and particularly those persons who are given such privileges under the Interstate Commerce Act, will vigorously press their claims for special consideration before the Congress. In view of the foregoing it is the opinion of the Board that to exempt ministers of religion from the general prohibition against the granting of free or reduced-rate transportation would be a serious departure from the sound policy of the act. Accordingly, the Board is opposed to the enactment of the proposed legislation. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that it has no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, Ross RIZLEY, Chairman. EXEMPTION REQUESTS FOR FREE OR REDUCED-RATE TRANSPORTATION GRANTED 1953 AND 1954 (Domestic Transportation Only) E-7132, February 3, 1953 Technical personnel of companies engaged in the manufacture and development of Convair 340 aircraft for the purpose of inflight observation, for 1 year— Delta Air Lines, Inc. E-7290, April 9, 1953 Technical employees of Bendix Aviation Corp. to observe Bendix Omni Directional Radio equipment, for 10 days-Frontier Airlines, Inc. E-7501, June 19, 1953 Technical employee of Wright Aeronautical Corp. for the purpose of inflight observation of Lockheed 1094 aircraft, until August 31, 1953-Trans World Airlines, Inc. E-7514, June 26, 1953 Technical employees of Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. to observe, under instrument flight rules, traffic control communications, for a period of 6 monthsCapital Airlines, Inc. E-7806, October 9, 1953 Technical employee of Hamilton Standard Propeller Co. for the purpose of inflight observation aboard Martin 202 and 404 aircraft, for 60 days-Trans World Airlines, Inc. E-7874, November 5, 1953 Tehcnical employees of Consolidated-Vultee Aircraft Corp. and Boeing Aircraft Co. for the purpose of inflight observation of Convair 340 and Douglas DC-7 aircraft, for 6 months-National Airlines, Inc. E-7989, December 22, 1953 Six-month extension of E-7514, described above. E-8084, February 8, 1954 Technical employees of Douglas Aircraft Co., Wright Aeronautical Corp., Bendix Aviation Corp., Hamilton Standard Propeller Co., and AiResearch Manufacturing Co. for the purpose of inflight observation, for 6 months-Delta Air Lines, Inc. EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR FREE OR REDUCED-RATE TRANSPORTATION GRANTED E-8363, May 21, 1954 Technical employee of Lear, Inc., for the purpose of inflight observation of Lear L-5 Auto Pilot, for 90-day period-Braniff Airways, Inc. E-8484, June 30, 1954 One year extension of Order No. E-7541 described above. E-8471, June 25, 1954 Extension until November 5, 1954, of Order No. E-7874, described above. E-8519, July 20, 1954 Six-month extension of Order No. E-7514, described above. E-8746, November 3, 1954 Technical personnel of Sperry Gyroscope Co. for the purpose of inflight observation aboard Douglas DC-7 aircraft for 6-month period-United Air Lines, Inc. EXEMPTION REQUESTS FOR FREE OR REDUCED-RATE TRANSPORTATION DENIED 1953 AND 1954 E-8186, March 26, 1954 (Domestic Transportation Only) Airmail and postal clerks of the Post Office Department from various stations served by Mohawk Airlines, Inc., to Ithaca, N. Y., to participate in conferences designed to increase mail traffic. E-8569, E-8570, E-8571, and E-8572 of August 18, 1954 Applications of American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Trans-World Airlines, Inc., and United Air Lines, Inc., respectively, for authority to grant reducedrate transportation to members of the American Society of Travel Agents attending a convention in San Francisco. Senator MONRONEY. Mr. Francis A. O'Connell, the legislative representative of the Air Transport Division, Transport Workers of America, is our next witness. Mr. O'Connell, we are very glad to have you appear before the committee and appreciate your coming up to give us the benefit of your testimony. STATEMENT OF FRANCIS A. O'CONNELL, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AIR TRANSPORT DIVISION, TRANSPORT WORKERS OF AMERICA Mr. O'CONNELL. Mr. Chairman and honorable Senators, my name is Francis A. O'Connell. I am legislative representative for the Air Transport Division of the Transport Workers Union, CIO, for whom I appear today. This is a labor organization representing more than 15,000 members employed as inspectors, mechanics, ground service personnel, flight attendants, flight navigators, and flight radio operators. Our membership is employed with various air carriers, domestic, international, and foreign. We are very grateful to have the opportunity of appearing before this committee to express our views relative to the two bills being considered which were introduced by two distinguished members of this great committee: S. 308 by Senator Bricker; and S. 1119 by Senator Magnuson. In keeping with the desire of this committee, my statement will be very brief and limited. The