FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1957
1957 - 1061.PDF
FLIGHT, 2 August 1957 151 The Commons Debate Civil Aviation WE refer in a leading article to the Commons debate onBritish civil aviation on July 22, and below are points fromthe debate which, we feel, give a fair summary of each side's point of view. For quick reference the points are recordedout of their chronological order. For the Opposition:— MR. IAN MIKARDO : "On more than one occasion we have raised thequestion of the erosion of the Corporation's services by feather-bedded concessions given to private operators. On each occasion we wereassured that the last concessions which had been made were the last concession to be made, yet each time we found later that more con-cessions were made to private operators at the expense of the Corporations. "In about eighteen months' time most of the Colonial-coach servicesare bound to disappear in favour of a new level of tourist services. It was because of this that the Minister referred the question of thoseservices to the Air Transport Advisory Council. ... In a manner which one would call cowardly if one was speaking anywhere but in the Houseof Commons, he got the A.T.A.C. to do his dirty work for him. "The Minister is now to do two things. The first is that theindependent operators will be allowed to use better aircraft, thus directly violating the principal safeguard given to B.O.A.C. againstunfair competition. The second is that after the new tourist services come into operation Airwork and Hunting-Clan are to be given 30 percent of the traffic on the East African and West African routes, includ- ing the mail traffic formerly reserved entirely for the Corporation. Whyhas the Minister gone back on his predecessor's undertaking? [That there was to be no material diversion from B.O.A.C. first-class andtourist-class services.] Will the Minister say that 30 per cent knocked off is not a material diversion? "Members may wonder why the workers were so suspicious? [oflast year's B.O.A.C. appointments, and in particular of Mr. Gerard d'Erlanger as chairman]. Perhaps it was because some of them noticedthat the Minister had chosen to recruit his new chairman from the board of a company which finances the purchase of aircraft by privateoperators, including foreign operators. [Mr. d'Erlanger later denied that Air Finance, Ltd., deals with British private operators.] "Death by a thousand cuts is just as much a death as death bydecapitation. Erosion can destroy just as surely as explosion. . . . The Minister's assurance, like a lot of his other statements about the Cor-poration, is a specimen of that peculiar brand of 'double think' and 'double talk' that he always uses when he talks about civil aviation. Iam quite sure that in the Ministry there is a slogan on the wall which says 'Erosion is Construction'. Warning to Private Operators "I believe that there is place for both public enterprise and privateenterprise in civil aviation. ... If the Labour Government which will be returned at the next election find themselves compelled to make drasticchanges it will be entirely the fault of the Right Hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and predecessors. If the private operators exerciseordinary business prudence they ought to bear in mind before they enter into any further serious commitments that the Right Hon.Gentleman will not be in office forever and that he may very well be gone before many months have passed." MR. A. E. HUNTER: "I have met many of the Corporation'semployees in their trade union branches. One point which has always impressed me has been the keenness of the staff to make these Corpora-tions a great success in every way. To them it is not merely a matter of wa?es and working conditions ... I have seen that they are proudof B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and are very keen .to make these great Cor- porations the best in the world. "I have been assured that . . . private capital could not handle theneeds of the expansion of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.: for example, the long- term programme of buying aircraft for 1965 and the vast capitalrequired for airports and developments ... I have been assured that the industry could be handled in the great way in which it is expandingonly by the public Corporations. It may be that what the Minister is taking away in traffic is a smallpercentage, but the employees have formed the impression that this is the beginning and that, while he may take away only a few thousandsone year, in the years ahead he may take away several millions. "I appeal to the Minister not to take action that will weaken theCorporations and not to give the impression to the staff that he is not behind them in their great efforts to make the Corporations the bestand safest in the world." MR. A. FENNER BROCKWAY: "When the nation has constructed agreat national service in which every one of us have great pride, when we have among the workers in that service a devotion to it and thedevotion to the national cause which is reflected in it, it is a betrayal of national interest if we limit the powers which that great national servicehas. . . . We have among those men a wealth of enthusiasm for their task. They have almost the spirit of the old craftsmen who loved todo what they were doing." MR. FRANK BESWICK : "The Minister is making a proposal contraryto the Air Corporations Act, 1949. He is proposing a policy which is illegal. . . . The Air Transport Advisory Council is now being requiredto undertake responsibilities for which it was never intended. The Minister has been sheltering behind recommendations made by theA.T.A.C. He suggests these carry weight which must be accepted by him. In fact, it is not so. The A.T.A.C. has no locus in this matterat all. "One concession leads only to further concessions. 