CON CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1945 UNITED STATES SENATE, A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:30 a. m., in the committee room, the Capitol, Senator Walter F. George (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators George (chairman), Pepper, La Follette, and White. Also present: Senator Brewster. Also present: Stokeley W. Morgan, Chief, Aviation Division, Office of Transportation and Communications, State Department; Stephen Latchford, adviser on air law, Aviation Division; and Edward G. Miller, Jr., Office of Assistant Secretary of State Acheson. PROCEEDINGS Senator GEORGE (chairman of subcommittee). The subcommittee will please come to order. I have no list of the witnesses this morning who will appear. I believe Mr. Brown is present. You are ready to proceed, Mr. Brown? Mr. FLINN. Mr. Chairman, I am appearing for President Brown. My name is W. G. Flinn, grand lodge representative of the International Association of Machinists. I am appearing for President H. W. Brown, who is unable to be here today. I have his statement, that I would like to read at this time. Senator GEORGE. Yes, sir; you may proceed with it. STATEMENT BY H. W. BROWN, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF I am H. W. Brown, president, International Association of Machinists (American Federation of Labor) with offices at Ninth and Mount Vernon Place NW., Washington, D. C. The International Association of Machinists represents some 700,000 American citizens. Many of our members are engaged in domestic air transport, many in international air transport, and others in various branches of the airplane and airplane-engine manufacturing industries. We have a vital interest in the future welfare of the American aviation industry, and for this reason we have viewed with alarm recent efforts at home and abroad to bring about so-called freedom of the air. At the Chicago International Conference four separate agreements were drawn up for submission to the 52 Governments there represented: 1. An interim agreement on international civil aviation. 2. A permanent convention on international civil aviation. 3. An international air-transit agreement. 4. An international air-transport agreement. The permanent convention (agreement 2) sets up an international civil aviation organization consisting of an assembly, a council, and such other bodies as may be necessary to deal with technical subjects such as rules of the air, entry regulations, registrations of aircraft, customs and immigration procedure, sanitary measures, investigation of accidents, licenses for aircraft and flight personnel, and other similar matters. It also provides machinery to administer agreements 3 and 4 as between any nations which ratify them. The interim agreement contains the same general provisions as does the permanent convention. It is limited however to a 3-year period, after it has been accepted by 26 nations, if the permanent convention has not sooner come into effect. The international air-transit agreement (agreement 3) provides for "freedom of transit"-that is, the right of foreign aircraft to fly across a nation's territory without landing, as well as the right to land for refueling and servicing. These rights are generally referred to as the first and second "freedoms of the air.” The international air transport agreement (agreement IV) provides for all five so-called "freedoms of the air"-the two above referred to, and also the following: (a) The right to put down passengers, mail, and cargo taken on in the aircraft's own country. (b) The right to take on passengers, mail, and cargo destined to the aircraft's home country. (c) The right to take on passengers, mail, and cargo destined for any other foreign country accepting the agreement, and the right to discharge passengers, mail, and cargo taken on in any such foreign country. We favor our Government's accepting agreements I and II, which provide machinery for our country and other countries to cooperate in the sound development of international air transportation. We strongly oppose our Government's accepting agreements III and IV which are contrary to the interests of American labor. The International Association of Machinists has opposed these so-called "freedoms of the air" ever since the suggestion was advanced in the public press nearly 2 years ago that it would be in the interests of all nations, including the United States, to change our long-established air-transport policy in favor of adopting these "freedoms of the air," a fine-sounding slogan as yet not understood by the American public, but a slogan which, if adopted, would cripple our international aviation. On August 19, 1943, we advised the President, as well as the congressional committees concerned, as follows. "Members of the International Association of Machinists are employed for building, repairing, and maintaining aircrafts and, therefore, we are very much interested in matters affecting our domestic air lines as well as manufacturing of aircrafts. "It is our information there is agitation for a policy referred to as 'freedom of the air.' Because of the inevitable happenings to wage earners if 'freedom of the air' becomes a reality, hence our following observations in the matter. "Our Government should not bargain away or impair its complete control of American air space, including the right to license foreign-flag aircraft on American foreign-trade routes. The United States should not acquiesce in any new international policy of 'freedom of the air' which would work only for the benefit of foreign nations with lower labor standards than ours. For the same reasons we should not accept 'freedom of the air.' Our national interests require continuance of the principle of 'sovereignty of the air' now in effect in all countries and specified in our domestic legislation. In this way foreign-flag air lines can continue either to be excluded or to be limited to a fair share of the traffic as our national interests require from time to time.' A great portion of American organized labor shares our views that the acceptance by our Government of either the so-called two-freedoms agreement or the five-freedoms agreement drawn up at Chicago would be disastrous to the United States. The railroad brotherhoods have formally resolved. 1. That present international and domestic laws which provide complete control and full air sovereignty for American and foreign international air transport are satisfactory; but the Congress in connection with further development of national policy should give consideration to and explore the legal possibilities of providing that all licenses issued to foreign-flag air lines contain adequate provision for the protection of American wage standards. 2. That American international air lines should not engage in domestic air traffic in the United States, and American domestic air lines should not engage in international air traffic. Foreign-flag air lines should be licensed by our Government to discharge and pick up traffic only at gateway airports in the United States. 3. That international domestic air transport should continue under strict Federal regulations. 