FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1967
1967 - 1333.PDF
Official Organ of the Royal Aero Club First Aeronautical Weekly in the World rounded in 1909 THURSDAY 21 DECEMBER 1967 Number 3067 Volume 92 Editor 1. M. RAMSDEN Air Transport Editor H. A. TAYLOR Production Editor ROY CASEY Editorial Director MAURICE A. SMITH DFC Managing Director H. N. PRIAULX MBE In this World News * Parliament Air Transport Swiss Watch Sport and Business Letters First Step into the SST Era ;, Special feature: Flight-deck Displays Strong Aircraft Industry an Economic Necessity Spaceflight Defence Industry International Roger Bacon's Christmas Competition Straight and Level issue 0 1 8 020 021 029 1 032 033 035 038 1044 1 045 047 1049 1 050 1 052 Iliffe Transport Publications Ltd, DorsetHouse, Stamford Street, London SE1; telephone 01-928 3333. Telegrams/Telex: Flight Iliffepres, 25137 London. Annual subscriptions: Home £6. Over-seas £6 for one year; £12 for three years. Canada and USA $18 for one year;$36 for three years. Change of address- please note that four weeks' notice isrequired, together with the return of a wrapper bearing the old address. SecondClass Mail privileges authorised at New York, NY. Branch Offices: Coventry, 8-10 Corpora-tion Street; telephone Coventry 25210. Birmingham, 401 Lynton House, WalsallRoad, Birmingham 22b; telephone 021 BIRchfield 4838. Manchester. 260 Deans-gate, Manchester 3; telephone Blackfriars 4412 or Deansgate 3595. Glasgow, 123Hope Street, Glasgow C2; telephone Central 1265-6. Bristol, 11 Marsh Street,Bristol 1; telephone Bristol 21491-2. New York, NY: Thomas Skinner & Co(Publishers) Ltd, 300 East 42nd Street, New York 10017, USA; telephone 867-3900. © Iliffe Transport Publications Ltd1967. Permission to reproduce illustra- tions and letterpress can be granted onlyunder written agreement. Brief extracts or comments may be made with dueacknowledgement. Value for Money There was a disappointing press reaction to the SBAC's policy statement of December 13, a brief preview of which appeared in last week's issue. A full report begins on page 1044. The collective reaction might be summarised as: "So what? Isn't it the same old aviation-is- good-for-you stuff?" We hope that the SB AC will not be discouraged, and that it will keep up the public pressure. Its statement was remarkably forthright, bearing in mind how many differing interests have to be reconciled by a trade association. For years people have urged the SB AC to speak out against its detractors: when it does so, after much effort and some misgivings behind the scenes, and little impact is apparently made, the anti-public-relations voices in the industry may tend to prevail. This would be a pity, because good public relations are essential for an industry dependent upon public money. It is easy enough to advocate better cost control. But is it really so difficult to implement? Two simple rules need to be observed: full public accountability for all contracts involving public money, with the incentives for success and the penalties for failure spelt out publicly and understood by everyone in the board room and on the shop floor; and equality of information between Whitehall and the industry. One passage in the SBAC statement was definitely not "the mixture as before." Indeed, we recall no occasion when the SBAC has referred to overcharging and excess profits. Now it has done so, adding that "responsibility for the costing of Government contracts rests equally with Whitehall." We maintain that the starting point is Whitehall. Nobody expects the SBAC to say "For heaven's sake give us tougher contract terms." But we have found nobody in the industry who would not accept such measures if they were imposed, or who would not— given the right profit incentives—accept the principles of full publication and equality of information. The real drag-anchor is the Civil Service. With its own settled ways to protect and preserve, it seems to think that greater masses of paper, bigger committees, and more technical-costs officers are the answer. Tougher Rules They are wrong. In the United States the Department of Defence— pushed by Congress—has just issued tougher rules for companies working on government contracts. To help officials ensure that contractors comply with the US Truth in Negotiations Act, they are to have the right to examine all contractors' books for up to three years after the final payment on a contract. It is no good knocking the knockers, or exhorting the press to show more pride in British aviation. In a democracy there has got to be critical appraisal of the way public money is spent. Our governmental system makes no proper provision for this. Indeed, the system—defended by one minister after another—often appears to be designed to ensure that the taxpayer is as uninformed as possible. The result is that criticism, both in Parliament and in the press, is often uninformed, sometimes half-informed, and invariably too late. Thus does our country convert healthy criticism into rotting cynicism. The onus is upon Government and industry to recognise the necessity for informed criticism where publicly financed projects are concerned, and to see that the information is provided. A Happy Christmas to all oar Readers
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
