FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1973
1973 - 0025.PDF
FLIGHT International, 4 January /973 19 wrong decision, but a delayed decision often turns out to be a very wrong decision because Ministers and officials familiar with the problem change, or the original purpose of the project is lost sight of or changed, or because political considerations obtrude. There is little doubt that there is room for a man of very high experience to head a cost-monitoring organisa tion of this kind, but he would be deeply resented in such a preserve of the establishment, rigorously obstructed and, if of the requisite calibre, probably better employed as a Chancellor of the Exchequer. Finally we must consider operating costs. As the French point out, you cannot expect an airline to accept uncom petitive operating costs. There will be arguments about the computation of operating costs, and some of the disagreements arise through differences in route patterns. But airlines cannot expect aircraft tailored precisely to their requirements, and sometimes find they were mistaken even if they do get them. About many of the factors in the computation there is no argument; but first cost is a more significant factor, with the high cost of present-day aircraft, than it was 15 years ago. If first cost of aircraft, engines and spares can be pegged at levels competitive with American aircraft, as previously discussed, this factor at least can be eliminated from controversy. A really important factor is the assumption made regarding the probable useful life of the new aircraft. The Boeing 707 has been in service for 15 years or more, but can one assume, for example, that Concorde will have a similar life, or must we assume that a bigger, faster and more economic supersonic aircraft will be available in ten years' time? It makes a significant difference to the calcu lation. Fortunately there is no direct competition—you either go supersonic or you do not. Of the three factors to be compared—technical quality, cost and operating cost—there can be little doubt that the last-named will prove the most contentious. To the three factors I would add a fourth. Surely we in Europe must try to forecast the future correctly; that is, make sure that we have the aircraft that the airlines will want in, say, six years' time. The aeroplane we develop must not be "just another aeroplane." To gain acceptance it must be sufficiently better to make it well-nigh imperative for the airlines to change to it. The British were right in foreseeing the impact of the turboprop and the jet, even if they did not profit as fully as they should have done from their inception. Let us hope the French and British are right about Concorde. Great vision backed by deep knowledge and experience are needed by those concerned. Some have a flair, an intuitive approach which they have been able to check by more orthodox means. Years ago the calculations and comparisons could be laborious. Now one should be able to feed a hypothetical aircraft through a coirmlete airline network on a computer in a short space of time—and perhaps modify the conception to get the optimum result. It is in this field that the European airlines and manufac turers must work together. Of all the decisions an aircraft manufacturer has to make none can be more important than the initiation of a project—the decision when and on what to go ahead. Of all the decisions an airline has to make can any be more important to financial solvency than the choice of equipment? This is where the board needs real strength, real understanding and experience—the ability at least to comprehend and evaluate a sometimes highly technical exposition. There is not much evidence that Ministers have this clearly in mind when making aDpointments to the boards of the airlines. Moreover, despite the British Minister's directive of January 1, 1964, there is no field in which British airlines have suffered so much ill-informed and politically biased interference. I have always fancied and still fancy that they order things better on what we must now, I suppose, stop calling "the Continent." It has been suggested that European airlines should be compensated if they are forced by the policy we are dis cussing to buy uncompetitive aircraft. I believe this would prove unworkable. The arguments would be interminable and one can be sure the airline would lose. I prefer a more positive approach. The European airlines now have a wealth of experience of their business. The European manufacturers have shown flair, foresight and technical competence. If they collaborate there will be no such thing as an uncompetitive European aircraft. There is but one missing link—the necessary government support. This must be decided promptly. The best of aircraft projects don't keep—they can get copied and even overtaken. I agree with the French. But I still think, as I did ten years ago, that the whole field of aviation finance is pretty crazy. Changes in contract law and tariffs By SIR RICHARD SMEETON I AM OFTEN ASKED how it is that we say we are Europeans while at the same time our industry is collaborating with that of the United States and those of several other countries outside the continent of Europe. I see nothing contradictory about this at all. We must col laborate with Europe in order to build a European industry of sufficient strength to ensure that Europe, a great user of aircraft, gets its rightful share of the immense amount of money that its governments, defence forces and air transport operators are likely to spend on military and civil aircraft in the future. This does not mean that we are anti-American or anti-Bussian—it means that we must preserve in Europe the technological know-how to ensure that we can meet this market opportunity. What steps should we take in Europe to reach the goal I have outlined above? In the military field it behoves European governments to produce military requirements which are agreed by all and to so arrange matters that there is some form of inter-governmental procurement agency which will decide how the contracts for research, development and production are to be let. The European aerospace industry would then be strongly placed to extract the most cost-effective answer to the long produc tion runs which such a course would make possible. In the civil field there is much that can be done by European governments to create an atmosphere in the market place which will be an incentive for European companies to get together to provide the civil aviation market with what it requires. It is essential that European company law should be developed as soon as possible to avoid the disadvantage which at present means that so-called European companies all have to be registered under the law of a particular country. The second field in which I believe progress can be made is in the examination and rationalisation of tariffs, not only between the members of the community, which will come about by application of the Treaty of Bome, but also between the community as a whole and outside countries. The third field is more of detail, but one would certainly hop(e to see the EEC encouraging the grass roots work which is now being undertaken by Aicma (Association Internationale des Constructeurs de Materiel Aerospatial), the representative body of European aerospace industries, in the very important matters of standardisation of materials and measurements and also in the even more urgent field of producing a European air safety code. In the question of developing a European market for European aircraft it is important that governments should look to rationalisation of air routes within Europe and set their faces against monopoly situations which can be held to restrict the normal •evolution of city-to-city traffic across what we call international boundaries. In the integrated Europe these should be as meaningless from the point of view of air transport as are state lines in the continental United States. For the very same reason, Europe should decide to have its own cabotage fare structure which has meant so much in the development of a domestic market for civil aircraft in North America. * Director, SBAC.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
