800.796/10–444
The Civil Air Attaché in the United Kingdom (Satterthwaite) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 23.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that aviation circles in England have become increasingly aware, and disturbed by, the fact that during the last few months the United States has apparently made much greater progress toward settling both the domestic and international aspects of its aviation policy than has England. Instead of catching up, the English are falling further behind.
Until fairly recently the Government apparently did not believe that the United States would be in a position to call an international aviation conference during the period six weeks prior or six weeks after the elections. When the United States Government informed the British Government that it could not agree to refrain from negotiating bilateral air transport agreements with other countries prior to an international conference, and when the British Government suggested that a conference be held immediately, it was expected here that no full dress conference could be had until some time after the first of the year. It was hoped, however, that a conference of 13 or 14 nations, including all the dominions, could be held to settle some of the more pressing problems. It was generally believed that the nations present at this conference would be more in accord with the British views of rather strict control of international aviation than with the more liberal concept advocated by the United States. British Government officials seem to feel that there is a fair chance that the dominions and the other nations which expect to engage importantly in international aviation such as Holland, Belgium, France and Sweden, will be motivated more by a fear of the power of the United States civil aviation, unless checked, than they will by a confidence in their own ability to stay in the air under relatively free competition. Various elements in and out of the British Government, principally B.O.A.C., are doing their best to convince these countries that they need guarantees—at the expense of the United States. The British seem to feel that there is a good [Page 553] possibility that the other nations—those who do not expect, for the time being at least, to engage in large scale international air transport, will be more inclined to favor a system which is likely to generate the maximum traffic through and to their countries regardless of nationality. The British also feel that most of the American republics will, for other than solely air reasons, side with the United States. For these reasons there exists the feeling that England has been out-maneuvered in the timing, number of countries and general scope (as outlined in the invitation) of the conference. This has been reflected officially in the British reply to the invitation, which reverts strongly to their position of tight international and economic control of the air. It is also reflected in Foreign Office annoyance over the exclusion of the Argentine and the inclusion of Eire. In one form or another British civil aviation policy so far expressing itself in action, has been designed to hold back the United States in the air as much and as long as possible in the hope that British aviation will some day be able to meet it. Although it will be years before British airplanes will be able to match even currently produced United States models, there still exists a vague hope that the world’s aviation can be held back until the British catch up.
Most of the English who understand civil aviation other than as a policy concept, seem to be fully aware that it would be impossible and thoroughly undesirable to hold back international aviation until Great Britain was ready with its own airplanes. They do feel, however, that Great Britain is so far behind the United States it will never catch up, or even be able to survive at all in the air under any kind of competitive system unless it receives a great deal of help during the early stages from the United States, principally, of course, equipment. There is some fear that the equipment they will be able to obtain from us will be slightly behind whatever we are using at the moment; thus they will obtain C–54’s at the same time our international airlines are beginning to get Constellations or DC–6’s and 7’s. There is also some apprehension that even if they get the same types, they will not get the latest modifications and improvements.
There is practically no one in the aviation world, including many Government officials, who is not dissatisfied with the state of Britsh aviation and the Government’s over-all attitude toward it. This dissatisfaction and ferment gives rise to an ever increasing stream of rumor. Ever since Lord Beaverbrook took office there have been almost daily rumors that he would soon resign. These rumors are now more positive and even more frequent. It is stated that Lord Beaverbrook is disillusioned and annoyed by his inability to bring about a decision on the chosen instrument and his failure to coordinate the British Government behind a positive policy. The [Page 554] aviation world, while fully understanding the reasons involved, is nonetheless discouraged by the so far unwillingness of the Government to risk a split between the Labor and Conservative parties on the politically incendiary question of aviation. Since the Government apparently is unwilling to take a completely firm stand on the various questions, particularly that of the repeal of the B.O.A.C. Act and permit the Government to aid other groups wishing to engage in international air transport, it is said that Lord Londonderry only agreed to postpone for one week the debate in the House of Lords on the promise that the Government would make a statement that “said something.”
If the complicated general policy questions involved do not permit a reasonably clear decision in major British aviation policy prior to the international conference in November, it is probable that England will take a holding and delaying attitude to the limit that can be done without seriously threatening the over-all relations between it and the United States.
Respectfully yours,