711.3227/8–2646: Telegram

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


1505. For attention Norton84 and CAB from Landis.85 The following route plan is my proposal, All United States routes open with following description: “United States via intermediate points in the Carribean and South America” to a Brazilian point, with exception routes 4 and 5 which recite west coast of South America.

Route 1: Belém, Natal and beyond to Africa and when operational conditions in the North Atlantic so require to Europe.

Route 2: Belém, Barreiras, Rio, São Paulo and beyond to Montevideo and Buenos Aires.

Route 3: Belém, Fortaleza, Natal, Recife, San Salvador and Rio and beyond to Buenos Aires via São Paulo, Porto Alegre and Montevideo and via São Paulo, Curitiba, Iguassu Falls and Asunción.

Route 4: Asunción and São Paulo to Rio.

Route 5 to Corumba.

Route 6 to Manaos, Goiania and Rio.

My comment on above.

Route 2 is Pan American’s desired DC–4 route to Buenos Aires.

Route 3 is Pan American’s hump route. It omits with tentative approval Pan American points certificated but not desired to be served. Also no excuse for serving Curitiba and Iguassu Falls as international points and these may be eliminated with Pan American’s consent.

Route 4 is Braniff’s route.

Route 5 is Panagra’s route. May have to move Corumba to Campo Grande where adequate connection with Panair. Panagra will presumably consent.

Route 6 inserted for trading purposes. Manaos airport impossible for anything more than DC–3’s so authorize elimination if necessary.

Brazilian routes are all described “United States of Brazil via intermediate points in South America and the Caribbean including Puerto Rico”.

[Page 478]

Route 1 to New York and beyond to Montreal.

Route 2 to Miami and to Washington.

Route 3 to Miami and New Orleans.

Route 4 to Miami and Chicago.

Route 5 to Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York.

No comment on above.

Puerto Rico, although included in route description, will in practice be omitted on some routes and Trujillo used. Unlikely that routes 4 and 5 will be operated but inserted for balancing purposes.

Non-stop provision similar to that in our proposal will be inserted.

Please comment speedily on these proposals. The balance is very much to our favor perhaps too much so to be agreeable but impossible to cut our side other than route 6 and would throw this route into discard anyway for operational considerations.

  1. Garrison Norton, Deputy Director of the Office of Transport and Communications Policy.
  2. James M. Landis, Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board.