ANNEX 9. ENGINE OVERHAUL PERIODS The following are airlines approved engine overhaul periods for the year ending December 31, 1958: NOTE.-The operating cost of the DC-7 compares to the L-1049 series. ANNEX 11. INFORMAL REPORT OF C-97 TRAINING, TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIF. CHIEF, AIR DIVISION, National Guard Bureau, Washington, D.C.: 1. This report covers the initial period of training from January 23, through the end of MTD ground training, February 18. 5. The ground training for the aircrews was completed on February 15. The course was 132 hours classroom instruction on the C-97 and its systems (30 hours of which was a cruise control). Classes were 6 hours per day for 7 days a week. The grades will certainly justify your confidence in the Guard's ability. The previous high score for MATS pilots taking this course was 98 percent. Two ANG pilots made near perfect scores of 99.4 percent (Capt. Carlos D. Markham, California, and Capt. Frank L. Slane, Oklahoma). Six of the Guard pilots equaled or exceeded the MATS high of 98 percent. Four 6. The previous high score for MATS flight engineers was 91 percent. Guard airmen scored 95.2 percent. (MSgt. John W. McCann, Minnesota; MSgt. Arthur L. Saunders, Oklahoma, TSgt. Robert E. Grady, New Hampshire; and TSgt. Irving C. Lewis, California). Twenty Guardsmen equaled or exceeded the MATS high of 91 percent and the entire class average exceeded the 91 percent, being 92.2 percent. * 10. Aircrews began flying February 12, and through February 17, have flown 142 hours. In the simulator 228 hours have been logged through February 17. The instructor personnel at Travis have the highest confidence in the ability of our pilots to take over the C-97 and fly it. DEAR MR. MARKEY: Reference is made to your letter of January 20 wherein you requested further amplification of our position and comments relating to air transport activities and equipment of the Air Reserve Forces. The Air Reserve Forces, as well as the Air National Guard units, are military organizations, and hence could be expected to provide important hard-core airlift. As you may know, the Department of Defense has recently published its report which has been approved by the President. Contained in that report is the following statement: "The demands of the hard-core mission in terms of responsiveness, risks, and training are far beyond those that could reasonably be imposed on commercial carriers." The report further noted that “Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard units equipped with transport aircraft could serve beneficially in providing primary backup for the active military airlift force." We believe that the Air Reserve Forces and Air National Guard units might well be equipped with transport aircraft, and that such airlift capability should be applied to meeting and being ready to meet the Department's hard-core military airlift requirements. We have been advised that the Air Reserve and/or Air National Guard units have provided constant air defense alert capability. Since the hard-core airlift requirements, other than those connected with the air movement of outsized and/or sensitive cargo, and military-type maneuvers require a constant alert and readiness posture, the units in question are seemingly suited for the hardcore airlift task. (It is assumed that these units would, if equipped with transport aircraft, be under the operational control of MATS.) Accordingly, to the extent that these units represent airlift capability, MATS active military airlift forces can be reduced thereby providing the Department with the economic resources to operate and maintain the Reserve units without imposing any additional burden on the taxpayers or depriving other elements of our Armed Forces of needed funds. The hard-core type airlift requirements are such as to warrant a low utilization rate. To the extent that military airlift forces are employed in the air movement of the Department's routine personnel and cargo traffic it reduces the effectiveness of these forces. Therefore, we believe that Air Force Reserves and Air National Guard units, when equipped with transport aircraft, should not be used in meeting the Department's routine air logistic requirements, but instead should be kept in a high state of readiness. This policy should be similarly applied to MATS active transport forces in the national interest. To the extent that peacetime air transport capability is generated even at a low utilization rate, such capability, including that of MATS' active forces, should be used to provide airlift for military-type maneuvers and joint exercises, movement of outsize and/or sensitive cargo, aero medical evacuation, and those requirements which cannot be met by civil airlines. With reference to the specific equipment which should be assigned to the Air Reserve Forces, the aircraft should be capable of performing effectively that role and meeting those requirements described above. In this connection there are a substantial number of DC-7's and equivalent-type Constellations which are available at modest cost. These modern aircraft could be purchased by the Government with attractive financial terms whereby the Government's capital investment in any one year would be slight. If the Air Reserve Forces were to be so equipped, these units could provide a significant reserve of military airlift with modern aircraft at comparatively little cost. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call upon us. Hon. L. MENDEL RIVERS, S. G. TIPTON. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on National Military Airlift, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN RIVERS: We have been following with very great interest the hearings before the Special Subcommittee on National Military Airlift and are indebted to you and the members of your subcommitee for your interest in this very important problem. We are confident that the information developed from these hearings will be helpful to Members of Congress and others in reaching sound decisions on this subject which is so important to our national defense and the development of a strong civil aviation industry which is so vital to the development of our economy and, of course, to national defense also. We also appreciate the invitation contained in your letter of March 21, 1960, to appear and testify before your subcommittee. Unfortunately, my schedule has made it impossible to do this personally. If additional hearings are to be held. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear but, in the meantime, would like to take this method of briefly summarizing our views on some of the questions which have been raised. First, we would like to make one point very clear. Periodically the question is raised as to whether the civil airline pilots of this country can be depended upon to operate transport aircraft for the national defense in the event of a national emergency. Frankly, we resent the question. The civil pilots have been among the first to respond to every national emergency this country has faced. In World War II, the Berlin airlift, the Korean airlift, and so forth, the civil pilots responded and were active throughout. We have always assumed that among the primary responsibilities of the airline pilot was to be available to the national defense. The Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 established as one of its objectives in the development of a civil air transport industry "to provide for the national defense," and the pilots have always considered themselves a part of the aviation structure developed under this legislation. Policies of the Air Line Pilots Association have recognized this responsibility and provide for participation in all activities to make it a practical reality. Under these policies, we have participated constantly in programs of mobilization planning, and so forth. It is sound both from a technical and economic standpoint to utilize the civil transport pilot in this capacity. The cost to the Government of procuring and training a pilot today to the level of competency where he can operate jet aircraft to civil transport standards has been estimated up to a quarter of a million dollars. The cost of maintaining such pilot in service at a high level of proficiency is very large. It would not be sensible, therefore, not to make use of the available highly trained and skilled civil transport pilots, both for current and reserve requirements of the Defense Establishment. Those individuals who infer that the civil pilot will not respond to a national emergency do not understand the contractual relationships between this association and the air carriers or the policies of this association. The air line pilots fly for their companies under contracts negotiated under Federal law. These contracts specify the terms and conditions under which such flying will be accomplished. An air carrier, therefore, contracting with the Government to provide a certain amount of airlift can guarantee service in accordance with the employment agreements it has with its personnel. We are in agreement with that testimony before your subcommittee which indicates the undesirability of the utilization of part 45 operators. This association devotes a large portion of its resources and energy to the promotion of high standards of safety in aviation. We do not believe that these standards can be maintained where an air carrier does not function as such as a continuing responsibility. It is impossible for the operator who does not maintain a permanent air carrier organization, properly staffed and financed as an aviation enterprise, to provide the continuous training, facilities, and management supervision necessary to maintain proper standards. The absence of such essential factors may make it possible for this operator to submit lower bids for a particular operation, but we do not believe that it is possible by this means to maintain standards or make an overall longrun contribution to the development of the civil aviation industry. We have the same criticism of the present method of competitive bidding for Government airlift contracts. We do not believe that price alone provides a fair measure of the capability of an air carrier to provide a safe and reliable air service to which we should entrust our service personnel and their wives and children. We are attaching for your information a copy of testimony which I presented before the Military Operations Subcommittee of the House Government Operations Committee on this subject on January 14, 1958. We concur completely with witnesses before your subcommittee that the operation of MATS should be reoriented in such a manner so that MATS is prepared to provide the hard-core or military-type airlift function, and that the routine civil transport operations should be contracted to civil carriers. To do otherwise, in our opinion, is contrary to the intent of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 and the present Federal Aviation Act under which large Federal expenditures were made to create and promote a civil air transport industry capable of providing "for the national defense." There is no doubt that the civil air transport industry can rapidly assume the routine transport operations required for the national defense and, in addition, provide a sizeable reserve for the expansion of such a service as necessary in an emergency. For example, there are 14,000 fully qualified and proficient pilots now flying for this country's air carriers. More than 7,000 of these pilots are currently serving as copilots but are fully trained and qualified to assume pilotin-command functions whenever necessary. (It should be interesting to note that a large percentage of these pilots have been military pilots and that many of them still retain some status with the services.) We believe that aircraft can be procured as necessary to do the job. It is very desirable that more efficient aircraft for the movement of aircargo be developed and procured as soon as possible, both for the handling of this business and for the promotion of the civil aircargo industry, and we believe that this can be accomplished once the present situation has been clarified. For that matter, we believe that clarification of the present situation will