FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1945
1945 - 0237.PDF
FEBRUARY IST, 1945 FLIGHT \rj ticket system on entirely new and modern lines. It would beJ a retrograde step for air transport to revert to the old-fashioned V methods. "Co-ordination of transport" and " wasteful com-petition " were stock phrases. Co-ordination. Qf transport was a simple function of Government,-whose powers in this respectcould not be usurped by commercial' undertakings. Did not all this talk sound remarkably like a formula for a commercialmonopoly ? It would be time enough to talk of co-ordination of air transport when the air lines had brought one-class airfares to the travelling public below that of third-class railway fares. That stage would be reachedwithin five years if aviation com- panies who were in aviation foraviation's sake were allowed to apply their virile determination tothis aim. He need not ask the audi- ence to imagine how far British rail-ways would have been developed if their growth and encouragement had been in the hands ofstage-coach operators and canal companies. Mr. Mclntyre then outlined the system in force in the UnitedStates, where the test applied to all new transport undertakings was the clear practical test of public"necessity and convenience.If that test were applicable in this country there would have been no need for such a debate as this one. He recalled thecase of an American shipping company -which had developed an overseas airline and was forced by law to divest itself of allterest in that airline. He argued that where an older form transport controlled a new, there must be a tendency toprovide a safeguard for the small minority of the public who were shareholders to the detriment of the larger majority ofthe population who were not. But the majority of the popula- tion was entitled to all of the benefits of the new instrument.Mr. Mclntyre concluded with the following words: "As you may have gathered I do not think that railway or shippingcompanies should take a part in air transport. In a word, let us reject this motion and commit the future of British aviationto aviation minds." Flying Heroics MAJOR K. BEAUMONT recalled that 25 year« ago a pilot whomade a journey from London to Paris was a hero, and so were the passengers, in aircralt which could only just be hoickedover the boundaries of muddy airfields before the single engine overheated and stalled. In those days air transport was diffi-cult and dangerous, a matter for experts in piloting, naviga- tion,, maintenance, etc. Nowadays, with concrete runways,automatic pilots, radar, radio, beams, blind-landing facilities, multi-engines that seldom failed, greatly increased range andspeed and a constant supply of expert flying, navigational and maintenance personnel available from Transport Command andthe R.A.F., the movement of the vehicle from one point to another over long stages was one of the problems niost easy ofsolution. In international air transport there were more knotty SHIPRAILAIR 'Ontinue travelling public and other taxpayers should benefit fromenlargement of the field of potential air carriers. MR. T. A. RICE prefaced his remarks by stating that whathe was going to say did not necessarily represent the views of the management of Pan American Airways. He explainedthat many years ago the Congress of the United States passed an Act which in fact made it unlawful for a railway companyor other common carrier to control any common carrier by water with whom the railway or other carrier might competefor traffic. A Congressional Committee which sponsored this act made the following statement:————————— "The proper function of a -rail road corporation is to operate trainson its tracks, not to occupy the waters with ships in mock competi-tion with itself, which in realitv would operate to the extinction olall genuine competition." That statement was made in 1912, but did it not make justas much good sound sense to-day? The Congress of the United States had consistently sought to prevent companies engagedin one form of transportation from having controlling interests in companies engaged in another. Basically it had determinedthat the different forms of transportation should be developed as independent industries. This policy rested upon a varietyof considerations, among which were the fear that the older forms of transportation—as a result of their established positionand financial power—might dominate and restrict'the newer; the belief that newer forms of transportation could be developedmore effectively by companies not controlled by carriers engaged in a competing form of transportation; and the desire torestrict interlocking relationships between competitive interests in public service generally. American steamship companieswere now strenuously endeavouring to have this policy rescinded. Mr. Rice then outlined some of the arguments used by thesteamship companies. He commented that it was all very well to say that joint operation of ships and aircraft along the sameroutes would not be detrimental to the full development of civil aviation, but, he said, put yourself in the position ofthe directors of such a company. Your company has a very large investment in shipping and a very much smaller invest-ment in its auxiliary airline. As business men and as servants of your shareholders, is it not your obvious duty to increasethe return on your large investment wherever possible at the expense of the return on your smaller one? Surely civilaviation deserved a better fate than that. As for the time-worn argument of the steamship companiesthat their present ticket offices, ground staffs, etc., would be beneficial to the development of civil aviation, actually thetwo forms of transportation were so essentially and fundament- ally different that the present ground organisation would Leof little use in the development of a ground organisation com- petent to handle air traffic. Air operation required specialisedpersonnel, such as despatchers, meteorologists, aircraft and In international air transport there were more knotty - - problems common to all forms of international carriage. These engine mechanics, and even the sales and traffic-handlinjz «er-problems were common to international carriage generally and sonnel must use an approach and technique entirely different^problems were common to international carriage generally and outweighed greatly in importance and number the problemspeculiar to air transport. In all such matters international shipping and railway undertakings had acquired a mass ofknowledge and experience which constituted a good Jfouiuia. tion for exploiting air transport. In the case cf internationalshipping companies, they had fcrMgn bases and experienced agencies ready to £.ar.die traffic in a manner to which passengersajld shippers were accustomed. Naturally they would have to acquire the specialised know-ledge indispensable for air operation, but this knowledge was readily available on application to those who had for manyyears made a special study of the subject. He thought he would like to copy Sir Frederick Handley Page's habit of call-ing attention to his own products—in this case himself ! Similar arguments applied in internal air transport where thedifferences between the air and older forms of transport were fewer. Consequently it should be easier for the surface carrierto adapt himself to transport by means of the more modern vehicle. It was sometimes objected that if surface carriers undertookair operations, their tendency would be to suppress the air side. He suggested that no carrier enlightened enough tobalance his fleet by the incorporation of the most modern vehicles would be so foolish, especially if confronted by inter-national competition. If he did not provide his customers with the form and class of transport they required, at or belowthe cost at which it could be obtained from his rivals, he would lose his business and go broke. He could not see that usersof.transport would suffer in consequence of surface carriers being allowed to enter into competition. On the contrary, the sonnel must use an approach and technique entirely differentfrom their counterparts in the much slower land and sea trans- port companies. Aviation vvas essentially dynamic, and surelyit was not fair te the travelling public to tie this fast-moving ir.&ustry to the established organisation of surface transport.Even granting, which he did not, that the exising ground offices of surface transport would be of benefit to the development ofcivil aviation,-without any doubt it was far simpler to establish an office at the end of an airline than it was to establish anairline at the end of an office! Integrated Transport Now as to the integrated transportation system of whichthey had heard so much. He admitted the benefits of integra- tion, but did not admit it was necessary to put all the various.forms of transport under one management to obtain this integration. It was quite feasible to integrate transportationthrough traffic conferences, operators' associations, agency agreements and in numerous other ways. As for the argument about modernising transport services,viz., the comparison between the change from ship to 'plane with the change from sail to steam, it was one thing to changeone's method of propulsion and quite another to change the entire medium and the vehicle. He thought the surface trans-port people's fears of competition from the air was exaggerated, since airlines should primarily create their own traffic. Mr. Rice concluded by saying that he believed most sincerely that the operation of airlines by surface transport interests would be harmful to the full devlopment of civilaviatfon. Further, he thought it only fair to say that so far as his own country was concerned—and he said it because of
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
