We did it out in Burbank and we were the first ones to use it. It enables planes to get away substantially faster on their stops. The feeders took to it and they have had a substantial benefit from it. I am not saying we invented them, simultaneous inventions do occur frequently, however; all I am saying is we did do it, and we were the first.

We were the first to arrange the aircraft for passengers to carry their own baggage. We had the first airplanes where passengers got on and carried their own baggage. It is used today on practically all two-engine aircraft. It was a very sound development.

I am not saying other people did not think of it. The feeders adopted it immediately, but we were the first ones to use it.

We were the first and are thus far the only commercial operator in the United States to adopt rearward facing seats in the interest of greater passenger safety and comfort, an innovation which has proved popular with the traveling public.

Here again this is pioneering. In Australia, as I understand it, they have to have rear-facing seats. You will find that the Military Sea Transport Service has conducted surveys and studies of this, and I understand all military aircraft are going to have rear-facing seats. Why did not the industry adopt it? It is very simple. One would think, just from looking at it on the surface, people would not like it because they have had forward-facing seats.

We decided to take the chance. The cost of installing rearward facing seats, I believe, was in the neighborhood of $100,000 on one airplane. You had to change the stresses on the plane. It was quite a job and took quite a bit of engineering. However, we did that on two airplanes to begin with, and the results were simply amazing. The passengers preferred it.

If you have ever looked out of the window of an airplane looking forward, all you can see is the wing and the engines. If you have looked out of the window going backwards, you get a perfect view of the ground and a very nice picture, too, so we conducted a little survey of this ourselves.

The responses were about 80 percent in favor of the rearward facing situation, so we now have 4 planes with rearward facing seats, and we have another one in overhaul. Another Douglas DC-6B which we recently bought we discussed with Douglas about putting in rearward facing seats, but it was a tremendously expensive job because when Douglas does something like that they figure it on the basis of their entire operation and, of course, there was a tremendous engineering

expense.

We have our own maintenance people where we do major overhauls, so those planes when they go into major overhaul later, will have their seats changed. Those will be the first postwar modern aircraft with

reverse seats.

We were the first management to equip its entire fleet of aircraft with omnirange-VHF navigational equipment. First, when CAA wanted VHF-omnirange equipment, it was hard to get it. However, we got it and put it on our planes, and were the first to have our entire fleet equipped with them.

We were the first and only management, certificated or noncertificated, to place a firm order for Douglas DC-6B equipment designed

for domestic air-coach operations. I understand there are some in international, but in domestic operation, we think we have the first ones. In three pending certificate proceedings we are proposing to furnish air-bus transportation at approximately 3 cents per passenger mile, a rate which would be approximately one-half of standard fares charged today by the certificated industry. It would very substantially reduce the rates.

In these certificate proceedings, we are the only one proposing to provide regional, turn-around air-coach flights and service during daytime or on peak hours. It is really a shuttle coach service on service routes. We filed an application with the Board for an exemption to operate between New York and Washington at $10 plus tax on a shuttle basis, and we would have a plane every hour and after a few months it would be every half hour.

You did not need any reservation. You knew the plane was leaving on the half hour, and you could go out to the plane and get on and pay your $10. We were to have it coordinated with the public transportation system so that your total cost would be in the neighborhood of $11.50 or $12 to go from your home to a place in New York via air. This, of course, was turned down, and I certainly would not say the Board was wrong for turning it down. We asked for it on an exemption basis, because you could not go through a complete certificate process to get this right because it is an experimental thing; but we were willing to experiment with it without any mail pay, with all our own investment and take whatever risk there was or loss.

I might point out we were the first-we may not have been the first nonscheduled carrier who came out first with the fly now-pay later plan.

That is a plan that has now been adopted by the certificated air carriers, but we started it.

What I have just been talking about goes to the point of the results of competition and the results that have taken place under the present operation.

What I have pointed out shows that a tremendous number of very favorable results in this industry have come in not from the certificated carriers who have been so protected but from carriers like North American who have had to scrounge for business, and that is what we have been doing. We have been out working to get passengers. We have built up a tremendously successful business and one that has contributed to the entire industry.

