FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1963
1963 - 1022.PDF
FLIGHT International, 20 June 1963 INDEPENDENCE OF THE BOARD ONCE again it is timely to ask how independent of the Minister of Aviation is the Air Transport Licensing Board. The Minister, Mr Julian Amery, referring in the House of Commons on May 13 to the BOAC and BEA applications to carry troops on scheduled public air services, said: "This proposal is before the Air Transport Licensing Board where the views of the different parties can be properly evaluated. As the committee knows, decisions of the Board are subject to my confirmation and as far as I am concerned, therefore, the matter is subjudice, and it would be wrong for me to comment." Roger Bacon, in his column on May 30, quoted the passage about Board decisions being subject to the Minister's confirmation, and compared it with that of the Minister's predecessor, Mr Sandys, who said he intended the Board to be "as independent as it is possible to make it." There is reason to believe that the Ministry feels this was unfair inasmuch as it did not indicate that the Minister was talking in the context of rebated IATA-fare trooping, and that in this context Board decisions are indeed subject to his confirmation. Although even in a trooping-fare context he appeared to be making a general statement, the Minister must be given the benefit of the doubt. But the question then arises: Why are these BOAC and BEA trooping applications subject to the Minister's con firmation? Section 2(5) of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, says, in so many words, that every licence other than UK domestic shall be at a fare (in practice always the IATA fare) which is subject to the Minister's approval and that the licence shall be of no effect until the fare has been confirmed. This part of the Act of course refers to all applications for inter national licences. So far the Minister has never queried or even so far as is known come near to querying the fare provisions of an ATLB international licence. So why—and this seems to be the key question—should an application to carry troops on international public air services at rebated fares be any more subject to the Minister's confirmation than, say, an application from ABC Airways to operate London - Paris ? Nobody could imagine for one moment that the Minister would use his powers over inter national fares to tamper with the price of trooping contracts carried out on behalf of his Government. Obviously, these trooping fares are no more subject to his confirmation than are any ordinary international fares, though the implication of his remark in the Commons is that, in fact, they are. But the main issue at stake here is not the fare, but whether or not British troops and their families should be carried on Govern ment contract by BOAC and BEA on their international public air services. This is the main issue; and there is nothing in the Act Prince Galitzine, Avro sales manager (left) and Gp Capi Beaumont, Hawker Siddeley Far East regional executive (right) discuss the Avro 748 with Capt R. Lym, vice-president Philippine Air Lines, following a demonstration flight at Manila during the aircraft's recent far east tour 991 which gives the Minister the power to confirm or deny the Board's decision—unless or until the matter goes to him on appeal. Then, of course, the Minister can say that a Board decision is subject to his confirmation. This immediately raises two important questions affecting the independence of the Board. First, the appeals system itself—despite the safeguard of the Minister always having to publish his reasons for rejecting an appeal commissioner's recommendation—undermines the indepen dence and authority of the Board, the classic example of this being the Minister's overturning of the Board's decision in the Cunf.rd Eagle North Atlantic case. As has been said so often, a law which requires a minister with a statutory vested interest in the corporations to decide an appeal affecting the interests of those corporations is not a very good law and ought to be changed. "Whatever the Board may decide," suggested a leading article in Flight for June 15, 1961, "it is the Minister who, through his supreme powers over the disposal of appeals and the negotiation of traffic rights, will always have the final word." Secondly, as if the appeals machinery were not bad enough, the Minister is now likely to be put in a position of having to arbitrate in a matter affecting the commercial interests of the Government, on whose behalf trooping is carried out. This is stretching the impartiality of the Minister, however dispassionately he and his advisers try to judge the issue, to the limit. As was said in these pages (Flight, February 6, 1960) before the legislation creating the Air Transport Licensing Board was drawn up, it is the Board "that should reshape our air transport industry, not the Ministry. Create the Board, appoint to it the right men, give it autonomy, and then let it get on with the job ... Let's have one body in which responsibility for all political, commercial and economic facets of Britain's air transport is vested." The Minister's statement that Board decisions "are subject to my confirmation," even in the context of trooping—especially in the context of trooping—does not strengthen the independence and authority of the Air Transport Licensing Board. THE FIRST CHINK? CHINA'S welcome agreement-in-principle to allow PIA traffic rights at Canton and Shanghai is clearly a political decision of some consequence, indicating that the Chinese have taken the first step— just as the Russians did eight years ago when they allowed Finnair to operate to Moscow—towards participation in the world of international air transport. So far Rangoon has been the only contact which CAAC, the Chinese state airline, has had with the outside world. The historic agreement made last month with Wg Cdr Nur Khan, PIA's chairman, may well mark the beginning of a thaw in China's hitherto coldly negative response to overtures from other airlines. For Britain the pact represents something of a diplomatic coup for the Pakistanis, who have persistently asked for rights at Hong Kong on their proposed new service to Tokyo. The most recent request, made about a month ago, was turned down by the British, and it was this that probably drove the Pakistanis into serious talks with the Chinese. Wg Cdr Nur Khan visited Peking at the end of May and by all accounts had a most friendly reception. The initiative, it is said, came from the Chinese. From the political point of view agreement is complete, and all that has to be decided now are the technical facilities required by PIA of the Chinese for the operation of Boeing 720s into Canton and Shanghai. It is not known what air navigation or runway problems exist but PIA appear to be confident of the Chinese ability, once the political decision is taken, to meet their require ments. Wg Cdr Nur Khan cannot give a precise date when services will be introduced but is hopeful that this will be within a year. PIA are confident that there is business, and increasing business, to be gained by serving China, a country which is looking less towards Russia and more towards Europe and Asia for trade. At present Hong Kong is the mutually useful business and diplomatic gateway into China, and its importance in this respect could obviously be diminished if and when direct services to Canton and Shanghai from London in the west and Tokyo in the east become available. Wg Cdr Nur Khan said last week: "Before the services can be started by the two countries a great deal of preparatory work has to be done. A tentative date for starting the service will also have to be worked out and determined when further discussions have taken place."
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
