FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1972
1972 - 0009.PDF
FLIGHT International, 6 January 1972 7 Westminster CONTINUING the debate on December 15 in the House of Commons, MR JOHN WILKINSON (Con, Bradford W.) spoke from a predominantly military standpoint. He emphasised Mr McNair-Wilson's point (see Westmin ster column last week) about 38 Nimrods being insufficient for the job and the valuable basis for exports which would be afforded by a further order. He likewise saw a shortage of Harriers and a lack of heavy-lift heli copters to support them. It was "an almost criminal folly, an act of politi cal blindness which will have very grave military implications if not rectified, that we have not yet put Harrier to sea." He foresaw the need for an uprating of the Jaguar's Adour engine, and increased self-defence ability, if the aircraft was to sell overseas. "The Government must throughout continue to emphasise that the MRCA project is probably more central to the future of our aerospace industry even than Concorde. It will involve more jobs and . . . many of the systems and . . . design features are even more advanced." MR ARTHUR PALMER (Lab/Co-op, Bristol Central) was the first speaker to launch into Britain's space activity: "... there should be an independent British national space agency—nothing as elaborate as the American organisa tion . . . but certainly something which would be fairly close to, say, the French system." Echoes of this senti ment were heard shortly after from MR CRANLEY ONSLOW (Con, Woking): while the UK had a lead in commercial research and development, the French were to spend on space in 1971 ten times the expenditure projected by the British Government. Mr Onslow, turning to engines, did not wish to under-estimate the politi cal content of the RB.211 programme: "If BEA has a preference for the 1011 as part of the corporation's re-equip ment programme, then the Govern ment should make it known to those who run the affairs of BEA that they see positive advantage in getting the decision taken earlier rather than later." MR KENNETH WARREN (Con, Hastings) was not quite so sure: "I hope the Government will leave it to the airlines—the customer—to make this decision." According to MR RORERT ADLEY (Con, Bristol NE), "we sometimes appear to be self-conscious about the costs involved in developing aircraft pro jects, but when we look, for instance, over the past ten years we realise that British Rail has swallowed about £1,000 million of public money with remarkably little to show for it in terms of exports." MR DAVID PRICE, Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, put this figure more into perspective at the end of the debate: "Since 1960 Government assistance to the industry on the civil side . . . has totalled over £1,000 million at 1971 prices. Currently support is continuing to run at a level of about £100 million a year. All this is additional to the substantial defence expenditure . . . currently running at over £300 million a year." The main concern of MR WILLIAM RODGERS (Lab, Stockton-on-Tees) was Concorde, but before referring to this in any detail he pointed out that he was conscious that there was no clear view in industry or the House of what was the future of the industry. This, he felt, was the result of the open-ended commitment over Con corde and the RB.211. If the Govern ment was not careful, he warned, an important part of the time available would be lost because the costs, being open-ended, would mean a Govern ment feeling unable to turn its mind to the development of other projects. "I should like to see Governments pursuing a far greater initiating role in aerospace than hitherto." "The House has a right to know the selling price of Concorde and the factors and assumptions involved," said Mr Rodgers, warming to his task. Concorde "belongs to every taxpayer who has contributed and will con tribute to it." It was for the House of Commons, in its role as a check on the Executive, to ensure that there were proper safeguards involved in whatever contracts were taken out. There was the broader principle of parliamentary control. There was the question of what there was to lose by revealing the price: " there should be no unreasonable sheltering behind the argument of commercial confidentiality." There were several factors in obtaining a fuller explanation of the equation involved. Mr Rodgers wanted to know about the assumption on total sales, how much R&D was to be written off in the price, if any, and what guarantees were being or would be given to the manufacturers if the unit cost exceeded the price agreed with the airlines. He wanted to know about the amount of loans to the manu facturers for production aircraft; how many aircraft did the loans cover— what would be the rate of interest? What formula had been agreed for spares? Would present option-holders buy at a favourable price, and what would be the differential between the price for the first 74 and that for subsequent aircraft? Was there to be any subsidy to BOAC or Air France to help them buy or operate—if not, would loans be made available to BOAC and at what rate? Not altogether surprisingly, by no means all of Mr Rodgers's probing questions were answered by Mr David Price, winding up the debate, who started: "There are two factors of major significance which I believe will be determining for the future of our own industry. The first is the world recession in civil aerospace which is upon us." The second was the expected entry of the United Kingdom into the enlarged European community. "For the long-term future," said Mr Price, "I believe we must think seriously of the possibility of internationalised companies with, ideally, integrated managements, finance and physical resources operated with optimum efficiency in our mutual interests." Several speakers had asked about the state of employment in the in dustry: "The facts are," said Mr Price, "that employment in the in dustry has been declining slowly but continuously during the last decade or so. Now at some 225,000, it is about 25 per cent below the 1961 total." Something of the order of 2,500 fewer people were employed in the industry in 1971 than in the previous year. Mr William Rodgers had asked a number of very important questions about the selling price of Concorde. "I will try to be as helpful as I can," said Mr Price. The British Minister for Aerospace and the French Minister of Transport had agreed the pricing policy to be adopted by the manu facturers on the basis of proposals submitted by the four manufacturing firms. "The next step is for the manu facturers to formulate their contract proposals within the guidelines agreed by the two Governments. The actual price at which Concorde will be sold will depend on the outcome of these further negotiations between the manufacturers and the airlines." Mr Rodgers was not quite satisfied: "Is the Hon Gentleman pleading delay or an absolute requirement that the House of Commons will not be told even when it is common knowledge?" he interjected. "There cannot," replied the Under-Secretary, "be one price in the way that ordinary products are priced. According to the needs of each customer airline, there will be variations in the aircraft, and some of the factors to which the Hon Gentle man referred, such as guarantees, will vary from one airline to another." Mr Price ended optimistically with a re-iteration of Government support for Concorde; but perhaps some Members went home with the words of MR KENNETH WARREN (Con, Hastings) ringing more loudly in their ears: "In the 1960s, this country's aero space industry built up the French aerospace industry. In the 1970s, this country's aerospace industry will build up the German aerospace in dustry. In terms of British entry into the Common Market, we should be delighted. I hope that the end products are good. But we must not forget that ours is the second-largest industry outside the United States. We must not throw that away. It is a unique capability and is now for many parts of the country the sole and almost the traditional industry."
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
