ISC - CFHM - IHCC

Mesdames et Messieurs, permettez-moi de me présenter. Je suis journaliste à Radio Classique. Je suis également président de l'Association des journalistes professionnels de l'aéronautique et de l'espace (AJPAE) qui compte 120 membres. Je ne dis pas cela pour faire de la publicité à l'Association. 120 journalistes, ce chiffre montre quand même qu'il y a beaucoup de personnes spécialisées dans l'aéronautique et l'espace en France. C’est tout à fait normal puisque nous sommes effectivement une grande nation aéronautique et spatiale.

Sans vouloir déjà essayer de voler la conclusion au président Bernard Dufour, je voudrais dire aux organisateurs qu’ils ont bien fait d'organiser cette splendide réunion qui célèbre à la fois les cent ans du moteur d’aviation français et les 50 ans de la Snecma, les deux sont totalement liés, vous avez pu le comprendre.

Je voudrais d'abord retenir une image, celle de la séance d’hier consacrée aux moteurs civils. Un réalisateur de cinéma ou de télévision aurait dit « Mon Dieu quel plateau ! ». Le club extrêmement fermé des motoristes était effectivement réuni ici, au Louvre, par la Snecma. Un club, je l'ai noté, où on s'appelle par son prénom mais également où l'on parle de corps à corps lorsque l'on fait allusion aux bagarres auxquelles on se livre ensuite sur les marchés. Mais j'ajoute vite que la composition de cette Table ronde est aussi d'un très bon niveau, rassurez-vous Messieurs !

Ce colloque a permis de mettre au grand jour les difficultés de votre métier. Je serais presque tenté de dire que quand un avion vole bien, ça n'est jamais vous qui recueillez les lauriers. Dans ce cas-là les moteurs n'existent pas bien sûr. Je me place sans doute ici du côté de l'opinion même un petit peu éclairée. A l'inverse, quand cet avion fonctionne mal, c'est souvent de votre faute. On se préoccupe alors de ces fameux moteurs.

Je prends un exemple. Quand Lindbergh a traversé l'Atlantique, on a mis en avant naturellement les qualités du pilote et celles de l'aéronef, jamais celles du moteur. Les narrateurs ont juste retenu que, parfois, ce moteur laissait suinter quelques petites gouttes d'huile minuscules et que, par conséquent, il causait du stress au pilote. Pourtant, l'exploit est bien à mettre au compte du moteur qui a fonctionné pendant plus de 31 heures d'affilée.

Autre exemple, quand on parle d'avions du futur, et on en parlait tout à l'heure, quand on évoque l'idée d'un Super Concorde, on répond aussitôt qu'il n'existe pas de
moteur pour un tel avion. En fait, on suggère que vous n'êtes pas prêts, Messieurs. Et si l'avion ne vole pas demain, ce sera un petit peu de votre faute.

Evidemment, la réalité n'est pas celle-ci. Nous comprenons mieux aujourd'hui vos contraintes, alors que vous devez en plus maintenant travailler sous l'oeil des défenseurs de l'environnement, hier des militants, aujourd'hui des gouvernants.

Pour toutes ces raisons, j'aurais une requête à faire auprès du président Dufour. Retrouvons-nous à nouveau, Président, et donnons rendez-vous, ici même, au Louvre parce que l'endroit est formidable, pour fêter les 100 ans de la Snecma !

Mesdames et Messieurs, parlons maintenant de la stratégie des motoristes aéronautiques.

Je vais commencer par passer la parole aux orateurs.

Bernard Dufour

Président directeur général de Snecma

Je voudrais juste transmettre quelques idées simples sur le thème de cet après-midi. Le premier message c’est, bien sûr, que l'industrie du moteur est stratégique. Ceci a été dit par tous les intervenants, je ne peux que les en remercier et partager leur opinion.

Les défis de l'aéronautique dépendent avant tout des progrès des moteurs. En fait sur chaque programme d'avion, c'est d'abord le motoriste qui est amené à se pencher sur le domaine de vol, le domaine de performances et à satisfaire ces exigences.

Deuxième remarque : le turboréacteur est, dans les industries mécaniques, la pièce la plus difficile, la plus avancée que je connaisse. Elle tire tout un pays, toute une industrie (machines-outils, etc., services de recherches de toutes sortes). Sur le plan économique, cela se concrétise par une très forte valeur ajoutée, des emplois très qualifiés et une contribution très significative à l'équilibre de la balance extérieure, ce qui n'est pas assez connu. La Snecma a pratiquement contribué à la balance économique française depuis 15 ans autant que, par exemple, Airbus Industrie.

Enfin, sans capacité autonome de développement et de fabrication de moteurs d'avions de combat, je crois profondément qu'un gouvernement ne peut pas prétendre à l'indépendance de sa politique de défense nationale et peser ainsi dans le concert des nations, dans les problèmes d’affaires étrangères.

Autre sujet que je voulais brièvement aborder. Je crois que nous sommes dans une phase assez unique depuis au moins 50 ans de l'histoire de l'aéronautique où le nombre de constructeurs d'avions, le nombre de constructeurs de moteurs s'est réduit. Je crois que General Electric et Snecma ont montré à cet égard l'exemple par l'association remarquable qui a été faite à travers CFMI. Nous sommes mariés depuis 25 ans, nous sommes déjà un vieux ménage. Snecma et General Electric ont réussi à bâtir un pont transatlantique dont il existe aussi un autre exemple, c'est Rolls-Royce avec Pratt & Whitney sur le V 2500. On voit donc se dessiner, me semble-t-il, une sorte d'orientation et de bipôle transatlantique : General Electric et Snecma et, peut-être, Pratt & Whitney avec Rolls Royce.

On voit donc apparaître une orientation de notre industrie qui n'est plus seulement européenne mais qui se situe sur une collaboration mondiale. A cet égard, il convient de démentir certaines rumeurs qui circulent affirmant que nous ne serions peut-être pas partisans de la coopération. Au contraire, l'industrie française, et celle des moteurs en particulier, que ce soit dans l'espace, les hélicoptères, les avions et les moteurs a montré qu'elle savait collaborer et prendre les devants.

Enfin, pour l'avenir, je vois, pour la Snecma, le M 88 et ses développements comme moteur essentiel ainsi que le CFM 56 qui continue, et pour longtemps encore, sa brillante carrière. Bien sûr, comme complément et addition à cette nouvelle famille, nous voulons faire un nouvel enfant, le CFM XX.

Gérard Jouany

Merci Monsieur le Président. Je retiens trois idées fortes de votre exposé : nous avons une industrie qui est stratégique, on peut coopérer sans disparaître, présence de deux programmes clé le M 88 et le CFM 56 en attendant le CFM XX.

Robert Wolfe

Président Large Commercial Engines, Pratt & Whitney

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. First, happy anniversary and happy birthday to the Snecma people from all of the people at Pratt & Whitney. Also, I'd like to express my many thank you's to everyone who has worked this symposium for the last two days. I think we all agree, it's been a tremendous success.

