Teal Loses £A4,000

Per Week

Mounting Losses of Government owned Airlines Need Investi gation

FIGURES released in New Zeland show that Tasman Empire Airways Limited, for the year ending March 31, 1949, lost £NZ 170,000. TEA is owned by the governments of New Zealand (50 per cent.); Australia (30 per cent.); and United Kingdom (20 per cent). This means that NZ taxpayers must make good £85,000; UK taxpayers, £34,000; and Australian taxpayers, £51,000 stg.—or £63,750 in their own currency.

Another interesting indication of huge losses achieved by government-controlled airlines is the announcement that NZ will have to find £48,000 towards the losses of British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines and £21,000 to offset the deficit in New Zealand National Airways Cor porations’ Pacific regional services.

These figures saw the light of day through the New Zealand Auditor- General’s annual report to Parliament. So far there has been no emulation of this engaging frankness on the other side of the Tasman. Mr. Chifley believes that the less the Australian taxpayer knows about how his contribution to the Treasury is spent, the happier he will be.

Australia’s airways commitments are far greater than New Zealand’s and its losses must, therefore, be far greater. As well as a share in TEA and BCPA. Aus tralia owns Qantas Empire Airways and Trans-Australia-Airlines. Qantas was acquired by the Australian Government in 1948; TAA was the Government’s an swer to a decision of the Australian High Court that it could not nationalise exist ing airline companies. TAA has been in operation for about three years and is said to be still losing money, in spite of every effort of the Government to bolster it.

Government-owned airways can serve two purposes—to guarantee an efficient service to the people at low cost; and to pioneer new fields that are outside the scope of a private company. Government airways give efficient service to passen gers but far from lowering fares, they keep them fixed at a high level once they have gained a monopoly.

In respect of the second purpose, it can be said that the Australian government, with Qantas’ Island services, and the NZNAC, with its Pacific regional airways services, have fulfilled this purpose ad mirably. This is particularly so of Qantas who have linked Sydney with even the remotest parts of the terri tories and islands of the South-west Pacific, running regular services that would have little interest to private operators.

If these services cost the taxpayer

money, then it is a justifiable expense— not only because it brings the world to the isolated people of the Island terri tories, but because it maintains a vital link between Australia, or New Zealand, and their rich island outposts.

BUT there is no pioneering entailed by TEA in running (without competi tion) the 1,300 miles between Sydney and Auckland and the loss of large sums on this route are unlikely to please either New Zealand or Australian

taxpayers. If TEA slides so badly into red ink at this stage, then it seems that it will always be a liability and drastic remedies are indicated. Prom the beginning of the Pacific war until 1948 there were no ships on the regular Australia- New Zealand run. For those years TEA had a monopoly of all transport across the Tasman. In the last 12 months since two ships came back to the Tasman

service, it has continued to have a mono poly of the air route. Not even BCPA, which is owned by the same governments, has been permitted to break into this close preserve.

This has created the ridiculous situa tion of putting New Zealand out at the end of a blind alley as far as the trans- Pacific route is concerned, instead of permitting Auckland to take its right

place on the natural circuit between North American, the Pacific Islands, and Australasia.

SOME time ago, in PIM, we compared the high fares charged by TEA with the low fares charged on internal airlines in Australia. In an effort to jus tify this difference in fares, the NZ journal, Whites Aviation, in its August issue, gave a number of reasons, some of them sound enough, but compared the charge of 3.4 d. per mile, Melbourne to Townsville, made by Australian companies with the charge per mile across the Tas man—which they stated was 4,506 d. per mile. The Tasman fare, however, was calculated in NZ currency; the Mel bourne-Townsville fare in Australian currency. In other words, an Australian can fly from Melbourne to Townsville, a distance of 1,600 miles, for £23/12/6 (3.4 d. per mile); but if he wishes to fly from Sydney to Auckland, which is only 1,300 miles, he must pay £A3S for a single fare or £A63 return (5.6 d. per mile for the return journey).

Furthermore, consider that, in August, 1948, the fare from Sydney to Auckland was only £2B in Australian currency.

Then the NZ- £ went to parity with sterling—a move that was designed tc assist New Zealanders. The fare for the trans-Tasman flight was not reduced for New Zealanders, however —it remained at £2B. But for Australians it leapt over night to its present figure—£A3s.

Some time ago a private airline opera tor in Australia offered to run a trans- Tasman service for £A2S for a single journey. Australians who care little foi the high level reasonings that permit Government monopolies, would like te see this happen, as soon as possible.

WE do not know the losses of BCPA They probably are considerable. It was stated in the Sydney Press recently that it took 200 of a staff to keer two aircraft per week on the route bet ween Sydney and Vancouver. It is un likely, anyhow, that the airline will ever make much profit for the three govern ments that own it. Whether or not il has value as a prestige-builder (oi holder), is a matter of opinion.

There is no suggestion that there is anj deficiency in the service given passenger: in these Government-owned airlines Service is 100 per cent, excellent. Bui the time seems to be coming when it wil be necessary to overhaul the whole ques tion of Government-airways’ finance The United Kingdom, in recent years, ha: lost millions in nationalised airline: operation. Australasia is fast following hei into the millionaire bracket.

To date the taxpayer has meekly paic up. Some point is given to this attitude by the cynical observation attributed t( a Sydney businessman, when discussing

government-owned, Trans-Australia-Air

lines: “We’d better patronise the b show—we have to pay for it, anyhow.”

Will he always be so forbearing?