This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/25/what-uk-stands-to-lose-if-airbus-pulls-out-the-country
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| What UK stands to lose if Airbus pulls out | What UK stands to lose if Airbus pulls out |
| (7 months later) | |
| Aditya Chakrabortty (Who will buy our plane when Airbus is gone, 23 June) underestimates the depth of our national investment in Airbus. The UK government made its first steps in developing the core wing technology in the early 1950s. With Hawker Siddeley Aviation, later part of British Aerospace, we joined the Airbus programme in 1967. In 1970, the Labour government officially left the programme, leaving Hawker Siddeley to negotiate a private contract to build the first sets of wings. | Aditya Chakrabortty (Who will buy our plane when Airbus is gone, 23 June) underestimates the depth of our national investment in Airbus. The UK government made its first steps in developing the core wing technology in the early 1950s. With Hawker Siddeley Aviation, later part of British Aerospace, we joined the Airbus programme in 1967. In 1970, the Labour government officially left the programme, leaving Hawker Siddeley to negotiate a private contract to build the first sets of wings. |
| Rejoining in 1978, with newly nationalised British Aerospace defying a governmental consensus in favour of working with the US, the UK began to benefit from a market breakthrough that would eventually repay several billion pounds of public investment in wing development. British Aerospace went on to sell its share in Airbus, leaving the UK without a national role in decision-making. Although French and German public ownership is now much diluted, we have effectively lost any strategic influence over the programme. Looking to the future, the opportunity costs of moving wing production out of Britain were hitherto high: the balance of cost-benefit is now on the verge of a substantial change. We will not feel the effects of disinvestment in the short term, but in the scope of aerospace development and manufacturing measured in decades, we could be watching the loss of over half a century’s massive public-private investment. Professor Keith Hayward Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society and the French Air and Space Academy, London | Rejoining in 1978, with newly nationalised British Aerospace defying a governmental consensus in favour of working with the US, the UK began to benefit from a market breakthrough that would eventually repay several billion pounds of public investment in wing development. British Aerospace went on to sell its share in Airbus, leaving the UK without a national role in decision-making. Although French and German public ownership is now much diluted, we have effectively lost any strategic influence over the programme. Looking to the future, the opportunity costs of moving wing production out of Britain were hitherto high: the balance of cost-benefit is now on the verge of a substantial change. We will not feel the effects of disinvestment in the short term, but in the scope of aerospace development and manufacturing measured in decades, we could be watching the loss of over half a century’s massive public-private investment. Professor Keith Hayward Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society and the French Air and Space Academy, London |
| • It’s all very well for European businesses such as Airbus and BMW to harangue the government for a decision on Brexit, but it should also urge constructive negotiation from the EU. The government has said what it wants and the EU has said no. The EU should be asked for clarity about what it would offer instead.David FisherManchester | • It’s all very well for European businesses such as Airbus and BMW to harangue the government for a decision on Brexit, but it should also urge constructive negotiation from the EU. The government has said what it wants and the EU has said no. The EU should be asked for clarity about what it would offer instead.David FisherManchester |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| Brexit | Brexit |
| European Union | European Union |
| Airbus | Airbus |
| Airline industry | Airline industry |
| BMW | BMW |
| BAE Systems | BAE Systems |
| letters | letters |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |
Previous version
1
Next version