Page images

Redistribution through well-established and successful distributors, in my opinion, is the only efficient and practical means because they—

Make their living selling goods;
Are trained to give immediate service;
Equipped to inspect, package, certify;
Know best routes for quick delivery;
Sell by personal contact; and

Work longer at it because of profit. Not only is it a business, but a profession which requires time and experience to be successful.

I am entirely familiar with the methods used during the last war. The approved warehouses appointed by Wright Field for Murry Cook Corp., the RFC program, and finally War Assets agents. The intent and purpose of these methods were good. However, time was lost in deciding what to do; inventories increased because of indecisions, and, in many instances, agents failed and the program was questioned because of overnight distributors who were appointed without careful consideration.

It is gratifying to know that you are concerned with this subject; and, while we have no ax to grind and our business is substantial, I am most anxious that steps be taken as quickly as possible to avoid excess inventories and the prolific offering of merchandise at low prices in limited markets later on. Very truly yours,

E. L. CRABB, President.


Woodside, N. Y., May 2, 1952. Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD,

Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN HOLIFIELD : May we bring to the attention of your committee our feeling with regard to the desirability of supporting vigorously the program of redistribution of present excess aircraft parts and materials.

You are probably aware that the Aircraft Production Resources Agency at Wright Field has such a program ready to be put in effect when the proper authority has been granted. As proven during the last war, the established aircraft-parts distributors are better qualified to expose the excesses in the warehouses of various airframe manufacturers to other contractors and subcontractors who are in need of this material to fulfill their obligations.

The time to act on such a program is now if we are to avoid accumulating the tremendous surpluses which were built up during the last large-scale aircraftmanufacturing program. If the supply is permitted to continue to build up and remain frozen until the demand has diminished, the loss to the taxpayers will be as serious as that experienced after the last war. Probably you will recall that when the material was returned to the Government, under its various disposal programs, the values realized were one-fortieth of the values that can be realized at the present time.

Under the circumstances, it would appear desirable to give the program favor-
able consideration.
Very truly yours,

R. M. DURHAM, President.


Fort Worth, T'ex., May 5, 1952. Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD,

Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN HOLIFIELD : It has been brought to our attention that a redistribution program has been proposed by the Aircraft Production Resources Agency, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, with the purpose in mind of distributing excess Air Force inventories to qualified and approved aircraft-parts distributors, in order that they, in in turn, might channel these excess parts to the prime contractors and their subcontractors.

Due to the uncertainty of the metals industry and the fact that many materials are excess, as well as there being a shortage of certain other manufacturing needs, we believe that a redistribution program of this type is essential to the over-all efficiency to accelerate our aircraft program.

For the information of yourself and your committee, our corporation, together with several other companies similar to ours, has been engaged in supplying the aircraft industry for a great number of years. After World War II, we were one of the few corporations who acted as an agent for the War Assets Administration in the distribution of surplus aircraft material. It therefore follows that we consider ourselves as a qualified, experienced firm that will be able to do justice to a redistribution program as proposed by the Aircraft Production Resources Agency. However, we would like to mention that time is of the essence in such a proposed program. Large inventories lie idle at the present time in some parts of the country, which are in great demand and could be utilized in other sections of the country. Some program must be adopted immediately to put these materials to the uses for which they were intended. We should certainly not protract this problem, and thus be forced to resort to a scrapping and smeltering program, which would only return good, unused parts to the basis of raw materials. Very truly yours,

BEN E. DYESS, President.


Fort Worth, Tex., May 6, 1952. Congressman WINGATE LUCAS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR WINGATE: As a well-established distributor of aircraft hardware and supplies, we are greatly concerned about the manner in which dispositon of the inevitable surplus of parts and materials resulting from engineering and production changes in the aircraft industry will be made.

Currently, the facilities of most distributors in the aircraft field are being heavily burdened by the aircraft-production program. Large increases in sales volume and in the quantity of materials handled have resulted in increased investments in inventory, work in process, material in transit, accounts receivable, equipment, and facilities. Uncertainties resulting from the lack of a concrete program on the part of the Government for disposing of and/or redistributing surplus parts lay heavily on distributors as a group and tend to discourage the accomplishment of adequate steps to properly service the defense program.

A proposal has been presented to the Aircraft Production Resources Agency, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio, that a redistribution program be set up using wellestablished companies for warehousing, reconditioning, and sales. This program has the endorsement of the Air Force and the Aircraft Industries Association of America.

