FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1952
1952 - 0112.PDF
50 FLIGHT Commercial Aviation Commentary By HENRY MORRIS Series II: No. 3 LISTENING to the recent Lords debate on civil aviation, one could not but wonder what was the object of the whole exercise. Perhaps, behind the rather laboured but ambiguous statements of the Govern ment speakers, the weighty and obvious "catch questions" of former Socialist Ministers, and the insistent speeches by a few Peers with axes to grind (or past actions to justify) was the obscure thrust-and-parry of Parliamentary manoeuvr ing; but only a skilled politician, and certainly not a layman, could assess which side, if any, gained the most points. What did it all boil down to ? The Government committed itself to nothing new. And, examined in Hansard, its few positive statements seem even more ambiguous. The essence of the Government's case was, "We have as yet no detailed policy. We favour the combination of, public and private enterprise in the national and best interests of British civil aviation. Some of us feel that private operators can play a more important part in the development of civil aviation—but we are not quite sure how. We will not undermine the existing international networks of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. We fully appreciate the recent improvements in the financial position of the Corporations, but this must be considered in perspective with the state of the industry as a whole. We will carefully consider the future of the M.C.A. and not do anything impetuous." From this neither the Corporations nor the private operators could have gained much consolation, though both sides could feel that they were at least reprieved and would have more time in which to brief their counsel before appearing in court again! The Corporations now know that the Government does not intend to decimate them, while the private operators know that the Government will endeavour to give them a larger, or at least a more definite and secure, place in the air-transport pattern. But could anything more definite be expected at this stage ? Air transport can no longer be regarded as a minor and annoying problem detached from (and insignificant in comparison with) other national and international problems. It is now of major strategical importance; it can have a pro found effect on the aircraft manufacturing industry and thus the dollar export trade; it can give a tremendous impetus to another great dollar-earning industry, the tourist trade; and it is daily becoming an increasingly vital link in the political and economic development of the Colonies and Commonwealth. But did the Opposition really expect to extract any definite statement of policy from the as yet swaddled Government ? The Government speakers could hardly say more—and certainly no less—than they did. • • • TT is an odd reflection on our present topsy-turvy state that the Opposition speakers appeared to be presenting themselves almost as the mouthpieces of the Corporations. One could almost feel the anticipatory glee with which Lord Ogmore put over his No. i "catch question" : "When he (Lord Leathers) said that we do not want to interfere in any way with the activities of the Corporations, he means, does he not, that on one overseas route there will be one British Corporation operating and not more? I think that is essential." And how justified his anticipation when Lord Leathers replied : "My answer to that is really 'yes>' Dut I must make this proviso. That Corporations must be able to cope, and cope successfully, with the traffic, or some other view will have to be taken." What could be more definite ? Ah, but wait—this is not quite so good: there are loopholes. What does "overseas" mean ? Perhaps Lord Leathers will say that by "overseas" he meant "to foreign countries." Perhaps he will not regard inter-Commonwealth or inter-Colonial services as "overseas." Also, much worse, he referred to one Corpora tion. Perhaps, (perish the thought!) he did not mean that to apply to a Company.. Perhaps later he will say that he merely meant that one State Air Corporation would not be allowed on the routes of another State Corporation, such as B.E.A., operating to Cairo as well as B.O.A.C. So much for the ambiguity of Parliamentary niceties ! A real surprise was the uncompromising and unrelenting attitude of Lord Pakenham. In office he courageously adhered to his conviction that his first duty was to support, encourage and protect the Corporations; but it is hard to believe that he really thinks (as he implied in the debate) that an era of prosperity and promise has burst on the private operators. The situation of the few survivors has certainly improved, largely by reason of an unforeseen demand for air transport brought on by international tensions; but the private operators still have no more security of tenure in their operations than they had five years ago, and cer tainly not a tithe of the minimum security necessary to finance re-fleeting programmes. Lord Pakenham said in the debate that "the charter companies now have a very lucrative business in ordinary charter work"; yet the late Government did not even define "charter work" and to this day the private operators do not know exactly what sort of operations they may or may not undertake, or for how long they may be allowed to continue with their existing meagre work. All they know is that they may not operate "scheduled services"—but no one will tell them exactly what that means! • • • A GAIN, Lord Pakenham was at pains to emphasize the **• very great improvements and promising results now being achieved by the Corporations. Nobody will deny these improvements and everyone is very glad to see them and hopes they will continue. But this persistent emphasis on betterment tends to make people think "Why all this propaganda ? What are they trying to put over ? Let's look into it a little more clearly." Conclusions after such a look might well be : "It's time these better results were achieved; they could hardly have been avoided. They surely could have been achieved much earlier; and, in any case, are they really as good as they should be ? Isn't there still a great deal of lavishness which could be curtailed ? And at what cost to the overall strength of British air trans port have these improved results been gained ? " But withal, the debate showed sufficient statements of high purpose to justify the hope that a new and fairer era is dawning and that a policy for British air transport will be hatched out which really will put the interest of the industry and the public before party politics. Lord Leathers' deter mination to do this was in fact the one and only firm definite statement of Government intentions. It is unfortunate that a discordant note was struck by Lord Pakenham, who said :— "With an expanding business, with the Corporations doing better all the time and the charter companies doing better all the time, it ought not to be impossible to find a means of reconciling their interests. We shall await with great interest the efforts of the noble lord to bring about the harmonization. I do not want to adopt a tone of violence, let alone of threats, but I must inform the noble lord that if he found it impossible to bring about this reconciliation and he took steps which, in our view, damaged the Corporations, we should fight him by every constitutional means, here, elsewhere and everywhere. I must put that quite plainly on record." This statement, which is not softened at all when read in its context, can mean only that any step which in the view of the Opposition "damages" the Corporations (even if such "damage" is caused by an operation which will result in a big improvement in the health of the industry as a whole) will be opposed "here, elsewhere and everywhere." This does not sound a very hopeful or even constructive pol icy; but perhaps time and events will soften the threat.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
