C.

D.

ADDITIONAL FUEL SAVINGS BY USING FAIRBANKS
AS CIVIL LIFT STAGING POINT

800 GALS

283,200 GALS

2,308,000 (89%)

283,200 (11%)

2,591,200 (100%

2,591,200

1,256,000

1,335,200

2061/

609,600 gals.

AIR FORCE/NAVY COORDINATION

Senator YOUNG. How did the Air Force get involved in this airlift? Senator STEVENS. They are going to come up, Senator. I understand the Navy asked them to move it. The Air Force may be taking some of the Navy's heat today as far as I am concerned.

The cargo was primarily destined for the Navy. There is some for RCA, which operates an Air Force contract up there on the DEW Line. Senator YOUNG. Is this entirely a Navy project?

Senator STEVENS. Naval Petroleum Reserve 4 is under the jurisdiction of the Navy, but all of the oil operations are being conducted by civilian contractors under the supervision of the Navy. And they are being paid by funds that we appropriated to the Office of Petroleum Reserves.

Senator YOUNG. Did the Navy make inquiries as to what you would' charge to do this hauling for them?

MILITARY CONTACTS WITH CIVILIAN CARRIERS

Mr. KAMATS. The Air Force made contact with us-the Navy never made contact and asked if we could do the hauling for them. But the Air Force at Scott Air Force Base made contact almost a month ago, and we were led to believe that they would eventually go the civilian route on this. Then, on a Friday, approximately two weeks ago, the Air Force in Alaska issued a news release that said that the Air Force was now going to fly this for the Navy and a squadron of C-130's were starting to arrive all the way from Arkansas and North Carolina. They brought these aircraft in without any notice to the civilian carrier that they had been talking with.

Senator YOUNG. Did they ever call for bids?

Mr. KAMATS. No, they never went out with a request for proposal, no, sir. We talked generally on the subject, but they never asked for any bids, neither the Navy or the Air Force, and we never had official talks with them.

We had some talks over the phone. We offered to come to Scott Air Force Base to talk to them, but we were told it was not necessary.

Senator YOUNG. Senator Stevens, I would be interested in finding out how the Air Force got into a Navy project, which was sublet to civilians.

Senator STEVENS. I am going to be very interested, too. We were very surprised when we heard this.

Senator Hruska, do you have anything?

Senator HRUSKA. No.

CONSUMPTION OF FUEL

Senator STEVENS. I am interested in fuel consumed by military airlift as compared to your operations both from Elmendorf and a secondary comparison, the operation from Fairbanks.

Are the assumptions involved in that, that the fuel consumed per hour for your airplanes is the same as that of the Air Force?

Mr. KAMATS. That is correct.

Senator YOUNG. But your L-100's are capable of carrying additional loads?

Mr. KAMATS. That is correct.

Senator STEVENS. How is it that you can carry so much more oil, fuel and liquid cargo than they can in the C-130's?

Do

you

know?

Mr. KAMATS. No, sir, I don't.

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

Senator STEVENS. How do you get the information that they are in fact carrying less than you would?

Mr. KAMATS. We were told that by an employee at Barrow, that they were carrying 5,000 gallons.

Mr. BERGT. I might add, I went to Barrow to get that information. Senator STEVENS. And your information is they are carrying 5,000 gallons per load and you would carry 7,000 gallons per load?

Mr. BERGT. That is correct.

One thing I would like to point out is that this fuel is a traditional movement of cargo—and I also would like to point out Alaska International Air for the past year has moved over 1 million pounds a day of cargo from Fairbanks to the North Slope in the construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline.

It has been proven time and again by the oil companies the most economical route is surface from seaports, Anchorage, Whittier, and Seward. And nobody airlifts cargo from Anchorage or Elmendorf Air Force Base to the North Slope. That is the least efficient way of moving cargo to the North Slope.

MILITARY/CIVILIAN FUEL COMPARISONS

Senator STEVENS. But you project a difference in the consumption of fuel for the same airlift of 1.3 million gallons.

Mr. BERGT. That is correct.

Senator STEVENS. In other words, if you were flying the same cargo you would consume 1.3 million gallons less of fuel.

Mr. BERGT. That is correct.

Senator STEVENS. And if you went from Fairbanks you would save an additional-how much?

Mr. KAMATS. 555,000 gallons.

Senator STEVENS. So, if this cargo had been taken from a seaport by rail to the airport and then flown from there it would have consumed 1,800,000 gallons less of fuel is that right?

Mr. KAMATS. That is right.

Mr. BERGT. I would like to point out on that 555,000 gallon additional fuel savings by airlift out of Fairbanks is after considering the fuel that would be required to run the trucks from Anchorage to Fairbanks to move the cargo by surface to Fairbanks.

Senator STEVENS. They could move it either by truck or by rail? Mr. BERGT. Yes, sir. Since we are in the trucking business I had those figures readily available.

L-100 LOSSES

Senator YOUNG. Have you ever lost an L-100?

Mr. BERGT. Yes, we have.

Senator YOUNG. In bad weather?

Mr. BERGT. Yes, the Arctic conditions are very difficult and we also feel there is an intangible here, a safety factor of bringing pilots up from Arkansas and North Carolina and putting them into the Arctic at this time of the year when we have lots of darkness and the weather is not good.

As a matter of fact, the day that I was in Barrow in our own private aircraft while we were landing three military airplanes aborted their flights and returned to Elmendorf.

The weather was not that bad, but the military aborted those flights and returned to Elmendorf.

Those goods never got delivered.

At the same time we landed at Barrow.

Senator YOUNG. The Air National Guard lost a plane in Alaska training them about three years ago.

Senator HRUSKA. I have no questions at this time.
Senator STEVENS. Thank you.

I hope you will have somebody stay by. It is my understanding the chairman intends to leave the record open until the end of the month and we might have some figures.

I want to make sure they mesh.

Mr. BERGT. We intend to stay until the conclusion.
Thank you very much.

Senator STEVENS. Our next witness is Jim Dodson, president of Alaska Airlines and then I think we should hear from the military while my colleagues are here from North Dakota and Nebraska.

If that is agreeable with the other witnesses, we will schedule them after the military.

Mr. Dodson is president of Alaska Air Carrier Association and he is an old friend, Mr. Chairman. I don't think we should say old friend. He's a good friend.

ALASKA AIR CARRIERS ASSOCIATION

STATEMENT OF JIM DODSON, PRESIDENT, ALASKA AIR CARRIERS ASSOCIATION

DESCRIPTION OF ASSOCIATION

Mr. DODSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity.

I am James M. Dodson, Jr., the executive director of the Alaska Air Carriers Association, Inc.

I have submitted my statement for the record. You have copies of it. May I first express the appreciation of the Alaska Air Carriers Association for this opportunity to appear today in our Nation's Capital to discuss with you a problem of long standing the use of Government aircraft, particularly military, in competition with the airlift capability of our Alaskan commercial carriers.

Brieflv, let me tell you that the Alaska Air Carriers Association, Inc. (AACA), is a trade association representing about 90 air carrier mem