FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 0811.PDF
Official Organ of the Royal Aire Club First Aeronautical Weekly in the World Founded in 1909 THURSDAY MAY 24 1962 Number 2776 Volume 81 Editor-in-Chief MAURICE A. SMITH OFC Editor H. F. KING MBE Technical Editor W. T. GUNSTON Air Transport Editor J. M. RAMSOEN Production Editor ROY CASEY Managing Director H. N. PRIAULX MBE In this issue World News 810 Air Commerce 813 Cushioncraft CC-2 823 icing: Conference 829 Alpine Chasseurs 830 Sport and Business 831 Straight and Level 832 Letters 833 Flight-test Instrumentation 83 5 Missiles and Spaceflight 83 7 industry International 842 Service Aviation 844 lliffe Transport Publications Ltd, Dorset House, Stamford 8treet, London SE1; telephone Waterloo 3333 (Telex 25137). Telegrams Flightpres London Telex. Annual subscriptions: Home £4 15s. Overseas £5. Canada and USA $15.00. Second Class Mall privileges authorized at New York, NY. Branch Offices Coventry: 8-10 Corpora tion Street; telephone Coventry 25210. Birmingham: King Edward House, New Street, 2; telephone Midland 7191. Man chester: 260 Deansgate 3; telephone Blackfriars 4412 or Deansgate 3515. Glasgow: 62 Buchanan Street CI; tele phone Central 1265-6. New York, NY: Thomas Skinner * Co (Publishers) Ltd, 111 Broadway 6; telephone Digby 9-1197. © Uiffe Transport Publications Ltd, 1962. Permission to reproduce illustra tions and letterpress can be granted only under written agreement. Brief extracts or comments may be made with due acknowledgement. The Traffic Rights Muddle B EFORE the Air Transport Licensing Board was born, Flight made a few suggestions (February 5, 1960) as to the terms of reference that the Board should be given. We said: "The political side of international air transport—the negotiation of traffic rights—should be integrated into the Board and not remain in the Ministry . . . Let's have one body in which responsibility for all political, commercial and economic interests of Britain's air transport is vested." When the draft legislation was published it was clear that the Minister intended to retain all power over traffic rights unto himself. We said: "Control over policy-making in matters concerning traffic rights should not be separated from the [ATLB]. The Foreign Office must, of course, have its say, and actual negotiations should be conducted by a Govern ment department. But traffic rights are an integral part of air transport and [the ATLB] should have explicit powers to initiate policy and to interpret agreements. As it is such powers will remain in the Ministry." The matter was not even debated by Parliament. The muddle that has ensued, and which was so obviously bound to ensue, is now woefully apparent. The Board has listened to hour after hour of evidence on the damaging effect upon Britain's foreign traffic rights (and on the pool agreements that buy traffic rights) that would result from awarding licences to independents. In handing down its decisions on the big European routes case a few months ago the Board said, in so many words, that it had listened to all the evidence on traffic rights but had not taken it into account, nor had it been influenced by anything the Minister might have said in the "consultation" process that the Act vaguely prescribes. At the big appeal against these decisions, the question of traffic rights was again laboured. As related on page 815, the Italians were the centre of a little storm over traffic rights that blew up at this hearing. And so it goes on. The Omnipotent Minister The Minister, with his statutory responsibility for BOAC and BEA, is not only the final arbiter of appeals against ATLB decisions; he also wields this supreme power over the negotiation of traffic rights. Even if he upholds an appeal commissioner's recommendation which goes against a corporation, with what degree of enthusiasm will he and his staff negotiate the traffic rights without which any ATLB international licence is just a piece of paper? There remains on record the statement of the Minister (Mr Sandys): "It is my intention that the Board shall be as independent as it is possible to make it for that is one of the primary purposes of the Bill. I have therefore kept down the Minister's powers to the minimum." The Minister's powers, because of his final say on appeals and traffic rights, are now seen to be maximum. On the question of traffic rights we still believe that their negotiation "should be integrated into the Board and not remain in the Ministry. . ." It is clear, as was predicted, that on all major licensing issues the Minister is omnipotent. All he has to worry about is this: if he overturns any more decisions of the ATLB he must not be surprised if some of its members hand him their resignations.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