As you heard, we've all been asked to discuss aircraft engine strategies. This is a subject that I assure you is near and dear to my heart. There are two areas where I feel aircraft engine manufacturers must focus: improved technology and global partnerships.

Let me start with improved technologies as a strategy focus. Pratt & Whitney is intent on maintaining technology and technology leadership. We firmly believe you cannot win this race, or even war, by leading from behind. So over the years, and in fact decades, we have continued to improve on engine performance through improved materials and engineering design, and I would say there's nothing wrong with that given the fact that we are where we are today.

If you look at our latest accomplishment, and I would say our latest marvel, the Pratt & Whitney 4084 for the Boeing 777, you will understand just how this technology has advanced us to this point, and how we have shared this in a teamwork atmosphere. I assure you this will be the last commercial you will hear from anyone at Pratt & Whitney in this symposium on the 4084, mainly because I'm the last speaker. But United Airlines, Boeing and Pratt & Whitney, working together as a team set a new standard of partnership in accomplishing the 180-minute ETOPS for first revenue flight. This will be the standard and benchmark for the future, and for all certification programs, and in fact maybe the demise of the ETOP requirements as Dick Albrecht mentioned yesterday.

You also heard yesterday from Mr. Leduc of Pratt & Whitney the overall performance capabilities of our engine and how technology has brought us to this point, and how it's going to take us continually into the future with growths for that product. But I would like to change this slightly for my presentation. Technology has to be also more than providing an impact on the performance of our engines - it will also greatly affect the way we develop them and support them in the field. The dilemma, or more importantly the challenge, is that while technology improvements become ever more expensive, the prices we receive on new engines continue to diminish. As a result, I think you will see engine makers taking a much closer look at engineering investments - at least this one will : targeting them at opportunities that afford a reasonable rate of return and provide a direct cost reduction benefit on a cents-per-seat mile to our commercial customers, and on a life cycle cost basis to our military. After all, these are the primary measures of those end-customers.

This will require a closer working relationship with our airframe, airline and military customers. We need to continually focus on how much our customers value our improvements, and how we can address them versus their needs. For example, we recently reduced the weight of each of the titanium fan blades for our 4084 engine by 12 pounds at a development cost of 100 million dollars US prior to the first production of the first blade. Although the technology of the hollow type titanium wide-chord fan blades is world class, how much do our customers value a 264-pound weight reduction in a 14,000-pound engine ? We received mixed results, most of which did not feel that the trade was the correct one to make.

One the other hand, take the case of Pratt & Whitney's F‑119 engine for the US Air Force's F‑22 fighter. Here is an example where our closely coordinated efforts with Lockheed and the US Air Force resulted in technology improvements and lowering maintenance costs while providing the most advanced engine for fighter aircraft in the world. For example, one of the areas we tend to forget as we are developing engines is the externals. Here was a case where from the very beginning our engineers worked very closely, as Mr. Bylciw indicated yesterday, with the Air Force maintenance people on the thing that was dear to their heart, which was the externals. Today, I can say, as a result of that, there are a total of five wrenches, they can remove all of the externals of the 119 engine, there is no lock wire, no loose fastener parts and flexible hose at all plumbing connections. We think that's a first for a fighter engine product. Based on these examples, we have become more market driven as we target our engineering resources, and we don't think we can give that engineering away forever by competing on the wing with two other engine companies and one airplane system.

I would like to tell you just a quick story that occurred with me as we were at the ceremony in Washington DC for accepting the 777 into revenue service in that area. There was a long waiting line of dignitaries getting ready to go view the aircraft and actually have a tour inside, we had one of our proud 4084's on display on a pallet sitting next to the aircraft, one of the wives of the gentlemen behind me asked him, "Who makes the engines for this aircraft ?", and he said he wasn't sure. So I took the opportunity to explain who made the engines for this aircraft. He said, "I'm surprised, I would've guessed they were Rolls-Royce." When I informed him that there were in fact three engines for this aircraft, he and his wife were very amazed, and they were surprised because they could not believe they would be given a choice of engines for an aircraft to fly on. I think it just merely points out that the average customer really does not see the value of that even though maybe the airlines do, but we need to take a look at it closer in the future.

Being more market driven also means we have to be able to develop engines faster and certainly at a lower cost, all directly related obviously to reducing cost to the end-customer. We at Pratt & Whitney now are introducing a concept that we think will lead to significant cost reductions in this particular area. We are introducing in our program management system what we refer to as a heavyweight program management concept. This is a fully integrated, collocated, team of people working for one manager for one product, including the management aspects, finance, engineering and manufacturing. They will be responsible for all aspects of each program, from initial design through development and through rate production. We are providing each member of those teams their contribution to the airline or military economics, and where they should be making the trade. All parameters that we provide these individuals are tradeoffs reduced to this cost-per-seat-mile for the airline and the life cycle cost for the military. On the revenue side, we concentrate on product capability, with payload and range and thrust tradeoffs, versus, on the operating costs side, of engine-related items to price, total maintenance cost, fuel burn, reliability, noise and emissions.

An example of this, Pratt & Whitney recently used computational fluid dynamics modeling to redesign our high-pressure compressor for the 4084. This was done in preparation for the 90,000-pound thrust version for the future. This normally would have taken up to three years to build the necessary hardware and test rigs to generate this. Computer simulations reduced that time to 12 months. Our overriding goal is to reduce engine development time from four to two years and development costs by 40 % or more. The benefits to our customers are obvious: better hardware, at lower cost, and delivered to them in less time.

We introduced on our sales and marketing side two years ago our regional concept. We're now expanding that. We're going to make them more customer-owners, going beyond the sales and marketing aspect. We're integrating our product support, and our customers related overhaul and repair functions into those regions. This allows us to bring more than just an engine to the partnership; it now allows us to bring an integrated propulsion system with all the necessary supporting functions. An example of this is, in our opinion, (there is) no reason why any engine manufacturer's factory today cannot be tied directly with our customer overhaul and repair facilities. Inventories can be monitored and managed remotely. At Pratt & Whitney we recently began offering an inventory management program in which we buy existing inventories and then work with the customer to manage their spare parts and tooling.

Technical information will be available by computer, in which the computers will be able to talk with each other. There will not be a need for a telephone call in search of information. Rather a customer will be able to access information directly, and redistribute to his or her maintenance people easily in a digestible format. For instance, Pratt & Whitney had a desire to provide increased levels of after-market services to the Japanese customers. And in order to offer used serviceable parts and repair management services to these customers we needed to establish a facility in Japan , one we call our Asian Distribution Center . Pratt & Whitney teamed with A&A in a mutually beneficial
effort, A&A located a suitable facility for our use, and our plans are to subcontract transportation, customs clearance and warehouse operation services from A&A.