1 recall the caseof the car ferry service. What happened? Once it had a licence—and on this understanding an assurance was given to the Corporation,which was interested—it said, 'We are carrying these car passengers. Surely we can be allowed to carry additional passengers as well in orderto make the service economic' One gives way when one is faced with logic of that kind. The argument is impeccable. They were permittedto carry a limited number of passengers. I speak from memory—I think the number was six. After a time, they come back and say, 'Youhave accepted the principle. We can now carry passengers other than the car passengers. You limited us to six; we have space for ten. Whydo you prevent us filling the four empty places?' "We see again this technique of one limited concession makinganother impossible to resist. . . . Once international scheduled services are allowed to private enterprise, what is the logical answer to theultimate request that instead of two routes they should be allowed to operate three or four? The economics of the argument would beabsolutely unchallengeable. "It seems to me that the next logical step would be for parallelservices across the North Atlantic. If we look further ahead, when we have these independent companies running parallel services alongsideB.O.A.C. services in different parts of the world, we shall have them coming along and calling our attention to the uneconomic character ofthese duplicated services. They will say that the next step must be a merger between the independent operator and the Corporation. "This is the policy which all these people want—an opportunity toinvest in the national chosen instrument ... I am suggesting that they are moving step by step towards the position in which they can [do so]with some chance of success. The shipping interests . . . are today asking for the opportunity to put capital into a monopoly air transportroute. Bulk Traffic of the Future "I maintain that these proposals have the worst of both worlds,neither the advantages of competition nor the advantages of unified operation. They will mean overlapping in services and facilities, theywill mean an increase in overheads, and they will mean more expendi- ture in the development in these African services. "We are now dealing with a class of tourist traffic which I believe willbe the bulk traffic not only in Africa but in other parts of the world . . . we are not dealing here with something which these [private] companiespioneered." For the Government:— MR. F. A. BURDEN : "In 1955 and 1956, when British aviation carried13.6 per cent of the world's traffic, 0.8 per cent only was carried by the independents. It is estimated that the independents on thisparticular service will carry between 4,000 and 5,000 passengers a year. It is suggested that this will break the great Corporation . . . with all thewealth they have, with the opportunities they have of coming to this House and getting grants, with their opportunities under Governmentsponsorship of buying the newest aircraft in the world, with their giant organizations, the publicity officers, their offices through the world, willthose 4,000 to 5,000 passengers a year mean such a terrible thing for the Corporations? "If it is to be determined that the Corporation shall carry 70 percent of the traffic and the independents 30 per cent, who will determine how that is to be arranged and fix the density that is to be given toeach operator, and so on?" MR. PAUL WILLIAMS: "I suggest that to cry 'wolf at this stage isprejudging a policy whose details are at the moment remarkably uncertain. I come to the conclusion on the alteration that the inde-pendents are losing a proportion, and quite a severe proportion, of the traffic which they pioneered, in which they risked their all, andare being forced to let go this traffic to a Corporation which pre- viously had shown little interest in this field." DR. R. BENNETT: "I think that the Corporations could be givenParliament's enthusiastic support in trying to make themselves more financially efficient. A figure of 0.8 per cent net profit is surely not avery good business outcome. . . . We are dealing with the traffic which was unwanted by B.O.A.C. and was developed at the risk of the share-holders moneys by private enterprise. . . . The Corporations are to be given 70 per cent of somebody else's business. "I imagine that the Opposition wants all the future development inoperating civil aircraft in this country to be substantially in the hands of the nationalized Corporations only." The Minister Replies MR. HAROLD WATKINSON (Minister of Transport and CivilAviation): "I have sat here during the whole of this debate in, at times, some astonishment, because I have wondered how remotecan Hon. Members get from the outside world. What matters is not that what the Socialist Party or the Conservative Party decidesin air transport, but what the pattern of air transport in the world dictates. Unless we take some account of that, we shall do greatharm to the Corporations as well as to the industry as a whole. What is proposed is not a change of policy in any way. _ At most, it is adevelopment of existing policy. It is, at most, simply a piece of elementary justice to allow the airlines concerned to keep the trafficwhich they themselves have created. "I do not make any apology for referring this matter to the A.T.A.C.I should like to see the status and standing of the A.T.A.C. constantly improved. In my view, we need a licensing and arbitrating body inthis growing industry. I believe that the A.T.A.C., under Lord Terrington's distinguished chairmanship, fulfils the task impartiallyand supremely well. The advice that the A.T.A.C. gave to me wa» impartial advice within the terms of the Act. .. ; ,- (Concluded on page 177) — • -q | '"•'"•
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
