The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. The long-delayed exodus of Arafat's PLO was further delayed today when Israel again shelled them and Washington made its irritation with Israel plain. We ask the Israselis why they're doing it. With the big holiday travel week approaching, we examine whether deregulation is making air travel less safe, and we talk to the man who has moved mountains in antitrust law. Jim Lehrer is off; Judy Woodruff is in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: And in other news tonight, Robin, we'll hear about a U.S. effort to stop high technology shipments to the Soviet Union and get the latest speculation on the health of Soviet leader Andropov. The shuttle astronauts are back in the news, and so is the cold -- cold that ranges across the nation. From overseas we'll report about an upset vote in Japan and upset shoppers in London, picking up the pieces after a Christmas season bombing. And later on we take a special look at Christmas buying with a Texan let loose in New York who offers advice for the holiday shopper.Israel and the PLO Evacuation

WOODRUFF: Yasir Arafat and his men had to postpone their evacuation from Tripoli, Lebanon, today because of heavy shelling from Israeli gunboats offshore. Arafat said he would file a protest with the United Nations. He and 4,000 of his besieged forces continue to await the arrival of five Greek ships now on their way from Cyprus. Elsewhere in that country, Israeli warplanes bombed positions along the highway from Beirut to Damascus and the Syrians fired back. There was also new fighting near Beirut between the Lebanese army and Druse militiamen, the first major breech of Friday's ceasefire. Peter Gould of the BBC filed this report on today's events in Tripoli.

PETER GOULD, BBC [voice-over]: The latest Israeli bombardment seems to have been directed at Tripoli's port rather than the PLO's front lines. There were no casualties but one ship was sunk and a second was badly damaged when it caught fire. If Israel's intention was to delay the evacuation, then they succeeded. There was speculation that the PLO had intended to load the ship with ammunition and weapons, including the artillery used by them during the recent fighting in Tripoli. But this was denied by Mr. Arafat.

YASIR ARAFAT, PLO leader: I decided this morning to deliver my heavy weapons to the Lebanese army.

GOULD: But your men will take their personal weapons with them?

Mr. ARAFAT: Okay, thank you.

GOULD [voice-over]: And his men didn't look as if they were ready to part with their guns. Meanwhile, the PLO's newest recruits are being taught how to advance the Palestinian cause. Some of the boys in this class are as young as 11. All of them said they wanted to fight alongside Yasir Arafat.

WOODRUFF: The White House today blamed the Israelis for preventing the evacuation of the PLO from Tripoli. White House Spokesman Larry Speakes said the U.S. view had been spelled out directly to Israel in the most explicit terms. In Speakes' words, "The United States hopes and expects that impediments such as recent Israeli actions to the expeditious evacuation of Arafat and his forces will be removed." But Speakes added that Israel's actions won't affect either its relationship with the U.S. or the new military and political agreement reached by President Reagan and Prime Minister Shamir in Washington last month. Robin?

MacNEIL: Pointed remarks from Washington do not appear to have changed the situation around Tripoli. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir gave this rationale in an interview over the weekend.

YITZHAK SHAMIR, Prime Minister of Israel: Israel has not undertaken any operations against the withdrawal. We are waging a war against the PLO; we are fighting against the PLO because the PLO is our most extreme enemy, and it proved it by this murderous attack on the civilian bus in Jerusalem. And nobody can ask us, after such a murderous attack, not to stop all fighting against the PLO.

MacNEIL: To explore the Israeli thinking further, we have Benjamin Netanyahu, deputy chief of mission in the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Mr. Ambassador, why is Israel doing this in Tripoli?

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I think that we all have a mission. That is to fight terrorism. I cannot imagine the growth of international terrorism in the last 15 years without the pivotal role played by Yasir Arafat's PLO. So they have been attacking, obviously, Israelis, but also Americans and everyone else in sight in the West. What we are doing is trying to stop this kind of terror from spreading; indeed, from letting these terrorists loose so they can continue their mischief around the world.

MacNEIL: Well, let's be more specific. Are you trying to reduce the numbers of the PLO, kill them off before they leave Tripoli? What are you trying to do?

Amb. NETANYAHU: We are waging a consistent attack on PLO positions. We've got several missile boats, as you are aware, outside the waters of Tripoli. We have been pinpointing attacks on PLO concentrations. I was just in Israel and I was shown several aerial photographs of the precise concentrations that we are attacking. This is, of couse, a difficult war to wage because the PLO is using civilians as a shield, and what we are puzzled by today is the spectacle of Western countries falling over each other in an attempt to rescue these terrorists who go back to attack these very countries who seek to liberate them.

MacNEIL: So you don't agree with the Reagan administration that wants Arafat out of Tripoli?

Amb. NETANYAHU: I think that this is a short-sighted view by whoever holds such a view. The PLO, you know, we've had this bombing today -- yesterday of Harrod's department store by the IRA. The PLO -- Yasir Arafat's PLO -- has been training the IRA. You have Greece, a terrorist incident where one of your attaches was murdered. The PLO has been active with terrorists in Greece. In Italy, with the Brigate Rosse. Name any Western country and you will see the PLO's footprints in the terrorist organizations there.

MacNEIL: Well, what is your intention? Are you trying to pin then down there and decimate them and not let them leave Tripoli? What are you trying to do?

Amb. NETANYAHU: We are fighting the war against terrorists. These are the terrorists who blew up a bus in Jerusalem just a week ago.And what we are seeking to do is to hit them in every way and everywhere that we can.

MacNEIL: Now, the Greek ships, with the French escort this time, have left Cyprus and, within 10 hours' sailing time, will be in Tripoli. Will the Israeli navy let them through?

Amb. NETANYAHU: I think the Cabinet will make a decision what we can and what we cannot do, and this is something that is best left to be seen in the future.