In another case we had a customer who was aggressively attempting to reduce its inventory. We worked with them to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. We purchased some of the engines and a significant number of parts awaiting repair. This arrangement helped our customer reduce their inventories and in turn Pratt & Whitney received a source of fully documented used serviceable parts.

So we're working together, or partnering, with our customer, to listen, to understand and to plan with them how we can help meet their business needs. Partnering can also be taken one step further, where our partners are not our customers, but industry leaders that offer a company like ourselves an opportunity to join forces, to share their expertise and create the best product. We are building global relationships, alliances for technology, manufacturing, marketing and financial strength. As the number of engines and engine products expands, the ability of any one engine maker to go it alone is really taxed. In addition to shared technology, the reason behind these partnerships is simple : costs and risks must be shared. Market access is necessary for any project, as well as superior design and manufacturing capability, all of which can be achieved through partnering. And as long as there is mutual interest and the goals to be achieved are similar, you have the best of everything.

I feel this is a good business to be in. It fits a textbook definition for an excellent type of business: the demand, usage and growth for our product are well calculated, it's growing at about 5 % per year, the cost of entry is prohibitive in getting into this business, it's a high technology product that affects just about everyone in the world, and there are few competitors.

So speaking for Pratt & Whitney and hopefully all of my colleagues, you can count on engine manufacturers always to aim high to help our customers fly, reflecting our heritage and our commitment to technology and improved customer partnerships throughout the world.

Brian Rowe

Chairman Emeritus, General Electric Aircraft Engines

It gives me great pleasure to be here today as part of this commemoration of 100 years of powered aviation in France and the 50th anniversary of Snecma.

French aviation and GE’s relationship with Snecma have always had a special place in my heart as I was part of the original team that created it.

Throughout my career, I have been associated with aircraft engines.

There is no question that my work brought me close to some of the greatest leaders of aviation and some of the greatest airplanes of our time.

The fact is that great engines lead the way and help make a great airplanes.

There is a certain indescribable beauty in what we design and build in this industry.

As a boy and a young man in England , I saw this beauty epitomized in the Mosquito, the Hornet, the Spitfire - and the world’s first jet airliner, the Comet.

Had I grown up in France , I might have based my sense of the beauty of flight on the Caravelle, the Mirage, or the Concorde.

I worked on the Comet - the world’s first commercial jet - which had some problems.

We have learned a great deal as an industry since those days, especially about low - cycle fatigue and fuselage design.

We also learned the value of abusive testing of both the airplane and the engine before their entry into service.

As a result, we now serve our customers with much more reliable products.

And we are continually improving.

The Airbus family of airplanes - and their engines - went through the most rigorous and complete evaluation I had ever seen.

The same is true of the Boeing 777.

The results of this thoroughness are - and will continue to be - evident in the field.

The industry has come a long way since I first began as an apprentice, when we were happy if our new engines started much less ran for 10,000 hours.

Today, the cost of designing and testing new products can only be borne by a few big companies.

Unlike the old days, there are few opportunities for newcomers in this business unless they are heavily funded by their governments or they join with other companies.

I was lucky to join this industry when it was in transition from piston engines to jets.

Frank Whittle in England and Hans von Ohain in Germany deserve the credit for the idea of the jet engine, but we who developed and applied this technology created a new world - a smaller, more accessible world in which air travel is available, reliable, and affordable for all.

It is fitting that we should celebrate our successes today, but we must be ever mindful that the future will not be a mere continuation of what has gone before.

In the past, the military market has helped us develop much of the technology we needed to improve current products and introduce new products.

This has changed dramatically in recent years.

It’s always difficult to predict military spending, but I think that the primary focus for the foreseeable future will be in the commercial arena.

I do believe that airplanes such as the F-22, the F-18, the French Rafale, and the new European fighter will be developed, but the cost of these aircraft will be so high that production may be limited.

What we must do is reexamine the concept of a modern fighter with low cost as its design goal.

In commercial aviation, the world’s regional markets have shown the strongest growth of all the market segments recently.

I think that this is because the new regional turbofan aircraft are faster and more comfortable.

Passengers truly enjoy these airplanes, and both 50 - and 70 - seat turbofan aircraft will do well.

In the narrow-body segment of the market, the next 10 or 15 years will probably not see the introduction of any totally new aircraft designs, but there will be derivatives of current aircraft to improve customer value.

Eventually, however, the demand for a new mid-range aircraft-either an advanced Boeing 737 or 757, or a new airplane in the A 320 family-may create a need for advanced engines in the 25,000 to 40,000 pound thrust range.

Any new engine will have to be dramatically better in performance, noise, and emissions.

It will have to enter service at or better than the high standards of reliability to which we’ve become accustomed.

It will also have to be introduced at essentially the same cost structure as today’s engines.

Such an engine will probably be a scaled version which will use the architecture and technology of one of today’s big engines such as the GE 90.

In the wide-body market, the new wide-bodies-Boeing’s 777, the Airbus A 340, and a possible new version of MD-11 - will fill a market need for high - volume intercontinental transport between city - pairs for which the Boeing 747 is too large to be efficient.

Much of this growth could take place over the next 10 to 15 years.

The propulsion challenge in this market is for engines with higher bypass ratios - probably peaking at about 10 to 1.

These will deliver greater fuel efficiency for longer routes, and unprecedented thrust levels for efficient twin - engined operation.

Engine operating efficiency - especially specific fuel consumption - and lower noise and reduced emissions will also be critical in this market.

GE and its revenue sharing participants - Snecma, IHI, and Fiat Avio - have already developed the GE 90 for the wide - body twin - engine segment of this market.

This engine has run at well over 100,000 pounds of thrust and is well positioned for the anticipated growth of the Boeing 777.

If a new large aircraft is launched, we can use one of our existing engines.

GE and Snecma are also considering a new 45,000 - to 50,000 - pound engine.

This engine would complement the existing CFM 56 product line.

Its first use could be for a stretched version of the four - engined Airbus A 340.

Such an aircraft could be launched as early as the turn of the century.

To make development of this engine practical, it would have to be the sole engine offered on the new A 340.

In addition, before we could launch this engine, we would need to identify other applications to ensure that this program made good business sense.

There are other segments of the civil aviation market besides the airlines. An important one is the business-jet market.

As commercial airplanes get bigger and airports get more crowded, I am convinced that business-jet systems will grow.

In Europe , this will require an improved air traffic control system to really establish this business.

To the extent that we can reasonably predict the future, we know that standards of living are rising throughout the world and more people who have never flown will be flying.

With more people flying more often, noise pollution and the emission of oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons, and carbon dioxide will become even more pressing as worldwide quality-of-life issues.

Although aircraft contribute only about three percent to the greenhouse effect of polluting gasses, they are very visible targets for environmental enforcement.

We need the recovery of the airlines to continue and be sustained, because our ability to develop and introduce new aircraft and new engines depends directly on the amount of capital we can generate by selling existing models of airplanes and engines - and the spares, of course.

