[Page: S9597]
---

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Commerce Committee recently approved S. Res. 344, which expresses the Sense of the Senate that a merger of United Airlines and US Airways would hurt consumers' interests. A.G. Newmyer, managing director of U.S. Fiduciary Advisors, similarly addressed the public interest perspective in a guest editorial printed in The Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent that the piece be reprinted in the RECORD in its entirety.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   United We Stand, in Line

   Chicago was created, as the old joke goes, for New Yorkers who like the crime and traffic but wanted colder winters. And now, it seems, Chicago--like other United Airlines hubs--was created for travelers willing to spend their summer vacations waiting in lines at the airport. If United's proposed takeover of US airways goes through, Washington may have been created for Chicagoans who wanted to spend their days in lines at a smaller airport.

   Given the size of US Airway's operations in our region (particularly its share of traffic at Reagan National Airport), as well as United's proposed rule in operations of the new DC Air frequent fliers worry that the Clinton administration and Congress might actually permit United's expansion.

   United we stand, in line. Divided, we fly ..... at least, some of us.

   Federal Aviation Administrator Jane Garvery recently pointed to myriad factors in explaining this summer's air travel debacle; a system operating at peak capacity in a booming economy, weather, labor, issues and so on. United's senior management, at least until its recent apologies seemed happy to point the finger anywhere but in the mirror.

   Many of the excuses don't stand up to scrutiny. News reports, for example, have noted that United is quicker than other airlines to blame weather for cancellations. Seldom is it mentioned that a carrier's obligation to pay for hotel rooms and otherwise take care of passengers vanishes when nature is the culprit. Similarly, even if pilots are unwilling to fly their customary schedules, customer service agents at the counters and on the phones could be augmented to take care of the obvious resultant crush. Waiting times make a mockery of such customer-friendly tactics, particularly for passengers finding our exactly how inconvenient the convenience of ticket-less travel is.

   Common sense would suggest that United management has a very full plate trying to fly its current fleet. Only the luckiest occasional traveler on United could conclude that the airline has been operating in the public interest this year. Interestingly, the federal government's review of the proposed merger may pay scant attention to common sense.

   The government's review focuses largely on antitrust and competitive considerations, not on the broader public interest. Although the Department of Transportation has a role to play, responsibility for the willingness to treat customers like human beings may get short shrift in a review process that is both legal and laughable.

   In the long term, business courses are likely to include discussion of how United's management ruined a world-class, respected brand, Labor's ownership role and board seats at United may cause other companies to wonder about the efficacy of such arrangements.

   In the short term, the United mess deserves a more thorough governmental review before its management expands its choke-hold on passengers to include US Airways and DC Air. Although time is short in this election year, Congress would find vast voter sympathy in reviewing whether applicable merger statutes are appropriate. And before President Clinton finds himself joining the rest of us on commercial flights, he should direct his administration to just say no to a broader role for United in today's unfriendly skies.

END