British aircraft by profitability

[Pittsextra]

Does anyone have any information about which British aircraft have had the greatest commercial success as measured by profitability to the maker?

Also of interest would be the data on profitability on the initial unit verse ongoing service / spares.

[Allan Lupton]

I think you are on a lost cause with this as the data would not be available. Even the revenue from sales would be hard to assess, bearing in mind offsets, leases, trade-ins and commercial confidence.
As for cost, that is and was a matter of complex accountancy when it came/comes to determining which costs are allocated to what aeroplane - e.g. even when only one aeroplane type is being produced the R&D for the next one may be significant and there would be product support cost for the previous types.
There have been many claims but they are not necessarily anything but guesswork. e.g. it has been claimed that we made no money from the sale of DH Doves/Devons but made a good living from their product support.

[VictorGolf]

I was told that product support for the B.Ae 146/RJ series was profitable if not the airframes themselves. But as you say that would depend on how they do the accouinting.

[Haraka]

I understood that normally no profit was normally made on the original sale of the aeroplane being sold at cost (or less) this coming ( hopefully ) over the pricing of spares etc. over its service life.
Even with claimed profits from sales of the Viscount, apparently it was a different story when the development costs of the Dart were also factored in.

[DHfan]

Considering the numbers built - and having no idea of accounting procedures in the 20s or 30s (or now actually) - I would guess one or more of the DH Moth series is a good bet. Not in hard cash by today's standards but as a percentage profit that is.

[pax britanica]

Profitable British airliners
just one -Viscount all the others barring 146 and spin offs and 1-11s which didnt lose that much or make much of a profit were unmitigated disasters

[TCU]

380 HS748's built (incl Andovers and HAL's) can't have been an unmitigated disaster

I imagine the HS125 also paid its way (1,600+)

[ian16th]

Seeing as the thread starter specified aircraft, not airliners, surely the English Electric Canberra should be mentioned.

[DaveReidUK]

Seeing as the thread starter specified aircraft, not airliners, surely the English Electric Canberra should be mentioned.

Not to mention the Hunter.

[Kemble Pitts]

Hawker Hunter? HS Hawk? Westland Lynx?

Nobody said civil...

(took a Skype call between typing and posting so others have hit the military corner too!!)

[Liffy 1M]

BN-2 Islander?

[DHfan]

Banging the DH drum again, 3,000 plus Vampires were presumably profitable.

[Rodney Rotorslap]

Not to mention Concorde.

I said not to mention Concorde!

[Pittsextra]

Thanks for the thoughts / facts. Yes my thoughts were turned to this after the recent A380 order and I just wondered how we faired over the years.

Numbers wise I was musing over were Design/ development cost v revenues at list price. I think I'm right in saying that a TV program that is downloaded on YouTube suggested that BAe's 146 needed to sell circa 240 units to break even? I think on that basis the 146 would have been viewed as a sales success and I wondered if there was a view or data on other UK aircraft - civil or military would make a good comparison.

[Allan Lupton]

The 1981 Nationwide TV series on the 146 that's on youtube has a lot of good stuff in it, mainly the significant people who tell us about it (e.g. Chief Designer Bob Grigg https://youtu.be/VVDu1hSIkX0?t=202), but opinions aired by presenters should be treated with some reserve.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Concorde made a lot of money... for BA! ;-)

[ian16th]

Anyone know how much Martin paid EE for each B-57 they built?

[surely not]

Whilst a lot of BN-2 Islanders were made, the numbers weren't enough to keep Britten Norman afloat and several companies have kept the design going including the latest consortium at Lee-on-Solent.
Around 1280 have been sold over the 53 years since its first flight, which is around only 24 per annum.

[kenparry]

I think I'm right in saying that a TV program that is downloaded on YouTube suggested that BAe's 146 needed to sell circa 240 units to break even? I think on that basis the 146 would have been viewed as a sales success and I wondered if there was a view or data on other UK aircraft - civil or military would make a good comparison.

Back in the 80s I knew one of the Hatfield sales team. He said that the more airframes they sold, the more money the company lost - they were going for below cost, as alluded to in a previous post.

[tornadoken]

Quite properly... not in the public domain. Buyers do not wish to know that the price they are about to pay...causes a loss, thus imperilling long-term ownership/future asset value, or is nicely profitable, thus overpriced.

Is it sufficient to know that UK Aerospace industry is more profitable today, making bits and bobs, than ever when delivering complete aircraft? We, UK taxpayers, funded most Aero products, in part or in full, until very recently. Visibly, on Project Accounts, only Viscount yielded a profit to Treasury (£1.5Mn. Launch Aid, £3Mn. Levy yield). Corelli Barnett,Verdict of Peace,P609: “more profitable (if the taxpayer had invested in) plastic garden gnomes.”

So why, I hear you say, do Nations spend taxpayers' money on loss-making durables? Prestige, independence, commercial spin-off from high value-added technology...

This affliction is neither UK-centric, nor airliner-centric. Many/most manufacturers of complete aircraft have suffered financial pain.