Over the past 20 to 30 years, aircraft engines have become increasingly more efficient and dependable.

From a technological standpoint, this has made engine performance much more predictable, and greater attention should be paid to making engines more cost effective, as well.

In the current climate, affordability - not performance - will drive technology.

These are exciting prospects for the future, but these developments will occur if, and only if, they are economically justified in the eyes of our customers, and we can develop a production base that justifies the investment.

Our customers are demanding higher product performance at lower life-cycle costs.

To deliver on that demand, we are faced with totally re-designing how we do what we do. GE’s concept is one of boundaryless global teamwork.

GE’s relationship with Snecma has been a model of cooperation for the whole world. The fact that we come from different cultures often made it a greater challenge.

However, with mutual respect for one another and the ability to compromise for the common good, we built a foundation of lasting credibility.

Being connected with the CFM 56 engine family and with Snecma is something that I will always cherish with great pride.

Ours has always been a global market, but CFMI created an atmosphere of international sharing-to-gain that has made us both much better competitors in a brutal marketplace.

We are proud to be on a wide spectrum of airplanes.

This has enabled us to sell more than ten thousand engines.

Global cooperation is not unique to GE and Snecma, but, so far, we have come closer to realizing this ideal anyone else.

The net result is that we have become much better at understanding our customers and pleasing them.

When I look into the future, I see all aerospace companies employing similar relationships to become more productive and efficient.

I do not envision that the demand for our products will diminish or that the aerospace industry will become less profitable than it has been in the past, unless we create too many products that look alike.

Each surviving aerospace company, however, will be one that continually delivers more and better products for essentially the same cost in the eyes of the customer.

I began by speaking of some of the airplanes that inspired me early in my life.

Many of the companies that made those airplanes are no longer with us.

The world, it seems, has a way of rewarding those who pay attention to the changing tide and sending those who don’t, crashing into the rocks.

It is those who know how to do more with less today who will emerge as successes tomorrow.

Although there may be aesthetics and elegance in an aircraft or an engine design, what we do is ultimately not art.

It is business, and the current - and near future - business environment is shaped largely by these three factors :

- First, the commercial airline industry is still in a seriously depressed state, although we have seen some positive signs in the past year,

- Second, military aerospace spending is rapidly contracting throughout the world, and

- Third, fuel prices have been relatively flat and show no signs of an impending dramatic change.

What these conditions do is drive today’s advances to be focused on cost improvement as opposed to performance improvement.

For engine manufacturers, this creates a new economics.

It is important that the airframe manufacturers understand the economics of the engine business, and that we have confidence in both the engine and the airframe at the same time.

As an engine manufacturer, we are seeing our margins going down.

Some would argue that we should accept lower margins at the sale of the aircraft because we will recover those margins in the sale of spare parts.

But, we have made our engines so reliable that shop visit rates are half of what we had projected.

So we must continue to base future profitability on new engines as well as realistic spare parts sales.

For engine manufacturers to participate effectively in future aircraft programs, I feel it essential that we recover a larger percentage of our costs at the sale of the aircraft.

On the positive side, this could result in more joint ventures and more cost - effective competitions-on-paper as occurred on the Boeing 737 and the MD-95.

On the other hand, there is no way that engine manufacturers can continue to design, develop, and deliver engines to airframers under the present economic presumptions.

That is the future as I see it.

It is a future that will demand continued improvement with little margin for error.

As a result - more than ever before - we must work together as teams, just as we did when, as an industry, we created the first modern production airplanes and engines.

John Rose

Managing Director Aerospace Group for Rolls-Royce.

Firstly, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it's obviously an enormous honor to be here to contribute to the celebration of Snecma and this industry in which we all participate. In this Round Table the purpose is to address the prospects for the industry for the next decade and beyond, and obviously I see this from Rolls-Royce's point of view specifically. But given the distinguished roster of speakers you've had over the last two days who have concentrated on the technical and product aspects of the industry, I'd like to just very briefly focus on the structural rather than the technical challenges that are facing the industry in which we participate. In fact, the strategy at Rolls-Royce has really remained consistent for the last decade or so based on a broadening of our product and geographical basis, and therefore I don't think it will be enormously enlightening for you.

The issues, I think, for the future are based on cost, capacity and collaboration with both other members of our industry and our customers, leading to affordability. But before I get on to those I'd like to pay a brief tribute to Snecma. We had a search through our archives and managed to establish that we were collaborating with Snecma long before GE. And hopefully this slide : this is a photograph of a Gnome et Rhône engine which was developed by the precursors of Snecma, and if you can read on it, it says that it was made by a company called 'W.H. Allen' in Bedford in England. And we became the owners of W.H. Allen in 1989 when we bought Northern Engineering Industries.

But interestingly the Gnome et Rhône was also at the beginning of our relationship in Germany where, when we formed BMW-Rolls-Royce in 1990 we also became the owners of KHD Luftfarttechnik, whose predecessor was Motoren und Fabrik Oberursel, and they were also licensees of the Gnome et Rhône. So Snecma were precursors and leaders in this industry both commercially and technically from the outset.

Not only do our relationships go back to the early days of the industry, but even then it was an international business. And today, it is a global business. This slide is based on the forecast international data. For reasons of trying not to offend anybody, it clearly may not reflect necessarily the views of the individual companies represented, but it does show that from the beginning this industry has grown to an industry that has a turnover in engines sales of 30 billion a year. And it's worth stressing that there are today ten prime contractors in what was the Western world, and clearly that doesn't include the existing capacity that's now come into the market from the former Eastern Bloc.

CFMI, I should stress, is 50 % GE and 50 % Snecma, and that represents a considerable addition to Snecma's capability and GE's in the same way as IAE, another collaborative venture, adds to both Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney.

The 'primes' not only present each other with formidable competition, but in an era of declining military sales they collectively have capacity that substantially exceeds demand, and that environment, we have to satisfy ever increasingly rigorous customer demands, the aero-engine industry customers, both military and civil, face a relentless challenge to improve their performance, and the result of halved military budgets and airline deregulation that has put pressure on both the customer and the supplier. Achieving these goals profitably is one of the great challenges of the next decade, affecting both the manufacturer and the customer, and in my view it is unlikely to be achieved without further rationalization and better and more extended use of existing technology and capacity investments.

Dual use is a much, much touted word, multiple use is probably better. We're already in the aero-engine industry developing our engines for industrial and marine usage, and we're developing those collaboratively across other industries, for instance Rolls-Royce with Westinghouse is developing the WR21 for the future US frigate, and hopefully the European frigate, working with Westinghouse and with DOD.

And that sort of technology transfer within companies and within the industry and between countries is going to be a crucial contributor to the profitability of the industry as a whole. Despite the fact that we're in a growth industry, as we all believe – and it's an industry where there is much unsatisfied demand, particularly in the civil sector – the reality is that since 1990 sales have reduced in real terms by about 30 %, largely as a result of the decline in the military markets.

