The recent landing at Heathrow of the Airbus A380 was a landmark for the UK aerospace industry. But will it prove to be a high water mark, or just a staging post to greater success?

The chancellor, present for the touchdown in May, was also on hand to say what a success it was for “British manufacturing and science”. “I think it’s a great success story for European cooperation,” he said of the pan-continental project. “I think it’s also a big triumph for British manufacturing, British technology, British science.”

Gordon Brown, the man at the helm of the UK economy and hoping to take charge of the country, would say that, of course. The £6bn initiative is on course to be a financial success, with 159 firm orders already in for the plane, from 16 carriers.

But a more careful re-reading of his words belies some of the wider issues surrounding aerospace policy. The emphasis on science makes clear where Brown’s vision for the future of the economy lies.

With the aerospace industry becoming increasingly internationalised, the pressure is on aircraft suppliers to shift production to emerging markets such as India and China.

The economic incentive is simple: lower labour costs. That trend has been putting the thumbscrews on UK manufacturing for several years now.

However, the rising powers have a political case too. In return for big orders for planes such as the A380, they want some of the benefits as well, including contracts that begin to build indigenous expertise.

With ministers committed to a free-trade approach that can do little to resist the outsourcing of low-skilled jobs, the government sees science, engineering and specialisation as its salvation. That is not to say Brown and his colleagues have given up on aerospace; rather they want to redefine Britain’s role in the industry.

In May 2002, Patricia Hewitt, then secretary of state for trade and industry, established the Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team (AeIGT). She asked the group, made up of over 140 senior people from industry, government departments, trade unions, universities and research bodies, to map out a 20-year vision for the future of the trade, which it did one year later.

It outlined a vision that by 2020 “the UK will offer a global aerospace industry, the world’s most innovative and productive location, leading to sustainable growth for all its stakeholders”. Goals included making Britain the top aerospace revenue-earning country outside the USA, and the single most competitive aerospace nation in terms of value-added productivity.

Perhaps more importantly, five strategies were adopted for achieving the target: Putting the UK at the head of international efforts; supporting research into new technologies; improving productivity through training and efficiency; workforce-development through education; and maintaining competitive economic conditions.

The AeIGT strategy is currently a quarter of the way through, in its implementation phase. And the competition from globalisation gets ever-greater. As the Commons defence committee noted in a recent report, BAE Systems is considering selling its stake in Airbus to pay for more American operations, “which makes us uncertain of where it leaves their commitment to the UK”.

AeIGT chairman Sir Richard Evans has also said the industry must adapt to new pressures. “The biggest challenge facing the UK aerospace industry over the longer term is the growing trend for trans-national aerospace companies to locate work in countries that have the most favourable industrial, scientific, technological, and general economic climate,” he says.

Brown may be hoping to trade the Treasury for Number 10, but he needs the economy to remain competitive. And given the huge value of its contracts, nowhere will competition be more fierce than in aerospace.