 700 daily IFR move- ments, when it takes most people a month even to learn the airport layout and attempt to give a taxi clearance? The day it happens I'll leave the air and take to the road. Only to find, I suppose, squads of military police on point duty and martial law pervading. Liphook, Hants B. M. MCILROY The Air Union Cake SIR,—Your news item "KLM and Air Union" in the July 9 issue (page 48), and especially the quoted percentages, prompted me to calculate some figures from which certain conclusions may be drawn and which could support KLM's decision not to join Air Union on the basis of the proposed quota. (1) In table "A" is set out the following information: (i) per- centage share of scheduled capacity tonne-km; (ii) ditto for the total of scheduled and non-scheduled CTK; (iii) ditto for the total of load tonne-km; (iv) percentage share proposed by each airline. Remarks:— (a) The above percentages were obtained from the 1963 air traffic results as they appeared in Flight International, May 14 (page 804), and relate to the five airlines involved. (b) It is, of course, wise to assume that the delegates in Brussels were not solely concerned with the 1963 figures but
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