And demands for efficiency, despite reducing volumes, have resulted in very significant reductions in employment. And the pressures that have produced this are not slackening. The industry is responding both in redirecting its own costs, but also in putting pressure on its supplier base. Rolls-Royce has reduced its work force by about 30 %, reduced about 30 % of its floor space, 20 % of its machine-tools, moved about 30 % of its parts and reduced its supplier base by 50 %. And the challenge is all about cost of output, and the focus on this must be maintained in the future if we and our customers are going to have a profitable decade.

But costs are not the only challenge to the industry. The established players, of which, as I said, there are at least ten, face a range of aspiring entrants to the business, both from existing capacity in the Eastern Bloc which has come into the market, the Western market, since the ending of the Cold War, but also from other aspirants who for good technological and market reasons seek to enter this high value-added business. Prima facie there is already surplus capacity in the industry and in the long term it must be in the interests of our business to see that new entrants participate in a manner that enhances the effectiveness and capability of the industry, in the interests of the customer and the profitability of the industry.

And it's clearly not an industry for the faint-hearted. The continuing shift of sales financing risk from customer to prime contractor and their partners is well documented, and this slide shows that the growth in that demand over the last five years, and it's growing at a rate of approximately 20 % to 30 % per annum, if this is ever to ease, the customers must return to significant profitability and we must help them by producing products which they require at a price that they can afford.

None of the trends that I've identified show any likelihood of abating in the near term. There is no option and the industry must respond. Rolls-Royce for its part has maintained a strong balance sheet while acquiring and establishing new businesses in the aero-engine field, such as BMW-Rolls-Royce, Allison in the USA and ITP in Spain . We have a wide product range, with 50,000 engines in service and the support structure to maintain them, a cost-effective organization and the necessary capability to provide the support the customers require. We probably haven't seen an end to consolidation in our industry and we must adapt to these circumstances in which we all find ourselves, and provide global management in a global market. Thank you very much.

Gérard Jouany

Je remercie tous les conférenciers pour leurs très intéressants exposés. Maintenant, je me tourne vers les clients des motoristes : les constructeurs d'avions ou ceux qui vendent les avions.

Nous avons entendu les stratégies des motoristes. J'ai l'impression que nous allons vers un monde absolument formidable puisque vous allez acheter de nombreux moteurs qui vont dépenser moins, qui vont évidemment vous faire gagner beaucoup d'argent. Les pièces vont être beaucoup plus simples. Il n'y aura pratiquement plus de maintenance. Est-ce bien cela que vous attendez ? Est-ce que le pari est déjà tenu ?

Richard Albrecht

Executive Vice-President, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

We heard in the previous session discussions about the development of technology and investment to improve dramatically the fuel burn performance and the weight-to-thrust ratio and emissions. In view of the common theme that I have just heard from these gentlemen about the demand for lower life cycle costs and improved reliability, can you justify spending significant research and development funds on improving the thrust-to-weight ratio ?

Brian Rowe

Chairman Emeritus, General Electric Aircraft Engines

Well obviously, as you heard from the previous presentation, a lot of these new materials are great, but somehow we've got to find someone that's going to produce these things in the quantity large enough so that we can get the costs of these materials down, and I don't foresee in the very near future that many of these technologies will be incorporated in current commercial engines. I think that when cost is so critical the use of the very, very expensive matrix materials is quite remote, and so I just don't see that happening as quick as people say.

Robert A. Wolfe

President, Large Commercial Engines Pratt & Whitney

Yes, I would like to answer that by essentially saying, no, I do not think we will continue to spend precious R&D dollars for the sake of just growing thrust-to-weight ratios. If they come about and they can buy their way in then I think that's the proper method. I think our engineering dollars are going to go more the other way. We're going to tailor each dollar towards once again the cost aspect of the equation. If that figures into the trade then we'll do it. If it does not, we're not going to do that technology just for the sake of continuing thrust-to-weight improvements.

John Rose

Managing Director Aerospace Group, Rolls Royce

I think the only thing I would add is that clearly many of these materials are unaffordable even by the defense industry today, and that was in the past very much the pullthrough for some of these developments and created the volume base. Therefore, new materials are going to be harder to come by. The reality of course is that the customer creates the specifications that the engine manufacturer and the airframer have to meet, and we will have to do what is necessary to meet the aspirations of the customer provided he is prepared to pay for them. But I would have to endorse both my colleagues by saying that affordability today has to be the watchword of this industry.

Bernard Dufour

Président directeur général de Snecma

Je suis d'accord avec ce qu'ont dit ces Messieurs. Je crois que ces nouveaux matériaux font une entrée relativement progressive et surtout sur les avions militaires parce que le coût des composites reste relativement élevé.

Bruno Revellin-Falcoz

Vice-président de Dassault Aviation

Nous venons de parler à l'instant de progrès technologiques dans le domaine des moteurs. On pourrait citer plusieurs thèmes technologiques. Ils l'ont été au cours de ces deux journées. Je voudrais, avec votre permission, élargir un tout petit peu le commentaire de la relation entre motoristes et avionneurs.

Je crois déceler une tendance très forte, celle, et en particulier je pense d'abord aux avions militaires, de l'intégration du moteur à la plate-forme et aux systèmes en général.

Je crois que l’une des premières demandes que nous confirmons auprès de nos amis motoristes c’est que nous prenions ensemble, dès le départ, des demandes opérationnelles, la définition en commun de ce qui sera le système d'ensemble comportant une plate-forme et une cellule avec une motorisation. On ne peut pas travailler les entrées d’air ou les arrière-corps sans avoir une intégration assez forte entre motoristes et avionneurs. Ceci est mon premier commentaire.

Si vous m'en permettez un deuxième, je crois qu'il a été dit - et constaté par tout le monde - que le délai de développement d'un moteur est un peu plus long que le délai de développement de l’avion lui-même. Cela veut dire que pour être prêt en temps utile, il faut que les motoristes anticipent dans les technologies. Ceci suppose donc des actions de recherche et de développement soutenues. Mais il faut bien choisir des axes de recherche et de développement et là, il y faut, de la part des demandeurs opérationnels, des états-majors une vision à long terme suffisante pour que les axes de recherche soient les bons. On ne développe pas de la même façon un moteur destiné à faire de la croisière supersonique militaire ou bien de faire du rayon d'action à basse vitesse et à basse altitude avec un avion très furtif.

Adam Brown

Senior Vice-President Strategic Planning of Airbus Industrie

I'd simply like to say that I welcomed very much things that were said by almost all of the speakers. I strongly welcomed President Dufour's mention of the CFM XX, which as you certainly know is something that we at Airbus are looking at with great interest. I very much appreciated what Mr. Wolfe had to say, that this industry, and I believe it applies as much to the airframe manufacturers as to the engine manufacturers, our industry cannot lead from behind.