It has been already pointed out and should be pointed out again that in terms of military need, the nonscheduled industry has been a tremendous benefits to this country. The first planes off the ground in both the Berlin airlift and the Korean airlift were nonscheduled. Later the certificated carrier got into it, but in the earlier part it was the nonscheduled carriers.

In the airlift, the nonscheduled carriers, which is a very small industry, I understand carried 55 percent of the lift.

Senator MONRONEY. Did North American participate in that, or was that just the other nonscheduled carriers?

Mr. MACLAY. I do not believe we had any carriers in that. I might point out that North American engaged in a very substantial amount of military transportation. They carry on a great deal of CAM busi

ness. They are on the Tokyo, Japan, airlift, and also on the Atlantic, and we also have two of our aircraft committed to the Civil Air Reserve in times of emergency. That includes crews and cooperating with the military in that matter.

Mr. Ramspeck's testimony before this committee in 1949 representing the industry is an excellent résumé of the situation with which this country was faced in the time of the last war. The airlift was totally inadequate. It was completely inadequate, and had there been a far greater airlift at that time, we would have been in a much more favorable position at the beginning of hostilities than we were.

The certificated air carriers did, as you will remember, all they could and did everything they could, but the point is that there was inadequate airlift.

The way to get airlift is to reduce fares and carry passengers, because that is where you need airlift and the place to do it is on the routes where the people want to travel, and that is precisely our proposal that will put tremendously increased air transportation on the major routes in the United States, which will result in much increased airlift.

I am sure anyone can recognize, who is familiar with the situation in air transportation in this country, that there is and has been in the noncertificated carriers a tremendously vital force that has been pushing up in this great industry, to try to make a place for itself.

This vital force it has been impossible to hold down. It is too great to hold down by restrictive regulations. In the Atlantic there is pending before the Board a proceeding to decide whether or not there should not be much more lenient rules and regulations with respect to charter operations, particularly this summer.

Why? Because the lift over the Atlantic is really inadequate. The pressure of the traveling public has made the Atlantic airlift once more completely inadequate.

So you have this same group of nonscheduled irregular operators over there before the Board, telling the Board, make your limitations more liberal; let us get into the business, and we can carry a tremendous amount this summer and in the future.

That is just one more example of this tremendous force that is pushing up today because the industry is expanding. Most of the regulations and proposals that have been proposed here restrict competition. There has been none presented before this committee and there is none in the committee before this to show why it should be held down. If the purpose is to help the public and the travelers and the national defense and the postal service, then the more transportation the better.

If the purpose is to have economic units in this business that are tremendous and are tremendously powerful; and if the purpose is to make them bigger and bigger and bigger and prevent any little carriers coming in, then all these restrictive amendments should be adopted. Otherwise, I do not believe they should.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MONRONEY. Thank you very much for your testimony. That concludes the list of witnesses. Did you have some questions, Senator Pavne?

Senator PAYNE. No.

Senator MONRONEY. The committee will stand in recess. If there is further material you want to submit for the record, we will be glad to receive it within 10 days, Mr. Maclay.

Mr. MACLAY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to make the following letters a part of the hearing.

(Letters are as follows:)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE AVIATION OFFICIALS,

EDWARD C. SWEENEY, Esq.,

Staff Member for Aviation,

Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee,
Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C.

May 31, 1955.

DEAR ED: At our recent discussion subsequent to hearings on S. 308 and S. 1119, you asked me for comments on four questions. If any of the following answers are not completely consistent with any part of my testimony before the committee, of which I have no written record, then this letter represents the considered opinion of NA SAO.

1. Is there a need for an amendment to authorize control tower control of taxiing aircraft? The answer to us appears to be "no."

Because of the expense involved, it is improbable that there will be functioning control towers on any civil airports other than those that accommodate air traffic in air commerce. The definition of "air commerce" in the present law is quite broad and includes "any operation or navigation of aircraft which directly affects, or which may endanger safety in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce." It would seem that this definition, together with the prohibition contained in section 610 (5) provides all the machinery necessary for any required control of taxiing aircraft.

2. Should section 205 (b) be strengthened with regard to Federal-State relationships? We believe that it should be, and that appropriate changes should be made in section 301, so that not only the Board, but the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics will be included in whatever legislative policy is adopted.

We like the proposal contained in section 15 of S. 308, but recommend that it be strengthened by adding, after the word "Board," on line 18, the words "shall, and is hereby", and that the word "is" preceding the word "authorized" be stricken.