Air Transport Division supports S. 1119 and is opposed to S. 308. Our principal objection to S. 308 is section 5, paragraph 5, which amends the definition of "airman" in the act. This amendment, as proposed would, if passed, authorize the Civil Aeronautics Board to exempt certain employees from an important requirement under the Civil Aeronautics Act. The employees to be exempted are those of manufacturers of aeronautical products, of certificated air carriers, and of certificated repair stations. The exemption which is proposed for these mechanics is that they will no longer be required to hold personally "airmen" certificates. The requirement for airmen certificates has made possible the best safety record of all time. I quote from a CAB press release, dated December 10, 1954, which stated in part: ALL-TIME ANNUAL SAFETY AND OPERATION RECORD INDICATED FOR UNITED STATES AIRLINE OPERATIONS IN 1954 The Civil Aeronautics Board today announced that an all-time safety record for United States civil air carriers is indicated for 1954. At the same time, the Board said estimates also indicated that the number of passengers carried and .passenger-miles flown in 1954 will be greater than ever before in American air transport history. The safety record for United States scheduled domestic and foreign overseas air carriers for 1954, the Board revealed indicates a record low passenger fatality rate of 0.08 per 100 million passenger-miles flown. As a result of this press release, nearly every daily newspaper across the country carried the news item, because safety is big news. It is inconceivable that anyone should desire legislation that would interfere with this safety record established in 1954. A record which in a large part was due to the earnest and sincere efforts of all maintenance personnel on our airlines, and because their qualifications have been kept at a high level by the licensing requirements of this act. The present licensing requirements of the act have played a large part in bringing these technical skills to this peak of efficiency. We fail to see why the airlines now move to abolish these requirements which have served them so well. The interpretation of the Civil Aeronautics Act by the courts is that safety is the responsibility of the Civil Aeronautics Board, for the act covers every possible aspect of flying safety. The Civil Aeronautics Board has met this responsibility by its regulations of maintenance procedures. And allow me to say these procedures are described in great detail. Furthermore, it regulates the requirements for attaining CAA certificates. In order to qualify for a ĈAA certificate as a licensed aircraft or engine mechanic, one must meet the prescribed qualifications of the CAA before being allowed to exercise his judgment as to whether or not an aircraft is airworthy. The tests for these qualifications are written, oral, and practical examinations. So exacting and comprehensive are these tests, that airlines have made the certificates, awarded by passing these tests, a part of their own maintenance manuals. For example, American Airlines and Pan American World Airways require these CAA mechanics certificates as one of the qualifications for the positions of master mechanics and senior mechanics in line maintenance, plane service, and station maintenance. The real issue as we see it is safety. We feel that airworthiness and safety require trained and skilled craftsmen. This amendment, section 5 of S. 308, by eliminating certification is a marked retrogressive step. Among other reasons, the CAA supports this amendment on the grounds that: (1) It has insufficient personnel; (2) it entails putting too great a burden on present personnel; and (3) that the solution lies in abolishing the A. & E. license requirement in order to relieve the CAA of this burden. In reply, we wish to state that safety requires constant vigilance. And if the CAA does not have sufficient personnel to maintain this vigilance, it is your duty to support CAA requests for sufficient personnel to do so. Certification, which is a vital part of safety, should not be sacrificed at the cost of lives lost because of economy. The argument is advanced in support of the change that it would result in reduced expense and administrative procedure on the repair stations, manufacturers, airlines, and the Administrator. A possible monetary saving and a reduction in administrative activity are hardly to be favored over protection and promotion of public safety. As for the abolition of A. & É. license requirements, these are the very requirements mentioned before, which are the criteria for safety incorporated in airline maintenance manuals and our labor contracts. We feel that eliminating CAA certification requirements would reduce the standards of mechanical repairs and result in reduced safety standards. The standards required through a formal examination for a certificate are exacting; but for the benefit of the public safety, the standards must not be relaxed. The present regulations have proven that we can reach high standards of safety. Why are we now asked to take an uncharted path by giving the airlines complete responsibility for the technical competence of their maintenance staff? Air Transport Division is opposed to the lowering of any safety regulations. We do not feel that the lives of the flying public should be endangered by any relaxation of the present high requirements and, therefore, respectfully oppose the proposed section 5 of S. 308. Senator MONRONEY. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Connell. Senator Bible, do you have any questions? Senator BIBLE. No, thank you. Senator MONRONEY. Senator Schoeppel? Senator SCHOEPPEL. No, sir. Senator MONRONEY. That A. & E. license requirements-is that aircraft and engine? Is that what that stands for? Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes, sir. Senator MONRONEY. Do the holders of certificates have to be recertified every so often? Mr. O'CONNELL. No, sir; it is issued once and that is good for life unless it is taken away from them for an infraction of the regulations. Senator MONRONEY. If that is taken away from them, by whom is it done? Mr. O'CONNELL. By the CAA. Senator MONRONEY. Does the holder have an appeal? Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes, sir; he does. Senator MONRONEY. That would be his failure to properly conduct his work? Mr. O'CONNELL. That is right, sir. Senator MONRONEY. How far down do these license requirements go? I mean in a maintenance crew, how many would be certified? Mr. O'CONNELL. Mr. Chairman, according to the latest figure that we had from the Department of Labor, which was the training of air carriers survey conducted in January of 1954, I believe, of 104,000 employees working for the airlines, approximately 16,000 are certified mechanics. Senator MONRONEY. That 104,000 would include ticket sellers and all? Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes, sir. Senator MONRONEY. 16,000 would be in the maintenance and repair division? Mr. O'CONNELL. There are 16,000 licensed. Senator MONRONEY. I see. Where does that break off? Obviously in a maintenance depot you would not have everybody licensed, would you? Mr. O'CONNELL. No, sir; they are not licensed. Senator MONRONEY. It is kind of like a master mechanic and it breaks down there? Mr. O'CONNELL. No, an apprentice does not have to have a license in order to be employed; but in some labor contracts before he can progress to a junior mechanic or a mechanic, he mmust obtain an A. & E. license; and the apprenticeship is approximately 3 years that he can serve without a license. Senator MONRONEY. He has to be either given a license or get off the job, is that right? He cannot continue to work in a lower grade without a license? Mr. O'CONNELL. He can, Mr. Chairman, if he is working in an overhaul base where he is doing the work that does not require a license. However, if he is on a line station, such as Washington here, he would have to attain a license or he would have to get off the line. Senator MONRONEY. What do you mean by line station? Mr. O'CONNELL. A line station is a middle station between the overhaul bases like when an airplane-for an example, American Airlines' overhaul base is Tulsa. The heavy overhaul shops would be Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York; but many airplanes pass through Washington every day, and there is a staff of maintenance people here. I would say 99 percent of the aircraft mechanics employed in Washington hold A and E certificates. There are approximately 55 or 60 employees. It is in these places where the certificates are required. As the act reads, an airman who is directly in charge of the maintenance is required to hold a certificate. In Washington the mechanics are sent out to Baltimore, to Philadelphia, Charleston, Roanoke, Richmond on breakdowns and they go alone. There is no foreman who goes with them, which the company could say was directly in charge. In those cases it is required that the airlines maintain that; they must have licensed mechanics, but the overhaul, it is different. They are working on the bench and they are supervised by foremen, leadingmen, and seniors who are licensed people. Senator MONRONEY. That is what I was trying to get at. These men who work under close supervision of licensed airmen, what percentage are they in a shop, for example? You mentioned the apprentices. I gather from what you said that there are others with less responsibility that do not have to have airmen's certificates. Mr. O'CONNELL. There are many overhaul jobs that do not require an airman's certificate; for instance, overhauling spark plugs. I would not want to go in too deeply, but there are a lot of places wherein a certificated mechanic is not required because of the work that he |