And I'd like to modulate a little bit perhaps something that was said in answer to an earlier question about continuing technology progress. All the time one is tempted to imagine that the rate of technology progress is bound to slow up. It's a little bit like the world's records on the running track - one would think that we must be getting closer and closer to the human limits. In fact, the records are getting broken more and more often by bigger and bigger margins, and I personally believe that there is in fact quite a long way to go in terms of increasing technology development.

And I recognize the need for, the need to focus very hard on cost and on price, but I would urge everybody not to lose sight altogether of the very real benefits that can come from continuing to improve technology. The benefit on an airplane like the A 330 for example, one of the most efficient of all airplanes, the benefit of just a 1% reduction in fuel burn is equivalent to almost 1 million dollars on the price, and that is a very powerful trade-off. And I would urge everybody not to give up that chase for continuing improvement.

I welcomed what Brian Rowe had to say about an engine for a stretched A 340, and that we could be looking for a time scale that would put such an airplane in service by the end of this century.

And I very much appreciated what John Rose had to say about the three key issues in his view being cost and capacity and collaboration, and I'm sure that that applies on the airframe side just as well.

Gérard Jouany

Merci, Monsieur Adam Brown. Je vois que l'on vous propose une nouvelle façon de travailler et d'être associé encore plus tôt peut-être à la définition d'un nouvel avion avec les moteurs. Du moins, je le comprends ainsi.

Louis Gallois

Président directeur général d’Aérospatiale

Je ne peux que m'associer à ce qui vient d'être dit par les clients des motoristes. Nous cherchons des moteurs plus économiques et plus protecteurs de l'environnement. Je serais assez d'accord avec Adam Brown pour considérer que le progrès technique ne doit pas s’arrêter, parce que nous vous demandons constamment, et que nos clients nous le demandent, des coûts plus faibles. Or ces coûts plus faibles s'obtiennent par des progrès techniques.

Je voudrais être plus spécifique et essayer d'exprimer quelques uns de nos besoins actuels, au-delà évidemment de l'amélioration des gammes de produits que vous avez déjà sur l'étagère. Nous avons besoin actuellement d'un moteur d'avion moderne pour un avion de 100 places. A la fin du siècle son lancement est vraisemblable. Nous avons besoin d'un moteur moderne, c'est-à-dire incorporant tous les progrès techniques actuels.

Deuxièmement, je ne reprends pas ce qui vient d'être dit par Adam Brown, nous aurons besoin d'un moteur de 40 à 50 000 livres de poussée, beaucoup plus économique que les moteurs actuels. Il doit être capable de motoriser l'A 340 agrandi lorsque nous lancerons cet avion, avec une difficulté que nous connaissons bien, c'est que le développement de l'avion est un développement relativement limité et donc assez court, et que le développement du moteur sera beaucoup plus long. Les motoristes doivent anticiper.

Troisièmement, nous aurons besoin d'un turbopropulseur capable de passer 9 000 chevaux pour l'avion tactique futur, c'est-à-dire l'avion de transport militaire que l'Europe s'apprête à lancer.

Nous attendons enfin, et vous savez que c'est un des sujets d'intérêt fort, la réalisation d'un moteur pour le supersonique. Je suis absolument persuadé qu'il y aura, dans le siècle prochain, un successeur du Concorde. Nous savons qu'une grande partie du défi technique aussi bien en termes d'économie en vol et capacité à voler en subsonique et supersonique, en termes de pollution, bruit et couche d'ozone, une des clés de cet avion supersonique sera le moteur. Il faut y travailler de très prés avec les motoristes.

Gérard Jouany

Je voudrais avoir la réponse à Monsieur Gallois. Etes-vous prêt à lui fournir tout ou partie de ces nouveaux moteurs ?

John Rose

I think probably speaking for all the engine manufacturers we're both flattered and terrified that we can have such demands put on us. But, you know, provided there's a check there, we will be happy to meet you afterwards.

I think that is really the issue, I mean, the issue is one of affordability and can the industry afford to satisfy the known demands of the airframe industry. And the reality, of course, as the recent past has shown, is that getting the customer to part with his money in return for the increased capability is remarkably difficult, and it's something that we must all get better at.

And I wanted to take up one issue particularly which is this issue of timescales and lead-times. All the engine manufacturers are working hard to reduce lead-times so that we can operate within the same conceptual envelope as the airframer. And increasingly we are doing that by putting, as it were, more concepts and more technology on the shelf and therefore being able to go from final concept to first flight within a timescale that satisfies the airframer. And also, we're all getting into a position where we produce an engine faster than we've ever done before so that we can reduce the lead times for the customer, the ultimate customer as well, and be within the envelope of the airframer's ability to respond.

I think that, candidly, the issues that both Adam and Louis raised really go to the heart of the matter, which is how do we afford to satisfy this patent demand. And I don't know the answer, and I think that is the challenge for us.

Robert A. Wolfe

I would like to say, Mr. Gallois, that we would like to take your challenge on at least two of those engines right now. We do have a certified 45,000-lb engine in our PW 2000. It may be too heavy, as Brian's whispering in my ear, but it certainly has the best fuel burn in the world and I'll stop the advertisement now other than to say it does not take necessarily that lead-time if we look at more derivative engines and products we have versus always trying to go to a new centerline.

On the 100-passenger we totally agree with you, in fact we are launching a mid-thrust family engine to address the 100- and 130-passenger family. We believe that will be a large market.

Turboprop market, I agree with you there also, and we're looking at programs in that area. The one where I'm sure we probably may hesitate a little bit would be the supersonic version. As you are aware, GE and ourselves are working through NASA in the United States on a high speed civil transport engine. But that has a long way to go, and it's going to require not only engine manufacturers but aircraft companies and governments in my opinion to go any further and make that any more real than it is. And then the question is the market there. I think it needs quite a bit of study.

I would just like to address as part of this also Adam Brown's points, which were very good, and that is we shouldn't automatically give up the technology we're talking about that's brought us to the point we are today. But I think we need to really focus some of the technology money that we have available and are using. Today, and I think you heard it earlier in some earlier session, the amount of money in the United States that's being put in the IHPTET program is tremendous. The industry piece of that is probably 2 to 2 1/2 billion dollars US. And are we getting the return for that in the commercial side ? That is an important question.

We cannot afford to be spending our own company money towards advancing propulsion aspects for the technology of the engine. We should be using that money that we're putting into government funded programs to do that. And I don't think we're leveraging that properly, and that's something we need to take a closer look at in the future in doing both of those programs, both our internal and of the government.

Brian Rowe

I just wanted to say something to Adam. We have an engine that has better performance, that we do get zero price for. Pratt & Whitney has an engine that has better performance, they get zero price for. So technology does not necessarily bring higher price.

