BOAC - how were they allowed to behave as they did?
Discussion
Having just finished re-reading Empire of the Clouds, I actually got quite angry at the behavior of BOAC during the late 50s according to the book, and the consequent damage to the British aircraft industry.
The book alleges that BOAC had a desire to buy American airliners - ok, that's fair enough after the Comet accidents. However, it seems the deliberately went out of their way to trash the British offerings.
Firstly, the Britannia - with the icing problems on the Proteus engines all but solved, and only occurring in a very easily avoidable set of circumstances, BOAC publicly alleged it was a seriously dangerous aircraft and said they didn't want to buy it.
Secondly, having finally bought a few Brits... Vickers offered them the V-1000 prototype as an airliner after the military cancelled its new heavy lift program. "No thanks", they replied, "We forsee ourselves coping perfectly well for the next 5 years on our fleet of Comet 4s, Brits and American piston types". Cue massive financial and emotional trauma to Vickers and its staff at several years of their work being totally wasted. 6 months later, BOAC went cap in hand to the government for £20 million to buy several new Boeing and Douglas jetliners as "our fleet will soon be obsolete".
Thirdly, staggeringly, a couple of years later they were back at Vickers' door asking for an all-new jetliner capable of operating from hot, short and dusty empire airports. Having duly come up with the VC10, BOAC then repeatedly and needlessly changed their mind over passenger capacity, necessitating several redesigns. This delayed the aircraft by enough years that not only were many valuable sales and the market lead for a new generation of jetliners lost, but the very reason for its existence was eroded by the growing number of empire airports expanding to modern runway standards. With this, BOAC turned round and publicly (again) declared the aircraft as too expensive to operate competitively - pretty much killing all but a handful of external sales for Vickers.
They then ordered more new Boeings and only a handful of VC10s - which ended up working out cheaper on a lot of routes than the 707!
So my question is, why the hell were they allowed to get away with almost single-handedly ruining the British airliner industry? Where was the outrage from a still pretty patriotic population at that time? Why did the UK industry repeatedly take this lying down instead of standing firm and refusing to deal with them? Why did the Government, given it was a national airline, not rap their knuckles and tell them to stop publicly denouncing the UK PLC?
The book alleges that BOAC had a desire to buy American airliners - ok, that's fair enough after the Comet accidents. However, it seems the deliberately went out of their way to trash the British offerings.
Firstly, the Britannia - with the icing problems on the Proteus engines all but solved, and only occurring in a very easily avoidable set of circumstances, BOAC publicly alleged it was a seriously dangerous aircraft and said they didn't want to buy it.
Secondly, having finally bought a few Brits... Vickers offered them the V-1000 prototype as an airliner after the military cancelled its new heavy lift program. "No thanks", they replied, "We forsee ourselves coping perfectly well for the next 5 years on our fleet of Comet 4s, Brits and American piston types". Cue massive financial and emotional trauma to Vickers and its staff at several years of their work being totally wasted. 6 months later, BOAC went cap in hand to the government for £20 million to buy several new Boeing and Douglas jetliners as "our fleet will soon be obsolete".
Thirdly, staggeringly, a couple of years later they were back at Vickers' door asking for an all-new jetliner capable of operating from hot, short and dusty empire airports. Having duly come up with the VC10, BOAC then repeatedly and needlessly changed their mind over passenger capacity, necessitating several redesigns. This delayed the aircraft by enough years that not only were many valuable sales and the market lead for a new generation of jetliners lost, but the very reason for its existence was eroded by the growing number of empire airports expanding to modern runway standards. With this, BOAC turned round and publicly (again) declared the aircraft as too expensive to operate competitively - pretty much killing all but a handful of external sales for Vickers.
They then ordered more new Boeings and only a handful of VC10s - which ended up working out cheaper on a lot of routes than the 707!
So my question is, why the hell were they allowed to get away with almost single-handedly ruining the British airliner industry? Where was the outrage from a still pretty patriotic population at that time? Why did the UK industry repeatedly take this lying down instead of standing firm and refusing to deal with them? Why did the Government, given it was a national airline, not rap their knuckles and tell them to stop publicly denouncing the UK PLC?
Some Gump said:
Perfectly good as in flawed?
The VC10 was a perfectly good aircraft that turned out to be very competitive to run, plus had extra popularity from passengers due to the low noise level inside. It could abd should have been a world beater - imagine it in place of all the DC9/MD80s currently in service The Brit, Ok the engines could still ice up but only if you deliberately kept it in a narrow set of conditions. Not really a major flaw.
BOAC were in a difficult position. On the one hand they were supposed to be a business, on the other they were under pressure to buy UK aircraft whether they wanted them or not. Even though most British airliners at the time weren't bad, they would still be expected to buy them even if they were crap. So it would be better for them if the UK industry disappeared.
But agree they did resort to dirty tactics.
BEA were just as bad, read up on the Trident/727 saga if your blood pressure can stand it.
But agree they did resort to dirty tactics.
BEA were just as bad, read up on the Trident/727 saga if your blood pressure can stand it.
The icing problems on the Proteus were never completely solved. I know someone who flew on them right into the 70s and they still had problems.