[oldchina]

kenparry:

"He said that the more airframes they sold, the more money the company lost - they were going for below cost"

Taking the nonrecurring development cost as already sunk, one would have to be exceptionally incompetent to sell for less than the recurring cost to build.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Many/most manufacturers of complete aircraft have suffered financial pain"

Douglas, Convair, Lockheed, Bristol, Sud-Aviation, HP, Northrop, Westland, Canadair................

just recently Boeing, Airbus, HAL, Dassault, Westland..............

name one that HASN'T had financial issues at one time

[Pittsextra]

Obviously having asked the question I don't have an immediate answer - thinking that there maybe existing knowledge out there. Many responses seem to indicate that the data however would be in some way secret but I'm not so sure.

The list price for any aircraft must be broadly known and even if it wasn't at the time I can hardly see why the price of a (say) Vickers Viscount would be kept secret in 2018. Development costs for any project seem to be widely known for many military projects (I'm thinking for example TSR2). I'd have thought this subject of cost v revenues would have had an airing by now but perhaps not.

[pax britanica]

Rushing to judgement on my part about it being only airliners hence choosing just the the Viscount with the 1-11 146 doing sort of ok and so i must apologise for the 748 omission especially as it always looked a neat business like aircraft and it had decent longevity.

Aircraft manufacturing is as history has demonstrated a risky business to say the least and it is a shame that such incredible engineering and technical skills could seldom earn the rewards they deserve for skill and perseverance .

and it seems yet another consolidation is taking place with boring and AB snapping up ther much smaller rivals to ensure they have a complete range of aircraft from 70 odd to over 400 seats each

[Heathrow Harry]

Pitts

your problem is who is going to publish the info on Viscount prices in 60 years ago?

You can Google it or you can electronically crawl through "Flight" or similar but you really need the accounts of the sellers - and they have probably been shredded these 30 years

[DANbudgieman]

Anyone have a notion how the Scottish Aviation Bulldog and BAe Jetstream 31 programmes faired?

[oldchina]

Pittsextra:
I think you are not wasting your time following the Viscount route.
I remember reading that the plan was to price the first 1-11s the same as the last Viscounts. The latter was said to be (but not verified by me) £800000. I can try to find the quote. That would give you a 55 year old price point for prices in pounds Sterling.
You said you're looking to check profitability. Using list prices will obviously overstate profits by such an enormous margin as to make any result meaningless.
Just in case you're not aware, Airbus and Boeing do post current sticker prices on their websites.

[kenparry]

Taking the nonrecurring development cost as already sunk, one would have to be exceptionally incompetent to sell for less than the recurring cost to build.

I don't have the story on how the sums were done or how the quoted result was arrived at. Your claim might well be true.

[dixi188]

Around about 1972 a BAC 1-11 was $2,200,000.
My father, as Flight Shed Senior Inspector, was handing over a new 500srs. to Philippine Airlines one Sunday and was given the cheque for the payment as nobody from the Commercial dept. was working at the weekend. He brought it home and showed it to me.

Just thinking though, there may have been a deposit paid earlier so the total price may be higher.

[Pittsextra]

The Turboprop World-Beater VISCOUNT (http://www.vickersviscount.net/Pages_History/The_Turboprop_World-Beater_VISCOUNT.aspx)

Almost at the very end of that page is this:-

By the time Vickers ceased production of the type in 1964, a total of 444 had been sold to 50 major airlines, with a value, including spares, of £177 million, export sales accounting for £147 million.

So £177m in sales just need to find out how much it cost to design/develop and that would be a starter for ten!

[Allan Lupton]

Yes but where did the author get the numbers from? They may be right but how do we know?
We used to be bedevilled by people who believed what they read in books ("it's in print so it must be true") or even in newpapers, but now we have the internet in all its uncontrolled splendour!

[oldchina]

Allan. We used to be bedevilled by people who believed what they read in books.
Bedevilled? That was your trade, brochuremanship !

[Hussar 54]

I was told that product support for the B.Ae 146/RJ series was profitable if not the airframes themselves. But as you say that would depend on how they do the accouinting.


Just back from FNAC with a couple of printer Ink Cartridges.

Now I know where Hewlett Packard got the idea from....

[Pittsextra]

Yes but where did the author get the numbers from? They may be right but how do we know?
We used to be bedevilled by people who believed what they read in books ("it's in print so it must be true") or even in newpapers, but now we have the internet in all its uncontrolled splendour!

Yes I take your point but lets put this in context.

First off this was just a "thinking out loud" type question... "Oh I wonder what the most "profitable" aircraft were"...

Then I guess one takes the numbers in good faith unless someone suggests otherwise.

Ultimately it is just a bit of fun but I am surprised that nobody has ever really looked at this before.

[ZeBedie]

Spitfire must have made a few bob for Vickers?

[Heathrow Harry]

"Ultimately it is just a bit of fun but I am surprised that nobody has ever really looked at this before."

I suspect there are a few PhD studies out there but probably people started and got so depressed they just gave up

[Heathrow Harry]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/final-landing-a-history-of-the-uk-aircraft-industry-211152/

is a grim retelling of how we arrived here

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jck8Lm5oE3AC&pg=PA417&lpg=PA417&dq=UK+Aircraft+historic++profitability&source=bl&ots=rxCSPcWJBN&sig=P1l5RWD5ikALEG2LKcGtwGRUfIA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijvdK33JvZAhXCKsAKHeL9DjAQ6AEIZjAL#v=onepage&q=UK%20Aircraft%20historic%20%20profitability&f=false

lists a lot of historic articles