Bernard Dufour

Je vais répondre aux sollicitations intéressantes du président Gallois. Tout d'abord, commençons par le supersonique ! Rien ne me ferait plus plaisir que de travailler sur cet appareil. Snecma et Rolls Royce ont été les seuls à réussir un tel programme. Donc tout à fait d'accord.

J'ai rêvé que l'Europe, y compris la Russie et l'Ukraine, se rassemble dans un vaste programme d’avion supersonique. L’autorisation du survol de la Sibérie est la clé de la rentabilité de cet appareil. Ce serait vraiment un superbe porte-drapeau européen que de lancer un supersonique pour 2015 ou 2020.

Sur le turbopropulseur de l'ATF, nous avons vu que le M 138, basé sur le corps du M 88, correspond le mieux, comme vous l’avez dit, à votre besoin de moteur de plus de 9 000 chevaux.

Enfin sur le petit moteur, nous avons le CFM 56 Lite qui est certainement ce qui se fait de mieux et celui qui est le plus éprouvé. Le CFM 56 est quand même le moteur le plus réussi du monde actuellement. Quant au CFM XX, nous ne demandons encore une fois avec Brian Rowe qu'à faire un nouvel enfant.

Gérard Jouany

Voilà, on ne va pas manquer de projets, c'est formidable ! Je passe, comme promis, aux questions de la salle. Monsieur Dufour, vous allez devoir reprendre le micro parce que dans les questions les plus nombreuses, il y a des questions sur la coopération.

Monsieur Dufour, pouvez-vous imaginer un mariage entre Snecma plus BMW plus Rolls-Royce ? Qu'avez-vous fait dans ce sens ? Pouvez-vous faire un pôle moteur avec les Allemands et les Italiens ? Snecma envisage-t-elle des coopérations avec des partenaires asiatiques, Japon-Taiwan-Chine ? Une fusion de Snecma avec un autre motoriste européen est-elle envisageable ?

Bernard Dufour

Je n'ai pas du être assez clair dans mon petit mot de tout à l'heure. Je croyais avoir clairement fait valoir que Snecma est à l'avant-garde de la coopération, et ceci depuis 1971. Je ne comprends pas très bien le sens de toutes ces « marieuses ». Car, enfin, depuis 1971, pour 70 % du chiffre d'affaires de la Snecma, c'est-à-dire l'activité civile - chez Brian Rowe aussi c'est 70 % civil - nous avons marié sur le CFM 56 notre destins avec celui de CFM. Nous disons que nous voulons, pour de nouveaux projets complémentaires de celui-ci, nous marier à nouveau et continuer jusqu'à 50 ans ou un avenir indéfini.

Lorsque vous avez marié 70 % de votre chiffre d'affaires, je crois que l'on ne peut pas, pour les 30 % qui restent, et qui sont relatives au secteur militaire, rechercher je ne sais quelle autre fusion ou je ne sais quel autre rapprochement. Ce n'est pas raisonnable. J'ajoute en plus que pour les avions d'armes, notamment ceux de Dassault, si nous ne disposons pas de moteurs autonomes français, je ne donne pas longtemps avant que la possibilité de faire des avions d'armes autonomes disparaisse. Croyez-vous que l'on aurait pu continuer la chaîne des Mirage, lancer le Mirage 2000 sans une autonomie de vente à l'exportation sur les moteurs français ? De trop nombreux exemples montrent le contraire.

Si la France veut avoir une défense nationale, un avion d'armes, il faut avoir un moteur national.

Quand on regarde de quoi il s'agit pour les avions d’armes qui occupent environ 30 % des 12 000 employés de Snecma, ce qui donne 4 000 personnes ; je pense que 56 millions de Français peuvent porter la charge d'environ 4 000 personnes qui produisent ce dont la Défense et les ailes militaires françaises ont besoin.

Bruno Revellin-Falcoz

Je voulais intervenir à la suite de ce que Bernard Dufour vient de dire.

J'entends parler de mariage, fort bien. Avant le mariage, il y a publication des bans. On publie des bans de façon à dire à ceux qui, éventuellement, ont quelque chose contre cette union de se manifester. Je voudrais soutenir totalement ce qui vient d'être dit et je me sens à l'aise pour le dire car, chez Dassault, nous avons utilisé des moteurs de tous les motoristes ici présents autour de la table.

S'agissant d'une industrie aéronautique militaire qui exporte à peu près deux tiers de notre activité au total, l'exportation, c'est essentiel. Nous ne pouvons donc en aucune façon avoir une contrainte quelle qu'elle soit quant à la vente de nos avions militaires dans quelque pays que ce soit au monde.

Que les mariages se fassent, très bien, à condition, dans le domaine militaire, qu'ils préservent la totale indépendance de vente de nos avions.

Gérard Jouany

Voilà une demande clairement formulée. On a dit que l'on posait aussi les questions difficiles : Y a-t-il encore de la place pour quatre motoristes dans le monde occidental ?

Bernard Dufour

Je crois que oui. Hier, on a entendu Pratt & Whitney et General Electric nous expliquer que la politique des Etats-Unis, après la baisse des budgets militaires et la crise civile, était de maintenir deux motoristes dans ce pays, sans doute le plus riche de la planète pour l'instant, avec 250 millions d'habitants.

L'Europe, dont tout le monde parle, c'est quand même 350 millions d'habitants aujourd'hui et sans doute plus demain. Si nous ne sommes pas capable, en Europe, d'avoir une politique de soutien d'un même nombre de motoristes qu’en Amérique, pauvre Europe !

Je pense qu'une concurrence de deux pôles moteurs européens, comme d'ailleurs deux pôles aéronautiques, est souhaitable. Ceci n'empêche pas une certaine coopération mais également une certaine concurrence. Je pense que la coopération que nous avons bâtie depuis 25 ans, au travers de CFMI avec General Electric, concrétise notre devoir de rationalisation puisqu'en joignant nos efforts sur ce programme, nous avons, à deux constructeurs indépendants, substitué un seul par notre association CFM.

Gérard Jouany

J'ai une question d'un participant pas comme les autres puisqu'il s'agit de Monsieur le ministre Habibie, président d'IPTN, fabricant Indonésien d'avions que nous saluons bien volontiers et qui nous demande quel est l’avenir de la technologie des Propfan.

Brian Rowe

Oh, the propfan ? Yeah, that's a great engine. Probably if the fuel costs start to skyrocket again, I think you're going to see more propfans. But I think currently one of the beauties of a jet engine is its small number of parts that rub against one another, and I think until fuel prices go up I don't see propfans are going to really become too prevalent. I think you will see ducted high bypass ratio fans, from the smaller engines on the turboprops. Again, I think there's going to be derivatives of military engines for turboprops which will be more efficient. But generally speaking I think the propellers and all that is going to be funded more by the military than from a commercial point of view. John ?

John Rose

I completely agree. We took that position on propfans at the outset and have seen no reason to change it, because clearly the fuel regime hasn't changed in the meantime. And I, again, completely agree with Brian that the turboprop market is going to be driven by the military. So, I have to concur with that.

