Pan Am clipper, Vol. 21, No. 26, December 21, 1970

              Presenting the airline indusry’s side of the SST question are chief executives, from left, Charles C. Tillinghast, TWA; George A. Spater, American; President Halaby; and Floyd D. Hall, Eastern.
execs make joint statement—
"the SST is essential”
NEW YORK — The supersonic transport program is “essential,” President Najeeb Halaby told a press conference here Dec. 7.
Mr. Halaby was speaking in behalf of Pan Am and four other airlines’ chief executives who were present. He called the Dec. 4 Senate 52-45 vote against a $290 million appropriation for continuing the program a “drastic measure.”
“Here was a nine-year-old policy supported by the last three presidents,” he continued, “initiated by President Kennedy in 1963 and fully supported by Presidents Johnson and Nixon. And, in the course of that time, five congresses and scores of committees have examined and researched this program and have approved the policy underneath it.”
The executives of thé five airlines came together for the press conference after studying the Senate debate over the weekend. During the course of the conference, supporting statements arrived from two other airlines’ presidents, Harding L. Lawrence of Braniff and Robert F. Six of Continental. At the conference were, in addition to Mr. Halaby, Charles C. Tillinghast of TWA, George A. Spater of American, and Floyd D. Hall of Eastern. Representing George E. Keck of United was John C. Blackman, vice-president for public affairs.
Mr. Halaby’s statement was framed about the aspects of two primary questions—financing and specifications. He answered them in several parts.
•	Do the airlines support this program?
“The answer is unequivocal. We support the program to build two prototypes, then to decide on whether or not a production model should be built, and what its specifications should be with all the test data—actual facts—before us, not make a decision on speculations by scientists pro and con but actual hard facts. The present program, therefore, has the support of the airline industry.”
•	Are the airlines able to pay their part of the program?
“We believe that the government, the aerospace industry, and the airlines will be able to conduct their affairs so that each of us can play its part in the financial partnership in the time period between 1975 and 1980, when further payments on production airplanes may be called for.”
•	Are the airlines prepared to invest in the SST program?
“Thirteen airlines have already put up $81 million in the program—money we could have used otherwise, but which we paid to the U.S. Treasury five years ago as our evidence of faith in the program.”
•	What about the investments of the airplane and engine manufacturers?
“They, too, have invested some $206 million and are committed to invest further as the program progresses. Thus, it is an investment program of federal money, manufacturers money, and airlines money.”
•	What about jobs?
“The American SST program means jobs ... tax revenues ... a favorable contribution to a favorable balance of trade. It means the creation of jobs for Americans, not the export of jobs—not only for 1971 and 1972, but probably for the next two decades. We think that keeping thousands of highly skilled people employed in this country has a very great importance to our economy, particularly at a time when five million people are unemployed.”
•	It this a subsidy of the U.S. Government?
“No, we think it is not a subsidy to labor, the
manufacturers, or to the airlines. The government estimates the SST, if successful in accord with the
(Continued on page 7)
seeks suspension of Hilo service
By Richard Piperno
NEW YORK—-Pan Am has announced that it is seeking Civil Aeronautics Board authority to suspend service between the U.S. mainland and Hilo, Hawaii, for a two-year period.
The airline said the “dismal” condition of the mainland-Hawaii market forced its decision, but added the hope that “passage of time will bring brighter prospects for serving Hilo.”
“In the meantime, however, immediate action is necessary in order to alleviate at least in some degree the dismal picture that now exists.”
That picture includes a loss of more than $3 million on Pan Am’s service between Hilo and the mainland for the 12-month period ending June 30, 1970.
When Pan Am was authorized to serve Hilo in 1967, it promptly mounted a major advertising and promotion drive to enhance Hilo as a major tourist center. By the summer of 1968 daily nonstop service was being provided to Hilo from Los Angeles and San Francisco, and twice weekly nonstop service from Seattle and Portland.
Hilo was being given equal prominence with Honolulu as a Hawaiian tourist attraction.
In 1968, 85,701 persons traveled on Pan Am to and from Hilo. Fortified by this result, the airline Introduced a new pattern of Hilo service the fallowing year: Nine weekly Los Angeles-Kilo nonstop flights and thrice-weekly San Francisco-HjJ'o nonstop service.
Then ame the impact of the transpacific route case decision. Five additional U.S. airlines were authorized to serve Hilo, making a total of eight. West Coast and nearby cities which fed passengers and cargo to Pan Am were now feeding all airlines serving Hawaii. Pan Am’s planes grew emptier. Lower fares introduced in the market sent Pan Am’s declining revenues sliding further downward.
Pan Am finally was forced to reduce its Hawaii services. Its San Francisco-Hilo flights were suspended and its Los Angeles flights to Hilo were sent to Honolulu first.
Pan Am informed the CAB that its Hilo service suspension request “must be viewed against the background of the current economic state of overall mainland-Hawaii service as well as the events that have occurred since Pan Am and two other mainland-Hawaii carriers were first authorized to serve Hilo in 1967.”
All mainland-Hawaii carriers are experiencing heavy losses. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, they suffered operating losses of $23,115,000.
message from President Halaby
Dear Fellow Pan Americans:
“With the Holiday Season we are rapidly approaching the end of what has been perhaps the most difficult year in Pan Am’s history.
In this year of changes, demands and deficits, I personally regret that the material rewards are not greater for all of the Pan Am family and that some valued members are no longer with us.
“Nevertheless, it has been a rewarding year in many respects, we have started to restore a sense of unity in Pan Am. We fielded a fresh management team capable of competing aggressively and successfully with all comers. Together we have fought the battles of the 747, and have safely introduced another magnificent flying machine with a fabulous future. Together we have resumed Pan Am’s course to what it deserves to be— the world’s best airline—and we can ourselves make it so!
“These are significant accomplishments. We have pride in them and you.
“For me, this Christmas Season, the best gift is that of being associated with you in a fine company, helping the outward growth of our great country in a universe full of opportunity. For the future, the best hope for Pan Am is your competence and your dedication to superiority, your creativeness and our common will— with Divine inspiration and help—to make the going greater in 1971.”
N. E. Halaby