FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1978
1978 - 0691.PDF
FLIGHT International, 29 April 1978 1245 Air transp r\ Boeing's offer to British Aerospace CONTROVERSY continues over British Airways' plans to purchase 19 737s at a cost of £140 million and the I implications which this relatively small initial order could have on long- term international collaboration. , Although British Airways' plans have been roundly criticised by Ken I Gill, general secretary of Tass, the ( white-collar section of the Amalga mated Union of Engineering Workers r (see Flight last week), British Aero- , space has proved surprisingly reluc tant to enter the argument. Neverthe- r less last week it issued a statement to clarify its present position. The statement traces the development of > collaborative discussions as Boeing re fined its thinking on project aircraft. British Aerospace says: "In August 1976, a joint BAC/HSA team visited Seattle to look into the possibility of taking over the detailed design and manufacture of the wing, under carriage and engine pods for the 7N7. It was envisaged that British Aero space would participate as full part ners in programme management and decision-making over a wide field, though not in matters of vital com mercial interest to Boeing. "Despite continuing uncertainties on the size and configuration of the aircraft which would finally be built, the possibility of collaboration was pursued at senior levels in both com panies, leading to extensive and de tailed discussions through the first half of 1977. During this time the Boeing proposals became less attrac tive commercially and in their final form would have involved British Aerospace in little more than manu facture of the wing box with no parti cipation in management. "In July, 1977, following a high- level review, it was agreed that it was not practicable to set up a collabora tive venture on lines acceptable to both parties, although discussions con tinued for some time on an alterna tive proposition involving a possible 737 derivative. "Since the failure of the 7N7 dis- Why France wants the British The French Government view of Jet, expressed to Flight by a top official, is that it must be part of Airbus "because its credibility will be widened if we widen the products." He says that "successful manufacturers sell fleet inven tories, not just aircraft" to give airlines the best economic results. It will be difficult, the official feels, for competing European teams to sell products on a separate basis. "I personally would fight against the formula of loose co ordinations—-it would be full of evils." The question of British membership of Airbus "raises some difficult problems and we don't know whether these can be solved," says the official. He hopes that the manu facturers will find a way. "We are open to proposals pro vided they do not paralyse Airbus Industrie, which is now doing well." He says that Aerospatiale found it difficult at first to surrender some of its independence to Airbus Industrie, but has now accepted it as necessary. Is there any difficulty in Jet programme control being in the UK, including design, flight-testing and final assembly? "I don't see any problem provided there is a strong commercial and technical organisation associated with Airbus." How does the French Government see this association, bearing in mind that the BIO will be a Toulouse programme? "This is a problem. I would like to see the British making up their minds about the BIO because if it is launched in mid-1978 without UK participation it will be difficult to restructure Airbus to include a British share in Jet. Not impossible, but extremely difficult. It is common sense. Listen to what you are asking. How can there be a common organisation for two programmes that are not linked? In that case why don't the British launch the Jet themselves?" Will France press on alone with Jet if the British partnership stalls? "I daren't guess. My opinion is that the BIO will be launched this year and Jet next year. There is no timetable. BIO is quite well in advance of Jet. We are in the stage of reflection: we shall be ready to discuss the launching in June, but we shall probably not be in a position to go ahead until later in the year. We may need several months to discuss the final proposals. We have strong doubts about the ability of the French budget to finance both BIO and Jet at the same time." What exactly is the French Government's interpretation of "association" between Airbus Industrie and the British? "Aerospatiale lost part of its soul to Airbus Industrie and believe me it was difficult. But it has been repaid by the A300's success. The value of the British team will be very great, and UK industry can play an important role, but if it requires independence it must understand that this is not possible for us. French people can't forget that the British left Airbus Industrie. It will be difficult for them to get back in for psychological reasons inside the British and French Governments, and because I don't think British industry has the faculty to give up part of its soul tempor arily, which is the price to be paid for any true inter national co-operation. But Europe won't be complete unless we are together." Cost of developing the BIO will, he says, be almost Fr2,500 million, nearly £300 million, with Jet a little more expensive. "But over four or five years the total will be spread among three partners—say £40 million a year." How has the French Government been able to put pres sure on Air France to order 52 Jets? "This was a free declaration, an internal planning indication. We have power to say no to them, but no power to direct them to buy a particular product. Air Inter will probably indicate a planning requirement for 20 or 30 Jets." What exactly is Air France's B10 requirement? "Until last year it was very limited. The B10 has been mostly Lufthansa, but now Air France's people are showing stronger interest in it." How can the British join the B10? "By asking for it and by paying for it." Haven't the British asked already? "Yes, but we have to take account of the total problem, including Jet." Is there any truth in reports that Concorde is proving so expensive that operations will have to be quietly stopped? "If the French Government has any taste for suicide it will stop Concorde. I could be mistaken about French public opinion but the probability of such an event is close to zero. We just have to continue to pay." Air France's Concorde New York load factors have not been as outstandingly good as have the 80 per cents achieved by British Airways, "though I heard today that they are improving again. This aircraft is better west bound than eastbound. It should always fly westbound! No, there are no secret discussions with the British. It would be impossible to keep any such discussions secret. We couldn't afford to have such discussions."
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
