ir transport had to wait for decades before it could prove that the carriage of heavy, bulky freight was a natural for the airplane. A few short years later, America’s commercial airlines, hand in hand with the Air Force, kept a blockaded Berlin alive with a duplicated mass airlift of dazzling performance.
     In between these history-making events, the world saw the unfolding of the Air Cargo Age. Airlines long-experienced flying small shipments designated air express, were now seeking larger, more weighty traffic. Facing them was a skeptical army influenced by the airlines’ limited capacity and high rates.
     Airline advertising displayed a notable change in its themes, zeroing in on the economic value of speed, distance of delivery and cargo safety.

     Typical was a Pan American Airways ad which said, “Schedule your shipments as you would your personal reservations.”
     From United Airlines came this message: “United, through connecting airlines and coordinated motor truck lines, covers practically the entire country.”
     Air France’s ad announced that “One air waybill over one carrier all the way to destinations in 51 countries on 5 continents.”
     KLM’s ad promised, “Special low rates for perishables.”
     At TWA its ad people believed in a blunt approach: “Every shipping file needs a TWA Air Freight tariff.”
     Sabena’s ad claimed that its crews were enhanced by “that extra margin of experience flying your shipments.”
     American Airlines’ ad, announced a new all-cargo flight to Europe, whose “7-man crew is trained to give utmost care to each shipment.”
     In TACA’s ad it made a point of stressing “full cooperation” by its skilled Latin American cargo personnel.
     The ads of REA Express took an educational turn, providing air express case histories that underscored economic trade-offs.
     And so on, mirroring Spenser’s “whirling wheel of change.”
     At American Airlines the whirling wheel produced an executive order converting six DC-4s to cargo configuration, giving the carrier a freighter fleet of a dozen planes—a revolutionary action.
     Flying Tiger Line took another route toward profitability, capturing a contract with the Air Transport Command to fly 1.2 million miles a month from the West coast to Japan and Hawaii. The deal made Flying Tiger the world’s largest contract operator.
     The DC-6, first of the postwar transports made a successful bid for headlines when it set a Los Angeles-New York speed record of 6:47:13 hours. The Douglas plane, which broke the record previously held by a Constellation, was piloted by a United Airlines crew.
     North of the border CHN Cargo Aircraft took the wraps off its bid for distinction with a rugged all-metal freighter, The Loadmaster. The plane could be loaded at truck level height at both sides.
     Although operators of that new fangled aircraft—the helicopter—were struggling to win a secure place in the domestic airline industry, there was a small handful of men whose visions extended to rotary wing freighters.
     Quixotic in the Forties, to say the least.
     In Washington, CAB Chairman L. Welch Pogue (left) cautioned against applying to helicopter operations regulations governing airplanes.
     The Department of Commerce, an early cheerleader for air transport progress, sounded a somewhat gloomy note surveying the current air cargo scene, said that freight rates were not moving adequately in a direction that would realize its full potential. Also trotted forth as immediate needs were improved packaging, better handling, upgraded ground handling and delivery and through service for interline shipments.
     Sciare facias (let it be known) is a slogan that at least three periodicals have adopted. In this spirit the Post Office Department reported that it has under consideration a filing for reduced rates for airborne newspapers and news magazines to foreign destinations.
     Should the airline industry in the U.S. be governed independently from other forms of transportation? Yes, insisted, the CAB. No, contradicted the Port of New York Authority, stating that foreign competitors have been strengthened by the U.S. position.
     The author, Bernard Estes, maintained that air freight did not receive the promotion it merits. He held that promotions should be stripped of the glamor of flying, and speak with “the down-to-earth tongue” of the average person. America, he concluded, “cannot afford to underpromote this type of industry.”
     A roughly similar line was taken by analyst Langdon P. Marvin, Jr., who stated his belief that “if the airlines which have been granted international certificates by the Government devoted as much study, time and effort to cargo as they have done during the past many years to passengers, they would discover that there is perhaps twice as much business in the international field as they now anticipate.
     No one can accuse KLM Royal Dutch Airlines of underpromoting its cargo business. As a point in fact, Holland’s flag air carrier, was first in the world to put an all-cargo plane—a converted Fokker F7—in service. This occurred 21 years earlier, and KLM’s corporate eye has been on the shipper ever since. Now, in early postwar New York, Albert Jansen headed freight in the North American Division. Not unexpectedly, Jansen spoke enthusiastically about Dutch flower exports and looked forward to seeing fresh airborne blooms, especially tulips, in 70 U.S. cities through an interline contract with United Airlines.

     Pan Am’s Latin American Division manager, Humphrey W. Toomey (left) seemed to lend emphasis to Jansen’s statement. Air freight, Toomey explained, “opens new markets and wins new customers” in domestic and international trade.
     In his view, the smart businessman utilizes air transport as an effective instrument for market expansion and greater profitability.
     In the context of the adage that time and tide stay for no man, Kenneth N. Hynes’ analysis of postwar U.S.-China air trade provided a perfect example of the certainty—never linger. Hynes, who served in the Commerce Department’s Office of International Trade, described the “character” of trade between the two countries as “essentially an exchange of American-manufactured products for raw materials.” He reasoned that the airline operating out of the U.S. can expect only “a very limited volume of manufactured goods and commodities” transported eastbound. Result: “return haul problem that will be difficult to solve.”
     In New York, Eric Rath, president of Airload Service, Inc., told a Board of Trade audience that while airlines have been successful in selling passenger transportation on a basis of speed, comfort, economy and reliability—prime factors in a shipper’s choice of transport mode—“not much hasbeen done to apply the same standards to air freight transportation.”
     Considering the position of the freight forwarder in air transportation, John W. Moore, who headed the Port of New York Authority’s Nonscheduled Air Transport Bureau opined, “Until forwarders learn on what terms they may forward air freight and with what regulations they must comply, their services which have been so important in other fields of transportation cannot be expected to be fully developed in the promotion of air freight business.”
     The Air Freight Forwarders Association blossomed as a national organization at a celebratory three-day meeting (and shindig) in Washington. In a blunt speech at one of the sessions, the forwarder was characterized as the left arm of the airline, especially a part of the body itself.
     Anatomical claims aside, the forwarder group lost little time petitioning the Civil Aeronautics Board to disallow a “ruinous new freight rate (12 cents per ton-mile) filed by three scheduled airlines. The CAB promptly rejected the rate but issued an order for investigation.
     By now there was much talk of a rate war between the scheduled airlines and the nonskeds. Pointing an accusatory finger at American Airlines, Slick Airways charged that it had organized a Contract Air Cargo Division for the single purpose of driving all-cargo nonskeds out of existence.
     For a welcome moment, the threat of a looming rate war was blown away by news from abroad that the executive committee of the International Air Transport Association had given its stamp of approval in principle to accept international nonskeds into IATA membership.
     Ratification lay ahead.
     Should cargo carriers be awarded certificates of convenience and necessity? Facing a CAB examiner, Dr. John H. Frederick, professor of transportation at the University of Maryland, said yes. Against the testimony of the scheduled airlines the highly regarded educator maintained that further examination of the cargo airlines was unnecessary.
     He argued that it was vital to avoid the experience of the motor carrier industry after World War I when “cut-throat competition was rampant to the detriment of public safety, labor and investors.”
     There was no need to continue experimenting, he added, stating that “evidence now available is enough to justify issuance of certificates of at least several years’ duration needed to give the freight carriers stability for continued development.”
     In a postwar air transport industry still dominated by the DC-3 and DC-4, cargo tonnage numbers leaped month after month, inevitably causing mounting handling problems at ill-equipped airports with all manner of industry pundit predicting a brilliant tomorrow for air freight, does its efficient handling require a dedicated facility? If talks with airport executives across the country are condensed to a singer answer, it is yes. But not for a while. As a matter of fact, in some cases not for a great while.
     Said Eric Rath, guiding light at Airload Services, Inc.: “Air cargo today is just beginning to make itself felt. Already ground facilities are inadequate. If the errors of the railroad and motor carriers are going to be repeated, air cargo will find itself very soon faced with conditions even worse than those hampering surface transportation.”
     Detroit’s Willow Run Airport was the scene of the country’s first air freight terminal for the handling of consolidated traffic over scheduled airlines. The 5,000 square foot facility was operated by Air Cargo, Inc. On the planning board were similar facilities at airports in key cities coast to coast.
Richard Malkin
malkin101@aircargonews.com

Click Here To Read Part I
Click Here To Read Part II