It is my understanding that this problem will be reviewed by a House committee headed by the Honorable Chet Holifield in the very near future. It would be greatly appreciated if you would forward this letter to the committee involved in the consideration of this program with whatever endorsements and suggestions you deem appropriate. Yours very truly,

W. I. SPITLER, ' President.



Washington 25, D. C., June 27, 1952. Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD,

House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. MY DEAR MR. HOLIFIELD: In accordance with your request to Commander Heffner of my office, there are enclosed some reports and statistics which indicate the disposition of surplus material and inventory of excess materials within the Navy supply systems.

Enclosure (1) is a complete summary of all dispositions made of real and surplus personal property operations during the month of April 1952. This report is rendered each month. The report is segregated by technical bureaus so that an analysis may be maintained of the disposition of general types of materials. Enclosure (2) shows the trend of dispositions of surplus property made by the Navy since January 1948 through May 1952 and this chart is posted monthly. Enclosure (3) is a semilog comparison chart comparing fiscal year 1951 with fiscal year 1952 and is also posted monthly. Enclosure (4) is a pie chart showing a breakdown of all dispositions made and is maintained on a monthly basis. Enclosure (5) is another pie chart showing at one glance the percentages of the disposition of various bureau materials to the total. Enclosure (6) shows the total sales of Navy personal property with an analysis of usable property, salvageable property, and scrap. Enclosure (7) shows the total excess material within the Navy that is reported to the Surplus Materials Division for screening, the amount redistributed within the Department of Defense, and that which is reported to the General Services Administration for screening by other Government agencies.

Enclosure (8) is a report showing the total inventory, based on original acquisition cost, of excess and surplus property on hand at naval activities. The analysis shows the quantities on hand at various stages of the screening procedure and in addition indicates the quantities of excess inventories by bureaus and types of activities. This report is forwarded quarterly to the various bureaus and, in cases where it is determined that a bureau or activity has increased its excess inventory or is taking no action in the utilization or disposal, the problem is brought to the attention of the respective activities.

The above reports are maintained on a monthly basis and if any additional copies are desired for future months, it will be a pleasure to furnish them to you. If any detailed information is desired by your office pertaining to these reports, Commander Heffner can be reached on extension 64141 on the Defense Department code.

I trust that this information will be of benefit to you and if any further assistance is desired please do not hesitate to call on this office. Very truly yours,

C. W. Fox,
Vice Admiral, (SC) USN,

Chief of Naval Material.

[Enclosure 1]



[blocks in formation]

Naval activity personal property disposals totaled $11.3 million during April 1952, a decrease of $3.6 million from the $14.9 million reported in March.

April sales were 23 percent less than sales during March. Property sold for replacement purposes had an acquisition cost of $0.4 million and approximately 77 percent of this property was under the cognizance of BuDocks.

The largest sale of replacement property by a single activity was made by NABD, Port Hueneme, and amounted to $0.2 million. NSC, Norfolk, reported the largest sale of usable property (acquisition cost, $0.7 million). This property consisted largely of aircraft parts and electronic equipment. The largest sale of salvage was reported by the New York Naval Shipyard (acquisition cost, $0.5 million), and the largest sale of scrap by the Naval Gun Factory, Washington, D. C. (acquisition cost, $0.8 million).

The naval activity personal property disposals totaled $153.2 million during the first 10 months of the fiscal year 1952. This amount compares with $189.2 million reported during a comparable period for fiscal year 1951.

[blocks in formation]

Naval activity personal property breakdown of dispositions by cognizant

bureau, April 1952

[blocks in formation]

Medicine and surgery.
Supplies and Accounts
Yards and Docks.
Marine Corps...-

3, 410

3 989



491 2, 006 3,020

568 846

1, 474
2, 582



92 215

371 179 70 26 102

12 38 15 2

179 135

30 183

Naval activity personal property breakdown of sales by cognizant bureau,

April 1952
[Thousands of dollars)

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]

Naval activity personal property dispositions, April 1952

[Acquisition cost in thousands of dollars]

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Boston Charleston Long Beach Mare Island New York. Norfolk Philadelphia Portsmouth

Puget Sound.
Naval supply depots.

Great Lakes
Norfolk (NSC)-
Oakland (NSC).
Philadelphia (NASD).
San Diego.
San Pedro.

Naval air stations.

Atlantic City
Cherry Point (MCAS)
Corpus Christi.
El Toro (MCAS)
Key West
Moffett Field
Quonset Point
Quantico (MCAS).

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »