We hardly think that this represents the sort of action which the Congress and the President have directed Government agencies and the public to take to conserve the use of fuel and to make maximum efficient use of available supplies. We trust the committee will take steps to insure that the Air Force is made to realize that it is part of and not independent from the rest of the U.S. Government and that its unjustified squandering of fuel resources cannot be tolerated as if we were back in the pre-OPEC days. AIR FORCE "TRAINING EXERCISE" Fourth. The Air Force's effort to justify the military lift by characterizing it as a "training exercise" is a sham. The operation of aircraft in Alaska at this time of year hardly provides any real training in true Arctic conditions. Moreover, only 20 percent of the Air Force's projected 3,300 hours is devoted to takeoffs and landing, which are the only portions of the flights which conceivably could be viewed as having training value. Cruising at 20,000 feet while the autopilot does the flying and the flight crew monitors a few dials hardly constitutes the development of Arctic flying proficiency. Not only does little of the military lift constitute true training, but more important is the fact that training funds for 3,300 hours of legitimate training time is being squandered-and for a considerable period in the future. The proficiency level of other crews scheduled for training is being jeopardized unless, of course, unlimited funds are available for training. To underscore the way in which flying time and crews is being squandered, I point to the fact that with 3,300 hours of real training time, AIA would be able to perform recurrent training as required. by the FAA for 823 crews consisting of a pilot, copilot, and a flight engineer. SERVICE LIFE OF C-130 Fifth. There is an additional item of real cost to which the Air Force has yet to give any recognition so far as we are aware. That is the fact that the operation of C-130 aircraft with heavy payloads and with rough landings has a substantial impact on the structural integrity of the aircraft and the balance of its already restricted service life. The employment of C-130's for such rough missions not only will diminish aircraft life but also will burden the Government with greater expense resulting from the additional maintenance required to inspect and rectify such likely consequences as cracks in wing structure and landing gear areas. The result of the premature exhaustion of the service life of the C-130 obviously will be an earlier DOD request for approval to procure more costly replacement aircraft. EMERGENCY MOBILIZATION OF CIVIL AIR CARRIERS Sixth. A major purpose stated and restated both by the administration and the Congress in employing civil carriers to perform airlift services for the Defense Department is to maintain and further the Nation's emergency mobilization of modern aircraft and qualified personnel. The L-100 aircraft has unique cargo handling characteristics of vital importance in emergency situations-in particular, its unique ability to accommodate a variety of outsize cargo loads. Yet, the Military Airlift Command has permitted only one civil carrier to commit its 12 L-100 aircraft to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, and that carrier not only enjoys a monopoly of L-100 DOD services but now is relying upon military funds for about 75 percent of its total revenues. It should be self-evident that the Nation's emergency airlift mobilization base requires the dedication of the only other fleet of L-100 aircraft operated by civil carriers-AIA's seven L-100s. This would provide DOD with a second organization and pool of trained personnel to rely upon. It seems particularly important for DOD to have available a fleet of L-100 aircraft based in Alaska to meet the emergency transportation requirements that obviously would exist in that area in periods of national emergency. In short, the employment of AIA to perform the North Alaska lift would serve to sustain the growth of a civil carrier whose unique aircraft fleet should constitute a vital component of this Nation's emergency aircraft mobilization base. Thank you. EXHIBITS I would like the exhibits 1 and 2 to be made part of the record, also. [The exhibits follow:] EXHIBIT 1 ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL COSTS INCURRED BY MILITARY LIFT I. II. ASSUMPTIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1,500,000 gallons of petroleum and related products in bulk to be airlifted. 8,000,000 lbs. of dry freight including casing to be airlifted. That all cargo will move from Elmendorf AFB Alaska to Pt. Barrow and/or Lonely, Alaska, on an equal basis giving an average round trip mileage of 1,154 statute miles. That Alaska International Air's mileage rate is $5.25 per statute mile. That the average cost to the military of operating a Air Force C-130 is conservatively assumed to be the same as AIA's cost of $5.25 per statute mile in Alaska. That Alaska International Air will haul 7000 gallons of bulk fuel per trip, or 48,000 lbs. of dry cargo per trip. That the military C-130 will haul 5000 gallons of bulk fuel per trip, or 20,000 lbs. dry load per trip, that the military will utilize 15 aircraft and that the average round trip positioning and depositioning ferry mileage to Alaska will be 6600 statute miles per aircraft. COST TO THE PUBLIC FOR COMPLETING THE LIFT REQUIREMENT 1. Ferry costs: 2. 6600 statute miles round trip (x) 15-C-130 aircraft Cost for flying bulk fuel with military C-130: 1,500,000 gallons divided by 5000 gallons 300 trips (x) 1,154 SM per Rt = $1,817,550 3. Cost for flying dry cargo with military III. COST TO THE PUBLIC FOR COMPLETING THE LIFT 1. Ferry cost: 2. Cost for flying bulk fuel with AIA L-100 1,500,00 gallons divided by 7,000 TOTAL COST FOR PROJECT USING AIA L-100 AIRCRAFT $2,423 $4,920. 1,296, 1,011, $2,308, 1. Cost for project using military C-130 $4,920, $2,308,1 $2,612, 2. Cost for project using AIA aircraft: SAVINGS TO PUBLIC USING AIA L-100 AIRCRAFT: The computations show that for the amount of monies required to complete the project with military aircraft ($4,920,950) if expended for lift with AIA would buy the public more than twice as much. ADDITIONAL COST SAVINGS RESULTING FROM USING FAIRBANKS AS CIVIL LIFT STAGING POINT 1. Reduction of 2 hours per round trip flying operating Fairbanks/Arctic Coast rather than Elmendorf/Arctic Coast (x) 381 round trips (x) 280 m.p.h. x $5.25 per mile 2. ** = Plus 310 motor carrier trips Elmendorf/ (ATC Tariff rate) ADDITIONAL COST SAVINGS |