4. That steamship lines, railroads, bus and truck corporations and/or their subsidiaries and/or their holding companies, singly or collectively, should not be permitted to operate or control any air line. 5. That to protect America's position and to compete effectively in the postwar world against the great foreign air-line monopolies, the United States should concentrate its national effort in a single strong American-flag air line, organized according to a Government-approved plan, and in the private ownership of which all American transportation interests may be represented. The Railway Labor Executive Association represents over a million American citizens engaged in various branches of our transportation industry, and the following individual labor unions: Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen Order of Railway Conductors of America Switchmen's Union of North America Order of Railroad Telegraphers American Train Dispatchers' Association Railway Employees Department, American Federation of Labor. International Association of Machinists. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America. International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America. National Organization Masters, Mates and Pilots of America. National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association. International Longshoremen's Association. Hotel and Restaurant Employees' International Alliance and Bartenders They have stated their position as follows: "1. The broad objective of the public interest in transportation is the development and preservation of a national system of transportation, as contemplated by the Transportation Act of 1940 and the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, capable of furnishing with the utmost reliability, dependability and flexibility, at all seasons and during all weather conditions, in peacetime and in war, a general common carrier service for passengers and property. Each type of transportation should take its proper place in such a transportation system. "2. If each type of transportation should be required to bear the full cost involved in transportation by that group, as a result of the elimination of subsidies, a great forward step would be taken toward bringing about fair and just ocmpetitive conditions among the several types, establishing a proper and economic distribution of traffic, and developing a sound over-all transportatiou system in the public interest. It is therefore, our view that under a competent system of private operation and management, without subsidies, a national transportation system can be developed that will be superior to any in the world. "3. It would appear that there has been much discussion in the public press about 'freedom of the air,' or other similar doctrine which would lessen the control of the United States over its air space. It is particularly important that wage and living standards of American labor should be protected against inroads of foreign competition whose wage standards are far below those existing in this country. We are opposed to any lessening of our Government control of our air space, and think that every application of any foreign air line to fly into or over the United States whether or not authorized to carry traffic should be separately considered as at present. In this way the foreign air lines can be limited to a fair share of American international traffic." Our views on the subject of Freedom of the Air are well expressed by Mr. George Meany, secretary of the American Federation of Labor, in a recent article in the American Federationist, our monthly magazine, from which I quote: "We are living in an age of slogans. Modern high-powered advertising techniques and propaganda devices have brought into our daily lives a great variety of more or less attractive phrases designed to influence judgments concerning political, commercial or social questions. Sometimes these slogans tell a true story; sometimes they show an accurate picture of the commodity or idea that the creators of the slogan are trying to get across to us. 'Back the attack!' of the recent war bond drive is an obvious example of this type of slogan. "But there are, unfortunately, some slogans that are neither accurate nor honest. American labor has had long and painful experience with slogans of this type. One that will long be a warning to all friends of labor is the shameful 'freedom of individual contract' slogan which was designed to foist on labor the greater shame of the 'yellow-dog contract.' "Freedom of the air' is one slogan that is now being bandied about with a great deal of enthusiasm and fervor. Few if any modern slogans are as attraetive, in sound or ideological or sentimental connotation, as this masterpiece of the creative art of the sloganeers. But it requires only a very little analysis to show that this soothing phrase covers a complex of economic and political questions, the answers to which are extremely vital to the future welfare of American wage earners and to our national security. "Just what does 'Freedom of the air' mean? In attemping to secure an answer to this question, it is well to look in the direction of Great Britain, where the slogan has had great popularity, in recent months. While several 'modifications' have been offered by various protagonists at different times, one of the most responsible and revealing indications as to just what 'freedom of the air' really means is found in an editorial in the London Times of May 21, 1943. quote: We "Conversations in the Empire, leading onto a frank interchange of views with the United States, are evidently only a part of the preliminary negotiations necessary to frame a ground-plan of development for a world in which the United States, the British Empire, Europe, the USSR, and China would be the major units of air control. As the outcome of such negotiations, what rights and facilities could we reasonably expected to be collectively established or mutually conceded? What would be the content of that freedom of the seas? Its components appear to be, first, the freedom of peaceful transit over all territories for the aircraft of all nations; secondly, free access to airports and other facilities; thirdly, freedom to transport goods and passengers under any flag from any point of origin to any destination.' "A most revealing sentence in this excerpt, and one that is most significant for those who are interested in the welfare of American wage earners on land and sea and in the air, is: 'What would be the content of that freedom of the air which is naturally contemplated as the ideal by nations brought up to reverence the freedom of the seas?' "Freedom of the seas' is another beautiful phrase which sounds utterly convincing until you look behind it and ask, What has 'freedom of the seas' done for our workers and our Nation? History gives a painfully clear answer to this question. Note the following percentages of American overseas trade carried in American-flag ships at various dates in the century that preceded World War I. 1815. Percent Percent 9 10 "As a result of the shipping boom of the First World War, the percentage stood at about 50 in 1922, but thereafter declined rapidly through 1939, as shown in chart 1, reproduced here from a bulletin (Economic Series No. 23) of the United States Department of Commerce. "This bulletin, referring to 'the relative inferiority and progressive deterioration of the American merchant marine after the collapse of the shipping boom resulting from the First World War,' says (p. 73): 66 'Many of the ships hastily constructed during the war period were fit only for tramp service and were unable to meet the subsidized competition of foreign operators with their power, faster vessels moving on regularly scheduled runs: |