FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1968
1968 - 0219.PDF
fllGHT International, 15 February I96B f the airline's budgetary and accounting procedures, and ° inted out that budgets were prepared for the four succeedingP ars to ensure a realistic assessment of projects in the longterm. The a»"une's three 707s had been financed by a loan fom the Boeing Finance Corporation, a consortium of 13 American banks. Mr Boud said that he believed that British Eagle had made inadequate provision in its forecast costs for aircraft charges; it was in fact obtaining its 707s on lease, and not on hire- purchase. This meant that it was not entitled to obtain capital allowances for tax purposes. Caledonian was satisfied that it would not have found it cheaper to lease its aircraft, and he considered it imprudent of British Eagle to enter an agreement which in practice meant paying 170 per cent of the aircraft purchase price over a period of 12 years. The interest charges that Caledonian would pay on each of its three 707s in a full year amounted to £138,500, and on spares, £47,049. A spirited effort by Mr R. M. Forrest, for BOAC, to deduce Caledonian's insurance rates from the data given was fended off by Mr Bebchick, whose offer to make the rates available to the board in confidence was accepted by the chairman. Mr E. Baldry and others of the board were a little unhappy with Caledonian's apportionment of overheads, and pointed out that British Eagle had split these between each of the company's operations. Mr Boud asserted that such a split of overheads was necessarily too arbitrary to be of any, practical value, and that Caledonian had elected to preserve a single i figure for its overheads. This, thought Mr Baldry, would not I go down well with some members of the accountancy pro- fession—at which Caledonian's representative offered to pre- pare a break-down. BUA'S STRUGGLE IN spite of a statement last week by Mr Alan Bristow, manag- ing director of British United Airways, of confidence in the airline's immediate future, there was still, as Flight went to press, a possibility that industrial strife would bring operations to a halt. Mr Bristow said earlier that pilots who did not sign individual contracts of employment will be given notice, and that if a sufficient number did not sign, the airline would have to close down. Of the 327 pilots in the Air Holdings Group, only 190 will now be employed by BUA; the rest are being offered con- tracts by other airlines in the group, without loss of salary or rank. Mr Bristow has said that a minimum of 150 are needed to continue operations. Nearly 120 signatures had been ob- tained by Monday morning, the day of the deadline for sign- ing. The British Air Line Pilots' Association, with which BUA is refusing to negotiate, claimed on Monday that at least 55 of the 190 BUA pilots had agreed not to sign the contract, and the association had sent out a ballot which asked members if they would be prepared to take industrial action should any pilot be dismissed because he would not sign the contract. Mr Bristow said that the loss of £1.1 million which had been forecast for 1968 would now be eliminated, and a profit would be returned in 1969. Utilisation of the BUA One-Eleven fleet was being increased from 2,300 to 2,800hr per aircraft per 213 annum, and the airline was considering more long-haul jets; he would have ordered more Super VClOs if these had been available soon enough, but it looked as though he would have to buy American, especially as he had means of obtaining immediate delivery of Boeing 707-320Cs. Further plans for reorganisation, and for expanding the BUA route structure, were hinted at by Mr Bristow; but the sheer size of the problem of reaching a state of profitability, even in the absence of industrial trouble, must be gravely disquieting to the airline's shareholders. MASEFIELD ON HEATHROW... HEATHROW'S new "747" terminal, details of which appeared in these pages last week, will be in full operation by the summer of 1971. Five gates should be in use in time for the summer season of 1970. This was said at a British Airports Authority news conference last week to announce the plans for the new terminal. The conveyor, which will provide power-assisted walking along the 900ft upright of the proposed T, will move at between 120 and 145ft/min. With experience this might be increased to 180ft/min. The cost of the T and of the massive docking systems involved (including properly equipped holding lounges for passengers) will be £7 million. Add a further £4 million for the completely new and separate arrivals building—which is as big again as the existing No 3 building—and the total invest- ment required in the next four years is £11 million. Mr Peter Masefield, chairman of the British Airports Authority, said that much of this money would be financed out of earnings. He revealed that BAA is working out a new and more logical basis for landing fees (cost of landing a 747 on the weight scale would be nearly £500) and predicted that the enormous cost of new apron equipment would mean greater common use by the airlines of items such as tractors. "For the first time in my recollection," concluded Mr Masefield, "we are going to have a new airport ready in time for a new type of aircraft." ...AND ON STANSTED THE British Airports Authority has so far kept out of the S tans ted controversy, but the chairman decided last week that the time had come for BAA to have its pennyworth. "There is so much nonsense talked and we have got to get this into perspective," said Mr Peter Masefield. Comparing Stansted with the proposed Foulness site the critical factors were that Stansted would be needed by 1974 whereas Foulness could not possibly be available before 1977. The cost of Foulness would perhaps be £200 million, and the cost of providing surface transport would be very much higher. In fact, Stansted was 34 miles from London, more than twice the average distance of the leading world airports from their cities, while the distance to Foulness would be more than 50 miles. "Of the ten alternative sites Stansted is the only one which could be ready in time, at reasonable cost, and which is within tolerable reach of London," said Mr Masefield. As for the loss of valuable agricultural land, Stansted would earn in L
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