MacNEIL: You mean you may or may not let them through? That's the logic of what you just said.

Amb. NETANYAHU: I think that what the precise actions will be will be determined by the Cabinet.

MacNEIL: Would there by any justification for Israeli ships firing on Greek ships, Greek transport ships?

Amb. NETANYAHU: Well, as you know, we take care to avoid unnecessary casualties, to minimize them and, if possible, to avoid them completely. So I wouldn't say what our actions will be or will not be. We certainly don't seek to inflict any civilian casualties.

MacNEIL: But you will not guarantee -- you, as an Israeli government spokesman this evening, will not guarantee the safe passage of those Greek ships into the port of Tripoli? Is that correct?

Amb. NETANYAHU: I think it's not of Israel's policy to safeguard and to agree to the safeguard of passage for terrorists.

MacNEIL: Does that mean no, you will not?

Amb. NETANYAHU: Well, as I say, the Cabinet will make a decision on what our policies will be.

MacNEIL: I'm wondering why, Mr. Netanyahu, when Israel has always in the past -- very clear as to what its policies are, why all this ambiguity in this case?

Amb. NETANYAHU: I don't know if it's ambiguity. I would say that our attempt is a very simple one, and that is to fight back, to hit back at these terrorist groups. We don't seek to inflict any casualties on civilians. We do regret that Western countries who have been the targets of these terrorists are taking the lead, taking the fore in rescuing the terrorists out of Tripoli.

MacNEIL: Have you told the United States government in your private diplomatic conversations, "we, Israel, do not want the PLO to leave Tripoli and we're going to do our best to stop it"?

Amb. NETANYAHU: Our position is simply to fight them in every way possible. We are not in the habit of encouraging their safety or safeguarding their departure. We are certainly interested in fighting them and preventing them from inflicting additional terror casualties on us and, may I add, on the rest of the civilized world.

MacNEIL: Can one assume from what you're saying that the shelling by your ships of those positions in Tripoli will continue?

Amb. NETANYAHU: We will certainly continue to hit at the terrorists themselves, yes.

MacNEIL: Do you fear that by -- with Mr. Arafat locked in this position with the remnants of his forces and unable to break out because of the opposing PLO forces around him, that you may be making -- building him into an even bigger martyr among some of his followers, say on the West Bank, than he has been?

Amb. NETANYAHU: I think that this is a misconception. The PLO has been the prime instrument of preventing any movement of moderation and movement towards political negotiation. Any Arab on the West Bank who sought to enter into a dialogue with Israel has been risking his life, and many have in fact lost their lives to Arafat's PLO. The notion that Arafat's continued existence or his martyrdom will have any bearing on peace and moderation in the question of the West Bank I think is a misconception. I think the best thing he can do for the West Bank and for the cause of peace is to simply disappear from he scene.

MacNEIL: What does disappear mean? Is that a euphemism for "be killed"?

Amb. NETANYAHU: I wouldn't say what that means. I will simply say that to the extent that terror disappears; if the PLO, for example, evacuates the Tripoli and pledges to renounce terror, that would be something. We've not heard that. They simply are leaving as they left Beirut promising not to return, and they promptly returned to Tripoli. I would say that if Mr. Arafat ceases to be a force in Middle Eastern politics and even global terrorism, it would be best for everyone.

MacNEIL: The United States and Israel after the recent visit of Mr. Shamir announced a new series of measures to cooperate more. Does this stand of your government's not threaten to weakin or destroy or jeopardize this new spirit of cooperation between the two countries?

Amb. NETANYAHU: I don't think so. I think that the United States recognizes the mutuality of interest. The great surge in Syrian-Soviet aggression in the Middle East and what has to be done to curb it, particularly in the area of Lebanon. As far as the question of Arafat, I think the United States is basically committed to fighting terrorism. I think that we may have differences; they may be due to our long experience with terror and our recognition that it cannot be surrendered to or appeased, and I don't think that is the United States' position either. In short, I think that we have common interests, overriding interests that overcome any tactical differences that we may have.

MacNEIL: Are you suggesting the Reagan administration privately approves what you're doing?

Amb. NETANYAHU: No, I'm not suggesting that at all.

MacNEIL: Well, Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for joining us. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Donald Rumsfeld, the President's special Middle East envoy, showed up unexpectedly in Iraq today. He's the highest-ranking American official to visit that country in 16 years. The two countries broke diplomatic relations in 1967 at the time of the Arab-Israeli war. A State Department spokesman in Washington said that Rumsfeld would meet with key Iraqi leaders in connection with his mandate as special negotiator. The spokesman also reiterated that the U.S. is ready to resume diplomatic relations whenever Baghdad is.

In Kuwait, a state security court was formed today to try members of a Moslem fundamentalist group arrested in connection with last week's wave of bombings in that country. Kuwaiti officials have said that all 10 people arrested -- seven Iraquis and three Lebanese -- were members of a banned Iraqi party which is fighting for an Iran-type regime in Iraq.

And in London the most famous department store in Britain, Harrod's, was opened for Christmas shopping today in spite of an Irish Republican Army terror bombing that killed five people on Saturday. Here is a report by Neal Bennett of the BBC.

NEIL BENNETT [voice-over]: Many of Harrod's 6,000 staff had come in on Sunday to help get the store ready for opening, and they were quite determined not to be intimidated.

HARROD'S WORKER: It's the only way to beat them. If you bow down and cow down to the people, you're never going to win.

BENNETT [voice-over]: At 9 o'clock sharp the doors opened and a steady stream of shoppers started going in. Not surprisingly, perhaps, many departments were quieter than usual at this time of year when as many as 30,000 customers a day come to do their Christmas shopping. Those who were have were equally certain they weren't going to be deterred by the threat of terrorism.

SHOPPER: Certainly not, no. In fact, I think these people ought to be made aware of the fact that we won't be intimidated by them in any way.

WOODRUFF: Princess Diana and Prince Charles spent the afternoon visiting London hospitals to call on the injured. One American received a bedside visit and an apology from the Prince.

In Tokyo, Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone was refusing to give up his job, despite the beating his party took in yesterday's election. Nakasone's Liberal Democrats, who have been in power most of the last 30 years, fell six seats short of a majority in the lower house of the Diet, but they enlisted the support of a handful of independents, forming a coalition that will give them a majority of three. Political analysts said that the Liberals' poor showing was due partly to bad weather, partly to a low voter turnout and partly to distaste for a corruption scandal involving a leading member of the party. That is, former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, who was convicted of taking a $2 million bribe from Lockheed Aircraft but refused to resign from his seat in Parliament. In his own district Tanaka was re-elected by a big majority. In Washington officials of the Reagan administration privately said they were disappointed at Nakasone's poor showing. He has pleased them with his strong defense policies and efforts to open Japanese markets to American exports.

Robin?

MacNEIL: The Reagan administration today turned up the publicity heat in its campaign to stop computers being diverted to the Soviets from innocent destinations. At a Washington news conference, $1 1/2 million-worth of computers seized by West Germany in November was displayed. The government says it's been diverted from its licensed destination in South Africa to the Soviet bloc. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Treasury Secretary Donald Regan were thereto underline the importance the U.S. places on blocking this trade.

DONALD REGAN, Secretary of the Treasury: The Soviet Union will go to great lengths to obtain high technology equipment. Whether they have to use legal or illegal means, the USSR will do what necessary because it does not have the wherewithal to develop computer technology.

CASPAR WEINBERGER, Secretary of Defense: We have to protect our investment in national defense, and of course one of the reasons that our defense budget has to be as high as it is is because so much has escaped in previous years. The equipment that's been brought back to America today that's on display here is state-of-the-art computer hardware and software that would have supported and accelerated Soviet military modernization programs. Had the Soviets received this particular shipment, along with others that have now been intercepted in Sweden, they would have been able to produce faster, more accurate and more destructive weapons, and this computer system has a configuration that's identical to a number of highly classified American systems.

Sec. REGAN: What we're trying to do is to make certain that our high technology manufacturers are able to sell abroad and become reliable suppliers, but at the same time we want to make certain that none of this high technology equipment gets to the Eastern bloc countries or to the Soviets. So what we're trying to do is to make certain that when they are delivered, they're delivered to the proper people and stay there.

MacNEIL: According to Newsweek magazine, Soviet President Yuri Andropov is suffering from a fatal kidney disease and has only 18 months to two years to live. The magazine quoted a Soviet medical source as saying Andropov is undergoing dialysis treatments to filter impurities from his blood.The ailment was described as diabetic nephropathy. Andropov's doctors were said to have given up the idea of a kidney transplant for fear that he might not survive the surgery.

We'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Lake Superior, Minnesota] Deregulated Air Safety

MacNEIL: It was cold when that postcard was taken on the shores of Lake Superior, but it's a lot colder across the Midwest today.An Arctic air mass has stalled over the center of the nation bringing record cold in the north and snow to northern Texas, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma. Records for this date were shattered in many places as temperatures in the Midwest hit 30 to 40 degrees below zero. These conditions are expected to last until mid-week. By then one of the busiest travel seasons of the year will be underway, and that brings us to our next major story tonight. Last week, a small commuter airline, Air Illinois, stopped Flying after the Federal Aviation Administration found serious safety violations. Before that, criticism had been growing that the skies are not as safe under deregulation as they used to be. The airlines deny that and say the cost-cutting they're implementing is not reducing safety. One airline that's being accused of neglecting safety is Continental, which went bankrupt last fall. When it started flying again, pilots and others went on strike and charged Continental with hiring inexperienced personnel and flying unsafe planes. Kwame Holman recently spent some time investigating these charges.

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: The new Continental has 202 flights operating to 51 cities. Their discount fares appear to be luring enough travelers to fill planes to better than 60% capacity. While the union hopes its picket lines discourage would-be Continental customers, its biggest weapon is the accusation that the airline is unsafe. The head of the Continental chapter of the Airline Pilots Association is Dennis Higgins.

DENNIS HIGGINS, ALPA Executive Council: I don't think that they're managing a good, safe airline right now. I don't think they're paying attention to the finite details of making a safe operation that we have decicated ourselves to for the last 50 years.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: But pilots who have gone back to work say the new Continental is as safe or safer than the old. Of the 1,400 Continental union pilots, 350 have gone back to work for the lower wages and tougher work rules.One of those is Captain Wayne Fisher, a 16-year veteran of Continental.

WAYNE FISHER, working captain: We as crew members are flying in a glass cage. The whole world is watching us. We cannot make a mistake. They're waiting for us to make a mistake, and we just can't do it. We are safer now, in my opinion, than we ever have been. We have to be safer.

HOLMAN: We tried to find out whether the airline is safe or not. We asked Continental if they would let us take a behind-the-scenes look at their operations. They agreed. The union's biggest accusation is that under the new work rules flight crews are on duty so many hours each day that they don't get enough rest before the next day's work. We looked at the schedules for Wednesday morning's flights. We compared these schedules with the schedules for crews working last summer for the old pre-strike Continental. Those schedules were union-approved. We found that on average current employees are working about an extra hour per day or an extra day per month -- not a significant increase, no measurable impact on safety. But what happens in real operations? Is what's here on paper actually what's going on in practice? We interviewed several of the crews as they got off their planes on that Wednesday morning and found that actual working conditions matched very closely what is here on paper.

Capt. FISHER: The schedules really haven't changed pre-strike to post-strike. Schedules are basically the same. I have essentially the same number of days off per month. My layover times are essentially the same.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The captain and co-pilot of this DC-9 from Houston are Dick Wright and Ken Watson.

DICK WRIGHT, working captain: The hours are roughly the same; however, the layover time is actually a little bit better, and I feel no difference at all. The days off are roughly the same.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Another union accusation is that the new Continental is upgrading co-pilots to captain status too quickly. During that Wednesday morning, several former co-pilots were being tested as captains. Captain Fisher, for example, was testing John Karl.

JOHN KARL, working co-pilot: Well, I've worked about 16 years with Continental, and I've been a copilot just about the whole time, except for the first year. Now I'm upgrading to captain, and I'll be flying as a captain the rest of the time.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Of the pilots we met the ones who were being upgraded were, like Karl, highly experienced. The union also claims that to replace strikers Continental has had to hire inexperienced pilots. There have been advertisements offering jobs to qualified applicants.One of the 250 pilots who responded and was hired is Linda Schreck, who is currently being tested in the flight engineer position.

LINDA SCHRECK, working flight engineer: I'm from California, and I flew for another major airline and was furloughed a few years ago, and I've done all sorts of corporate and flight instructing -- various types of general aviation flying.

REPORTER: What airline were you furloughed from?

Ms. SCHRECK: TWA.

REPORTER: And how long were you flying for TWA before you got furloughed there?

Ms. SCHRECK: Just under a year.

REPORTER: So you're doing for Continental just exactly what you were doing for TWA?

Ms. SCHRECK: That's correct.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Another concern is maintenance. It is as good as it should be? Captain Fisher.

Capt. FISHER: I think the evidence of the preventive maintenance is the fact that we have had, in my experience the last month, no mechanical delays in my experience. Preventive maintenance is there. The evidence is that we have no mechanical delays.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Co-pilot Jim Myers agrees.

JIM MYERS, working co-pilot: In my seven years at Continental I've never seen the fleet so well maintained.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Once again, our field survey supported these pilots' opinion of maintenance, but Continental management would not let us interview maintenance personnel to verify the accuracy of this union charge.

Mr. HIGGINS: I have a line mechanic come and talk to me personally, and he sits down with me and he says -- he sits down in my office and sits down in front of my desk and he sits there and cries, and he said, "These people are going to have an accident. They're going to kill somebody." The guy says, "I've been instructed by the maintenance supervisors, the shift supervisors," he says, "'You will not find anything wrong with these airplanes. You will not find anything wrong with them. Okay? Regardless. If there's something bad enough wrong with one of these airplanes, serious enough that we fix it, we fix it. But you're not going to write it up, and you're not -- you know, you're not going to bring attention to it, because we're going to keep the operation flowing.'"

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Continental's senior vice president, Dick Adams.

DICK ADAMS, senior vice president, Continental: I have never heard of that. I can't tell you it was an outright lie because somebody may have done it, but if they did it, it certainly was not sanctioned by anybody in management.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Despite the claims of union officials, nothing that we witnessed or could verify suggests that Continental is operating unsafely. To confirm that conclusion, we questioned a pilot who generally sides with the union but who has had first-hand experience with current operations. John Reid-Green is on strike, but last month he went back to work for 10 days to find for himself how operations are functioning.

JOHN REID-GREEN, striking captain: In the situation that we find ourselves today I will be willing to say yes, it's probably a very safe operation. They are flying less. They are flying -- the airplanes are in good shape, but how about over the long run?

HOLMAN: Then your concern is for the future?

Capt. REID-GREEN: My concern is for the future.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: That same concern for future safety caused Captain Glenn Stroud to quit the airline just three weeks ago. At first he did not strike; he wanted to be loyal to the company, but he recently decided to resign.

GLENN STROUD, former captain: I quit before it really got to the point that I'm sort of predicting. I didn't want it to get to a point where I went out to an airplane one day and had a crew that I considered to be minimally qualified and an airplane that was in minimal mechanical condition, and then the only choice I would have had is to say that, "I'm not going to take this trip." And if I did that I think I would have run into problems with their management. So before it came to that -- I could see it coming, and I quit before it came to that.

HOLMAN: So it is future safety and not current operations that most concern informed observers of Continental, and here is why. In 1934 the government issued regulations covering all aspects of safety in commercial aviation. These are called federal aviation regulations, or FARs. They established, for example, maximum hours that a pilot can fly in a day, a month or a year. But with the advent of modern aviation, unions negotiated contracts for pilots which established tighter rules than federal regulations. For example, FARs allow pilots to fly 100 hours a month while may union contracts set a ceiling of about 80 hours. But now Continental and other airlines have no union contracts, so their work rules revert back to the limits set by the FARs.

Capt. STROUD: Airlines never work anywhere up to the maximum that they said you could work, but now, with these new Continental and the new airlines that are starting, that's the byword. That's what they're going to be using. They're saying -- they're going to tell the traveling public that we're perfectly safe because we're flying under federal air regulations. Well, these regulations are outdated.

HOLMAN: Even pilots still working and loyal to the company agree that FARs are too high.

REPORTER: If under the new work rules you flew the total amount of hours that you're allowed to fly, do you think you'd be tired doing that?

Capt. WRIGHT: Oh. it'd be definitely a tiring experience, yes. We don't want to fly up to 100 hours.

REPORTER: You're flying roughly how many now?

Capt. WRIGHT: Eighty-five; 85 to 90.

REPORTER: Now, they could take you all the way up to 100 hours, is that correct?

Capt. WRIGHT: That's correct. But we wouldn't want to fly 100 hours a month on a regular basis from here on out, no.

Mr. HIGGINS: As they try to make the domestic system grow they can't hire personnel fast enough. They're going to -- you know, they're going to increase the requirements on all these personnel that they have to the maximum limitations, and it's going to be on the one hand as a direct result of their not being able to hire people and on the other hand as a direct result of their desire to operate with a much smaller work force.

REPORTER: What could stop them from doing that?

Mr. HIGGINS: A union contract. You know, the work rules that we have negotiated for the past 50 years could stop them from doing that.

HOLMAN: The bottom line in our look at Continental is that we saw no hard evidence that the airline is unsafe today, and only the prospect that it might become unsafe in the future. The deregulation of the airline industry has brought inexpensive fares to the public, but it has also forced airlines to compete more hotly with each other. in an effort to offer the lowest fares, there is pressure to reduce costs. In that kind of atmosphere, combined with the increasing numbers of airlines without union contracts, regulations are crucial. Consequently, many pilots we talked to agree with Glenn Stroud that the time has come to review the FARs.

Capt. STROUD: If something isn't done by Congress or something, I think you're going to have -- the bottom line is you're going to have some tragedies. You're going to have some accidents. And then I think it would get people's attention.

Mr. ADAMS: I don't think that the FAR maximums are too high. Take, for example, People Express. Their pilots, their flight attendants fly to the maximum of the FAR limits, and then come in the office and voluntarily do other work.

Capt. STROUD: I think it's something that the traveling public is going to have to be aware of in the future is to watch what you buy. It's the day of the generic airlines coming that if someone is offering you a ticket for $50 or $100 less than someone else, you should question why.

WOODRUFF: Now that we've heard the charges that deregulation has made it less safe to fly, we have an official of the Reagan administration to try to respond. He is Matt Scocozza, assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Transportation. Mr. Scocozza, is it as safe to fly in the United States today as it should be?

MATT SCOCOZZA: Yes, Judy. We believe it is. As you know, in 1978 we passed the Airline Deregulation Act. That was the economic deregulation of the airline industry. In no way did we affect safety; in no way did we deregulate our government's responsibilities in the safety area.

WOODRUFF: Well, if that's the case, then Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole, your boss, as you know yesterday ordered a safety review. Why was that necessary?

Mr. SCOCOZZA: Judy, I think that's a responsibility that the secretary has inherent in her job at the Department of Transportation, to make sure that the building is doing everything that it can possibly do -- it is a safety agency to a large extent -- is doing everything it conceivably can do across all modes: the railroad industry, the trucking industry, the Coast Guard, ocean carriers, as well as the airline industry.

WOODRUFF: How do you know -- I mean, how can your department be assured that it's just as safe as it ought to be out there?

Mr. SCOCOZZA: Well, in terms of the airline industry, Judy, I think the situation is such that we are fortunate to have the pre-eminent airline safety administration in the world, the Federal Aviation Administration, which sets the model for all other -- for all other countries. The fact of the matter is we have people out in the field. We have people reporting back to us -- field offices all over the country. The FAA maintains a large fleet of their own planes. So it's not like we're sitting in a vacuum. We have folks all over the country watching the airline industry, making their checks, their routine checks, as well as intensive checks when a problem is brought to our attention or problems that we find in the process of our own investigations.

WOODRUFF: Well, now, I've seen one statistic that says that since 1980 the FAA has cut back its inspectors by about 20% -- the number of its inspectors. Is that true?

Mr. SCOCOZZA: I believe the figure is different, Judy. It's an overall reduction of approximately 7% from the 1980 level. Perhaps you might have the statistics in terms of the authorized positions, but in terms of on-board personnel in 1980 the reduction is approximately 7%. When you take into consideration that we have instituted a program about a year ago to hire temporary personnel, approximately 100 in number, by the time that all of those temporary personnel are hired, we will actually be in excess of the 1980 level.

WOODRUFF: But you're saying right now we're 7%, you say, below --

Mr. SCOCOZZA: Seven percent below.

WOODRUFF: -- What we were and yet more people are flying; there are more planes in the air, aren't there?

Mr. SCOCOZZA: I think the situation that we see is we're improving our management resources. We're improving productivity. We're improving the way in which our inspectors had worked in the past. There was a -- there is a notion of not emphasizing cockpit reviews because obviously, when an FAA inspector is sitting in a cockpit right behind the captain, there aren't going to be any problems that are going to surface in that particular exercise. That man is now put out in the field where he is more productive, where he is doing more work in terms of ground services and the airlines' home offices.

WOODRUFF: Now what about these federal aviation regulations that were referred to in the story we just saw? Are they adequate? They were written, what? 50 years ago.

Mr. SCOCOZZA: Well, the first regulation of the transportation industry was in 1887, but things do change. Those regulations are reviewed from time to time. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned earlier, the Federal Aviation Administration is a model for the world, and I feel very comfortable with the notion that everything that is in the FARs is under a regular review. We're always constantly monitoring what in fact is in the books. In terms of the --

WOODRUFF: So you'd feel comfortable that they'd be the ultimate guideline rather than the union agreement?

Mr. SCOCOZZA: They wouldn't be the last word, but they are obviously -- this government's review in terms of what is a responsible level of working hours for an individual for a particular function? The fact that there had been less hours negotiated by union contract is a fact of life, but that doesn't mean that what negotiated in a labor-management situation is the rule or is the appropriate level.

WOODRUFF: All right, think you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Now a different perspective. C.O. Miller is an independent aviation safety consultant who formerly directed the aviation accident investigation division at the National Transportation Safety Board. He now runs his own firm working with NASA and the departments of defense and transportation, among other clients. Mr. Miller, first of all on the question we've just heard discussed, are the FAR limits too high?

C.O. MILLER: If you mean, Robin, the hours -- I frankly don't know. I think you're operating in the minutiae of the argument when you're talking about 90 or 100 hours. I think other factors are far more significant.

MacNEIL: I see. Well, let's come to them in a moment, but just for members of the public like me, why is the difference between 80 and 100 hours or 90 and 100 or 95 and 100 hours so critical? I mean, to people who work 40 hours a week that doesn't sound very much to work. Can you explain why it's so critical?

Mr. MILLER: Well, first of all, you're talking about a number that is quite narrowly defined. Don't forget there's an awful lot of hours involved getting to the job and laying over and things of that type that aren't necessarily counted in that 80 to 100 hours. That's the hooker. But I repeat, the argument of within 10 hours or something like this I personally don't get involved in that. I wouldn't take the time to.

MacNEIL: If we're not talking about the important things, what are the important things?

Mr. MILLER: Well, the important things are the attitude of management, both the FAA and the airlines and the manufacturers. This is what is of concern to me in the deregulation era.

MacNEIL: What is deregulation causing in attitudes that concern you?

Mr. MILLER: Well, it first of all caused a major catastrophe. I think the Air Florida accident here in Washington was unquestionably a deregulation accident. It had all the symptoms that we worry about. The inadequate training of the flight crew -- experience, if you will. It had confusion of the ground handling here at Washington. It had FAA supervision minimally conducted. These are the very things we look out for in deregulation.

MacNEIL: To come back to the Continental case, without asking you to make a judgment on that particular airline, is cost-cutting being reflected in reduced safety, in your view?

Mr. MILLER: Reduced safety perhaps -- and I say again, perhaps -- to some degree. I think there's a paradox that Continental's a good example of because everything we heard a little while ago could be true. That is to say, one group says they're cutting back; more hazards are there. The other group says we're being safer. That paradox can be explained on a shortterm, as your correspondent did, really, that if you can create an awareness of increasing hazardous situation, you can actually be safer than you might otherwise be. We had a good example of this here in Washington. This is not a good airport to fly from -- Washington National -- but its record overall has been excellent. Why? Because people were hyperaware of the hazard and accounted for it.

MacNEIL: What about -- the end of our report stressed the anxieties of some people about the future under deregulation.

Mr. MILLER: Well, I have somewhat the same feeling because I have communications with people in the business in an informal fashion. I've been getting some bad vibes in terms of the amount of effort and the emphasis placed by airlines and others on safety being something you have to look at as well as it being everybody's job. Our airlines in this country grew to the superb rate they have now because they treated safety as something separate besides being everybody's job. It's my information that this concept has been degraded by the economic problems associated with the deregulation effort.

MacNEIL: Do you feel that the federal government, through the Department of Transport or the FAA -- Transportation or the FAA is going to have to put limits on the amount of cost-cutting in this -- that deregulation leads to in order to assure safety?

Mr. MILLER: I wish it were that simple. I don't think it is. Neither the Department nor the Federal Aviation Administration have -- or anyone else would have the competence to be able to come up with a number like this.I think there are management techniques, however, of monitoring what these companies do that perhaps have not been used to the extent they could be as of now.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Back to you, Mr. Scocozza. How much do you think safety has been affected by the deregulation -- Increasing deregulation we're seeing?

Mr. SCOCOZZA: Judy, I don't want to answer the question so curt to say that I don't think safety has been affected by deregulation, but I would like to say that our transportation industries across the board since deregulation are exciting from an economic standpoint -- new opportunities, new operations, new services for the public. It's -- we're in an everchanging situation, and we are aggressively moving from the Department of Transportation to meet those changes, to move with the changing in the transportation industry, so I don't think --

WOODRUFF: But my question --

Mr. SCOCOZZA: -- it's changed in a negative sense.

WOODRUFF: But my question relates to safety.I understand what you're saying about the economic benefits of deregulation, but are you so certain -- and I realize I'm repeating myself -- are you so certain that deregulation has had no effect on safety?

Mr. SCOCOZZA: Economic deregulation, we believe, does not have an impact on safety, but that is -- it's not good enough to just say that. We have to make sure. We continue on in terms of our in-house monitoring, in terms of our in-house reviews, the modal administrators that Secretary Dole has initiated, to make absolutely sure -- and she's said in public many times before that she will not tolerate any compromise on safety, and we have to ensure that happens.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Miller, are you satisfied that the Federal Aviation Administration is doing all it should to monitor the safety situation?

Mr. MILLER: No, but please don't interpret that as being on my part a condemnation of the FAA. I have a tremendous respect for those people, I really do, particularly -- and I know what Matt has said about their funds and everything, but I -- my story comes somewhat differently, again, from the people on the working level. They have had fund cuts not just in the last two or there years, but for quite some time, and I really believe they've been asked to do far more than their personnel and their funds really justify.

WOODRUFF: Well, this is going to sound probably like a ridiculous question, but why not let the airlines police themselves? I mean, nobody wants a mistake less than they do.

Mr. MILLER: I'm all for it. But I'm afraid my experience, and it's some 30 years in this kind of business, dealing with managements of various kinds of companies. My experience is when the dollars get tight, one of the first things they look for, the short-term expenses that they can get rid of. By short term I mean nobody's going to really realize it until several years down the pike. Well, that's what safety is all about. You can get by in the short term by compromising safety and I think it is compromised every day normally. What I worry about and I think some of your correspondent in Denver worried about is what does this mean down the pike, and I think therein lies the challenge for DOT and FAA.

WOODRUFF: Well, Mr. Scocozza, Mr. Miller is saying that safety is being compromised every day now while the real worries down the road that mistakes are being made now. Do you see that from where you sit?

Mr. SCOCOZZA: I don't believe I could agree with Mr. Miller in terms of compromises being made every day, but I think one thing that I just can't emphasize too dearly is the fact that the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration is doing everything within its resources to make sure that the standard of excellence that we created in the airline industry continues.

WOODRUFF: You don't think corners are being cut?

Mr. SCOCOZZA: I think that would be a bad decision for a prudent businessman or woman in terms of the airline industry. Why would they cut safety corners? Why would they jeopardize the safety of their own personnel, the multi-billion-dollar investment they have in the aircraft? It just doesn't make economic sense.

WOODRUFF: He's sort of rephrasing the question I asked a minute ago.

Mr. MILLER: Well, let's understand something. When I say it's normally done, in any business anywhere. If you and I are going across the street we compromise safety depending on the circumstances. That's normal. Those of us in the safety field don't come up and say, "Stop. Do this, do that." We try to get an effective balance between the cost and perhaps the schedule and the performance of the mission. That's what I mean by compromises are made all the time. Those people who stand up here and say safety first, now and ever, have never been in the real world.

WOODRUFF: What do you say to that?

Mr. SCOCOZZA: I think we have the safest airline industry in the world.

Mr. MILLER: Absolutely.

Mr. SCOCOZZA: And I'm glad --

Mr. MILLER: Absolutely.

Mr. SCOCOZZA: -- Mr. Miller agrees with me, but we shouldn't stop there. We should make absolutely sure that it continues to be the safest airline industry in the world, and continue to improve upon that standard of excellence that this country developed.

WOODRUFF: Let me ask the question a little differently. Are new airlines more prone to be unsafe than the established airlines?

Mr. MILLER: In a general -- if I can accept that as a general question I'll give a general answer. Yes, I think they are.

Mr. SCOCOZZA: I would disagree. I don't believe we could make a generalization about the new airlines. I think we have to recognize they're offering new types of services -- innovative types of services, new types of options for the passengers.But I don't believe we could ever make a generalization such that the newer airlines are more dangerous than the older airlines. What we do have to recognize is that there is a standard of excellence that had been developed by the government that the airlines must adhere to or they can't take off.

WOODRUFF: But you're saying, Mr. Miller, if you had to choose an older airline over a new one --

Mr. MILLER: Yes, but I agree with Matt in the sense that the overall level of safety of all of these -- that doesn't cause me any problem. I'll go fly any one of them.

WOODRUFF: And on that reassuring note, thank you both, Mr. Miller and Mr. Scocozza.

Mr. MILLER: Sure.

Mr. SCOCOZZA: Thank you for having us.

WOODRUFF: Robin?

MacNEIL: Discount air carriers like Continental are part of the new competition that forced Greyhound, the nation's largest bus line, to try to make drastic cuts in labor costs. Its unions rebeled and went on strike seven weeks ago. Today they're counting rank and file votes on a new contract offer. If the vote is favorable, Greyhound says it will resume full operations on Wednesday. Now to a somewhat more exotic form of transport. It's been 11 days since the space shuttle Columbia returned to earth with its historic payload of scientific experiments in the European-built Spacelab. It was a mission that was hailed internationally as a great success, but NASA officials are still trying to figure out what went wrong in the final hours of the mission. First, computer failures delayed the landing by eight hours. Then, moments before touchdown, a fuel leak touched off a fire and an explosion in the shuttle's auxiliary power units. Today at the crew's first press conference since returning, commander John Young shrugged off concerns about the fire.

JOHN YOUNG, space shuttle commander: I think it's a good engineering problem. Once you're on the ground and -- you know, once you're on the ground and can look at it, it's a good engineering problem. It's tough problem for those guys to find out and fix, but I'm sure they will find out and fix it, and they got the best people in the country working on it, and I'm sure they'll handle it.

REPORTER: Do you think it has the possibility of causing a delay next time, in the next flight?

Commander YOUNG: I have no idea. It depends on how hard it is so fix it. I'll tell you one thing.NASA's not going to fly these spaceships until they're ready to fly. Fly no spaceship before its time.

MacNEIL: The only criticism of the mission came from the one foreign crew member, West German physicist Ulf Merbold. He felt the Europeans were shortchanged.

ULF MERBOLD, Spacelab physicist: In the future the European -- well, let's say the return to Europe should be a little bit better than it was for this particular flight. Spacelab is a reusable system built for 50 missions, and NASA's return to Europe is just one half of one mission, and I think that eliminates pretty much the cooperation for the future because, on that basis, the politicians will not be able to sell European participation in the future because that is not fairly balanced.

MacNEIL: Now here's a different Washington story. You often hear how surprised federal politicians and appointed officials are to find what little real power they actually wield when they get to Washington, how little they feel they can really influence events. This story is about one man who in three years has made decisions affecting millions of lives and the disposition of billions of dollars. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has the story. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: That man is William F. Baxter, who headed the Justice Department's antitrust division until last Friday. During his tenure, Mr. Baxter took actions that will shortly affect things ranging from what people pay for phone service to Izod shirts. Critics charge that his decisions have enhanced the power of major corporation at the expense of small companies. Mr. Baxter, a Stanford law professor, came to Washington in 1981 talking tough. He complained about the rubbish that passed for antitrust policy and criticized Supreme Court antitrust decisions as wacko. He then proceeded to break up one giant conglomerate, AT&T, while refusing to break up another, IBM. Critics like Senator Howard Metzenbaum last week called Mr. Baxter's resignation an early Christmas present. To get his reaction to that as well as to explore the reasons behind some of his controversial moves, Mr. Baxter is with us in the studios of KQED in San Francisco. Today was his first day back at his old job teaching antitrust law at Stanford. Mr. Baxter, about that rubbish that passed as antitrust policy. What exactly were you referring to, and how did you get rid of it?

WILLIAM F. BAXTER: Well, it wasn't a matter of getting rid of it, of course. The courts over the years have engaged in careful, lawyer-like but nevertheless linguistic reasoning, taking words from one context and applying them to new problems without giving a whole lot of thought to the economic soundness of what they were doing. The performance of the courts have improved in that respect a great deal over the last 10 years, certainly, and if we were able to accelerate that trend a little during the last three years, why, I'm delighted.

HUNTER-GAULT: But what specific philosophy -- everybody talks about the change in philosophy that you brought to the antitrust division. What was the philosophy you brought that was different from what existed before?

Mr. BAXTER: The lawyers in the antitrust division as a group are a very, very dedicated people. They're deeply committed, I think, to advancing what they regard as a public interest. What I tried to do, if I was successful in any measure, the way I was successful was to convince the lawyers that the only coherent definition of the public interest is in the economic analysis that is aimed at maximizing consumer welfare.

HUNTER-GAULT: But your critics say that what you've done really is anti-consumer. That the decisions you've made about the case you argued before the Supreme Court that manufacturers should be able to fix retail prices, the AT&T phone breakup, these things are really going to cause consumers to have to shall out more money in the months and years to come.

Mr. BAXTER: That's quite true. They do say that, but they're wrong. I don't know how else to put it. In some instances they simple don't understand the complexity of the problems they're talking about --

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what about the phone company specifically? I mean, are not people going to have to pay more money as a result of the breakup?

Mr. BAXTER: No. People in the aggregate will pay less. The cost of phone service will unquestionably fall; it will continue to fall, as it has historically in real terms, corrected for inflation, and I have absolutely no doubt that the cost of phone service and, on average, the charges for phone service, will continue to fall.

HUNTER-GAULT: But in general your philosophy, as I understand it, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, goes against the conventional wisdom that big business is bad. You reversed policies in the Justice Department because you don't necessarily subscribe to that, isn't that right?

Mr. BAXTER: That's quite right. I don't regard big business as bad or good or small business as bad or good --

HUNTER-GAULT: But you don't think that the decisions that you have made have been in favor of big business at the expense of small business?

Mr. BAXTER: No. But if they had been, I couldn't care less.

HUNTER-GAULT: Why is that?

Mr. BAXTER: Well, because the important thing is to have free markets where companies can compete vigorously, and if a company can deliver more of value to consumers than its competitors it will thrive and grow. There are industrial contexts in which small business has advantages over larger ones for a variety of reasons, and we will get small business in those contexts. In other contexts large companies have competitive advantages; we will get large companies in those contexts. We should not seek to produce companies of a given size. They will appear if we maintain free and competitive markets.

HUNTER-GAULT: Will, Mr. Baxter, many people say that the moves you've made will have a permanent impact on future antitrust policy, and I guess we'll just have to wait to see what happens in the future. Thank you very much for being with us.

Mr. BAXTER: You're very welcome.

HUNTER-GAULT: Judy?

WOODRUFF: A report on security for the U.S. Marine peacekeeping force in Lebanon will not be pleasant reading tonight at the Pentagon. A House subcommittee charged today that senior officers who did not protect the Marines from the full spectrum of threats facing them in Lebanon.The subcommittee on investigations reported on the truck bomb attack that killed 240 U.S. servicemen in Beirut last October.The subcommittee also said the Marines had intelligence inadequacies that hurt their unit's ability to defend itself from attack. Events in Lebanon also lead our recap tonight.

Greek ships are on their way to Tripoli to pick up Yasir Arafat and his fighters who are surrounded by PLO rebels, and Israeli gunboats again today shelled PLO positions in Tripoli.

Here at home cold continues to grip the nation as record lows are set from the Canadian border to Texas.

And safety in the airline industry remains a key issue in the new environment of deregulation.

Robin? Texan Shops New York

MacNEIL: And to close tonight, with less than a week to go until to go until Christmas, if you're still stewing over what to buy your friends and relations, we have some advice. It comes from A.C. Green, the Texas novelist, critic and short story writer. Having safely done his Christmas shopping in Dallas, Mr. Green came to New York City to observe the frantic shopping scene here and offer his advice.

A.C. GREEN, author: Last year a week after Christmas I made my annual post-season pilgrimage. I exchanged three pairs of socks, two flannel shirts and a red and white necktie with a little skier skiing down the middle of it that misguided souls had thought would solve their Christmas problems regarding me.

The socks were lavender, orange and Scotch plaid. The flannel shirts were obviously for a Maine guide foisted on someone like me who lives in Dallas, where snowballs are kept in the deep freeze to show to future grandchildren. And since I haven't touched a pair of skiis in 30 years -- I nearly broke my neck then -- the ski tie frightened me just to look at it.

There's no need for my friends to go braving the Christmas crowds. Forget the fashionable flashy shirts and delicate gravy bait like these chic ties.Just give me books. Some people think because I'm a writer and a book reviewer, I get books I want. They tell me, "I wouldn't dare give you a book."

Be bold. Try me with something like Eiko by Eiko, The Bugati Story, or, indeed, Farber Nudes. And, after all these years of marriage, surely my wife would feel safe picking up Sensuous Spaces for me.

Maybe some wealthy kith or kin I don't know about is thinking of some really serious giving -- maybe a sterling silver food dish for my dog Maud. Someone might be tempted to give me a handmade porcelain creche. I'm sorry. I couldn't color it without the paint-by-numbers instructions it doesn't seem to have. Or this lovely 19th-century sterling cinerarium to keep my ashes in after I've stopped reading. Or a precious bijou such as a bejeweled Big Apple, obtainable for $225,000. But, kith and kin, if you're thinking of spending this kind of money on me, apply it on a Gutenberg Bible or some other good book.

Receiving a book is a tribute to one's finer qualities of mind and spirit. Flatter me with tributes like Atlas of Medieval Europe or The Odes of John Keats. But you really don't have to get so fiercely intellectual. Go with the bestsellers or give me something you'd like to receive yourself, like a leather-bound classic. Don't worry if a book's a last-minute gift. A book is always timely, always fits. With me you never miss. Well, hardly ever.

MacNEIL: Good night, Judy.

WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. And that's our NewsHour for tonight. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and good night.