711.3227/7–2646: Telegram

The Ambassador in Brazil (Pawley) to the Secretary of State


1349. ReEmbtel 1336, July; 24, 7 p.m. Second meeting held this morning with Cunha Machado and Brazilian group at which Tippett and Daniels presented informally and orally following observations on Brazilian proposals bilateral civil aviation agreement.

Elimination Barreiros cut-off route might result suspension Pan American service if proposed route via Manaos–Goiania and Guaira have inadequate radio and landing facilities and lack CAA certification. On this point Cunha Machado said definitely that it was not desired to interrupt Pan American service to Rio de Janeiro.
Question of Panagra West Coast service connection with Panair do Brasil at Corumba was raised. Cunha Machado said that such connection could readily be made at Porto Suarez, Bolivia without prejudice to Panagra.
Elimination of Pan American coastal route via Fortaleza, Recife, etc. would represent loss of much, cargo and passenger business by Pan American [apparent omission] points on international hauls. Cunha Machado replied that Panair do Brasil could adequately handle this business.
Elimination of Fifth Freedom rights between Brazilian points and third countries would deny US citizen right to fly from, say, Rio [Page 476] de Janeiro to Buenos Aires on American flag carrier; and be contrary to US aviation policy. Cunha Machado stated that many European airlines likewise interested in the traffic which combined with Pan American service would be too much competition for Brazilian airlines flying between Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires.
Elimination US proposal 6 for West Coast route to São Paulo (Braniff) excludes another American air carrier from providing an additional service to Brazil by another route. Cunha Machado observed that the route was not very practical and that in any event more direct service to the US was provided by the interior routes in the Brazilian proposal and that if Braniff wished to fly to Brazil it could compete on the Manaos interior cut-off.
Rejection of Fifth Freedom rights in proposed agreement would set unfavorable precedent for Brazilian airlines operating or planning to operate in international field such as between Buenos Aires and Santiago (Cruzeiro do Sul) or between European points such as Lisbon, Madrid, Paris, London, Rome (Panair do Brazil and possibly Aerovias and Cruzeiro). Cunha Machado observed that such traffic was already difficult citing alleged Portuguese refusal to permit Brazilian airlines to transport passengers from Lisbon to Madrid.
Concern was expressed lest curtailment of US transport services represented by Brazilian draft might be interpreted as out of harmony with policy and cooperation in aviation matters which both countries have been following; and that it would be easier to get full cooperation from American airlines in aviation matters such as radio and fuel facilities if both countries were following similar policies in aviation matters. It was obvious that Cunha Machado and his entire group did not wish any disagreement with the United States on aviation policy but felt it their duty to avoid any agreement which would be prejudicial to development of Brazilian airlines. He was assured that the US as well as Brazil favored the development of Brazilian aviation; it was merely a matter of following long range enlightened policy rather than a short range protectionist policy.

The foregoing observations were stated to be informal and in advance of Dept’s instruction to afford more opportunity to study these considerations pending receipt of Dept’s instructions. No further meetings scheduled until instructions received but opportunities will be sought in conversations to keep subject active in hope of obtaining satisfactory agreement.