provide one of the most effective methods of stimulating the development of a civil aircargo industry with the resultant procurement of more efficient equipment, the development of more economical methods and resultant savings not only to the Federal Government but also to industry generally through lower aircargo rates. This country's civil air transport industry and its personnel are efficient and expert in the movement of aircargo and personnel. They have always assumed that part of their routine responsibility and a reason for their existence was to provide for the national defense of this country. It is not logical to continue a Government-operated airline in direct competition with private industry and in such a manner that the growth and development of that industry is jeopardized. This is particularly true when it is possible to work out an arrangement under which routine and emergency transport operations necessary to the national defense can be provided by private enterprise and MATS permitted to return to its primary role of providing for its military hard-core mission. We are indebted to you and the members of your subcommittee for the important work which you are doing in this field. It is hoped that you will feel free to call on us for any assistance which we may be able to provide. Sincerely yours, CLARENCE N. SAYEN, President. STATEMENT OF CLARENCE N. SAYEN, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, BEFORE THE MILITARY OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE, JANUARY 14, 1958 My name is Clarence N. Sayen. I am president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International, which is the legal representative of practically all of the airline pilots employed by U.S. air carriers. Our present membership consists of approximately 14,000 currently qualified and active airline pilots and another 4,000 inactive members. In addition to our other functions, we are the collective bargaining agent for our membership and hold current collective bargaining agreements with the air carriers with whom they are employed. A statement of my background is attached hereto. We are most appreciative of this opportunity to appear before your committee and express our views with respect to airlift operations in the interest of the national defense. Further, since the staff director of the committee has informed us by letter of January 2, 1958, that this committee intends to review matters related to Reserve policies and programs, and since a portion of our membership are directly affected by such Reserve programs, we wish to include comments with respect to Reserve policy. Other competent witnesses who have appeared before this committee have testified at length to the benefits which will accrue both costwise and capacitywise if the civil airlift capacity is properly utilized in the interest of national defense. Consequently, it is not believed necessary that this witness further elaborate on such items other than to indicate our firm concurrence with the view that immediate attention must be given to the preparation and implementation of plans designed to maximize the utilization of our civilian airlift capacity in the interest of national defense. Cost analysis and data with respect to the number of aircraft available have already been presented to the committee in sufficient quantity and accuracy to properly outline the objectives. However, the lack of progress in the implementation of those plans which have been formulated to date and the lack of planning in some areas have concerned us for some time. As we have testified before other congressional committees, and reiterated recently in a letter to the Secretary of the Air Force, our membership has always assumed that one of the fundamental responsibilities of the civil aviation companies under the Civil Aeronautics Act and the airline pilots is to provide essential air transport for the defense of this country. Airline pilots have always accepted the fact that they were subject to immediate call to provide essential service and that they are part of our defense establishment. The policies of our organization have been predicated on such assumptions. Our representatives have been active in mobilization planning wherever possible in order that the requirements of national defense by civil air transport may be fulfilled in an orderly and adequate manner. As an example, we have participated in the work of the Interdepartmental Aviation Manpower Committee in order to make our operational experience available to accurately determine manpower requirements and means by which those requirements can be met. Our figures also indicate that there are in excess of 900 active airline pilots in the Standby Reserve and over 1,000 in the Ready Reserve. These people are constantly providing their services in the interest of national defense. We have had an opportunity to review the statement of Mr. Tipton, president of the Air Transport Association, before this committee on January 8, 1958, and generally concur with his analysis of this problem and the capabilities of the civil air carriers to provide essential airlift in support of normal and emergency defense requirements. We believe that the Congress in adopting the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 very wisely and clearly sponsored and subsidized our civil air transport industry in order to, among other things, provide for the national defense. The civil carriers are now in a position to provide a major portion of essential military airlift on an active or standby basis for the national defense at great savings to the taxpayer and the taxpayer is in a position to profit from the investment made for him by a wise action of the Congress during the past 20 years. We feel, therefore, that the following points are important: (1) The capacity of civil air carriers to maintain or expand their facilities and personnel for the performance of essential national defense functions is reduced when the military attempts to acquire and utilize their own airlift facilities and personnel for the performance of activities within the capability of private enterprise. |