distance record for formation flying. Thus, a total of 57 transoceanic flights have been successfully accomplished by Consolidated flying boats without difficulty, but with meager publicity, since these flights were felt to be no more than routine transfer of personnel and matériel by the Navy. Two other Consolidated airboats, purchased for scientific exploration by Mr. Richard Archbold, of the American Museum of Natural History, have each spanned the continent nonstop, and arrived at the Atlantic seaboard with sufficient fuel remaining for 2,000 additional miles. One of these airboats was later used by Sir Hubert Wilkins in his search for the missing Russian transpolar flyers, and in that search traversed more than 20,000 miles over the barren Arctic wastes, without any mishap or difficulty. We are now building for the United States Navy 176 of these PBY airboats and have just been awarded an additional contract for 33 more, making a total of 209, all of which are of a size and performance well adapted to certain phases of transoceanic commercial air transport. But still we have no customers. We seek the answer. A recent Post Office proposal for mail between New York and Bermuda states the requirements are, inter alia, 1,000 miles range with 10 passengers and 800 pounds of mail. Both load and range are well within the capacity of our commercial version of the Navy PBY's. Paragraph 11 of this proposal reads, "The contractor must make its own arrangements at its own expense in securing concessions necessary to operate over, into, and from Bermuda." I have heard that Pan American Airways is the exclusive American air line which enjoys such a concession, thus making it impossible for any other prospective customer of ours to bid on this proposal. The field is definitely limited to the one bidder who holds the concession. So why waste time with the bidding formality? Further, the proposal stipulates that service shall start within 6 months. As manufacturers of flying boats, we know that 4 months are required to assemble the raw materials. A quantity of new boats, of existing design, could not be produced in less than 10 to 12 months; and a new type would require at least 18 months. To make the Post Office proposal truly competitive, the United States Government should obtain the needed concessions, and sufficient time should be allowed prospective bidders for the procurement of adequate equipment. We, as designers and builders of efficient flying boats, need more commercial operators as customers. If the New York-Bermuda air mail proposal is a fair example, then we have a long wait ahead of us, should the destiny of transoceanic air transport remain in present hands. We believe transoceanic air transport can best be worked out in conjunction with existing steamship lines, complementing rather than competing with them. Flying boats need no prepared landing fields; and, in the main, steamship docks and terminals are not only satisfactory but much more convenient of access than the usual airports. The traffic organization, operating talent, and overhead of the steamship line will suffice for the air operation. Customs facilities likewise are identical. I am certain that the joint operation, by one concern, of water- and air-borne equipment will be economically sound and will render a real public service. American-built airboats, engines, propellers, and accessories are the best in the world today. Given a healthy competitive condition in the over-ocean air-transport field, American builders and operators will maintain their leading position in this important world competition. For this, and other reasons, I favor placing the control of over-ocean air transport in the hands of the Maritime Commission. Transoceanic air lines present merely another vehicle which can utilize existing facilities, and the transition from present surface vessels to airboats is not much more of a step than the change from sail to steam. I can readily visualize aircraft so large that they will be ships in the truest sense of the word, carrying the same navigating facilities, the same precautions against mishap, manned by the same type of personnel that for years have carried our flag to the remote corners of the earth. But under existing legislation very few American airplane manufacturers are able to market their products. We have recently had inquiries for our products from an American steamship line, but have not had any from the one American oceanic air line in the past 2 years, except for one received only last week, and which I have not yet had a chance to examine. With proper legislation, the field should be open to a healthy demand. As the steamship lines enjoy subsidiesand rightly-then also should oceanic air lines, operating over the same oceans, enojy such subsidies, provided the element of healthy competition is incuded in such a step. I wonder if you gentlemen realize the cost of a modern transoceanic air liner, through the experimental and development stage? Two million dollars is not adequate to take care of engineering, research, wind-tunnel tests, static tests, and the thousand and one items of development expense which always attend a project of this sort. The CHAIRMAN. Would that expense attach to every single one of such planes? Would you have to make all those tests? I mean to say, after your company built one, could you standardize it? Mr. GOTT. No, sir; after the first one is built, the rest come out more easily. It is the first one which is the "hump" of the proposition. The CHAIRMAN. I see. Mr. GOTT. As I say, when the experimental work is completed, the production of the article in quantity is not so expensive. The experimental stage is the "hump" which at present is difficult and almost impossible to surmount. Here again, judicious governmental assistance and cooperation are needed. We are located on the Pacific coast. Naturally, we wish to do what we can to promote the welfare of our part of the United States. For years, water-borne shipbuilding has languished on our shore; and, in fact, it has been one of the cares of you gentlemen to do what you could, in the way of a Pacific coast differential, to revive the shipbuilding industry there. Inclusion of aircraft in the proposed