Despite the fact that working relationships between the Board, the CAA, and State aviation agencies have generally been good, it would certainly do no harm clearly to spell out the authority for such cooperation, which has sometimes been questioned.

A case in point is the very successful Federal-State cooperative enforcement agreement, entered into in February 1955 between the CAB, the CAA, and NASAO, from which the CAB has recently retreated in part.

3. Whether a new definition of navigational airspace, clearly defining the extent of Federal sovereignty, should be adopted? It is our belief that this should be done.

This definition is used in section 3 of the Civil Aeronautics Act, which establishes a public right of freedom of transit in air commerce through the navigable airspace. The lack of a clear and practical definition has caused a great deal of past controversy and is presently involved in at least one civil suit which will go to the Supreme Court.

Any redefinition should take into account the national interest in air commerce, the rights and privileges of property owners and people on the ground, and the economic interests of the owners of airports who may rightfully charge for the use of their airports.

These are very difficult equities to balance, particularly because of the pressure to extend some portions of the navigable airspace to the surface of the ground. We have tried to word a new definition which we could recommend, but have been unable to do so.

It may perhaps be necessary to hold this in abeyance until the Supreme Court, in the Cedarhurst or some other case, has established the extent of Federal sovereignty in the air.

4. Has the development of new navigational aids created a need for redefining civil airways? A more appropriate definition could probably be adopted.

That used in S. 308 and S. 1119 seems to do the trick, except for the last four words. We would suggest after "as suitable" the words "for interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce" as found in the present definition of civil airways.

In addition you will remember that we discussed these items, on which our feelings and reasons were presented at the committee hearing:

(a) Airworthiness certification. We believe that section 601, paragraphs (1) and (2) should be qualified by permitting the CAB to exempt aircraft, together with their accessories and appliances, weighing less than 5,000 pounds and not to be used in air carrier service.

(b) Proposed title IV A on page 22 of S. 308, and page 20 of S. 1119. We feel that all operations conducted, using aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds should be exempted from the provisions of this title. In view of testimony presented by the Under Secretary of Commerce, we do not feel that a permissive exemption is satisfactory, since it is apparently the position of the Department of Commerce that such authority should be used sparingly, and for only limited periods of time.

(c) Amended definition of airman, page 2, line 16, of S. 308. We believe the necessary wording should be included to exempt classes of mechanics described in our testimony.

(d) New definition, "air navigation," on page 4, line 12, of S. 308, and page 3, line 22, of S. 1119. We are strongly opposed to this, and recommend that the existing definition, "air commerce", be retained as adequate and reasonable. One last observation. We note the omission from both S. 308 and S. 1119 of sections 102 (g), 104, and 105 of Senator McCarran's S. 2647. While these might be considered as statements of constitutional principles, we believe that they clarify Federal-State relationships, would improve and simplify administration of the act, and recommend their inclusion in any future amendments of the Civil Aeronautics Act.

Very truly yours,

CROCKER SNOW.

THE SALVATION ARMY, Chicago 10, Ill., April 26, 1955.

Senator MIKE MONRONEY,

Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee,
Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C.

HONORABLE SIR: For the past 2 or 3 years, the Salvation Army has been extremely interested in the possibility of legislation which would permit the airlines to grant free or reduced rate transportation to ministers of religion.

It is now possible to consider this matter once again since Senate bill S. 1119 has been introduced by Senator Warren Magnuson, chairman of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. This bill has to do with amendment D of S. 1119 which would permit the airlines to grant free or reduced transportation to ministers of religion, and further, it is considered a major piece of legislation which completely revises the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. I feel very strongly that the Salvation Army's official officers, together with ministers of recognized denominations would be greatly benefited in their spiritual and rehabilitation program by the use of reduced fare rates on airline travel. Furthermore, the influence of the religious and spiritual forces in the United States is a factor which I am sure you will recognize as a distinct benefit to our democracy.

With kindest personal regards.
Sincerely yours,

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your letter of January 13, 1955, requesting a statement of this Department's views on S. 308, to amend the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended, and for other purposes.

The proposed legislation involves matters primarily within the jurisdiction of other agencies, and the Treasury Department, therefore, does not wish to com