FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1960
1960 - 0454.PDF
454 FLIGHT, 1 April 19-0 The problem of how to deliver eight tons of delicaie and bulky Ultra electronic equipment to tt-* Hebrides was solved last week by the Armstrong Whitworth Argosy. See news-item below AIR COMMERCE EL AL BUY 707s AFTER a good deal of speculation as to which jet airliner the•**• Israeli airline El Al would choose, it became known last week that the airline has decided to buy two Boeing 707-420s (Rolls-Royce Conways). An option on a third aircraft has been placed, and it is understood that the Exlm bank is expected to helpfinance the purchases with substantial credits. Services would be started in July 1961; more jet aircraft would be bought in 1962. TONIGHT'S THE NIGHT •"TODAY, April 1, sees the inauguration of BEA's Comet 4B•*- services. Comet 4Bs will depart from London for Athens and Moscow to launch the BEA jet programme, plans for which wereoutlined in Flight for November 6, 1959. In the Commons earlier this week Duncan Sandys, Ministerof Aviation, said he had authorized BEA to operate their adver- tised night schedules [i.e., movements between the "banned" hoursof 2300 and 0700] on condition that their noise does not exceed that of piston aircraft. Comet tests had shown that this waspracticable. The Minister agreed to give Mr Hunter full informa- tion on the tests. GENTLE ARGOSY ONE of the few aircraft that could have flown into the smallairfield of Benbecula in the Scottish Hebrides with an eight- ton load of electronic gear for the Ministry's guided-missile rangewas the Argosy. The bulk and delicacy of the units led to an approach to Armstrong Whitworth, and the company loanedG-APNR for the flight from London Airport. This took place on March 25. The pilot was Eric Franklin, AW's chief test pilot.The flight was arranged by MAT Transport Ltd, transport agents of the manufacturers of the equipment, Ultra Electronics Ltd. FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL AT its second sitting the Commons Committee B got down to• the hard core of the problems posed by the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Bill. In what circumstances will new licences beissued without damaging the established operators—meaning, particularly, the corporations? Mr Strauss, for the Opposition, moved an amendment whichsought to provide that any new licence would not "prejudice the efficient operation, the financial results or the prospects of existingand prospective services." He emphasized the large sums—"hun- dreds of millions of pounds"—of taxpayers' money invested inthe corporations and claimed that any new British competitor who diverted traffic from them would weaken them in their struggleagainst foreign competition. Since the Minister and his sup- porters repeatedly declared that they did not wish to damage thecorporations, Mr Strauss hoped that they would accept his amend- ing new clauses. He was disappointed. In rejecting this amendment Mr Sandys declared that it wasessential, when it came to new applications for licences, for all applicants to be on an equal footing and for the old distinction ofcorporation and non-corporation to disappear. At the same time he was careful to emphasize that whilst all would be equal, somewould be more equal than others. The corporations—"the giants" —had the resources, the existing routes, and any financial com-mitments for new developments must, as the Bill is now drafted, be taken into account. All these factors, Mr Sandys said, gave thecorporations "a very large measure of security." The more one considers this section of the Bill and some of thegeneral phrases used, the more does one realize that the phrases are meaningless (or open to different meanings) until the newboard evolves its own techniques for interpreting them. At what point, for example, does diversion of traffic become "material";when are duplicated services "wasteful"? At the same time, it seems strange that the word "efficient" isnot to be found among the detailed considerations which the board shall take into account when exercising their licensing functions.An existing service may be "adequate" without being economically efficient. On the other hand a new licence might well be grantedwithout any material diversion of traffic from existing operators, but the economic efficiency of the two operators, old and new,could be impaired. It is possible that a duplicated service would not undermine the financial stability of the organizations con-cerned, simply because they were able to recover costs from the passenger. The question of "efficiency" may well be covered by the "publicinterest" point. Mr McMaster sought to deal with this by insert- ing, among the matters which the board should take into account,"the advancement of British aviation throughout the world, the interests of the travelling public and the reduction in the cost ofair transport," The Minister said that he could not accept this form of words but he admitted there was a case for placing ageneral duty upon the board to consider these matters. He promised to bring forward an amendment along these lines,probably as a preamble, at the report stage of the Bill. Mr Sandys was in fact quite forthcoming with his promises. Hegave other undertakings for the next stage. To Mr Burden he promised to look at the possibility of dealing with the case of air-craft registered in the UK which indulged in unwarranted com- petition from a base abroad. From Mr Redhead he undertook toaccept a suitably worded amendment which would ensure that operators, before being granted licences, observed properconditions of employment. Finally, on the second sitting of the committee, the Ministerpromised Mr Hunter that he was prepared to accept, or even to bring forward himself, an amendment at the report stage to dealwith third-party insurance. Mr Hunter, who has apprehensive constituents living around London Airport, has raised this questionbefore in the House. Motor cars, he claims, are compelled to have adequate third-party cover; why not aircraft? The Minister saidhe supported Mr Hunter's purpose. One of the comparatively few divisions of the committee tookplace on the question of Ministerial observations to the board. A Conservative amendment to leave out the line which specificallyrequires the board to consider "any observations made to the board by the Minister" was readily accepted by Mr Sandys. Hesaid that his power to "consult" with the board was covered by another section of the Bill. Mr Rippon also moved another new clause which involvedimportant changes in relation to fare-fixing. As originally drafted the Bill provided that fares for domestic services would be fixedby the board and that those for external services would be fixed by the Minister. The effect of the new clause will be that theboard will in the first place fix all tariffs, but external tariffs fixed by the board will require confirmation by the Minister,whose decision will be final. On the other hand, the board will be enabled to propose changes in international fares, or the intro-duction of new classes of fares. Any affected party will have the right of appeal to the Minister against the decision of the boardin regard to both the granting of the licence and the level of the fares fixed. Mr Chetwynd, in expressing Opposition doubts about thechange, thought this would give an entirely new status to the board, would involve their attendance at international fare nego-tiations, and would require staff which would duplicate the Ministerial department which now dealt with the matter, andstill be responsible for advising on the ultimate Ministenal decision. Mr Strauss said, understandably, that the Oppositionneeded time to reflect on the implications of this change. FRANK BESWICK
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
