FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1952
1952 - 2086.PDF
122 FLIGHT, i August 1952 Commercial Aviation Commentary By HENRY MORRIS IT is now some weeks since the initial statement of Government policy for air transport was made in the House of Commons. After the first immediate reactions, varying from not-very-convincing expressions of horror from the Opposition to howls of disappointment from the inde pendent operators there has been ample time for calmer reflection and assessment of exactly what the Government is offering. The outcome of this reflection seems to be merging into a surprising amount of satisfaction amongst all the parties interested in this vital problem, whatever their politicfl leanings. The Corporations—quite rightly for State-owned concerns—have almost completely refrained from comment on the political implications of the statement. The inde pendent operators appear to have soft-pedalled their public criticism of the policy. The officials of the Ministry of Civil Aviation seem to be unanimously of the opinion that the policy statement represents a nice middle-of-tbe-road attitude which really leaves it to them to preserve the delicate balance between non-interference with the estab lished preserves of the Corporations and the parcelling-out of a few new operating opportunities to "reputable" inde pendent operators. The people who should be most concerned in the implica tions of the policy—the public, which uses (or would like to use) air transport and who have placidly watched so much of their painfully extracted taxes being poured into the avid civil-aviation furnace over the last few years—have shown virtually no interest at all. • • • "DOSSIBLY all this is because no one really knows exactly •"• what the policy statement means. And it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Government itself, having made the statement, is now waiting for the interested parties —call them contestants—to suggest to it how in their particular conceptions the policy could be interpreted and applied. In other words, the referee, who also wrote the rules (without knowing exactly how the game is played), has now kicked the ball off and is hoping that the teams will soon get tired of battering at each other and come along hand-in-hand with some workable improvement to the rules. It is possible that the Corporations are thinking that the policy statement has been cleverly and ambiguously worded so that they, as the "haves," can continue in that happy state virtually undisturbed. And perhaps the independent operators, being the "have nots," believe that the statement was so framed to give the Government plenty of scope to divert, little by little, many opportunities in their direction without having to go through the painful process of another big show-down ! But the wiles of the politicians must not be under-rated. This was demonstrated by Lord Pakenham in the last debate on the subject in the House of Lords. After the customary party exchanges, and the seizing of opportunities by both sides to put over the hoary old dogmatic declamations for the sake of the Hansard record, Lord Pakenham put forward a plea for a national policy for air transport. It is difficult to avoid the reflection that his idea of such a policy is almost certainly a one-sided Socialist one; but he has deservedly been commended for concluding the debate on a more than usually lofty level. • • • •THE industry, even more than the public which seems •*• content to accept what is given it, would welcome the establishment of a National policy. And if the industry could -be given a directive, backed by both the main political parties, to sit down for a few weeks and work out a modus operandi under which the State and private enterprise sides would recognize the inevitability of each other's permanent existence, and between them suggest some sharing-out of future operating opportunities, then the Government (present and future) might be spared the unpleasant task of imposing a policy which might satisfy nobody. It is a fact that certain elements on both the State and private sides of the industry would be prepared to try to produce some such joint formula, and would agree essential conditions for the prosperous development of their respective spheres—even if they did not thereafter regard each other as long-lost brothers at last returned to each others' arms to live in peace and plenty under the benevolent protection of their foster-father, the M.C.A. • • • DUT perhaps this is an impossible ideal, as the industry u as a whole would have to accept and affirm certain premises, each of which might be unacceptable to some party or other. Firstly, the declared object of all parties would need to be maximum economic expansion of the industry as a whole, and not any privileged part or parts of it. Secondly, the present weak state of the industry would have to be admitted, and inquests into the whys and wherefores would have to be solely for the object of profiting by past mis judgments. Thirdly, the State Corporations and the independent opera tors would, at least among themselves, have to face up to their own inefficiencies and weaknesses and drop all tempta tion to indulge in smoke-screening propaganda. Fourthly, all parties would have to recognize that, irrespective of the relative size of the different participants in the industry, they must all have parallel security of tenure. Fifthly, they would have to work out some joint aircraft-procurement programme without any attempt to seek preferential treat ment for any particular section. There would, of course, be other premises, but these would have to feature amcngst the preliminary table-clearing understandings. And it would be up to the Government to take the lead by suggesting some such rapprochement to the different elements in the indvstry. • • • (~)N July 16th there was another Commons debate. Again ^-' it produced few new ideas and little fresh light on how exactly the Government's policy is to be interpreted. There was no serious divergence of views over the desirability of continued and expanded private enterprise participation in the air-transport industry, but at the same time no one got down to facts and figures as to the probability and extent of such participation. The new policy will stand or fall by a simple criterion: whether or not it will attract heavy private finance into air transport; without this, the contribution of the independent operators will be stagnated from the beginning. There were signs that the problem was appreciated on both sides of the House, but it is one of those knotty controversial matters best skated around ! The only alternative to heavy private finance is direct aid from the Government in the shape of aircraft provisioning, and perhaps this is well in the minds of both the Government and the Opposition. G/C. Wilcock, in winding up the debate for the Opposition, did at least mention that few, if any, operators could think of ordering up-to-date aircraft, and that this was a point which might be taken up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In any case, all the talking—at least in public—seems to be over, and it seems that a compromise between the not- very-divergent views expressed by the Government and Opposition spokesmen in both the Lords and the Commons can be looked upon as the probable "national" policy to which Lord Pakenham referred. If the Minister does now concentrate on persuading the Corporations and the inde pendent operators to hatch out a scheme between them selves, then perhaps these two sides of the industry will progress at least in amity, if not vide the Flight leading article last week) in actual wedlock !
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