legislation will further this aim, inasmuch as a majority of the American aricraft manufacturers are now located on the west coast, thus receiving a tremendous impetus from such action. Our prospective commercial customers are yet to appear. There is money available to foster marine development. The problem regarding water-borne traffic is identical to that concerning airboat operation. A shipping company may efficiently operate both types of craft. This does not mean that other air lines, pure and simple, will not come forward in the future; this simply means that, at present, none have the temerity to pass even the formative stage. Airboats are essentially marine vehicles. Even now they must carry suitable navigating equipment, foghorns, anchors, and other marine gear. They should come under the same jurisdiction as the sea-going water-borne craft. Regarding the question of suitable control of trans-oceanic flying, we believe such control to be geographical rather than topographical. The same control which now applies to water-borne craft should be applied to the air-borne craft plying between the same termini and over the same ocean. For instance, the analogy between a railroad and a transcontinental air line does not exist to the same extent as the analogy between a transoceanic air line and a transoceanic shipping line, for the reason that the railroads do not use the landing fields, and all their adjuncts, of the transcontinental air lines, whereas the transoceanic ships and transoceanic air lines do use the same facilities. Competition is the life of trade; and it is maritime trade and commerce that you gentlemen are vitally interested in, and desire to revive. That is all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentle men. The CHAIRMAN. I should like to ask you one or two questions. The CHAIRMAN. In order to take those planes from the west coast to the east coast, you would have difficulty in landing, should you have occasion to do so, because of the restricted fields, would you not? Mr. GOTT. Well, Senator, I am speaking of airboats now. The CHAIRMAN. I see. Mr. GOTT. The two transcontinental flights that I mentioned were made by Mr. Archbold because he wanted to go from coast to coast in a hurry. And I should not recommend it, at all, for continued operation. I am speaking of trans-oceanic operation, and merely mentioned that to indicate to you the range and efficiency of the ships which we are now building. The CHAIRMAN. I take it, from what you said, that you feel that under the present arrangement there is lack of opportunity for competition? Mr. GOTT. Exactly. The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, may I assume that you favor the provisions of the bill? Mr. GOTT. I do. The CHAIRMAN. In building and operating these ships, would it be necessary to provide a subsidy? Mr. GOTT. It might be necessary; it should be available. I am not saying that we have to have it. But we would like to have the same provisions extending in our direction, in the building of transoceanic airplanes, as you may care to extend to the builders of ships for water-borne traffic. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have faith to believe that, with the increased popularity of the service, it would ultimately become self-sustaining? Mr. GOTT. That is our hope, yes. We want a start. The CHAIRMAN. The talk about these new planes is that they will carry 100 passengers. Is that possible? Mr. GOTT. Yes, indeed. None has as yet been built of that size; but that is entirely possible. The CHAIRMAN. It is feasible? Mr. GOTT. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I see. Well, sir, we are much obliged to you, and appreciate your coming this great distance to give us your views. Unless there is an urgent appeal, and a definite reason for it, there will be no further public hearings this week. Does anyone here protest against this suggestion? (No response.) The CHAIRMAN. Very well; then you will see, by the aid of the press, when we are to meet again. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, at 12:05 p. m., an adjournment was taken, subject to call.) (The chairman directed that the following communication be inserted at the end of the testimony:) Hon. ROYAL S. COPELAND, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with your request of December 7 the National Mediation Board submits the following statement with respect to title X of S. 3078, referring to the mediation of labor disputes in the maritime industry. This title X appears as an amendment to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, but it really proposes to amend the Railway Labor Act, although there is no direct statement in any of the sections included under title X stating that the Railway Labor Act shall be amended. If it is the purpose of title X to establish a system of regulation of labor relations in the maritime industry similar to that of the Railway Labor Act with respect to the railway labor relations, that purpose is not likely to be accomplished by the provisions of this title. Whereas the Railway Labor Act operates independently of the Interstate Commerce Act under which railroads are otherwise regulated, this bill makes the labor relations of the maritime industry subject to the provisions of three different acts (1) the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, (2) the National Labor Relations Act, and (3) the Railway Labor Act. It divides the responsibility for labor relations among three separate authorities, the National Mediation Board, the National Labor Relations Board, and the United States Maritime Commission. Such a division of responsibility will prevent the development of a consistent labor policy for the maritime industry. Section 1001 (a) of title X defines the term "maritime employer" and proposes in cases of dispute that the Maritime Commission shall, upon request of the Mediation Board, determine whether an employer is a maritime employer within the meaning of this subsection. In subsection (b) of the same section there is a similar provision with respect to determining who are employees. This authority of the Maritime Commission is likely to conflict in certain respects with the authority of the National Labor Relations Board. The definitions in this section 1001 are not coterminous with the jurisdiction of the United States Maritime Commission. They include longshore industries, stevedoring, trucking, ship repairing, warehouses, and the like. With respect to any of these that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Maritime Commission, conflicts of authority are likely to arise, because the definitions include portions of a number of industries while the labor relations of the other portions of the same industries will be subject to other authorities. Section 1002 attempts to extend all the provisions of title I of the Railway Labor Act to maritime employers and employees, except paragraphs fourth, fifth, and ninth, section 3, and section 10. Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act is composed of 11 paragraphs in which the general purposes, policies, procedures, and duties of employers, employees, and the Mediation Board are developed as a consistent whole. By taking out the fourth, fifth, and ninth paragraphs, as this bill proposes to do, the consistent policy of the Railway Labor Act is broken up, and it will be difficult to determine what the real policy of this proposed title X is, because some of it will have to be determined by the National Labor Relations Board, some by the United States Maritime Commission, and some by the National Mediation Board. Section 1003 leaves the responsibility for the settlement of representation disputes among employees in the National Labor Relations Board, but nothing is said about the unfair labor practices which are defined in the National Labor Relations Act and closely connected with the procedures for handling representation disputes under the act. In the Railway Labor Act both representation disputes and mediation disputes are entrusted to the administration of the Media tion Board. Section 1003 also amends the Nationla Labor Relations Act by providing (line 24, p. 35) that the Labor Relations Board must hold elections at the request of "the maritime employer" as well as at the request of employees. This is not only contrary to the policy of the present National Labor Relations Act but also to the policy of the Railway Labor Act. The amendment would make representation disputes among the employees of the maritime employers subject to an entirely new labor policy not applicable to railway employees or to the employees of any other interstate industry; and this very questionable although exceedingly important change is made without expressly stating that the National Labor Relations Act is amended in this respect. It would seem to invite confusion to apply to the maritime employees parts of the labor policies of the Railway Labor Act, of the National Labor Relations Act, and of the Merchant Marine Act, and then to add an entirely new policy of changing the procedures under the existing labor relations laws. Consider, for example, what would happen in the matter of choosing representatives by craft or by industries or some other bargaining unit. The Railway Labor Act makes it obligatory that the National Mediation Board shall certify representatives by craft, and elections among the marine department employees of the railroads are held on this basis. The National Labor Relations Board, however, is authorized to determine the bargaining unit that it considers most appropriate in a particular case. It may decide against craft representation and for a combination of crafts or for some other unit. By placing maritime employers and employees under the jurisdiction of both the National Mediation Board and the National Labor Relations Board the conflict between craft and industrial unionism may well be translated into a conflict between the two Government boards. Section 1004 is evidently intended as a substitute for Section 3 of the Railway Labor Act. It makes it the duty of every maritime employer and its employees to establish a board of adjustment. Section 3 of the Railway Labor Act, however, does not make the creation of such local adjustment boards obligatory. It is permissive only. Section 1005 authorizes the National Mediation Board to establish a National Maritime Adjustment Board when in its judgment such a permanent national board of adjustment is necessary. It is doubtful whether either section 1004 or section 1005 can accomplish the purposes that are achieved by section 3 of the Railway Labor Act. No act of Congress can compel an employer to make a written agreement with a labor organization unless he desires to do so. The adjustment boards are necessary only when there are written agreements in effect in order that they may settle disputes with respect to interpretation or application of such agreements. Where there are no agreements, such adjustment boards cannot function. In the railway industry the employers are willing to make written agreements with labor organizations, and their representatives assured congressional committees that they wanted to make agreements. The railroad labor organizations have taken a similar position. It is questionable, however, whether the employers in the shipping industry, longshore industry and trucking industry and others whose employees may be covered by this bill, desire to make such written agreements with labor unions and whether some of the unions in these industries want written agreements. Under these circumstances sections 1004 and 1005 are not likely to accomplish their purposes. Section 1006 appears to be a substitute for section 10 of the Railway Labor Act. It differs, however, in very important respects. It provides for the appointment of emergency boards not by the President, as does the Railway Labor Act, but by the United States Maritime Commission, if a labor dispute is not adjusted under the provisions of the proposed bill, but it does not require the National Labor Relations Board or the adjustment boards to make any such report. The representation disputes which are by this bill entrusted to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, and the disputes which are by the bill referable to adjustment boards, are likely to cause as many strikes and threats of interruptions to commerce as the disputes which are made subject to the jurisdiction of |