They also had serious electrical issues on occasions as well. One crashed at Shannon in 1977 when the propellers on one side of the aircraft went into reverse when the plane was about a mile out from the runway.
The Britannia took too long to develop. By the time it was ready for service nobody really wanted a big turboprop airliner.
They also had serious electrical issues on occasions as well. One crashed at Shannon in 1977 when the propellers on one side of the aircraft went into reverse when the plane was about a mile out from the runway.
The Britannia took too long to develop. By the time it was ready for service nobody really wanted a big turboprop airliner.
ChemicalChaos said:
Some Gump said:
Perfectly good as in flawed?
The VC10 was a perfectly good aircraft that turned out to be very competitive to run, plus had extra popularity from passengers due to the low noise level inside. It could abd should have been a world beater - imagine it in place of all the DC9/MD80s currently in service The Brit, Ok the engines could still ice up but only if you deliberately kept it in a narrow set of conditions. Not really a major flaw.
ChemicalChaos said:
Where was the outrage from a still pretty patriotic population at that time?
The population wouldn't really have known about it.In the pre-internet, with only 2 TV channels you would have been relying on a major newspaper expose of the situation to make the population aware, and even then, in a pre-social media age, those that were aware of it, probably only had the recourse to write a stiffly worded letter to their MP.
Also, Harold Wilson Govt at the time - need I say more.
Harold Wilson?
Much of the BOAC decision making in respect of Britannias, Comet IVs, Vickers 1000s, Boeing 707s and Vickers VC10s happened in the mid to late 1950s - which was the era of Anthony Eden and Harold McMillan - who were both Conservatives.
By the time Wilson's government got in (1964), most of the decisions not to proceed with a whole raft of British projects had already been long made.
Of course, it was Wilson who ditched the TSR2 - but that was the end of a long and sorry tale that had begun sometime around 1945.
Much of the BOAC decision making in respect of Britannias, Comet IVs, Vickers 1000s, Boeing 707s and Vickers VC10s happened in the mid to late 1950s - which was the era of Anthony Eden and Harold McMillan - who were both Conservatives.
By the time Wilson's government got in (1964), most of the decisions not to proceed with a whole raft of British projects had already been long made.
Of course, it was Wilson who ditched the TSR2 - but that was the end of a long and sorry tale that had begun sometime around 1945.
Eric Mc said:
Harold Wilson?
Much of the BOAC decision making in respect of Britannias, Comet IVs, Vickers 1000s, Boeing 707s and Vickers VC10s happened in the mid to late 1950s - which was the era of Anthony Eden and Harold McMillan - who were both Conservatives.
By the time Wilson's government got in (1964), most of the decisions not to proceed with a whole raft of British projects had already been long made.
Of course, it was Wilson who ditched the TSR2 - but that was the end of a long and sorry tale that had begun sometime around 1945.
That wasn't what I was inferring, it was more in relation to the question of why joe public weren't kicking up a stink about it....which wouldn't really have got seriously public, had it done so until well into the 60's.Much of the BOAC decision making in respect of Britannias, Comet IVs, Vickers 1000s, Boeing 707s and Vickers VC10s happened in the mid to late 1950s - which was the era of Anthony Eden and Harold McMillan - who were both Conservatives.
By the time Wilson's government got in (1964), most of the decisions not to proceed with a whole raft of British projects had already been long made.
Of course, it was Wilson who ditched the TSR2 - but that was the end of a long and sorry tale that had begun sometime around 1945.
Anyway, didn't think there was any Govt decision regarding the VC-10, as wasn't it a Vickers private funded development from day 1 in the hope they could sell to BOAC who had caught a cold with their 707 orders that couldn't do the hot n nigh medium range stuff to the colonies?
People were generally more compliant in the 1950s. We had just come through a war where doing what one was told was vital to ensuring things got done. So, obeying orders, following the government line etc was part of normal life.
And of course, although BOAC and BEA were operated fairly autonomously, they were both fully state owned so government was always in the background exercising power and influence.
In fact, some of the aircraft foisted on BOAC and BEA had been ordered by the government in the form of the Board Of Trade. BOAC was made order aircraft like the Tudor and the Solent flying boat - neither of which they wanted.
They would have been buying even more American stuff in the immediate post war period if it hadn't been for the government's blocking of spending Sterling abroad.
And of course, although BOAC and BEA were operated fairly autonomously, they were both fully state owned so government was always in the background exercising power and influence.
In fact, some of the aircraft foisted on BOAC and BEA had been ordered by the government in the form of the Board Of Trade. BOAC was made order aircraft like the Tudor and the Solent flying boat - neither of which they wanted.
They would have been buying even more American stuff in the immediate post war period if it hadn't been for the government's blocking of spending Sterling abroad.
The demise of the British aircraft industry (if you want to look on it as a demise) is a long and complex saga with lots of heroes and villains. In many cases, the manufacturers were their own worst enemies.
I think "Empire of the Clouds" is an excellent book because it DOESN'T specifically target the nationalised airlines or the UK government as the villains of the piece. It apportions blame fairly evenly across all the protagonists.
I think "Empire of the Clouds" is an excellent book because it DOESN'T specifically target the nationalised airlines or the UK government as the villains of the piece. It apportions blame fairly evenly across all the protagonists.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff