The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MACNEIL/LEHRER NEWS HOUR Intro JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, the military coup in the Philippines was declared almost over. President Aquino ordered there be no accommodation with the rebels. And movie director John Houston died. We'll have the details in our news summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne? CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After the news summary, we begin with a first hand report on today's developments in the Philippines. Then a news maker interview with the Philippine ambassador to the United States. We conclude our series on air safety with four different perspectives, FAA Chief Allan McArtor, Frank Borman, former Chairman of Eastern Airlines, former airline pilot John Nance, and Congressman Guy Molinari. Essayist Roger Mudd looks at the stakes in the Persian Gulf. And finally, we remember John Huston. News Summary LEHRER: The Philippine rebellion appears to be almost over tonight. Government officials in Manila and independent news reports said most the fighting has ended, and the bulk of some 800 soldiers involved had been captured. The attempted coup against the regime of President Corazon Aquino resulted in at least 25 deaths, and more than 275 injuries. Exact counts are not yet available. President Aquino went on television this afternoon, Manila time, to reassure the Philippine people.

CORAZON AQUINO, president of the Philippines: Speaking as your President, let me assure our people that the government is firmly in control of the situation. Weshall defeat and punish these traitors. The armed forces and police, true to their pledge of loyalty to flag, country and commander in chief, are at this very moment moving to destroy this threat. I commend their bravery. LEHRER: One of those wounded was Mrs. Aquino's 27 year old son. He was expected to survive. The question of the possible involvement of deposed President Ferdinand Marcos in the coup attempt remains unanswered tonight. Here's what a State Department spokesman in Washington had to say about it.

PHYLLIS OAKLEY, State Dept. Spokesperson: Present information suggests the coup was led by a faction of the reformed -- the arms forces movement, led by Col. Gregorio Honasan. We have no information at this time about involvement of any others. REPORTER: Have you any information whether Marcos was involved? Ms. OAKLEY: We don't have any information about his involvement. I've said that the only group about whom we have any information, as we have indicated before. Mr. Marcos is aware of the strong U. S. support for the Aquino government, and our views regarding efforts to stabilize the government. LEHRER: Senator Richard Lugar headed the United States observer team that watched the Philippine elections that led to Mrs. Aquino's presidency. He said today in Washington that he was encouraged by reports the military mutineers received no popular support. And he said it underscored the need for the United States to provide more economic aid for the Aquino government. HUNTER-GAULT: In South Africa, some 13,000 more striking miners were fired amid threats that nearly 20,000 more would lose their jobs unless the walkout ended. Meanwhile, one working miner was reportedly stabbed to death and burned, bringing to seven the number of black miners killed in the strike. And in South Korea, thousands of protestors battled riot police in Seoul, and at least four other cities today. The disturbances followed a funeral for a shipyard worker killed in a clash with police a week ago. The procession was organized by radical workers and government opponents. But shortly after these pictures were taken, riot police stopped the cortege near the coastal town of Kosong, and seized the hearse. The government said the body of the shipyard worker was later delivered to his family. LEHRER: The remains of three more Americans missing since the Vietnam war may have been found. That was the word today from U. S. officials in Bangkok, Thailand following the work of U. S. recovery teams in Vietnam. The Bangkok announcement said the remains show some evidence of being those of Americans, but more investigation is necessary to confirm it. HUNTER-GAULT: John Huston, one of Hollywood's outstanding and honored directors, died today at the age of 81. His 40 films included such classics as The Maltese Falcon and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Huston died in his sleep while on location of still another of his movies. Later, we'll remember John Huston. Also still ahead, the Philippines rebellion, debating airline safety, and an essay on the Persian Gulf. Mutiny in Manila LEHRER: The Philippine rebellion is the lead story of this day. A key Philippine official is with us for an assessment of the damage done by the outbreak of military unrest against the government of President Corazon Aquino. That will follow a news update from Manila, which I received earlier today by phone from Time Magazine correspondent Jay Branegan. ''Is it over, Jay,'' was my first question. JAY BRANEGAN, Time Magazine:The coup appears to be nearly over. The situation here in Metro Manila is fairly well under control by the government as far as we can tell. I have to say that even though it's very late in the evening here, the situation's still a bit in flux, and there is some uncertainty on the island of Cebu, where there are some larger defections of units, and communication has been cut off, all the radio stations, TV stations shut down. So we're a little uncertain as to what's going on down in Cebu. General Ramos has relieved the commanders down there of their authority. But at about 8:00 o'clock this evening here in Manila, General Ramos came on TV and said that he had pretty much taken care of most of the rebels who -- that there was still some mopping up to be done. He hoped to have it all cleared up by Saturday morning. LEHRER: Now, how many attack points were there altogether? BRANEGAN: There were about four after the initial attack at Malacanang was repulsed in a very bloody fight at about 2:00 in the morning. It was a pretty grim scene, a lot of civilians were caught in the crossfire, a couple of journalists were killed. The President's son was seriously wounded when the car he was in was raked by machine gun fire. But after that, the rebels holed up in several spots around metro Manila. One was the Camp Aguinaldo, which is actually army headquarters. Another was a hotel called the Camelot Hotel, which is next to a radio station, which they'd also taken over -- Channel 4, the radio and TV station. And the other was an air base right next to Manila International Airport, the Villamor Air Base. The attack on Camp Aguinaldo began about 3:00 o'clock with armored personnel carriers proceeding down a big, wide boulevard in front, called EDSA, firing off machine gun fire and lobbing grenades and grenade launchers. There was a huge crowd of about a thousand people that had gathered at one of the gates of Camp Aguinaldo, and as the personnel carriers sort of started moving closer to the gate, the crowd started fleeing back away, and they sort of were met unexpectedly by some other government soldiers that were just taking potshots at snipes. And the crowd sort of found itself trapped in between two sets of government troops. The personnel carriers, after about a half hour, started rolling through the gates of Aguinaldo, and that immediately was a signal to the crowd that they sensed a victory was going to be near, and they started again approaching the gate and soldiers had to point guns directly at the crowd and shoot guns off in the air to keep the crowd back. Because it was still a lot of live gunfire going on inside. Another group of soldiers were inching along the wall of the fort, Camp Aguinaldo, trying to get a bead on a sniper that was in a 4 story brick building inside. And directly behind the soldiers, strung out right along the wall with them were another 40 civilians. The army eventually called in two propeller driven planes that looked like old World War II fighter bombers, and in fact they're T 38s, but the locals here call them Tora Tora planes. And these buzzed over Camp Aguinaldo and fired rockets down into the general headquarters where the rebels were holed up. Other troops were attacking from another angle, and at last report, according to Ramos, they were able to arrest about 300 -- or rather got surrenders from 300 of the rebels inside. And they captured another 20 who were trying to sneak out of the camp dressed in civilian clothes. LEHRER: Who led this rebellion? BRANEGAN: It was a -- the fellow who was very instrumental in the original people power revolt that helped bring -- helped topple President Marcos and bring President Aquino to power, his name is Col. Honasan. His first name is known to the press and to everyone here in Manila as ''Gringo. '' He was very close with Juan Ponce Enrile, who you will recall is the leader of the (unintelligible) movement that -- the military spearhead of the people power revolution. He has not been seen since about 2:00 or 3:00 this afternoon. And there were earlier reports that he had escaped from Camp Aguinaldo by helicopter. I'm not sure that that's exactly how he got out, but it appears that he's nowhere to be seen. Neither is Mr. Enrile been seen lately, or been heard from. HUNTER-GAULT: A big question yet to be answered is whether anyone beyond the military was involved in the plot to depose the government. What, if anything, does former president Marcos, now in exile in Hawaii, know of the coup attempt? I posed that question earlier today to Philippine Ambassador Emanuel Perez. EMANUEL PEREZ, Philippine ambassador: I have no direct evidence that he was involved, except that I gather from his statements that he had some knowledge about this. One very significant statement that he made was that there are other forces who are waiting to join the mutineers. So it is possible that he may have had an inkling of this. But I have no evidence. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you have any idea of what he would mean, ''other forces?'' Mr. PEREZ: Well, there are groups in Manila whom we called the Loyalists, those who are for President Marcos. And they have been watching, they have engaged in activities to destabilize the Aquino government. HUNTER-GAULT: So this didn't come as a total surprise? Mr. PEREZ: To whom? HUNTER-GAULT: To the government. This coup attempt. Mr. PEREZ: Apparently the government was prepared. The way they repulsed the attack on Malacanang. HUNTER-GAULT: General Honasan, who was the leader of this, said that the attacks were aimed at restoring national unity, and accused Mrs. Aquino of losing her political will in the face of numerous national problems. Do you have any comment on that? Is there reason for this? Mr. PEREZ: Well, this shows you an aberration in the military, because it seems that by their action, these younger officers would like to participate in policymaking. Whereas in a constitutional government, the military is always subject to civil authority. HUNTER-GAULT: And so that's the primary motivation, you think, for this action? Mr. PEREZ: Well, it may be that there have been certain actions taken with which they do not agree. HUNTER-GAULT: Like what, for example? Mr. PEREZ: Well, I can only speculate. For instance, in internal matters of promotion, of administration matters, it is possible that they are not satisfied with certain things, certain procedures. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, it's the military, rather than the political arena that you think that's motivating this unhappiness? Mr. PEREZ: I think it's both. My impression is that in some of these instances, there were disagreements between these junior officers and their commanders. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, how powerful is Col. Honasan, particularly within the middle ranks of the army? Mr. PEREZ: I do not think he is powerful in the sense that he can mobilize substantial number of people in the armed forces. But he is young, he is aggressive, and idealistic in many ways. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, how severely does President Aquino plan to deal with this whole attempt? Mr. PEREZ: Well, she said in her statement that there will be no negotiations, that the law will be applied to them. So I suppose they will be court martialed. And on the other hand, we have reports from Manila that both the executive and the legislative branches of government will look into the causes of this mutiny. And I think that's a right step. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, in the past, previous coup leaders have not been court martialed, or even discharged. Is there any feeling that perhaps the government should have been stronger in its actions against -- because there've been, what, four or five coup attempts in the past? Mr. PEREZ: Well, that's not accurate. Certainly -- that's not totally accurate. There are three court martials going on. Those who mutinied in Channel 7, the mutiny in Villamor Air Base, the mutiny in Sandy Point. These people are now undergoing court martial proceedings. HUNTER-GAULT: How worried are you at this time about the government's ability to maintain international confidence in the face of this coup attempt? Mr. PEREZ: Well, I think we will keep the confidence of other nations. Of course, one feels some concern about the impact of this coup attempt, which has been most serious so far. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you feel that the United States perhaps has a role to play -- particularly there seems to be some sentiment that the U. S. -- Mr. PEREZ: Well, referring particularly to the statements of Sen. Lugar this morning in a press conference, he suggested that the United States should find ways of helping the Philippines more effectively. And I certainly agree. Because we're in a very difficult financial and economic situation. We need all the help that we can get from friends. HUNTER-GAULT: And do you feel that the United States should be tougher, for example, in its dealings with President Marcos, in dissuading him from encouraging these coup attempts? Mr. PEREZ: Well, I really felt that the way he behaved in this incident, he was trying to influence events with this information. And I think that should be looked into, whether he has not violated the terms of his -- what you call it? The parole -- his permission to stay here. HUNTER-GAULT: Right. This is something the U. S. government should look into, you say. Mr. PEREZ: Yes. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for being with us. Mr. PEREZ: Thank you very much. How Safe? LEHRER: We've had a story a night this week on aviation. On why some people charge things have gone wrong out there in the nation's skies, and why some people say that is nonsense, that flying in the United States is safer now than ever before. Correspondent Tom Bearden's reports have dealt with delays, mechanical problems, collision avoidance, and near misses. Tonight, we wrap it up with four informed and involved aviation people. Allan McArtor, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration, who joins us tonight from Memphis, Congressman Guy Molinari, Democrat of New York, key member of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee, John Nance, former commercial pilot with Braniff Airlines, and the author of a recent book on air safety, called Blind Trust, and Frank Borman, the former astronaut who retired this year after 10 years as chairman of Eastern Airlines. He joins us from Public Station KRWG in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Congressman Molinari, Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post this week wrote, ''The U. S. airlines system just doesn't work any more. '' Is he right? Rep. GUY MOLINARI, (R) New York: I'm inclined to agree with him. The system doesn't work any more, not like it was before deregulation. There's ample signs, warning signs that the system is in fact not working. I agree with him a hundred percent. LEHRER: On the safety thing, specifically, what concerns you the most, congressman? Rep. MOLINARI: Well, there are a number of warning signs that bother me -- the number of near midair collisions. They've increased by 30% so far this year. The operational errors that are caused by controllers are up by 21%. The number of technicians that we need to repair equipment when it breaks down is down from 9,000 to 6,500. The FAA says they need 9,000, there's 6,500. I take my hat off to the new administrator for admitting yesterday about there is a lack of experience, and applaud the air traffic controllers. That's the first time I've heard anybody in this administration mention that fact. And I think that's important. LEHRER: Congressman, speaking of admitting error, I called you a Democrat. You are a Republican. So I hereby confess that error as well. Thank you. Let's go to Mr. Borman in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Mr. Borman, what do you think? Do you think the airlines system is not working properly right now? FRANK BORMAN, former Chairman, Eastern Airlines: Well, the airlines system is clearly at max capacity. But it's safe and is working well. It's strange to hear the government -- you know, the congress and the DOT have allowed $5. 8 billion that was really set aside to modernize equipment, it's wasting, not being spent in the aviation trust fund. The problem isn't the airlines. The problem is the government. The DOT and congress. And it surprises me that the congressman is so critical of the system when he indeed bears a heavy responsibility for allowing it to deteriorate. LEHRER: Congressman? Rep. MOLINARI: I would go along with that. I think Congress has to share the blame. I think Frank is correct -- that we have to work hard -- and I hope the Administration would back us in taking that surplus, that $5. 8 billion -- which, incidentally, in three years is going to be $12 billion -- moving it off budget. And then using it for intended purposes. I agree wholeheartedly. LEHRER: Mr. Borman, you say the system is at max. Now, what does that mean? Mr. BORMAN: Well, you know, the controllers have never been brought back up to the level that's required to operate the thing efficiently. We begged the DOT time and time again, the ATA and personally -- to increase the enrollments. We have ATA -- LEHRER: That's the Air Transport Association -- Mr. BORMAN: Right. We had a very weak administrator in Adm. Engen, who was doing the bidding of the Secretary of Transportation, and they simply allowed the thing to stagnate. I think everybody's trying to pin the tail on the airlines and on the pilots and the labor. The tail clearly belongs at the DOT level. I agree with the congressman on exactly what he said. LEHRER: Well, let me make sure I understand how you define max. Do you mean that there's just not enough facilities, not enough people, not enough everything to accommodate any more air traffic than we have right this second? Mr. BORMAN: Well, in my estimation -- you have to recognize that deregulation has vastly changed the travel plans of the American people. I was totally against it. Now I'm totally supportive of it. And the infrastructure that the government should provide to accommodate these plans has been allowed to stagnate. The controllers were fired because they violated the law. But there hasn't been any real effort to build them up. There hasn't been any real effort to modernize. I'm so uncertain now about the -- even about the modernization plan that is in existence, that I would suggest strongly that the National Academy of Engineering overlook it. I think it's a crime. LEHRER: All right. Let me bring John Nance into this. Mr. Borman says don't pin the tail on the -- I think I'm paraphrasing this analogy -- he says don't blame the airlines, it's the federal government's fault. JOHN NANCE, former airline pilot: Well, I think really, we get into a circular argument when we start talking about whose fault it is. We all agree, I think, that we have certain problems and weaknesses in the system that have been exacerbated in the past few years, and we could argue endlessly as to exactly what exacerbated them. I say it was deregulation. The main thing is that we have to move ahead from here, and I agree entirely with the colonel that we have some things that are not being done by the government. But there are some weaknesses in the airlines as well. These aren't venality weaknesses, these aren't weaknesses of intent, but they are things that have been brought about by the pressures of the last few years. LEHRER: Give me some examples. Capt. NANCE: Well, principally, when we started this unregulated fare wars situation, we put an economic pressure on every aspect. Now, we have a lot of fine people in the airline industry on the established carriers and the new carriers, who tried to find ways to be more efficient without cutting into anything that involved safety. The problem is that's subjective, and you simply can't know exactly where that line is. Inevitably -- LEHRER: Safety is subjective? Capt. NANCE: Well, the cuts that have to be made in an operation -- when maintenance and training and all the aspects of the operation are subjective in that two different people are going to have different opinions on -- LEHRER: Give me an example -- an example that I can understand. Capt. NANCE: All right. Let's say that we have five generators on the shelf at an out station, and all of a sudden we decide we don't need five extra generators -- LEHRER: Well, you lost me immediately. What's a generator, and what's an out station? Capt. NANCE: Let's say an electrical generator, and you're flying a hub and spoke system, and you've got an out station in Boise, Idaho, for instance -- just to pick a city. And normally you had your own maintenance people there, and now to save costs, you're going to get rid of your maintenance base there, you're going to get rid of your maintenance stock there, and you're going to rely on contract maintenance, and you're going to rely on shipping in parts that are needed if an airplane breaks in that location. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing illegal, nothing illicit, nothing immoral. But the problem is that inevitably somebody is going to break down and need a generator there, and he's going to be faced with an excruciating decision. Should he take the airplane back to -- let's say -- LEHRER: You're talking about the pilot that has to make that decision? Capt. NANCE: The pilot. And maybe the contract maintenance man. And let's say it's a legal decision. He can take it back, but there are other factors in there, and it's a problem. It puts pressure on the system. This doesn't make it unsafe. And that's one thing I agree with everybody on -- that we don't have an unsafe system. But it strains the safety buffer. And that has been the problem the last eight years. LEHRER: How strained is it right now? Capt. NANCE: Well, I think in certain areas it is fairly strained. In areas of maintenance and training, it is getting better, because we have the consolidation taking the financial pressure off most of the carries. At ATC, however, Air Traffic Control, we've got some problems. LEHRER: Let's go back to Mr. Borman on this question of the pressure on the airlines and what it's caused. You heard what the man said. What's your comment on that? Mr. BORMAN: Well, it's clear that there are economic differences between a regulated and deregulated industry. But nevertheless, the example, for instance, of the generators. Most airplanes, three engine airplanes, have three generators. They're designed to fly with two. The legal choice, to go or not to go, with Eastern, at least, was always left up to the captain. You know, the other thing that we're forgetting here -- all of this media attention you're seeing -- I saw last night, you had a Frontier/Continental captain who said he quit because of the safety concern. I called Continental. ''What about this?'' In his letter of resignation, he quit because he didn't make captain. He also said he wouldn't allow his family or himself to fly Continental. In fact, he's flown Continental many times on pass privileges, and so has his wife. Well, all of this focusing on it begins to get people feeding -- you have kind of a feeding frenzy of self appointed experts. And I think that bothers me. LEHRER: Well, I want to come back to that in a moment. But speaking of focusing, it's all been focused recently on a man named Allan McArtor who just recently took over as head of the Federal Aviation Administration. And as I said, is with us tonight from Memphis. How do you like your new job, Mr. McArtor? ALLAN McARTOR, FAA Administrator: I'd say within the first month, it's pretty exciting. LEHRER: You heard what these other three gentlemen have said. Congressman Molinari says in fact the system is not working right now. Mr. Borman says it's at max. And he thinks it's your fault -- yours in the big sense, the federal government's, yours and congress have not provided the infrastructure. You heard what Mr. Nance said. How do you respond, sir? In a general way, and then we'll get to specifics. Mr. McARTOR: Well, let's keep it in a general way first, and let's simply say that we do enjoy the best air system in the world. It's extraordinarily safe. It's designed with safety built in to it. Our traffic has grown some 50% just in the last three years, and that puts pressure on our system. The advent of the hub and spoke system for airline carriers has changed our entire operating environment. I think in general you might say that most service problems lie at the feet of the airlines. Safety problems and security problems are shared by airlines and government alike. And I think you can say most of the funding problems lie at the foot of the congress. LEHRER: Well, what about the $12 billion that is soon going -- well, there's what? There's $5 or $6 billion in it now, and there's going to be $12 billion in it. The congressman says that you all won't spend to modernize the system. Mr. McARTOR: Well, let's see if we can't put that trust fund in perspective. I get a little tired by hearing about how the Administration, the FAA or DOT doesn't want to spend trust fund money. Let's keep in mind that this trust fund is under the authorization and appropriations of the congress. In the last three years -- actually the last five years -- some $27 billion has been spent in the FAA. Only $15 billion has come out of the trust fund. Why? Well, we've got these mechanisms that the congress has established, called trigger mechanisms, or trigger taxes, that keep money from being spent out of the trust fund. So the same congress that's complaining about trust fund balances, creates these trigger mechanisms so that we can't take monies out of the trust fund -- the monies get spent anyway -- they come out of the general treasury. LEHRER: Congressman Molinari? Rep. MOLINARI: Well, it's rare that we in congress are being accused of not wanting to spend money. Generally, it's just the opposite. In due respect to the new administrator, if somebody were to come before Congress and say, ''We need money to improve the system, to help make it safer,'' I can assure you that congress would not be reluctant whatsoever. What has happened historically, however, is that FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, has come before the Appropriations Committee, asked for the money that they weren't able to spend. And we had that this past year. They asked for $180 some odd million to update the national air space system. They could only obligate $10 million in this fiscal year '88. And that's what they got from congress. If they come before us and ask for money and they can show that they can spend it, believe me, they'll get it. LEHRER: Do you hear that, Mr. McArtor? Mr. McARTOR: Yes, I do, and I think in fairness as well, that I must say that I have sense a renewed commitment on behalf of the congress and in fact, the whole industry, to get about modernizing our air system. I sense it within the FAA as well. I think we're going to enter a new spirit of cooperation with congress, the DOT, the FAA and the industry to get on with the work at hand. LEHRER: Mr. Bormin- in the meantime, talking about this whole problem of the system being taxed to its limit right now, is it time, do you think, even under a deregulated environment for the federal government to take a little more firm control over airlines in saying, ''You cannot have that many flights coming in and out of this airport. You've got to reschedule your things,'' and try to bring a little more order into the system? Mr. BORMAN: Well, I would prefer to see the government say, ''Look, if you want to land at 6:00 o'clock at Kennedy, it's going to cost you. Let's auction off the landing slots, and let's pay them. '' That will inevitably spread the load throughout the day. It's completely in tune with the concept of deregulation, because it lets the marketplace speak. And the government's going to have a very, very difficult time -- now at the FAA, I'm sure nobody wants to be in the middle of that, trying to decide who gets what. The concept now of fining airlines because flights are late, in my estimation, is both illegal and asinine. And it's a public relations response to a problem, because there are no capabilities to handle hub and spoke. So I would prefer to see the slots auctioned off. LEHRER: Now, you this very day, Mr. McArtor, have announced a new system that involves fining airlines for being late. Correct? Mr. McARTOR: Yes, the Department of Transportation today reached agreement with six airlines regarding an investigation, a recently concluded investigation, at four major airports and received their agreement to provide more realistic scheduling and publishing of their schedules, based on historic delay numbers. LEHRER: What are the airports? Mr. McARTOR: Well, those airports were Atlanta and Chicago, Boston and Dallas Ft. Worth. LEHRER: And the airlines? Do you have a list of the airlines? Mr. McARTOR: Yes, I do. American, Continental, Delta, Eastern, U. S. Air and United. LEHRER: Now, what have they agreed to do, those four airports? Mr. McARTOR: Well, they've agreed by the first of November to publish schedules that are more realistic and in line with actual performance, with an agreement that these schedules would reflect no more than a 30 minute delay 50% of the time, effective as of November and by April take that to 75% of the time. I think it's a positive move, and I think the traveling public will welcome this more accurate reflection of airline performance. LEHRER: Mr. Nance, in one of Tom Bearden's reports this week, it was very clear a couple of people said -- and I'm going to ask Mr. Borman about this in a moment as well -- but from a pilot's point of view, these schedules, they're just very unrealistic, and the whole point of it was to get on the computer ahead of the others -- the travel agents' computer, and if you get on top, then you get all the business, and so somebody there would shave five minutes -- what does that mean for a pilot, trying to make these schedules? Capt. NANCE: Well, it means a little bit of pressure that shouldn't be there. As a matter of fact, I thought Bob Crandall of American, Chairman of American, was very extraordinarily direct when he said, We're going to do this, because this is what the business situation dictates. This is a public utility. And we really have to get more control of it to give people an environment of stability. And this is true for the flight crews. And this is not what we have been doing. The thing has gotten quite a bit better, but we need stability throughout this system. And when you're talking about pressure on the cockpit -- we're not talking about managers coming out in the major airline and saying, ''Fly that airplane, or you're fired. '' We're talking about insidious pressure of good people who want to get the job done correctly, and may make a less conservative decision than they should. We don't believe that. LEHRER: Good people making insidious decisions? Capt. NANCE: No, good people making decisions under insidious pressure. LEHRER: Under insidious pressure. But aren't other good people putting that pressure on them? Capt. NANCE: Well, not so much directly as it is indirectly. You've got people out here very loyal to their airlines. They want to be professionals. As a matter of fact, I applaud Mr. McArtor and his statements here the other day in talking about how people need to be more professional. Some of the people who have been brought into this industry as mechanics and pilots, that's the first time they've been hearing that they should be professionals, because they've been told they're nothing but day laborers and this wasn't a profession. We've got to return this to the idea that it is an industry of professionals. It's a human business. LEHRER: Mr. Borman, is it good to make the airlines quit lying about their schedules? Mr. BORMAN: Well, you know, that -- yes, and I quit beating my wife last week, too. The fact of life is when I was running Eastern, I requested antitrust immunities so we could do exactly what the FAA administrator says has been done. But that's simply a stopgap. It isn't going to solve the problems in the next 10 years. You know, you're going to have the continual pressure to provide those kind of slots, and I think it's going to have to inevitably end up in an auction. LEHRER: What do you think of the auction idea, Mr. McArtor? Mr. McARTOR: Well, I personally don't like the idea of an auction. It allows the large airlines to literally purchase this market share, as opposed to having to compete for market share on a day to day basis, thereby getting a better service product at a lower cost. I think it is valuable to explore certain (unintelligible) pricings of landing fees, as long as they're not discriminatory for the different class of aircraft, so that at different hours of the day, you may have to pay more for a landing fee to land at a major metropolitan airport. LEHRER: That's along the lines you're talking about, too, right, Mr. Borman? Mr. BORMAN: Well, it is, it's along the lines I was talking about, but if you buy the landing slots and you pay a lot for them, your price is going to have to go up inevitably. And we found one thing in the area of deregulation that free market works, and the person that can offer a lower ticket price at a different hour may just succeed. But there needs to be some economic panoply, or some economy disadvantage for trying to leave LaGuardia at 5:00 in the afternoon. LEHRER: Congressman, from your perspective, is this something that the federal government should get involved in, or let the folks fight it out? Rep. MOLINARI: Well, I agree with what John Nance said before. Bob Crandall, the President of American Airlines, has said repeatedly, ''Don't leave it up to the carriers to come up with realistic scheduling. '' We're not going to do it. We're in a competitive industry. And I think that tells us the message that if it's going to be done, then either congress is going to have to mandate it, the Administration's going to have to step in there and do it, or perhaps -- you want to try selling slots, as Frank Borman and others have suggested. That might work. If you believe that deregulation is working, then perhaps that goes hand in glove with the concept. But certainly, we can't continue going the way we're going. It's insanity. When you think about the increase in traffic in the last three years -- I don't know that it's 50%. That's mind boggling, that figure. But if it is, where do you go from here? Where are we going to be three years from now? LEHRER: Where do you think we'll be three years from now if something's not done? Rep. MOLINARI: Well, I don't think congress's going to stand by very much longer. As a matter of fact, they're fashioning a package today, a consumer package. That's going to be pretty tough, and I think that's one of the reasons why Mrs. Dole's reacting the way she is, and why we're seeing some penalties imposed. Congress has run out of patience. And remember, those of us in congress are frequent travelers -- we fly at least twice a week. And sometimes more often. So we see visibly on a daily basis the problems of the industry. We suffer from it. But it's gotten so bad that I think we can't stand by idly any longer. Congress has to act. And I think we will. LEHRER: Mr. McArtor, you hear that? Are you getting a message there? Mr. McARTOR: Yes, I'm getting the message, and I think that it simply reflects the deep concern the American public and the concern of the congress over our aviation system. But I would hope that the aviation professionals in this industry could create their own solutions and not have it done through legislation. LEHRER: Yes, but what the congressman is saying is that if you don't do it, essentially he's saying, you, Allan McArtor, head of the FAA, then the Reagan Administration and the next administration, whatever, don't do it, then congress will do it. Do you hear that message that way? Mr. McARTOR: Well, certainly, I hear that message, but I want to say that we're not standing by, watching things happen. We have a very aggressive program that we've initiated within the FAA and have co opted the cooperation of the entire industry, the pilots and the executives in the industry. We're working very hard to upgrade our system, to modernize it, and to recapture the public trust. We run a very good airline system in this country. We run a very good general aviation program in this country. It's done with great discipline and great precision. We have a challenge, of course, to maintain that discipline and precision and to maintain the safety in the skies. We're working hard to do that. LEHRER: You used the term, ''recapture the public trust. '' Mr. Nance, what happened to the public trust? Capt. NANCE: Well, I don't think we've lost it. But I think we're in danger of losing it in a couple of areas. And I think the past administrative position that deregulation was working perfectly and there was no impact on the system has flown in the face of what the reality is and people have seen. And that has caused the diminution in trust. There should be no worry on the part of the American public that this is an unsafe system. It's very safe. I fly in it all the time. We all do. I think we're all in agreement that 99. 9999% of the time it's great. What we're dealing with is a safety buffer. That's what we're all concerned about. We don't want to see that buffer compressed any more. It really hasn't been disastrously compressed now. But there have been some inroads. The most important aspect is we're just reacting. I mean, now, we're starting, as Mr. McArtor says, to act, and to plan, but this needs to be a national consensus. We have some major overhaul work to do, in taking this not only to the next decade, but into the next century. In this air traffic system and in our aviation system and our airline system. We've got a lot of planning to do and a lot of changes. LEHRER: Now, I read you correctly that you think deregulation is the cause of all of this? Capt. NANCE: No, it exacerbated weaknesses that were already there. It caused very little on its own. But it exposed weaknesses. LEHRER: There should be some re regulation? Capt. NANCE: I think personally that the one thing we have to do is prevent the airlines from pricing themselves into penury to getting to the point of a cycle of price cuts so they can't even pay for the cost of the product. Now however we do that, you can label it by any means. I have a couple of ideas that would involve a little minor re regulation, but maybe it can be done another way. LEHRER: You mean to float it? Capt. NANCE: What I'd like to see personally is a little bit of re regulation in terms of the floor price. So you can't price yourself below a reasonable cost of producing a seat in a particular market, and some control over route entry and exit that would prevent a situation where we have six carriers attempting to serve a route that can only provide financial support to two. This sort of thing has gotten out of hand. That we don't see much any more. That maelstrom has already gone past us. LEHRER: Mr. Borman, that smells like regulation. Mr. BORMAN: It sounds like regulation, it is regulation, and Capt. Nance is taking exactly the same line that I took in 1978. I confess that I was wrong, I believe that the vast majority of the people, the travelers are better served, and you know, the real world is if they price themselves into oblivion, they go into oblivion. So I would adamantly oppose that. LEHRER: And your point is that if an airline goes into oblivion, that's not the public's interest -- it's not being hurt if that happens? Mr. BORMAN: That's exactly right. Because there are plenty of major airlines in this country. The system has taken exactly the steps that we said it would. There's been consolidation and there's going to be fierce competition, and I think -- I flew in yesterday to El Paso from Boston. And just jam packed airplanes, jam packed terminals. But I bet you in any other country, 90% -- maybe not 90 -- 40% of those people couldn't afford to fly. Deregulation works. LEHRER: Congressman Molinari, is your message to Mr. McArtor and to the rest of us tonight that from your perspective at least, if something's not done, there is going to be some re regulation. Rep. MOLINARI: Oh, I think it's very clear at this point. Then please let me not conclude this program by letting the people out there and those sharing the panel with me thinking that I agree that the system is safe, because I do not. And that's based on observations all around the country and talking to hundreds and hundreds of air traffic controllers and pilots and technicians who have confessed their fears and concerns. And I think there are danger systems all around us. Remember that we had a system back in '81 where we had 13,200 fully qualified controllers. And now we have 9,600, with 2,600 of them eligible to retire within the next year. Where do we go? How do we keep that system going? Are we going to cut back on traffic? Something's going to have to give. LEHRER: Mr. McArtor, he's right, isn't he? Something's got to give? Mr. McARTOR: I don't know that something has to give. What we have to understand is how do we cope with (unintelligible)? We've got to be more pro active than reactive. We've taken measures to do that, as you know. We've asked for more controllers and managers in the system. Secretary Dole has agreed with that, as you know, this summer when we recognized there was higher growth figures. I've asked for more controllers in fiscal '88, and even more for '89. We're trying to get out ahead of this growth curve, and be able to provide the positive control of those new areas, for the terminal control areas that we announced rule makings here this past week. We need to get out ahead because we've got great growth in this country. And we've got to be prepared for it. LEHRER: But what about the congressman's point -- that the air traffic has gone up dramatically the last several years -- and yet the numbers of air controllers has gone down. And as he says, that adds up, to him at least, to an unsafe system. Mr. McARTOR: Well, it doesn't add up to an unsafe system at all. You know, we have indices which help us measure the exposure to risk, and I think you've heard me say before that the absence of accidents is not a measure of safety. It's the exposure to risk. And these indices help us prepare near midair collision reports, operational errors, and pilot deviations -- all indices of pressure on the system. And we have positive actions right now in place to help alleviate those pressures. LEHRER: Congressman? Rep. MOLINARI: Well, but back in 1984, if you'd asked FAA about safety of the system, they were quick to say, ''Look at the number of near midair collisions. They're 50% lower than they were. There's a clear indication that the system is getting safer. '' Well, we found that their figures were wrong, and that 1984 was a record year for the number of near midair collisions. Broken in '85, broken in '86, and I guarantee you it's going to be broken again in 1987. So no longer do they use that as an (unintelligible) of safety. That is something that concerns me very deeply. And I think that we're heading in a very dangerous direction -- no matter what happens with FAA, they change the statistics to meet their goals. Now, in fairness to Mr. McArtor, he's new on the job. I like what I hear from this man. I think he has leadership abilities. The question is whether Allan McArtor is going to be permitted to do the job, and whether Mrs. Dole is going to give him the leash to do it, and whether OMB -- Office of Management and Budget -- is going to permit him to do what he wants to do. If they will, I think the man gives us the greatest hope that I have seen since I've been in congress. LEHRER: Mr. McArtor, what do you want to do with that endorsement? Mr. McARTOR: Well, I certainly thank the endorser -- the congressman, and I accept the challenge, quite frankly. And I have every reason to believe that I'm going to have the support of the OMB and the congress, the Administration, and I know I've got the support of Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole. LEHRER: Do you have it now? Do you feel that you have -- is your mandate to do something about this -- and they've said we'll support at anything you think that needs to be done? Mr. McARTOR: Sec. Dole has given me her commitment, to the extent I need resources, I'll get the resources. If I need to have barriers removed, I'll have the barriers removed. So I have every reason to believe in her commitment, that she'll give me her great support. LEHRER: All right. Mr. McArtor, Mr. Nance, Congressman Molinari, Mr. Borman, thank you all very much for being here tonight. Gulf States HUNTER-GAULT: Next, our regular Washington essayist, Roger Mudd, has some thoughts about the Persian Gulf.

ROGER MUDD: If you don't believe the situation in the Persian Gulf can be baffling, then try this one. The other day, a small Iranian gun ship came too close to the oil tanker convoy and got challenged by a U. S. Navy frigate, the Crommelin, whose crew was at battle stations. Said the Crommelin to the Iranians, ''This is U. S. warship 37, I'm at the head of a column of three ships transiting the Arabian Gulf. Request your intention, sir. '' Said the Iranians, ''We're operating in international waters, and we have no intentions'' Said the Crommelin, ''Roger, thank you sir. Have a good day'' Said the Iranians, ''And you have a good day. '' What kind of talk is that? Here we are listening in on what could be the start of World War III, and they sound like they're cashing a check at their friendly full service bank. But that exchange between the Crommelin and the Iranians does seem to typify our Persian Gulf operation. That what we thought was happening, or what we hoped would be happening is frequently almost the opposite of what is actually happening. For instance, President Reagan was assured that protecting the Kuwaiti tankers was no big deal, because it could be done without adding to the half dozen or so U. S. Naval vessels already there. But as of this week, there are 41 U. S. combat ships in the region or on their way -- plus 14 from France and 10 from Great Britain. For instance, the Dept. of Defense this week says it will pay the 25,000 men who will become involved in the Gulf an extra $110 a month because they are in imminent danger. But the White House declines to send congress a War Powers resolution because it says hostilities in the Gulf are not imminent. For instance, the U. S. agreed to protect Kuwait's oil tanker fleet in order to keep the Soviet Union -- which was also ready to help Kuwait -- from enlarging its toehold in the Gulf. But helping Kuwait, which is an ally of Iraq, so angered Iran that Iran began drawing closer to the Soviet Union. For instance, the U. S. entered the Gulf on the side of Iraq, because an Iranian victory would be a catastrophe for the West. But by maintaining freedom of navigation in the Gulf for Iraq and her friend, we are also maintaining it for Iran, which is now moving and selling more oil than ever before. All these seeming contradictions raise a fundamental question that has plagued America's foreign policy for at least a quarter century. The question is, of course, ''Does Washington really think long and hard ahead of time about the consequences of committing the country's military forces?'' Somebody somewhere, at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the National Security Council, or at the CIA, must have figured out well ahead of time the dangers of operating in the Persian Gulf. And yet, when the navy began the convoy operation in July, it left the minesweepers at home. The question, however, should not be asked just about the Persian Gulf. It can be asked about Vietnam. America went to Vietnam in order to prop up the friendly government of Ngo Diem Dinh. But it soon got caught in a protracted guerilla war, which then became a conventional war. U. S. tactics, strategy and rationale had to shift constantly. The question can be asked about Lebanon. U. S. Marines were committed as part of a peace keeping plan. But as soon as American naval gunships shelled the mountains east of Beirut, the marines looked more like enemies than peacekeepers. And the question can be asked about Nicaragua. We are helping the contras -- the freedom fighters -- because President Reagan will not rest until there is democracy in Nicaragua. But it is not clear how democracy is to arrive. By overthrowing the Ortega government? Or by helping the contras win enough battles to force Ortega to negotiate? Two years ago -- ten years after Vietnam -- the country seemed to agree that we had learned the lessons of Vietnam. But have we? Have we learned to ask ourselves and our leaders what's at stake? What exactly do we seek to do? How long are we willing to do it? And when we've done it, will we know we've done it? Movie Treasure HUNTER-GAULT: As we reported earlier, famed Hollywood director/actor/writer John Huston died today at the age of 81. Huston's illustrious career spanned a half century, during which he directed 40 films, several of which are considered classics. Among them, The Maltese Falcon, his first film as a director, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, a film in which his father, Walter Huston, won an actor as best supporting actor. And the African Queen, in which Humphrey Bogart captured the Oscar for best actor. More recently, there was The Man Who Would Be King, Under the Volcano, and Prizzi's Honor.

[film clip from Prizzi's Honor] HUNTER-GAULT: Tonight, we remember another facet of this multi talented man, John Huston, the actor. [film clip from Treasure of Sierra Madre] HUMPHREY BOGART: Hey, mister, would you stake a fellow American to a meal? JOHN HUSTON: Such impudence never came my way. Early this afternoon I gave you money. I was having my shoes polished, I gave you more money. Now you put the bite on me again. Do me a favor, will you? Go up (unintelligible) to somebody else, this is beginning to get tiresome. HUMPREY BOGART: Excuse me, mister, I never knowed it was you. I never looked at your face, I just looked at your hands and the money you gave me. Beg pardon, mister, I promise I'll never put the bite on you again. JOHN HUSTON: This is the very last you'll get from me. Just to make sure you don't forget your promise, here's another peso. HUMPHREY BOGART: Thanks, mister, thanks. JOHN HUSTON: From now on, make your way through life without my assistance. [film clip from Winter Kills] JOHN HUSTON: You take him to die? You got eyes in that empty head? Look, I'm an old man, skin sagging, false teeth, eyes milkin' over. But I'm (unintelligible) staying together with (unintelligible) because when this old clock comes up, you watch whether (unintelligible). I stand between you and darkest night, son. The other side of me is chaos. ACTOR: We won't need the gun. JOHN HUSTON: Won't need the gun? God, son, it must have been the milkman after all, 'cause you sure as hell ain't no part of me. That man damned well needs his gun. 'Cause he's gonna shoot you with it. (Son kills man and father escapes. Father hangs precariously off balcony. ) ACTOR: Pa! Take my hand! JOHN HUSTON: Stupid! You want to go with me? ACTOR: Take my hand, pop! JOHN HUSTON: You get out of this alive, son! You get out of this alive -- take our money out of the Western Oil and put it in South America. (unintelligible). (Falls) [film clip from Chinatown] JACK NICHOLSON: How much are you worth? JOHN HUSTON: I've no idea. How much you want? JACK NICHOLSON: I just want to know what you're worth. Over $10 million? JOHN HUSTON: Oh, my yes. JACK NICHOLSON: Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What can you buy that you can't already afford? JOHN HUSTON: The future, Mr. Gibbs. The future. And where's the girl? I want the only daughter I've got left. She found out, Evelyn was lost to me a long time ago. JACK NICHOLSON: Who do you blame for that, her? JOHN HUSTON: I don't blame myself. You see, Mr. Gibbs, most people never have to face the fact, the right time, the right place, they're capable of anything. HUNTER-GAULT: Seven years ago, the Film Society of New York's Lincoln Center honored John Huston for a lifetime of brilliant achievement. He had the last word then, as now.

JOHN HUSTON: I wish I could do something appropriate to this occasion. Something that would express in some way the extent of my feeling. I wish I might wrestle a crocodile. Or levitate myself before your eyes. Climb an invisible ladder, or have someone fire a gun at me and catch the bullet in my teeth. But, alas, I have none of those wild talents. I must content myself with saying, ''Thank you all from the bottom of my heart. '' LEHRER: Again, the major story of this Friday. The rebellion of some 800 army troops neared its end in the Philippines. More than 25 people are reported dead, with hundreds wounded in the attempt to overthrow the government of Corazon Aquino. There continue to be rumors, but no confirmed links of the attempt with deposed president Ferdinand Marcos. Good night, Charlayne. HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back on Monday. Have a good weekend. I'm Charlayne Hunter Gault. Good night.