I'd like to go back one step, which was the issue of survival of all the manufacturers, and clearly it must be the case that they can. But I think for a different reason, I think we're an international business, and the paradigms that we've operated under will have to change, but clearly there is scope for people with capability, technology and market access to find ways of working together that are profitable and good for the customer.

Robert A. Wolfe

I simply agree with my colleagues. Ducted fans, yes, propfans, no, not at the current fuel prices.

Gérard Jouany

Nous avons aussi une question sur le dollar. La question précise est : Si le taux du dollar reste aussi bas, la Snecma aura-t-elle encore la possibilité de lancer le nouveau moteur CFM XX ?

Bernard Dufour

Je pense que oui. Le lancement du moteur CFM XX sera, comme le CFM 56 en son temps, l'objet d'un soutien financier gouvernemental français. Notre situation financière ne nous permet pas, dans l'état actuel des choses, de le financer nous-mêmes. Le Premier Ministre, Edouard Balladur, nous l'a écrit au mois d'avril. Ces avances remboursables sont faites pour être remboursées comme elles l'ont été avec le CFM 56. Le problème du dollar favorise nos amis américains, nous en profitons par l'association de CFM pour la moitié du moteur. Le lancement d’un nouveau CFM n’est pas lié au problème du dollar.

Gérard Jouany

Vous demandez des avances remboursables comme cela a très bien fonctionné jusqu'à maintenant dans l'industrie aéronautique française ?

Bernard Dufour

Il n’y a pas qu’en France que fonctionne ce système des avances remboursables. Je pense plus particulièrement à la République fédérale d’Allemagne, au Royaume-Uni et à la Belgique.

Gérard Jouany

Il y a un autre problème, celui du problème social et Monsieur Rose l'a évoqué tout à l'heure. Nous avons en face de nous une industrie qui donne de moins en moins d'emplois. Elle y est contrainte, malheureusement. Il y avait aussi la question de l'embauche des jeunes ingénieurs. Alors que peut-on dire de ce côté-là ? Quelle est la situation pour ces jeunes gens, tous passionnés comme vous et nous, et qui doivent parfois patienter avant de trouver un emploi dans vos usines.

Louis Gallois

Je parlerais de la situation française que je connais mieux que les autres. Nous avons en France plusieurs écoles spécialisées dans la formation d'ingénieurs aéronautiques. Ces écoles ont fourni depuis la Deuxième Guerre mondiale une élite tout à fait remarquable sur le plan technique. Je trouve qu'il est extrêmement préoccupant que l'industrie aéronautique française ne puisse pas embaucher ces jeunes qui sortent des écoles.

C'est une question qui s'adresse à notre profession. C'est un problème que nous devons résoudre parce que nous avons des jeunes qui choisissent la carrière aéronautique, qui travaillent dans ce sens et auxquels nous ne pouvons pas offrir de débouchés. Je pense que cette situation est une situation extrêmement grave parce que, à terme, nous risquons soit de dégoûter les jeunes de choisir la carrière aéronautique, soit de nous appauvrir nous-mêmes dans des proportions inacceptables. Donc il va falloir trouver une solution. Il faudra peut-être en parler avec les pouvoirs publics mais, en tout cas, on ne peut pas laisser les trois quarts, puisqu'il s'agit des trois quarts, des promotions actuelles qui sortent des écoles d'ingénieurs aéronautiques aller vers d'autres destins que ceux de l'aéronautique.

Nous devons à tout prix résoudre ce problème dans les prochaines années.

Gérard Jouany

Merci Monsieur Gallois. Avant de laisser la parole pour la conclusion au président Dufour et à Madame le Ministre, j'ai envie avec toute la salle de vous souhaiter à nouveau bon anniversaire : Bon anniversaire à la Snecma.

J'ai gardé pour la fin la dernière question qui s'adresse à tous mais vous n'êtes pas obligés de tous d’y répondre : Avec toutes ces manifestations d'amitiés, nous en vivons encore une que nous entendons actuellement, comment pouvez-vous être encore concurrents et amis ?

Brian Rowe

I think there's no question that this is a very small community. It's just like rugby teams, it's just like soccer teams, we get our team, we work together, we fight one another, and I think that's what makes our industry great. We all have the same objective in the end, to have more reliable engines and airplanes, but I don't think there's any personal animosity. I think we just, GE obviously has the best engines and we try and sell them.

John Rose

There wasn't any personal animosity but... I have to agree with Brian, it's a competitive sport. You fight and hopefully you win. And the industry is unlikely to change: we're all competitors and collaborators and have been since the beginning of the industry. It's unlikely to change. What we have to do is to emphasize that as the industry develops we continue to focus on getting the product that the customer wants at a price that they and we can afford.

Robert A. Wolfe

I certainly agree. I think this industry deserves this because of the products we put out. I'm convinced that if attorneys can do what they do and walk away friends, it's very easy for us. I would only take one exception: that Brian does not have the best engine, but we're still friends.

Bernard Dufour

Cela a toujours été une caractéristique de l'industrie aéronautique. Dans une vie professionnelle antérieure - j'ai travaillé 20 ans à l'Aérospatiale - je me souviens de l'époque où nous passions du monoproduit Caravelle à trois produits c'est-à-dire Caravelle-Concorde-Airbus. J'ai demandé au président de Boeing, c'était en 1965-1966, s'il accepterait, pendant une semaine, de me permettre de visiter ses usines pour voir comment Boeing traitait, du point de vue organisationnel, plusieurs lignes d'avions en même temps, ce qui était nouveau pour nous.

Le président Boeing m'a laissé tourner dans ses usines pendant une semaine pour voir comment cela fonctionnait. Je me suis inspiré de ce que je croyais adaptable. Je veux dire par là que, dans cette industrie, nous sommes concurrents mais il y a toujours eu un professionnalisme, un respect mutuel et une connaissance qui en fait le charme inoubliable et la valeur.

Gérard Jouany

Dites-moi, quand vous étiez chez Boeing, y avait-il des choses cachées derrière des bâches ?

Bernard Dufour

Non, pas du tout ! J'ai pu interviewer qui je voulais, voir qui je voulais pendant une semaine. Bien sûr, je ne suis pas allé voir les « fines pointes » du bureau d'études, je n’étais pas venu pour ça. Le problème était de voir comment Boeing s'organisait pour livrer à l'époque le 737, le 727 et le 707 simultanément. J'ai trouvé chez eux le meilleur accueil ainsi que chez Douglas d'ailleurs.

Gérard Jouany

Nous arrivons au terme de cette Table ronde. Je voudrais remercier les participants pour leurs témoignages passionnés et l’auditoire pour les très nombreuses questions qui démontrent tout l’intérêt accordé aux moteurs d’avions.

Merci beaucoup, nous passons maintenant à la séance de clôture